# We May Be Waiting a Little While Longer for a New 50mm Lens [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 8, 2017)

```
This is bad news for a lot of folks, myself included. We’re told not to expect a new 50mm lens in the first half of 2018. Neither of the<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-unreleased-canon-gear-has-appeared-for-certification/"> two lenses that appeared for certification</a> is a 50mm lens.</p>

<p>This doesn’t mean we won’t see a new 50mm in 2018,  it just won’t be for CP+ in February.</p>
<p>I can already hear the sadness from a few regulars on the CR forum.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2017)

I already hear the keen cry of anguish from one CR member, in particular.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2017)

A new graphics with lenses, arrows, lists of possible iterations in 3...2...1.....


----------



## CanonGrunt (Nov 8, 2017)

Sadness. But I just picked up the ole 50 1.4 for the first time, and it’s a big step up from the 1.8. So it’ll hold me over. I’m saving for that new 85mm f/1.4 IS USM L right now.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2017)

Funny, I just picked up a refurb 1.8 STM to go along with my new M5, I really disliked the lens on my 5D3 but hear it's pretty snappy on the M series. And if it doesn't work out? Oh well, it was like what 8 cents. I'll give it to a pal.


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I already hear the keen cry of anguish from one CR member, in particular.



But...but...we are getting a new 50mm. The Canon TS-E 50mm f/2.8L Macro Tilt-Shift Lens. It's supposed to be available in early December. Just in time for Christmas. Of course I've seen no reviews of any of these new tilt-shift lenses from Canon. But at $2,199USD each (the 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm: are all priced the same at B&H) it has to be an awesome lens! Right?

:


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 8, 2017)

Frankly I'm surprised that they didn't introduce a new 50mm f1.4L IS along with the new 85mm...


----------



## infared (Nov 8, 2017)

That's OK..my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is just chugg'in along. Second copy, but since then I love this lens. :


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 8, 2017)

Surprised Canon hasn't released this lens yet considering it is one of the most awaited lens for most Canon users. Maybe now whenever the said 50mm IS/non-IS lens is released it will also make use of Nano-USM motor for "fast" AF.


----------



## infared (Nov 8, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Surprised Canon hasn't released this lens yet considering it is one of the most awaited lens for most Canon users. Maybe now whenever the said 50mm IS/non-IS lens is released it will also make use of Nano-USM motor for "fast" AF.


Yeah...it is hard to tell.....will it be a high-end lens or just a modest update of one of the non-L lenses?
Based on the general market and the competition, I am betting on an L lens... as far as the IS goes...that is a tough one with recent offerings 16-35mm f/4L IS and the new 85mm f/1.4L IS....ya never know, I guess. They do keep a lid on it, though, don't they!


----------



## BasXcanon (Nov 8, 2017)

Maybe the delay of lens releases is strategic.
Might be Canon will make a mirrorless camera with Eos-m mount and want to launch that together with a couple new lenses for eos m. Instead of designing new non L lenses for EF at this moment in time.

Just a 50mm F1.8, 35mm F2, 28mm F2.8, 24mm F2.8, 16-35mm F3.5-6.3 and 24-70mm F3.5-6.3 for eos-m Fullframe in one unleash. Then everyone can put their money where their mouth lies and buy a small FF mirrorless.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Nov 8, 2017)

I gave up waiting for the 85mm and got a Tamron 85, (which I really like) May have to get the 45 Tamron to go with it. I need stabilization. My 35mm IS, 85 Tamron VC. almost cover it, but a fast normal-ish lens with stabilization would help a lot.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2017)

There is however a CR3 that Canon will make a 50mm lens before the end of the 21st century ;D


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 8, 2017)

I think they are working on a remake of the 50mm 1.0L (w/o IS). Who would be interested in that beast? And since it's closer in FL to the 35mm 1.4L II, maybe introduce some more of that "Blue-goo" goodness...

And introduce it at $1,999.99USD. Like that would ever happen - probably closer to $2,699USD if it was even a on the table...


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 8, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> I think they are working on a remake of the 50mm 1.0L (w/o IS). Who would be interested in that beast?



I think they aren't, because nobody wants it, for familiar reasons:

1. Back in the film days, cameras could AF @ EV 0 and ASA peaked at 3200. Nowadays cameras can AF @ EV -3 and ISO is in the 6 digits territory, so f/1.0 is far less useful than it used to be.

2. Apparently the 50mm f/1.0L was not a success story worth repeating.

3. The shallow depth of field, and specifically the delta gained over f/1.2, is hardly that useful.

4. A 50mm f/1.4 IS USM, with or without an L, would sell so much better than a 50mm f/1.0, it would be irrational to prioritize the later over the former.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I already hear the keen cry of anguish from one CR member, in particular.



It's cool. I'm fine. I'm just going to print this post out and stare at it quietly while playing The Cure in my room.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I already hear the keen cry of anguish from one CR member, in particular.
> ...



Lie to me. Paint the letters 'USM' on that 50 T/S lens and you might get my money.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

My question is this: for all those of you that know what I'd ideally want -- a compact (and not necessarily face-meltingly sharp) 50 f/1.4 IS USM like the 35 f/2 IS -- what happens if the next new 50 _is an L like the 85 f/1.4L IS?_

Such a lens will likely be too big for me. I want a compact double gauss lens.

Seeing as it might be last new 50 we get for 5-10 years after that f/1.4L IS is announced, do I cave and get the f/1.2L because it's still relatively compact? Do I except all of it's flaws (finnicky AF, non-flat field, really a specialty tool for wide open shooting) or wait even longer for a non-L replacement?

- A


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 8, 2017)

@ ahsanford: I'm waiting for the same 50mm prime as for which you have valiantly lobbied, but if it is released in "pickle jar" L format, I would be sorely tempted to buy it. After all, I'm already accustomed to large, heavy glass (I have several L zooms), and I do like me some sharpness.

Besides, the best thing I could do to induce Canon to produce the lens we really want would be to buy its L predecessor first!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

JonAustin said:


> @ ahsanford: I'm waiting for the same 50mm prime as for which you have valiantly lobbied, but if it is released in "pickle jar" L format, I would be sorely tempted to buy it. After all, I'm already accustomed to large, heavy glass (I have several L zooms), and I do like me some sharpness.
> 
> Besides, the best thing I could do to induce Canon to produce the lens we really want would be to buy its L predecessor first!



Sure. Many folks would give their $1500 for the resolution of a Sigma 50 Art with the confidence/reliability/consistency of Canon AF. No explanation needed there.

- A


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I already hear the keen cry of anguish from one CR member, in particular.
> ...



Pornography because there's no 50 in sight or The Top because everything is spinning and confusing? (The Top is my favorite)

fwiw to the uninitiated, 'Pornography' is the name of an album.


----------



## BillB (Nov 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> My question is this: for all those of you that know what I'd ideally want -- a compact (and not necessarily face-meltingly sharp) 50 f/1.4 IS USM like the 35 f/2 IS -- what happens if the next new 50 _is an L like the 85 f/1.4L IS?_
> 
> Such a lens will likely be too big for me. I want a compact double gauss lens.
> 
> ...




One option would be to go ahead and get the f1.2L, if that lens is something that would actually work for you. The chances don't look good for anything showing up for about a year, and maybe quite a bit longer than that. As you point out, if a 50L does show up it is likely to be pretty hefty. Realistically it doesn't seem as though the 50 you want is likely to show up anytime soon, and you would have the 50L in the meantime. If the right 50 does appear, then it would be time to sell the f1.2, after having its use in the meantime.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

BillB said:


> One option would be to go ahead and get the f1.2L, if that lens is something that would actually work for you. The chances don't look good for anything showing up for about a year, and maybe quite a bit longer than that. As you point out, if a 50L does show up it is likely to be pretty hefty. Realistically it doesn't seem as though the 50 you want is likely to show up anytime soon, and you would have the 50L in the meantime. If the right 50 does appear, then it would be time to sell the f1.2, after having its use in the meantime.



^^ This. ^^

I think I'm getting a 50L refurb and then flipping it if something better comes along. I don't buy gear and flip it like this -- I make careful targeted pickups to fill needs I have. But this one small part of my limited armamentarium (5D3 + 8 lenses + T/C + two speedlites + healthy bit of landscape gear) is _actually_ holding me back photographically. 

My 50 f/1.4 USM is fine for general shooting and the AF is okay in my copy, but I use it f/2.8 or narrower and I miss certain moments when the AF decides to hunt. I'd like a large aperture instrument around 50mm that I can count on with first party ring USM.

- A


----------



## DaviSto (Nov 8, 2017)

I'm just hoping whatever eventually appears puts a big dent into the second hand value of the 50mm f/1.2 L. That would suit me perfectly.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

DaviSto said:


> I'm just hoping whatever eventually appears puts a big dent into the second hand value of the 50mm f/1.2 L. That would suit me perfectly.



You can get a refurb in the mid $900s from Canon during one of their sales. Those lenses are usually in top shape (far better than the scratch n' ding used items you'd get at KEH, B&H, etc.) and you get a 1 year Canon warranty. That would be my move for a 50L for sure.

But I'd *so* go in with full retail asking on day one on a 50mm f/1.4 version of the 35mm f/2 IS USM as would (I'd imagine) an army of people here. Provided a relatively compact double gauss setup remained, I'd pay $999 for that on day one.

- A


----------



## mjg79 (Nov 8, 2017)

I think we must remember that Canon is a business and they aim to make money. I realise that a fast high quality 50 is exciting to those of us who read here but I suspect Canon's research probably finds little interest, or at least not enough for them to be making it a priority.

The problem will come down to crowding. Those who want an inexpensive 50mm lens have the 1.8 or even the 1.4 really. Those who want a beautiful, exotic L version have the 1.2 L. Those who want the last word in sharpness have likely bought either the Sigma Art or the Otus 55. Those who want a nice mix of sharpness and bokeh can still buy the old Sigma EX version. Some of those who were really wanting IS have maybe already bought the Tamron 45.

Amid all of this where would Canon go? Try to go after Art/Otus optical performance and it is going to be huge and expensive. 

As it happens I think there are things they could do that would sell. A 50 1.4 L IS in a similar vein to the new 85 1.4 L IS could complement the more "artistic" 1.2 in the same way they plan to with the 85. Or a 50 1.8 IS similar to the 35/2 IS would be popular.

However would they sell enough given the plethora of other options buyers have? I am sure they will be developing such lenses and they will come eventually but I really doubt the noise online matches the results of market research or Canon would be there already.

As for what I would like - well I like what Nikon did with the 58/1.4 and think that having a 50 and a 58 gives them some more room for different types of lenses. I think the best "50" ever made was the old Nikon Noct 58/1.2 and it wasn't even that big - a Canon Noct with that sort of rendering at 58 and a new 1.4 L with a clean clinical look at 50 would be a nice choice to have.

I also think Canon is a bit mad not to release a new 50 1.0. You only have to look at eBay to see they sell for a fortune. I realise that that lens was never actually very good and indeed the 50 1.2 is probably better in every respect but still it would be great to see what they could do with it with modern tech and coatings and it would be a nice way to rub Nikon's nose in the fact they can't do the same. I also think the world has changed and there is a growing slice of photographers who are obsessed with buying the absolutely best or most extreme. Almost nobody really needs an 11-24, a Leica 0.95 lens, any of the Otus lenses etc but for a variety of reasons some people are happy to pay several thousand dollars for them. I think those people would buy a 50 1.0 L II as fast as they could be made.


----------



## Ditboy (Nov 8, 2017)

That's OK Canon, I'll buy a Sigma instead...


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2017)

Ditboy said:


> That's OK Canon, I'll buy a Sigma instead...



It won't have the new and improved AF motor the 85 & 135 have. Still hunts and is not that accurate. Great optics yes (I have owned two) Now if they made a Mark 2, it would be amaze balls. Jelly jar full of amaze balls.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 9, 2017)

How Canon works is bizarre. They are happy to release mk II or even mk III versions of lenses 5-7 years old, but continue to make clunkers from the 1990's like the 50 f/1.4, 300 f/4L IS 400 f/5.6L and not update lenses like the 135 f/2, 200 f/2.8, 180 f/3.5 macro. A 50mm is a popular lens and others have much better offerings. It's about the easiest lens to design and here we are in 2017 and still nothing in sight. Probably get the $20K 600 f/4 DO long before we get a new 50mm.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Nov 9, 2017)

Waiting for 50mmLensdot Or, was that 50mmLensdough?
Will someone get Vladimir on the line post haste, eh?


----------



## Neopulse (Nov 9, 2017)

I waited too long for a 50mm f/1.2L to come out since I recently migrated to Canon. I chose in the meanwhile the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC as an alternative meanwhile for my 6DII. It's got IS and good resolution detail than the current Canon f/1.4 & 1.8 lenses.


----------



## tron (Nov 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > One option would be to go ahead and get the f1.2L, if that lens is something that would actually work for you. The chances don't look good for anything showing up for about a year, and maybe quite a bit longer than that. As you point out, if a 50L does show up it is likely to be pretty hefty. Realistically it doesn't seem as though the 50 you want is likely to show up anytime soon, and you would have the 50L in the meantime. If the right 50 does appear, then it would be time to sell the f1.2, after having its use in the meantime.
> ...


Buying that 50L may be the only way to persuade Canon to announce a new one (immediately afterwards) ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Ah-Keong (Nov 9, 2017)

How about:

(double gauss) 50mm f/1,2L mark II

or

(retrofocus) 50mm f/1,4L IS USM


----------



## Mac Duderson (Nov 9, 2017)

I bought 2 Canon 50mm 1.2L's AFTER Sigma released their ART version because I preferred the bokeh of the 1.2L better even thought I knew the Siggy ART was sharper. However last year the AF ribbon broke inside the first one so I bought a SECOND 1.2L not wanting to give up on Canon. :-[ However just 2 months ago the Aperture broke inside the SECOND 1.2L!!!!! :-[ :-[ :-[
Ticked off I finally caved and bought the MORE RELIABLE Sigma ART and have had no problems.
Really bothers me when I try to get #1 name brand stuff and they broke more often the a 18-55mm kit lens.
Canon wake up, your being beat by companies that cost 1/3 the cost!  ;D  ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2017)

I have the Canon 50mm f/2.5 Macro. I like it better than the other consumer grade 50's even though its not a fast lens. Of course, I also get 50mm with my 24-70L so I don't really miss one. I have a Nikon 55mm Micro lens adapted to Canon as well as a Olympus, Minolta, and some other M43 lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2017)

Ah-Keong said:


> How about:
> 
> (double gauss) 50mm f/1,2L mark II
> 
> ...



I'm not certain the 50mm FL is going to 'pull an 85' with the f/1.2L and f/1.4L IS being sold side by side. But a retrofocus resolution champ in the 50mm space would seem inevitable for Canon, and I don't see such a lens being a non-L. So your theory is entirely plausible.

- A


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 9, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have the Canon 50mm f/2.5 Macro. I like it better than the other consumer grade 50's even though its not a fast lens. Of course, I also get 50mm with my 24-70L so I don't really miss one.



I have the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro, as well, and it suited me for this FL for more than 10 years, but it's AF began failing about a year ago, and I don't think it's worth the money to get it fixed, if Canon even still provides service for it. It still works in MF mode, of course. My only other lens is this range is the original 24-105/4L IS, so I would _really_ love to see Canon step up and fill this (to me) glaringly obvious deficiency in its product line.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 9, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> I think we must remember that Canon is a business and they aim to make money. I realise that a fast high quality 50 is exciting to those of us who read here but I suspect Canon's research probably finds little interest, or at least not enough for them to be making it a priority.



Interesting that...

1) Zeiss did their research, and found there's a market for a 55mm f/1.4 Otus, and an 85mm f/1.4 Otus.

2) Sigma did their research, and found there's a market for a 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, and an 85mm f/1.4 Art.

3) Tamron did their research, and found there's a market for an SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD, and an SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD.

4) Nikon did their research, and found there's a market for a 58mm f/1.4G AF-S, and an 85mm f/1.4G AF-S.

5) Canon did their research, and found there's absolutely no market for a 50mm f/1.4[L] IS USM. The 85mm f/1.4L IS USM does have a market, but it's whole different story.

The market isn't just people who would buy the lens within the first year. It's for people who want to buy OEM now, or their first camera next year, or switch from Nikon the year after that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > I think we must remember that Canon is a business and they aim to make money. I realise that a fast high quality 50 is exciting to those of us who read here but I suspect Canon's research probably finds little interest, or at least not enough for them to be making it a priority.
> ...



Where did you find information about Canon's market research? Can you share it?


Canon is very good at market research and has figures for their sales, and likely for sales of others. You can purchase the information which is collected from major retailers around the world. Everyone has it, its what they do with it that determines how successful their company is.

Low cost lenses will sell, even if AF is erratic, many buy the Sigma lens due to price for a otherwise excellent lens. Tamron is the largest lens manufacturer in the world, and can churn out very large numbers of low cost lenses, and their autofocus is fairly reliable, but often slow. They are a force to be reckoned with. You can get the lens for $400 at B&H. Go for it if you think its so good. Read the reviews though first, there is a reason its discounted by $200. https://www.lenstip.com/454.11-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_45_mm_f_1.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html


Nikon is closing factories and pulling out of Brazil, do you really think their decisions based on their market research is that good? How many of those $1600 lenses are selling? Making poor decisions can cause some severe problems to sales. Nikon has been making a lot of them. Zeiss sells relatively few lenses, they subcontract them out. They are not a factor in competing with someone who wants to sell 100,000 to 1,000,000 a year.

I can only guess, but Canon probably sees buyers wanting more zoom lenses, and see few buyers going for expensive 50mm prime lenses. Buyers are price sensitive, and go for the lowest cost item that does the job. The 50mm f/1.8 fits the need for a low cost lens. It certainly is not a high performance lens, but that likely is not missed by the huge numbers of people who buy one.

Its possible to turn out a really good consumer grade f/1.8 lens for 4X the price and kill sales, so their option is to create a high end lens that sells in lower quantities, which raises the price and becomes a even lower volume product. I have no interest in a $1500 50mm lens. People seem to think that such a new lens will be cheap, but it will cost about the same as the 85mm f/1.4 L , and the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G IS.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> My question is this: for all those of you that know what I'd ideally want -- *a compact (and not necessarily face-meltingly sharp) 50 f/1.4 IS USM like the 35 f/2 IS* -- what happens if the next new 50 _is an L like the 85 f/1.4L IS?_
> 
> Such a lens will likely be too big for me. I want a compact double gauss lens.
> 
> ...



Count me in - we discussed it in another thread some days ago. I really liked the FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. chrome ring lens which gave contrasty and sharp images - at least with Kodachrome 25 - in the old film days. It performs very well from f/2.8 on the EOS M.

It is not stabilized and has no AF but maybe a 2nd hand S*** S7ii would be a good companion with sensor IS (if that works with such a lens) or I will give it to lens doctor in UK for a FD - EOS conversion. Well: Without IS and AF but VERY compact and light. And I own this lens for ca. 3 decades ... I like anachronisms.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Nov 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ah-Keong said:
> 
> 
> > How about:
> ...



I love the 50mm f/1,2L (double gauss) optics. It has the magical 3D signature pop that current modern optics lack.
I would believe an update to the AF mechanism would bring the AF speed, accuracy, etc to date with modern bodies (6D2, 5D4, 1DX2, etc)

The current state of the art (retrofocus) optics is kinda clinical and sharpness all over. As the market has demand for such optics, the 50mm f/1,4L IS USM like the upcoming 85mm f/1,4L IS USM would be meeting the demand in this market area...

Choose your Poison(s)!


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 9, 2017)

"Meh!" to this information.



ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I already hear the keen cry of anguish from one CR member, in particular.
> ...


+1 to this decision and +1 to that taste of music 8)


----------



## Fleetie (Nov 9, 2017)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


"Pornography" is their best album, IMO. It's the only Cure album I still actually listen to.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 9, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > mjg79 said:
> ...



I was cynical, of course I don't have that info.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon is very good at market research and has figures for their sales, and likely for sales of others.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Nikon is closing factories and pulling out of Brazil, do you really think their decisions based on their market research is that good?



<cynicism>Of course Canon's market research is impeccable, while Nikon makes mistakes. Closing factories and pulling out of markets *has* to do with making the wrong lenses, and *couldn't possibly* have to do with shrinking camera & lens sales.</cynicism>

My point was it's unlikely four different companies erred on their estimating a new 50mm f/1.4 would make a profit, while Canon nailed it wouldn't. Possible, but unlikely.

Your claims regarding an expensive 50mm f/1.4 could have been applied to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM, up until it was announced.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2017)

I fully concede Canon is wiser at what products to offer and what products not to offer, but consider:


I heard a comment about 'people prefer zooms' which is fine, but let's not forget why these lenses sing -- small DOF, subject isolation, bokeh, etc. and a 24-70 2.8 is dramatically less effective at this than at f/1.4.


A 50 f/1.4 is a staple general purpose instrument like a 35 f/1.4 or 24-70 2.8 is. It's not some exotic prestige piece like 20 f/1.4 or 105 f/1.4, it is a bread and butter tool. Sure, a 50 f/1.8 is fine in a pinch but Canon's is stripped for features (no distance scale, FBW, slow focusing, not a common filter diameter, etc.). And sure, the 50 f/1.2 is awesome wide open for centered subjects, but it's a specialty / _non_-general-purpose lens, IMHO -- you have to wrestle with that non-planar field, it's only sharp in the center, the AF is finnicky, etc.


As others have pointed out, _everyone else_ prioritizes this sort of product as being important. This isn't Canon being shrewd, this is Canon being stubborn. We just got 3 new T/S lenses very few people were asking for and we can't get _an all-purpose 50 prime?!_

Honestly: find me a bigger sucking belly wound in Canon's EF portfolio where photographers are SOL with a staple need like this. I don't think it exists. 

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Nov 9, 2017)

I think the 50/1.4 still sells. Probably to a similar market as the 50/1.8 but for those with a little more money to spend or the desire for a little bit better then the cheapo 50/1.8 probably with some help from the sales staff at a camera shop. Why replace a lens if the current is still selling with out issue? 

Canon replace the damn 50/1.4. The enthusiast want it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Let's just say, hypothetically, that you did have that info. Say that info indicated that Canon's current 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L were substantially outselling those lenses you list above. If you were Canon, would you that compel you to release updated version of your lenses? 




ahsanford said:


> Honestly: find me a bigger sucking belly wound in Canon's EF portfolio where photographers are SOL with a staple need like this. I don't think it exists.



If photographers are buying the current versions of Canon's 50/1.4 and 50/1.2, why do you think updated versions are necessary? Yes, I know you want one. We all know you want one. I suspect a few other people want one, too.

Since Antono Refa helpfully listed out some of those companies which offer 50mm-ish f/1.8 and faster lenses, let's see how their competing lenses stack up on Amazon's best-selling digital camera lenses list:

Canon 50mm f/1.8 – #1
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - #7
Canon 50mm f/1.4 – #8
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G – #11
Sony 50mm f/1.8 – #22
Canon 50mm f/1.2L – #90
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art (for Canon) – #134
Pentax 50mm f/1.8 – #315
Sony 50mm f/1.4ZA – #565
Nikon 58mm f/1.4G – #666
Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC –#1104
Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus – #2212

So, on Amazon in the US, Canon is selling more 50/1.8's than any other lens out there of any focal length, more 50/1.4's than anyone else, and even the 50/1.2L is outselling almost all of the faster-than-f/1.8 50mm lenses (the only one doing better is the Fuji 56mm f/1.2R at #51 on Amazon's list, but since that's an APS-C format lens I didn't include it on the list). 

So, if you consider what people are actually buying, the Canon 50mm lenses are doing very (very!) well. It certainly seems that, rather than being a '_sucking belly wound in Canon's EF portfolio where photographers are SOL_,' according to the people who really matter — those actually buying lenses — their need for a 'staple' 50mm prime is being quite well met. 

Sorry, I know it sucks when reality slaps you in the face.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, I know it sucks when reality slaps you in the face.



Great perspective as always, Neuro. Appreciate the legwork on the Amazon list.

That said, a sale is not a need met. People are getting by with what is offered, but that belies an enormous opportunity for improvement. 

And on other FLs, zooms, etc. where I can only presume Canon is sitting in a similar position in the marketplace, being at/near the top of the heap didn't stop Canon from periodically upping it's game and offering newer/better products. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon 50mm f/1.8 – #1
> Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - #7
> Canon 50mm f/1.4 – #8
> Nikon 50mm f/1.4G – #11
> ...



^^ Also, the market prefers zooms? ^^ (I happen to generally believe that, btw.) 

Just rechecking the list (as it changes seemingly quite often), I'm only seeing:


3 zooms in the top 10 lenses
6 zooms in the top 20 lenses

So perhaps the number of zooms out in circulation is quite high, but it's because they're principally 18-55s that were kitted with a body? Or is this data just a noisy slice of realtime data with a different overall trend? Or is Amazon not reflective of the market at large for some reason?

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 9, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> I think the 50/1.4 still sells.



Which is why this won't happen...



Ryananthony said:


> Canon replace the damn 50/1.4.



Once people stop buying it, or they can make more profit on a newer model, they'll consider replacing it.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let's just say, hypothetically, that you did have that info. Say that info indicated that Canon's current 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L were substantially outselling those lenses you list above. If you were Canon, would you that compel you to release updated version of your lenses?



If I was the decision maker, that would not be the question I would ask myself.

The question I would is which would make me more profits

1) Making a new 50mm f/1.4 [L or not] IS [USM / STM / nano / whichever]

2) Not making a new 50mm f/1.4 [L or not] IS [USM / STM / nano / whichever]

That means I would be interested in looking at how much the four 50mm lenses I listed add to (or subtract from) the respective manufacturers' bottom line, not in how well they sell in comparison to my existing lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just say, hypothetically, that you did have that info. Say that info indicated that Canon's current 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L were substantially outselling those lenses you list above. If you were Canon, would you that compel you to release updated version of your lenses?
> ...



Fair enough. As you say, we don't have the data. Canon probably does. They haven't updated the 50/1.4 or 50/1.2L. I know what that leads me to conclude. YMMV.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 9, 2017)

The 50mm f/1.4 was the first prime lens I bought to use with my T3i. I never observed any problems with it, and found it a useful lens to have in my arsenal. Of course I mainly got it to use as a portrait lens, since at 80mm rough equivalence it put me at a good distance from the subject, and the kit lens is limited to f/5.6 in that focal range.

Now that I have a 6D2, I don't know what I might use the lens for, and so far it has never been on that camera. Sometime I will check the photos I've made with the kit zoom to see what focal lengths I regularly use, and maybe start using the prime some for circumstances where I regularly shoot in the 50-ish range. With the quality of higher ISO in the 6D2, I haven't felt the need for the wider aperture so far.

Obviously if Canon comes out with an updated 50mm lens, I would not be in the target audience.


----------



## BillB (Nov 9, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just say, hypothetically, that you did have that info. Say that info indicated that Canon's current 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L were substantially outselling those lenses you list above. If you were Canon, would you that compel you to release updated version of your lenses?
> ...



Looking at it from an R&D investment viewpoint, the question becomes which lens development projects are going to maximize profit. Only so many lenses can be developed at the same time, so there is a backlog, and 50mm lenses may well be somewhere in that backlog. Overall, it seems clear to me that Canon decided to emphasize the development of zooms during the last several years. As far as primes are concerned, 50 mm lenses seem to have been down the lens development list, for whatever reason. Maybe it is because Canon doesn't see a lot of money to be made by rolling out new 50mm primes. There are rumors about Canon doing some development work on 50mm primes so maybe there is some hope something will eventually show up.


----------



## AJ (Nov 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


But ...
Canon EF-S 18-55 mk1 was selling quite well, and yet it was updated with the mk2.
Canon EF-S 18-55 mk2 was selling quite well, and yet it was updated with the STM.
ditto for EF-S 55-250 and 50/1.8

50/1.4 isn't some exotic lens like 65 macro or 90 TS which don't get updated for decades.

Plenty of 50/1.4 owners would upgrade given a 50/1.8 STM-like makeover. And such a lens would be pretty much guaranteed to sell well to new owners.

I think Canon's saving grace is that Sigma and Tamron have not made an inexpensive double-Gauss competitor.
The Sigma 50/1.4A is in a different category. The older Sigma 50/1.4 has focus issues.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2017)

AJ said:


> But ...
> Canon EF-S 18-55 mk1 was selling quite well, and yet it was updated with the mk2.
> Canon EF-S 18-55 mk2 was selling quite well, and yet it was updated with the STM.
> ditto for EF-S 55-250 and 50/1.8



But ...
Those updates were mainly to reduce production costs (small savings x big unit sales = meaningful profit). Most were the exact same optical formula as their predecessor. The 55-250 STM is really the only one that saw improvements.


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> My question is this: for all those of you that know what I'd ideally want -- a compact (and not necessarily face-meltingly sharp) 50 f/1.4 IS USM like the 35 f/2 IS -- what happens if the next new 50 _is an L like the 85 f/1.4L IS?_
> 
> Such a lens will likely be too big for me. I want a compact double gauss lens.
> 
> ...



Rent the Tamron 45mm 1.8 VC and see how it works for you and whether you can live with the chromatic aberration issues (can be cleaned up in post) - which will depend on your shooting style/uses of the lens. It seems like a relatively compact lens for being a 1.8.


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > My question is this: for all those of you that know what I'd ideally want -- a compact (and not necessarily face-meltingly sharp) 50 f/1.4 IS USM like the 35 f/2 IS -- what happens if the next new 50 _is an L like the 85 f/1.4L IS?_
> ...



I tried one after reading Dustin's review and knew of it's shortcomings but to tell the truth I prefer the 40 Pancake by far. The Micro contrast, color rendition, lack of distortion or corner sharpness issues. No CA either. 45 and fifty, as I'd said before are focal lengths that do nothing for me and the 24-70 Mk 2 does them very well if I need them.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You could have written the same about the TS-E 90mm from the time Canon upgraded the TS-E 24mm lens for eight years straight, till Canon decided to announce your estimate of their odometer was off.


----------



## AJ (Nov 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > But ...
> ...


So...

Why can't the same cost-saving measures be applied to 50/1.4? New motor, new lens coatings. Seems like a win-win to me


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> Rent the Tamron 45mm 1.8 VC and see how it works for you and whether you can live with the chromatic aberration issues (can be cleaned up in post) - which will depend on your shooting style/uses of the lens. It seems like a relatively compact lens for being a 1.8.



Appreciate it -- but I've considered it.

3rd party AF on a lens wider than f/2.8, especially one that isn't slated for tripod landscape work = absolutely no sale.

And as for size, as you'll see, there is double gauss and there is _not_ double gauss. That Tamron is considerably longer than even the f/1.2L II. 'Smaller than the Arts/Otuses of the world' is not necessarily that small.

- A


----------



## blobmonster (Nov 10, 2017)

Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal. 

I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.

I already own the 24-70L mark I for years, but am transitioning to primes for pleasure. My preferred lengths are 20,35 and 85. The crops available from high MP cameras mean you can crop pictures from a 35mm to become a 50mm equivalent, 50-85, from an 85 to a 135 etc, without the need to carry a big zoom, and with the advantage that the fast aperture prime will have better depth of field control than a zoom while still having adequate resolution even after cropping.

The Canon 20mm usm f2.8 is a great lens when used well, but there's no getting round its flare. 

I really hope Canon will introduce a 20mm (or 16-19mm) prime, preferably with IS. I would take this in preference to the 16-35 f4 IS since it would fit in my pocket, probably have a wider aperture, and make sure I frame the ultra wide photo properly rather than use zoom badly - which I am prone to until I get more experience with ultrawide composition. A 20mm has a notably different aspect to a 24mm or 14mm therefore it is a big gap for Canon. I can't yet justify the 14mm f2.8 or 17mm TSE as a beginner ultrawide photographer (the 17 SE is pretty big too), and the 17-40L used is almost the same price as the 20mm usm used. It therefore feels wrong to put money down on the old 20mm which has inferior image (in many situations) and build quality.

So here's hoping for a new Canon 20mm f2.8 usm is.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 10, 2017)

blobmonster said:


> Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.
> 
> I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.
> 
> [snip]


Hi blobmonster! 

Canon has a EF 20mm f/2.8 USM for less than 500 $/€. It's old, its optical performance is so-so but there isn't a real hole - although every FL could be and should be improved by time.
But I don't expect a non-L lens in this UWA range wider than f/2.8, so all you'd get would be a successor of that mentioned lens. I haven't seen a UWA picture where f/1.8 was necessary yet, but I am not into astro.
I don't know if the Nikon is performing well here, but a short google say it's so-so wide open. 

If we now compare the market of a general purpose (FF and APS-C, her more to portrait) lens like a EF 50/1.4 to a EF 20/2.8 or even /1.8, I'D say that the later is a real specialist with a small market. 
So if it comes to improving those lenses I'd say: begin with the standard FL and later care for the specialists.
But as you can see, Canon yet does neither :


----------



## BillB (Nov 10, 2017)

blobmonster said:


> Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.
> 
> I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.
> 
> ...



Good luck on the 20mm prime. One advantage to the 16-35 is that you can actually buy one now. I got mine when it came out and it doesn't spend much time in my pocket. Mostly it is on my camera. You are right about the challenge of composing when you are working with a wide angle. One of the things I really like about the zoom is being able to play with different focal lengths without swapping lenses. Having a 16-35 is like having a whole bagful of wide angle lenses without the hassle of swapping them on and off the camera. A 20 and a 35 would cost more than the 16-35, so having the 16-35 is like having a 16, 24 and 28 for free.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 10, 2017)

blobmonster said:


> Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.
> 
> I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.
> 
> ...



I was hoping that Canon would do a refresh for the 20 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4 after the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS lenses came out, but it hasn't yet. The 35 f/2 IS is well regarded and is popular, but I wonder how popular the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS lenses are. They are nice and compact, but I only pick them when I'm going out with a single lens or paired with the 50 f/1.8 for an ultra-compact kit.

My guess is that the 20 f/2.8 is not a big seller for Canon, and after the 16-35 f/2.8 III and 16-35 f/4 IS were released, the place for the 20 f/2.8 is further diminished. It looks like Canon went the IS route rather than Nikon's f/1.8 route, so the natural successor would be a 20 f/2.8 IS. It also seems like the 20 and 28mm focal lengths are more popular with Nikon shooters than Canon shooters because Nikon does support multiple options at those focal lengths, whereas Canon has better/multiple options at 24, 35 and 50mm.

If you really want a 20mm prime, there is always the Sigma 20A, but that is not a small lens.


----------



## mjg79 (Nov 10, 2017)

I see what I wrote about Canon not thinking there is enough of a market stirred up some controversy! I don't think there is *no* market for a new high quality 50 but that, from their actions, it is reasonable to infer that Canon has decided there isn't enough of a market (with enough of a profit margin) for them to make it a priority.

Of course Canon needs to maintain a high quality lens line-up and make sure gaps are filled whether or not that particular lens is a big seller. I am sure new 50mm lenses will come over the years. For now though there is the 50/1.2 L - yes I know in the lab it doesn't produce the sharpest results but in real world use it time and again is used by professionals to produce gorgeous photos and is in every regard better than the old 50/1.0 L.

But the fact they got a TS 50 out before another fast prime suggests strongly they think the TS will make more money. It's a unique product that they can charge a higher margin on. The 50/1.4 market is very crowded.

Someone else wrote above about Nikon's 20 1.8 lens and I agree, I would love to see Canon get a bit more aggressive with the lenses. Clearly over the past several years they have focused on two groups - the mass of consumers who want a decent 18-XX lens and also professionals who want the absolute best in a 70-200/2.8, 400 DO or 300/2.8. Even lenses like the 35L II and 100-400L II show build quality that no other manufacturer currently matches. They have their eyes on the professionals who really care about such things.

So what about that middle ground where I suspect most of us are to be found, the enthusiasts. We are certainly the loudest online but I think probably a bit smaller percentage of total buyers. But I didn't want to imply I support Canon taking so long for a modern 50/1.4 - I would be happy if there was a new lens every other week! But we have to be realistic.

Canon has been quite conservative and recent years haven't been easy for camera makers as mobile phones have destroyed the entire compact market. For the first time in years I have found myself sometimes feeling a bit jealous of some of the new Nikon glass - the 20/1.8, the 28/1.4 and the 105/1.4 in particular and it's quite an unusual position to be in as a Canon customer. And I think it's rather telling that the first 14/1.8, 20/1.4 and 24-35/2.0 were all made by Sigma and not Canon. Canon were once very aggressive in that type of exotic boundary pushing if one thinks of the 200/1.8, 85/1.2 and 50/1.0 and I would love to see them bring back some of that fire.

Canon has a history of getting there eventually though. For years we (rightly) complained about Canon's wide angle zooms as the only really decent landscape lens wide than 24mm was the TS 17. Well now we are spoilt for choice with the 16-35 IS for landscapes, the 2.8 III for photojournalism/events, the 11-24 for extremes. I'm confident when the next 50mm lens arrives it will be worth the wait.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2017)

blobmonster said:


> Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.
> 
> I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.



Both Nikon and Canon have niche lenses that the other does not: 

Nikon: 20 1.8, 28 1.4, 105 1.4, etc.
Canon: far too many to list

IMHO, Canon's 'hole' in the lineup around 20mm isn't necessarily the focal length itself so much as a coma-free wide prime -- a new 24 f/1.4L III with reduced coma would do just fine and serve a reportage/environmental portraiture need at the same time.

- A


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 10, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 50/1.4 still sells.
> ...



As already mentioned, _of course the 50/1.4 still sells_, because Canon doesn't offer anything better at present (in its FL and price range). But I believe that plenty of buyers would have been willing to pony up more $$ for a version with true ring USM, updated electronics / lens coatings and IS.

A company that waited until its current model stopped selling before considering replacing it probably wouldn't be in business for very long. That's what market forecasts and strategic planning are for. Simply milking that cash cow until it dries up is not a recipe for long-term success. (And yes, I get that we're talking about one little product in just one of Canon Corporation's lines of business.)

If I had known that we still wouldn't have an AHSanford Special as 2017 draws to a close, I might have already picked up a used or refurb 50/1.2L, or bought another 50/2.5 CM when I still could (the AF on my current copy is dying). I may just bite the little bullet and pick up a 50/1.8 STM while I wait Canon out ... can anyone tell me how its AF speed compares to the 50/2.5's (in non-Macro range)?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2017)

JonAustin said:


> As already mentioned, _of course the 50/1.4 still sells_, because Canon doesn't offer anything better at present (in its FL and price range). But I believe that plenty of buyers would have been willing to pony up more $$ for a version with true ring USM, updated electronics / lens coatings and IS.
> 
> A company that waited until its current model stopped selling before considering replacing it probably wouldn't be in business for very long. That's what market forecasts and strategic planning are for. Simply milking that cash cow until it dries up is not a recipe for long-term success. (And yes, I get that we're talking about one little product in just one of Canon Corporation's lines of business.)
> 
> If I had known that we still wouldn't have an AHSanford Special as 2017 draws to a close, I might have already picked up a used or refurb 50/1.2L, or bought another 50/2.5 CM when I still could (the AF on my current copy is dying). I may just bite the little bullet and pick up a 50/1.8 STM while I wait Canon out ... can anyone tell me how its AF speed compares to the 50/2.5's (in non-Macro range)?



+1 on all points. The missing bit on the finances is that that 50 f/1.4 USM capital / tooling / process development / quality infrastructure are long, long bought and paid for, so the rate of return on that investment continues to be gold.

Canon surely has a business plan floating around that a modernization of that product will resemble any refresh -- it will cost an arm and a leg to spin everything up, so if they can't command (say) $599 for a ring USM non-L prime for more than the opening year, they may not profit as much as leaving the current ancient thing in production.

- A


----------



## BillB (Nov 10, 2017)

JonAustin said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Ryananthony said:
> ...



One problem is that the current 50mm f1.4 is selling around the $330 price point and any replacement is likely to cost considerably more. If they stop making the current 50mm f1.4, Canon has to figure out what impact this shift in price point would have on the overall revenue stream. Some people would buy the more expensive new lens, some people would drop down to the 50mm F 1.8 STM, and some people wouldn't buy anything, making do with whatever they have. It's not like Canon is going to be offering a better lens for the same amount of money.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 10, 2017)

@ _*ahsanford*_ and _*BillB*_:

Fair points all, but the same arguments could have been made before each launch of a successor to an existing lens. And the increasing margins from sales of products for which the R&D, tooling, etc. have long since been absorbed begin -- at some point -- to be offset by decaying demand, sales lost to competitive, 3rd party products and -- in the case of lenses -- performance that increasingly lags behind more current glass in the product line, not to mention the every-improving resolution of the sensors behind the glass.

Without citing specific examples (laziness), we've been surprised by a few new releases in recent years, where the launch prices have been pleasingly lower than anticipated / feared. (OK, the 16-35/4 and 100-400 II are a couple that come to mind, only because I bought them.)


----------



## BillB (Nov 11, 2017)

JonAustin said:


> @ _*ahsanford*_ and _*BillB*_:
> 
> Fair points all, but the same arguments could have been made before each launch of a successor to an existing lens. And the increasing margins from sales of products for which the R&D, tooling, etc. have long since been absorbed begin -- at some point -- to be offset by decaying demand, sales lost to competitive, 3rd party products and -- in the case of lenses -- performance that increasingly lags behind more current glass in the product line, not to mention the every-improving resolution of the sensors behind the glass.
> 
> Without citing specific examples (laziness), we've been surprised by a few new releases in recent years, where the launch prices have been pleasingly lower than anticipated / feared. (OK, the 16-35/4 and 100-400 II are a couple that come to mind, only because I bought them.)



I don't know the specifics, but I wonder how much the exchange rates drive price fluctuations. As far as lens releases are concerned, it seems to me that Canon's emphasis for quite a while has been on zooms, including inexpensive high quality EF-S and EF-M zooms. There have also been some L's. In addition to the ones you mentioned there is the 11-24, the 16-35 f2.8III, the 35 f1.4 II and the 85 f1.4, along with the three tilt shifts and the 24-105 II.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Canon surely has a business plan floating around that a modernization of that product will resemble any refresh -- it will cost an arm and a leg to spin everything up, so if they can't command (say) $599 for a ring USM non-L prime for more than the opening year, they may not profit as much as leaving the current ancient thing in production.



You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.

As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.
> 
> As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.



As we've covered a few times, the 24 2.8 / 28 2.8 / 35 2.0 were a different older series of lenses than the USM primes 20 2.8 / 28 1.8 / 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 100 2.0.

So Canon didn't stop a line of updates, they completed the refreshing one family and we hope the other family gets a similarly nice update.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.
> ...



Those are all 20+ old film era lenses, a few years don't make a big difference.

And the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM just shot any 85mm f/1.8 IS USM upgrade in the leg. Too close to f/1.4, it would hurt the f/1.4L's sales, too close to f/2.8 and it would lose to the 70-200mm L IS zooms.


----------



## BillB (Nov 11, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.
> 
> As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.



The 24-28-35 lenses were originally rolled out at much higher prices, which were quickly reduced to current levels, after widespread and noisy opposition to the prices. Even at the lower levels, I don't think Cannon has sold all that many of them. Of course, the 16-35 f4 IS came out fairly soon after the wide angle primes were introduced and that couldn't have helped sales. I know I wouldn't have got my 28 IS if the 16-35 f4 had been around. All in all, I doubt that Cannon's experience with the three wide angles demonstrates that there is much money to be made refreshing mid level primes. I also doubt that the wide angles that were replaced were selling anywhere near as well as the 50 f1.4 or the 85 f1.8, so there more be may be more demand for the longer focal lengths.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 11, 2017)

BillB said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.
> ...



Yeah, I've heard that and tend to believe it.



BillB said:


> Of course, the 16-35 f4 IS came out fairly soon after the wide angle primes were introduced and that couldn't have helped sales. I know I wouldn't have got my 28 IS if the 16-35 f4 had been around.



I went through a similar process.

Thought of buying the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, then thought the 16-35mm f/4L IS USM would be better, then took a good look at what I actually shoot and how, and went for a 16-35mm f/2.8L mkII (will upgrade to mkIII) for tripod & 35mm f/2 IS USM for handheld.



BillB said:


> All in all, I doubt that Cannon's experience with the three wide angles demonstrates that there is much money to be made refreshing mid level primes.



Which is why I think Canon will release the 50mm f/1.4 as an L, which would be too expensive to me, rather than a mid level prime.


----------



## BillB (Nov 11, 2017)

I find myself wondering how much a refreshed 50mm could provide that is not being provided by existing lenses, particularly by the 35 f2 IS, but also considering the current 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8. Are there ways to use these lenses to explore capabilities that a refreshed 50 might offer over those that the existing 50? 

In a trivial sense the 35mm can simulate a 50 through simple cropping. Coverage comparable to a 50 can also be achieved with the 35 by zooming with your feet, at least to some degree. The 85mm offers another approach by moving back from the subject rather than toward it. The limitations of the current 50 are most obvious at f2.8 and wider due to the flaky AF, but there isn't much reason to think that a refreshed 50 will offer much more than the current 50 stopped down to f4 and beyond.

The 35 has ring USM and IS, and the 85 also has ring USM, but lacks IS. It seems questionable whether a refreshed 50 would offer much more than these lenses at f2 and f2.8 other than field of view.

Again, I am not arguing that a refreshed 50 would not be useful, but I am wondering whether current lenses may offer ways to explore the opportunities that a refreshed 50 would provide in comparison to the current 50.


----------



## blobmonster (Nov 12, 2017)

@BillB I agree. The 50mm stm looks fine for low price, while the 50L is fine for good quality. I don't see much of a gap. 

Honestly I couldn't care less about coma or what have you regarding the 24L. I've never liked that focal length. I just want a 20mm that works in the sun without huge flare, since getting the sun in the shot is quite a typical use of an ultrawide. 

I think the DSLR market is very mature already. We will start to see the holes in Canon's lineup vs Nikon filled is my prediction. At this stage in the game, where almost everyone ought to be satisfied with quality that is already available, they ought to be covering all bases for maximum revenue, then hunker down and reduce costs. 

As much as I'd like to believe in a growth market for Canon in stills, the reality is smartphones and professional video are developing whereas dslr stills are already practically perfect.

I think Canon ought to bring out the 20mm since its a focal length that people love to use in a prime. I suspect they might also bring a new 50 with IS etc. Regarding profitability I think I would be looking at the 'long tail' type of sales, as in, primes don't have to sell in huge numbers to still sell a lot over the years, and help justify the business staying in the stills market, by bringing users into the Canon system and keeping them there. I don't really see any holes in the Canon lineup besides an ultra-wide prime. Will it sell hugely? Perhaps not, but it's not reasonable to keep producing the old one when they could just update it and sell for a higher price, given that lens design teams have already covered the other bases, wide L and smaller, slower L IS zooms etc, they can probably be spared a few months to work on the slow burners (sales wise) that are 30 years old, as we saw happen a few years ago. It's not reasonable for them (new primes) to all come out at once so I don't think that the delay since the new 24, 28 and 35 means Canon won't now bring out a 20 and 50 if it believes new and existing users expect them.


----------



## pch (Dec 6, 2017)

I was casually looking around to see if there was any news about a new 50 with IS since the 85 came out, and found this thread. It's been interesting to read because, as someone noted, the participants seem to mostly be enthusiasts and not professionals, and the analyses regarding why Canon would or wouldn't want to bother updating a 50 are from that perspective - and you can't argue with (most of) the arguments here, which basically sum up to "I can do everything I could possibly need to do with what's currently available so I don't see why Canon would bother". 

So I thought I'd chime in with the perspective of someone who uses this focal length professionally. The main thing my partner and I do is weddings, family and baby/child portraits, and things like that (we do also do corporate type stuff, where our equipment needs are a bit different). I do video - and we both shoot with 5d4s (we can share equipment and there's a more-or-less consistent look between the photos and the video for a wedding, for example, though our approach and style is different). 

Now, you may be thinking, 50mm is not really a great portrait focal length on a FF body, and isn't wide enough for events. Well, my partner carries two cameras on a harness, the second with a 24 1.4 L - and I use the 35 f/2 IS for wider shots; anything wider than that I typically do with the 24 TS-E II on a tripod. 50mm is certainly a compromise, but a very good one - the problem with shooting with an 85 is that in a wedding, that actually gets you too close most of the time. During the ceremony and speeches etc. she uses a 70-200 2.8 IS - an 85 doesn't get you close enough in that case. The rest of the time, the best moments often happen in very tight quarters with the bride and groom and 85 just doesn't work. So the 50 1.2 saves the day - you get the shallow depth of field that clients love (and you don't actually have to shoot at 1.2 on a FF body to get it) and you can zoom with your feet even in tight quarters to get the framing you want. Likewise for family and kid portraits, it's great because it can be very difficult to track fidgety kids with an 85 or longer length, and with younger kids you need to be close to them to get their attention and to get them to engage with the camera (though she does use the 70-200 for these too occasionally depending on the situation). 

So, it's actually the perfect focal length for that stuff. But, I also actually prefer it for a lot of other kinds of photography too, and plan to get the 50 TS-E for my other stuff including architecture and landscapes. I have the 24 II and the original 90 TS-E lenses; I find myself stitching together 90mm TS-E shots to get essentially a 50mm perspective - the increased resolution from stitching is not really worth it for what I do (I will probably sell the 90 because it's an awkward length for me, and eventually get the new 50 and 135 TS-Es). For me, the 50mm perspective is how I see things most of the time and is just ideal for my style of photography.

So that said, for video I primarily use the 35 f/2 IS - and I don't like it (though it's actually perfect for corporate type stuff I do as well where shallow DOF style is less important). I mean the lens is great, honestly, I just don't like how it looks for video You can get shallow depth of field with close-ups on a FF body, but for the most part the way it renders on video is just not my favorite - though it is not actually soft, for my purposes it appears "not crisp" in 1080p video compared to shooting with a shallower DOF (sharpness at this resolution being more about perception than technical specs). I vastly prefer using 50mm. I use the 1.4 for video because it's much lighter than the 1.2, and because we have two copies of it that weren't getting used since she got the 1.2 - and because I'm waiting for an IS version.

Here's what's key here - IS is a godsend for Canon video (even with a tripod, truthfully) since we don't get in-body stabilization (the stabilization in the 6D II is not good for professional results, at least for my style - it's digital processing, which I can do better in post if that's what I wanted, which I do do although as little as possible because it usually looks weird). If you haven't tried it, try a short clip with any recent-model IS lens you have - even a telephoto. It's amazing. I use a shoulder rig because the 35 is not the only lens I use but with modern IS, hand-held is legitimately just as good as a shoulder rig - and that's why I want a 50 with IS. I want to ditch the shoulder rig and instead have two bodies on a harness, one with a 50 IS and one with the 35 IS (with the 85 IS in a belt pouch for certain shots that I currently use the 85 1.8 for).

A 50 IS would be a game-changer for video. I shoot at or near wide-open most of the time (using ND filters outside) to get a "cinematic" shallow-depth-of-field look because that's what I like, and what clients like. 

I would gladly pay $1600 for a 50 1.4 with IS, just like the 85. I would also gladly pay *significantly* more for an updated 50 1.2 with IS, no hesitation. I am far from the only one, too, although I will concede that most people doing this kind of low-level professional video are more than happy with their zoom lenses with IS (or their Sony or Panasonic cameras with in-body IS). I aim for something aesthetically far better than that - people like me buy these lenses to shoot wide-open with, and I care more about that (and IS) than the "versatility" of a zoom, or even of absolute technical sharpness (same thinking as e.g. Leica users - and e.g. I also shoot medium-format film wide-open with large-aperture lenses). Canon is *so* close to letting me realize that in really an amazingly easy way compared to what would have been required just a few years ago, and a 50 with IS would take me almost all the way there.


----------

