# A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 7, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594"></a></div>
<strong>A new 50?


</strong>A purported replacement to the EF 50 f/1.4 was mentioned today in the form of an EF 50 f/1.8 IS. The lens would be smaller than the current 50 f/1.4. There is no imminent announcement of such a lens, but Canon is working to replace the 50 f/1.4 sometime in the next year. The current 50 f/1.8 would remain in the lineup.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take</strong>


There’s no doubt in my mind Canon is working on a couple of new 50mm lenses. With IS added to the new 24 & 28mm primes, IS in a 50 shouldn’t surprise anyone. It would be a welcomed lens if they can make it small enough to work well on a mirrorless platform.</p>
<p>Take this one with a grain of salt….</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## trulandphoto (Jul 7, 2012)

STM maybe?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 7, 2012)

trulandphoto said:


> STM maybe?



More likely it'll be real usm instead of the micro "usm" on the current 50/1.4. And if they sacrifice a little light for IS, the lens is sharp even wide open at double the price, this would sound like Canon.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

Lame, don't need IS on a 50mm prime. Rather have the extra speed. 

Canons going to want 700$ for it too, I just know it.


----------



## jabbott (Jul 7, 2012)

Since when does replacing a fast aperture prime with a slower aperture prime count as a replacement? An f/1.4 aperture gathers nearly 40% more light than an f/1.8 aperture, and produces noticeably stronger bokeh. One doesn't need IS with such a large aperture. Definitely going to take a grain of salt with this rumor!


----------



## Ricku (Jul 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Lame, don't need IS on a 50mm prime.


Your comment is even lamer.

There is no such thing as "no need for IS". ALL lenses and all FL's can benefit from IS.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

Ricku said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Lame, don't need IS on a 50mm prime.
> ...



Your must have more dollars than sense because IS makes things more expensive. Especially wide aperture lenses.


----------



## japhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

> There’s no doubt in my mind Canon is working on a couple of new 50mm lenses.



This is good news since none of the present lenses are worthy of my money.

-50 1.8 = a toy lens, too few aperture blades
-50 1.4 = more expensive toy lens, prone to breaking (also had one and didn't like it)
-50 1.2 = expensive and with problems like focus shift
-Sigma 50 1.4 = could be good if by some miracle one could find a decent specimen

If I'm not missing anything, these are the autofocusing lenses for Canon at the moment. So after that short listing I welcome new additions to the lineup (and IS of course, it's a life-saver for me).


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Agreed - shooting handheld under 1/60 is going to attract motion blur. If the subject it stationary then use something to support it.


----------



## japhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I'll gladly pay more for IS and what does the wide aperture have to do with it? Do you think a wide-aperture lens is only for wide aperture shooting? I for one shoot pretty much always static subjects, so IS gives me the ability to stop down for DOF or shoot in low light, so yeah, I think IS is great.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 7, 2012)

japhoto said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Static = iso100 + tripod


----------



## japhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> japhoto said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Yeah, ideally it is, but depending on the situation I don't necessarily even have my tripod with me, so IS gives me a way to deal with those situations. And also when I'm hiking and not primarily photographing it's a great advantage.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 7, 2012)

Not another "IS" vs "I don't need no freakin IS" war, puhlease.


----------



## japhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

Etienne said:


> Not another "IS" vs "I don't need no freakin IS" war, puhlease.



I agree and this isn't the first time briansquibb and I have bumped heads over this matter, so I'll leave and going to get some shuteye.

But regarding the matter I think it's great that there are even rumors of Canon re-working the 50mm lineup, with IS or not.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 7, 2012)

japhoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Not another "IS" vs "I don't need no freakin IS" war, puhlease.
> ...



We aren't bumping heads - we just have different opinions on the matter 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Etienne (Jul 7, 2012)

japhoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Not another "IS" vs "I don't need no freakin IS" war, puhlease.
> ...



Agreed. I'd like a lightweight AF 50mm that's sharp wide open!


----------



## unfocused (Jul 7, 2012)

Remember the vast majority of cameras Canon now sells are APS-C, so 50mm is the new 80mm and IS is definitely helpful under some situations at that focal length.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 7, 2012)

1.4 or faster, don't need IS....smaller + sharper wide open is a PLUS.

Can't wait...


----------



## infared (Jul 7, 2012)

"This is good news since none of the present lenses are worthy of my money.
-50 1.8 = a toy lens, too few aperture blades
-50 1.4 = more expensive toy lens, prone to breaking (also had one and didn't like it)
-50 1.2 = expensive and with problems like focus shift
-Sigma 50 1.4 = could be good if by some miracle one could find a decent specimen
If I'm not missing anything, these are the autofocusing lenses for Canon at the moment. So after that short listing I welcome new additions to the lineup (and IS of course, it's a life-saver for me).
[/quote]"


I have the Sigma..(and TRUST me..I am not a Sigma Corp. fan...I have all L glass and a Zeiss for my 5DMarkIII)...but based on the LAME Canon 50mm offering...I went for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (and yeah....all those other letters they had to attach to the name?). I have to say...my Sigma lens is quite excellent ...I have never had a complaint using it unless it was photographer error (Me. LOL!). And I agree with the other posts..an f/1.8 DOES NOT replace an f/1.4? DUH. Even if a Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS gets made, I am keeping my Sigma and skipping that one along with all of Canon's 50mm offerings. Shameful situation...Canon.
...but hey whatever...Would not be surprised to see a lens like that coming down the pike for the new Canon Mirrorless (a camera I will never own...I will stick with my kick-ass MFT system for a micro system when I am not using a FF camera. The WHOLE point of having a mirrorless camera is to make it SMALLER. Did you hear that Canon?). 
Hold the mirrorless manufacturing line and send us a couple of 24-70mm f/2.8 II's. That would suit my needs just fine!!! LOL!!!!


----------



## preppyak (Jul 7, 2012)

The reason this intrigues me is because it could show a major divergence for future lenses for Canon, which would be different than the Nikon path. Nikon has basically no primes with IS (only their 85 macro and >200mm lenses), and I think only one zoom with VR in the f/2.8 range. Their most recent lenses are f/1.8.

Canon on the other hand just released two lenses that are a whole stop slower than their predecessors but add IS. This too would be nearly a stop slower and add IS. The pancake 40mm doesn't have IS, but that seems to be a size thing. If Canon is gonna keep targeting the video market, that might show the path for their future lens updates, making them slower but adding IS. F/1.8 is plenty shallow for most video work, and the IS can be indispensable. But for photo-first people, it'd probably be frustrating to see IS in everything...especially if Nikon is taking the other path


----------



## foobar (Jul 7, 2012)

I also got the Sigma a while ago for the exact reasons stated above: None of Canon's 50mm offerings was really compelling.

I have to say: Overall, the Sigma is a great lens but it too has downsides:
- It's big and heavy for a 50mm f/1.4 – therefore it's not a lens I take with me all the time
- You get to play the infamous Sigma autofocus lottery: Had to send in my copy twice until they got it right – it's okay now but still not as reliable as my Canon lenses in that regard

One of the strongest points of this lens is the way it renders bokeh - just looks fantastic.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 7, 2012)

foobar said:


> - You get to play the infamous Sigma autofocus lottery: Had to send in my copy twice until they got it right – it's okay now but still not as reliable as my Canon lenses in that regard



Please remind me - what is that lottery about: front/backfocussing, unreliable or uprecise af? I'd like to know because if I'd get a 50mm, it'd be the Sigma.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jul 7, 2012)

I don't care what Canon comes up with.. 1.8 IS, new 1.4…
Whatever, as long as it is better than the current 1.4 version i'm happy…and hopefully not that expensive.
BUT i do hope it's not going to be STM…nothing beats USM..i'll gladly pay more for USM


----------



## candyman (Jul 7, 2012)

infared said:


> .......but based on the LAME Canon 50mm offering...I went for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (and yeah....all those other letters they had to attach to the name?). I have to say...my Sigma lens is quite excellent ...I have never had a complaint using it unless it was photographer error (Me. LOL!). ...........................




+1
Great bokeh, handles well on my 7D + BG


----------



## infared (Jul 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> foobar said:
> 
> 
> > - You get to play the infamous Sigma autofocus lottery: Had to send in my copy twice until they got it right – it's okay now but still not as reliable as my Canon lenses in that regard
> ...



Marsu...check this link about the Sigma 50mm....scroll to the bottom and read "Rogers Take". that about sums it up...but my lens seems to work just fine. http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/sigma-50mm-f1.4-hsm-for-canon


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 7, 2012)

Well, as f/2.8 is the NEW f/1.8, we should consider ourselves lucky to get a new f/1.157 and a price tag to rival the old f/1.2


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 7, 2012)

infared said:


> Marsu...check this link about the Sigma 50mm....scroll to the bottom and read "Rogers Take". that about sums it up...but my lens seems to work just fine.



Thanks for the link - when did you buy the Sigma? Often these issues seem to be silently fixed by manufacturers, including Canon (like the not very durable on the first 17-55 lenses).


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 7, 2012)

As long as they keep the price low, even $200 or so like the forty shorty, this could be good to have in the lineup. Don't get rid of the current 50 1.8! It's such a great price for people just getting started to get a fairly fast prime at a good focal length.


----------



## foobar (Jul 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Please remind me - what is that lottery about: front/backfocussing, unreliable or uprecise af? I'd like to know because if I'd get a 50mm, it'd be the Sigma.


Mine had front/backfocus issues, which are now fixed.
I also have a 30mm which was spot on right from the start.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 7, 2012)

My take on the new crop of small Canon primes is that most of us wanted true Ring USM in the 24/28/35/50. What we're getting is stopped down apertures with IS and a HUGE price increase. Does it seem as though Canon is not listening or are the complainers not embracing the vision? Does the addition of IS outweigh the f stop? The blades are better in the newer versions so the bokeh is sweeter but do they seem suited mainly for video (IS/STM) and thus the complaints come from the stills crowd? 

I'd like a new 50 as well. I'd like it 1.8 or faster, true ring USM and a bit more solidly built than the 1.4. I'm not asking for IS so if that's what's driving these primes past 700 than I guess I'll keep waiting.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 7, 2012)

I bought the 50L and that's it, found my 50mm of choice. Never looked back.


----------



## samueljay (Jul 7, 2012)

japhoto said:


> > There’s no doubt in my mind Canon is working on a couple of new 50mm lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You missed the Canon EF 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5, I don't know anything about it though, having never used it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 7, 2012)

samueljay said:


> You missed the Canon EF 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5, I don't know anything about it though, having never used it.



It's discontinued and now rests in well-earned obscurity as outdated tech. Though it is very sharp and rivals or is better than the 50/1.4, it has the horrible 80's-style af motor and is superseded by the ef-s 60 & ef 100 macros with longer working distance.


----------



## markd61 (Jul 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> It's discontinued and now rests in well-earned obscurity as outdated tech. Though it is very sharp and rivals or is better than the 50/1.4, it has the horrible 80's-style af motor and is superseded by the ef-s 60 & ef 100 macros with longer working distance.



Possibly a hint that one of the new 50s maybe a macro that can command a premium price.

The 40 was a very intriguing product for me in that the build quality is up, IQ is excellent and the price a bargain. This last thing being the most puzzling as Canon have been exuberantly pushing up the price of their latest lenses. What that means for the new 50s is open to conjecture( as we have seen here).

The 50 1.8 has always been a bargain lens with great quality but build that falls short of other lenses in the lineup. A new 50 f2.0 with IS and stellar IQ, USM, IS and the build of the 40 would likely have a price in the neighborhood of $800 if the new wides are any guide.


----------



## infared (Jul 7, 2012)

Thanks for the link - when did you buy the Sigma? Often these issues seem to be silently fixed by manufacturers, including Canon (like the not very durable on the first 17-55 lenses).
[/quote]


Bought mine a little over a year ago...The lens is always surprisingly sharp...The only BAD thing about the lens is the UGLY mirrored gold band ...Just makes the lens look soooo cheap. so......I got some cool pin-striping tape and covered mine up. I couldn't stand to look at it! LOL!


----------



## RC (Jul 8, 2012)

Interested if:

- 1.4 not 1.8
- USM ring
- round aperture 
- sharp wide open
- IS (sure why not)
- great build quality, weather sealed (new 1.4 50L? not likely)
- reasonable price

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.


----------



## infared (Jul 8, 2012)

RC said:


> Interested if:
> 
> - 1.4 not 1.8
> - USM ring
> ...



Here, HERE!


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 8, 2012)

RC said:


> Interested if:
> 
> - 1.4 not 1.8
> - USM ring
> ...



LOL! Canon might be able to do all the above except the last one!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 8, 2012)

RC said:


> Interested if:
> 
> - 1.4 not 1.8
> - USM ring
> ...



If Canon makes a lens with the first four items + reasonable price, I'm buying.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 8, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> As long as they keep the price low, even $200 or so like the forty shorty, this could be good to have in the lineup. Don't get rid of the current 50 1.8! It's such a great price for people just getting started to get a fairly fast prime at a good focal length.


If this is considered a replacement for the 50mm f/1.4 (as the post states), you won't see the retail price cheaper than $399. More likely it'll be $500+. If this is a replacement for the 50mm f/1.8, then you might get lucky and see $249 or $299. But, then why would anyone buy the 40mm pancake, when you could gain f/1.8 and IS for $50?

So yeah, I'd say $399 is the low price, more likely to see $599.


----------



## samueljay (Jul 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> samueljay said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the Canon EF 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5, I don't know anything about it though, having never used it.
> ...


Sorry about that, my bad, it was still listed on the Canon Australia site in lenses, and still for sale on the web stores for Teds and Digital Rev.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 8, 2012)

samueljay said:


> samueljay said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the Canon EF 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5, I don't know anything about it though, having never used it.
> ...



If a product is discontinued by the manufacturer, it doesn't mean retailers throw it away or it disappears into thin air  ... but unlike the 24-70mk1, the 50mm macro still being available tells something about customers' demand for it.


----------



## garyfisher (Jul 8, 2012)

infared said:


> RC said:
> 
> 
> > Interested if:
> ...


----------



## Gcon (Jul 8, 2012)

For the love of Henri Cartier-Bresson Canon - bring out a decent 50mm already!

I'm waiting for an improved 50mm f/1.2L from Canon - and then I might make the jump. I've got the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - shits me to tears (dodgy focus and micro USM just seems nasty). 

Anyways - waiting for the 24-70mm f/2.8L II more than anything. It's not like I need the 50mm f/1.2L with the 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L in the bag, and Canon's high-ISO improving with the latest bodies.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 8, 2012)

Gcon said:


> I'm waiting for an improved 50mm f/1.2L from Canon - and then I might make the jump. I've got the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - shits me to tears (dodgy focus and micro USM just seems nasty).



I'm rather sure Canon won't just update the current 50/1.2 to a new version just for the iq, the lens is not that old and replacing it would be like a public admission of failure.

When they replace something, it seems to be either older designs (24-70mk1, now maybe 50/1.4 and 35/1.4) or they add or upgrade actual features like IS (70-200) or add sealing (24/1.4, maybe 35/1.4) or af motor (maybe 50/1.4). On L zooms, they obviously change focal lengths a bit to avoid a direct 1:1 upgrade. But I may be wrong, since I don't have the entire Canon history in mind.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

I must be lucky - 50 f/1.4 has accurate AF and I dont care about the noise.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

I dont think anyone is saying the IS is no use. I have many lens that I use IS with - no problem

Just that IS will have no benefit for wa lens when the subject is moving and you are not panning - IS does not stop motion blur.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I dont think anyone is saying the IS is no use.



It is no use if it isn't used: In that case, it's a part that you pay for and - worse - that can be broken by moisture or impacts even if lying dormant.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 8, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think anyone is saying the IS is no use. I have many lens that I use IS with - no problem
> ...


Well said. If you are a tourist and you would appreciate the IS with ANY focal length, especially wide angle lenses. As a tourist, you need to travel light. so tripod ids out of the question. Even you have it, you might not be able to bring it into the museum, churches, temples, castles, temples etc. fro interior shorts, you will nned the wide angle, most almost all of these building are pretty dim inside. You will need fast lense high ISO nad SLOW shutter speed. IS will give you 3 to 4 stops extra. That is a BIG help. As for the extra cost, It is a can of worm. a simple question: If Canon can put a decent IS on $120 Kit lenses 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, why ALL the new lenses (EF and L) that have added IS are $400 to $800 more than the old lenses??


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 8, 2012)

Rocky said:


> As for the extra cost, It is a can of worm. a simple question: If Canon can put a decent IS on $120 Kit lenses 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, why ALL the new lenses (EF and L) that have added IS are $400 to $800 more than the old lenses??



Canon did not only improve the IS on most updated lenses, but the iq in general. But I'm not sure about the IS versions: is the IS on the 18-55 the same type as on my 70-300L? If not, there is bound to be a price difference, even if I'm usually the first one to state that Canon's current price policy is bordering on greedy.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 8, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 1.4 or faster, don't need IS....smaller + sharper wide open is a PLUS.
> ...



I don't think IS would be much benefit if you shoot above 1/60 indoor. I would rather have FASTER PRIME than, slower with IS.


----------



## priyadi (Jul 8, 2012)

I don't think it makes sense business wise for Canon to have three 50mm lenses covering f/1.2 to f/1.8. I think the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is the replacement for 50mm f/1.8 and this rumored 50mm f/1.8 IS would be the replacement for 50mm f/1.4. And the 50mm f/1.2L is still the king of 50mm. This way they also avoid competing directly against Nikon offerings.

Personally, I'd love something like Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-planar, but with AF and IS. Perfect for available light food photography. If this rumored 50mm f/1.8 IS has at least 1:2 magnification, then I'm all for it!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 8, 2012)

I have been considering snagging me a 1.4 50mm, so, this to me kind of means i might want to buy it sooner than later. Like many here, I'd much rather have the 1.4 remain a 1.4. There already is a 1.8, if there is to be a new 1.8 upgrade, then just upgrade the 1.8, then give us a real new 1.4. 

And yeah, like many others here, I'd much rather have improved optics, and more reliable AF over IS. The 50 1.4 is so light already that I really don't the need or desire for IS. 

So it goes, the current 1.4 is $400, which is pretty reasonable for a little lens with good IQ for the price. Upgrade it with IS even with a reduction in aperture - that sweet affordability goes away! Have fun, cause add IS and it will become a $600-800 lens. With the way canon is pricing all their upgrades, without IS the 1.4 would still go up in price I bet, but probably to a more reasonable $550. My bet though is with IS added it will lurk around the same price as the other new primes. Have fun with that!

I know its a little off topic, but, I find it interesting how many of you are willing to shell out more $$$$ for IS on lenses below 100MM in focal length, but also balk at the cost of the 5dmk3 and say its not worth it, marginal upgrade, no DR...etc etc etc. Just saying...


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I know its a little off topic, but, I find it interesting how many of you are willing to shell out more $$$$ for IS on lenses below 100MM in focal length, but also balk at the cost of the 5dmk3 and say its not worth it, marginal upgrade, no DR...etc etc etc. Just saying...



Interesting point that is to the point.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 8, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I know its a little off topic, but, I find it interesting how many of you are willing to shell out more $$$$ for IS on lenses below 100MM in focal length, but also balk at the cost of the 5dmk3 and say its not worth it, marginal upgrade, no DR...etc etc etc. Just saying...



My observation is that reactions were not very enthusiastic about the new 24mm & 28mm IS versions considering the price!

As for more $$$ in general: Simple, lenses keep their value longer than camera bodies - esp. with the 5d3, which is of course an excellent camera, but bound to be replaced sooner or later with an upgraded sensor considering the market pressure and the fact that Canon is able to do better (like on the 1dx).


----------



## priyadi (Jul 8, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I know its a little off topic, but, I find it interesting how many of you are willing to shell out more $$$$ for IS on lenses below 100MM in focal length, but also balk at the cost of the 5dmk3 and say its not worth it, marginal upgrade, no DR...etc etc etc. Just saying...



different stroke for different folks!

sometimes I find my 24-105 much more useful than my 24mm f/1.4 despite 3 stop disadvantage, because with the 24mm I would need to stop down anyway.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 8, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I know its a little off topic, but, I find it interesting how many of you are willing to shell out more $$$$ for IS on lenses below 100MM in focal length, but also balk at the cost of the 5dmk3 and say its not worth it, marginal upgrade, no DR...etc etc etc. Just saying...
> ...



If your referring to the d800, then have fun spending all that you saved buying that body on more CF cards, cause unless you shoot in crop mode the files are huge. 

Comparing the d800 to the mk3 is kind of like comparing a UWA lens to a super telephoto ---they are only comparable in price, not in usage. If i did the kind of work that required that kind of file size then the d800 would be my choice. But as a wedding/event/portrait shooter, I'd have to invest in a lot of memory to make things work with 60-80mb files. Or, do as other nikon shooters I know are doing (many of them not too happy about having to do it either) - and that is this --- they go to a wedding and shoot with their d or d700 90% of the time, and use the d800 for a few key shots (or not at all). 

Back to the point. If your used to using IS, then I guess I can get the desire/want/need for it. But if you are used to shooting without it, then its kind of like fluff that you don't need. I am shooting with a 24-70 (no IS) and a 70-200 (no IS). And I am perfectly fine with that - with one exception ---mounted to my 7d I wouldn't mind IS on the long end of the 70-200 (basically between 150-200). I have held the 70-200 with IS though, and it is much heavier than the non IS version. Honestly, to me at least the benefit isn't that huge considering the weight (IE, the NEED for IS on the IS version is greater because the extra weight makes it much harder to steady it). 

Back to the 50mm...I personally feel that there is absolutely no need for IS on it. If i am shooting on any lens, on a shoot which requires the quality of ISO 100 ---and need to be in the f8-16 range I am either using off cam lighting (so my SS is between 1/100-1/200th, or, not shooting people which means i am mounting to tripod and quite probably bracketing my shots too. 

And on another level ---- I always go with murphey's Law in terms of what I bring with me ---If i bring it, i may not need or use it, but if i don't, you can count on a scenario arrising that you do absolutely need it!!!! My tripod is always in my trunk for just that reason. And on the rare times I don't, I find other ways to steady the cam (a fence pole, a flash, etc etc etc....


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Just that IS will have no benefit for wa lens when the subject is moving and you are not panning - IS does not stop motion blur.



There are plenty of pros and cons for IS, and usually IS is by far more useful for longer focal lengths. But to say that IS has _no_ benefit for wide angles is too strong of a statement. Apart from slowly moving scenes (with no accessible tripod), sometimes subject motion blur is actually desired. Think, e.g., flowing water or other situations when motion is to be emphasizied by motion blur. Quite effective but requires a very steady hand, tripod, or IS. Whether this is important enough for you to deal with the cons of IS is another and more subjective matter.


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 8, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> If your referring to the d800, then have fun spending all that you saved buying that body on more CF cards, cause unless you shoot in crop mode the files are huge.


In addition to the Murphy's law you are referring to, you should learn about Moore's law. CPUs, GPUs, hard drives, RAM and about anything computer related including CF cards, tend to double their performance every 18 months. This stands in stark contrast to the Mpix of camera sensors, which increase _much more slowly_. You can get fast 64 GB CF cards for $150 today. That's more than a 1000 raw files for the d800. File sizes today is a *non issue*.


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 8, 2012)

hjulenissen said:


> Speculation:
> It might be cheaper to put IS into a medium-quality, small aperture kit-lense, than a 70-200 f/2.8 L-lense. Stricter requirements, heavier glass to move.


That's true for sure. In particular, large apertures seem especially difficult. That's the reason there are no fast primes with IS, the fastest being the immensely expensive EF 200/2.0L (AFAIK).


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 8, 2012)

epsiloneri said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > If your referring to the d800, then have fun spending all that you saved buying that body on more CF cards, cause unless you shoot in crop mode the files are huge.
> ...



If thats your attitude then the $500 price difference shouldn't matter either then. 64 gig cards for $150 --- what is the speed of that card. Quantify that in time ---How much time will it take to transfer 1500 d800 files as opposed to mk3 files? then add in harddrive costs. Yeah, a 2TB drive will run you about $130. But, if you need 2 64 GB cards to do a wedding, how long will that 2 TB last, then your off to buy new drives at a faster pace. Then you get into work flow, and the CPU power needed to work with d800 files.... the one feature that the d800 does not have that is a deal breaker for me is there is no sRAW and mRaw options for files - just crop modes. So if I am doing candid shots at a wedding, the kind of shots no one will want larger than 5x7 print of, I either have to use stupid crop mode or end up with a giant billboard sized file....sorry, that ain't for me.

Back to the point though, and that point is cost - if you don't mind spening at least $400 on CF cards and harddrives then by all means buy the d800, I am not stopping you at all. Just realize that the cost difference between the 2 does go away when you add the other needs you face with a d800...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 8, 2012)

back to the overall point of this whole discussion ----- if one of the reasons you want a fast prime is tyo have the fast prime - IE if you want f1.4, then a 1.8 isn't what you want and I don't think the trade off for IS is a fair trade off...


epsiloneri said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Just that IS will have no benefit for wa lens when the subject is moving and you are not panning - IS does not stop motion blur.
> ...



For water and blur, I tend to go with ND filters and f22 - depending on time of day I will go with 1-20 second exposures.... IS ain't gonna help there.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

LENS SPEED >>> IMAGE STABILIZATION in 50mms anyway. 8)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30



My D30 cannot accept cards larger than 4gb 8) Awww, Yeah!


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30
> ...



You are right - 16gb card, formatted to 2gb


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



4gb gets me like 3000 Raw's. I could shoot to eternity on 16GB's ;D ;D ;D


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 8, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> If thats your attitude then the $500 price difference shouldn't matter either then.


My attitude is that computer power (however you want to measure it) is growing *quicker* than sensor megapixels, and therefore any complaints you have with sensors producing too big files should go a way at a similar rate. Yes, of course, you can always save money by sticking to yesterday's tech, and that may be the best thing to do in many cases. 

Compare the top-of-the-line harddrive of today (4 TB) with the top-of-the-line at the time when the 5D2 was announced (750GB). If you had no problems in fitting your 5D2 images onto the harddrive then, you should have even less problems in fitting the D800 images onto your hardrive today. Same goes for processing speed etc. Of course, you can do even better by using an even fewer-Mpix sensor on a current computer, but that's a rather trivial and non-interesting argument.



briansquibb said:


> You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30


Exactly 

About the CF card, I was thinking about a card I recently purchased, a 400x Transcend 64GB (now $126 at BH). The reason I got a 5D3 instead of a D800 had nothing to do with the number of Mpix.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I wonder which body gives the most images on a CF card.

The new 64gb cards are on high mps bodies, so I wonder if a 16Gb on a low mps body would give more?

2gb format = FAT classic ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Thats FATastic brian. 8) D30 FTW!


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 8, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> For water and blur, I tend to go with ND filters and f22 - depending on time of day I will go with 1-20 second exposures.... IS ain't gonna help there.


Of course there are plenty of situations where IS is not going to help, that's obviously true. If those are the only situations you shoot in, then IS is obviously useless _for you_. About flowing water, it depends on the angular velocity of the water with respect to the camera; e.g. close to a waterfall you can get a lot of motion blur in a small fraction of a second, while you would probably prefer 10s of seconds for braking waves lit by the moon at some distance.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 8, 2012)

epsiloneri said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > If thats your attitude then the $500 price difference shouldn't matter either then.
> ...





sigh...i think your missing the point ... MY point was about price and cost. But of course, the $500 diffference between the d800 and mk3 is huge, but hey, lets just drop tons of money on all the periphery stuff...sure, $150 here, $150 there, and another $150 there.... and yeah...ad at least $150 to the cost of this new 50mm lens ---more realistically, add closer to $300 just for the IS, if the IQ is improved too, then the once affordable 1.4 goes becomes an $800 lens. I'd rather just have better AF and IQ and spend $500-600 on it....

And my bigger overall point is about what is supposedly a worthwhile price difference ---and I just find it funny that many have no problems paying a lot more for IS on a lens that doesn't need it I ($400 currently, vs probably $800 is the new wide primes are anything to base a price idea on), vs all the whiners about how the mk3 costs more than the d800. If the new 1.8 IS is $400 more than the old version, how can you complain about $500 difference in the cost of a body??????


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 8, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> sigh...i think your missing the point ...


Yes, sorry, I now realise I missed your point. You mean that peripheral equipment becomes more expensive for the D800, than the 5D3, to the point of eradicating the $500 price difference advantage. I think you would have to be a _very_ heavy shooter for that to be true, and for most people the cheapest current computer with a couple of external 2 TB drives would be plenty for both configurations. 

Cheap hard drives are currently around 5 cents/GB. A D800 requires 63% more space than 5D3. Translating the $500 price difference into pure hard drive space, you would have to shoot (and store) a total of 500000 raw images before the difference in harddrive space requirements between the 5D3 and D800 became worth $500. If you include backup space, that becomes 250000 images. That's a lot of raw images. If you shoot that much, $500 is likely a negligible expense. Using a $150 CF card for the D800 instead of a $100 for the 5D3 is not going to change this conclusion.

Your other point seem to be that it is inconsistent to first complain about expensive bodies and then praise expensive lenses. You may be right, but are you sure those are the same posters?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 8, 2012)

epsiloneri said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > sigh...i think your missing the point ...
> ...



Praising expensive lenses???? Not quite sure where you got that from? If I was that guy I would have shelled out the extra dough for the IS version of the 70-200 2.8. Do I appreciate L glass? Hells yeah I do? Do I want to spend a $3-500 more for a prime lens that takes in less light but has IS? No, thats a feature I can personally do without. I'd much rather keep it at 1.4, with better optics and better AF and no IS. Make it like the 70-200 line where you have the option of both and that would be the best of both worlds. I'm not at all praising expensive lenses!!!!! We are talking about adding IS to a to a lense which used to be a 1.4 and now making it a 1.8 ----Sorry, I don't want to pay $800 for that (Look at the lineup...the earlier 24mm 2.8 - $359 - on the new IS version $849. And the old 28mm 2.8 runs at $259- the IS version runs at $799. Based on that ---if the 50mm 1.4 was priced at $369, add IS and its easily set to hit the street at $750-850. At that point I start thinking about the 50mm 1.2L.... $369 vs $1600...I am probably opting for the 1.4...but, if the 1.4 becomes a 1.8 with IS and is priced at $800...well then the 1.2 starts looking to be the one for me (find it used for $12-1300, even better!!!)

Long and short of it is....I have been pondering picking up a 1.4, and this news makes me say I should do it soon before they make the 1.4 a 1.8 with features I don't need. 

And as to the memory ---I did preface that by saying I am an event and wedding shooter ---that means I shoot a lot - so yes...I am a _very_ heavy shooter as you say. That makes the memory issue a big thing for me, as well as the time in post. I personally dislike the idea of using 64 gig cards (thats too many eggs in one basket for me). I use 8 and 16 gig cards. I also try to go for 400x or higher. And I find sRAW file sizes to be perfectly fine for most applications. if I know I am shooting just for the web, or simple candid's which for weddings I do a lot of candid shots which don't require the flexibility of full sized RAW for post work, and print just fine up to 16x24, even 20x30 in a pinch. For the important shots, I switch to full RAW ---and thats mostly because there is more flexibility if post. For portrait sessions, its RAW all the way. But then again, for a portrait shoot I'm not taking 2,000 or more shots.


----------



## japhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I know its a little off topic, but, I find it interesting how many of you are willing to shell out more $$$$ for IS on lenses below 100MM in focal length, but also balk at the cost of the 5dmk3 and say its not worth it, marginal upgrade, no DR...etc etc etc. Just saying...
> ...



I think the usefulness of these lenses is a bigger issue than the added cost for IS. What I mean by that is both of these are f/2.8 lenses and the focal lengths are more often than not covered already. They just aren't interesting as they are primes but not fast aperture. I'd be interested if it were for example a 24mm 1.4 L IS.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 9, 2012)

oh my god if this is true i'm gonna be all over this like a fat chick on a smarty


----------



## Stuart (Jul 9, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Remember the vast majority of cameras Canon now sells are APS-C, so 50mm is the new 80mm and IS is definitely helpful under some situations at that focal length.


*And if a smaller sensor is in a future mirrorless camera then that 80mm could be 105mm?? *
Canon have only recently been building lenses for video and mirrorless that also fit on EF mounts.


----------



## robbinzo (Jul 9, 2012)

Personally I think Canon are hedging and going for the video market as well as fast prime market with this lens. Are Canon trying to put some daylight between the f/1.2 L lens and the next 50 mm prime in the line up? So now you will have the choice of plastic toy f/1.8, solidly built IS f/1.8 or f/1.2 bokeh porn.
But then if this f/1.8 IS lens turns out to be similar in price to the 24 & 28 mm IS models, the f/1.2 L starts to be less of a jump in price and you can end up justifying that cost to yourself all too quickly.

I agree with other comments that f/1.8 is not a replacement for f/1.4 and I also think that it's creeping towards the slower end of "fast."
I like the current f/1.4 50 mm lens. I think that it is in need of a refresh but a lot of us like the fact that it is light, relatively cheap and has the f/1.4 aperture. 

This lens doesn't immediately appeal to me.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 9, 2012)

With current Canon cameras (up to the 7D at least), reports put the fastest aperture that increases light to the sensor at f/2. If you shoot at f/1.4, the ISO is "invisibly" bumped (it still reports as say ISO 100 but the files are noisier than they should be). For a f/1.4 lens, this will effectively limit you to say ISO 200 if you wish to stick with "whole" (un-pushed, un-pulled) ISOs. For the f/1.8 lens, that's a third of a stop and might prove more challenging to get a "whole" ISO out of. Stopping down to f/2 is possible but I couldn't guess how good the OOF highlights will still be.

I'd much rather see another f/1.4 lens to replace the 50mm. This cost cutting nonsense is not helpful. Still, IS and STM or USM would be nice improvements.


----------



## markd61 (Jul 9, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> With current Canon cameras (up to the 7D at least), reports put the fastest aperture that increases light to the sensor at f/2. If you shoot at f/1.4, the ISO is "invisibly" bumped (it still reports as say ISO 100 but the files are noisier than they should be).



I'm sorry but this is simply not true in any way shape or form. The f stop is a ratio that describes the light transmission (I know T-stops are the real deal but we are working in the vernacular here) of the lens. Saying that an f1.4 lens doesn't pass any more light than an f2 lens is nonsense. To suggest that a camera would "know" that an f1.4 lens or faster was mounted and would choose to "throw a way the extra light is also ludicrous.

Any increase in noise could very easily be attributed to the whack technique or conspiracy agenda employed by some fool and a blog.


----------



## facedodge (Jul 9, 2012)

I think most people are missing the point here. Canon is putting IS in all of these normal and wide angle lenses for video. (i.e. 24mm IS, 28mm Is...)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > LENS SPEED >>> IMAGE STABILIZATION in 50mms anyway. 8)
> ...



If your stopping down, Why are you using primes again? ???


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Nope, But it m00ts the biggest benefit of primes. SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED. 8)

Just use an F/4 Zoom then.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...











;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 10, 2012)

robbinzo said:


> ....Are Canon trying to put some daylight between the f/1.2 L lens and the next 50 mm prime in the line up? So now you will have the choice of plastic toy f/1.8, solidly built IS f/1.8 or f/1.2 bokeh porn.....
> 
> This lens doesn't immediately appeal to me.



I am in no super rush to go with a prime, and yeah, if the 1.4 becomes a 1.8 with IS and is priced like the other new IS primes (guessing it will land at around $850) then for sure the 1.2 starts looking a lot more worth it. If I go with a prime though....its part of a larger shift in gear. I am currently rocking the 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200. The 10-22...sigh, got it last year because my main body was a 7d. Now I have the mk3 and am kind of betting that the 7d may end up not getting much use. So the idea is to trade up on a few things...swap 10-22 for 16-35 (of course, not a fair even swap). Then maybe drop the 24-70 in favor of the 50mm prime. Well, that was the old plan, its funny how FF changes things because the 24-70 is like a new lens to me now...lol


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 10, 2012)

markd61 said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > With current Canon cameras (up to the 7D at least), reports put the fastest aperture that increases light to the sensor at f/2. If you shoot at f/1.4, the ISO is "invisibly" bumped (it still reports as say ISO 100 but the files are noisier than they should be).
> ...


Just so nobody is harmed by this breathtakingly assured response:

I must affirm that what I write is true. I can mention some useful resources for understanding related phenomena: Expose-to-the-right and the non-linear response curves of digital camera sensors; the most relevant information for persuading you is in this thread and especially here. In short, you, sir, are completely wrong.

If you would like to test it out, it is simple to see it in action:

Find a recent Canon camera, set ISO manually, and switch to A/v mode. Slap a lens faster than f/2.8 on it (I thought it was f/2; it might actually be wider, I'll have to look at this again). Shoot at f/2.8 and then shoot at the widest setting. You will notice that the image is noisier (and, depending on the lens used, there may be vignetting as well, but this is not the important effect to notice). By the theory, image brightness and noise should remain constant, since we are holding ISO constant, and exposure is simply light intensity * duration. But quite obviously that is not what happens; the image becomes noisier.

In truth, the manufacturer's declared ISO settings are not scientific measurements - the scientific measurements given by DxOMark show that for every camera (regardless of manufacturer) the ISO sensitivities are not linear or even very predictable compared to what they "should" be.

I do not consider mentioning this issue to be a burden to other users, since it's fairly easy to comprehend (I gather that it is due to the narrow angle of current photosites restricting the angles at which light is effectively gathered, but in any case the effect is clear).

Digital SLRs are not film cameras, and the final image brightness and grain is affected by much more than just the user's selected settings.

____________

To the gentle users of the forum in general, I will leave with this final thought - DSLR "best practice" can be confusing to master. The main thing to consider, if you want to have clean files, is to get as much information into the highlight section of your RAW by keeping the image bright without burning out highlights. The second thing, of course, is to use low ISOs when possible. Finally, there is a limit to how high you should crank ISOs in most Canon DSLRs; it is not necessary to get the image looking bright enough on the camera's preview screen, because that is not the final version of the image. Instead, you may brighten the image afterward to retain your settings and a reasonable ISO.

How do you find the point at which brightening in post is better than pumping the ISO (obviously, if you just shoot JPEGs or can't be bothered, don't worry, but your image quality won't be as good as possible)? Look at the sensorgen charts from the DxOMark data, specifically the point at which the "read noise" curve goes flat, no improvement (or even shoots upward). On the 7D, that point is ISO 800 or 1600. On the T1i, it was ISO 800.

How do you brighten the image? Not with DPP. Daniel Browning recommended RawTherapee last year; there is also The GIMP, Lightroom, or Darktable (a Lightroom replacement for Linux boxen).

It is worth mentioning that there are other losses at High ISO: Dynamic range and saturation capacity (I believe saturation capacity is essentially a measure of how even the image is, since it measures the number of pixels that reliably reflect a gray target, instead of appearing in the final image to be some other shade).

The culprit, as Daniel Browning mentions, and also Gregg Siam, is that the photosites of Canon DSLRs don't respond equally well to light coming in from unusual angles. In fact, slight purple and green fringing in some lenses has been blamed on this, as well.


----------



## pulsiv (Jul 10, 2012)

it seems as if we should get used to the fact that canon will not give its fans/customers what they want... but something close to that... and then some 1 or 2 years later the "real deal" may come... but in the meantime we bought something we didn't really want, just because its a tiny bit better than the "old" stuff. 

I'm dissapointed, if this 1.8 IS lens is becoming the replacement for the 1.4
there would be no benefits from that lens (and from my point of view).
I feel, an updated 50mm 1.4 with real USM and better built quality would find a lot of fans. 
(maybe canon feels, the "old" 1.4 was a too good bargain...)

but I guess thats what canon wants: if you need a faster lens, you will have to buy an L...


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jul 10, 2012)

I noticed NO ONE seems to have mentioned the best part about IS lenses: they also stabilize video extremely well. Even an optically-impossible F/0.6 isn't going to keep a sharp steady image when shooting video handheld at 50mm!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 10, 2012)

markd61 said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > With current Canon cameras (up to the 7D at least), reports put the fastest aperture that increases light to the sensor at f/2. If you shoot at f/1.4, the ISO is "invisibly" bumped (it still reports as say ISO 100 but the files are noisier than they should be).
> ...



Can't find the source at the moment, but the original claim was that the additional light coming through hits the sensor at such an oblique angle, that it doesn't go into the pixel wells.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 10, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> markd61 said:
> 
> 
> > Edwin Herdman said:
> ...


This explanation applies only to the corner and the edge of the sensor. Does not apply to the middle of the sensor. Therefore you can end up with a highly vignetted at the corners. Canon user with f 1.4 lens does not really complaining about serious vignetting. Therefore your reasoning is questionable.
M9 uses offset microlens progressively to take care of the vignetting problem due the the large incident angle at the corner of the frame (this is the nature of the M mount short lenses). Then M9 do a double take correction on camera to each specific lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 10, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> markd61 said:
> 
> 
> > Edwin Herdman said:
> ...



Crop sensors are less impacted by the vignetting as they get their light from the middle of the lens so the light path is less oblique


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 10, 2012)

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).


----------



## Etienne (Jul 10, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.
> 
> Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).



The center of the sensor does not see the large angle of incidence that is seen in the corners, and even the corners only see this large angle of incidence for perhaps 1/3 or less of the light. The center should be relatively unaffected even down to f 1.2.

Besides if that was the whole story then we would not see a big difference in bokeh between f 2.8 and f1.4. But we do. In fact there's a very noticeable difference in bokeh between f 1.8 and f 1.4.

This doesn't add up.


----------



## Wideopen (Jul 10, 2012)

Ill take one of these. IS does help me alot for night time street photography


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 11, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.
> 
> Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).



I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 11, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Can't find the source at the moment, but the original claim was that the additional light coming through hits the sensor at such an oblique angle, that it doesn't go into the pixel wells.
> ...



It's neither my reasoning nor complaint - I just recalled the web page the other participant based his complaint on.


----------



## Morsing (Jul 11, 2012)

> Quote from: Edwin Herdman on July 10, 2012, 06:42:28 PM
> We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.
> 
> Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).
> ...



I had never hear of this before, and was sceptical at first, however it does make sense. However, people are clearly overreacting. If you take the time to examine the graphs on the DxO-site, you will see, that by going from f4 to f2.8 on the 7D, you up the gain with about 0.04 eV thus gaining a total of 0.96 eV of light gathering ability instead of 1 eV as expected. This is marginal and of no consequence. Going from f2.8 to f2.0 up the gain by 0.05 eV gaining 0.95 eV in light gathering power, again very little effect. Going from f2.0 to f1.4 ups the gain with 0.25 eV thus gaining only 0.75 eV of light gathering instead of 1 eV. This is worse, but you still get a three fourths of 'what you pay for', not, as indicated, nothing. In going from f1.4 to f1.2 the gain is upped by 0.2 eV giving only 0.13 eV of light gathering power instead of the expected 0.33 (a third of a stop) so this is clearly getting worse.
In total, going from f4 to f1.2 (3.33 stops) you get about 0.6 eV of sensor gain and thus, only get 2.73 eV of light gathering instead of the full 3.33 eV.

Of course the manufactures are still 'cheating', but it is not like you get nothing from using faster glass, you just get (a little) less than you thought you would.

Hope this clears things up a bit

//Morsing


----------



## mememe (Jul 11, 2012)

I dont like that "We put IS in EVERYWHERE" thing...

Cause it makes them very expensive lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> I dont like that "We put IS in EVERYWHERE" thing... Cause it makes them very expensive lenses.



Like the 24-70ii :-o ?


----------



## markd61 (Jul 11, 2012)

I stand corrected. :-\


----------



## Robsenn (Jul 11, 2012)

In regards to the price moaning. Consider that you are comparing lenses that are brand new with lenses that are way over 10 years or older. They have already recouped their research and tooling costs and therefore cost has come down over time. 

At the time they came out they were the same price as the newly released lenses. 

I bet in ten years time the 24-70 II will cost about as much as the 24-70 I and everyone will start moaning about how much its successor is going to cost. I guess most of the forum goers here (me included) have started their interest in photography when the 24-70 was already an old dog and they have no reference points for brand new lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 11, 2012)

Robsenn said:


> I bet in ten years time the 24-70 II will cost about as much as the 24-70 I



I'm not so sure about that - quality optics (I suppose, the mk2 isn't reviewed yet )) like on the new Canon are damn expensive to produce, and this will stay this way even if other tech parts like IS (= not on the new 24-70) and r&d costs are left out of the equation.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 11, 2012)

Morsing said:


> I had never hear of this before, and was sceptical at first, however it does make sense. However, people are clearly overreacting. If you take the time to examine the graphs on the DxO-site, you will see, that by going from f4 to f2.8 on the 7D, you up the gain with about 0.04 eV thus gaining a total of 0.96 eV of light gathering ability instead of 1 eV as expected. This is marginal and of no consequence. Going from f2.8 to f2.0 up the gain by 0.05 eV gaining 0.95 eV in light gathering power, again very little effect. Going from f2.0 to f1.4 ups the gain with 0.25 eV thus gaining only 0.75 eV of light gathering instead of 1 eV. This is worse, but you still get a three fourths of 'what you pay for', not, as indicated, nothing. In going from f1.4 to f1.2 the gain is upped by 0.2 eV giving only 0.13 eV of light gathering power instead of the expected 0.33 (a third of a stop) so this is clearly getting worse.
> In total, going from f4 to f1.2 (3.33 stops) you get about 0.6 eV of sensor gain and thus, only get 2.73 eV of light gathering instead of the full 3.33 eV.
> 
> Of course the manufactures are still 'cheating', but it is not like you get nothing from using faster glass, you just get (a little) less than you thought you would.
> ...



I think the important thing that camera manufacturers do is to preserve the relationship between ISO, f-stop and shutter speed. Digital systems are not always linear over the entire operating range. If the gain has to be increased to preserve the photographic trades that we are familiar with, then it makes our lives easier. But it is good to know that shots wide open with fast lenses might have slightly more noise because of the boosted gain.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 11, 2012)

markd61 said:


> I stand corrected. :-\



Markd61, I hope you read this and decide to rejoin the forum. Discussions are useful and we learn from them and improve our craft. That's what the forum is for.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 11, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.
> ...



Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why????. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.


----------



## jweu (Jul 11, 2012)

It should have an aspherical lens for best image quality at aperutre at f/2.0.
Leica and Sigma are still using this feature.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 11, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Edwin Herdman said:
> ...



Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.


----------



## floex712 (Jul 11, 2012)

So far, I have not had any need for IS on my Nifty-Fifty. However, any upgrades are ALWAYS welcome, granted they work the way they were intended to do so. The only problems I have with this is;
1. 50mm f/1.8 IS, sounds like a replacement for the Nifty-Fifty, NOT the 50mm f/1.4, and
2. I agree with most of you on here, Canon will more than likely bump up the price significantly.

Now it is true that the Nifty-Fifty has too few aperture blades-which I don't mind as this has never been a problem for bokeh for me. If the 50mm f/1.8 IS included 7 or 8 blades, an upgrade in construction quality and the IS, then I wouldn't mind dishing out a reasonable amount, however, again, Canon would want $600 and not just the $300 - $400 you can currently purchase the 50mm f/1.4 for.

Those are my 2 cents.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 12, 2012)

Etienne said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


I was looking at the DXO chart and compare the 'lost light effect" between the APS-C and FF with the same pixel pitch. The APS-C is twice the lost of FF.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 12, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Ok. 

Yes I see that. The older APS-C sensors seem to perform worse. Might have to do with sensor design. Better microlenses? Different AA filter? There seems to be a lot of factors that affect the final measurement.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 15, 2012)

That 50mm f/1.8 has been very popular with APS-C users, and on an APSC sensor 50mm is relatively long and could greatly benefit from IS. So what if the price goes up? You get what you pay for.


----------



## blaydese (Jul 21, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> How do you brighten the image? Not with DPP. Daniel Browning recommended RawTherapee last year; there is also The GIMP, Lightroom, or Darktable (a Lightroom replacement for Linux boxen).



I'm going to give http://rawtherapee.com/ a try. I'll let you know how it comes out.

Peace! 8)


----------



## haring (Jul 24, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594"></glusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594"></a></div>
> <strong>A new 50?
> 
> 
> ...



I am not sure why Canon would build one. The 50mm 1.8 is fast enough and an awesome lens for low light photography. I use it a lot for weddings. No need for IS. I would rather have IS in my 24-70mm L lens. I use it too often for wedding parties and the IS would be awesome for the 24-70mm lens for sure!!!


----------



## Videoshooter (Jul 26, 2012)

I'd love to have IS for video in this lens. 

At the moment I'm about to upgrade to FF with a 5dmkII, one of the main reasons being that my 50mm 1.4 will be easier to handhold, which is sometimes a necessity at weddings when shooting the cake cutting or dancing at the end of the reception. I'll also be adding a 28mm 1.8 for even easier handholding in lowlight.


----------

