# A New 50mm Lens is Being Tested in the Wild [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 26, 2018)

```
We’re told that a new 50mm lens is currently being tested by a small number of select photographers. What we weren’t told was the speed of the lens or if it was an “L” lens or not.</p>
<p>There have been various rumors over the years about a new 50mm lens, and all we’ve seen so far is the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, which is a great lens in its own regard, but hasn’t exactly created a lot of excitement with the readers on this site.</p>
<p>There was also no mention of IS being present on the testing lens in question. If it did have IS, I think it’d be safe to assume it won’t be a new 50mm L lens.</p>
<p>We’re starting to get a few more mentions about a new 50mm lens, though we still don’t think we’ll be seeing one in 2018.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

helloooo, Ahsanford! 

maybe it's an EF-X 50/1.4 IS ... ;D


----------



## Talys (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> helloooo, Ahsanford!
> 
> maybe it's an EF-X 50/1.4 IS ... ;D



Or, EF-S hehehehehe ;D


----------



## psychilles (Jun 26, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>There was also no mention of IS being present on the testing lens in question. If it did have IS, I think it’d be safe to assume it won’t be a new 50mm L lens.</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>



Why not, the 85mm f1.4 IS is an L. Why wouldn't the 50 f1.4 be? oldest 50mm in the lineup.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jun 26, 2018)

I guess it's time to upgrade my 50mm. 



Canon 50mm f:1.2 lens by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 26, 2018)

psychilles said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>There was also no mention of IS being present on the testing lens in question. If it did have IS, I think it’d be safe to assume it won’t be a new 50mm L lens.</p>
> ...



+1. I suppose they could use the same IS unit in a 50 f1.2 as in the 85L 1.4 IS. IS in a 50L would boost the demand, that is for sure.


----------



## SV (Jun 26, 2018)

I think ahsanford fell off his chair...


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 26, 2018)

I'd love any 1.2 that focuses accurately, IS or not. IS would be a bonus.


----------



## slclick (Jun 26, 2018)

Look, once it does land Adam better have a gallery showing and invite all of us... we've been very patient and cannot wait to see what amazing images he can capture with this remarkable focal length.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 26, 2018)

such a cruel world.. CR is literally killing mr ashanford slowly slowly slowly.. #savage


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 26, 2018)

I'll bet it's the 50mm f/1.4L IS USM.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 26, 2018)

It’s probably a 50mm 2.0 IS
Canon users would have no wants left if they produced a 50 1.2 IS


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 26, 2018)

1) In general, to this news: Um... _Cool?_ I'll keep my feet on the ground until we start to see announcements pending and specifics and what not. Remember, if it's some huge (bag space) pickle jar, I'm less interested. 

2) I'm honestly considering just buying a 50L because I'm tired of waiting and at least _that_ has ring USM and a relatively small footprint, finnicky AF and cottonball corners be damned. (I still think the old 50 f/1.4 USM is better overall, but I just can't reliably use it wider than f/2, and sometimes I want to shoot wider than f/2.)

3) "There was also no mention of IS being present on the testing lens in question. If it did have IS, I think it’d be safe to assume it won’t be a new 50mm L lens." ---> Please expound upon that. The 85 f/1.4L IS implies that you can have fast _and_ stabilized. Why not do the same with a new 50L? (Full disclaimer, I'd adore non-L 50 IS as it likely would be smaller than a same speed L, but I'm just arguing the point: IS primes can be L primes.)

- A


----------



## littleB (Jun 26, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> It’s probably a 50mm 2.0 IS
> Canon users would have no wants left if they produced a 50 1.2 IS


Canon users = no wants left, Canon whiners will always have DR or some battery gauge or something more insane to crap on the forum.


----------



## Talys (Jun 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 2) I'm honestly considering just buying a 50L because I'm tired of waiting and at least _that_ has ring USM and a relatively small footprint, finnicky AF and cottonball corners be damned. (I still think the old 50 f/1.4 USM is better overall, but I just can't reliably use it wider than f/2, and sometimes I want to shoot wider than f/2.)




Please do!


Canon is waiting for this to happen to release their 1.4IS


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 26, 2018)

Ha ha! Apparently, all it took was me buying the Samyang 50 1.2, for Canon to start field-testing a new 50mm. BTW, I do like the Samyang, so far - very sharp wide open and very nice throw and damping of the focus ring. And it will be hard to misplace!


----------



## melgross (Jun 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) In general, to this news: Um... _Cool?_ I'll keep my feet on the ground until we start to see announcements pending and specifics and what not. Remember, if it's some huge (bag space) pickle jar, I'm less interested.
> 
> 2) I'm honestly considering just buying a 50L because I'm tired of waiting and at least _that_ has ring USM and a relatively small footprint, finnicky AF and cottonball corners be damned. (I still think the old 50 f/1.4 USM is better overall, but I just can't reliably use it wider than f/2, and sometimes I want to shoot wider than f/2.)
> 
> ...



I agree. I don’t see why a 50 L would be would be exclusionary to IS. The only reason why I can think Canon wouldn’t do it is because of the size/weight addition.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 26, 2018)

So would anybody notice a NON L lens being tested out in the wild?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> So would anybody notice a NON L lens being tested out in the wild?



Probably not -- unless it had some exotic form factor, really large lens barrel, unique hood, etc.

Most likely it would look something like this (below) and likely easily be mistaken for a 35 f/2 IS, which is what I made this picture from.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 26, 2018)

We also know nothing about the max aperture of this lens. Being f/1.8 or f/2 doesn't really concern me, but it seems like folks here are like:

f/1.2? Sweet!

f/1.4? Sure. Okay.

f/1.8? [Shudder] It's garbage, smash it with a hammer.

Of course, my dream spec is EF 50 f/1.4 IS USM (non-L, ring USM just like the 24/28/35 refreshes), but that exact spec is fairly unlikely to occur. Could you imagine if Canon did something batsh-- crazy and make a slow L prime, say a relatively tiny 50 f/1.8L or f/2L? Folks' heads would explode. _'Cuz aperture is better, yo._ :

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

note to myself: quickly sell 50/1.4 now ;D


----------



## Adrianf (Jun 26, 2018)

A new 50/1.4 that is sharp wide open would be really nice....


----------



## slclick (Jun 26, 2018)

Two versions please, an L of any sort and a non L with IS like the 24/28/35 and an 85 to go with it.


----------



## traveller (Jun 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So would anybody notice a NON L lens being tested out in the wild?
> ...



I don’t think that you are going to get your wish for a small double-gaussian 50mm f/1.4 that isn’t disappointing in the centre wide open and mush in the corners. No one has built one yet and I doubt Canon will be the first. It seems the only way to get a 50mm that performs well wide open is to either reduce the maximum aperture (i.e. move the goalposts!), or switch to a “pickle jar” (your name IIRC?) retro-focal design. 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout/


----------



## slclick (Jun 26, 2018)

traveller said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Yet Leica can do it with tiny rangefinder glass. (true, the SL with AF is a jar)


----------



## zim (Jun 26, 2018)

I think this will be a 1.4 L
Question for me is will it be the big brother to the 35L 1.4 or the little sister to the 85L1.4IS. 50 is right on the fence, where do Canon see the cut-off point for IS on L glass?
My understanding is that IS degrades IQ a little?


----------



## Etienne (Jun 26, 2018)

I'm still mind-boggled that Canon is taking so long on this upgrade.
A 50 f/1.4 with IS would be great, L or non-L


----------



## vscd (Jun 26, 2018)

I think it will be a 50mm L 1.4 IS like the 85mm L IS 1.4... but what I really would like to see is a better 50mm 1.0L. Why? because it's possible to make


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 26, 2018)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4L IS with BR, although it looks as though BR is going to be left in the dust heap of history.


----------



## zim (Jun 26, 2018)

vscd said:


> I think it will be a 50mm L 1.4 IS like the 85mm L IS 1.4... but what I really would like to see is a better 50mm 1.0L. Why? because it's possible to make



Or because it's just not necessary with modern sensors, that 1.0L was for film limitations


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 26, 2018)

zim said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I think it will be a 50mm L 1.4 IS like the 85mm L IS 1.4... but what I really would like to see is a better 50mm 1.0L. Why? because it's possible to make
> ...



The bokeh-fanatical masses of the world all simultaneously retorted: _"WHAT?! You shut your mouth, sir! Good day! I SAID GOOD DAY."_ ;D

For some folks, the lens can never generate 'enough' bokeh, subject isolation, etc. I'm glad I don't have that sickness, '11mm rectilinear on FF isn't wide enough for me but I still want conveniently front-filtering' unreasonableness sickness, '1200mm isn't long enough for me' reach sickness, etc.

I just want modern 50 FF prime with fast/reliable Canon first party AF. I'm not asking for some crazytown short tele 'fast pancake' or anything.

- A


----------



## traveller (Jun 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I think you should read the results in the link more carefully. Wide open the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux is no better than the current Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Though it does improve massively at f/2, perhaps you have every right to expect this from a £3000 lens . I’m still not sure that I would be prepared to pay that much for an f/2 lens dressed in f/1.4 clothes.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Some people might call obsessive posting about a 50mm, and obsessive pontificating about what Canon should do or might do "a sickness." 

Just because your particular photography vision doesn't include aspects of wide aperture lenses, you start diagnosing others as "sick"? Gloves off, eh? 

Embrace the smart phone.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 27, 2018)

No offense to AHSanford, but if Canon releases a decent 50, it would be like Charles Schultz letting Charlie Brown kick Lucy's football. It would ruin a generation of suspense building. The good news: "stupid Canon" is quite capable of disappointing. The closer he came to the ball, the more satisfying the disappointment.


----------



## Cory (Jun 27, 2018)

I might soon buy a 1.2 in protest. Can't wait until 2019+.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Some people might call obsessive posting about a 50mm, and obsessive pontificating about what Canon should do or might do "a sickness."
> 
> Just because your particular photography vision doesn't include aspects of wide aperture lenses, you start diagnosing others as "sick"? Gloves off, eh?
> 
> Embrace the smart phone.



No malice or judgment intended. Forgive me, it wasn't meant as a piece of condemnation or ridicule. Obsessing over a particular unmet need is just a condition some people have, and goodness knows I have a condition of my own with this 50. 

In fairness, thought, I just think _my_ condition can be treated really reasonably by Canon.  Canon can 100% make this lens when it gets off its butt chasing (highly profitable) paint job + coating refreshes.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> No offense to AHSanford, but if Canon releases a decent 50, it would be like Charles Schultz letting Charlie Brown kick Lucy's football. It would ruin a generation of suspense building. The good news: "stupid Canon" is quite capable of disappointing. The closer he came to the ball, the more satisfying the disappointment.



I may be aware of this particular riff on the plight of Tantalus and Sisyphus. I've posted about it here before. ;D

- A


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 27, 2018)

We have 2.8 40, 1.2 50, 1.4 50, 1.8 50, 2.5 50 from Canon alone and lots of options from other lens manufacturers.

Currently the only interesting lens for ME - because it has image stabilization and good MFD - is the Tamron 1.8 45mm lens. TDP shows very good IQ. The only drawback is the size of the lens.

I would trade in some IQ for a much compacter design for portability / unobtrusiveness of the lens / camera combo. But not IS, good MFD.

So maybee I am with ahsanford: Use the overall design of the 24/28/35 lens triplet and make it 50mm well knowing that it isn't that easy because 50mm 1.4 needs a heavier lens group for IS - the 85mm 1.4 has large actors inherited from something like 200mm 2.0.

EDIT/ADD:
End if Canon or others do not provide solutions I like, I will send my old FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. to http://www.thelensdoctor.co.uk/ to do a FD-EF mount conversion!


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 27, 2018)

Am I the only one that only expect a 50f1.4 with new coatings, and a slight change in color?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> Am I the only one that only expect a 50f1.4 with new coatings, and a slight change in color?



Take an EF 50 f/1.4 USM and 'upgrade' the exact same optical formula into an internal focusing ring USM setup and you can have $500 from me on day one. Give it IS and I'll go to $700. Not kidding.

- A


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jun 27, 2018)

'upgrade' the exact same optical formula

I think, if it would be that easy, all manufacturers would produce such lenses. Without knowing lens design in Detail, we can not judge on what is possible and what not. There are so many different abberations, which must be optimized against each other.

fact is, over all brands, at 50mm there are cheap and averagely performing gauss lenses, better (and bigger) designs are very rare. 

There was one interesting interview with a Canon technician, about the developpment of the 85mm IS lens, which was some kind of creative process to find a solution with IS. Compromise is, it's not the best abailable lens in this range.

other example for me is the 16-35 iii lens, which sems to be fantastically sharp, but with terrible vignetting. Only in the very center of the frame it's brighter than the F4 IS version. It's plausible, that a lens can be sharer, if the corner light is vignetted away, and can no longer disturb center sharpness. (this as well is a unscientific and maybe wrong Imagination)


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 27, 2018)

Might be a 50mm 1.8 for M's.
Good length for a crop sensor and it wouldn't be hard to convert the current 50 1.8 for use on an M.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> other example for me is the 16-35 iii lens, which sems to be fantastically sharp, but with terrible vignetting. Only in the very center of the frame it's brighter than the F4 IS version. It's plausible, that a lens can be sharer, if the corner light is vignetted away, and can no longer disturb center sharpness. (this as well is a unscientific and maybe wrong Imagination)



That may be more of a design tradeoff than anything else. 16-35 2.8 zooms are expected to have front filtering in a non-absurd / somewhat standard diameter. Other UWA zooms that don't feel the need to satisfy that can opt for larger, more bulbous front elements. The Tamron 15-30 2.8 foregoes the front filterability, opts for a large + bulbous front element and has half the vignetting levels as the 16-35 f/2.8L III.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Could you imagine if Canon did something batsh-- crazy and make a slow L prime, say a relatively tiny 50 f/1.8L or f/2L? Folks' heads would explode. _'Cuz aperture is better, yo._ :



I'd much rather have an f/1.8 lens that was sharp wide open than an f/1.4 lens that you need to stop down to f/2 to be of any use 

The Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 is a beautiful lens.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 27, 2018)

I love how Canon upgrades and replaces every lens but their MOST f'ed up lens ever.


----------



## melgross (Jun 27, 2018)

Companies look at the potential market size for a product before coming out with it. Price is in the equation. Don’t sell too many 600mm, but at the price it’s profitable, and keeps these customers within Canon.

So, realistically, what is the biggest customer for a new 50 1.4? Is it the pro? The semi-pro, or the average customer who just wants a 50 1.4?

If it’s the pro, then very high IQ is required, and competitively, that means a big, heavy lens. It may mean IS, but maybe not.

For the semi pro, it needs excellent IQ, but maybe not quite as high, and a somewhat lower price. IS is likely more of a necessity.

For the average user, price and size is more important, as long as performance is good. IS adds too much cost, and adds to the size and weight, which the average user is more sensitive to.

So... if Canon is coming out with a new 50, what market are they aiming it at?

I’m not even thinking about a 1.2.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

melgross said:


> So... if Canon is coming out with a new 50, what market are they aiming it at?
> 
> I’m not even thinking about a 1.2.



Sure, we get why the 50 f/1.4 doesn't get much priority, but under a project by project review sort of rationale, a lens can actually sit without update for _25 years_. Eventually, you have to do one of the following things:


Update it --> EF 50 f/1.4 IS USM or EF 50 f/1.4 USM II. Do it as part of a 'middle-level' refresh series alongside the rest of that USM line: 20 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, etc.


Put out a different product that captures its userbase and possibly addresses some new unmet needs --> EF 50 f/2 STM 1:2 illuminated macro perhaps.


Update the lower price point with nicer features that draw some of the old product's folks in --> an affordable 50 f/1.8 IS STM (or possibly Nano USM).


Update the higher price point option to be more affordable (unlikely), or create a _second_ premium price point under the top dog --> EF 50 f/1.4L IS USM, which is surely possible.


Obsolete the product and funnel people to the other existing 50mm options. Doubt this will happen. That takes a small profit product off of Canon's rolls and surely just hands some money to the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world. That's not Canon's MO unless the product is a huge PITA to build in spec, creates portfolio support problems over time, etc. Consider: if they haven't obsoleted the EF 20 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8, 100 f/2, etc., they won't do it here.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

But, to answer your question, Mel, no one knows.

I think a slightly underwhelming 50 f/1.4 USM II (with Nano) sliding in around $499 would make sense, tent up the price in this segment, and put a non-Yongnuo-able product on the board. It's the logical, simple, rational thing for Canon to do -- both at 50 and with the 85 f/1.8 USM refresh. Hopefully that would be a new optical design, but who knows these days?

I think an EF 50 f/1.4L IS USM around makes a ton of sense based on the recent 85L IS, but I'm not sure it would be cheaper or lower 'prestige' than the 50 f/1.2L @ $1299. Canon may want to put out a skull-splittingly sharp retrofocal design like the Sigma 50 Art and sell it like the 35L II, say $1699 or so. So the future of the 50L space in general potentially overlaps / clouds the call on the non-L slot -- if a 50 f/1.4L IS arrives, I'm not expecting a new mid-level 50 to be offered for years afterwards.

But of course, I'd love the fancy non-L: New optical design, Ring USM, internal focusing, IS, double gauss / not huge, etc. Canon would ask $799-ish for that based on the 24/28/35 IS lenses, though I recognize that's a mint for a non-L / non-DO product currently sitting at a $329 price point. So I'm not confident that the lens I want is going to happen. We'll see.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 27, 2018)

Time and time again, from pundits to optical experts, folks are saying double gauss only can get so good and you have to go retrofocus to obtain the IQ corner to corner without abberations and therefore that is why Sigma,Tamron and Zeiss have gone that route. Why would people think Canon won't do a retrofocus over 35mm? Just because they personally want a lighter smaller lens? I can't help but think it will be a pickle jar for sharpness, distortion and room for modern IS and AF internals. 

Please tell me how I am wrong if you think so and how DG could be improved.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> Time and time again, from pundits to optical experts, folks are saying double gauss only can get so good and you have to go retrofocus to obtain the IQ corner to corner without abberations and therefore that is why Sigma,Tamron and Zeiss have gone that route. Why would people think Canon won't do a retrofocus over 35mm? Just because they personally want a lighter smaller lens? I can't help but think it will be a pickle jar for sharpness, distortion and room for modern IS and AF internals.
> 
> Please tell me how I am wrong if you think so and how DG could be improved.



I always wondered if you could just supersize the elements _diametrically_ with a DG design to get better results from the center of that glass (i.e. the FF sensor needed portions of it). In other words: oversize the elements like it was a medium format image circle so the FF output would be more central on the glass. In theory, such a lens would stay short front to back but step up in diameter (and presumably weight) considerably. (I wonder if the current 50L has done just that -- it's a 72mm front element while a 50 1.2 doesn't need anything so large for basic light gathering.)

But I'm no optical whiz and can't comment on if/how that might work. This idea could be nonsense.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Jun 27, 2018)

I wish you guys who are pining for a better 50mm lens all the best, but as I read these threads, I keep remembering that I have never put my 50mm f/1.4 on my 6D2 that I bought in September. It was a useful lens on my T3i, but I've not thought of a need for it since. I use the 24-105mm kit lens all the time, and I guess if I looked at the metadata of the shots I've made with it, some of them would have been made in the general area of that focal length, but never felt the need for a faster lens or blurrier background. The IS and the low noise at higher ISOs keep me from wanting to use a faster lens. And I find that I use the 100mm macro much more for other things since I shoot FF, taking on much the role that the 50mm took on the Rebel.

The basketball videos I shot this month came close. But there was plenty of light in the arena (even if odd color and causing the flicker warning to go off). And I found with the zoom that even around 45mm was a little too tight to make sure I caught all the action. I guess with the 50mm, I would have just moved to a higher seat. (I also wanted to experiment with the autofocus on the zoom for that situation. It turned out that videos were consistently sharper just to focus manually on the basket rims—I was about equidistant from the two—and let DOF cover the whole court.)

If I have a point, it is that I just can't relate to your obsession with this focal length. I think back when I shot film, my "normal" lens was a 55mm f/1.2. I liked the look it gave, as I recall. But for general purposes, in that era when zoom lenses were ginormous and pretty bad, I would take a 28mm, an 85 (f/1.8?), and a 200mm when I went out to shoot pictures unless I had some specific application in mind that favored my bringing along a different lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

stevelee said:


> If I have a point, it is that I just can't relate to your obsession with this focal length. I think back when I shot film, my "normal" lens was a 55mm f/1.2. I liked the look it gave, as I recall. But for general purposes, in that era when zoom lenses were ginormous and pretty bad, I would take a 28mm, an 85 (f/1.8?), and a 200mm when I went out to shoot pictures unless I had some specific application in mind that favored my bringing along a different lens.



Believe it or not, my fav FLs are in the 24-35 neighborhood... _but Canon puts new things out in those FLs_ so I'm all set on that front.

50 is -- to me -- is an inflection point of the shortest FL where you get real bang for buck compositionally with large aperture. Longer than 50 you surely can exploit this effect more, but the lenses get huge quickly. I just kind of love a small tool for large aperture work, and 50s magically (i.e. via simple DG designs) can _be_ that small and fast tool.

So 50 is not a favorite of mine, not at all -- it's just a neglected slice of the wonderful EF portfolio, and that neglect limits my use of that FL. Again, I may just pick up a 50L and call it good (quirks, whiffing AF and all). 

- A


----------



## melgross (Jun 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Time and time again, from pundits to optical experts, folks are saying double gauss only can get so good and you have to go retrofocus to obtain the IQ corner to corner without abberations and therefore that is why Sigma,Tamron and Zeiss have gone that route. Why would people think Canon won't do a retrofocus over 35mm? Just because they personally want a lighter smaller lens? I can't help but think it will be a pickle jar for sharpness, distortion and room for modern IS and AF internals.
> ...



That’s basically what Canon does with their tilt/shift lenses, ergo the rumors that Canon will go to medium format.


----------



## zim (Jun 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...




;D

I honestly think back in the day 1.0 was all about overcoming the ISO/grain limitations of film to just get the shot.

FWIW my 50 replacement/update senario would be

1.8 -> 2.0IS
1.4 -> 1.4L (like 35L1.4)
1.2L -> 1.2L (a refresh, same design, updated USM and coatings)


----------



## Tom W (Jun 28, 2018)

A replacement for the 1.4 would be logical.
But I still would like to see another 50/1.0. just because.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Time and time again, from pundits to optical experts, folks are saying double gauss only can get so good and you have to go retrofocus to obtain the IQ corner to corner without abberations and therefore that is why Sigma,Tamron and Zeiss have gone that route. Why would people think Canon won't do a retrofocus over 35mm? Just because they personally want a lighter smaller lens? I can't help but think it will be a pickle jar for sharpness, distortion and room for modern IS and AF internals.
> ...



Modifying a basic double gauss standard design with

- aspherical surfaces,
- alternative glass / plastic / blue refractive stuff showing other dispersion functions

should give a lot of chances to change the IQ - maybe to change it in a positive
way. I am not in optics too but if you have spherical aberration (due to the spherical
lens surfaces) you change the surface to correct that type of aberration which is
best practice in modern lenses. If chromatic aberrations occur you try to find a material
for one or more lenses where the dispersion function (refractive index depending on light color)
cancels the function of other elements. The EF 40mm 2.8 seems to be such a
derivative of a double gauss with at least one aspherical surface/lens
( http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard/ef40-f28stm/spec.html scroll down to corr. image)

Maybe the non-existence of new compact high aperture lenses has another reason:
Photographic equipment is - besides of taking photographs - a status symbol. Pay 1000 
EUR/$ for a small lens or pay the same for a lens where others say: What a cool big lens?


----------



## snoke (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> But of course, I'd love the fancy non-L: New optical design, Ring USM, internal focusing, IS, double gauss / not huge, etc. Canon would ask $799-ish for that based on the 24/28/35 IS lenses, though I recognize that's a mint for a non-L / non-DO product currently sitting at a $329 price point. So I'm not confident that the lens I want is going to happen. We'll see.
> 
> - A



What you want: L-lens but not L-price. Good wish.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 28, 2018)

Decisions, decisions. TS-E? 85L? Future new 50L (Probably released next year.)? Hmmmm.... Ramen or beans?


----------



## Canoneer (Jun 28, 2018)

I'd like to see a new incarnation of the 50mm F/1L. Probably an absurd wish - the level of optical corrections, exotic flint/crown glass, and multi coatings needed for a usable F/1 aperture at 50mm would make the thing cost a fortune. 

Canon _needs_ to concentrate on getting a competitive 50mm F/1.4 on the market - Image stabilization, weather sealing, IQ on par with the Sigma ART 50mm F/1.4, and an L-series designation would make it a suitable replacement for the 50mm F/1.2L; plus they could make a dumbed-down variant without weather sealing and OIS to replace the current 50mm F/1.4.


----------



## melgross (Jun 28, 2018)

zim said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



High Speed Ektachrome, yeah! Because of the stupid filtering in the film, daylight was 320, but where you really needed the speed, tungsten was just 160. Of course, we could push it for the wonderful green, and golf ball grain.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

snoke said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But of course, I'd love the fancy non-L: New optical design, Ring USM, internal focusing, IS, double gauss / not huge, etc. Canon would ask $799-ish for that based on the 24/28/35 IS lenses, though I recognize that's a mint for a non-L / non-DO product currently sitting at a $329 price point. So I'm not confident that the lens I want is going to happen. We'll see.
> ...



I know. I'm totally nuts. 

A price point between $300 relic and a $1300 professional instrument? What was I thinking? :

- A


----------



## stevelee (Jun 28, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> I'd like to see a new incarnation of the 50mm F/1L. Probably an absurd wish - the level of optical corrections, exotic flint/crown glass, and multi coatings needed for a usable F/1 aperture at 50mm would make the thing cost a fortune.



I’m curious as to the appeal of an f/1. Bragging rights? Tiny depth of field? ISO 100 vs. ISO 120?


----------



## sulla (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm honestly considering just buying a 50L



I feel a great disturbance in the Force


----------



## melgross (Jun 28, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see a new incarnation of the 50mm F/1L. Probably an absurd wish - the level of optical corrections, exotic flint/crown glass, and multi coatings needed for a usable F/1 aperture at 50mm would make the thing cost a fortune.
> ...



I can’t think of a single useful reason. I remember way back when, when I think it was Kubrick used a 0.7 lens for a candle lit scene in a movie whose name I can’t remember right now. But those days are long gone.

Truly, it’s almost impossible to focus those really fast lenses, even with direct off the sensor focus. And then, everything needs to be on a tripod anyway, where you can use slower shutter speeds.

Sometimes, what was cutting edge, because of the limitations of technology, becomes completely obsolete as the technology dies out.

With digital now having vastly better high speed IQ than film ever had, super speed lenses are no longer needed. The tiny shrinkage in focus depth is hardly noticeable


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

sulla said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm honestly considering just buying a 50L
> ...



It's been this way for a while, if I'm honest. Hear me out. 

When I stare at it long enough, the real mustmustmust priority for me is fast / accurate / consistent AF at wide apertures and perhaps right behind that is 'not too long to fit in a smaller bag'. I care about sharpness, sure, but not nearly enough to buy the Tamron or Sigma and risk whiffing on the AF and missing a great moment. So that throws out all third parties. Done.

50 f/1.8 STM = AF is too slow and I prefer more solidly constructed gear. No.

So the decision to buy now or wait is all about what a 50L would offer me above the 50 f/1.4 USM I use today. 

Upsides of the 50L to the 50 f/1.4: A lot. Faster AF, AF doesn't hunt like the f/1.4 does, f/max to f/2 shooting generates much more usable output, way better construction, better bokeh, better color, sealed, etc. 

About the same as the 50 f/1.4: Off-center large aperture AF is inconsistent -- it randomly whiffs on two different 50L rentals I've had on my 5D3, even with ruthlessly controlled technique.

Downsides of the 50L to the 50 f/1.4: Heavier (naturally), I'll need to get 72mm filters (small detail of course), pretty sure the f/1.4 is sharper once I stop down past f/2.8 or so (which I do fairly often)

My take is that if I get it, it will clearly be an optical upgrade for wider aperture work and the AF will be quicker, but I'll have paid $900-1000 (refurb) for a lens I still can't trust to nail the AF on the first try. That's a hard sell, especially after renting the 85 f/1.4L IS over Christmas and being amazed/liberated by the coexistence of a perfect AF setup with wide aperture shooting. That's one thing the 50L will never give me. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

melgross said:


> I can’t think of a single useful reason. I remember way back when, when I think it was Kubrick used a 0.7 lens for a candle lit scene in a movie whose name I can’t remember right now. But those days are long gone.



It was _Barry Lyndon_. The Kubrick exhibit at LACMA had that NASA lens and many others there (as Kubrick loved stills shooting). That dude was obsessed with shooting only under candle illumination.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 50 f/1.8 STM = AF is too slow ...



sorry, really curious as to what you are shooting with a fast 50mm lens wide open that needs faster AF than the 50/1.8 STM has?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 50 f/1.8 STM = AF is too slow ...
> ...



All I shoot are stills + my family never stops moving = USM or bust. It's 2018 and wanting AF technology Canon nailed a good 25+ years ago is not an exotic ask.

I appreciate that some STM lenses are quicker than others, but the nifty fifty is not one of them.

- A


----------



## melgross (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > I can’t think of a single useful reason. I remember way back when, when I think it was Kubrick used a 0.7 lens for a candle lit scene in a movie whose name I can’t remember right now. But those days are long gone.
> ...



Yeah, knew the film, but couldn’t remember the name. It was a really big deal at the time. Every photo mag had articles about it.


----------



## melgross (Jun 28, 2018)

For me, back then, the extra stop, or so, was mostly so that the rangefinder/microprism could focus more easily. I hardly ever used 1.4 stop itself.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I'm not sure the 50/1.2 is going to suit you. At 'wide apertures', so 1.2 - 2 ? The lens has a fair bit of spherical aberrations ( focus shift) that is most noticeable when shooting in the f/1.6 - f/2 range, the penalty of focusing at f/1.2 with this design and uncorrected. I've always wondered why Canon don't program their cameras to stop down when focusing this particular lens at wide apertures. The other, rather unsatisfactory solution is to focus manually in live view, and stop down at the same time. ( Thanks Canon for finally putting the stop down button in an accessible position for doing this !). Anyway it sounds like you've already tried the 50/1.2, but it's an issue that can be frustrating if you are habitually in the f/1.8 area. 

Incidentally the AF on the Tamron 45 is as accurate and consistent as any Canon lens I've had around that focal length, in fact now I've tuned it in the three positions using the Tap-in console ( mine is 0 close, 0 mid focus range and -4 at infinity) it is significantly better than any Canon 50 I've had. At f/1.8 wide open it is also much better than the Canon 50s at the same aperture, and there's no focus shift because it's f/1.8.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

slclick said:


> I seriously can't believe you're considering the FBW 50 ahsanford. Please, with all your demands, requests and considerations for first and second choices you have espoused over the YEARS, that you'd cave for this one. Hold out, it'll happen (It'll also be a pickle jar) bwahahahahahahaha



What are you talking about? The 50 f/1.2L is not FBW. 

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The 50 f/1.2L is not FBW.



correct. 



> Both the 85 f/1.2 and the 50 f/1.2L fall short of Canon's top AF performers. Though not terribly slow, the 50 f/1.2 uses a front-focusing design that extends/retracts the front lens elements inside the lens barrel. Moving this large amount of glass yields an AF speed is not on par with Canon's ultra-fast rear-focusing lenses. This Ring USM implementation is very accurate (including in AI Servo mode) and is quiet - making a "shhhhh" sound - and FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing is enabled. The focus ring is smooth, slightly stiff and very well damped. This is a mechanical manual focusing lens - unlike the 85 f/1.2's focus-by-wire design



https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

That said, I _would _use a Nano USM. That's FBW I would stomach -- the testing I've seen says that it is blindingly quick in some cases:

https://www.lenstip.com/503.10-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_IS_II_USM_Autofocus.html
_
"What’s more the autofocus performance is sensationally fast. Running through the whole distance scale and confirming the focus at the shorter end of the focal lengths spectrum takes 0.1-0.2 of a second; for the longer focal lengths the process is by 0.1-0.2 of a second longer.

To be honest I am a bit surprised that, for the first time, such technology appears in completely amateur constructions. The working culture of the autofocus, its noiselessness, 100% accuracy, and superior speed put to shame even some professional lenses. A round of applause for Canon!"_

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 29, 2018)

My bad, was thinking 85 1.2.


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 29, 2018)

I'm not sure I'd be a taker because im totally happy with my 50 1.4. It's just been a champ for years.

That said, i'd love for canon to show us the money so i'd have a solid step up option that wont have potential focus issues....and not like that greatly reviewed by generally disappointing 32 IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

ashmadux said:


> I'm not sure I'd be a taker because im totally happy with my 50 1.4. It's just been a champ for years.
> 
> That said, i'd love for canon to show us the money so i'd have a solid step up option that wont have potential focus issues....and not like that greatly reviewed by generally disappointing 32 IS.



32 IS? I don't think that's a thing.

- A


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I'd be a taker because im totally happy with my 50 1.4. It's just been a champ for years.
> ...




35 f2IS?

Or is it..._*SOMETHING ELSE....BWAHAAHHA*_ ;D :-[ :-[ :-\ :-\ :'( :'( :'(


#run


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

ashmadux said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 32 IS? I don't think that's a thing.
> ...



You could very well be the first person I've encountered online who doesn't love that thing.

I'll go so far as to state that lens is my reference grade 'premium non-L' Canon prime: one stop slower than the L, 90% as sharp, best AF tech, IS, solid construction in a reasonably small and light package. I absolutely love it. If Canon had a line of such lenses that included 20, 50, 85, etc. I'd probably have 1000 fewer posts here.

I'm (sincerely) curious what you find disappointing about it.

- A


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...




I won't get too far into the woods, but generally:


• sharpness wide open is not that great
• bokeh quality is weak. Rakish, especially when used around trees
• doesn't not render as well as the 50 1.4 at all. lacks character
• Can exhibit unfixable ghosting. Canon was able to adjust , but happens occastionally


Let state for the record is that I'm not saying it's "bad". But when comparing with my 50, 24-105, or 70-200, which always create niiiiice images - the 35 was like..."oh, that's it...ah well".

PS- bought it primarily for backstage fashion shows where the 50 was too tight.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

ashmadux said:


> PS- bought it primarily for backstage fashion shows where the 50 was too tight.



One would think the 35L II would be the choice for you, then. Appreciate the thoughts on the 35 f/2 IS, though!

- A


----------



## TAF (Jul 2, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> We have 2.8 40, 1.2 50, 1.4 50, 1.8 50, 2.5 50 from Canon alone and lots of options from other lens manufacturers.
> 
> Currently the only interesting lens for ME - because it has image stabilization and good MFD - is the Tamron 1.8 45mm lens. TDP shows very good IQ. The only drawback is the size of the lens.
> 
> ...




Given the cost of having an FD lens converted (and no autofocus), you might want to consider the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE

While it is still 3x more money, the value proposition may be there.

I have been very pleased with it; the images remind me of film.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 2, 2018)

TAF said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Good remark about the ZEISS solution - I tried it on Photokina and was not too impressed.
The old chrome ring version of the 1.4 50 is a very good performer and has a rendering I like. Another reason is that I bought this lens 25 years ago 2nd hand and it has been with me on my two long distance travels so it's a case of nostalgia to use just that lens!

I made a compromise in the meantime and added the M*50* as 2nd body to my 200D and it's another plastic fantastic product from Canon - the EVF with focus peaking worked very well (as it would do with your proposal of ZEISS lens) and the 45cm MFD of the FD lens is very handy with APC. Lens contrast is soso wide open but resolution is good and the color rendering & bokeh are very satisfying. @f/4.0 IQ is very good. Maybe a much better solution than the Kamlan 1.1 because this one gets - after some reviews - never sharp while the old Canon does.

Again thanks to your remark because the (Milvus?) Macro lens is interesting too if I see that f/1.4 is not that necessary!


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 2, 2018)

TAF said:


> Given the cost of having an FD lens converted (and no autofocus), you might want to consider the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE
> 
> While it is still 3x more money, the value proposition may be there.
> 
> I have been very pleased with it; the images remind me of film.



Well he can have mine for a heavily discounted price ! The Tamron 45 SP beats it in every way apart from being 5 mm short. The focus shift on the 50/1.4 ZE makes the 50L seem like a beginner's lens. 

Also for those of us that are old enough to have used original manual focus lenses from the likes of Nikkor, Pentax, Zuiko etc, the focusing is gritty and stiff when compared with the velvet smooth focusing of those old lenses.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 2, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Given the cost of having an FD lens converted (and no autofocus), you might want to consider the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE
> ...



But: The Tamron is sooooo laaaaarge - if it were 70% of it's current length it would have found a way into my bag soon. On the other side it's IS and short MFD are very attractive ... a world of compromises ...


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 6, 2018)

littleB said:


> Canon users = no wants left, Canon whiners will always have DR or some battery gauge or something more insane to crap on the forum.


And never actually buy the product X when it is produced.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 6, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I guess it's time to upgrade my 50mm.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon 50mm f:1.2 lens by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


Leica m39 screw mount. Sexy.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...sZDY3AIVTjyBCh00qwlNEAQYAiABEgI9IvD_BwE&smp=y


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 17, 2018)

A refresh of the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM would be really great. I have one, use it frequently when I want a smaller lens, like (not love) and hate it sometimes. One of the real downsides of the current aged version is its inconsistent AF, it is no match anymore for the latest very good AF systems Canon's prosumer cameras. Plus, the vintage optical design needs to be improved. Such a lens is okay if you want to make use of its special vintage optical character. But the heavy side softening of the corners of the current 1.4, if it is shot wide open, isn't what you expect nowadays from a modern lens. Plus, Canon should improve the awkward, not smooth, feeling when turning the focusing ring.


----------



## padam (Aug 17, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> A refresh of the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM would be really great..


Patents do exist for a version with updated AF. They won't change the optics, because it would cost much more to produce. So it may be labelled as outdated and too expensive comparison to the 50/1.8

So they might come up with a new L lens instead (less distortion, sharp corners wide-open), possibly with IS at about four times the price (1.5x the price of the Sigma ART sounds about right) and also larger than the 50mm f/1.2.
I don't think they are going to do both in the near future and the second one might be more profitable.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 17, 2018)

padam said:


> Patents do exist for a version with updated AF. They won't change the optics, because it would cost much more to produce. So it may be labelled as outdated and too expensive comparison to the 50/1.8
> 
> So they might come up with a new L lens instead (less distortion, sharp corners wide-open), possibly with IS at about four times the price (1.5x the price of the Sigma ART sounds about right) and also larger than the 50mm f/1.2.
> I don't think they are going to do both in the near future and the second one might be more profitable.



I think you're right, I already have given up to wait for a modern 50mm f/1.4 from Canon. In fact, I keenly wait for an upgrade of the f/1.2. I always hesitated to buy the current version because I feared it would not meet my high expectations I have using my EF 85mm f/1.2 frequently, one of my fav lenses. The 1.2/85 delivers just the right mix of good sharpness and gorgeous bokeh shot wide open (I talk about visual perception, not scientific lab tests), whereas the current 50mm seems to lack too much sharpness used at f/1.2.


----------

