# 50mm options.. what would you buy.



## rfdesigner (Mar 3, 2016)

So with various rumors and wish lists going round how many people want what. Or more importantly what would you be prepared to spend money on, we'd all like a 50mm F1.0 IS USM with blue-gue optics for thuppence ha'penny, but that isn't going to happen. Where would you spend your hard earned?


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 4, 2016)

I have my Otus 55, nothing else needed.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 4, 2016)

NOTA

I have the 50L which is sharp enough for my purposes.


----------



## PavelR (Mar 4, 2016)

I have Sigma 50A, thus I would buy Canon only if IQ will be better / will be equipped with IS...


----------



## Kwwund (Mar 4, 2016)

I picked the 50mm 1.4 IS USM non-L, the fastest imaginary 50mm lens with IS that Canon will never make. :'(


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 4, 2016)

I do not have the "money to burn" for a 50 mm L lens.

I want to see a 50mm f1.4 USM replacement with a decent improvement in IQ and built quality for a MRSP of about $600-700. 

You can add some $200 if it also had IS. But I would never want to trade off the F1.4 for an IS.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Mar 4, 2016)

Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, and Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro, which although focuses super slow, is a very very sharp lense. 
I use both a lot.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 4, 2016)

As so far there is no Canon 50mm with good sharpness and contrast in F1.8 or more open, I sold my old Canon F1.4 and went to Sigma Art.

I gave up waiting for Canon F1.4 Image Stabilizer.


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 4, 2016)

I currently own the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8mkii but I'd like to buy a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 IS. 

Yes, it doesn't exist but I see myself buying one if it's ever released. Why? Well, maybe the f/1.4 aperture could differentiate my images a little bit from all those f/1.8 versions out there. 

I've got standard wants for this 50mm f/1.4
• Large manual focus ring
• 9 aperture blades
• USM, ultra quick focussing motor
• No hunting in low light
• 77mm filter size
• 3-4 stop IS system
• B/R layer


----------



## JMZawodny (Mar 4, 2016)

I'm perfectly happy with my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and see absolutely no reason to buy a Canon 50mm lens. A "None of the above" option in the poll would have been nice.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 4, 2016)

The poll is limited, it should have included some of the popular 3rd party options (Sigma Art, Tamron 45mm).

Personally I got the 35/85/135 prime trio going so 50mm is kind of redundant/too close. I do have the shorty forty as well that can fit that focal length.

However, I've own 50mm primes before and if I were to own one it would be a "go big or go home" type of lens, for sure a very fast f/1.4 aperture. With how satisfied I've been with my Sigma 35 Art lens, I'd probably go the 50mm Art if I needed to get a 50mm prime tomorrow.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Mar 4, 2016)

I voted for 50mm f/2.0 IS USM

Would like for Canon to retain its light and compact build . . . . though maybe it might not hurt that much if it will be f/1.8 instead.

Just my 0.02.


----------



## photo212 (Mar 4, 2016)

EDIT: I see, you are dreaming of lenses not available, nor likely to ever be available. Sorry to interrupt your fantasy.

What sort of poll is this? Makes little sense to me. Canon offers the following in 50mm


50mm f/1.8 STM
50mm f/1.8 II
50mm f/1.4 USM
50mm f/1.2L USM
50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

You only allow one to be voted, yet many see the need for a macro plus a standard lens. Each lens as its purpose, and while one of each is a bit overkill, given the prices, owning two or three of these is not out of the question. 

I own the f/1.2L and the macro. There are times I wish I had the f/1.4 due to the weight of the f/1.2L


----------



## kaswindell (Mar 4, 2016)

I have the 50mm f/1.8 II, a rather disappointing lens, despite the raves due to the poor build quality and hit-or-miss focusing. But heck, it was only $100 and if I sell it I can probably recover 75% of that. I would love a 50mm f/1.4 without IS but the consensus on the current one is that it isn't sharp, so that would likely be a disappointing purchase too, although refurbs on those are still pretty cheap. I am adverse to 3rd party lenses, having had some disappointments in the past but if Canon doesn't come out with a good 50 in the next 12-18 months, I may look at the ART lens.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 4, 2016)

photo212 said:


> EDIT: I see, you are dreaming of lenses not available, nor likely to ever be available. Sorry to interrupt your fantasy.
> 
> What sort of poll is this? Makes little sense to me. Canon offers the following in 50mm
> 
> ...



There have been various fantasy 50s raised in conversations (concidering the 1.4 & macro are ancient and in desperate need of updates) .. I thought it might be interesting to see the balance of views between some of the mentioned preferences, not so much in what people want to see as what people are prepared to buy as that is what Canon is presumably looking at. (and it's amazing how some views change at the mention on having ot pay for stuff)

The main contention on these forums re 50s is between aperture and IS.. so far it looks like aperture wins 2:1 over IS for those that don't want to break the bank by demanding both, but it would seem there are also more than just one or two prepared to shell out quite a bit for both.

Arguably the last item should have been the "STM/1.2L/ART/something else is perfect for my needs".. but it's only a bit of fun... & if I'd got the poll perfect this thread would have been short and boring. ;D 

Anyway, there's still plenty time for more votes to swing things.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 4, 2016)

I'd stick with my 50mm 1.2L.
I think it's a great lens.
I used to love my 50 1.4 - I think it makes nice images (maybe not the sharpest of lens - but attractive images)
I also used to love my 50 1.8 until someone dropped it I got to learn what it looked like in the inside. ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2016)

There's a strong feeling from this forum's many EF 50mm f/1.4 USM replacement threads (I should know!) that if the new non-L EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM _turns out to be f/1.4_, it will undermine the 50mm f/1.2L sales, and therefore,* the f/nooneknows bit can't possibly be f/1.4*. "That lens would be too sexy for a non-L", "The L brand would suffer being upstaged by a non-L lens, etc.", "The addition of IS must 'cost' us some aperture because clear market segmentation demands it", and so on.

I'm not sure I buy that. Reasons:


*Just because the new non-L might be f/1.4 IS doesn't mean it will have mind-blowing IQ*. There's a very good chance Canon keeps this lens in a compact double-gauss design. We don't need to be lens design experts to know that the 55mm Otus and 50mm Art didn't go the double-gauss route -- they had much more radical and complicated designs to squeeze out as much performance as possible, and the reviews (Sigma AF notwithstanding) have been stellar for both. _A future 50L might very well do the same and leave the non-L 50mm lens in the rear-view-mirror optically._


The next 50L will have the BR gunk in it with 99% certainty -- I imagine all the new L large aperture primes will get it based on the success of the 35L II. Conversely, we'd 100% expect the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM will *not* have the BR gunk in it. So the wide open performance w.r.t. fringing and such will highly likely be better for the next 50L.


I'll be brave and state that the next 50L -- max aperture damned -- will squeeze out better bokeh than this proposed non-L 50 will. They'll give it even more curved blades, lubricate the sliding mechanical elements with angel tears, sprinkle it will magic dust, etc.

All of those reasons/considerations tell me that a potential non-L EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM will be a great piece of kit, but we're fooling ourselves that Canon doesn't have something far, far sexier in mind for the next 50L.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 4, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> There's a strong feeling...
> 
> All of those reasons/considerations tell me that a potential non-L EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM will be a great piece of kit, but we're fooling ourselves that Canon doesn't have something far, far sexier in mind for the next 50L.
> 
> - A


ahsanford, please tell me, what makes you that sure that Canon will do an IS with f1.4?
All the latest (prime) releases got IS, but at the trade off of max. aperture. 
Even if Canon could do a f1.4 IS, why do you think they should and will do it. 
Every hint I can see is pointing into a different direction.
And if it's going to be f1.8, isn't the competition inhouse? even without IS and without USM?
Difficult to foresee...


----------



## mistaspeedy (Mar 4, 2016)

I have not used any of the more expensive lenses, but I have owned and used the 50mm F1.8 II, and then I upgraded to the 50mm F1.8 STM when it came out.
To anyone who owns the 50mm F1.8 II, I wholeheartedly recommend you sell it and get the 50mm F1.8 STM - especially if the unreliable and inconsistent autofocus irritates you (this alone is reason to upgrade).
This new lens fixes basically all the issues with the 50mm F1.8 II (as much as can be expected within its price range).
The new STM lens:
- focuses accurately
- is sharper wide open and sharper in general across the whole frame
- has more aperture blades with their accompanying benefits
- focuses more quietly and smoothly (compared to 50mm F1.8 II)
- can be focused manually more easily than the 50mm F1.8 II, even though it uses a focus by wire system
- can focus on closer objects
- has proper lens coatings with the accompanying benefits
- gains an extra aperture setting of F22
- is visibly sharper even through the viewfinder

That all said... don't expect miracles... it's still basically the same lens, but with a few tweaks. 

By the way... I own an ancient 20D, and all these image quality enhancements are clearly visible to me. Anyone with a better camera (I assume 99.99% of you) should see the difference even more.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > There's a strong feeling...
> ...



First, I don't necessarily think it will be f/1.4, hence my moniker 'f/nooneknows'. We just don't know what it will be. I am simply saying that _*if*_ it were f/1.4, it wouldn't take the legs out of a future 50L for the reasons I mentioned.

Second, if the in-house competition you refer to is the new nifty fifty, the new EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM will categorically mop the floor with it -- faster AF, better wide open IQ, far better build quality, mechanical FTM focusing, internal focusing, IS, etc. There's so much more to lens than sharpness/aperture-per-dollar.

Third, re: your red comment above, the 24/28/35 'non-L IS refresh lenses' maintained their max aperture. There was no tradeoff. Perhaps you are thinking of the 28mm f/1.8 USM, which is another lens entirely and continues to be sold alongside the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM. See chart below.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Nano USM anyone? Speed plus quiet?



I do not _need_ it as don't shoot video, but so long as it's peppier than STM (as some demos have shown), I'm on board.

I personally see nano USM as a potential advancement for future EF-M lenses more than for EF, but hey.

- A


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 4, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Second, if the in-house competition you refer to is the new nifty fifty, the new EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM will categorically mop the floor with it -- faster AF, better wide open IQ, far better build quality, mechanical FTM focusing, internal focusing, IS, etc. There's so much more to lens than sharpness/aperture-per-dollar.



I expect that there be a 50mm f/1.4 replacement at some point in the near future (with in the next year or so). I think Canon will want to get with the times with a true USM motor/focus and a fully internal focusing mechanism. I expect the aperture will maintain f/1.4 and therefore there will be no IS. Also guessing it could easily debut at a $600 price tag.

As for your chart, I'm not sure I see 5 levels of segmentation. I see 2 levels, consumer level like the 35mm f/2 IS or 85mm f/1.8 and then pro level such as the 35mm f/1.4L II, etc. It's not like they have 5 different 35mm primes to choose from, they have 2. Same with the 24mm or the 85mm, etc.

If you include crop, then I'd argue there is a 3rd "budget" segment which would be the super light, plastic STM lenses like the latest 18-55 kit or the UWA 10-18 or the full frame compatible 50mm STM.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 4, 2016)

I would pay out the nose and throw the shirt off my back in for a retro focal 50 f1.2 L II. Continue the 35 L II tradition, oh my....


----------



## TeT (Mar 4, 2016)

It will be the 1.2 L II ... Canon is not going to ignore a lens as immensely popular as the current 50 1.2 L,


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> As for your chart, I'm not sure I see 5 levels of segmentation. I see 2 levels, consumer level like the 35mm f/2 IS or 85mm f/1.8 and then pro level such as the 35mm f/1.4L II, etc. It's not like they have 5 different 35mm primes to choose from, they have 2. Same with the 24mm or the 85mm, etc.



100% agree there aren't five price points. But there are multiple 'levels of features' right now on what is always (and will always be) a scattered portfolio rolled out over a very long period of time. Some are focus by wire, some have internal focusing, some have USM, some have IS, etc. It will always be marbled and inconsistent like that.

Overall, I see the primes for Canon being in _three_ buckets once they get everything refreshed: 

1) Budget/Starter (a very short list: pancake + nifty-fifty)
2) Mid-Grade USM lenses (lump together mid-grade and premium from my chart)
3) L lenses

Right now, the mid grade needs an upgrade desperately. Canon right now has old early 90s lenses at $350-500 and then things shoot up to $1,500+ new pickle jar primes. There's a massive opportunity to offer more lenses like the 24/28/35 refresh from three years ago.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Mar 4, 2016)

First bought a EF 50 f/1.8 II...amazing if you stop down just a bit. But the AF killed me. So the current STM version might be all many people need. But I upgraded to the EF 50 f/1.4. Love the lens. But then the Sigma 50A was announced. I convinced myself that I needed better performance from f/1.4-f/2.8.

I'll think about whatever Canon releases when it finally comes out, but it is hard for me to imagine needing another 50 mm prime. The 50A is remarkable. I feel for those that have had issues. After I dialed mine in with the dock, it is a great performer.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2016)

docsmith said:


> First bought a EF 50 f/1.8 II...amazing if you stop down just a bit. But the AF killed me. So the current STM version might be all many people need. But I upgraded to the EF 50 f/1.4. Love the lens. But then the Sigma 50A was announced. I convinced myself that I needed better performance from f/1.4-f/2.8.
> 
> I'll think about whatever Canon releases when it finally comes out, but it is hard for me to imagine needing another 50 mm prime. The 50A is remarkable. I feel for those that have had issues. After I dialed mine in with the dock, it is a great performer.



The 50A is remarkable all right. Remarkably _large and heavy_. 

I honestly think that lens is quite an achievement, don't get me wrong. But I prefer the 'size/IQ value proposition' of an 8 out of 10 lens in a smaller footprint that does _everything_ else i want -- internal focusing, IS, rocksolid first party USM AF, etc. 

Chasing a 9 or 10 out of 10 lens optically currently comes with two radioactive costs for me -- potentially inconsistent AF (or _no_ AF in the case of the 55mm Otus) and a huge pickle jar footprint. For me -- and I recognize I'm in the minority here -- but I'll take the hamburger on the left below.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 5, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > thetechhimself said:
> ...



If a 50 replacement ends up with Nano USM I'll give up and go through the possible pain of getting a good sigma ART.

nano USM is another "focus by wire" tech, so will demand the camera is powered up to use it.. so from a user point of view it isn't "cheaper ringUSM" it's "better STM". It's also new tech so it will be worth keeping an eye on rogers lensrentals site in case he mentions the EF-S 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS (first lens to have nanoUSM) regarding failures.


----------



## jedy (Mar 7, 2016)

I'd love an upgrade to the current f1.4 with better build and image quality. I'd happily pay a little more than the current f1.4 price but if it had IS, a slower f-stop and was double the price, I'd be quite disappointed. The appeal for me with Canons non-L 50s is size, decent f-stop and price. If the quality showed an overall improvement over the current 50 f1.4, keeping the price lower could make it a more attractive option to the third party lenses - and for those without deep pockets.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 7, 2016)

I am crossing my fingers for a new 50L. I have the 50 1.2L and like it very much. It isn't sharp, but it produces very pleasing images. Bokeh is fantastic. I would get a new new one if it was a little sharper at f/1.2, and the color fringing was dealt with. 

I would rather keep the size and weight down, in stead of it being Sigma 50 ART sharp, BIG AND HEAVY.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Right now, the mid grade needs an upgrade desperately. Canon right now has old early 90s lenses at $350-500 and then things shoot up to $1,500+ new pickle jar primes. There's a massive opportunity to offer more lenses like the 24/28/35 refresh from three years ago.
> 
> - A



I definitely agree there is quite the pricing gap between some of those primes in the $300, $400 range and the L glass the next step above going for $1500. That is probably why all the Sigma Art lenses are right in that sub 4 figure mark, they are exploiting that market segment.

However where I'll probably disagree with you a bit (respectively of course) is on the *need* to replace those 90s lenses with a refresh. Especially if it follows the 24/28 and comes with slow f/2.8 aperture. With lens design where it is today the old adage or primes being sharper then zooms isn't really true anymore. The one main advantage (optics/IQ wise, leaving aside size/weight) is the faster aperture, allowing more light, narrower DOF, leading to better bokeh, etc. I was disappointed with the f/2.8 speed of those new primes. I hope that is not a trend Canon continues.

Besides, those old 90s lenses are pretty solid. I have a couple and they are full USM with incredibly fast, accurate focus. Completely internal focusing, so less to worry about with dust, etc. And they are not pickle jars, if size/weight is something one takes into consideration.

I was just going through photos the other week and came across this one I had kind of missed from last fall. Those 90s lenses are not half bad at capturing the shot. The fast focus and solid camera AF help a lot.


Bike and Dress... Again by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 7, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> However where I'll probably disagree with you a bit (respectively of course) is on the *need* to replace those 90s lenses with a refresh. Especially if it follows the 24/28 and comes with slow f/2.8 aperture. With lens design where it is today the old adage or primes being sharper then zooms isn't really true anymore. The one main advantage (optics/IQ wise, leaving aside size/weight) is the faster aperture, allowing more light, narrower DOF, leading to better bokeh, etc. I was disappointed with the f/2.8 speed of those new primes. I hope that is not a trend Canon continues.



Awesome shot -- thanks for sharing.

Yeah, Canon stayed slow with the 24/28/35 refresh and put IS on it. Nikon, in comparison, didn't put IS on their mid-grade primes but everything was f/1.8.

I happen to love my 28 f/2.8 IS USM for great IQ in a small package, but I fully understand those who want larger aperture glass.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Mar 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > First bought a EF 50 f/1.8 II...amazing if you stop down just a bit. But the AF killed me. So the current STM version might be all many people need. But I upgraded to the EF 50 f/1.4. Love the lens. But then the Sigma 50A was announced. I convinced myself that I needed better performance from f/1.4-f/2.8.
> ...




I kept the 40 mm f/2.8. Just a little bit wider, but even smaller and lighter. So, if I want small and light, that is my go to. But I had all three as options for ~18 months. I reached for the Sigma, despite the size, almost every time I wanted a prime in that range. Best IQ of any pickle jar I've ever seen.


----------



## RMahtab (Mar 7, 2016)

I have the 50mm 1.8 STM and I love it!


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 7, 2016)

I have a pristine 50/2.5 CM, which is the oldest EF lens I own, both in terms of lens design and length of ownership (12+ years). I rarely use it for macro anymore, since I have a 100/2.8L IS Macro. I'd like to replace it with an equally sharp, faster (aperture and focusing) 50, ideally -- but not necessarily -- with IS.

So I voted for the 50mm f/2.0 IS USM, which in my case means any 50mm with true ring USM and IS, with a maximum aperture of f/2.0 or faster.

But I'd also buy a 50/1.4 with ring USM (_since the USM on the current 50/1.4 isn't true ring USM, would its successor be considered a "II"?_) if it were released sooner.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 7, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> But I'd also buy a 50/1.4 with ring USM (_since the USM on the current 50/1.4 isn't true ring USM, would its successor be considered a "II"?_) if it were released sooner.



Good question. If the new 50 was a newer/fancier EF 50mm f/1.4 USM with ring USM, I think it would just be a 'II' version as 'micro-USM' was never in the title of the original 1993 lens.

As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:


EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.
EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM = Buy. Pricey, but if still relatively small compared to the pickle jars, I'd be in.
EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM = Buy.
EF 50mm f/2.0 IS USM = Buy. Could be awesomely tiny and low-profile, but I imagine they'd never put this out given that the budget STM lens is still f/1.8.
EF 50mm f/anything L USM = Not buy. Presumably too big/expensive/specialized for my needs, but we'll see. If it was not a draw/bokeh specialist of a lens and was sharper across the frame, I'd maaaaybe consider it.
EF 50mm f/2.5 1:2 compact macro USM = Not buy. I think I need f/2 or quicker, and I don't need another macro (either due to a large internal focusing housing or non-internal focusing design that leans out a great deal.)
EF 50mm of any sort with STM = kill it with a hammer. Not good enough for this class of lens.

I imagine everyone's personal buy / not buy list is quite different, though.

- A


----------



## J.R. (Mar 7, 2016)

If Canon can make a 50 f/2 IS with the same form factor and same IQ as the 35 f/2 IS, we could just have a winner.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > However where I'll probably disagree with you a bit (respectively of course) is on the *need* to replace those 90s lenses with a refresh. Especially if it follows the 24/28 and comes with slow f/2.8 aperture. With lens design where it is today the old adage or primes being sharper then zooms isn't really true anymore. The one main advantage (optics/IQ wise, leaving aside size/weight) is the faster aperture, allowing more light, narrower DOF, leading to better bokeh, etc. I was disappointed with the f/2.8 speed of those new primes. I hope that is not a trend Canon continues.
> ...



Hey, once in a while I get lucky and I end up with a decent shot! 

In fairness I really haven't heard any negatives about any of those new lenses, including the 28mm. I think the newer lenses, while sharper, really have excelled in correcting CA versus the older designs. The f/2.8 is just my personal preference, others may not care. I guess my biggest point is that we all probably like to pile on the older designs and the reality is they are still pretty decent pieces of glass. The whole stop pixel peeping and looking at camera spec sheets and "get out and shoot" mantra comes to mind.

I did break my f/2.8 prime rule and really enjoyed the EF-S 24mm STM on my 70D, and especially on a Rebel body. Nice compact kit with a slightly wide to normal view great for out and about with the fam. Of course the M + 22mm kind of stole that thunder with both a smaller size and better aperture.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:
> 
> 
> EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.
> ...



I agree completely, with the exception of the potential future L variant. Wouldn't even consider it. All my zooms are L's, but I just don't need a 50L. I'm not a bokeh fanatic, and if I were, f/1.4 would be plenty fast for me, particularly if it were sharp wide open.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 7, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:
> ...



Agree. I only put the 50L up there if it remained compact yet also got sharper across the frame. Doubt both will happen. Much more likely the 50 f/1.2L II will step and go toe to toe sharpness-wise with the Sigma 50 Art, much like how the 35L II did to the Sigma 35 Art. The only way a new 50L pulls that off is getting _much_ bigger, and I have no need for that.

- A


----------



## Zv (Mar 7, 2016)

IS would be nice in a f/2 STM or USM but I'm not bothered all that much now since getting the f/1.8 STM. That thing is sweet as! Cheap and cheerful! 

I'm curious if we'll see an updated f/1.4 version. I'm fairly certain if we do get one it won't have IS. Then what would get IS? An f/2 seems probable. Since we already have a STM could this next 50 have that Nano USM perhaps?? A 50mm f/2 IS NUSM? That would make it ripe for video use which we are seeing a lot of support for recently. 

I'm kinda over the whole fast 50 thing. Fifty isn't really my focal length of choice, I'm more of a wide or tele guy. Only reason I have one is to have something compact and versatile in the bag at all times. Which is why I love my little STM. 

Nah. No more fifties for me!


----------



## tcmatthews (Mar 8, 2016)

I have a number of 50mm lenses. For of the voting options the 50 STM is good enough. But, I also own the Sony EF 55f1.8 the STM is good but I gave up waiting for Canon to release a high quality 50mm lens. I am more likely to use prime lens on my Sony A7II than my Canon Cameras anyway. I would like for Canon to release a new 50mmf2 full 1:1 macro without need to use the live size converter. I might be interested in buying that. 

Most want an updated 50f1.4 with IS completely updated more inline the 35 IS but I am not likely to buy one. I have always seen the current 50L as a specialty lens not really interested because of the shortcomings.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 16, 2016)

I've been thinking about this a bit since my last post, and -- regardless what the 50mm lens I _want_ Canon to produce would look like -- I'm beginning to come to terms with the notion that their next 50mm non-STM, non-L prime lens will not be equipped with IS.

Sure, Image Stabilization _is_ great, it's a cornerstone Canon technology, and most of us want it, in at least some of our lenses (all but my 50mm prime are equipped with IS). But think about the slow, drip-drip-drip process by which Canon gradually improves individual products and pushes out their technology. We're still waiting for a 400/5.6L II, with or without IS. Likewise a 300/4L IS II. There are rumors of a third-generation 24-70/2.8L which finally receives IS. On the body side, my friend PuppyFace over on photo.net is still waiting for Eye-Contolled-Focus -- which was featured in a number of film SLR bodies -- to make its debut in the dSLR arena.

Anyway, bottom line, the 50/1.4 design is so old and overdue for an update, that I think Canon will give its successor the same maximum aperture, true ring USM, contemporary body styling, possibly an updated optical design and / or more modern lens coatings. And then wait another decade or two before updating it with IS.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 18, 2016)

All of this talk about 50 mm lenses got me thinking more about it, and I think what I'd really like to see is an f/1.4 lens around the 60 mm or even 65 mm mark (ideally with IS, but not if it means a smaller maximum aperture). I like a 35 mm, and I'd like to have a longer prime for portraits, but I find it difficult to decide between 50 mm and 85 mm. I like a bit of context/surroundings in the shot, and I find my 85 mm seems to lack much versatility (or is that just me?!) even though it's great for a particular type of shot.

I've also seen a few portraits by Peter Coulson on F-Stoppers recently which I really liked, and from what I can tell he seems to take a lot of his shots at around the equivalent of 60 mm to 75 mm (he is often shooting with a Hasselblad rather than a 35 mm camera though).

Would anyone else be (more) tempted by a prime around the 60 mm or 65 mm mark?


----------



## j-nord (Mar 18, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Would anyone else be (more) tempted by a prime around the 60 mm or 65 mm mark?



65mm-ish would probably interest me more especially with a very good MFD and fast AF. I recently picked up the 50mm f1.8 STM and nearing the MFD the AF gets very very slow, similar to the 50mm f2.5 compact macro I had before it (although it's slow 100% of the time). IS would be good too but it would have to be very good at f2 to sacrifice a f1.4 or f1.8.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 18, 2016)

So with voting's now closed we have our answer.

If canon wants to replace the 50f1.4 and to sell as many lenses as possible to CR contributers, they need a 50mm F1.4 ringUSM, letting either the price or aperture suffer significantly to add IS will dent sales, although letting the price rise to keep the f1.4 when adding IS is more popular than shrinking the aperture.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 18, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> So with voting's now closed we have our answer.
> 
> If canon wants to replace the 50f1.4 and to sell as many lenses as possible to CR contributers, they need a 50mm F1.4 ringUSM, letting either the price or aperture suffer significantly to add IS will dent sales, although letting the price rise to keep the f1.4 when adding IS is more popular than shrinking the aperture.



Personally, I see a ton of variation on this depending on how good optically this lens will be, and then our mind jumps to price, and *then* we answer the poll. So I'll wager some respondents would love a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM but mentally have a $1,000+ price tag in their heads and they may have made cheaper choices.

Though that might happen, let's unpack that a bit. Let's presume for a sec that the new lens *will* be f/1.4 for now (indulge me):


If it's as strong as the Sigma Art optically, then yes, a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM would absolutely steal sales from the 50L and I'd expect this new lens to be north of $1,000 (even without gaskets, a red ring, etc.). 


But if the new lens coming is optically improved _but not earth-shakingly awesome_ -- let's say the new 50mm f/1.4 IS USM is like the 35mm f/2 IS USM (very good, but not the best in that FL). Perhaps to keep the lens compact like the current 50 f/1.4, they focus on the ring USM / internal focusing aspects of the design but not radically change the current f/1.4 design's optical formula. I think it's possible that lens could come in around $750. Heck, if the new lens is just the identical 1993 optical formula in a new modern housing, that honestly could be a $500 lens.


I'm convinced we'll see the latter and not the former happen. So I'm expecting a new 50mm lens in the $500-800 range, and my money is on it having IS. Whether it's f/1.4 or not remains a total mystery.

- A


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 21, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Would anyone else be (more) tempted by a prime around the 60 mm or 65 mm mark?



We've just received another new rumor about a forthcoming 50mm lens:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=491dc108527b511d84f3aa8d655829e8&topic=29391.0

But I, too, might be tempted by a 60-65mm replacement. My only primes are the 35 f/2 IS, the 50 f/2.5 CM and the 100 f/2.8L IS macro. I used to own an 85 f/1.8, but the FL didn't really "speak to me," so I replaced it with the above 100mm lens. 

So I'm thinking that the 60-65mm range would fit nicely between the 35 and 100. I could run a query in Lightroom to see what percentage of the shots I've taken with my standard zoom are in / near this FL range, but there's not much point unless / until Canon actually releases (or even announces) something.


----------



## canonix (Mar 24, 2016)

I got the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Lens and am very satisfied. I really love taking Portraits with it, because the light sets in better than with any other lense I had, also the pictures are very sharp.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Mar 24, 2016)

I'd like an 85 or 90mm f/2.0 or faster IS to compliment my 35mm IS. Where I usually shoot there is no room for a tripod or monopod even and of course no light. And an included rubbery lens shade for when the mosh pit people fly into me would be good too. But I would settle for a 50mm f/2.0 or faster IS.


----------

