# EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 13, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6535" 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;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6535"></a></div>
<p><strong>New 50′s on the block?

</strong>Received word today that prototype 50 f/1.4 II’s and 50 f/1.8 III’s exist. The thought was both would be announced at the same time.</p>
<p>The 50 1.4 is in dire need of an update, and I think you could expect to pay twice as much for one than the current model.</p>
<p>No mention of IS in either lens.</p>
<p>Nikon has updated both lenses, so this one seems plausible. I’ve given up posting when such stuff would be announced. No one can truly know.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r </strong></p>
```


----------



## skitron (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

This is very good news if true. Not surprising given the success of the Sigma. I have a very recent copy of the Sigma and it has very little focus shift and hits focus most of the time and is a nice lens. But I would imagine the Canon 1.4 II would hit focus more often plus do much better on full frame. That would make me very interested in this lens since I plan on going full frame when 5d3 hits.


----------



## Admin US West (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

The 50mm f/1.4 is a bit weak wide open, but its also fairly cheap. I find myself using 35mm and 85mm a lot more than 50mm, so I'm doubtful that I'd pay $700 for a new 50mm lens. 

Here is a shot at f/1.4, ISO 1600 taken at our local school play. Reasonable at f/1.4 for a $350 lens.


----------



## J. McCabe (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

With Canon's new lens prices, the only thing dire is photographers' need to win the lottery.


----------



## dvdbrm (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I don't have a problem with the price going up as long as they give us a quality product.

Make it rock solid.


----------



## nocojoe (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



J. McCabe said:


> With Canon's new lens prices, the only thing dire is photographers' need to win the lottery.



+1 

With any new increases other than the AF, it may make the only differences between the cameras the size of the apertures.


----------



## dg28 (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



nocojoe said:


> With any new increases other than the AF, it may make the only differences between the cameras the size of the apertures.



If you look at Canon's track record on MkII lenses the other thing they almost always do is to reduce the minimum focus distance. If they could do that on a MkII 50mm f1.4 then that would be a big advance. The 85mm f1.8 really needs to knock 15cm off of it's closest focus distance too.


----------



## Flake (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I think the optics of the 50mm f/1.4 are pretty good, especially considering how old the design is. Sure it's a bit soft a very large apertures, but then most if not all of these lenses are. The biggest problem with it is the autofocus and the USM micro motor, which makes it the most unreliable lens in Canon's product line.

I can't envisage Canon putting IS into a 50mm prime, there's no market precedent for that, and a lot of people like their primes because of the light weight, IS would negate that advantage.

This is a CR2 rumour so it carries a bit more weight than the usual gossip which does the rounds.


----------



## Frankie T Fotografia (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Would this 50mm f1.8 be Canon's first MK III lens?


----------



## LuCoOc (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Frankie T Fotografia said:


> Would this 50mm f1.8 be Canon's first MK III lens?



No there is the 75-300 III http://www.canon.de/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Telephoto_Zoom/EF_75-300mm_f4-5.6_III_USM/

i would like to see a new 1.4. i could find myself paying 600â‚¬ for a decent imagequality


----------



## adamdoesmovies (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Flake said:


> I think the optics of the 50mm f/1.4 are pretty good, especially considering how old the design is. Sure it's a bit soft a very large apertures, but then most if not all of these lenses are. The biggest problem with it is the autofocus and the USM micro motor, which makes it the most unreliable lens in Canon's product line.
> 
> I can't envisage Canon putting IS into a 50mm prime, there's no market precedent for that, and a lot of people like their primes because of the light weight, IS would negate that advantage.
> 
> This is a CR2 rumour so it carries a bit more weight than the usual gossip which does the rounds.



Having IS in a 50mm 1.4 would be ridiculously amazing for low light. a 3-4 stop advantage ON TOP of an f/1.4 aperture would have capabilities similar to the Noctilux (though your focus would no longer be razor thin, thankfully).


----------



## MarkB (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I use the current 1.4 almost as much as my 24-105L. It is less reliable in focus but it has great contrast and my 3 favorite photos were taken with it. I have never taken a keeper open wider than f1.8 so IMO that is usable max aperture. It seems to work magic around 2.2-3.2.


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

A new 50 1.4. would truly be good news. I wouldn't even want them to change the optical design. I like it as is. Just more sturdy and with internal focusing and I'll be happy to trade mine in. In other words: I'd be more than happy to shell out $600 or $700 on an EF version of my old FD 50 1.4 lenses...


----------



## azf (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

It's quite hard to justify $700 for 50/1.4 if it's just a minor upgrade of the old model. For that price, it'd better be *a lot* better (doubtful), have something more (like IS) or be significantly more compact (very unlikely). Of course the lottery winners among us might go for that even if they just added red "L" ring to it and nothing more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



azf said:


> Of course the lottery winners among us might go for that even if they just added red "L" ring to it and nothing more.



I highly doubt they'd make a 50mm f/1.4L given that there's already a 50mm f/1.2L. But given the cost of the L version, even a $600-700 50/1.4 II would be cheap by comparison. I suspect there are quite a few people out there who would be interested in a 50mm prime but are put off by the micro-USM AF and wide-open softness/halation of the current 50/1.4 (at least, that's what kept me from buying one, so I have the 35L and the 85L instead).


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



azf said:


> It's quite hard to justify $700 for 50/1.4 if it's just a minor upgrade of the old model. For that price, it'd better be *a lot* better (doubtful), have something more (like IS) or be significantly more compact (very unlikely). Of course the lottery winners among us might go for that even if they just added red "L" ring to it and nothing more.



I think it is very compact as is. I wouldn't actually mind if it was slightly bigger without getting into the 50L territory. No, I did not win the lottery ;-) But I actually think and have said before that the current model is "too cheap". Again, I don't need an update as far as the optics go. They have served me well over the last 25 years or so. I'd like to see any extra cost go directly towards a very rugged barrel with inner focusing. IS doesn't make sense. I don't like it in general and certainly not on this lens.

What I don't get are the "complaints" that I see on the web lately where people think that the lens isn't "sharp enough" or doesn't have enough contrast etc. It still is one of Canon's best lenses I think. Even wide open it is very very good and more than useful. It's a shame that the EF version lives in this silly little plastic housing with the front element moving in and out and exposed to damaging the motor drive.


----------



## awinphoto (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

If they made the autofocus for the 1.4 more reliable and a tad bit sharper at wide open and i'd consider that a major improvement rather than minor improvement. While it's a "fast"lens, it's not fast in terms of the autofocus and I have to almost pace my shooting a bit to let the lens catch up to me before I fire. If I consciously remember to do that, i get a high keeper rate. If I have to shoot at full 8 frames a second with my 7D, i'd be lucky to get any keepers. 

I do find on portraits, even on production portraiture (when I shoot daycares, schools, sports teams, etc) 1.4 is way too thin and typically stop down to at most 2.2 or below so that buys me room for error in microfocus and i have an extremely high keeper rate (as long as I pace myself). It would be nice if it could keep up with me for those split second make it or break it shots you get with kids...


----------



## anthony11 (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



adamdoesmovies said:


> Having IS in a 50mm 1.4 would be ridiculously amazing for low light. a 3-4 stop advantage ON TOP of an f/1.4 aperture would have capabilities similar to the Noctilux (though your focus would no longer be razor thin, thankfully).



f/1.4 is still plenty thin, and IS would just add cost, mass, and would be something else to break. Subject motion dominates anyway


----------



## skitron (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Concerning price point, I would imagine this new 1.4 will need to be priced according to how much it can tangibly outperform the Sigma. The Sigma is a great lens on a crop body and is doing very well marketwise, and some even like it for full frame. So I'd think Canon will need to demonstrate a reason not to buy the Sigma, which will hopefully means better autofocus (though my Sigma is actually doing well in this regard) and better off center sharpness when used on FF. I think Canon will be successful, otherwise why even do the new version, and imagine that puts it about $599. I'll be shocked if it has IS though I'd be all for it since it shoots like an 80 on a crop body. Of course it'd have a completely different price point in that case.


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

*+1*



anthony11 said:


> adamdoesmovies said:
> 
> 
> > Having IS in a 50mm 1.4 would be ridiculously amazing for low light. a 3-4 stop advantage ON TOP of an f/1.4 aperture would have capabilities similar to the Noctilux (though your focus would no longer be razor thin, thankfully).
> ...



exactly.


----------



## hutjeflut (May 13, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

lets hopw the 50 1.8 III IQ is as good as the mkII but it gets USM so it actuay bothers focussing unlike the MKII wich is crap when it comes to focusing .

id pay 200 ish euro for a improved version and they get my old one back as thats a shitty lens preformance wise.
but knowing canon its not gonna get USM and cost about 250 euro as all there new lenses are more then twice the price of the old ones.... greedy buggers.


----------



## LuCoOc (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



dilbert said:


> If the 50/1.4-II goes to $600-$700, what of the 50/1.8-III?
> 
> Does that become the new 50mm $300 lens?
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure canon will raise the price to 600-700 $/â‚¬. The gap between the current 1.4 and the 1.2L is big enough for them to do that :'(
Anyway the current lens developements showed impressive improvements maybe we see that in the primes too?!


----------



## Garym5 (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

This is not good for me as I have just bought the 50 1.4 MK I..Probably will be harder for me to sell the older version if the new does come out.. Probably a random rumor like in 2009 when this came about..


----------



## Etienne (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

If the new 50 1.4 is really good I'll get one because it's useful for portraits on both crop and FF and it'll be handy for low light. I have the 1.8: it's not very good at 1.8, the AF is pretty bad, the construction is toy-like, Manual Focus is finicky, so I don't use it much. The current 1.4 is not sufficiently attractive, but a solid v.2 would be attractive even at $700.


----------



## awinphoto (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I am holding my breath on this rumor and taking a wait and see approach on any new lenses, especially in the near future.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

A 50mm f1.4 that doesn't fall apart after a few years use would be nice...and curing the low contrast when shooting wide open would be ncie too. The 50mm f1.8's AF is oddly more accurate and faster than the f1.4 USM version! I know that the 50mm f1.2 L is a much more expensive and exotic lens....but it really is far far superior to the other two lenses in many ways.


----------



## hutjeflut (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

as adition to me other post i think canopn would be doing themselves a favon if they stiopped using any motor but USM as it highly improves the focus ability's of a lens and i guess that the older usm by now is rather cheap to produce and miles better then these anoying micromotors.

i guess its smething people are willing to pay a little more for as now theres often the regret they didnt get a good lens the first time.
like the new kit lens and the 55-250 are great lenses IQ wise however there just terribly slow focusing.


----------



## Flake (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I cannot envisage a huge price increase on any of the new 50mm lenses. Largely Canon are cheaper than Nikon and the Nikon 1.4 is not much more than the Canon how would Canon justify a massively expensive version to it's customers? I expect a lens with a broadly similar price.


----------



## hutjeflut (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Flake said:


> I cannot envisage a huge price increase on any of the new 50mm lenses. Largely Canon are cheaper than Nikon and the Nikon 1.4 is not much more than the Canon how would Canon justify a massively expensive version to it's customers? I expect a lens with a broadly similar price.



seeing the past 7 lenses that canon gave a upgrade thats not how things seem to go sadly
all where alot more expencive or almost double the price of the old version.
somehow canon is either way to confident/cocky or people are still stupid enough to buy silly expencive gear wich automaticly justifies the rediculous prices...

im afraid the last is a big part of the problem!

as for the 500 1.8 if it has USM and same or better IQ even i am crazy enough to pay 220 bucks for it and im a real nitpicker on prices.


----------



## Flake (May 14, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

If you're meaning the big whites then all of them are cheaper on the street than the Nikon equivalents, lenses like the fisheye zoom are impossible to compare. I think that covers 5 can't remember the other 2! 

Recent lenses like the 100mm IS L Macro lens is marginally more expensive than the Nikon 105mm but then it does have the new H-IS system.


----------



## Macadameane (May 15, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



hutjeflut said:


> as for the 500 1.8 if it has USM and same or better IQ even i am crazy enough to pay 220 bucks for it and im a real nitpicker on prices.



Wowee, 500mm f/1.8, I would pay $220 for it too! Imagine the creamy background of that.


----------



## dnhjr (May 15, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Yeah, the 50/1.8 needs a update big time IMO. A metal mount and USM w/ FTM is a must.


----------



## unruled (May 15, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I wish it would get a metal mount again.. but that would be awkward seing as how they went from Mk I metal -> Mk II plastic ..

il probably get a version of a 50mm between now and 12 months (no rush, no money in the bank), so im glad to see this rumour. hopefully its true and brings something nice. Presumably the 100$ 50 should stay 100$ though..


----------



## hutjeflut (May 15, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



unruled said:


> I wish it would get a metal mount again.. but that would be awkward seing as how they went from Mk I metal -> Mk II plastic ..
> 
> il probably get a version of a 50mm between now and 12 months (no rush, no money in the bank), so im glad to see this rumour. hopefully its true and brings something nice. Presumably the 100$ 50 should stay 100$ though..



they can verry well keep producing this lens and make a usm version alongside it


----------



## HughHowey (May 15, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

5D3 this year. 8)


----------



## Admin US West (May 16, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Although a metal mount seems better, I've not seen a plastic mount that broke badly enough to malfunction. On such a light weight lens its really not needed. I did have a plastic mount EF power zoom that had a chip out of the mount, but it was a old lens.

This lens is positioned as a low cost entry level lens, so making changes that would double the price would not be the best idea. 

From what I've read, the earthquale effects have already affected planned introductions out into 2013, so its entirely possible that we might see new versions of the made in Taiwan lenses, assuming that they were not badly affected by the component shortages. I'm sure that Canon is looking at all the possible ways to increase production.


----------



## unruled (May 16, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

is there any reason to believe taiwan made lenses are inferior to japan made lenses? 

I remember reading about people complaining about made in china lenses (dont know about taiwan).


----------



## Caps18 (May 16, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I wonder if there is going to be a newer 50mm f/1.2 lens? That is one of the lenses I'm looking at getting.


----------



## Admin US West (May 16, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



unruled said:


> is there any reason to believe taiwan made lenses are inferior to japan made lenses?
> 
> I remember reading about people complaining about made in china lenses (dont know about taiwan).



Canon farms out the lower cost mass produced lenses to Taiwan (18-55, 50mm f/1.8, ...). The lenses are designed for low cost manufacturing.

This does not mean that manufacturing quality is inferior, just that the lenses are not designed to be "L" grade construction.

Its likely that the high end lenses could be made in Taiwan, or most anywhere. Canon just wants to keep the high end stuff at home.

On the other hand, Nikon farms out assembly of their lenses to plants in Thailand. Some of the critical lens components are still made in Japan, and they cannot be easily outsourced on short notice, it takes years to tool, startup, and debug a lens plant. 

Canon has been trying to get a lens production factory started up in Oita for two years now. Thats where the new supertelephoto lenses were to be made as I understand it. Its not fast or easy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Caps18 said:


> I wonder if there is going to be a newer 50mm f/1.2 lens? That is one of the lenses I'm looking at getting.



I doubt it. The 50/1.2L is not that old (released in 2007), and was itself an update of sorts, from the 50mm f/1.0L (released in 1989, and still shows up on the used market occasionally for $3-4K). The other two current 50mm standard primes are from the early 90's.


----------



## ronderick (May 18, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



scalesusa said:


> On the other hand, Nikon farms out assembly of their lenses to plants in Thailand. Some of the critical lens components are still made in Japan, and they cannot be easily outsourced on short notice, it takes years to tool, startup, and debug a lens plant.
> 
> Canon has been trying to get a lens production factory started up in Oita for two years now. Thats where the new supertelephoto lenses were to be made as I understand it. Its not fast or easy.



Just to add my 2 cents....

Canon's plant in Taiwan is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year.

They've been shipping out lenses since 1994, totalling to nearly 20 million as of March 5, 2011.

It currently manufactures the following lenses: 18-55, 60-macro, 17-85, 28-135, 18-200, 18-135, 15-85, 55-250 (from the 40th anniversary publication - p.63 - at their website:http://tcw.canon.com.tw/history_01.html)


----------



## Admin US West (May 18, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



ronderick said:


> Just to add my 2 cents....
> 
> Canon's plant in Taiwan is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year.
> 
> ...



I think we will see more lenses from Taiwan in the future. They can build good lenses of high quality for less than Japan. I hope Canon won't forget the lesson learned about not having a backup production line in case of a disaster. I'm certainly not afraid to buy a "L" made in Taiwan if Canon starts building them there.


----------



## Lawliet (May 18, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



scalesusa said:


> I'm certainly not afraid to buy a "L" made in Taiwan if Canon starts building them there.



I second that - some of the chinese products I recently bought are of excellent craftsmanship and well designed.
A price similar to their western counterparts, but of higher quality.

If Canon enforces strict quality control the location of the factory doesn't matter.


----------



## AdamJ (May 19, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I'd be surprised and annoyed if a new 1.4 were given L status. Non-L users deserve up-to-date products, too.


----------



## Caps18 (May 19, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



neuroanatomist said:


> I doubt it. The 50/1.2L is not that old (released in 2007), and was itself an update of sorts, from the 50mm f/1.0L (released in 1989, and still shows up on the used market occasionally for $3-4K). The other two current 50mm standard primes are from the early 90's.



Why did you tell me about this lens...you just cost me an extra $3000. Thanks. 

I did not know the f/1.0 existed, but for the night time pictures I take, it might be the right lens.


----------



## studio1972 (May 20, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Caps18 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt it. The 50/1.2L is not that old (released in 2007), and was itself an update of sorts, from the 50mm f/1.0L (released in 1989, and still shows up on the used market occasionally for $3-4K). The other two current 50mm standard primes are from the early 90's.
> ...



The 1.2 is a much better lens from what I've heard, the 1.0 is more of a collectors lens.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 22, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Feature wish list, hit any of these along with IQ and it's probably a sale for me:
* Better sharpness wide open
* Newer bells-and-whistles focus system with ring USM (although focusing the current model has never given me any trouble, the focus ring does feel a bit nasty like there's sand in it - always has)
* IS
* Closer focus

Aside from that, more rounded and a greater number of aperture blades, internal focus, etc. would be great but not so essential for me personally. It would be great if it were truly parfocal; IF should help with that. I don't shoot a lot of video and wouldn't use a 1.4 if I had the chance to use something else, though, especially if focus needed to be changed.


scalesusa said:


> The 50mm f/1.4 is a bit weak wide open, but its also fairly cheap. I find myself using 35mm and 85mm a lot more than 50mm, so I'm doubtful that I'd pay $700 for a new 50mm lens.


I agree (though since I have a crop body currently I get a lot of use out of the 50 since it's essentially an 80, which is roughly my favored focal length for most shooting). The last couple days I've been experimenting more with the 50mm 1.4 wide open and find myself surprisingly happy with its performance. I might still spring for a new lens if it becomes much sharper at f/1.4, but I've had the current model only a short while and it won't feel like it makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of cost effectiveness, unless I manage to sell my current 50 for a good price.


AdamJ said:


> I'd be surprised and annoyed if a new 1.4 were given L status. Non-L users deserve up-to-date products, too.


That's just funny. If it doesn't add anything to the price, why not? I'm just hoping that there will be value for the money.


----------



## unruled (May 22, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Just realized, the announcement of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G may have some consequences for new canon 50's.
it has usm (equivalent) and an aspherical element. Perhaps canon will follow suit... one can certainly hope, although i would deem it more likely to arrive on the 1.4, leaving us 1.8 folk left out.


----------



## Admin US West (May 22, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



unruled said:


> Just realized, the announcement of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G may have some consequences for new canon 50's.
> it has usm (equivalent) and an aspherical element. Perhaps canon will follow suit... one can certainly hope, although I would deem it more likely to arrive on the 1.4, leaving us 1.8 folk left out.



Retail price is expected to be $219 for a crop lens. Canon might be interested if they can double their price!


----------



## AdamJ (May 23, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Quote from: AdamJ on May 19, 2011, 11:47:00 PM

I'd be surprised and annoyed if a new 1.4 were given L status. Non-L users deserve up-to-date products, too.

That's just funny. If it doesn't add anything to the price, why not? I'm just hoping that there will be value for the money.


It ALWAYS adds to the price!!


----------



## Flake (May 23, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Caps18 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt it. The 50/1.2L is not that old (released in 2007), and was itself an update of sorts, from the 50mm f/1.0L (released in 1989, and still shows up on the used market occasionally for $3-4K). The other two current 50mm standard primes are from the early 90's.
> ...



Good job no one mentioned the f/.95 then!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 24, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



AdamJ said:


> Quote from: AdamJ on May 19, 2011, 11:47:00 PM
> 
> I'd be surprised and annoyed if a new 1.4 were given L status. Non-L users deserve up-to-date products, too.
> 
> ...


Professor mode: Logical fallacy spotted, assuming the antecedent. 

Because it's an "L" lens means (or should) that it has some features that you won't get elsewhere, not that it is just more expensive to pull the lens lineup out of the users' price range. I think it is important to the whole lineup have a good quality, affordable fast prime like the 50mm, and the current design could be improved on in a number of ways. I have had no problems with the build, but if an "L" designated 50 keeps people from losing theirs to reliability issues, that makes the apparent price difference (just a rumor at this point) in fact somewhat smaller.

I'm with you on your main point: It's nice to have consumer-level lenses, because they do cost less, and I don't want Canon to completely replace the 50mm with something that costs more, and take the 50mm out of the lineup entirely. On the other hand, consider the 50mm compact macro: It's been out of the lineup for a while but that "hole" seems more or less plugged by the EF-S 60mm macro, which is only around $20 more than the 50mm f/1.4. I'm guessing it's more expensive to produce than the roughly 20-plus-year old Compact Macro design would have been today, but at launch the compact macro would have been as much if not more expensive in 1987 dollars anyway.

The 60mm macro probably would have been more expensive by at least a bit than the 50mm compact macro would have been before its retirement, but things do become obsolete. Even if we don't always see a benefit to Canon refreshing the line (I have no personal opinion on the compact macro scene, having used neither lens - it just came to mind), they still have to do it periodically to avoid falling back.

The 50mm isn't a lens like the 70-200 ranges where users can look forward to saving money by getting a previous mark of the lens, but even if the price stays fixed it will slowly become more affordable due to inflation, so overall it's probably just a temporary price spike. Considering any new lens will be made using more up-to-date technology, it stands to reason they will want more money from it - older lens designs will be cheaper to make and the investment to produce them originally will have been returned long ago.

A lot of my latest predictions turned out poorly, but I think Canon might have the idea that the 50mm is not such an important lens. "Consumers" seem to be better served by zooms (like the 17-55, which isn't cheap). It's not as fast, but the already-mentioned EF-S 60mm f/2.8 seems like a good fit for many EF-S shooters, being both pretty fast, a macro, and a similar focal length. The 80mm lens, which is the FOV equivalent used by FF pros, seems to be right up to date in multiple flavors, including the modern classic f/1.2, so anybody shooting a 50mm on a crop body has to move to entirely different equipment on FF.

The only real reason I can think of to keep the 50mm around is, of course, not just for the 80mm-equivalent length, but as the "normal" lens for a full-frame body, but I keep hearing how much the 50mm length has lost favor since the old days, as if it were a fisheye or something. Well, Canon brought fisheye back - maybe there's hope for the 50mm too. At the very least, I don't see them retiring it outright without a replacement, but I really wish they would have something good and sharp like Nikon seems to have, instead of the portrait-focused f/1.2 version.


----------



## bvukich (May 24, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Flake said:


> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Wasn't that FD mount?


----------



## Rocky (May 24, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Flake said:


> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


f/ 0.95 is for Canon body with Leica screw mount


----------



## John Smith (May 24, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Edwin Herdman said:


> I'm with you on your main point: It's nice to have consumer-level lenses, because they do cost less, and I don't want Canon to completely replace the 50mm with something that costs more, and take the 50mm out of the lineup entirely. On the other hand, consider the 50mm compact macro: It's been out of the lineup for a while but that "hole" seems more or less plugged by the EF-S 60mm macro, which is only around $20 more than the 50mm f/1.4.



It can plug the hole for APS-C users only. The EF-S 60mm will not mount on an FF body, so it can't plug any hole for FF body owners.

That's beside the point that Amazon has (at the moment I wrote this message) eight EF 50mm f/2.5 in stock, and that the EF-S 60mm is an APS-C equivalent of an EF 100mm macro.


----------



## dtr (May 24, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Optically 50/1.4 is quite qood when stopped down slightly. I am reasonably happy with it if I regard it as f/2.0 prime. The build quality is appalling at best and needs a major upgrade. If they could bump it to the 85/1.8 level it would be the best thing ever. That one is simply amazing lens, and at the same price.

50/1.8 quite frankly is terrible mechanically and not so good optically. It warrants the use of at least f.2.8 or better f/4 to get razor sharp images, and avoid the bokeh - it's ugly. Looking at the new Nikon 50/1.8 canon would have to play some catching up. That lens possibly looks better than the current 50/1.4 so I would expect something coming our way.


----------



## Macadameane (May 25, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



dtr said:


> 50/1.8 quite frankly is terrible mechanically and not so good optically. It warrants the use of at least f.2.8 or better f/4 to get razor sharp images, and avoid the bokeh - it's ugly. Looking at the new Nikon 50/1.8 canon would have to play some catching up. That lens possibly looks better than the current 50/1.4 so I would expect something coming our way.



I have used the 1.8 a bit, but not extensively. From what I've heard, a good copy can be pretty sharp, just under what the 1.4 can deliver.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 4, 2011)

*Re: +1*



7enderbender said:


> anthony11 said:
> 
> 
> > adamdoesmovies said:
> ...



Some stuff may be out of focus, but you could get it. Plus, I look at this from a video angle, too - IS allows me to get handheld shots without an extensive steadicam array. I want to have it on more than just zoom lenses!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 4, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Given that the 1.8 & 1.4 are from the pre-digital 90's, how about making the 1.4 into the base EF lens, adding the IS and improving the overall quality, selling that at double the price, but then making the 1.8 into a pure EF-S lens, knock it down to 31mm to suit the 90% of Canon bodies users (1.6x crop), add IS, add wider focus ring, add FTM and sell it for about 2-2.5x the current price. Bingo ! The beginnings of a EF-S range of primes.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 4, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Haydn1971 said:


> Given that the 1.8 & 1.4 are from the pre-digital 90's, how about making the 1.4 into the base EF lens, adding the IS and improving the overall quality, selling that at double the price, but then making the 1.8 into a pure EF-S lens, knock it down to 31mm to suit the 90% of Canon bodies users (1.6x crop), add IS, add wider focus ring, add FTM and sell it for about 2-2.5x the current price. Bingo ! The beginnings of a EF-S range of primes.



They could do this, but then they'd be breaking Nikon's monopoly on affordable APS-C primes.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 7, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*



Haydn1971 said:


> Given that the 1.8 & 1.4 are from the pre-digital 90's, how about making the 1.4 into the base EF lens, adding the IS and improving the overall quality, selling that at double the price, but then making the 1.8 into a pure EF-S lens, knock it down to 31mm to suit the 90% of Canon bodies users (1.6x crop), add IS, add wider focus ring, add FTM and sell it for about 2-2.5x the current price. Bingo ! The beginnings of a EF-S range of primes.


Excellent idea. Hope that Canon is listening.


----------



## Cherryd (Jul 20, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Ive just bought a 50mm 1.4 so I expect an announcement of a new version rather soon knowing my luck lol

Yes, and consider that every lens has a new announcement detector that gives you 60 days to get the new model before it stops working ---


----------



## puqq (Jul 24, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

I am starting to be dismally bored with my 50mm 1.8 Mk II on 5D. Do you think it's a scatterbrained thing to buy a Sigma 50mm 1.4 now? 

The Canon 50mm 1.4 will probably be better and also more expensive (most likely above the comfortable level of price for me), so I am not likely afford it anyway. However, what scares most is the significant lost of value for Sigma lens. Do you think I should wait or get the Sigma? 

The Sigma is pretty good on crop cameras, if it will AF accurately, that is. On FF the Canon 50mm f/1.4 edges it out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2011)

*Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]*

Chill. It's a RUMOR site, as in, 'for entertainment purposes only.' If you want facts and solid info, consult your favorite astrologer, or better yet, wait until Canon announces something. Oh, wait, even then, it may be months...years...between announcement and availability - look at the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye zoom, announced 11 months ago, still not available (although Canon annonuced a price increase for the lens recently, and the new price _was_ immediately available, even though the lens is not).


----------

