# New 50mm Compact Macro on the Way? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 2, 2016)

```
We’re told that Canon will updating one of it’s niche macro lenses, the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. As with most lens rumors, no timeline was given for an announcement.</p>
<p>The current 50mm f/2.5 compact macro is very popular with for reproductions and copywork.</p>
<p>We’ve always expected the EF 180mm f/3.5 to be the next macro to get an update.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## JonAustin (May 2, 2016)

Finally, my little 50CM may be getting some upgrade love. Even if true, I probably won't buy its successor, especially if the Canon EF 50mm f/whatever IS USM AHSANFORD SPECIAL gets produced. 8)


----------



## jolyonralph (May 2, 2016)

This is one of my favourite lenses. When focusing it does sound like a bag of angry bees, but it is the sharpest 50mm lens that Canon have made (which, to be fair, isn't saying much.)

One has to wonder why Canon would be remaking this niche lens, the only reason I can think of is that a 1987 design is probably quite expensive for them to keep the manufacturing tools in order for, and that a more modern design would be cheaper for them to make.

It wouldn't surprise me though if the optics inside were identical.


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Finally, my little 50CM may be getting some upgrade love. Even if true, I probably won't buy its successor, especially if the Canon EF 50mm f/whatever IS USM AHANSFORD SPECIAL gets produced. 8)



I can't win. Every new 50mm thread involves a sideline camera dedicated to my reaction like I'm a football coach. 

- A


----------



## j-nord (May 2, 2016)

Great lens, I've always assumed it would eventually get upgraded because it has real world professional use. It's a great lens for copying/reproduction (as mentioned by the OP) but also an excellent, cheap product photography lens. It's perfect for small businesses to photography their merchandise.


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

That this lens even exists (alongside all the nutty one-offs Canon has in its lineup) is both a blessing and a curse. 

Blessing: If you want something nutty, chances are Canon has it.

Curse: If you _don't_ want something nutty, chances are Canon might be working on something nutty instead of what you want.

I appreciate that the 50mm macro is even older than the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but I have wonder what small sliver of a market that macro lens even has today. Is it even 1/5th of the 50 f/1.4 share? 1/10th?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

As far as that focusing noise is concerned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo8w2Na2x9k

- A


----------



## Maximilian (May 2, 2016)

Funny! 
Now we have at least every old 50 mm lens rumored. 
But absolutely no release day or at least something looking like [CR2].

Looks like the pink unicorn seems to be a herd of 50 mm high/long/wide unicorns now 
(or is it the lengh of the horn? :-\ )



ahsanford said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, my little 50CM may be getting some upgrade love. Even if true, I probably won't buy its successor, especially if the Canon EF 50mm f/whatever IS USM AHANSFORD SPECIAL gets produced. 8)
> ...


Heads up, ahsanford! 
In the end you'll win. (at least if you can give up the IS  )


----------



## NancyP (May 2, 2016)

If this is a really sharp lens at macro / close up, I could go for it.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 2, 2016)

Good focal length for food photography, e.g. top-down shots


----------



## mb66energy (May 2, 2016)

If this comes true: Canon EF 2.0/50mm IS USM Macro
... this will probably my missing "wide angle to go" (100mm is standard for me).

I like the 2.8 40 but: Not close up enough and no distance scale (necessary if you are shooting experimental setup/data in school for later investigation like falling balls, rotating things, waves, spectra, etc.)


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 2, 2016)

Interesting...if f/2, very sharp, with a nice long throw. I have been eyeing the 60mm for my 80D, but I'd rather have a 50mm for my 6D and 80D, even if half-macro. The current 50mm macro is out of stock whereas the 180 is still in stock; that lends a bit of credence to the notion an update coming.


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Interesting...if f/2, very sharp, with a nice long throw. I have been eyeing the 60mm for my 80D, but I'd rather have a 50mm for my 6D and 80D, even if half-macro. The current 50mm macro is out of stock whereas the 180 is still in stock; that lends a bit of credence to the notion an update coming.



Has Canon ever offered an f/2 macro? I thought they all ran f/2.5 to f/3.5.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (May 2, 2016)

Makes sense to me.

50mm f2.? IS STM macro
&
50mm f1.4 ringUSM


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Makes sense to me.
> 
> 50mm f2.? IS STM macro
> &
> 50mm f1.4 ringUSM



Certainly possible, but I still contend that the 20 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100mm f/2, (i.e. 'early 90s better than budget') lenses will get the IS refresh treatment. (Perhaps not all of them, but the 85 for sure and hopefully the 50 as well.)

- A


----------



## cellomaster27 (May 2, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Makes sense to me.
> 
> 50mm f2.? IS STM macro
> &
> 50mm f1.4 ringUSM



I hope both are USM. Especially for macro and an EF lens. Personally, the only advantage to having STM is for autofocus video. That's it really. now I don't have any comment on the new nano usm. It seems good on paper. maybe that's the new thing we will be seeing?


----------



## rfdesigner (May 2, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Makes sense to me.
> ...



I've done very little macro work, how does ringUSM help with that. The few times I have played macro I've had all the time in the world.


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> I've done very little macro work, how does ringUSM help with that. The few times I have played macro I've had all the time in the world.



If the macro doubles as a standard prime for non-macro work, you want USM. I love the 100L as a short tele for portraits, kids or pets playing outside, etc.

If you only want to shoot dedicated tripod macro with it, AF is just a convenience to help you 'find' the basic neighborhood you want to focus on, but you still will likely switch to MF to nail what you want. 

For 'not serious' / impromptu / handheld / shoot on the fly macro work, the AF situation changes. Handheld macro work benefits from USM to relatively quickly find your target, but I usually still end up switching to MF, doing an FTM override or sticking with the original one-shot AF half-shuttered and then moving my hands in and out to taste on particular details I want in focus.

But if you told me that my 100L's AF only worked at non-macro distances, I'd be totally fine with it. AF on that is only vital for non-macro work, IMHO.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Makes sense to me.
> ...



And if the _non-macro 50mm f/1.4 replacement_ doesn't have USM (or Nano USM), I will buy one and then kill it with a hammer. "Bad Canon. Stop that, Canon." I will say.

If their fix for 20 years of iffy/fragile focusing with the EF 50 f/1.4 micro USM is to abandon USM altogether, I'll absolutely lose my s---. What needs to be done is painfully clear and possible to do. 

- A


----------



## wsmith96 (May 2, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Funny!
> Now we have at least every old 50 mm lens rumored.
> But absolutely no release day or at least something looking like [CR2].
> 
> ...



This group of 50mm's shall now be known as "The Herd" from this point forth....


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 2, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting...if f/2, very sharp, with a nice long throw. I have been eyeing the 60mm for my 80D, but I'd rather have a 50mm for my 6D and 80D, even if half-macro. The current 50mm macro is out of stock whereas the 180 is still in stock; that lends a bit of credence to the notion an update coming.
> ...



To my knowledge, there have been no f/2 Canon macros. I'm just being optimistic, or maybe just greedy. What I want is something like a Zeiss Makro at a better price, good AF, blue goo and at a reasonable price. Otherwise I will have to kill it with a hammer.


----------



## GammyKnee (May 2, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> And if the _non-macro 50mm f/1.4 replacement_ doesn't have USM (or Nano USM), I will buy one and then kill it with a hammer. "Bad Canon. Stop that, Canon." I will say.
> 
> - A



;D couldn't have put it better myself.

FWIW I gave up waiting for the ahsanfordTM 50mm and went with the Tamron 45mm. I really like it, but I'd like it even more if it had Canon USM inside it.


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



Blue goo on a non-L lens? I would not hold your breath on that. 

One would assume they'd tent up the prices L lenses with it as an exclusive feature, probably starting with the wider aperture primes (24L, 50L, 85L, 135L, etc.), but in fairness that's purely conjecture from me at this point.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 2, 2016)

GammyKnee said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > And if the _non-macro 50mm f/1.4 replacement_ doesn't have USM (or Nano USM), I will buy one and then kill it with a hammer. "Bad Canon. Stop that, Canon." I will say.
> ...



I'll continue my vigil. I actually picked up a 35mm f/2 IS USM recently, and other than the little "35mm" written on the side, it's perfect. 

In all honesty, I want a compact / quick / sharp 50 prime in that 35mm housing. I'll accept f/2 if that's what it takes, but it must have USM. In fact, my frequently posted picture asking Canon to make the lens for us is actually a PS'd 35mm f/2 IS.

- A


----------



## JonAustin (May 2, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, my little 50CM may be getting some upgrade love. Even if true, I probably won't buy its successor, especially if the Canon EF 50mm f/whatever IS USM AHSANFORD SPECIAL gets produced. 8)
> ...



I think all the posts you have made to this thread already proves my point. (Coach.) ;D


----------



## vlad (May 2, 2016)

OK, I give up, even after brief searching, I have no idea what reproduction/copy means in a photographic context. Is it photographing artwork? I did that for a friend's paintings with the 100/2.8, and then proceeded to infuriate her with how easy it is to tweak colors in the digital world


----------



## wsheldon (May 3, 2016)

vlad said:


> OK, I give up, even after brief searching, I have no idea what reproduction/copy means in a photographic context. Is it photographing artwork? I did that for a friend's paintings with the 100/2.8, and then proceeded to infuriate her with how easy it is to tweak colors in the digital world



In days of old, before high quality scanners and digital projectors were available, 50mm macro lenses and copy stands (see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/99444-REG/Beseler_4205_CS_14_Copystand_Kit.html) were commonly used to make high quality photo reproductions of documents and presentation slides for projection. Made some myself in my grad school days. Bit of a niche use now, though. 

But a good 50mm macro would be excellent for product photography and artwork. I use a 50mm stm since I'm typically shooting at f8-10 and it's sharp as a tack at that aperture. However it does have noticeable distortion so a better corrected lens would be nice. Not sure if I'd part with the cash, though, since I have the 100mm and 180mm macros for nature work and 50mm stm corrections in Lightroom work very well.


----------



## riker (May 3, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I'll continue my vigil. I actually picked up a 35mm f/2 IS USM recently, and other than the little "35mm" written on the side, it's perfect.
> 
> In all honesty, I want a compact / quick / sharp 50 prime in that 35mm housing. I'll accept f/2 if that's what it takes, but it must have USM. In fact, my frequently posted picture asking Canon to make the lens for us is actually a PS'd 35mm f/2 IS.
> 
> - A



I'm a fan of the 35/2 IS and I totally understand what u are saying, but I still need to argue. The 35/2 IS is clearly a bigger and heavier lens than the current 50/1.4.

I do NOT want the 50/1.4 to get any bigger or heavier! Not even by 10g! After 20 years of tech development, the only way it is allowed to go is smaller/lighter. Everyone is so fan of the 50/1.4 but noone seems to realise that it's most important value aside being f/1.4 is the size and weight. It's a great lens coz it's f/1.4 and you are still more than happy to take it even when you need to travel light. And you really do NOT need IS for a 50mm lens. Actually you do not need IS in anything under 85-100mm no matter what marketing may tell you.

Honestly I would not even mind staying at the same optics, the biggest problem of that lens is the unacceptably crapy AF speed. Just repack it with an AF as good as possible and that's it, I'm first to buy. Do what you did with the 50/1.8 just forget STM.
For the people who want to play fancy, don't care about weight, for some reason think they can't hold a 50mm lens and need IS, there's the 50/1.2L IS and future versions of it.


----------



## Maximilian (May 3, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Funny!
> ...


*lol* ;D


----------



## ScottyP (May 3, 2016)

THIS is the 50mm lens they think buyers most want to be updated?

And for that matter, THIS is the macro they think most people want upgraded?


----------



## Ladislav (May 3, 2016)

Make it small version of 100 L IS Macro with 2.0 aperture and it will cause havoc in my wish list. Really, something like 50 f/2 L IS Macro would be 50 prime I would love to have.


----------



## Maximilian (May 3, 2016)

riker said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'll continue my vigil. I actually picked up a 35mm f/2 IS USM recently, and other than the little "35mm" written on the side, it's perfect.
> ...


Hi riker! 

I can understand you but I think I'll have to add something to your opinion. Because 20 years of tech development cannot change the laws of optical physics.

I think there are two major points of critique with the old 50/1.4:
1. mechanical built
2. optical quality

While #1 could probably be solved without making the lens bigger it could become heavier. 
If Canon didn't use a lot of expensive high tech plastics or carbon fiber better mechanical built leads to higher weight. 
But #2 is the sticking point. The optical formula is not only 20 years old but much older. 
Even if you stay with the Double Gauss design better coatings and quality control won't help much here. 
The trend is that the front element becomes a little bit bigger so you have less corner and edge distortion. 
Even if you use expensive DO tech this wouldn't help much with a standard focal length. 
So if you want to improve this lens optically it has to become (slightly) bigger and heavier. 

IMO Canon shouldn't built a Sigma 50/1.4 Art pendant, but increase the overall performance of the recent lens.

If you don't like that, buy the recent lens or change to MFT where you can use a 25 mm lens 
http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/lenses/om_d_pen_lenses/m_zuiko_premium/m_zuiko_digital_25mm_118/index.html

_Disclaimer: Sorry for hijacking this 50 mm Macro thread with the 50/1.4 topic. but I couldn't leave this unanswered. I'll end here with that._


----------



## arcer (May 3, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> riker said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Thanks Max for saying it first, I was going to reply to his opinions also.

Improvements in the mechanical built and optical quality will most likely increase weight and size of the revised lens. And to be honest, I like the size and weight of the 35F2 IS more than the current 50F1.4. It fits better in the hand and the weight makes it feel much more comfortable on my Rebel or my friend's 5D.

I rather have a 50mm that fully "enclose" the optical formula as I grew tired of the protruding element when close focusing and AFAIK, the newer engineered plastic is slightly heavier but sturdier than the plastic used in the past. A real USM would be necessary too, unless Canon want to miss the market again. IF they can fit a IS system in either 50F1.4 or 50CM, why not have both of them equipped with it? USM and IS will make it the same size as the 35F2 more or less.

I hope the new 50CM will also have the specs I said above and it might be my next 50, not the ahsanford 50.

P.S. Not to jest, but I hope people don't mistake that because we can make electronic gadgets smaller, we can defy physics and make lens smaller while still possessing excellent optical quality. Yes, smaller and lighter is better in some case but not always the rule.

Edit: Thanks to ahsanford, yes I want all new primes of Canon to be "internal focusing", that term slipped from my mind earlier.


----------



## ahsanford (May 3, 2016)

riker said:


> I'm a fan of the 35/2 IS and I totally understand what u are saying, but I still need to argue. The 35/2 IS is clearly a bigger and heavier lens than the current 50/1.4.
> 
> I do NOT want the 50/1.4 to get any bigger or heavier! Not even by 10g! After 20 years of tech development, the only way it is allowed to go is smaller/lighter. Everyone is so fan of the 50/1.4 but noone seems to realise that it's most important value aside being f/1.4 is the size and weight. It's a great lens coz it's f/1.4 and you are still more than happy to take it even when you need to travel light. And you really do NOT need IS for a 50mm lens. Actually you do not need IS in anything under 85-100mm no matter what marketing may tell you.



Respect your post, but please consider a few things:

1) You really should not tell other people what they do / do not need. The world has enough of those people already.  I _*am*_, however, glad to hear what *you* think *you* need, and why.

2) If I'm shooting with available light handheld at ISO 6400+ regularly, _I absolutely need IS on everything_. IS gives spectacular compositional latitude to either bring ISO down to earth or stop down for additional DOF. 

3) I, too, want the lens to stay small and light, but even I would want the current design to grow a good centimeter or so to allow for internal focusing. No more external sliding barrels in a prime that you can push on accidentally and damage the lens, no more paths for fluid and particulate ingress, etc.

- A


----------



## Chaitanya (May 3, 2016)

eagerly waiting for 50/60mm Usm IF 1:1 Macro lens. I will complement my Sigma 150mm lens perfectly. 
Edit: Many people are mentioning 50cm lens, that lens costs 10000$+ and is currently present in Canon lineup and was updated recently. 

AF is very useful for photographing butterflies and other critters who dont like stay put in one place. I took this shot using 100mm L during my recent trip to foothills of Himalayas.


Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


----------



## mrzero (May 3, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Edit: Many people are mentioning 50cm lens, that lens costs 10000$+ and is currently present in Canon lineup and was updated recently.



CM = "compact macro"


----------



## lloyd709 (May 4, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> That this lens even exists (alongside all the nutty one-offs Canon has in its lineup) is both a blessing and a curse.
> 
> Blessing: If you want something nutty, chances are Canon has it.
> 
> ...



You won't find many canon shooting food photographers without it!


----------



## Maximilian (May 4, 2016)

lloyd709 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > [snip]
> ...


I knew there was a reason why the 1300D/T6 has a food mode *lol*  
[/joke mode]


----------



## ecka (May 4, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> eagerly waiting for 50/60mm Usm IF 1:1 Macro lens. I will complement my Sigma 150mm lens perfectly.



+1

Is 10mm extension tube making my 40 STM a 50mm macro?


----------



## Chaitanya (May 4, 2016)

mrzero said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: Many people are mentioning 50cm lens, that lens costs 10000$+ and is currently present in Canon lineup and was updated recently.
> ...



I never understood that nomenclature. I have used Sigma 50mm macro alongside this lens and its pretty much similar size except that Sigma does 1:1 without any stupid additonal TC like attachment. Also having worked with mechanical engineers for long time for that group of people cm is an unit of measurement which they really hate. Canon's Ef-s 60mm is quite small and having IF helps a lot in keeping dimensions compact over the entire focusing range as there is no extending tube.


----------



## arcer (May 4, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > CM = "compact macro"
> ...



Sorry for the confusion, I'm just being lazy and abbreviating Compact Macro to "CM". It's part of the product name also.

By the way, I never noticed they dropped the lens from the official website and online store until now. (Discontinued in Hong Kong and Japan, unavailable in USA)


----------



## vlad (May 4, 2016)

wsheldon said:


> In days of old, before high quality scanners and digital projectors were available, 50mm macro lenses and copy stands (see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/99444-REG/Beseler_4205_CS_14_Copystand_Kit.html) were commonly used to make high quality photo reproductions of documents and presentation slides for projection. Made some myself in my grad school days. Bit of a niche use now, though.



Ah, thanks for that. After clicking on that link, I now see targeted ads everywhere I go showing me that contraption  I can't wait for my wife to see it over my shoulder and be like, "is that what you're into these days??"


----------



## LDS (May 5, 2016)

wsheldon said:


> In days of old, before high quality scanners and digital projectors were available, 50mm macro lenses and copy stands (see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/99444-REG/Beseler_4205_CS_14_Copystand_Kit.html) were commonly used to make high quality photo reproductions of documents and presentation slides for projection. Made some myself in my grad school days. Bit of a niche use now, though.



A big niche, since there are a lot of things you can't still put into a scanner, for several reasons  Fragile items like ancient documents and books, for example, paintings, often you can't press the surface against the glass and it could be uneven (requiring more DOF than a flatbed scanner), and originals which are not simply printed material may need specific lighting (and polarizing filters) to avoid ugly reflections from the surface, and so on. Or try to reproduce a daguerreotype in a scanner 

True, mostly a museum or the like practice, today.


----------



## mrzero (May 5, 2016)

LDS said:


> wsheldon said:
> 
> 
> > In days of old, before high quality scanners and digital projectors were available, 50mm macro lenses and copy stands (see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/99444-REG/Beseler_4205_CS_14_Copystand_Kit.html) were commonly used to make high quality photo reproductions of documents and presentation slides for projection. Made some myself in my grad school days. Bit of a niche use now, though.
> ...



I'm getting ready to set up my old Rebel to do this on a weekly basis for my kid's art projects from daycare. We have about 3 years' worth sitting in boxes ready to go. It will make us feel less guilty about tossing them in the trash and only saving a precious few. Many are three-dimensional (mostly involving dry macaroni noodles) or otherwise unsuitable for scanning (think glitter).


----------



## Chaitanya (May 6, 2016)

arcer said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > mrzero said:
> ...


I am not sure but in India that lens vanished from Canon's website and stores about 3-4 years back. Now that you mentioned that, it seems like B&H and few other US sellers dont have it listed on their website anymore. I really hope that its an indicator of replacement coming soon.


----------



## LDS (May 6, 2016)

mrzero said:


> I'm getting ready to set up my old Rebel to do this on a weekly basis for my kid's art projects from daycare.



Last weekend I was reproducing some family photos 80-100 years old. I run some through an Epson Perfection 2400 Photo scanner (sure, not an high-end one, but not a bad one either), but I didn't like the result. Some of them had a surface reflective enough to reflect too much from the flat scanner lighting. I tried then to reproduce them using my 5DIII +100/2.8L macro using the classic "repro setup" and results were far better. I was working tethered to a PC, so focus could be carefully controlled on the larger monitor, I was also using a macro rail for precise adjustments.

The originals were small enough to allow the use of the 100 macro, had they been larger, a 50 macro lens would have been handy, because these lenses are designed for flat-field focus.

A few days before I was watching a documentary about the Corbis preservation vault in the Iron Mountains, and they too still had the classic repro stand setup, and I guess there's a reason if even such highly professional organizations don't rely on scanners only.


----------



## JonAustin (May 7, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> arcer said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I never noticed they dropped the lens from the official website and online store until now. (Discontinued in Hong Kong and Japan, unavailable in USA)
> ...


Cool, now that the lens is no longer available for sale, perhaps the resale value of my mint copy will go up! 8)


----------



## nc0b (May 7, 2016)

I have two of the 50mm f/2.5 macro lenses since I split my time between two locations. For the macro work I do, the noisy focus is a non-issue. Don't need 1:1, so never have had need for the expensive adapter. There was a comment about distortion I did not understand. I have never noticed distortion with this lens. I thought Ken Rockwell reported it has miniscule distortion. While IS would be useful, I seriously doubt I could justify replacing what I am currently using.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 11, 2016)

*50*

Canon just announced an EF-M 28mm macro lens. This might indicate Canon sees a need in a macro lens with equivalent angle of view, pretty close to 50mm on FF.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 17, 2016)

This may mean one of two things:

a) the rumor was mixed up and they were really talking about the 28mm EF-M macro

b) they're going to redo the 50mm f/2.5 and add ring LED lighting as well!


----------

