# Here We Go Again, New 50mm L Coming in 2018 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 20, 2017)

```
<p>We’re told by a very good source that Canon will finally address the 50mm focal length in 2018. There are apparently two prototypes currently being tested by select photographers.</p>
<p>We’re told one of the lenses is an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM, which was likely developed alongside the brand new EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM. We were not told what the other 50mm prototype lens was.</p>
<p>The announcement is slated for some time in the first half of 2018. As always though, lenses come where they’re done and ready for production, not when the marketing people want them to be announced. Therefore, delays are always possible.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>

<p>To be perfectly honest, we don’t like reporting about 50mm lenses, as we’ve been burned a few times in the past.</p>
<p>The same source did mention that a previous design for a fast 50mm lens was scrapped due to do some new technologies in design and manufacturing that Canon utilizes now.</p>
<p>We’re wondering if Canon will do the same thing with the 50mm that they’ve done with the 85mm and that’s keeping the f/1.2L version current while adding the f/1.4L IS to the lineup. It wouldn’t shock us to see the nearly 25 year old EF 50mm f/1.4 remain current as a value option. We think a 50mm f/1.4L IS would fit nicely in the lineup at around $999 USD.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

"To be perfectly honest, we don’t like reporting about 50mm lenses, as we’ve been burned a few hundred times in the past."

CR Guy is a hero, IMHO, but 50 prime rumors are like Lucy pulling out the football from Charlie Brown with him. It's his kryptonite.

- A

P.S. Reminds me of an oldie-but-a-goodie below.


----------



## DaveN (Sep 20, 2017)

I would rather not see it be an L lens, with the corresponding price. I think a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM would fit very nicely in the lineup at around $549 USD, similar in pricing and specs to the 35, 28, and 24 IS lenses. It would be a big improvement over the current lens, without breaking the bank. YMMV.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

The "We’re told one of the lenses is an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM" (plus the thread title) implies it _is an L lens_, then? That would imply it's not the compact little non-L wonder I'm looking for. 

Pity. There's a near zero chance I'd buy a pickle jar Art/Otus-killer, which one would presume is coming if Canon offers a 50 f/1.4L IS.

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> "To be perfectly honest, we don’t like reporting about 50mm lenses, as we’ve been burned a few hundred times in the past."
> 
> CR Guy is a hero, IMHO, but 50 prime rumors are like Lucy pulling out the football from Charlie Brown with him. It's his kryptonite.
> 
> ...



Haha! The new 50 follows the 24-70 II and 100-400 II in the number of head bangs on the desk.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 20, 2017)

OK, so one will be the pickle jar, so the other must be smaller and likely a 'compact little non-L wonder', right?



ahsanford said:


> The "We’re told one of the lenses is an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM" (plus the thread title) implies it _is an L lens_, then? That would imply it's not the compact little non-L wonder I'm looking for.
> 
> Pity. There's a near zero chance I'd buy a pickle jar Art/Otus-killer, which one would presume is coming if Canon offers a 50 f/1.4L IS.
> 
> - A


----------



## scottburgess (Sep 20, 2017)

And the winner is... ::drum roll:: manufacturers of filters with 77mm threads!

;D


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 20, 2017)

DaveN said:


> I would rather not see it be an L lens, with the corresponding price. I think a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM would fit very nicely in the lineup at around $549 USD, similar in pricing and specs to the 35, 28, and 24 IS lenses. It would be a big improvement over the current lens, without breaking the bank. YMMV.



2 lenses maybe

50f1.4 IS L USM with modern optics, weather sealed, 35LII build quality
50f1.4 USM with double gauss optics, new coatings, and (pray to deity of choice) ringUSM, 85f1.8 build quality (which is perfectly good enough for most)

If we get

50f1.4 IS L USM @ £1500
&
50f1.4 nanoUSM @ whatever

then I'll risk the ART.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 20, 2017)

I don't think there is anything more that can be said that hasn't already been said so many times in other threads about the Canon range of 50mm lenses. Other than...bring it on already....


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 20, 2017)

I see a pink unicorn! I see a pink unicorn! I see a pink unicorn! *going crazy*


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 20, 2017)

I too have zero interest for a big, expensive, heavy 50mm. 

That said, if it's below €1000 euros, and no bigger and heavier than the f1.2L, maybe.

But ideally it would just be a f1.8/f2 lens. 

Overall rendering is primordial. I am not interested in a super sharp lens with a poor bokeh and poor transitions.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 20, 2017)

It'll be the 50 1.4 L IS for sure.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

Updating my overall 'what 50-ish lens will I finally end up buying' depth chart, which includes a host of rumored specs over the years (Blue would be a new lens, black would be an existing one):

1) Canon 50mm f/1.4 IS USM (ring) -- the original and obvious non-L move a la the 24/28/35 IS refreshes

2) Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM II (nano) -- what we've been hearing lately, nano USM looking sadly like the right 'level' of focusing tech a non-L gets these days

3) Canon 50mm f/1.4L IS USM -- it simply can't be small if it's an L, I see this being a 35L II or bigger animal; OTOH, it will probably be super sharp

4) Tamron 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD -- hate 3rd party AF for large aperture usage, but it's apparently not terrible

5) Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM -- Small and fast, but non-planar field of focus, finicky AF wider than f/2 and as sharp as cotton balls away from center

*Never every going to be on my depth chart in any fashion*: anything with manual focus, STM, or something the size/weight of a pickle jar. Or anything Yongnuo offers. 

- A


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> I too have zero interest for a big, expensive, heavy 50mm.
> 
> That said, if it's below €1000 euros, and no bigger and heavier than the f1.2L, maybe.
> 
> ...



If there are truly TWO 50's, surely, one of them would fit that criteria. 

I'm glad that I just sold my 50/1.4  I decided that I was sick of taking it apart and fixing the USM ring on it, and will just stick it out with the 50/1.8 until there's a replacement. Maybe the universe likes me?


----------



## GammyKnee (Sep 20, 2017)

While I'd like to see Canon address the pothole at 50mm I just can't see them bringing out anything that would tempt me to sell my Tamron 45, particularly as its AF got even better with a 5D4 behind it. 

If they do the suggested f1.4 IS USM it's likely to be well out of my price range, though no doubt excellent in all respects. Conversely if they bring out something cheaper then some nice-to-haves will presumably have to be sacrificed, like IS or weather sealing. If they'd delivered ahsanford's mythical lens at the right time I'd probably have gone for it, but they've missed the boat as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 20, 2017)

GammyKnee said:


> While I'd like to see Canon address the pothole at 50mm I just can't see them bringing out anything that would tempt me to sell my Tamron 45, particularly as its AF got even better with a 5D4 behind it.
> 
> If they do the suggested f1.4 IS USM it's likely to be well out of my price range, though no doubt excellent in all respects. Conversely if they bring out something cheaper then some nice-to-haves will presumably have to be sacrificed, like IS or weather sealing. If they'd delivered ahsanford's mythical lens at the right time I'd probably have gone for it, but they've missed the boat as far as I'm concerned.



I'm glad to hear that you are satisfied with your Tamron 45 f1.8. I really did like the pictures I got from my copy, but had consistent back focus issues when using the off center focusing points, while it worked fine with the center point. This was with my 1DXII. I gave it up in favor of the 50L.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 20, 2017)

It could be a 50mm f/1.0 Mk II....


----------



## scrup (Sep 20, 2017)

Give us 55 or 58 mm. You will get more potential upgraders.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 20, 2017)

scrup said:


> Give us 55 or 58 mm. You will get more potential upgraders.



Why? I'd like to hear your reasoning.


----------



## GammyKnee (Sep 20, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> I'm glad to hear that you are satisfied with your Tamron 45 f1.8. I really did like the pictures I got from my copy, but had consistent back focus issues when using the off center focusing points, while it worked fine with the center point. This was with my 1DXII. I gave it up in favor of the 50L.



Yep copy variation in the AF dept can still be an issue with that lens; I remember Dustin Abbott had to return/fix his first personal copy. But when you get a good one they seem to stay good across multiple bodies; mine is fine on 5D2, 5D3 and 5D4 - giving truly Canon lens AF consistency/accuracy on my 5D4, whereas I've heard quite a few tales of Sigma 50 copies being great on one body and terrible on another.


----------



## traveller (Sep 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The "We’re told one of the lenses is an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM" (plus the thread title) implies it _is an L lens_, then? That would imply it's not the compact little non-L wonder I'm looking for.
> 
> Pity. There's a near zero chance I'd buy a pickle jar Art/Otus-killer, which one would presume is coming if Canon offers a 50 f/1.4L IS.
> 
> - A



I can appreciate your position on size, but this is generally a tradeoff with optical performance and aperture (& price). I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and it is downright soft outside the very centre wide open, better at f/2 and very good at f/2.8 (comparable to the 24-70 f/2.8 L II). I would not be interested in upgrading to a new 50mm f/1.4 lens that simply updated the bodywork and AF motor -I want better optical performance too. Personally, I would be happy with paying Sigma Art money for a Canon 50mm f/2 that was tack sharp wide open, but this isn't going to happen now that they've updated the old 'plastic fantastic' to STM (it would look 'faster and better' than the more expensive lens!). 

If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released. The best that we can hope for now is that this is the last lens in the series that produced the 35mm f/1.4L USM II and 85mm f/1.4 IS USM lenses.


----------



## grainier (Sep 20, 2017)

I don't care any more.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 20, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > "To be perfectly honest, we don’t like reporting about 50mm lenses, as we’ve been burned a few hundred times in the past."
> ...



Lol, I'll be so bold as to throw the 35 L II in that mix. Think I waited like ten years with spread out rumors. Was worth the wait though


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

traveller said:


> If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released.



The 24/28/35 refresh was actually to retire three very old lenses that pre-dated the non-L USM primes entirely, I believe. See chart, it's bit dated but you get the idea.

So those three got their own refresh wave while the 20 2.8 / 28 1.8 / 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 100 2 USM primes are still plugging away. What's infuriating about those 5 lenses is that the 50 appears to be the only one that was saddled with Micro USM and that horrible length-changing (externally focusing / telescoping nonsense) sort of design. If only the EF 50 f/1.4 USM was like all the others on that list -- especially the 85 f/1.8 -- I'd probably be happy with it as my small 50 prime.

I personally see a non-L USM prime update happening, possibly downgraded to Nano USM instead of ring USM in light of the underwhelming response to the 24/28/35 IS lenses (which are loved but were overpriced out of the gate). 

- A


----------



## padam (Sep 21, 2017)

Whatever it will be, it will increase in size, because it will be a 'true' internal focusing lens (besides the IS).


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

padam said:


> Whatever it will be, it will increase in size, because it will be a 'true' internal focusing lens (besides the IS).



Yep, hence my heavily overused graphic (a doctored 35 f/2 IS, btw). The 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses also went to internal focusing, and I've yet to hear anyone complain about their size. I'll gladly take a small bump in size to kill off the dreaded 'protruding inner barrel got bumped' AF motor damage problem.

- A


----------



## Perio (Sep 21, 2017)

A big question I have is, what's Canon's strategy regarding 50 1.2 and 85 1.2? Will Canon just quietly stop development of 1.2 versions?


----------



## gmon750 (Sep 21, 2017)

I love my 50mm f/1.2. Sure it's a big, heavy lens but I think any lens would have that kind of heft considering the size of the lenses needed for that aperture.

It's a beast of a lens, has a lot of quality built in and can capture the most faintest of light. Simply love it.

I have zero intention of upgrading to a newer version, but if I had my 2-cent opinion on it, a faster focus speed and lighter body would be nice. Nowhere near a deal breaker obviously. It took a long time to learn to use this lens at f/1.2 and regardless of what the haters think, years of use and experience has me loving it. 

Properly used, it make flat-out the creamiest of bokehs.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

gmon750 said:


> I have zero intention of upgrading to a newer version, but if I had my 2-cent opinion on it, a faster focus speed and lighter body would be nice. Nowhere near a deal breaker obviously. It took a long time to learn to use this lens at f/1.2 and regardless of what the haters think, years of use and experience has me loving it.
> 
> Properly used, it make flat-out the creamiest of bokehs.



To each their own, but of all the things to improve on the 50L, _weight doesn't even crack my top five._

I, and I think a nontrivial number of folks here, would own a 50L if it was useful for things other than wide open or near wide-open shooting. That lens is not fun to shoot large aperture off-center and rely on the AF, and it's not particularly sharp away from the center of the frame. Fix those two things I'm guessing half of this forum would own one today.

- A


----------



## BillB (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> gmon750 said:
> 
> 
> > I have zero intention of upgrading to a newer version, but if I had my 2-cent opinion on it, a faster focus speed and lighter body would be nice. Nowhere near a deal breaker obviously. It took a long time to learn to use this lens at f/1.2 and regardless of what the haters think, years of use and experience has me loving it.
> ...



I doubt that a prime lens could be made in any focal length that half the members of this forum would buy. For many the main lens strategy is based on zooms--an UWA, a normal and a 70-200 or something like that. In this context, the choice of primes is heavily based on personal preferences about focal length and personal tradeoffs among IQ, maximum aperture, stabilization, weight and cost. This would seem to point to a strategy of trying to make a lot of money on each prime you make, since the potential market for any given prime is relatively small.


----------



## -1 (Sep 21, 2017)

The new highres cameras surely needs IS for more normal shutterspeeds at normal ISO on freehand. It, the 50/1.4 IS USM L will probably appear as "kittylense" to the 5Ds2 next year. Happy Babylonian New Year for those that celebrate it, BTW... Ice for them hangover heads are in the freezer! Repent next week! ;-ppp


----------



## Ryananthony (Sep 21, 2017)

I've almost purchase a 50mm f1.2 so many times. But I can never pull the trigger. I've also owned and sold the sigma 50art, and have come close to purchasing it again too. Hurry up Canon. I would love to see the 50 f1.4is come in at a similar size as the 50 f1.2 rather then the 35ii.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

BillB said:


> I doubt that a prime lens could be made in any focal length that half the members of this forum would buy. For many the main lens strategy is based on zooms--an UWA, a normal and a 70-200 or something like that. In this context, the choice of primes is heavily based on personal preferences about focal length and personal tradeoffs among IQ, maximum aperture, stabilization, weight and cost. This would seem to point to a strategy of trying to make a lot of money on each prime you make, since the potential market for any given prime is relatively small.



Fair -- I was referring to the folks _that would want to own a 50 prime in general_. I should have specified that, my apologies.

Whereas certain primes just seem to delight their owners (135L and 35L II immediately come to mind), the 50 f/1.2L seems to have a number of skeptics for fairly mundane reasons we don't associate with modern L glass. Sure, it can generate magic, but sometimes you just want to nail focus or want to take a sharp picture somewhere other than the center. 

Believe it or not, the old 50 f/1.4 USM actually serves my needs better than the 50L -- I am not cost-constrained and I still choose to use the 'lesser' instrument as it's sharper in the apertures I shoot and it's AF (though a little hunt-y) tends to do a better job.

Yet, I don't consider the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a fine instrument by any means -- it, too, has a litany of deficiencies. It's just the devil I know, and I choose to use it until Canon gives us a proper all-purpose 50mm lens.

- A


----------



## padam (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> padam said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever it will be, it will increase in size, because it will be a 'true' internal focusing lens (besides the IS).
> ...



If it's an L lens (very likely) then it will probably be closer to the Sigma 50 ART in size but a bit lighter, just like the 85 1.4 IS vs Sigma 85 1.4 ART (or the 35 1.4 L II which is actually even bigger)
But who knows, maybe they invent some new technology to reduce the number of elements.


----------



## CANONisOK (Sep 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > Give us 55 or 58 mm. You will get more potential upgraders.
> ...


I would guess for the original commenter it's as simple as something filling the "ideal" niche in primes between 35mm and 85mm focal lengths. I have found that I've moved away from my 50mm usage over the years, while 35mm (wide-to-normal) and 85mm (portrait) get used much more frequently. Would a 60mm provide enough differentiation to lure me to buying a new lens? Probably not for me personally - but it might be different enough to appeal to somebody.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2017)

The current 50mm f/1.2L is poison for photographers who DEPEND on photography for their livelihood. Those of us who are "semi-pro" or enthusiasts can afford the luxury of using a finicky dog of a lens--while declaring it "magic." :

C'mon, Canon, get off your duffs with the 50mm focal length!


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 21, 2017)

Just refresh the 1.2. Apart from stopped down focus accuracy it's perfect.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> Just refresh the 1.2. Apart from stopped down focus accuracy it's perfect.



+1 (And a wonderful shot!)


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 21, 2017)

I'm pretty certain currently produced 50mm f/1.2L lenses are generally better than older production 
- if only due to vastly improved production and quality control procedures allowing for far less inter-copy variation. 

Certainly my relatively recently produced (2015) 1.2 is excellent (even on my 5DSR), and the older one I tried many years ago was a big disappointment, even on lower-quality sensors at the time.

Perhaps they should just update the electronics and the coatings and release a 50mm f/1.2L II alongside the 50mm f/1.4L IS which is pretty much inevitable now after the good reaction to the 85


----------



## traveller (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released.
> ...



I can see your point about the 50mm f/1.4 being upgraded along with the rest of the 'USM series' of non-L primes, trouble is that I'm not convinced that those lenses will be updated any time soon either. Neither do I agree with you five levels of lens classification, I see only three (of different vintages and technology levels) for all primes and zooms: 
1) 'L'-series
2) Premium non-L (EF & EF-S)
3) Budget (EF & EF-S)

Canon clearly marks (1), so there is no doubt over which lenses fall into this category. Where the boundaries lie in terms of the others is up for debate and I'm not sure that Canon themselves have hard and fast rules about this, as their thinking seems to shift over time. I would argue that the old 24/28/35 f/2.8 AFD lenses were part of a series that was perhaps intended to be the only line below the 'L's. This would have also included the old 'version 1' of the 50mm f/1.8. This series got overtaken by advances in technology that led to the remaining lenses in the series gaining USM: in chronological order: the 100mm f/2 (1991), 85 f/1.8 (1992), 20mm f/2.8, 50 f/1.4 (1993) and 28 f/1.8 (1995 - and the last non-L, non-macro lens that Canon released until the 40mm STM). The 50mm f/1.8 is a bit of an aberration, as it managed to get downgraded to budget on the release of version II (in 1990) even before the 50 1.4 USM was available -perhaps this signal a shift in Canon's strategy around this time. It may have been Canon's original intention to downgrade all the original series by introducing premium USM variants, but it seems they never completed the set by introducing a 24 f/2 (?) USM or a 35 f/2 USM (until the 35 f/2 IS USM over a decade later). 

If Canon were going to update the USM series primes, then the 28mm f/1.8 USM is the lens most in need, as it's easily the worst performer of the bunch, but the 28mm focal length became somewhat unfashionable years ago, when people started to prefer the 24mm. This was also true of the 50mm length, which declined in popularity versus the 35mm, but less so because at least the 50mm lenses were ultra cheap entry points to fast aperture primes. The 85 f1.8 USM is a very good lens (if now a bit behind the class leaders), which would benefit from a refresh, but I don't think we'll see one for a couple of years to give Canon the opportunity to upsell people to the new 85 f/1.4 L IS USM. That leaves the 100 f/2 USM, which was a totally neglected (except for macro) focal length by all manufacturers, right up until Nikon released their new 105 f/1.4. Again, I just can't see Canon updating this lens as most people prefer the 85mm and you are realistically only going to need one of these two. If there is a new 100mm lens, I think Canon will give it the 'L' treatment and a >= f/1.4 aperture. 

I can see the advantage to Canon of having a complete non-L lineup as Nikon have a complete set in both f/1.4 and f/1.8 aperture from 24mm up to 85mm. However there is a differentiation danger (from the manufacturer's point of view) as a lot of Nikonians recommend the f/1.8 versions for being as sharp, cheaper and lighter, unless you are desperate for the extra 2/3rds stop.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 21, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm pretty certain currently produced 50mm f/1.2L lenses are generally better than older production
> - if only due to vastly improved production and quality control procedures allowing for far less inter-copy variation.
> 
> Certainly my relatively recently produced (2015) 1.2 is excellent (even on my 5DSR), and the older one I tried many years ago was a big disappointment, even on lower-quality sensors at the time.
> ...



I believe you are right. My 50L is less than a year old, and I just don't experience notable AF issues on neither my 1DXII or 5Ds, even when using the outer AF points. I should note that I don't use it much in the f1.2 - f1.8 range, so my experience at those apertures is limited. 

I really do like the images I get from the 50L when shot at f2.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2017)

Keep it at 1.2, add a floating element, redesigned AF, and, yes, we have a winner. But how much that would cost in $$ and weight, no idea.

Thanks, but I would want to use it at 1.2 - 2.0 often within six feet, but as is, this dog don't hunt. Or when it does, it often brings back pinecones and sticks instead of the birdy.

I don't think Canon secretly upgraded anything in the current 1.2L; more likely, better AF in more recent bodies (and even a little firmware help) have made the lens slightly more useful. But it could also be that those of you who gave the lens another chance after a few years simply developed better techniques generally, while also reading about workarounds.

That said, the current 1.2 has no place in the quiver of a photographer who DEPENDS on accuracy. Except to remain there unused. If only professional photographers who have no other source of income had time to chime in on these forums, we'd know to what extent my assertion is true. Photographers who make a little money to pay for their fun, or are purely hobbyists, or have a trust fund to rely upon obviously don't have the same standards. Which is probably why Canon has gotten away with perpetuating a clunker!


----------



## BillB (Sep 21, 2017)

traveller said:


> I can appreciate your position on size, but this is generally a tradeoff with optical performance and aperture (& price). I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and it is downright soft outside the very centre wide open, better at f/2 and very good at f/2.8 (comparable to the 24-70 f/2.8 L II). I would not be interested in upgrading to a new 50mm f/1.4 lens that simply updated the bodywork and AF motor -I want better optical performance too. Personally, I would be happy with paying Sigma Art money for a Canon 50mm f/2 that was tack sharp wide open, but this isn't going to happen now that they've updated the old 'plastic fantastic' to STM (it would look 'faster and better' than the more expensive lens!).
> 
> If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released. The best that we can hope for now is that this is the last lens in the series that produced the 35mm f/1.4L USM II and 85mm f/1.4 IS USM lenses.



Most of Canon's relatively inexpensive prime lens designs go back to an era in which fewer people were shooting in color and zooms were not a serious option. With digital, most people are shooting in color, which makes purple fringing and chromatic aberrations a much bigger deal, and there is the Internet to tell everybody that the Canon 85 f1.8 is a piece of crap because it has purple fringing and that the 50 f1.4 is soft below f2.8. Zooms have improved to the point that they have seriously shrunk the market for primes, particularly moderately priced primes.

In this new era of digital color and quality zooms, the 35-28-24 series lenses are pretty much the only new moderately priced full frame lens designs that Canon has introduced apart from the pancake 40 and the tweak to the plastic fantastic 50mm. Canon is still marketing quite a few of the old designs, and presumably people are still buying them, at least to some degree. However, the experience with the 35-28-24 series shows the price sensitivity of the moderately priced prime lens market, and likely has also shown Canon that the demand for moderately priced primes isn't as big as they hoped when they introduced the 35-28-24 series.

So what does this say about a new Canon 50mm lens design? My take is that the new 50mm design will most likely be an L. and if it isn't an L, the price is going to upset a lot of people. One wildcard is the APS-C market, where the 50mm serves the same role as the 85mm does in full frame. Maybe, that could tip the scales toward a smaller, more moderately priced 50mm. Could there be an EF-S 50mm in our future?


----------



## meho1a (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released.
> ...




I think Canon firstly tried to divide their EF lenses into 2 groups. 
Budget = 24mm, 28mm, 35 mm IS USM Probably they were planing also new 50, 85, maybe 20
Pro = faster L lenses

But then pro level Sigmas and Tamrons were released in similar price range as their planed "budget" range.
The price of those lenses went down quickly and now I suppose few would prefere budget Canon lens over Sigma or Tamron.
Therefore, Canon has probably concentrated on making two levels of L lenses. Very expensive and a bit less expensive. Probably the L sign is very good marketing material and people are prepared to pay more than for Sigmas just for L level quality.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 21, 2017)

I think it will almost certainly be a EF50mm f1.4L IS USM to follow the just announced EF85 f1.4L IS USM and the previous 35mm & 24mm. They will likely have a 28mm and a 100mm in the road map and then these constant aperture primes will become T1.5 video lenses followed by a new 135mm f2 lens. 

I could be barking mad but they will follow the Sigma route with the future being more 4K video they would be crazy to overlook the DSLR videographers wanting a step-up from mix & match constant aperture lenses to one consistent.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

traveller said:


> I can see your point about the 50mm f/1.4 being upgraded along with the rest of the 'USM series' of non-L primes, trouble is that I'm not convinced that those lenses will be updated any time soon either. Neither do I agree with you five levels of lens classification, I see only three (of different vintages and technology levels) for all primes and zooms:
> 1) 'L'-series
> 2) Premium non-L (EF & EF-S)
> 3) Budget (EF & EF-S)



Agree completely -- I don't think five price points makes sense at all. It's just that over time, Canon had a strange and marbled portfolio of different levels of tech throughout their lenses. 

Three price points is where Canon should end up on popular prime FLs (50, 85, etc.), and two for the others (24, 35, etc.). But some FLs (14, 20, 28, non-macro 100 come to mind) might only warrant a single offering.

- A


----------



## BillB (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > I can see your point about the 50mm f/1.4 being upgraded along with the rest of the 'USM series' of non-L primes, trouble is that I'm not convinced that those lenses will be updated any time soon either. Neither do I agree with you five levels of lens classification, I see only three (of different vintages and technology levels) for all primes and zooms:
> ...



If the 85's and the 100's are grouped together, I make it a total of 6 lenses including the new 85 f1.4 and the two macros. There may be some people who feel the need for a large aperture 85 and a 100 macro, and the 85 f1.8 is a handy lightweight and inexpensive choice. But still... Maybe it's just that it doesn't cost Canon that much to keep existing designs in the supply chain.


----------



## BillB (Sep 21, 2017)

It seems like the 35-28-24 IS primes basicly became a development project on the path to the UWA zoom trinity--the two 16-35's and the 11-24. I keep feeling that with the primes Canon was hoping for a market that just isn't there. And the 16-35 f4 IS very quickly took a big wack out of whatever market that did exist for the primes. Nice lenses in search of a niche.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 21, 2017)

I am surprised that a 50mm L macro has not been mentioned as a possibility. Personally, I would like to see one with 2:1 magnification.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 21, 2017)

I believe that prototypes are regularly tested by a few Canon staff members, and when they look good and cost of production meets goals, they are given to a few trusted "Explorers of Light" to test for both stills and video. Based on input, there may be multiple iterations before a product is either announced, or the project scrapped.

A prime lens is simpler, but getting one that hits all the right attributes is nearly impossible, so hope that most of them meet hopes and expectations. I suspect that there is a long list of desirable attributes arranged by priority, and the "Must Meet" ones are at the top. Virtually everything is a trade off, so meeting the top goals makes other attributes weaker. This means balancing all the attributes to get the best overall lens, just as it does with a camera.

I'd suspect something like this, but mabe not in that exact order:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Target production cost (ease of production)
[*]R&M (Reliability and Maintainability)
[*]Autofocus - speed noise, smoothness, and accuracy
[*]MTF (target Resolution Center, target Resolution edges and corners)
[*]Target - close focus distance
[*]Target weight
[*]Target distortion
[*]Target abberations (CA's)
[*]Vignetting
[*]Bokeh (LoCAs)
[*]Coma and Astigmatism
[*]Ghosting and Flares
[*]The list probably is much longer.
[/list]


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> That said, the current 1.2 has no place in the quiver of a photographer who DEPENDS on accuracy. Except to remain there unused. If only professional photographers who have no other source of income had time to chime in on these forums, we'd know to what extent my assertion is true. Photographers who make a little money to pay for their fun, or are purely hobbyists, or have a trust fund to rely upon obviously don't have the same standards. Which is probably why Canon has gotten away with perpetuating a clunker!



You are wrong.

Accuracy is good. Considerably better than the 50 ART, the 45 f1.8 Tamron, the Canon 50 f1.4 and 50 1.8 STM. So which 50mm lens would you pick in stead?

If you want to take good bokeh-pictures at 50mm, I can assure you that you will get much better results with the 50L used at f2 or f2.8 than you can dream of when using the 24-70 f2.8 L II.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Accuracy is good. Considerably better than the 50 ART, the 45 f1.8 Tamron, the Canon 50 f1.4 and 50 1.8 STM. So which 50mm lens would you pick in stead?



Pure AF accuracy? I'll take the EF 50 f/1.4 USM ten times out of ten over the 50L. There are apparently terrible copies out there, but I don't seem to have one. It can hunt, but it eventually locks and it's accurate.

I've rented two copies of the 50L for use with my 5D3. I carefully dialed in the focus with AFMA, used careful and deliberate AF technique with it and the AF whiffed _routinely_ when shooting f/2 or wider. Since I was with family + little kids over the holidays just snapping as things happened, there was no opportunity to chimp / verify / reshoot. So to avoid missing moments, anytime I was shooting wider than f/2, I took a number of shots at a time to have a better chance to net a keeper.

My 50 f/1.4 -- for all its flaws -- has a more reliably in-focus hit rate for me and it's the instrument I prefer.

- A


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 21, 2017)

BillB said:


> I keep feeling that with the primes Canon was hoping for a market that just isn't there. And the 16-35 f4 IS very quickly took a big wack out of whatever market that did exist for the primes. Nice lenses in search of a niche.



If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses. 

Fuji also changed their original lens lineup plans when they realised how well their line of f2 primes was selling vs the faster ones.

So I'm fairly certain that there is a good market for reasonable primes. Arguably selling the 28mm IS USM f2.8 for €850 might not have been reasonable .


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.
> 
> Fuji also changed their original lens lineup plans when they realised how well their line of f2 primes was selling vs the faster ones.
> 
> So I'm fairly certain that there is a good market for reasonable primes. Arguably selling the 28mm IS USM f2.8 for €850 might not have been reasonable .



All spot on. As good as they were, Canon really shot themselves in the foot with the $799/849-ish initial asking price for the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses. The sweet spot for these mid-range lenses is probably more in the $500-600 range, which is where we see the two recent nano USM zooms (18-135 and 70-300) sitting.

I think a refresh principally to the non-L 50 and 85 are no brainers. But to hit $500-600-ish that price point in 2017, I'm guessing that means it can't be an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM. More likely, of the following three items:

f/1.4
IS 
Ring type USM with mechanical manual override

Canon can only give us the first one. We may just get a focus-by-wire 50 f/1.4 (Nano) USM II, which is a shame. But I'll still get it if it's internally focusing, which I'm hopeful it will be as I believe both the nanos zooms are internally focusing as well.

If they keep external focusing alive and we get just a slightly quicker FBW telescoping plastic thing like the 50 f/1.8 STM, I will likely give up on Canon in this FL and give the Tamron 45mm a look.

- A


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 21, 2017)

Personally I'd rather have them give up the f1.4 aperture, since honestly at this price point and size target it's likely to perform poorly anyway and introduce other compromises. I'd rather have Canon give me a very good f2 lens, but usable straight from f2, with overall great rendering, decent sharpness, smooth transitions, etc. 
And IS . And internal focusing.
Personally I could live with nano-USM, but it appears to be a sore point for a lot of people. 
That being said, because Canon is so obsessed with product differentiation, I guess that it can't be any slower than f1.8 now that the STM has been released. 
I use the 50 and 85mm focal lengths for 90% of my photos, I don't need my 50 to be faster than f2 and my 85 than f2.4 or so, I'm not buying heavy L lenses, and I've been waiting for a refresh of these lenses for more than 5 years. With the other points of insatisfaction that I currently have, these middle of road 50, 85 and 100mm lenses are desperately needed as far as I'm concerned if Canon actually want some money from me and better secure me as a customer (right now I probably have less than €1200 worth of EF mount lenses).


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.
> ...



Dear Canon

I want a 50mm 1.4 internal focus ringUSM for less money than the Sigma.

You do this, you can have my money.


----------



## traveller (Sep 21, 2017)

BillB said:


> If the 85's and the 100's are grouped together, I make it a total of 6 lenses including the new 85 f1.4 and the two macros. There may be some people who feel the need for a large aperture 85 and a 100 macro, and the 85 f1.8 is a handy lightweight and inexpensive choice. But still... Maybe it's just that it doesn't cost Canon that much to keep existing designs in the supply chain.



I think that R&D is a substantial cost element, so the longer the production run the greater number of units over which these costs can be spread. The only counter to that would be if an old lens required Canon to keep an old production process, or use out of date components. I believe that I have read Roger Cicala state that Canon does subtly alter design elements/components over time, either to make a lens more reliable or easier to produce.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Accuracy is good. Considerably better than the 50 ART, the 45 f1.8 Tamron, the Canon 50 f1.4 and 50 1.8 STM. So which 50mm lens would you pick in stead?
> ...



I used my 50L exclusively last weekend with my 1DXII, when visiting a friend. I shot almost exclusively at f2, which still gives nice and creamy bokeh. Took a lot of pictures of their kids (2 and 3 years) using different AF points and AF modes. Focus accuracy wasn't an issue. I didn't loose any good moments with the fast moving children due to AF misses. AF wasnt a concern at all. 

As far as my experience goes, the 50L is both more accurate and faster than any other 50mm lens with AF, that I have used. 

I am not saying it's AF doesn't leave anything to be desired, it isn't as fast or reliable as the 24LII, 35LII, 135L or Canons newer zoom lenses, but it works good at f2 and smaller apertures.


----------



## Talys (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.
> ...



I think the telescoping focus on 50/1.8 is just because they wanted to keep it as small as possible. I don't like it either, but the lens is so cheap for the quality of photos it produces that I can't complain.

I think that if it's a 50/1.4 nano, it will be internally focused (like the other two nanos). I don't think I'd buy one, to be honest, as tempting as it may be, though if it's cheap enough, who knows. Most of those nano USM lenses seem really cool, but I never use them -- I just sold both my 18-135 and 70-300. Ironically, _I got more for the 18-135 than I paid for it new off of Amazon_.

I really loved my 50/1.4 USM, and I would have bought a refresh without thinking twice about it for years, but now, I have gotten used to using the 50/1.8 STM. It would have to be significantly better than both for me to buy it, and couldn't be too lavishly expensive. Once you get close to $1000, I'd be looking at a 1.2, if I were serious about a 50mm prime upgrade -- in fact, Canon would have a better chance at my money with a refresh on that. But then of course, it's another expensive, heavy prime that I have to lug around if I'm going to make use of it


----------



## BillB (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.
> ...



Your guess about what Canon might put in a 50mm that it could sell for $600 seems about right to me. My guess is there is going to be a lot of resistance if they leave out IS, so it might have to be a choice between f1.4 and IS, and that could be a no win choice for Canon.

We know that there is resistance to second tier primes that cost more than $600, but how much do we really know about what features it will take to get a lot of people to buy a $600 lens? Can Canon make money selling lenses that people will buy for $600? We shall see. I don't think the the 35-28-24 have ever sold like hot cakes at ther lower price points, and they are pretty good lenses.

I have always wondered why the original prices of the 35-28-24 lenses were so high. Maybe it was partly the exchange rate. Canon may have been greedy. Or maybe that was the price level that reflected design and production costs while meeting return on investment targets. In any case, it was not a succesful strategy

Why did Canon "shoot itself in the foot".


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

BillB said:


> I have always wondered why the original prices of the 35-28-24 lenses were so high. Maybe it was partly the exchange rate. Canon may have been greedy. Or maybe that was the price level that reflected design and production costs while meeting return on investment targets. In any case, it was not a succesful strategy
> 
> Why did Canon "shoot itself in the foot".



You answered your own question in the paragraph before. (The shooting of said feet was the original asking price of the 24/28/35 lenses.)

But pricing here depends on what they put in the new 50. Depending on feature set and build, price could vary on that wildly depending on [Max aperture] + [Type of AF] + [IS / no IS] + [Weathersealing]:

f/1.4 + Ring USM + IS + Sealing = you're talking the next L lens with sealing, so probably $1500 or so. You can look at this vs. other options below and deduce 'oh, this guy thinks sealing alone is worth $600-700?' That's not what I mean -- if it's a sealed L lens, it will be a simply higher class of _everything_ and the price will reflect that.

f/1.4 + Ring USM + IS + No Sealing = a very high end non-L lens, perhaps $899-999 due to the cache of f/1.4 and IS. (Many have said such a lens can't happen in non-L as it would threaten 50L sales.)

f/1.4 + Nano USM + IS + No Sealing = a reasonable mid-level lens. f/1.4 and IS should still command a good price, say $799.

f/1.4 + Ring USM + No IS + No Sealing = $599

f/1.4 + Nano USM + No IS + No Sealing = $499

f/1.8 or f/2 + (any combination above) = what, 60-70% of the price of the f/1.4 combination?

- A


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 21, 2017)

$999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> $999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.



You've misread me. I said the L would be $1500.

A non-L with f/1.4 + IS + ring USM would be $899-999.

- A


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > $999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.
> ...



I wasn't responding to you. Was responding to CR suggesting price of $999 for a 50mm f/1.4L IS would "fit nicely into lineup."


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 21, 2017)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



Oh, apologies. And I agree with you. L + IS + f/1.4 = not cheap. 

I'm still stunned Canon didn't ask for more for the new 85 f/1.4L IS as IS + f/1.4 + full-frame is an industry first, if I'm not mistaken. Though it would be more like $2k.

- A


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



No worries. And definitely agreed about 85 1.4 IS. Would think $2k would've been the price tag too. However, I've heard rumors that the optical quality is just "good," so maybe there was too much compromise to get IS in and it's unable to beat the Sigma 85 1.4 and/or Tamron 85 1.8 VC in wide open/corner sharpness? Will be eager to test the lens myself.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 22, 2017)

I think there's more to consider than binary cheap spot expensive spot to consider.

1) The f/1.2 lenses just don't fill the same spots as, say, Sigma 50mm & 85mm art lenses.

To make the point, Canon doesn't have lenses to fill the same spots as the Sigma Arts, Zeiss Otuses, and Nikon 58mm f/1.4G.

2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.

3) The L versions of the 24mm & 35mm are newer than the L versions of the 50mm & 85mm, so it's easier to upgrade just the non-L versions.

On the other hand, the 50mm f/1.8 was recently upgraded. This makes harder to have three new lenses sell at three different price points, especially as...

4) The economy being what it is, Canon would rather not make two new primes of the same focal length at the same time.

So making an 85mm f/1.4L IS USM makes more sense than an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM + 85mm f/1.4L USM, esp as Canon can keep on selling the existing 85mm f/1.8 USM.

I think Canon will make a 50mm f/1.4L IS USM, no upgrade to the non-L prime.


----------



## drnedel (Sep 22, 2017)

CANONisOK said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...



Any Nikon guy or Otus owner wandering around here?

I more than once found myself in a situation where, while shooting with my 35mm, I wanted a more "restricted" view. But switching to 50mm the difference in focal length was just a wee bit to small. Also, if shooting portraiture, I often just take along my 135mm and 50mm, the latter for more "environmental" portrait. While it is a conscious decision on my part to use these two vastly differing focal length, the switch is sometimes too radical, and, at least on paper, a, say, 58mm lens would be more appropriate.

As said, any Nikon guy around who could give real life insight into this question?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 22, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> I think there's more to consider than binary cheap spot expensive spot to consider.
> 
> 1) The f/1.2 lenses just don't fill the same spots as, say, Sigma 50mm & 85mm art lenses.
> 
> ...



+1 Agree with your prediction and hope it is true!


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 22, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> 2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.



Good insights -- appreciate the post. Re #2 above, it's an interesting theory. The 50mm focal length in particular (and the 85 somewhat as well) can deliver large aperture lenses relatively inexpensively compared to other FLs. Currently, we have:

50mm f/1.2L II USM @ $1,349
50mm f/1.4 USM @ $349
50mm f/1.8 STM @ $125

(this same sort of price falloff in other FLs one would imagine would require a good stop max aperture difference per price point)

But that is not to say that the jump from f/1.4 to f/1.2 costs $1000 to deliver. Not at all. I contend a great deal of that L vs. non-L cost in other places -- quality/solidness of build, proper ring-type USM, more elements, more aperture blades, weathersealing, etc.

And there's also that nutty notion of double gauss vs. a retrofocus design. You could have two radically different 50 f/1.4 designs. For instance, a general use inexpensive non-L 50 f/1.4 IS will not steal L business if the light falloff / rendering isn't as good. 

So this gives Canon a canvas of elements of a design -- IS vs. no IS, DG vs. retrofocus, sealed vs. not sealed, max aperture, focusing technology, IS vs. no IS, etc. to 'Frankenstein' together a stable of different 50s to serve various needs. 

I argue the place between 50 f/1.8 STM and 50 f/1.2L II is the place that needs attention the most. Canon may may _also_ make a new L with IS like they just did with 85mm recently, but the mid-grade instrument needs a helping hand into the 21st century, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > 2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.
> ...



I hope you're right. I would run straight to the nearest photo shop to buy 50mm + 85mm f/1.8 IS USM @ $550 each, but will definitely not pay $1,600 each for f/1.4L IS USM. My pockets just aren't deep enough.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 22, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> I hope you're right. I would run straight to the nearest photo shop to buy 50mm + 85mm f/1.8 IS USM @ $550 each, but will definitely not pay $1,600 each for f/1.4L IS USM. My pockets just aren't deep enough.



I think they'll do it, but I'm guessing it will be nano / 'peppy focus by wire' for that price point. It would appear that mid-grade lenses (effectively, every non-L EF lens other than the nifty fifty and shorty mcforty) no longer warrant ring USM. 

I just checked the lens timing release table I use (link) and for [EF] + [non-L], since the 24/28/35 IS refresh in 2012, here are all the lenses released:

2012: EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
2014: EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
2014: EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM (Ring)
2015: EF 50mm f/1.8 STM 
2016: EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM (Nano)

...we have not a single ring USM lens to be found other than the $6900 400 DO prime, which is hardly a mid-level instrument. 

I'll say it: Ring USM = RIP for mid-level glass. :'( Somehow, something we've counted on for 20+ years is now somehow priced out of this market segment.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you're right. I would run straight to the nearest photo shop to buy 50mm + 85mm f/1.8 IS USM @ $550 each, but will definitely not pay $1,600 each for f/1.4L IS USM. My pockets just aren't deep enough.
> ...



I'll live with that.


----------



## traveller (Sep 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > 2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.
> ...



I'd have to agree with Antono Refa that a 50mm f/1.4L upgrade is more likely than a non-L, but perhaps your price expectations are too pessimistic. The Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS is brand new pre-order status and yet is US$300 _cheaper_ than the old 85mm f/1.2L II. If the same ratios were applied to a new 50mm f/1.4L IS, then this would be a US$1150 lens -so not cheap, but only US$200 more than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 22, 2017)

traveller said:


> I'd have to agree with Antono Refa that a 50mm f/1.4L upgrade is more likely than a non-L, but perhaps your price expectations are too pessimistic. The Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS is brand new pre-order status and yet is US$300 _cheaper_ than the old 85mm f/1.2L II. If the same ratios were applied to a new 50mm f/1.4L IS, then this would be a US$1150 lens -so not cheap, but only US$200 more than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art...



Possibly, but the 85L II isn't cotton balls in the corners the way the current 50L is. I think there's a huge pent-up demand for a fundamentally higher resolving 50 prime that might not exist at the 85mm FL, a demand folks would gladly pony up the bucks for.

But I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## slclick (Nov 3, 2017)

I'm so glad I don't have a dog in this fight, I just can't stand the 50 on FF perspective and if I do shoot it it's on my 24-70mk2
It's just too frustrating waiting for what should be a foregone conclusion that Canon would have a great 50 and lower variants like they do a 35. SMH


----------

