# A New Nifty Fifty Coming [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 4, 2015)

```
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/new-50mm-70-300-coming-soon-cr2/" target="_blank">Yesterday we were told that a new 50mm lens would be coming</a>, along with a new 70-300 non-L, non-DO lens.</p>
<p>Today we’re told the new 50mm will be an f/1.8 with STM and a 49mm filter thread. This seems to be a replacement of the current “Nifty Fifty” and not the 50mm f/1.4.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 4, 2015)

Sad for all like me, hoping for a f/1.4 replacement, but reasonable if it's true.
Canon wants to improve / renew their starter lenses to get new people in the DSLR market.

Follows the lineup of the other STM lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Today we’re told the new 50mm will be an f/1.8 with STM and a 49mm filter thread. This seems to be a replacement of the current “Nifty Fifty” and not the 50mm f/1.4.



Amazing, according the user poll this is what nearly nobody expected (see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24892.0). To me, this is really disappointing, I'd really like to have a Canon f1.4 at a reasonable price with good bokeh and a real usm motor. 

Obviously Canon isn't able to move out of their own trap since 2007 that releasing an f1.4 update would threaten their f1.2 L sales and can't even be pushed by Yn releasing a clone. Or is the f1.4 to be discontinued anyway?


----------



## Northstar (Feb 4, 2015)

Where in the HE double hockey sticks is the 50 1.4 replacement??

Sigh...


----------



## fabioduarte (Feb 4, 2015)

Sometime ago there was a mention that the next 50mm lens would be an IS version of the 1.8 and it would replace both the 1.8 and 1.4.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 4, 2015)

fabioduarte said:


> Sometime ago there was a mention that the next 50mm lens would be an IS version of the 1.8 and it would replace both the 1.8 and 1.4.



That's true, although it doesn't look as if this lens will have IS from the rumour so far.




Northstar said:


> Where in the HE double hockey sticks is the 50 1.4 replacement??
> 
> Sigh...



Maybe this it it. It could be that this lens is very good. It's easier to make a f/1.8 better than a f/1.4. If this lens was as good as the current 1.4 stopped down across the frame, but better at f1.8, who's going to buy the current f1.4 lens ? If it's a metal mount and case quality similar to the 40 pancake, latest IS prime releases etc, them I'd be more than happy with STM for this type of lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 4, 2015)

Gateway prime.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Maybe this it it. It could be that this lens is very good. It's easier to make a f/1.8 better than a f/1.4. If this lens was as good as the current 1.4 stopped down across the frame, but better at f1.8, who's going to buy the current f1.4 lens ? If it's a metal mount and case quality similar to the 40 pancake, latest IS prime releases etc, them I'd be more than happy with STM for this type of lens.



You're correct that the mediocrity of the f1.4 and the ultra-cheap plastic f1.8 play in Canon's favor as they don't have much of a challenge improving upon that.

However, for me a fast prime is about good bokeh - and a smaller filter thread indicates that they didn't put much importance into this. It still could have a stellar design, rounded aperture blades and whatnot - but I'm rather pessimistic as they will try to sell their expensive f1.2 for this purpose :-\


----------



## lintoni (Feb 4, 2015)

Northstar said:


> Where in the HE double hockey sticks is the 50 1.4 replacement??
> 
> Sigh...


+1


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 4, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this it it. It could be that this lens is very good. It's easier to make a f/1.8 better than a f/1.4. If this lens was as good as the current 1.4 stopped down across the frame, but better at f1.8, who's going to buy the current f1.4 lens ? If it's a metal mount and case quality similar to the 40 pancake, latest IS prime releases etc, them I'd be more than happy with STM for this type of lens.
> ...



Hey, Steady ! The current EF 50 f1.4 is superb from f3.2 to f8 in terms of resolution. One of the lenses that would eat up the new 53 mp sensor at those apertures.



Marsu42 said:


> However, for me a fast prime is about good bokeh -
> 
> and a smaller filter thread indicates that they didn't put much importance into this.



Well a fast prime for me is all about size, balance and portability.

And what's that last comment all about ? Ever heard anyone complain about the bokeh of a Pentax 50mm f.1.7 takumar ?


----------



## lw (Feb 4, 2015)

If it has IS, I will be tempted.
But somehow I doubt it. I think this will be priced too cheaply as a replacement for the current 50mm F1.8, and the price point won't accommodate IS. 

That said they manage to put IS in their kit zooms. But even they are priced higher than the current 50mm F1.8.

However, if the price point is something more like $200+ in keeping with the 40mm F2.8 STM then I would think there is more chance it will have IS


----------



## Nitroman (Feb 4, 2015)

Boooooooooooooo !!! :'(

I wanted a 50mm f1.4 IS ! 

If it is a decent f1.8 with IS i'd be fairly happy as better than f2


----------



## zim (Feb 4, 2015)

STM's make sense with the anouncement of the 760 I guess

not giving up on a 1.4 USM update at some point this year though... keeping the faith! ;D


----------



## kphoto99 (Feb 4, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon wouldn't do an STM lens without IS, so that would make it a 50/1.8 IS STM. The price of the "nifty 50" would then approach that of the 50/1.4 (maybe around that of the 40 or a bit more.)
> 
> If so then that means an update of the 50/1.4 would come later ...



What about:
40 2.8 STM
24 2.8 STM
22 2 STM

None of them have IS.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 4, 2015)

Wow, I'm underwhelmed to say the least.... I guess my initial plan to get the 16-35 f4 IS for something new and fun still is on....


----------



## rs (Feb 4, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> However, for me a fast prime is about good bokeh - and a smaller filter thread indicates that they didn't put much importance into this.


Entrance pupil size dictates the quantity of bokeh, not quality. The focal length and aperture define the exact dimensions of the entrance pupil (50/1.8 = 27.77mm), and set a lower limit for the filter size.

Neither of these factors influence the quality of bokeh.


----------



## Cet (Feb 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/new-50mm-70-300-coming-soon-cr2/" target="_blank">Yesterday we were told that a new 50mm lens would be coming</a>, along with a new 70-300 non-L, non-DO lens.</p>
> <p>Today we’re told the new 50mm will be an f/1.8 with STM and a 49mm filter thread. This seems to be a replacement of the current “Nifty Fifty” and not the 50mm f/1.4.</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>



49 mm filter thread? Why? Why not keeping the common 52 mm to avoid replacing the filters? Is STM the only advantage? No IS? Why not a pancake? And even the pancakes do come with a 52 mm filter thread, both the EF 40 and the EF-S 24 use the same flat lens Hood ES-52. Could it be that f/1.8 is not feasible as pancake? If so, they should have added IS to the new 50 mm. To me IS is more valuable than STM.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 4, 2015)

no plastic mount please. 50 1.8 was the first prime I ever owned. :'(


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 4, 2015)

I guess the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 presents, or is perceived by Canon to present, too much of a competition to the EF 50mm f/1.8, so Canon decided to upgrade the lens.


----------



## jolive3 (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm guessing that the most logical thing would be an ef-m 50mm. It's the one lens I miss! There are others though  The 50 1.4 replacement should be in line with the 24, 28 and 35 IS lenses. And please stop bashing the 50 1.4, for it's size and price it's still a great lens!


----------



## siegsAR (Feb 4, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> That's true, although it doesn't look as if this lens will have IS from the rumour so far.



Yeah, from 52mm to 49mm filter size, I'd think there'll be no IS too; plus the price-point.


----------



## bereninga (Feb 4, 2015)

Glad this is just a CR1. 49mm filter size makes me think it's a pancake. That's sooo tiny!


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 4, 2015)

Like most here, I was hoping for a 50/1.4 IS ring USM in line with the optical and build quality of the 24-, 28- and 35mm lenses introduced in 2012. I'm making do with the 50/2.5 compact macro, as I've read too many stories about the fragility of the 1.4's AF system.

I waited 10+ years for the 100-400 II to arrive, even though it was proclaimed a unicorn right up until the month prior to its official announcement. I'm keeping the faith that Canon will eventually produce the 50mm lens that so many of us are waiting for with our wallets open.


----------



## Zv (Feb 4, 2015)

Just CR1 so no point in getting panties in a twist over it but even if this is true I'd buy it as long as it's decent wide open, which almost all recent lenses have been. This would be a huge upgrade from the soft and mushy, in my opinion largely useless, thrifty fifty at f/1.8. Anyone who has used it will agree it needs to be stopped down a bit so really you end up at best f/2.2 or above. I'll even take f/2 just sharp wide open is all I want. 

The EF-M 22 STM is great at f/2, I'd be very happy with an EF-M 50 f/1.8 if that is what this turns out to be. 

Win win. Bring it.


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 4, 2015)

Booooooo!

I was just thinking of selling my Sigma 50 (non Art) in anticipation of an updated 50 f/1.4 from Canon. I guess I should hold on to that for now.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 4, 2015)

Not another STM, come on...
I hate the slower focusing speed and focusing by wire of STMs...


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 4, 2015)

jolive3 said:


> I'm guessing that the most logical thing would be an ef-m 50mm. It's the one lens I miss! There are others though  The 50 1.4 replacement should be in line with the 24, 28 and 35 IS lenses. And please stop bashing the 50 1.4, for it's size and price it's still a great lens!



That's an interesting take. Lord knows we could use some more native EF-M lenses. A new M prime in the 50mm focal length would certainly interest this gentleman.


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 4, 2015)

I have a hard time seeing this as the most needed lens in the standard prime segment. And that filter size...?


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 4, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> Not another STM, come on...
> I hate the slower focusing speed and focusing by wire of STMs...



I will agree with you on the focus by wire, as I find it very annoying as well. I couldn't imagine doing video with manual focus. However, the focus speeds of the non pancake lenses that I have used have all been very fast to lock focus. Not quite USM speeds, but right there. The EF-M 18-55 and EF-S 18-135, both STM I've used on numerous occasions and focus speed has never been an issue.

Now, I also have the EF 40mm, EF-S 24mm, and EF-M 22mm pancakes, and they leave much to be desired in terms of focus speed. Night and day difference compared to the "full size" STM lenses.


----------



## vscd (Feb 4, 2015)

> 49 mm filter thread? Why? Why not keeping the common 52 mm to avoid replacing the filters?



You can easily step down from 52 to 49 with your existing filters. Adapters are available for $2 or less.



> Is STM the only advantage?



For me STM is an disadvantage. It's not bad, but I don't like wired Focus and for me it's even noisier (despite what they claim).



> No IS? Why not a pancake?



We don't know yeat. But 50mm 1.8 without IS would be a shame, really.

But I think all those complains about a bad bokeh, because of the smaller entry-diameter, are nonsense. A Zeiss 50mm f1.5 or Leica 50mm 1.4 are even smaller and quite good. Let's wait and see what's coming.


----------



## mrzero (Feb 4, 2015)

If this is an EF-M lens, I say great news (assuming it is sold in the US). That whole set-up needs more attention and more native lenses. The 49mm filter thread really suggests EF-M to me. Those lenses have wacky filter sizes (43mm for the 22, 55mm for the 11-22).

If this is an EF lens, I'm extremely disappointed. I really wanted to see the 50mm IS prime lens (and the 85mm) that has been rumored for a while. And the STM does not really pose any advantage for me. I'd rather have a proper USM with full-time manual focus.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Feb 4, 2015)

To me, this rumored 50mm prime lens with STM sounds like a replacement for the current 50mm f/1.8 II. The current one is out of date are far as focusing motor and build quality. A refresh with a STM and better build would make it like the EF 40mm f/2.8 and probably around $200 max. This would also leave room for the rumored 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 with ring type USM and IS in the $500-$600 range. If for some reason this rumored lens is an EF-M 50mm prime lens then I'll be just as happy as more EF-M lenses for my EOS M is always a good thing .


----------



## anthonyd (Feb 4, 2015)

In my book the Canon 50/1.8 lost the title "nifty fifty" when the Yongnuo came out. The lens was never considered nifty because of it's quality, but because of it's value/price ratio and at almost half the price (let alone slightly better optics), the Yongnuo is very hard to beat.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 4, 2015)

But why?


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Feb 4, 2015)

Why is everybody hating on the STM Lens it's the future of nearly all the canon L lenses 
Canon what's pro glass L lens and semi pro glass with lower prices and lower or no weather sealing 
What's all the hate towars stm


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 4, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> Why is everybody hating on the STM Lens it's the future of nearly all the canon L lenses
> Canon what's pro glass L lens and semi pro glass with lower prices and lower or no weather sealing
> What's all the hate towars stm


I do not understand why some people hate STM. I challenge anyone to show me an STM model that has become lower than the model it replaced.

Maybe 24-105 STM?
Do Not.
The 24-105 STM actually replaces the mediocre 28-135mm.


----------



## vscd (Feb 4, 2015)

> I do not understand why some people hate STM



You never focus manually, right?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I do not understand why some people hate STM.



I don't hate them, but Canon managed to release them w/o sealing which simply is too risky for what I do. I had my share of repair bills, and on the long run it's less expensive to buy the L model.



ajfotofilmagem said:


> I challenge anyone to show me an STM model that has become lower than the model it replaced.



It's not only that: Because they're working and releasing stm, they're *not* doing so on their legacy usm / L line. If there wouldn't be any fancy new stm around, we might have long seen a 35L2, updated 50/1.4, maybe 180L2 macro and whatnot.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 4, 2015)

If this is inexpensive and as good as the pancake lenses, it will be a good addition to the landscape photographer's kit. Let's see: 880 gram Sigma Art 50, vs 200 gram Nifty Fifty III, hauled up 1000 ft elevation, along with tripod, camera, other lenses. If lightweight lens A gives (nearly) as good quality as heavyweight lens B at f/8, lens A is worth a look.

Yes, STM is a PITA for manual focusing, which is all I do on landscape shots on-tripod. One can make focus-by-wire (all STM works this way) work, but it takes longer than for a USM or manual focus lens.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Feb 4, 2015)

Maybe this is a budget replacement, to hold the 100$ mark. Maybe lower, because a new construction can be more cheaper.

If they release a 50 1.8 IS (or 1.4!), it wouldn't cost 100 bucks, maybe 300-400 - and they have to produce the old model anyway. So both lenses will be replaced soon.
After the 50MP announcement, there should be a 50/85 replacement, than you can buy a complete setup with great lenses, zoom and primes which can serve this MP range even in the edges.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 4, 2015)

NancyP said:


> If this is inexpensive and as good as the pancake lenses, it will be a good addition to the landscape photographer's kit. Let's see: 880 gram Sigma Art 50, vs 200 gram Nifty Fifty III, hauled up 1000 ft elevation, along with tripod, camera, other lenses. If lightweight lens A gives (nearly) as good quality as heavyweight lens B at f/8, lens A is worth a look.



Exactly my thoughts !



NancyP said:


> Yes, STM is a PITA for manual focusing, which is all I do on landscape shots on-tripod. One can make focus-by-wire (all STM works this way) work, but it takes longer than for a USM or manual focus lens.



Are all STM lenses released so far manual focus by wire ? I presume they must be, but do they have to be ?

If this new lens follows recent STM releases in that it has no distance scale window, then I think I might lose enthusiasm for it. I love the 40mm pancake - except for the fact it has no distance scale. Using BBF I find that this is not normally an issue. However I am unable to see if I have inadvertently focused the lens beyond infinity when trying to shoot at infinity.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Feb 4, 2015)

Thinking about this, my money is on a EF-M 50mm pancake.

Why ? Firstly the tiny filter size, second, the 40mm pancake is already the replacement to the nifty fifty, third, the EOS M3 is launched soon, lastly, I don't believe that Canon would tool up for another cheap prime especially with the 24mm & 40mm pancakes and that the next EF 50mm will be something more akin to the 35mm IS, which notably has a 67mm filter size - rather larger than the one in this rumoured 50mm lens.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 4, 2015)

Man, what is with keeping the current 50mm 1.4? Maybe the design flaw that makes the AF break non-stop gives them a lot of profit? Are they waiting for a class action lawsuit on that lens or what?


----------



## zlatko (Feb 4, 2015)

Excited! Love, love, love small lenses. They definitely have their place. When people complain about DSLRs, they often complain about the big lenses, as in "my three f/2.8 zooms are all gathering dust because I got tired of carrying them all". Fortunately, Canon is making some lenses for people who appreciate smaller and lighter. And, of course, they still make the big lenses too. Something for everybody!


----------



## zlatko (Feb 4, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> I have a hard time seeing this as the most needed lens in the standard prime segment. And that filter size...?



They don't build according to "most needed" because there's no such thing. One person's "most needed" is another person's "least needed" and another person's "might need someday" and another person's "nice to have if the price is right".


----------



## zlatko (Feb 4, 2015)

vscd said:


> > 49 mm filter thread? Why? Why not keeping the common 52 mm to avoid replacing the filters?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Small is good. And Leica makes two 50mm f/2.0 lenses that are among the best ever made. Even without IS, they are pretty fantastic.


----------



## lw (Feb 4, 2015)

Just to add to the suggestion it could be an EF-M lens, Canon did patent it
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-10-25

_Canon is 35 mm F1.4 , 50 mm F1.4 , 50 mm F1.8 of patent and, with a accessory shoe mount adapter is pending a patent on. Since the patent application of the optical system corresponding to the APS-C mirrorless, I want to expect the expansion to the EOS-M._


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 4, 2015)

zlatko said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > I have a hard time seeing this as the most needed lens in the standard prime segment. And that filter size...?
> ...



I wasn't trying to look at it from my point of view of most needed, but from what I imagine the overall market needs. The über-cheap f/1.8 already exists in two versions (Canon's and Yongnou's). It would be easier to comprehend if they tried to gain market shares by releasing a new f/1.2 or f/1.4 with better optics, perhaps IS, sturdier build (than f/1.4), better microcontrast, less focus breathing, faster and more reliable AF (than Sigmas joke) and so on.


----------



## rbr (Feb 4, 2015)

Like a lot of others I was really hoping for a standard 50mm with IS at least of the quality and speed of the 35 f2 IS. Why doesn't Canon make any lens at all in the standard focal lengths between 35mm and 70mm with IS faster than some f4 zooms? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm disappointed!


----------



## zlatko (Feb 4, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > DominoDude said:
> ...



There is no overall market. The market is diverse. For some buyers, a new improved f/1.8 is of greater and more immediate interest than a new f/1.2 or 1.4. For some it isn't.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 4, 2015)

The market cap of Canon Inc as of today is $ 35BN it is perfectly within its remit to design & build three new 50mm lenses if it so chooses. However its also a "business" and would carefully weigh up if and when it needs to replace a lens and likely in connection with other factors and not simply technical ones. 

The nifty fifty the 50mm f1.8 likely sells in far greater numbers than the 50mm f1.4 and 1.2 but both of those likely carry better margins, if the Chinese however have "copied" the nifty fifty then Canon must distance itself by improving the IP protection and this is almost certainly part of any decision.


----------



## Machaon (Feb 4, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> I guess the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 presents, or is perceived by Canon to present, too much of a competition to the EF 50mm f/1.8, so Canon decided to upgrade the lens.



Good point.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 5, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Not another STM, come on...
> ...



Good to know, thanks. 
I have only used the 40mm and 22mm M, and as you noted, they were slow.
However, I'd still want a 'fast' fifty to be literally fast as well ;D


----------



## ScottyP (Feb 5, 2015)

I gave up waiting on a good 50mm and bought a 35mm on full frame. Glad I did, as I find the 35mm to be a great length. Now, however, I would be hard pressed to justify purchasing an expensive 50mm because it is so close to the 35mm length. 

I WOULD however buy a new 50mm f/1.8 to play with if it were only about $200, if it had improved IQ at f/1.8 and a more solid body, better focusing than the old nifty fifty. 

And if IQ wide open was better than the f/1.4, I could easily give up the tiny tiny, less than 1/3 of a stop loss in aperture of 1.8 vs. 1.4.

But posters above are probably right and this will be an M lens.


----------



## Woody (Feb 5, 2015)

Hooray!!! Will be more than happy to replace my 50 f/1.4 micro-USM with the 50 f/1.8 STM version.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 5, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> I gave up waiting on a good 50mm and bought a 35mm on full frame. Glad I did, as I find the 35mm to be a great length. Now, however, I would be hard pressed to justify purchasing an expensive 50mm because it is so close to the 35mm length.
> 
> I WOULD however buy a new 50mm f/1.8 to play with if it were only about $200, if it had improved IQ at f/1.8 and a more solid body, better focusing than the old nifty fifty.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on giving up 1.4 for 1.8 if the IQ is better, but it's a loss of 2/3 of a stop, not a tiny less than 1/3. From 1.4 to 1.6 is 1/3, and from 1.6 to 1.8 is another 1/3.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 5, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/new-50mm-70-300-coming-soon-cr2/" target="_blank">Yesterday we were told that a new 50mm lens would be coming</a>, along with a new 70-300 non-L, non-DO lens.</p>
> <p>Today we’re told the new 50mm will be an f/1.8 with STM and a 49mm filter thread. This seems to be a replacement of the current “Nifty Fifty” and not the 50mm f/1.4.</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>


It could assume that they won't produce a 50/1.4 with IS because it would canibalized the 50/1.2 sales, as long as it produces results similar to the 35/2 IS.
49mm filter thread????? What??? It sounds completely illogical since the 40/2.8 STM has a 52mm thread. It sould be bigger for a 50mm lens if they want to get a f1.8 max aperture and not producing a huuuuge vignetting.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 5, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> It could assume that they won't produce a 50/1.4 with IS because it would canibalized the 50/1.2 sales, as long as it produces results similar to the 35/2 IS.



The theory of "they won't do x because it would cannibalize y" never makes sense to me because they're constantly building things that cannibalize each other to a significant degree. By that theory, most cameras and lenses wouldn't exist. Just look at all of the overlap in the camera and lens lines. So many bodies can substitute for each other. There are so many lenses that cover 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, etc. So many flashes. I suspect that, rather than cannibalizing, these extra choices simply bring in more buyers -- people with diverse needs and budgets -- who might otherwise not buy anything or buy from a competitor. And many people buy multiple versions of key focal lengths, such as 2 or 3 50mm lenses, or both versions of the 85, or lenses with very similar focal lengths. If you don't give them those multiple choices, they will buy just the one you give them.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 5, 2015)

zlatko said:


> The theory of "they won't do x because it would cannibalize y" never makes sense to me because they're constantly building things that cannibalize each other to a significant degree. By that theory, most cameras and lenses wouldn't exist. Just look at all of the overlap in the camera and lens lines.



"Overlap" and "cannibalize" aren't the same, and I'm 100% sure if there's one thing Canon marketing deliberates a lot about it's their internal lineup. A pure "overlap" is to be expected, but it's about user groups and the balance of a) the danger of them jumping ship or b) luring them into upselling to the next best model.

Don't underestimate this: For example, how much less profit would Canon have made if 50% of the 5d3 customers in the last 1.5 years would have bought at 6d instead because it would "good enough", i.e. not crippled enough, for video and shooting motion? If 2/3rds of the €1300 f1.2 "L" owners would have bought a good €500 f1.4 50mm update?


----------



## lintoni (Feb 5, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The market cap of Canon Inc as of today is $ 35BN it is perfectly within its remit to design & build three new 50mm lenses if it so chooses. However its also a "business" and would carefully weigh up if and when it needs to replace a lens and likely in connection with other factors and not simply technical ones.
> 
> *The nifty fifty the 50mm f1.8 likely sells in far greater numbers than the 50mm f1.4 and 1.2 but both of those likely carry better margins, if the Chinese however have "copied" the nifty fifty then Canon must distance itself by improving the IP protection and this is almost certainly part of any decision.*


Yongnuo are also making a 50mm f/1.4, so where's the new Canon 50mm f/1.4?


----------



## zlatko (Feb 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The theory of "they won't do x because it would cannibalize y" never makes sense to me because they're constantly building things that cannibalize each other to a significant degree. By that theory, most cameras and lenses wouldn't exist. Just look at all of the overlap in the camera and lens lines.
> ...



Overlap vs. cannibalize = doesn't matter what you call it. Just look at what we know rather than what we imagine. Canon currently makes:
EFS 10-22 and 10-18
EF 16-35/2.8 and 16-35/4 and 17-40/4
EFS 15-85 and 17-85
EFS 18-55 in two versions
EF 24-70 in two versions
EF 24-105 in two versions
EFS 55-250 in two versions
EF 70-200 in three versions
EF 70-300 in five versions
EF 24 in three versions
EF 28 in two versions
EF 35 in two versions
EF 50 in three versions
EF 85 in two versions
EF 100 in three versions
EF 135 in two versions
EF 200 in two versions
EF 300 in two versions
EF 400 in three versions
EF 500 and 600
And I won't even mention all of the camera bodies that cannibalize each other, because there are a lot of them.

All of the above cannibalize each other to some degree. So, to say that they won't build X because it would cannibalize Y is just baloney. They do it all of the time and there is proof throughout the product line. They don't have to, but they do. If the "Canon avoids cannibalization" theory were true, a lot of these products wouldn't EXIST.

How much less profit would Canon have made if some percentage of 5D3 customers bought the 6D instead? I have absolutely no idea and neither do you. But I'm quite sure that some percentage of 5D3 customers DO in fact buy the 6D instead. I am one of them. I have 5D3 + 6D instead of two 5D3. So the 6D really shouldn't exist.

While an individual 5D3 body may bring in more profit than an individual 6D body, they may sell several 6D bodies for every 5D3, resulting in a net gain in profit. The same goes for a potential excellent new 50/1.4 lens (with or without IS) — it may sell many more copies than the 50/1.2L, outweighing any cannibalization factor.

The cannibalization theory propounded by photographers in online forums is way too simplistic. When Canon introduces the cheaper product that allegedly cannibalizes the more expensive product, it isn't necessarily a net loss. While some customers buy the cheaper product as a substitute for the more expensive one, others buy the cheaper product vs. buying nothing at all or vs. buying a competitor's product. 

Cannibalization is a normal and expected part of the business. As Steve Jobs said, "“If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will."


----------



## lintoni (Feb 5, 2015)

There are four 50s - 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5 macro.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 5, 2015)

lintoni said:


> There are four 50s - 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5 macro.



Oh yes, you are correct. Similarly, the Leica company makes four 50s: 0.95, 1.4, 2.0 and 2.4. 

If the "They don't want to cannibalize" theory actually reflected company behavior, these companies would be making only one 50: their most profitable one.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 5, 2015)

There are four 70-200mm lenses (f/2.8 vs f/4, IS vs no IS)

I think the list makes a good case for places where Canon cannibalizes it's own products, e.g. the 70-300mm lenses, in contrast to places where it doesn't, e.g. the 24mm lenses.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 5, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> There are four 70-200mm lenses (f/2.8 vs f/4, IS vs no IS)
> 
> I think the list makes a good case for places where Canon cannibalizes it's own products, e.g. the 70-300mm lenses, in contrast to places where it doesn't, e.g. the 24mm lenses.



Oh yes, there are four of the 70-200. Even more cannibalization!

For full-frame users, there are currently three 24mm lenses (1.4, 2.8 and 3.5 TS-E). For aps-c users, there is now a fourth 24mm option: the new EF-S 24/2.8 STM. And there are about _fifteen_ zooms that include a 24mm focal length. So someone who needs a 24mm focal length has as many as nineteen options from Canon.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 5, 2015)

Cool. With STM, it won't be the creaky, buzzy AF that we're all used to. I'd expect a price bump to 199$ with the new motor and hopefully updated build.


----------



## DRR (Feb 6, 2015)

There seems to be a lot of misconception about market (product) cannibalization, and what it means, and why companies intentionally do it. Cannibalization is a simple concept to grasp, but a difficult one to fully understand.

Here is an example of two lenses that are often compared but are completely different lenses for different users. Canon offers two 85mm prime lenses, one that goes for about $300 and one that's close to $2000. Just because they're the same focal length, does not mean they cannibalize each other. No one in the market for the $2000 lens is going to realistically buy the $300 as a replacement. Similarly, if you're in the $300 price bracket, you can't even afford the $2000 one.

So here, you have two products in your portfolio that have the same focal length, but fill two _entirely different_ niches in your product portfolio. 

Similarly, the multiple 50mm offerings don't cannibalize each other either. They are different lenses for different uses, and they each fill a different level in Canon's overall product portfolio.

So why have all this lens overlap? Why have 4 different lenses when you could simply focus on and sell the one that makes the most profit?

Simple - the strength of these products _together_, create a wall that other manufacturers can't pierce. Canon's 50mm options don't compete with each other, they work in tandem to compete with Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, etc. Products don't compete with each other in a portfolio, they work together to provide a competitive option against a different manufacturer. 

That's the reason why there are a dozen different Porsche 911s. Or 3 different Honda Odysseys with 9 different trim levels. Or why there's Coca Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke, etc etc etc. These products don't compete with each other, they give you an appealing alternative to stay within one brand/system/manufacturer.

This is not to say some of Canon's overlap is not dangerously close to cannibalization. In fact the day-old 750D and 760D are so close, and serve virtually the same market, that I think these two lines are not sustainable long term. However I see few, if any, lenses that truly compete with one another, within the Canon system.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 6, 2015)

DRR said:


> This is not to say some of Canon's overlap is not dangerously close to cannibalization. In fact the day-old 750D and 760D are so close, and serve virtually the same market, that I think these two lines are not sustainable long term.



This isn't cannibalization, but deliberate upselling.



DRR said:


> However I see few, if any, lenses that truly compete with one another, within the Canon system.



Exactly - that's *because* Canon is so good at avoiding cannibalization when there's the danger customers will chose a less expensive alternative... their whole specs and features (does a lens have focus limiter switch or not?) reflect this. A simplistic view of listing how many "overlapping" lenses Canons produces doesn't take market segments into account and is bound to fail.


----------



## JoeKerslake (Feb 6, 2015)

Any release date set for this?


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

DRR said:


> Here is an example of two lenses that are often compared but are completely different lenses for different users. Canon offers two 85mm prime lenses, one that goes for about $300 and one that's close to $2000. Just because they're the same focal length, does not mean they cannibalize each other. No one in the market for the $2000 lens is going to realistically buy the $300 as a replacement. Similarly, if you're in the $300 price bracket, you can't even afford the $2000 one.



Well, sorry, but that's simply wrong. I have bought and sold all of the Canon 85mm lenses several times over the past 15 years, including both the original 85/1.2L and the 85/1.2L II. I have had three copies of the 85/1.8. The 1.2 and 1.8 are very different in many ways but they are the same in one way — they are both 85mm — and sometimes that is what is important. If Canon only made the 1.2L version, I would presently only have the 1.2L. But because they make the 1.8 version, I only have the 1.8. Sometimes a person can go either way, depending on what is available. Because both were available, consider the 1.2 version *cannibalized*. 

Likewise, I have the cheaper f/4 version of the 70-200. If they only made the f/2.8 version, I would have that one. So the f/2.8 version is cannibalized. Yum. Yum. Likewise, a second 5D3 was cannibalized in favor of a 6D. And so on.

The point is that there is a degree to which these products compete with each other. Not always, not for every photographer. But enough that it's real. 

Is Canon bothered by all of this cannibalization? They aren't. Canon knows that they sell many more of the cheaper products, so the cannibalization ultimately doesn't hurt them. I do agree with your point about the strength of these products together. That's a point that is often overlooked. 

That's why an excellent new 50/1.4 wouldn't be a threat to the existing 50/1.2L. I expect Canon will make a much improved 50/1.4 in due time.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 8, 2015)

Of course Canon canibalizes their own products- if they don't, Sigma, or Nikon, will. Having a smaller profit margin is infinitely better than having none at all


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 9, 2015)

What about two 50's? Like Nikon did. They replaced both their 1.8 and 1.4 with two really great lenses and introduced them at the same time.

I wish that were the case but I'm expecting just a 50 stm and probably 1.8. In which case I'll just use my 40 and my 50 2.5 macro.

But it sure seems at least on this forum that there's great appetite for a 1.4 in the manner of the 35is.


----------

