# Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 24, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/patent-canon-50-f1-8-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/patent-canon-50-f1-8-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 IS</strong>
A patent has show up showcasing an EF 50 f/1.8 IS lens. Could this be the replacement to the 50 f/1.4? We had <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-ef-50-f1-4-is-in-2013-cr2/" target="_blank">heard about this lens existing last year</a>. While some may desire a direct 1.4 replacement with IS, I think Canon may want some separation between the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-USA/Canon_1257B002AA_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 50 f/1.2L</a> and the next 50 in the lineup. We’ve also heard of a new EF 50 f/1.2L design being tested.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2013-142782</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Publication date 2013.7.22</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.1.11</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 51.51mm</li>
<li>Fno. 1.85</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 22.78 °</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>The overall length of the lens 76.78mm</li>
<li>BF 37.84mm</li>
<li>8 pieces of 7 lens configuration</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-07-24" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## niklasR (Jul 24, 2013)

*Re: Patent: Canon 50 f/1.8 IS*

I can see both the 50/1.2L and 50/1.4 being replaced. The 50/1.2 because of it's general performance, and the 50/1.4 because of the competition (Sigma).
Also a 50mm-prime could be very nice for the budget handheld video-shooter who is into the short DoF-look and all that, but they really should keep the 50/1.8, because value for money and all that.

I wish Canon to replace the 50/1.4 by a 50/1.4 IS, because it would make life easier for me choosing lenses 8) (Because I don't want to think about Sigma 50/1.4 vs old Canon 50/1.4 vc Canon 50/1.8 IS.. assuming the price range remains on an equal level  *brr*)


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 24, 2013)

While I do have some understanding about patents, I'm not currently too clued up on the details. 

With a filing date of January 2012, and a publication date of July 2013, does any of this indicate when a lens might be in production / release? Or is this just a 'prototype'?

I'm in the market for a good 50mm, preferably Canon, ideal with IS. Any aperture between f/1.4 and f/2. My core requirements are great IQ wide open: sharp, great bokeh, low CA, strong contrast, USM focussing.

If Canon bring a new 50mm lens to the market similar to the recently released EF 35mm f/2 USM IS, I'll be very happy! Let's see what this will bring.

Looking forward to any insights folks on this forum can give about time-frame and possibility of actual production.

Paul


----------



## CharlieB (Jul 24, 2013)

Just what we need.....an eight hundred dollar 50mm f/1.8 lens. Oh boy!


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 24, 2013)

Honestly, Canon needs to put out a decent f/1.4 before they release any other 50mm prime.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jul 24, 2013)

IS on a 50mm? Why?


----------



## horshack (Jul 24, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> IS on a 50mm? Why?



Because it'll let you shoot static scenes down to probably 1/13 or so. Two stops of extra exposure is a huge deal in low-light situations.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 24, 2013)

CharlieB said:


> Just what we need.....an eight hundred dollar 50mm f/1.8 lens. Oh boy!



+1. I don't know of any shooters who say they need IS on a non-telephoto. Definitely doesn't justify a $700 jump in price.



Canon Rumors said:


> While some may desire a direct 1.4 replacement with IS, I think Canon may want some separation between the EF 50 f/1.2L and the next 50 in the lineup.



Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but is CR suggesting Canon might simply offer the f/1.2 and then the f/1.8 IS, skipping f/1.4 altogether (once it's phased out)? The window for a 3rd party to kill it with a decent 1.4 already exists, but this would literally pave the way. Here's hoping Sigma updates their 50mm 1.4.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 24, 2013)

horshack said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > IS on a 50mm? Why?
> ...



PLUS... there are also times when you may wish to shoot at other than wide open (eg f/4) - as you WANT a greater depth of field (dof) - in lower light - and not have (or be unable to use) a tripod.

So the IS will allow a tripod-less (or 'tripod-restricted') photographer a sharp, 'steady' photo in such a (somewhat darker) situation, which a non-IS lens won't get you. 8)

I don't use IS all the time (I have both zoom and prime lenses that don't have IS). But my main lenses have IS. Generally I appreciate IS if it doesn't degrade overall image quality (and there are many recent lens releases that have shown IS doesn't have to degrade quality). 

For the huge variety of photos I take, I'm willing to pay a few hundred Aussie dollars for IS, also in a 50mm. And yes, 50mm is useful on both FF and APS-C bodies. 

Paul


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 24, 2013)

horshack said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > IS on a 50mm? Why?
> ...



I was in the middle of writing how 1/15 is too slow for shooting people (unless they're exceptional at holding still) when I noticed you said *"statics scenes"*. That begs the question: are people so lazy as to pay an extra ~$700 for IS (over the current f/1.8 ) simply to avoid having to bring/carry a tripod when they do night photography? 

IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.


----------



## callaesthetics (Jul 24, 2013)

hoping for a 85 f2 IS to be next in line.


----------



## Zv (Jul 24, 2013)

I'll take IS on a fifty. Heck I'll take it on any lens. Yes I am lazy - I do not want to carry 4 or 5 extra Kg of weight on my back! Am not looking for a workout when I'm doing street photography. When it starts to get a bit dark I want to be able to continue shooting at f/8 etc to get a nice amount of DOF. I also want the option to be able to shoot wide open at f/1.8 for indoor shots or portraits etc. 1/focal length rule is rubbish. Try using that on a crop body. Now it's 1/85 or 1/100 in reality. There goes the low light advantage. So yeah even if I can get ONE stop of IS I am happy because now I can shoot sharp shots indoors at 1/60 or lower (dragging the shutter) and combine it with flash for some cool effects. Minus a tripod - now am free to recompose quickly. So can we please stop saying "why do you need IS in a fifty?" Cos some of us might need it.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



Ummm, no, not lazy. Sometimes, they just want to be more comfortable and be able to bring their camera without lugging a tripod with them. E.g., just imagine going to a party while lugging around a tripod. not too sexy isn't it?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 24, 2013)

Jeez, all I want is a 50 1.4 that don't break by no reason, has typical ring type USM (read: more predictable/precise), doesn't extend when focusing and less hazy wide open.

Why is it so hard to get? I think Canon enjoys screwing with it's customers.

I'm currently having both Sigma and Canon 1.4 in hand. Shooting them side by side, it is pretty much clear than the Sigma is a far superior lens.

The front focus in near/back focus in far problem is the only issue I have with Sigma, but at least it is PREDICTABLE unlike the Canon.

If that 50 1.8 IS becomes the actual product, I will have to either pay to get my Sigma calibrated, or buy a new one and have it calibrated.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jul 24, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > horshack said:
> ...


Actually, bringing a DSLR to a party won't do you much good either


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 24, 2013)

The IS has nothing to do with stills. Looks like another "video lens." Oh well, if it's better than all the current 50's, I'll get it.


----------



## drjlo (Jul 24, 2013)

CharlieB said:


> Just what we need.....an eight hundred dollar 50mm f/1.8 lens. Oh boy!



I hope it's not true. I'd much rather have a new Canon 50 f/1.4, but a 50 f/1.8 (IS or not) would be acceptable ONLY IF it was very sharp wide open at f/1.8. Actually, I'm growing more and more attached to my 50L, so maybe it's a moot point for me..


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 24, 2013)

Video lens mostly... Lets hope they don't get rid of the nifty-fifty, the price is one of it's best attributes!


----------



## ashmadux (Jul 24, 2013)

like someone else said- i could give a crap what kind of 50 they make, but for the love of god, let the damn thing focus properly.

hands down the worst canon lens ive ever used in terms of AF. It actually is usable as a manual only lens...because i dotn have a choice at this point.


ps- these "why IS?" arguments is think is ludicrous. IS helps. THAT IS ALL.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 24, 2013)

ashmadux said:


> ps- these "why IS?" arguments is think is ludicrous. IS helps. THAT IS ALL.



+1 

I am sick of hearing the "nobody needs IS" crap. Nobody "needs" power windows, but it sure is nice to have.


----------



## Zv (Jul 24, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



And that's why I have an EOS M! I wish the 22/2 had IS but then there's always the 18-55 or 11-22 for that.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> CharlieB said:
> 
> 
> > Just what we need.....an eight hundred dollar 50mm f/1.8 lens. Oh boy!
> ...



So far, Canon has honored the traditional aperture sizes when they replaced the 24, 28 and 35. I suspect they will do the same for the 1.8 and it will co-exist with the 1.4 non-IS. The 1.4 is on a different release schedule altogether.

I predict Canon will drop the 1.8 II and it will be replaced by an all-plastic version with IS. It will be affordable like the Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS II F/3.5-5.6 which actually sells for less than the 50mm f/1.8 II.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 24, 2013)

*Re: Patent: Canon 50 f/1.8 IS*



niklasR said:


> The 50/1.2 because of it's general performance,



What did you not like about your experiences with the 50/1.2L? I have to assume you own this lens, have owned it in the past, or have used it in a rental or other situation. 

I have owned the 50/1.8, 50/1.4, and the 50/1.2 as per my sig.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> The IS has nothing to do with stills. Looks like another "video lens." Oh well, if it's better than all the current 50's, I'll get it.



Wrong, actually.

IS also is very applicable for still photography.

A number of us have written that in our posts on this thread (pls read page 1).

While I've taken thousands of photos on tripods, I've taken hundreds of thousands of photos without a tripod, and believe me - in many situations using, bringing or even having a tripod (or monopod) just isn't practical (or allowed in some scenarios).

Many professional photographers use IS to get shots they otherwise couldn't have. I'm not a pro, (though plenty of my photographs have been sold) - and my photographic technique does at times benefit from IS.

Paul


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jul 24, 2013)

Etienne said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > ps- these "why IS?" arguments is think is ludicrous. IS helps. THAT IS ALL.
> ...



I have no problem with IS on certain lenses like zooms, telephotos and macro... But doing it on a 50mm? Yes, the IS would help in low-light situations. I use a 50mm in the street and while I can go to f1.4 to help with light, I lose too much DoF. So if IS can get me to f4 or f5.6 with a slower shutter speed. That would be great. And I just won't bring a tripod either.

And if you continue to get sick of people's opinions, changing channels will fix that.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 24, 2013)

ashmadux said:


> like someone else said- i could give a crap what kind of 50 they make, but for the love of god, let the damn thing focus properly.
> 
> hands down the worst canon lens ive ever used in terms of AF. It actually is usable as a manual only lens...because i dotn have a choice at this point.
> 
> ...



Yes, agree with you on both points.

I owned 2 copies of the 50mm, and the AF of it was terrible (better on my 7D than my 350D, and yes I've also used on FF) - but in all copies of the 50mm lenses, each was generally slow, inconsistent, inaccurate, hunting in poor light. That's not what I want a fast prime for! I need it to nail focus. 

There were other non 50mm - lenses that I have used with AF (eg f/1.8 with USM) - which nailed focus consistently. So it's not me being unable to use a shallow depth of field. The 50mm occasionally would nail focus, but most of the time focus was not good enough. And trying to use the lens MF doesn't work well enough for my critical needs (focus ring = terrible).

And as per my other posts, yes - IS does help. I may buy a new Canon 50mm without IS if it's good and they release it indicating there won't be an IS version, if it meets all my other needs. (I won't need IS in most situations, but certainly would take IS over a non-IS version, as at times IS will allow me to get the shot I want).

I may even consider Canon's 35mm f/2 IS over the 50mm non IS is released. Just I know that I prefer the 50mm focal length for my style of photography rather than a 35mm. Just none of the current 50mm lenses from any manufacturer meets what I need.

Let's see!! C'mon Canon, please please please give us a great 50mm f/1.8 (or even f/2) with IS, USM and great IQ wide open! Eventual pirce under $1000 AUD. Pretty please.

Paul


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> +1. I don't know of any shooters who say they need IS on a non-telephoto.




You do now


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jul 24, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> Jeez, all I want is a 50 1.4 that don't break by no reason, has typical ring type USM (read: more predictable/precise), doesn't extend when focusing and less hazy wide open.
> 
> Why is it so hard to get? I think Canon enjoys screwing with it's customers.
> 
> ...



+1 not sure about the sigma 50mm but the non L canon 50mm lenses are lacking plenty of practical features. Sharp shots wide open would be so nice on the 1.4. Less distortion and CA on both and more rounded aperture blades is also nice. IS is okay but I wouldn't prioritize it over improved distortion, CA, build, AF accuracy, speed, and better bokeh quality.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Jul 24, 2013)

If the MTF charts and wide open sharpness compare to the IS 24/28/35 versions, it might be interesting. I have owned all 3 non-macro Canon versions as well as the Sigma 1.4. Currently the range is occupied by my venerable 28-70 f/2.8 and the pancake 40mm (i have FF + crop). I would love to see a Sigma 'mkII' of their excellent 1.4, since I found it to be the best bang-for-the-buck fifty for the Canon system, and I love 50mm prime on FF.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 24, 2013)

I'll add to the consensus, so long as it doesn't quadruple the price of a nifty fifty then it's potentially a good thing.

The 24, 28 and 35 were complete redesigns of very old lenses, including IS and USM, these lenses have a pretty narrow market in the scheme of things and so the economy of scale dictates that these lenses will cost more to recoup their cost.

The 50mm f1.8 is a different proposition, after the 18-55 IS it must be just about their best selling lens, if they can make a lens built as nice as the 40mm f2.8 for the modest cost then hopefully build and budget will be the way forward for the next 50mm 1.8.

I don't need IS, don't particularly want IS, so long as it doesn't add a fortune to the lens cost and there is an off switch then I don't see the harm. A lot of folk would gladly be without video, where would that leave me?


----------



## photonius (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



I guess you have never travelled (no tripod) and wanted to take a picture inside, e.g., a dark church, ....


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 24, 2013)

But for this sort of focal length, if I have to choose between f2 IS and f1.4, I will take the f1.4 any time of the day. (not when I was drunk and shaky )


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jul 24, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Why IS?
> 
> On a human front, IS allows people that cannot hold things steady to take non-blurry photographs. That's not a bad thing.


That's what makes IS so important for me, my hands are not very steady unless I really focus on it.


----------



## TW (Jul 24, 2013)

The current Canon 50mm 1.4 is unusable wide open in most situations anyway, just no contrast at all. Everything has a soupy, misty look. Also quite a bit of CA, though that's not such an issue anymore. 

If a 50mm 1.8 IS is sharp and contrasty wide open, and has IS to boot, this will be a fine lens; modern USM and the build quality will put such a lens in a whole different category than its predecessor.

Of course, Canon, realizing this, will charge accordingly. ;D


----------



## asposium (Jul 24, 2013)

callaesthetics said:


> hoping for a 85 f2 IS to be next in line.



I'd like an 85L f1.2 IS

my 85L mark 2 would be straight onto ebay!


----------



## dstppy (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...



Tripods are like flashes, any use of them in photography is 100% cheating.

OR, or, let me just throw this out there:
Maybe some people don't shoot with them for whatever reason and calling them lazy is as inane as calling using them cheating


----------



## Viggo (Jul 24, 2013)

dstppy said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > horshack said:
> ...



+1 I hate dragging around a tripod (don't even have one anymore). It's always in the way. IS is fantastic in everywhich way and should, imo, be included in ALL lenses. the 14mm with 4 stops if IS? yes please. Will also help a lot with my handheld HDR. Not to mention video.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 24, 2013)

horshack said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > IS on a 50mm? Why?
> ...



The reason buying prime is big aperture & shallow DOF. Can't shoot people @ 1/13 or so. Wonder who do landscape @ f1.8? If the lens is on tripod, then why IS?


----------



## CANONisOK (Jul 24, 2013)

Oh good, a "nifty-850."


----------



## bradfordswood (Jul 24, 2013)

Lots of good points here, as usual, on both sides of the argument. For me, IS is always welcome. My hands are not steady all the time especially at shutter speeds slower than about 1/60. So for that reason alone I love having IS on my lenses. Do I always need it? Well no, not if I'm shooting in good light...but how often does that really happen? Image stabilization helps me take sharper pictures which makes me happy.

If this is as sharp as the 35mm IS then I'm in for one. But of course, once the price drops.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 24, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> The reason buying prime is big aperture & shallow DOF. Can't shoot people @ 1/13 or so. Wonder who do landscape @ f1.8? If the lens is on tripod, then why IS?



How about light weight and compact size? No, I wouldn't do landscapes at 1.8, but IS gives me the option to shoot in lower light, maybe at a lower ISO or at a smaller aperture for DOF. Carrying a tripod isn't always practical or possible when hiking etc.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.



Hmm, disagree. Video has a couple of things going for it..

1. Minimum shutter of 1/30th. More likely to be 1/50th or 1/60th for most users. Largely negates the IS of a stills lens. IS for video and IS for stills is quite different. We don't know how aggressive or how reactive the IS will be. On a better handycam format camera IS can be set in different modes, on traditional camcorders it isn't present at all. 

2. In anycase most serious video users would have the camera supported in someway. Anything over 30s becomes a pain to handhold. Again, largely negating the benefit of IS for video users.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.
> ...



It seems you don't shoot video. Shooting at 1/30, 1/60 or 1/4000 does not improve eliminate shake in video, but IS cuts it down quite a bit. 

Hand-held video is common even on big budget films today. Eliminating the micro-shakes improves the look quite a lot. The camera on a shoulder brace with a 50mm with IS is great on FF, and even more important on a crop.


----------



## mrzero (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm just wondering what will the final stable of 50mm lenses be. I find it hard to believe that Canon will keep the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8 IS (or whatever), and the 50 1.2L. Are they going to kill of the nifty fifty and treat the shorty forty as its "replacement," keep the 1.4 for budget wide aperture shooters, and treat the IS model as the non-L intermediate? Now that so many DSLR shooters are on crop sensors, the 50mm length is more like an 80mm short telephoto to them, so the 40mm as entry-level prime lens makes more sense, although a 28mm entry-level prime would be the best.

Also, as to the chorus of "why IS," we've been through this before with the 24, 28, and 35. Obviously they are going to do the same with the 50, and probably the 85. The biggest question left is where they will stop. They already have a 100mm IS macro L that people love, and non-L macro and non-macro 100s. They killed off the 135 non-L soft focus, so that is a possibility, but the 135 L is widely beloved -- would they undercut it with an $800 wide aperture with IS? Seems doubtful. And the 200 L prime -- if they add a non-L with IS, it would seem to undercut the widely beloved 70-200 zooms. Canon has always been reticent to cannibalize their existing sellers (i.e. EOS M vs. micro 4/3). However, as many point out repeatedly, the telephotos are the lengths that benefit most from IS. 

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to include the 50mm 2.5 macro. I have a hard time believing that they will continue with five 50mm primes (and a 40mm).


----------



## dstppy (Jul 24, 2013)

Viggo said:


> +1 I hate dragging around a tripod (don't even have one anymore). It's always in the way. IS is fantastic in everywhich way and should, imo, be included in ALL lenses. the 14mm with 4 stops if IS? yes please. Will also help a lot with my handheld HDR. Not to mention video.



I don't mind schlepping one around, especially if I may end up in the shot or I've got the option of sending it back to the car. It made a BIG difference since I went to a carbon fiber, manfrotto tripod with a modified ball-head to use an arca-swiss type connector. It's a genuine pleasure to use when I need it.

IS has gotten really good, but it just drives the price up sometimes. I was an IS-baby for years (meaning I was terrified to not use it), then when I realized I was almost ALWAYS shooting at a fast shutter speed, I released my death grip from it  My 200mm 2.8 is just a darling to use.

The other side of it is, with the 5d2/3 etc., you can crank the iso higher to keep that faster shutter speed.

Then again, when you're literally chasing down your subject (a child that won't sit still), IS is a big deal ;D


----------



## dstppy (Jul 24, 2013)

mrzero said:


> I'm just wondering what will the final stable of 50mm lenses be. I find it hard to believe that Canon will keep the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8 IS (or whatever), and the 50 1.2L. Are they going to kill of the nifty fifty and treat the shorty forty as its "replacement," keep the 1.4 for budget wide aperture shooters, and treat the IS model as the non-L intermediate? Now that so many DSLR shooters are on crop sensors, the 50mm length is more like an 80mm short telephoto to them, so the 40mm as entry-level prime lens makes more sense, although a 28mm entry-level prime would be the best.



The 40 is really nice, but I'd still go to my 50mm 1.4 because I'm not use to the motor speed/noise.

I still have an unused/in-box 50mm 1.8 that I got in a bundle two years ago, after looking at it and seeing how flimsy it was compared to the 1.4. I really got to get around to selling stuff :


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 24, 2013)

Etienne said:


> It seems you don't shoot video. Shooting at 1/30, 1/60 or 1/4000 does not improve eliminate shake in video, but IS cuts it down quite a bit.
> 
> Hand-held video is common even on big budget films today. Eliminating the micro-shakes improves the look quite a lot. The camera on a shoulder brace with a 50mm with IS is great on FF, and even more important on a crop.



No, I shoot lots of video. My point was that IS for video and IS for stills is entirely different because of the contiguous nature of video footage. Most photo lens IS has been designed for photo use, i.e. short bursts of agressive and noisy IS, not prolonged smooth and quiet IS. 

It seems you didn't read the second part of my answer. Supported. Could be a studio pedastol. Could be a shoulder rig. Both of which would negate IS.

IS for video is called steadicam. And it works on the entire set up, not just one part of it. I'm not saying that in lens IS can't be used for video, just that it sucks. 

Can you tell me one film that you can hand on heart say has been shot with an unsupported 'hand held' camera, that is no rig, no steadicam.

Cheers!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 24, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The IS has nothing to do with stills. Looks like another "video lens." Oh well, if it's better than all the current 50's, I'll get it.
> ...



Sighhhhhhhhhh. No, I meant that that's WHY Canon made this lens. Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.



f4? Seriously... wide max aperture is best for video, generally shutter would be at 1/50th, so the more flexible the lens can be the better as you effectively have one less paramater to play with.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you don't shoot video. Shooting at 1/30, 1/60 or 1/4000 does not improve eliminate shake in video, but IS cuts it down quite a bit.
> ...



Perhaps think smaller than a film coming from a huge production house (i.e. a wedding film, student film, etc.). IS definitely helps those run and gun shooters. IS even helps if your glidecam operator isn't the most adept....


And I hate to return to the IS debate, but...

So far, just about everyone arguing for IS on this 50mm f/1.8 cite being able to shoot at a smaller aperture (f/4, f/5.6) in low light. And that's because if you're shooting at f/1.8 you can get away with 1/50, 1/60 for just about anything, especially with ISO performance these days. I think many of these people would be far better suited by the 24-105 IS or by Tamron's 24-70 f/2.8 VC (IS) than by this lens. It has yet to be argued that someone needs IS while shooting at f/1.8...and honestly, I can't think of any photography situation where I'd need/use/like IS at f/1.8. Like I said earlier, I can shoot at 1.8 & 1/50th of second for everything. If I want a wider DOF I have much more versatile IS zooms for that. If I want to get creative with motion/light, I'm going longer than just 1/13 on my shutter. Sure, shooting at 1/13 would give me less noise than 1/50th, but I'd be more restricted in what I could shoot. Plus, noise reduction is free. 

Consequently, this just screams video lens to me. If I'm filming a wedding reception I'm going to be wide open, and IS will definitely help during those moments where I'm clumsy/not as steady, etc. (by the reception I've already been filming for ~8 hours).


----------



## RC (Jul 24, 2013)

Been aching to buy a worthwhile 50mm for years. Time to refresh the whole 50mm line up and provide us something worth buying:

50 1.2L II - (keep this as the "specialty" 50)
50 1.4L - (with or without IS, don't care, USM ring, sharp wide open, WS) 
50 1.8 IS or f/2 IS - (budget and or video lens)
50 2.5 Macro - (?? Don't know enough about this lens to comment)

I'll take the 50 1.4L or maybe the 50 1.2L if they fix the front/back focus issue

Yes I know, Canon would not offer a 50 1.4L since it would eat into the 50 1.2L sales


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...


I'd take it... I can use the help with my shaky hands! Seems as I've aged my hands just don't hold my gear as still as they used too. I just don't see them charging $700 more for it. $250 more, maybe... $700? I don't think it would be that much additional money.. After all, it's still not an L lens... as far as we know...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.
> ...



Would you have paid the money Canon would have charged for a 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens? Didn't think so.


----------



## vscd (Jul 24, 2013)

I think all of us have nothing against the IS of a lense, but you always have to think about the higher costs you will pay. If I could get a 50mm 1.4 IS over a 50mm 1.4 for the same price, the first one would be the killer. But are you willing to spend 800 Bucks for it? Over the 350 of the old one? In the last months Canon presented a lot of nice lenses, but the price of em were reasonable higher than for the old one. Just take the 24-70L II, a nice lense, but double the price of the old one? Just guess what it would cost with IS.

Maybe not all people are willing to spend 1000 Euro for a simple Standardprime just to satisfy some people with shaky hands. Adjust the iso if you can't hold the Camera or take a tripod. We were running with our cameras through the streets, having film of ISO50 or ISO64 in our Cams and took great pictures in the night. So why can't you? Start to work again, use your existing gear... try to feel the spirit of a lense above it's specs. And if you can't, get a camera with IS build inside, so you don't need IS-Lenses anymore.

By the way, the specs of the patent print "Image height 21.64mm", so I guess this could be more or less a patent for APS-C or at least for some heavy vignetting on FF. Greetings.


----------



## AJ (Jul 24, 2013)

I really don't get the "IS is for video" thing. Video clips typically last several seconds, and IS won't hold an image that long. If you shoot video and care about quality, you use a tripod.


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 24, 2013)

Is there a particular reason why the IS primes are slightly slower than the original?


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Tamron made it and it's damn sweet. 1200


----------



## vscd (Jul 24, 2013)

>Tamron made it and it's damn sweet. 

Yes, Tamron made a good one for a reasonable price (it's even weathersealed)... Canon should think about their actual lenses and the pricetag on it. The new Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG is also quite a bargain against the 35L. The Samyang 35 1.4 is even less expensive and in my eyes another great lense if you like manual lenses (which I do).

So, I hope Canon is not taking away the 50mm f1.4 and is coming back with a 50mm 1.8 IS with a 799$ pricetag on it. But anyhow, it seemes that we'll get some nice choices from other manufacturers lately...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Nope. Nor will I pay the money for an f4 for a focal length that makes no sense on aps-c or s35.

The full frame users, perhaps those video shooters most concerned with shallow dof aren't going to flock to an f4 either.

Just a thought.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 24, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason buying prime is big aperture & shallow DOF. Can't shoot people @ 1/13 or so. Wonder who do landscape @ f1.8? If the lens is on tripod, then why IS?
> ...



Adding IS will not make the lens lighter or smaller.


----------



## dadgummit (Jul 24, 2013)

All I ask is for Canon to put out a fast + accurate focusing 50mm with good bokeh and is sharp wide open. Don't care if it is f1.2, 1.4 or 1.8... Even if it is a EF 50mm f2.0 IS USM I would be ok with that as long as it is good.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Jul 25, 2013)

Canon, please for the love of God make this lens a reality. I don't care if you price it at $700 I want it. I've been wanting a true update to the Nifty-Fifty for so long now. The 50mm 1.4 is an outdated lens as well. Canon needs to update these lenses asap.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Jul 25, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> Video lens mostly... Lets hope they don't get rid of the nifty-fifty,* the price is one of it's best attributes!*



And its downfall as well. Sure, it's cheap, but sometimes things can be too cheap. 

The Nifty-Fifty was great in the 80's and 90's, but it just doesn't hold up in 2013. The Nikon 50mm 1.8G simply destroys the Canon 50mm 1.8 and it's only a $100 more. I don't think Canon users would mind paying an extra $100 for a far superior 50mm 1.8 lens if Canon offered it.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jul 25, 2013)

The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR. People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS. They have IS on wide angle lenses like 24mm and 28mm now, why would it be impractical at 50mm? Just turn it off if you don't like it, or buy the old version. Or troll on out of here to another brand =P


----------



## Komodor (Jul 25, 2013)

İts my opinion but ı think new ef-s lenses mostly entry level lenses will come İS and STM focusing motor... STM motor will be standart for ef-s lenses thats my opinion too. Because STM is faster and quiter ever ı love it, when ı use the first stm (18-135 STM) really impressed me... 

I was using my canon 50mm 1.4 usm on 600d and 550d this lens was razor sharp at f/2.8. but ı start to using new 6d and 50mm 1.4 is really screwed up...

Canon must be updated 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. Especially 50mm 1.8 must be have at least 7 aparture blade )))


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 25, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR. People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS. They have IS on wide angle lenses like 24mm and 28mm now, why would it be impractical at 50mm? Just turn it off if you don't like it, or buy the old version. Or troll on out of here to another brand =P



Nobody is saying IS in general is mostly a video feature. People are saying that IS within this context, for a 50mm 1.8, is mostly unnecessary for photography situations and thus has more application for video.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 25, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



Well I'm glad both Pauls (me and Paul Walnut) are on the same page and seem to understand each other.

bdunbar79, I've appreciated a number of your posts in CR for some time - but it seems here you do not appreciate that the style of photography of some people is different to *yours*, and some people (like me) are hugely benefitted by IS in certain situations.

While you might not use it in stills photography and think that optical stabilisation is mainly, or purely for video - while even that is debatable, read chosenbydestiny's post, for example - the truth is that many pros and many non-pros use IS with great effect in certain photography scenarios. Not in all situations, but in some!

There are just SO many scenarios that I have shot in, and I have been alongside professional photographers too - where you just can not take or use a tripod (even a $1000 lightweight, compact carbon fibre one). 

Consider just these 2 applications A and B.

*A*
I have shot with the 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8, and even at ISO3200, shots were at the limit of shake. Being able to take a photo at 50mm in low light situations without risk of image shake, is of HUGE advantage.
Just 2 egs:
1) Christmas tree decorations being lit up by other fairy lights (tripod wouldn't fit on any side of the tree) as it was in a small apartment, near a bed and wall, and I wanted to get the shot without disturbing others who were sitting nearby
2) children relaxing by a campfire at a hike that I've been a leader at (fancy being 1 of a few adult leaders trekking 10 days, already carrying all the necessary gear eg food, tents, first-aid, cooking utensils, clothing, etc - and then _*also*_ taking along a cumbersome tripod and setting it up while caring for a dozen children?) No?? I didn't think so either!IS is great!
I could easily provide a much longer list....

Yes I do use my good tripod often, but I use IS more. And I also do use my IS lenses with IS turned off in situations too! (eg HDR, panning, some sports, BIF, etc)

*B*
Then, secondly there is another application- as I have already described previously - photos taken at smaller apertures, eg f/4 to f/11 (to obtain greater depth of field) ... and having IS helps to steady the shot (saying 'just use a larger aperture', as this would ruin the shot, ie in some situations I do not want a super narrow dof eg f/1.4-f/2.

I could easily provide a long list of examples here, but I trust one's imagination and photographic experience help here, realising that one can't always take a tripod along, or the time to set one up and compose with a tripod (which even on the quickest set/ release types - is far from as quick as 'purely in one's hand').

This 2nd application is why some users (including some pros) of FF have skipped the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 v1 and v2 and instead gone to Canon's 24-105 f/4 IS or Canon's 24-70mm f/4 IS, OR to Tamron's 24-70mm f/2.8 VR. I know many pros and non-pros who own both larger aperture non-IS lenses and also a mix of IS lenses (often covering the same focal length).

So, if your photographic style doesn't need IS, fine... don't use it (or turn it off). 

I know some people think IS adds lots of money to each lens, though it's not as much as many people think. Most of the cost is not IS, it's optics (to obtain high IQ), solid build, and focusing mechanisms, etc. eg a version of Canon's 24-70 f/4 _without IS_ wouldn't cost $500, as compared to the current higher price _with IS_. A Canon 24/70 f/4 without IS would cost a few hundred dollars less than the IS version. I'm willing to pay that for IS.

Same for any new 50mm prime.

While I genuinely feel it's a pity for folks who don't need IS (or don't think they ever need IS) - to pay that extra amount, please don't say IS is useless - when for many people it's actually both very *useful * or even *necessary*!

I hope my post is helpful in highlighting the value of IS, and also exposing what a lot of people don't realise about IS.

Regards

Paul


----------



## bradfordswood (Jul 25, 2013)

pj1974, well stated as usual.

IS is very helpful for shooting handheld in low light, which I do all the time. Parties, museums, events, restaurants, outdoors at night...

I recently spent a week with the 35mm IS and that sucker is sharp, no question about it. I'm hoping the 50mm IS will be as sharp.

I am excited for this rumor and I'm glad some others are as well.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 25, 2013)

bradfordswood said:


> pj1974, well stated as usual.
> 
> IS is very helpful for shooting handheld in low light, which I do all the time. Parties, museums, events, restaurants, outdoors at night...
> 
> ...



Thanks bradfordswood

Glad my post is appreciated by you (and I expect a few others too).

Even with the advances in lower noise at high ISO performance, having a 4 stop IS advantage means we can shoot in up to 4 stops lower ISO (eg ISO100 instead of ISO1600) Or ISO1600 instead of ISO25600. Lower ISO = cleaner, more visually appealing photos [all other things being equal].

Great to hear that you spent a week with the 35mm IS, and found it a great (& sharp) lens. What were the main style of photos / photographic genre that you used your 35mm IS lens for? I might look to rent that lens some time - or if one of my friends here in Australia purchases it, I might ask to use it. (I have lent out my lenses to trusted local friends several times - I know my friends are careful with my lenses).

bradfordswood, as you wrote - if Canon comes out with a 50mm IS - and it has similar specs & sharpness as the 35mm IS, I'll be _very_ happy too!

I'm keen to know what will come out in the 50mm length from Canon (and perhaps other manufacturers) in the future.... Oh for a crystal ball! 

Cheers. 

Paul


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 25, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR.



To be a bit pedantic, camcorder manufacturers were putting OIS into camcorders a good decade before anyone put video on their IS-capable DSLRs. I had a Sony TRV-9 with OIS way back in '98. I know it hit still camera lenses a few years earlier, but it didn't take very long at all for it to trickle down to video use.

As a result, I suspect that at least a hundred people use some form of IS for video (on camcorders) for every one person who uses it for stills. So yeah, it's mostly used for video—which is not to say that it is only useful for video, just that statistically, it is mostly used for video. 

Also, I don't agree that serious video requires a support system. Sometimes it does, but not always. I've shot a fair amount of serious video without a tripod. Sure, you can't survive shooting for hours at a time that way, but if you're just trying to grab a few seconds of B-roll, you can get it a heck of a lot faster if you aren't having to drag a tripod around, in my experience. It's a compromise, yes, but often it's the right compromise.

IMO, some form of IS is critical for long still exposures and for video for very different reasons. For long exposures, it is needed because otherwise you get double images. For video, it is needed because otherwise you get seasick. Either way, it isn't always useful or necessary, but when it is, it's a godsend. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 25, 2013)

Instead of making the old f1.4 an f1.8 with IS, they should've done a new f1.0 L that is as sharp as the current L at 1.8 and with 35 L fast focusing. 

I'm still waiting for the Zeiss 55 though.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Jul 25, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> IS on a 50mm? Why?



I shoot video, I need IS. The 35 f2 is already fantastic. A 50 w/ IS and the 135 w/ IS would be perfect matches.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 25, 2013)

All this IS debate is totally moot.

The only thing some (including me) can say is that we are pissed paying for IS that we don't want/need due to our style orientation. (+carrying the weight and bulk).


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 25, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > How about light weight and compact size? No, I wouldn't do landscapes at 1.8, but IS gives me the option to shoot in lower light, maybe at a lower ISO or at a smaller aperture for DOF. Carrying a tripod isn't always practical or possible when hiking etc.
> ...



Maybe not, but the new 24 and 28mm 2.8 IS lenses are still compact and light relative to zooms or their faster aperture equivalents, is this not true?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 25, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> To be a bit pedantic, camcorder manufacturers were putting OIS into camcorders a good decade before anyone put video on their IS-capable DSLRs. I had a Sony TRV-9 with OIS way back in '98. I know it hit still camera lenses a few years earlier, but it didn't take very long at all for it to trickle down to video use.
> 
> As a result, I suspect that at least a hundred people use some form of IS for video (on camcorders) for every one person who uses it for stills. So yeah, it's mostly used for video—which is not to say that it is only useful for video, just that statistically, it is mostly used for video.



They are different systems. For a start the video image device on your TRV9 is probably 1/4", and the lens will be tiny as well.

The system developed over the years and on my last compact camcorder (Sony Z1) you could specify how smoothly the IS operated. This is a feature that DSLR lenses just don't have. My SX230 lets me choose whether IS is on all the time, or just for the shot, maybe this is what we need on EOS bodies, if the mount protocol exists (which I doubt, as the switchgear is on the lens)




dgatwood said:


> Also, I don't agree that serious video requires a support system. Sometimes it does, but not always. I've shot a fair amount of serious video without a tripod. Sure, you can't survive shooting for hours at a time that way, but if you're just trying to grab a few seconds of B-roll, you can get it a heck of a lot faster if you aren't having to drag a tripod around, in my experience. It's a compromise, yes, but often it's the right compromise.



A trv9 is a different prospect, ergonomically, size, distibution of weight, to a DSLR. My old TRV-900 could be hand held with OS on, but it was desgined to be held that way, unbraced. DSLR's really are designed to be braced against the eye... not the way folk use them in video mode.

I've got various grips, from a simple L bracket, to a shoulder rig to full ENG tripod. And I always have a superclamp and microball head in my kitbag. I love tripods for wide establishers and interviews. More often than not my camera is on my shoulder, or a monopod.

The form factor of a DSLR is just wrong when held away from the 'brace against face' position. So IS isn't a bad thing, just so far Canon haven't got it right for video, in their EF lenses at least (the XL lenses had a nice implementation, that said)



dgatwood said:


> IMO, some form of IS is critical for long still exposures and for video for very different reasons. For long exposures, it is needed because otherwise you get double images. For video, it is needed because otherwise you get seasick. Either way, it isn't always useful or necessary, but when it is, it's a godsend. Just my $0.02.



For long exposures you really want a tripod. There are limits.

I look forward to seeing what the proposed nifty fifty 2 offers. If it's a well implemented contiguous IS with a smooth mode that doesn't cost the earth I might be interested.


----------



## Zv (Jul 25, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> All this IS debate is totally moot.
> 
> The only thing some (including me) can say is that we are pissed paying for IS that we don't want/need due to our style orientation. (+carrying the weight and bulk).



That's cool I see your point ... but a cheap fifty without IS already exists. Why would you be pissed if a more expensive version became available? No one is forcing you to buy it. In fact the 50 1.4 offers good value too. That's 2 cheap 50 primes. Now what Canon need to do is simply improve the 50L and we will all be happy! Btw I am convinced there is nothing wrong with the 50L and most of the hoo ha is all baloney. What is an issue is the price.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 25, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Why are so many lenses being fitted with IS?
> 
> Because as sensor pixel densities go up, without it you would need to shoot at 1/150 to get a sharp shot with a 50mm lens.
> 
> Is the penny dropping yet?



+1 I saw it very clearly going from the 1d3 to the 1d4, I had to go from 1/1000s to 1/2000s to get sharp action shots. And now with the 1d X, it's somewhere in between, but I set my min.speed to 1/2000s anyway.

And for low light it's the same, it's very seldom I go under 1/250s with a lens shorter than 100.


----------



## vscd (Jul 25, 2013)

...and do you really need the pixelcount? Doubling the Pixelamount just gives you minor resolutiondifference in x/y, but you gain a lot of negative effects. That's the reason why I still use the 5DC... it's a lightgathering beast with 12 MP on a FF-Sensor. 

And yes, the new Canon 24 IS or 28 IS are not that big, but they have a whopping Price around 700$. For a normal 2.8 prime... I think this is way too much. Without IS ist would be 200$ less, I think.

Why does everyone think IS is *the* masterkey to filmmaking? Every serious filmmaker uses manual lenses and If you want to have steady shots you can even get a gyrostabilizer for the whole camerasystem. 

Don't get me wrong, If canon would make both versions, everyone would be lucky... but this won't happen, so everyone has to pay the higher price for the demands of a few.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 25, 2013)

vscd said:


> And yes, the new Canon 24 IS or 28 IS are not that big, but they have a whopping Price around 700$. For a normal 2.8 prime... I think this is way too much. Without IS ist would be 200$ less, I think.
> 
> Why does everyone think IS is *the* masterkey to filmmaking? Every serious filmmaker uses manual lenses and If you want to have steady shots you can even get a gyrostabilizer for the whole camerasystem.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, If canon would make both versions, everyone would be lucky... but this won't happen, so everyone has to pay the higher price for the demands of a few.



I don't disagree with you about the price, but can you substantiate that 'everyone has to pay....for the demands of a few'? Opinion on here may be divided, but I disagree that a majority don't want it, especially as the posters here are a fraction of Canon's market. 

In any case, I think the bigger issue here is not that Canon is implementing IS on their new lenses, it's the price premium they see fit to levy for the privilege. But that is their direction as a company, like it or not.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 25, 2013)

Yes, because much better IQ, build, focusing accuracy and speed is 0% of the price increase of the new models. :


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 25, 2013)

A 4th choice from Canon? Come on Sigma…...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 25, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> IS on a 50mm? Why?



Because their fast zoom in this range doesn't have IS, so rather than go f2.8+IS they do it the other way around: 1.8+IS :-\ ... and they'll probably also design and market these as video lenses.



Zv said:


> That's cool I see your point ... but a cheap fifty without IS already exists.



But w/o a decent af system...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 25, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > insanitybeard said:
> ...



Most Canon non-L prime lenses are quite out of date. Tech changes fast - smaller and faster. Still, adding IS will not decrease the lens size. I'm sure you recall cell phone sizes 5-7yrs ago. I still believe primary reason buying prime is fast aperture & shallow DOF. IS was introduced to prime due to video feature in DSLR. Again, I can't speak for everybody else. I prefer f1.4 with or without IS. and yet, sharp @ wide open.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 25, 2013)

How about adding IS to a lens that really needs it. Take the 135L for example.... :


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 25, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Most Canon non-L prime lenses are quite out of date. Tech changes fast - smaller and faster. Still, adding IS will not decrease the lens size. I'm sure you recall cell phone sizes 5-7yrs ago. I still believe primary reason buying prime is fast aperture & shallow DOF. IS was introduced to prime due to video feature in DSLR. Again, I can't speak for everybody else. I prefer f1.4 with or without IS. and yet, sharp @ wide open.



Regarding lens size, there are limits to how small in size and weight a lens can be made to cover a particular size of sensor, regardless of the march of technology, as long as we are using glass optics. I am not disputing that IS makes lenses bigger and heavier than a non stabilised equivalent, however the point I was trying to make is that the new primes (or old ones for that matter) offer a compact and lighter alternative to a zoom, whether they have IS or not. To me, the IS is another tool for helping get a shot under certain circumstances where I could not have done so previously, it's not the solution to everything, nor do I expect it to be.


----------



## drjlo (Jul 25, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> How about adding IS to a lens that really needs it. Take the 135L for example.... :



Or 85L III IS. That would enable me to sell my 50L, maybe even 35L.


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 25, 2013)

Let's not forget the other unforgivable reason they may well put this lens out. Profit. Canon is a profit center first and foremost. That is there duty and they will sell thousands and thousands of these lenses with the IS feature included, making??? Profit... Good plan...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 25, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Let's not forget the other unforgivable reason they may well put this lens out. Profit. Canon is a profit center first and foremost. That is there duty and they will sell thousands and thousands of these lenses with the IS feature included, making??? Profit... Good plan...



Profit is what keeps Canon in business, it allows them to invest in new technology and it secures a future for 'our' camera system.


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 25, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's not forget the other unforgivable reason they may well put this lens out. Profit. Canon is a profit center first and foremost. That is there duty and they will sell thousands and thousands of these lenses with the IS feature included, making??? Profit... Good plan...
> ...


Exactly! That's why I said Canon is a profit center first and foremost. It's their duty and responsibility to their board and their investors... It's what they exist for and there is no knocking that!


----------



## vscd (Jul 25, 2013)

>Profit is what keeps Canon in business, it allows them to invest in new technology and it
>secures a future for 'our' camera system.

Yes, but they should always invest in the right direction. Otherwise they'll fall like others did...
especially the camerabusiness is a great example for that.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Jul 25, 2013)

I can't tell you how many times I shot video using the 50mm 1.8 and wishing it had IS. IS benefits both video and still shooters, so why are we having a debate about this? If you don't want to pay for IS than stick with your current 50mm lenses.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 25, 2013)

Because it seems once again that canon are lagging behind nikon, if not in terms of quality then in terms of value. Nikon launched a line of cheap cheerful optically good g primes, canon redesigns old favourites and puts them at a price beyond many. The nifty fifty is a staple and its strengths and weaknesses well documented. Make a new version costing 4x as much and scrap the old version (ala 24, 28, 35) and the lens on which many a novice master dof and perspective becomes an exclusive tool.


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 25, 2013)

If this new 50mm will have the same optical/built/IS quality than the recent 24/28/35 IS, I'll definitely welcome it to my equipment. I bet it will be, just like the others I mentioned, a new overpriced lens that will come without weather sealing or even a lens hood, but if you need a good, fast standard lens with IS, it looks like you don't have many alternatives...


----------



## AAPhotog (Jul 25, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR. People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS. They have IS on wide angle lenses like 24mm and 28mm now, why would it be impractical at 50mm? Just turn it off if you don't like it, or buy the old version. Or troll on out of here to another brand =P



Incorrect! I know many shooters who use IS lenses for making music videos hand held. and I mean music videos that play on major networks. Not sure if you're into hip hop, but if so, Ace hood, bird man, Future, ring a bell?
Theres a young man by the name of Edgar Esteves who shoots these and many other talent videos. Before he moved on to Red cameras, he used 5d's all the time with guess what... IS lenses. Not everyone who would like this lens is shooting 100 million dollar motion pictures. IJS


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 25, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod.



If you're doing a war reportage, you would benefit more from an IS than from a tripod or a steadicam... that's just an extreme example, the point is that dogmas are always harmful. Even with a professional "support system" like a rig or a camera stabilizer, IS can be very useful. I almost never shoot hand held, but I turn on the IS very often.



Chosenbydestiny said:


> People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS.



In-camera IS can also be mechanic (sensor-shift). Canon claims to use an in-lens stabilizer to customize it for each lens and get the best performances. This choice has its pros (you see a stabilized image in the viewfinder and, if what Canon and Nikon say it's true, you get better results) and its cons (much more expensive lenses and less chances to have an up-to-date IS system, since you usually change bodies more often than you change lenses).


----------



## Viggo (Jul 26, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Make a new version costing 4x as much and scrap the old version (ala 24, 28, 35) and the lens on which many a novice master dof and perspective becomes an exclusive tool.



I actually think that is a great point to make. "All" of us, at some point, bought our first fast lens, and they were mostly the cheapos, and that is when we saw how frikkin cool it is to play with DOF, and where we started to want more and maybe ending up with two-three, ten fast primes earning Canon som serious money. 

If no novice can afford a fast lens anymore...


----------



## Zv (Jul 26, 2013)

Viggo said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Make a new version costing 4x as much and scrap the old version (ala 24, 28, 35) and the lens on which many a novice master dof and perspective becomes an exclusive tool.
> ...



+1 my first lens purchase was the 50mm f/1.8II. It's a gateway lens for sure!


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 26, 2013)

I 2nd the post which said "Just turn it off" but those folks will complain about having to pay extra for it being there. Well, if it also comes with TRUE ring USM , a better build than the 1.4 and sharper wide open then be happy for the improvements you CAN use because you can't please everyone all of the time yadda yadda yadda


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 26, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> I 2nd the post which said "Just turn it off" but those folks will complain about having to pay extra for it being there. Well, if it also comes with TRUE ring USM , a better build than the 1.4 and sharper wide open then be happy for the improvements you CAN use because you can't please everyone all of the time yadda yadda yadda



Just to put this whole yes/no to IS discussion in perspective:

I haven't heard anybody complaining nowadays that a lens is AF and argue why pay for the AF mechanism if you can MF just fine???

IS is like AF, it may take a while for (almost) everyone to adopt it, but it's technological advancement and quite literally 'IS' the future 

Of course not all lenses will become IS just like not all lenses are AF.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 26, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> In-camera IS can also be mechanic (sensor-shift). Canon claims to use an in-lens stabilizer to customize it for each lens and get the best performances. This choice has its pros (you see a stabilized image in the viewfinder and, if what Canon and Nikon say it's true, you get better results) and its cons (much more expensive lenses and less chances to have an up-to-date IS system, since you usually change bodies more often than you change lenses).



I guess it's too much to hope that Canon would ever end this particular debate by joining Olympus, Pentax and Sony and putting IS in the camera, thereby making every lens you stabilized (if you want). The IBIS system in the top level Olympus cameras works superbly (and you can see its effect through the viewfinder), at least as well as the best Canon IS, maybe better. I believe that Panasonic is about to make the switch from in-lens IS (like Canon & Sony, not all their lenses have it) to in-body IS; if they can, why not Canon? It may add a bit to the cost of the body, but it's surely cheaper (both for them and the consumer) than putting it in lenses. Plus, as you say, you can keep updating it if necessary when you buy a new body. Plus, a lot of "legacy" lenses suddenly become more appealing....


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 26, 2013)

For in body IS you are really going to have to keep your fingers crossed that the image circle thrown by your lens can withstand it.

Especially all those legacy lenses designed for film that stayed firmly within the image circle.

Perhaps canons solution is an anachronism from film, maybe it is, as they claim, to make the is behave specifically for a given lens type (could be dialed into the sensor firmware?

Either way, I hope they make a new nifty fifty but keep it thrifty.
If it has IS then it will be as redundant as my direct print button (for me, I know how much y'all love the direct print button) so long as it is affordable.


----------



## Zv (Jul 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> For in body IS you are really going to have to keep your fingers crossed that the image circle thrown by your lens can withstand it.
> 
> Especially all those legacy lenses designed for film that stayed firmly within the image circle.
> 
> ...



Ah yes the direct print button! Because after we've fiddled about with a usb cable we simply won't have time to go into the menu and errr print. 

RAW + JPEG button comes in close second for redundancy in my opinion. It came in really handy that one time I used it in 3 years (mainly to see if a Genie would pop out). 

I also find the dof preview button not only pointless but idiotically placed, especially on my 5D2. Any way to disable that? 

But sorry back on topic - IS in body bad! Boo! We like lens IS because it makes nice humming noises and clicking sounds so we know we are getting our moneys worth!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 27, 2013)

Zv said:


> I also find the dof preview button not only pointless but idiotically placed, especially on my 5D2. Any way to disable that?
> 
> But sorry back on topic - IS in body bad! Boo! We like lens IS because it makes nice humming noises and clicking sounds so we know we are getting our moneys worth!



And adds extra atmosphere to our video soundtrack!

I personally like the dofp button. Prefer the position on my 3 (similar to the 1 series) but it is useful for me at times, especially if using off camera flash on a stand, gives me a visual preview of flash modelling.


----------



## Zv (Jul 28, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I also find the dof preview button not only pointless but idiotically placed, especially on my 5D2. Any way to disable that?
> ...



Curious about this off camera flash and dof preview button now. Might have to try that out. Thanks!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 28, 2013)

will also work for mounted flash, just off camera needs more modelling


----------



## Zv (Jul 28, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> will also work for mounted flash, just off camera needs more modelling



Sweet! Just tried it! How did I not know that? I mean I've accidently hit that button so many times you'd think I woulda noticed! Haha! Cheers mate!


----------



## vscd (Jul 28, 2013)

The best DOF-Preview was in the EOS 5, eyes left up in the viewfinder! Yay!  Canon should make the Eyecontrol again, and the automatic DOF-Modus (A-DEP)...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 29, 2013)

vscd said:


> The best DOF-Preview was in the EOS 5, eyes left up in the viewfinder! Yay!  Canon should make the Eyecontrol again, and the automatic DOF-Modus (A-DEP)...



Yes! It (Eyecontrol) was a great feature on the 50e when I had that camera


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 29, 2013)

Zv said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > will also work for mounted flash, just off camera needs more modelling
> ...



No worries. Glad to be of service.


----------



## Caps18 (Jul 29, 2013)

I'll take 1 of the 50mm f/1.2 L IS please.

I've been waiting for the next gen 50mm f/1.2 for the past few years...


----------



## Inst (Aug 18, 2013)

Sounds promising, but I'd kill for an affordable IS prime.

This is Canon's big advantage over Nikon right now; Nikon might have better dynamic range and higher resolution and all around a better system, but if you shoot at night, you can get an IS prime.

The drawback though, is that it costs $800 for a crop 35mm 2.8 IS. Almost makes you want to buy the 17-55mm 2.8 IS instead.


----------



## vscd (Aug 22, 2013)

>Almost makes you want to buy the 17-55mm 2.8 IS instead.

The 17-55 is an EF-S lense, so this is no comparison. Or, just for a few.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 24, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I personally like the dofp button. Prefer the position on my 3 (similar to the 1 series) but it is useful for me at times, especially if using off camera flash on a stand, gives me a visual preview of flash modelling.



It also makes a handy flashlight in a pinch.


----------

