# New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 17, 2012)

```
<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/?p=10682"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10682" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10682"></a></div>
<strong>A new 50mm lens on the horizon?


</strong>Over the last few days I have received a lot of hints that a new EF 50mm lens is coming down the pipeline. There are even reports of people shooting with the new lens and that it may have appeared on an updated Canon price list (I would love to see the price list). The retail price is said to be $849 on an “EF 50 f/1.4 II”.</p>
<p>We recently reported that an IS version of the focal length <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/a-new-ef-50-f1-8-is-cr1/" target="_blank">exists in prototype form</a>. It’s pretty normal to have multiple versions of a lens.</p>
<p>There’s always a risk with price lists and typos, and we have seen a lens appear on a price list before it was announced. The announcement came 6 months later, so this may not be an imminent thing. The good news is that there is a lot of chatter about the focal length going around.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 17, 2012)

Ouch ! at that price, surely IS would be included ?


----------



## stephan (Jul 17, 2012)

Looking back at the last few updates I don't think so. Canon used the last updates to raise prices, as seen on the 5D3 and 24-70.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jul 17, 2012)

The price is a real turn off…
I really hope it's nothing like that…BUT looking at the new 24 and 28 IS prices..i'm sure this would be similar or more…


----------



## Etienne (Jul 17, 2012)

I just bought the EF 50 1.4 at US$369.
I am normally reluctant to buy older equipment, but for my needs this lens is fine.
I may upgrade if a replacement comes out and if I find I am using the 50 a lot, but why wait.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 17, 2012)

For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>


----------



## MaddScientiskt (Jul 17, 2012)

First Post on the forums. Lots of Nice people here! Glad to be among you all. The 50mm 1.4 is selling at $369 currently, I'm amazed at the $849. Just seems a bit unreasonable. In my line of work we tend to *reduce* cost of production over time. To increase the gap of profit to cost. But the consumer pays the same or even less in some cases. I just feel a little used with these new prices. Just me though. 2.3 times the price of the current lens


----------



## dshipley (Jul 17, 2012)

I would expect any Canon prime over $700 to be either an L lens or to have IS, however, in the case of Canon's 50mm lenses I wish they would take a hint from Nikon. If Nikon can release a good 50 1.8 for just over $200 and a good 50 1.4 for $400-$500 I would expect Canon could do the same (and in this case I wish they would).


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

Canon will make a fortune if they do this right but they've been doing alot of stuff wrong lately. 

Until then, the 50L is my choice 50mm.


----------



## Quackator (Jul 17, 2012)

All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L (which is in turn quite expensive).
The 1.4 is built way under par, and the dramatic difference between image center and corners makes it
easy to hate it. The 1.8 is an insult in its build quality, and the optically well performing 2.5 compact macro
is in desperate need of a better drive.

So yes, there is a lot of need for a new 50mm. 

I still have a 1.8/50mm MkI, and I have the 2.5/50 compact macro.
The 1.8 is good enough for low light, and the 2.5 is good for general work.
Both are way from perfect.


1.8/50 with the mechanical build quality of the 1.2L at a price point of 350 USD or below would be a no-brainer.

Let's see what canon comes up with.


----------



## dshipley (Jul 17, 2012)

Quackator said:


> All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L (which is in turn quite expensive).
> The 1.4 is built way under par, and the dramatic difference between image center and corners makes it
> easy to hate it. The 1.8 is an insult in its build quality, and the optically well performing 2.5 compact macro
> is in desperate need of a better drive.
> ...



For the cost of the 1.2L it should be outstanding without any issues, but it isn't as there is a widespread issue of focus shifting and other focus issues.

I would love to see Canon release a decent 50 1.8 (~$250) and 50 1.4 (~$450) with good build quality and ring USM. Hopefully they'll come up with something along those lines.


----------



## RC (Jul 17, 2012)

Quackator said:


> All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L...



And that is why I don't own one. However If I had my FF, I'd likely cough up the bucks for the L. So Canon, please bring on the new 50s.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 17, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>



LOL! AF is extra.


----------



## hippoeater (Jul 17, 2012)

dshipley said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L (which is in turn quite expensive).
> ...



How many times does this misinformation go around? I thought it wasn't an issue of focus shifting problems as it's part of the design to not contain a floating rear element to improve bokeh quality.

Anywho - I've owned the canon 50mm 1.8 II, 50mm 1.4, zeiss 50 1.4 and now the canon 50mm 1.2 - I can easily say that the 1.2 is my favorite out of the bunch with the zeiss coming in second (love that MF ring and build quality).

I'm not going to freak out on the 849 price just yet - we don't know if it's final, we don't know what that lens is including in-terms of build, optics, IS, etc - what's the point of freaking out just now?

I'm excited to see them finally updating it and I look forward to seeing what it brings.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 17, 2012)

The 50mm f/1.8 mkI is the way to go. <200$, metal mount, focus ring, focus scale, made in Japan.

I don't even need USM. Just give me a metal mount, great optics at a good price!


----------



## infared (Jul 17, 2012)

Haydn1971 said:


> Ouch ! at that price, surely IS would be included ?


Uh....let us remind you of the $2300- and- never- arriving 24-70mm f2.8L II.... And no IS there. I would bet that a new 50 mm f/1.4 would come in at that price...without IS...it's the new trend.
Also...look at the $1000 price increase on the 5DII upgrade.....???
I never thought I would own a Sigma lens...but they have Canon beat in that dept IMHO....so right there that is embarassment enough to produce a lens that is at least modern.LOL!


----------



## Abraxx (Jul 17, 2012)

well, does not really belong here... but
are there any new rumors regarding a 35mm f/1,4 L Version II ?


----------



## kirillica (Jul 17, 2012)

$849 for a new version of a pretty good existing lens? Sure this one should be a long way better than ver. 1. But what they can improve? In mine 1.4 CA is quite good (OK, not perfect, but eliminated with one click in PP), sharpness - too, USM is quite accurate and fast enough. Well, build quality is so-so, but for 500$ more? Thank you, but... thank you!


----------



## Stuart (Jul 17, 2012)

Maybe there is a big mega pixel camera coming out and it needs a super resolving lens to make it worthwhile.

Ouch $849.


----------



## paulc (Jul 17, 2012)

Gosh, you'd think with all the money they're saving on what looks like having stopped development of new sensors they wouldn't need to be so money hungry on new glass.


----------



## avatar13 (Jul 17, 2012)

I have a 50mm 1.4 and really wish it had quicker and better AF in low light and sharper wide open. If they improve on these two factors (closer to the 1.2L optically) I could easily see them selling it for $800+. In fact there is a huge gap in price between the 50 1.4 and the 1.2. However seeing as this is a replacement for the 1.4 that would leave a gap on the low end. I don't mind seeing a 50% increase in price if they deliver on features but lately Canon's new models seems to all be at a significant price increase.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jul 17, 2012)

i have a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and it is awesome. Very solid and pleasant to use for 450 bucks. I definitely wouldn't be in the market for an 850 dollar 50mm.
The pricing of Canon really has me scratching my head lately. If the bodies were expensive and the lenses were cheap I could accept it, or opposite:cheap bodies, expensive glass. 
When will we get some really good news?


----------



## dstppy (Jul 17, 2012)

I came in at the 15-85 days, so I don't know if the 'the lens would be better at $" thing started then, or is just something from pricing experts.

Am I the only person that won't pay retail? Bundle? Used? Think about it, at nearly $900, we're talking improved (just sub-L) build quality, most likely a faster USM ( think the 85mm f1.8) and probably improved IQ.

IS, well, Yeah, that'd be nice, but if it's the same system from the 70-300mm non-L, I think we're all better off without it.


----------



## lol (Jul 17, 2012)

I think the existing Canon 50mm f/1.4 is only acceptable due to its low price. It's design is very dated and I've held off upgrading an AF '50 since none of the options are really appealing beyond the f/1.8. If a new f/1.4 has modern optical design (better resolution wide open, less loCA) and ring USM, double the current price is about right.

For perspective, the current Canon f/1.4 is even cheaper than the Sigma, which I would get but focus shift is a major deal breaker in my uses.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Jul 17, 2012)

I would love to have an updated 50mm 1.8 with IS and 7 aperture blades, but I am not at all willing to spend $800 on 50mm lens.


----------



## Stone (Jul 17, 2012)

Canon price jacking is still in full effect I see, but this lens is definitely in need of update due to it's extremely fragile focusing mechanism. Bump the front element of the existing 50 1.4 and there's a good chance you'll need a trip to Canon. It's well documented on the Canon forums and the reason alot of people go with the Sigma 50, but for ~$800 the replacement better be built like a tank....


----------



## KevinAv4 (Jul 17, 2012)

Id love to see a new 50 1.4 II at around 500$, anything higher than that and a lot of people wont be buying it due to somewhat of a price barrier or price vs performance issues, 
For what i want to upgrade to id like to see a better Build with ring USM and some updated optics, at 1.4 you don't really need stabilization IMO.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jul 17, 2012)

canon seems to think DSLRs are for people with more money then brains if they sell this for 8xx $ without IS.

so we can expect that every updated lens canon releases cost 2.5x as much.

and then they deliver only evolutionary but no exciting new cameras.
i can´t complain the 5D MK3 still sells well.. but the D800 sells better.

from a resellers point of view it´s all ok for me.

but as a private canon shooter.. well that´s a different story.

nikon is putting a lot of pressure on canon.
canon is maybe still no. 1 when it comes to market penetration. but not when it comes to innovations. i have seen this too often before to be not concerend. being a market leader means not much in these days. it can change very quick (sony, nokia you hear me?).
.


----------



## AlicoatePhotography (Jul 17, 2012)

I would love to see an $800 50mm 1.4L I would expect it would be sharper, higher contrast and no flare or ghosting at 1.4. I love the current 1.4, but wide open it's hit or miss when it comes to quality. I do love the 50 1.2L, but it is very expensive. I just end up renting it. This new one I would actually buy. If it had IS also, consider it sold.

Tom


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 17, 2012)

dilbert said:


> $849 for a 50/1.4 II? No IS?
> 
> Just how stupid does Canon think we are?


Probably no more stupid than paying $450-500 for the sigma 50mm f/1.4.
Yes, prices are getting out of hand.


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 17, 2012)

Hope the price is wrong. I got the 50mm 1.8 II at the moment and if i wanna upgrade i would just save more and get the L version if the 1.4 would cost abouzt 850$.


----------



## bp (Jul 17, 2012)

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 17, 2012)

bp said:


> I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4



What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2? There is a post above this that mentions the _focus shift_.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> bp said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4
> ...



+1.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.


----------



## bp (Jul 17, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> bp said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4
> ...



When I owned it (briefly), I compared it to my 85LII, and it was shockingly soft. Have also tried 2 other copies which both exhibited the same thing. At f/2, it was razor sharp, but if I'm going to shoot at f/2, I'm not going to spend $1500.


----------



## mememe (Jul 17, 2012)

bp said:


> When I owned it (briefly), I compared it to my 85LII, and it was shockingly soft. Have also tried 2 other copies which both exhibited the same thing. At f/2, it was razor sharp, but if I'm going to shoot at f/2, I'm not going to spend $1500.



Mine was ok. Not as sharp as the 85 but it was ok... 

And back to Topic: If its a 1.4 it must be stunning. Sharp to the edges at 1.4. Cause its price is really ugly


----------



## Fatalv (Jul 17, 2012)

<rant>
At $850 it better come with a bottle of lube to help relieve the pain. Not sure what Canon has been smoking but if that price is correct it better have build like an L lens in all respects except the weather sealing to be marketable.

There are times I wish I wasn't so vested in a single system...
</rant>


----------



## robbymack (Jul 17, 2012)

good news indeed, I'm a big supporter of the 1.8 for value/performance reasons. Never could bring myself to upgrade to a 1.4 or the 1.2 simply because for the money I never thought the 1.4 was three times better than the 1.8 and certainly never thought the 1.2 was four times better than the 1.4. That being said I have been patiently waiting for canon to update the 1.4 and see if we get updated optics and true ring usm. If we do and the performance is great then price may not matter so much.


----------



## infared (Jul 17, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> i have a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and it is awesome. Very solid and pleasant to use for 450 bucks. I definitely wouldn't be in the market for an 850 dollar 50mm.
> The pricing of Canon really has me scratching my head lately. If the bodies were expensive and the lenses were cheap I could accept it, or opposite:cheap bodies, expensive glass.
> When will we get some really good news?



I agree..have the same lens and LOVE it. It really beats out all the Canon 50mm lenses from a performance/price standpoint. It was the only choice I could make and feel good. 
Perhaps the pricing we are seeing is in large-part happening because of the tsunami.......?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 17, 2012)

mememe said:


> And back to Topic: If its a 1.4 it must be stunning. Sharp to the edges at 1.4. Cause its price is really ugly



I can't see the new version being sharp to the edges wide open. None of the fast 50s from Canon, Nikon, Sigma do that. It Canon were to figure that out, it'd be an L for 2k+.

Besides the 50mm f/1.4, which other Canon lenses sell at a discount to their Sigma counterparts? Even if the new 50 f/1.4 were to match Sigma's offering, Canon's price would still likely be higher than Sigma's by a couple hundred dollars, which puts it near the $600-700.


----------



## hippoeater (Jul 17, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> canon seems to think DSLRs are for people with more money then brains if they sell this for 8xx $ without IS.
> 
> so we can expect that every updated lens canon releases cost 2.5x as much.
> 
> ...



Can you share where you've obtained these sales figures to show that the D800 is selling better than the 5DMark3? I swear some people just make shit up for no reason.


----------



## Ricku (Jul 17, 2012)

Quackator said:


> All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L (which is in turn quite expensive).


Funny you. How about focus consistency (and a fix for the focus shift problem)?

The 50L also lack sharpness when shot wide open, at least if you compare it to the wide open sharpness of other L primes.



RLPhoto said:


> Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.


Sorry to break your illusion, but all 50L's are suffering from focus shift, even yours.. And no, it is far from sharp enough at f/1.2. 

35L, 85L and 135L kills it in terms of wide open sharpness.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > All of Canons 50mm lenses lack something, maybe except for the 1.2L (which is in turn quite expensive).
> ...



Eat your heart out goodness! Never seen the shift! 50L forever. 8)


----------



## iMagic (Jul 17, 2012)

My. Guess. Better IQ than the current 1.4 and 1.8 And sigma 1.4 AND 1.2L at same apertures. 8 round blades. NO IS. The only benefit of the 1.2 L will of course be 1.2 and weather sealing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 17, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>



Actually the current on pretty much has zeiss class IQ, the basic zeiss 50mm 1.4 is the same old standard double gauss design, i compared the old contax version and the IQ seemed awfully similar between the two, the zeiss 50mm was no 21mm distagon or anything.

The build quality may be 'slightly' better for the Zeiss though.  ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 17, 2012)

infared said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > i have a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and it is awesome. Very solid and pleasant to use for 450 bucks. I definitely wouldn't be in the market for an 850 dollar 50mm.
> ...



I'm with you on this one, my Sigma 50 mm is fabulous


----------



## Caps18 (Jul 17, 2012)

I've used the 50mm f/1.2 before, and it is my next and last lens that I will buy. (until something like an ultra-ultra wide lens catches my eye...)



This 50mm f/1.4 better have internal zoom for that price, and have lightning quick AF. Maybe even IS...


----------



## AJ (Jul 17, 2012)

At that price it'll have IS. Just like the 24 and 28 mm primes. It'll be aimed at video shooters.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 18, 2012)

bp said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > bp said:
> ...



There's no need to pump up on opinions. There are tons of reviews on the EF 50's. Virtually everyone identifies focus shift and border softness in the 50 1.2L. Photozone is pretty reliable: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d

In fact the 50 1.2L is not as sharp as the $369 50 1.4 at any aperture, and the borders never really sharpen up at any aperture.

What you get for an extra $1130 is a slightly improved bokeh, twice the weight, a loss of resolution across the board, and a red ring. Not a very good deal.


----------



## AG (Jul 18, 2012)

AJ said:


> At that price it'll have IS. Just like the 24 and 28 mm primes. It'll be aimed at video shooters.



Agreed.

Thats the key a lot of people are forgetting, Video is becoming a fast growing segment in the rebel DSLR sector. People are starting to realise that you can get good quality video out of a simple cheap set up. These STM lenses we are seeing appear are aimed at exactly that.
Its the reason why they don't really care if its not sharp until f2, shooting video at f1.4 is doable but not preferable, but its good to have the option there, it would also explain why the STM lenses autofocus is a little slower that USM. No need with video.

Love it or hate it video is here to stay, and by the looks of it the masses are agreeing.


----------



## michi (Jul 18, 2012)

I don't care how well built it is or how good it is, $800+ for this type of lens is ridiculous. I thought Canon had just partially lost their mind with the 24-70 II but apparently it's the new trend. Sad to see. Will exclude me from a lot of good glass.


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 18, 2012)

Etienne said:


> There's no need to pump up on opinions. There are tons of reviews on the EF 50's. Virtually everyone identifies focus shift and border softness in the 50 1.2L. Photozone is pretty reliable: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d
> 
> In fact the 50 1.2L is not as sharp as the $369 50 1.4 at any aperture, and the borders never really sharpen up at any aperture.
> 
> What you get for an extra $1130 is a slightly improved bokeh, twice the weight, a loss of resolution across the board, and a red ring. Not a very good deal.



I'm not fully aware of all of the optical pros and cons of the 50mm f/1.2L, but I will say this: Dollar for dollar, it doesn't compete with the 50mm f/1.4. And that's considering the noted flaws in THAT lens. I just don't seem images produced with it that would make me go out and drop that extra grand+. However, I think we're both going to take a raft from the f/1.2L users on this forum...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

Not from me. I have the 50 f/1.2L and will probably sell it. It's not worth the extra money and outdoors at low ISO the 50 f/1.4 color rendition is actually slightly better, especially on my 1Ds 3. There's nothing magical about it particularly, and side-by-side images, even wide, aren't any different to me. Another point, stopped down narrower than f/4, both the 1.4 and 1.8 lens are sharper, which matters to me. I've been told I'm wrong on this point yet I see it in my images, and Bryan Carnathan's charts show what I get. The 50 f/1.2L is a specialty lens from f/1.2 to f/2.8. After that, the 1.4 matches it or does slightly better, and this is well documented in all reviews of the lenses.

If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it. But narrower, there are actually better lenses.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 18, 2012)

Etienne said:


> There's no need to pump up on opinions. There are tons of reviews on the EF 50's. Virtually everyone identifies focus shift and border softness in the 50 1.2L. Photozone is pretty reliable: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d
> 
> In fact the 50 1.2L is not as sharp as the $369 50 1.4 at any aperture, and the borders never really sharpen up at any aperture.
> 
> What you get for an extra $1130 is a slightly improved bokeh, twice the weight, a loss of resolution across the board, and a red ring. Not a very good deal.



The 50L is as sharp as the 50 1.4 most everywhere and its AF is better. The canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 have similar resolution and both do better overall (average of center and edge measurements) than the Sigma and Zeiss f/1.4 offerings. TDP also found that the f/1.2 is the best option from f/1.2 to ~f/2.8.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

_The nice thing I like about the lensrentals evaluation was that they used the same body._ Many reviews are done when the lenses are introduced with different bodies and comparing them can be more difficult. I'm not defending the 50L's price, but it performs as well as any Canon-mount 50mm f/1.4 lens at large apertures (f/4 and larger). I've used a canon 50 f/1.4 and the resolution was much worse from f/1.4 to f/2 (even after MFA). Maybe it was the copy I was using, but it's AF accuracy was horrible from f/1.4 to f/2. LiveView AF produced better results than phase-detect AF.

It's one thing to say that none of the fast Canon-mount 50mm primes from any manufacturer performs well outside of the center and that the canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 do well against the competition. You can then argue whether or not f/1.2, the bokeh, build quality are worth the premium price. That's fair. But I'm don't think it's fair to say that the f/1.2 loses on resolution when there really isn't a better option at large apertures for Canon shooters.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> There's nothing magical about it........
> 
> 
> ........If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 18, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> I'm not fully aware of all of the optical pros and cons of the 50mm f/1.2L, but I will say this: Dollar for dollar, it doesn't compete with the 50mm f/1.4. And that's considering the noted flaws in THAT lens. I just don't seem images produced with it that would make me go out and drop that extra grand+. However, I think we're both going to take a raft from the f/1.2L users on this forum...



Considering price to performance, the 50mm f/1.4 wins but then the f/1.8 might win that competition versus the f/1.4 as well. :

If given the choice of someone giving you the choice between the 50L and the 50 f/1.4 for free, I'm sure most people would pick the 50L. When our own funds are on the line, then I'm sure many of the previous choices would change. The 50L versus 50 non-L feels a bit more contentious perhaps because the options are closer in IQ than at other prime focal lengths (24, 35 or 85mm). But if this rumor is true that the 50 f/1.4 replacement is going to be around 800, then the it'd change the ratios between those opting between the f/1.2, f/1.4 or nothing at all because at that point, Canon will stop making the current f/1.4 and prices will rise similarly to the 24-70 I's as inventory runs out and all that is left is the 24-70 II and 3rd party options.


----------



## Dave Roush (Jul 18, 2012)

To me the only thing that makes sense would be having a lens with the new stepper motor (STM). I would think that the new standard on consumer cameras will be the hybrid auto focus system.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing magical about it........
> ...



Daniel, as much as I respect you as a person and a photographer (and I do) that photo proves nothing. The 50 f/1.4 for all we know could have taken the exact same photo. If I shoot out in daylight at low ISO on a 1Ds3 or 5D3, my photos from the two lenses are exactly the same. There is no $1100 difference. I'll agree with you that the 50L lens is sharper 1.2 to 2, but beyond that it isn't. Low to mid ISO the 1.4 lens performs just as well, which is why everyone is questionning the price. Most pros that I know prefer the 24-70L zoom lens over any of Canon's 50's. I personally like 50mm, so I own all 3, but I'll be the first to admit the 50L was way overpriced. I will probably keep it because I like the build quality.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > bp said:
> ...



RLPhoto,

This is where people have it WRONG. The 50L's top quality is that it IS SHARP wide open, the problem is that the 1.4 surpasses it's sharpness stopped down. It is sharp wide open. I'm in agreement with you on this one.


----------



## mememe (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...



Mine was also sharp wide open (not as sharp as stopped down but usable sharp enough to geht crispy results). BUT it did the shift!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>
> ...



Actually, a certain photographer says that 50mm f/1.4 is Zeiss by name only.


----------



## Smokin_toad (Jul 18, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



That for sure is one hell of an amazing photographer to listen to 

("Very clean inside, and ought to stay that way because it doesn't have air pumping in and out as a zoom does." Yes... Probably because it is a prime lens Ken?)


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 18, 2012)

Smokin_toad said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



My point is that the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 is, according the reviews I've read, is not exactly one of Zeiss' best performing lenses.


----------



## infared (Jul 18, 2012)

"If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it. But narrower, there are actually better lenses."

This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

infared said:


> "If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it. But narrower, there are actually better lenses."
> 
> This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!



Sorry, I was only talking CANON lenses.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 18, 2012)

Show me the MTF chart


----------



## dadgummit (Jul 18, 2012)

Oh I get the $850 pricing. It is almost the exact cost of getting a canon 50f1.4 breaking the focus mechanism out of warranty and then getting the Sigma 50. I hate to be labeled a fan boy but if I can get Sigma 50 build and IQ with no focus issues I think it may be worth the $850. Besides it will probably be $699 on the next round of rebates after its release.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...



The 1.4 Canon is a good lens. The 50L though, is a Great lens.

Maybe I've never seen the famous focus shift because I can see the DOF with the EG-S screen on my 5Dc. It just works at all apertures and when I hit the DOF preview, It still perfectly in-focus where it landed. Its never been an problem on my copy stamped 2010.

The only downfall I see in the 50L is price and weight.


----------



## vuilang (Jul 18, 2012)

unless the new 50 1.4 have similar/better IQ, bokeh than the L. I dont see why should i buy this instead of the L


----------



## mortadella (Jul 18, 2012)

Everybody seems to be making a big stink about the price jumps for all the replacement lenses/cameras that canon has released recently, and the discussions of whether or not the new features/improvements are worth the added cost. 

A point I feel needs to be made is that Canon is not increasing the retail price of the equipment proportional to the additional features/improvements (which is what consumers typically look at). They can't do that and continue to be a viable company. The Yen's strength to the Dollar has doubled in the last 5 years, and that rate is almost as dramatic or even more-so with most of the other country's currencies that they do high volume exporting to.

So when you see the 30%-40% increase in original release MSRP of 5DmkII vs the mkIII or the 24-70L and the mkII, keep in mind that is pretty much just accounting for the currency difference between those release dates. 

So take that into consideration when you see these new price points. Might not just be Canon being greedy. 

Other thoughts/theories:

Maybe that was a Hong Kong pricelist and this is a replacement for the 1.8

$900(you would spend on the new 1.4) + $300 for your used 1.4 and you can get yourself a used 1.2L


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

vuilang said:


> unless the new 50 1.4 have similar/better IQ, bokeh than the L. I dont see why should i buy this instead of the L



Exactly. It has very similar IQ. I'm not saying it's not a great lens, it's just not $1100 better than the 1.4. The 1.4 is sharper stopped down. I"m not one to bank on reviews, as I have all 3 50mm lenses, but read this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I guess Bryan and I think alike? If you want to spend $1499 on a lens that doesn't perform better at f/2.8 and narrower than a lens that costs $369, it's your money. I happen to use the lens f/1.2 to 2 and it looks great, so that's why I have it. But my photos at low ISO outdoors are actually better and sharper with the 1.4.

Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8. The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.


----------



## bp (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8. The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.



Agreed! I bought the 35L and shortly thereafter sold my f/2. Bought the 85L II and sold my 1.8. Bought the 50L, and ... sold the 50L. I do understand why some people love it, gorgeous bokeh - every pic I took with it looked amazing as a thumbnail or at web resolution, but when I'd pixel peep the sweet spot of the in-focus area of the razor thin DOF, it went from blur to almost sharp, and back to blur - but never really hit it.

I'm curious if, out of the people who love the 50L, any of them also have the 85L II. To me, that one is what f/1.2 sharpness is supposed to look like. I reaaalllly wanted to love the 50L, pined over it for more than a year before taking the plunge - perhaps I would've felt differently about it if I wasn't comparing it to the 85 already in my bag.


----------



## mathino (Jul 18, 2012)

bp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8. The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.
> ...



Ive shot with 50 f/1.8 II, 50 f/1.4 USM and with Sigma 50 f/1.4. Canon f/1.4 needed to be stopped down to f/2 to get good results, 50 f/1.8 is good for its price. I was pleased with results from Sigma 50 f/1.4, but I guess it was good copy...but it was sharp straight from 1.4 (and thats why we buy fast lenses).

Ive also tried 35L and its sooo great  

...if there will be Mk II version of Canon 50 f/1.4 sharp from 1.4, true USM and build like 85 f/1.8 - I would take it into consideration. I know that it wont be cheap with current yen-dollar exchange rate and Canon pricing. Well, Im curious about rumored entry FF - new body is my next purchase.


----------



## mememe (Jul 18, 2012)

I guess all new lenses will be at least built like the 28 and 24mm. Cause you can see a new design "line" in the 3 new lenses (40, 24, 28)

My canon 1.4 is usable at 1.4 and its really not soft! always depends on the copy you got...


----------



## Portrait_Moments_Photogra (Jul 18, 2012)

infared said:


> "If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it. But narrower, there are actually better lenses."
> 
> This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!




i agree with the sigma 50 1.4,

i have the canon 50 1.8, loved it and bought the 50L 1.2 and the love was great but quickly fades away after the sigma 1.4 went on sale.

i got better keepers with the sigma than the 50L - yes, the Sigma cant match the beauty of the bokeh of the 50L when the AF is spot on, otherwise, for the price, the Sigma is a great lens.

I sold my 50L and kept my Sigma. // just like with anything in life, things could change //


----------



## lastSKYsamurai (Jul 19, 2012)

Just as long it's not a new 1.2. I just got that glass. Though a 1.2 with IS "would" be dreamy.....


----------

