# A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 6, 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/?p=14461"></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/?p=14461">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>EF 50 f/1.8 IS USM

</strong>We’re told that a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM is ready for release, but may not happen until Q1 of 2014.</p>
<p>The lens would be in line with the new 24,28 & 35mm IS lenses. Pricing would be more than the current EF 50 f/1.4 USM it would be replacing. However, Canon has noticed that the pricing on the 3 mentioned lenses at launch was too high and lead to poor initial sales numbers. Since the lenses have been price dropped, they are selling better.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574981434&toolid=10001&campid=5337404931&customid=&icep_item=310762527587&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg" target="_blank">Canon EF 50 f/1.4 USM $299</a> </strong>(free shipping)</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 6, 2013)

yes.. way to expensive.
the EF 24mm IS has cost 880 euro here first... now it has dropped to 480 euro.


----------



## silvestography (Oct 6, 2013)

Seems like canon's just letting Sigma take the whole f/1.4 line of standard primes, especially if rumors of a 35 f/1.2 are true.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 6, 2013)

I hope this rumor is a true. If the optical trend of this line continues with great wide open performance along with excellent IS and they keep the price at, say $599, this and the 35 f/2 IS will probably end up in my bag.


----------



## bornshooter (Oct 6, 2013)

I wish they would drop the price of the 300 2.8L to the same as nikons and i would be all over it.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 6, 2013)

I do not see how a lens 50mm F1.8 IS can cost over $ 500.  I think Canon should learn the lesson and do not establish a ridiculously high price, as it did with 24mm and 28mm IS. Even if the quality is equivalent the new 24/28/35mm a price 5 times higher than the current 50 F1.8 would scare potential buyers and push them to Sigma. :


----------



## AndreeOnline (Oct 6, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Even if the quality is equivalent the new 24/28/35mm a price 5 times higher than the current 50 F1.8 would scare potential buyers and push them to Sigma.



Regardless of price, an IS lens can't push someone to buy a non IS lens.

These lenses are specifically made with IS for hybrid shooters/videographers. Non IS lenses are not an alternative.


----------



## MonteGraham (Oct 6, 2013)

AndreeOnline said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the quality is equivalent the new 24/28/35mm a price 5 times higher than the current 50 F1.8 would scare potential buyers and push them to Sigma.
> ...



+1


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 6, 2013)

Canon, please keep it below $500 and with IQ as good as the 35mm IS. I'll be the one of the firsts who'll order. I love the 50mm focal length in both APS-C and FF.


----------



## Woody (Oct 6, 2013)

If this lens performs as well as the 35 f/2 IS, I'll get it in a jiffy.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 6, 2013)

AndreeOnline said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the quality is equivalent the new 24/28/35mm a price 5 times higher than the current 50 F1.8 would scare potential buyers and push them to Sigma.
> ...



I love IS for a 50mm lens. I want to be able to shoot to at least 1/30 and lower shutterspeed with this focal length handheld.


----------



## silvestography (Oct 6, 2013)

AndreeOnline said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the quality is equivalent the new 24/28/35mm a price 5 times higher than the current 50 F1.8 would scare potential buyers and push them to Sigma.
> ...



I actually disagree. I have a friend who's super into video (shoots with a hacked GH2) and doesn't care about in-lens stabilization. If you're really serious about video you'll have your own stabilization rigs, which is partly why he wants to add a 60d and 50 1.8 to his kit. 

It's similar to the argument about the 70d's LV focus. A lot of people said serious video shooters wouldn't use it. I think the same applies here, which is why a stabilized 50 1.8 at around 5x the cost of the previous generation doesn't make sense. Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 6, 2013)

Indeed, Canon is owing to its users two different models. ??? A EF50mm F1.8 STM, and other EF50mm F1.4 USM.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 6, 2013)

Save "IS" for 135mm or longer, so we can shoot 1/60ish

Where is f1.2 or f1.4ish 50mm prime?


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 6, 2013)

silvestography said:


> Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).



Who's to say only beginners use a 50mm prime ? 

From my point of view there is naf all difference between f1.4 and 1.8 on a 50. I'd much rather have the slightly slower lens with a smaller objective lens and sharp fully open rather than a 1.4 that is really soft at that aperture. 

If I'm out hiking in a beautiful landscape looking for pictures I don't want to be lumbered with carrying gear, and that includes a tripod, so IS on a standard or wide angle lens is very useful to me, and I'm sure to others. 

50mm has traditionally been a lens that the manufacturer can offer obsolute top image quality with an affordable price tag. Not everybody wants to fork out for and lug around a lens such as the ( albeit fantastic ) 24-70 f2.8 II.


----------



## Ewinter (Oct 6, 2013)

I'm game for this, especially if they can do a sharp wide open and fast AF


----------



## eddiemrg (Oct 6, 2013)

mmmmh... 50mm f2.0 IS probably...
Or something projected to beat A series from Sigma?

If the new 50 will be worth of it probably will be mine


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 6, 2013)

why 1.8 ? hm... a new 1.4 or 1.2L would be better... with weather seeling!!! :-\ :-X


----------



## vikta11 (Oct 6, 2013)

I will welcome this lens since I'm already using the 35 f2 IS and 85 f1.8. The 24-70 ii cost too much and lacks the creativity of the faster primes for my 5Dmk3


----------



## dswtan (Oct 6, 2013)

_"Canon has noticed that the pricing on the 3 mentioned lenses at launch was too high and lead to poor initial sales numbers. Since the lenses have been price dropped, they are selling better."_

*So* hope they try this on the Big Whites soon!! ;D


----------



## mwh1964 (Oct 6, 2013)

Have the 35 f2 IS. Use it for stills and quite pleased with the IS. If the new fifty would perform equally or better then for most photogs such a lens should be a serious consideration.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 6, 2013)

I just got the 35 f/2 IS after the price drop ($550), and it's a good value at that price. Half the size and weight of the Sigma 1.4, very sharp, IS is a bonus!

I hope the new 50 comes out with IS, but I hope it is f/1.4 and sharp wide open. I'd go to $750 if it's 1.4 and sharp wide open. But perhaps $500 for 1.8

How about a new sharp 85 1.8 with IS? That would be worth $900


----------



## EverydayGetaway (Oct 6, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> silvestography said:
> 
> 
> > Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).
> ...



This.

I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4. I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time. On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it


----------



## Etienne (Oct 6, 2013)

EverydayGetaway said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > silvestography said:
> ...



f/1.4 allows you to get shallow DOF at longer focal distances. Not all shallow DOF photography and videography is headshots, in which 1.4, or even 2.8, on FF can be too shallow.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> EverydayGetaway said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



You're right about the very fast apertures being more practical when the subject is further away. On a 50mm at about 12 feet you have about 16" of dof at f1.4 and about 20" at f1.8. For me it makes no difference especially if the 1.8 lens is very sharp at 1.8 so there is more sharp contrast between in and out of focus.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 6, 2013)

I wonder why they don't just give the 50 1.4 proper USM high-precision AF. They use an out and out faulty design on that, why do they never fix it? The mechanism was not designed with enough precision and, much worse, it has a design flaw that causes it to break in unreasonable fashion, they should've recalled the AF design.

That said this might be a nice new lens.


----------



## immaculens (Oct 6, 2013)

EverydayGetaway said:


> I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4. I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time. On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it



50mm on my crop sensor is my fave focal length (short prime). Looking forward to a new 50 1.8 IS in 2014 - hope it happens!

I got the 40 hotcake because I wanted a bit wider, sold my 50 1.8..... repurchased a 50 1.8 and love it!
...now the 40 hotcake sits... 

also have an 85 1.8 collecting dust. Sharp copy but too long on a crop for my shooting style. my 40 & 85 are for sale... Bring on a 50 IS...


----------



## AndreeOnline (Oct 6, 2013)

silvestography said:


> AndreeOnline said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



So, who disagrees... you or your friend? =)

I agree regarding auto focus—I wouldn't touch that with today's standards. But IS is different.

First of all: for many DSLR video shooters, putting the camera on a rig is a fail right there. As a concept it's not wrong, but it might be highly desirable to shoot "rigless".

Plus, a rig typically excels in stabilizing the motion to the point where you might not need post stabilization, or where you end up with camera movement that can be fixed in post, to a degree. 

But what IS does is that it removes the micro stutter that is impossible to fix in post. This can be beneficial even with a rig setup.

Now, the photography world has traditionally done well without IS on wideish primes. The reason we're seeing these lenses now is due to video. 

I do a lot of video on a DSLR (on and off rig) and I would take IS on my Sigma 35mm 1.4 or 50 1.4 any day.


----------



## EverydayGetaway (Oct 7, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > EverydayGetaway said:
> ...



Exactly. Of course there's a difference, but it's so minimal that you're not going to notice it 90% of the time. Very rarely do I feel the need to open my 50mm all the way to 1.4.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I wonder why they don't just give the 50 1.4 proper USM high-precision AF. They use an out and out faulty design on that, why do they never fix it? The mechanism was not designed with enough precision and, much worse, it has a design flaw that causes it to break in unreasonable fashion, they should've recalled the AF design.



+1

I've been waiting a long time for Canon to upgrade the 50/1.4 with proper ring USM, but it appears not to be in the cards.

I would probably replace my 50/2.5CM with a 50/1.8 USM IS, but only if the price of the new lens were in the $400 range of the current 50/1.4.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 7, 2013)

I'll tolerate f/1.8 instead of f/1.4 if it's pretty sharp at f/1.8 wide open. High price..not so much. 
I do hope there is a EF-M 50 mm f/1.8 IS coming that's smaller.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 7, 2013)

Etienne said:


> f/1.4 allows you to get shallow DOF at longer focal distances. Not all shallow DOF photography and videography is headshots, in which 1.4, or even 2.8, on FF can be too shallow.



What also needs to be considered is that almost universally lenses suffer from some degree of light fall-off towards the fringes and are also less sharp wide open. A f/1.4 lens stopped down to f/2 will usually be very sharp and suffer from minimal/less light fall-off at the fringes. Depending on your application, this may or may not be an issue.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 7, 2013)

Okay canon, give me this lens with good construction, metal mount, sharp at 1.8, and under 500 and I'm sold. hopefully that's not asking too much.  Pretty excited about this rumor. 

I really like lenses that can go wide.. but it seems that wide just is more of bragging rights than actual use. Sure there are AMAZING photos taken at f1.2, 1.4... but most are just fine/better at higher f stops. Just my opinion.

Time to sell my 50 1.8 fast before this comes out... to the people not on canon rumors. XD


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 7, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Time to sell my 50 1.8 fast before this comes out... to the people not on canon rumors. XD



It's too cheap to sell the 50 1.8. Just keep it as a backup.  However, if you can exchange it with some good lighting equipment, then why not?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 7, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Okay canon, give me this lens with good construction, metal mount, sharp at 1.8, and under 500 and I'm sold. hopefully that's not asking too much.  Pretty excited about this rumor.
> 
> I really like lenses that can go wide.. but it seems that wide just is more of bragging rights than actual use. Sure there are AMAZING photos taken at f1.2, 1.4... but most are just fine/better at higher f stops. Just my opinion.
> 
> Time to sell my 50 1.8 fast before this comes out... to the people not on canon rumors. XD



I have an original ef 50mm f1.8...back from the days when the EF mount was new and the only ESO camera was the EOS 650...it has a mental mount and is pretty sharp wide open. It's a realy pity that Canon haven't created the perfect 50 yet. I've owned every 50mm canon have made in the ef mount (and a few of the FD's before that) and they are all deficient in some way. The best is certainly the 50mm f1.2 L but it's a lens which is far from perfect. As much as I'd lke a better 50mm lens, I'm more of a 35/85mm kind of guy. My 50' is very rarely used.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Oct 7, 2013)

Finally the lens I've been waiting for. I love the look of 50mm when shooting video, but there are so many shots where IS would have really helped. I don't want to have to bring a rig for stabilization. A 50mm 1.8 IS will be my favorite lens by far. It won't take much to improve on the 50mm 1.8 which has its roots all the way back to 1989. 7 circular iris blades with also be welcome. 

Price likely won't be higher than $399.99. I mean its a 50mm 1.8 which is a pretty easy lens to design. IS will just make the lens slightly bigger.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Oct 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Save "IS" for 135mm or longer, so we can shoot 1/60ish
> 
> Where is f1.2 or f1.4ish 50mm prime?



Video benefits IS equipped lens regardless of the focal length.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 7, 2013)

Make it an *EF 50mm f/2.5 USM IS Compact-Macro* with the same 1:2 magnification, and perhaps weather-sealing, _then_ I'll be interested. Otherwise, what's the point of it either _not_ being f/1.4 or super-cheap? It's one or the other.


----------



## Woody (Oct 7, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Make it an *EF 50mm f/2.5 USM IS Compact-Macro* with the same 1:2 magnification, and perhaps weather-sealing, _then_ I'll be interested. Otherwise, what's the point of it either _not_ being f/1.4 or super-cheap? It's one or the other.



The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is merely 0.67 stop. Change in DOF is not significant.

Now, between f/1.4 and f/2.5, the difference is 1.67 stop... that is significant. I will not get a 50 f/2.5 lens, useless to me.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 7, 2013)

Woody said:


> Now, between f/1.4 and f/2.5, the difference is 1.67 stop... that is significant. I will not get a 50 f/2.5 lens, useless to me.



Depth of field isn't everything to everybody.


----------



## Woody (Oct 7, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Depth of field isn't everything to everybody.



Then, why get FF? The EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 macro is just as good.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 7, 2013)

Woody said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Depth of field isn't everything to everybody.
> ...




really?


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I wonder why they don't just give the 50 1.4 proper USM high-precision AF.



They obviously don't want to tackle the Sigma heads on. Canon might not have a better iq after a Sigma 50/1.4 refresh, but surely would loose a price war with any 3rd party manufacturer...

.. imho that's why they always try to sidestep the competition and create something else - prestigious and/or unique like f1.2 lenses, ultra-lowlight af (6d), the recent IS primes.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They use an out and out faulty design on that, why do they never fix it?



It keeps selling and is cheap to produce.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 7, 2013)

Woody said:


> Then, why get FF? The EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 macro is just as good.



A 50mm lens is kind of a standard lens on "full-frame" cameras and the Compact-Macro can be used for both macro and ordinary photography. Personally, I find the current (or should that be discontinued) version much more versatile than a zoom. Not so the EF-S 60mm macro lens, which is first restricted to "crop" cameras and second the focal length is more in the portrait equivalent range.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 7, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Depth of field isn't everything to everybody.



Taken with a 5D and the *EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact-Macro* ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Taken with a 5D and the *EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact-Macro* ...



I was very near buying this very good iq lens when I wanted a macro with *less* working distance (100mm on crop is rather long) - but the "80's" build quality and the horrible af motor scared me off... but I have to admit I have some sympathy for this oddball lens, other than the "just crappy" 50/1.8.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... the "80's" build quality and the horrible af motor ...



My current *EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact-Macro* lens ... still working after a drop in a muddy river ... the mud dried in the lower, mechanical part of the lens ... still need to replace the rusted ball-bearings with new ones.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 7, 2013)

If this new lens has 8 aperture blades and USM autofocus, I'll throw the 50mm f/1.4 straight into the fire and get this new lens.

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> My current *EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact-Macro* lens ... still working after a drop in a muddy river ... the mud dried in the lower, mechanical part of the lens ... still need to replace the rusted ball-bearings with new ones.



Nice to meet a CR member that doesn't "just get a new one" like most people here have a hard time deciding between buying two 5d3 or one 1dx  ... 

... and I have to take back my comment about the build quality, there's actual metal in there  - I was talking of the "plastic" 50/1.8, though the 50/2.5 indeed shares the outdated af motor.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 7, 2013)

Said it before when this rumor first came out, and will say it again...I don't like this new trend of lets slow down all the non L primes but add IS. I guess it makes sense from a pure marketing perspective - with the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8, and especially when you consider how many people buy the 1.4 instead of the 1.2, removing the 1.4 option will force many into the 1.2. Sorry, if your going prime in this range you want bokeh, and if you are a still shooter, and you shoot people, there really isn't much need to shoot below 1/30th because IS won't stop motion blur on your subject, for that you need higher SS and in many lighting conditions, that's where you want a fast lens. this rumor really only makes me glad I have a 1.4...now come on canon, lets have at a new 50mm 1.2!!!!! (or will sigma beat ya to the punch?)


----------



## Twostones (Oct 7, 2013)

There is one thing Canon could do on all new lenses that would make everyone happy. Canon please put a rubber seal on the mount of all new lenses to help keep dust and moisture out of our cameras. Canon would only need equipment to make one mount if they did this. Another thing they could do is put the rubber seal on the new Canon 7D mark 2 body. That way any non sealed lenses would benefit from dust control.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 7, 2013)

Twostones said:


> There is one thing Canon could do on all new lenses that would make everyone happy. Canon please put a rubber seal on the mount of all new lenses to help keep dust and moisture out of our cameras. ... Another thing they could do is put the rubber seal on the new Canon 7D mark 2 body. That way any non sealed lenses would benefit from dust control.



Nothing, as in nothing, can keep out Kalahari sand.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> there really isn't much need to shoot below 1/30th because IS won't stop motion blur on your subject, for that you need higher SS and in many lighting conditions, that's where you want a fast lens. this rumor really only makes me glad I have a 1.4...now come on canon, lets have at a new 50mm 1.2!!!!! (or will sigma beat ya to the punch?)



Lenses of f1.2 are fine for thin dof, but on *digital* they don't gain much speed over f1.4 because the iso has to be raised even more (without telling the user) to compensate for the light being lost .. and higher mp sensors will worsen this effect.

1+1 = Canon won't update the f1.2 lens, and Sigma won't produce one as they design for multiple systems and wide appeal and not a very special high-budget crowd like Canon the the 50/1.2


----------



## EOBeav (Oct 7, 2013)

I'm hanging on to my 50mm f/1.4, as quirky as it is.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > there really isn't much need to shoot below 1/30th because IS won't stop motion blur on your subject, for that you need higher SS and in many lighting conditions, that's where you want a fast lens. this rumor really only makes me glad I have a 1.4...now come on canon, lets have at a new 50mm 1.2!!!!! (or will sigma beat ya to the punch?)
> ...



True, but, the difference's between 1.2 and 1.8 are a bit greater. 

And, with sigma now and their ART line, they are stepping up their quality and their game. They have enough cheap lenses with mass appeal, the ART line seems to be trying to change that reputation.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> True, but, the difference's between 1.2 and 1.8 are a bit greater.



Imho the f1.8 is really Canon protecting their f1.2 lens and/or trying to get more profit from a high-priced, but cheaper produced f1.8 IS version vs. f1.4 IS (the latter should be possible, shouldn't it?



Chuck Alaimo said:


> And, with sigma now and their ART line, they are stepping up their quality and their game. They have enough cheap lenses with mass appeal, the ART line seems to be trying to change that reputation.



Fortunately - but still, I really don't see them producing f1.2 lenses, but it's not like I haven't been wrong before


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > And, with sigma now and their ART line, they are stepping up their quality and their game. They have enough cheap lenses with mass appeal, the ART line seems to be trying to change that reputation.
> ...



we shall see and we shall see. Maybe sigma will just go with a real good 1.4.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > True, but, the difference's between 1.2 and 1.8 are a bit greater.
> ...



I would agree...specifically from the idea that the 1.4's replacement is a 1.8...If you wanted thin DOF and good IQ, the 1.4 was a great mid point - take that away and that will force many to bite the bullet and snag the 1.2 (I know in my case, if the only option was the 1.2 or a 1.8 with IS for $600...I'd just find myself a used 1.2)


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 7, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I would agree...specifically from the idea that the 1.4's replacement is a 1.8...If you wanted thin DOF and good IQ, the 1.4 was a great mid point - take that away and that will force many to bite the bullet and snag the 1.2 (I know in my case, if the only option was the 1.2 or a 1.8 with IS for $600...I'd just find myself a used 1.2)



I don't think so because the current f1.4 is pretty lousy between 1.4 & 1.8 - so much so that it looses the benefit of the ultra thin DoF. Also the mechanics of the focus is pretty inaccurate for that DoF. 

If a 1.8 was really good at f1.8 with accurate focus mechanics then I think it would bs justified as a replacement for the current and ancient 50mm f1.4.

Actually when you look at lens design it wouldn't surprise me ( or disappoint me ) if the new 50mm IS is actually f2 in order for Canon to make it stellar wide open.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Actually when you look at lens design it wouldn't surprise me ( or disappoint me ) if the new 50mm IS is actually f2 in order for Canon to make it stellar wide open.



Since nowadays it's not difficult to prevent the lens from going wide open in any mode (or sticky dof preview), I'd prefer the manufacturer not to limit the speed of a lens to get max. iq wide open and favorable review curves. The most popular issue with the 50/1.2 also doesn't seem to be that it's soft @f1.2, but that it has a focus shift.


----------



## jcollett (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Actually when you look at lens design it wouldn't surprise me ( or disappoint me ) if the new 50mm IS is actually f2 in order for Canon to make it stellar wide open.
> ...



I shoot with the EOS M and 5DmII and would love to know how to restrict the aperture range without fixing it to a particular value. Searched on the internet and did not see anything obvious on this topic. Could you link some info on this; would love to have a convenient way to have a lens shoot in its best range like f/4 to f/11 on the EF50 1.4.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

jcollett said:


> I shoot with the EOS M and 5DmII and would love to know how to restrict the aperture range without fixing it to a particular value.



Magic Lantern -> ML Auto ISO feature


----------



## e17paul (Oct 8, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Taken with a 5D and the *EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact-Macro* ...
> ...



When I was unsatisfied with the manual focus on my 50/1.8 mk2, I was torn between the 50/1.4 and the 50/2.5 macro. I tried both in the shop, and bought the macro when I realised it's build and handling is so far ahead of the 1.8 mk2. Not only is the manual focus much better, but the ring declutches when switched to AF so there is no danger of damaging the motor like on the 1.8 mk2. I wish it had full time override, but the long travel manual focussing wins it space in my setup. It's not up to the quality of my old Olympus OM lenses, but nothing short of an L or a Zeiss will be.

There is more than enough selective focus at f/2.5, especially given the ability to focus much closer. The lens is more than fast enough for available light indoors, when used with a modern sensor. I use this as a standard 50, with the extra flexibility of being able to go closer than 45cm. For that reason, I wouldn't want to swap it even for a 50/1.2L

I hope that the new 50 follows this pattern, but with IS. I might be tempted to upgrade if I can have full time manual override, IS, and quieter AF, together with the good depth of field scale, 30cm minimum focus and the same lack of distortion as the 50/2.5 macro.

Paul


----------



## sleepnever (Oct 8, 2013)

Give me a new middle of the road (less than the 50 1.2L) 50mm 1.4 to replace the build and optics of the current 50 1.4 and price it at ~$400 and I'm sold. I don't need IS on my 50mm.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Save "IS" for 135mm or longer, so we can shoot 1/60ish
> 
> Where is f1.2 or f1.4ish 50mm prime?



That was my first question too immediately after reading this...

Why in the world are they replaceing a f/1.4 with a f/1.8???

They already have the nifty 50 now...and the f/1.4 is ok...but why not improve and upgrade the aging, but still amazing 50L f/1.2??

I had a chance to rent one of these babies a couple weeks ago, mostly for video, and it was amazing...I took that thing into dark rooms, and when I opened it up, it literally appeared that I'd turn the lights on in the room.

Why are they bothering with f/1.8 for a new lens???

I don't get it...

cayenne


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 8, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Why in the world are they replaceing a f/1.4 with a f/1.8??
> They already have the nifty 50 now...and the f/1.4 is ok...but why not improve and upgrade the aging, but still amazing 50L f/1.2??
> 
> Why are they bothering with f/1.8 for a new lens???
> ...



Because in practical use there is virtually no difference between a 50mm 1.4 & 1.8 in terms of DoF, but in manufacturing they will be able to produce a lens which is very sharp wide open and then be stellar right across the frame when stopped down a little with smaller elements. Also easier to achieve IS and so more feasible ( at realistic price ) to produce.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 9, 2013)

As I've written numerous times on CR before, I would be happy with a new Canon 50mm prime.

My main requirements are:
- at least f/2 (up to f/1.4 in an ideal world)
- good IQ wide open (eg sharpn, good contrast & pleasing bokeh, low CA)
- true FTM USM AF (fast & accurate), or STM if not USM

Added bonuses:
- 4 stop IS
- close MFD
- 58mm filter thread size
- lightweight / small-ish
- metal mount
- less than $800

I like Canon's latest 35mm f/2 USM IS - it meets pretty much all the criteria I have for a 50mm; except it's a 35mm (I've analysed my photos, and I would much prefer a 50mm prime than a 35mm prime). I find I can use one of my zoom lenses at 35mm (eg my Canon 15-85mm). If they could make a 50mm similar, I'd be very happy with that to round out my lens arsenal.

Paul


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 9, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> As I've written numerous times on CR before, I would be happy with a new Canon 50mm prime.
> 
> My main requirements are:
> - at least f/2 (up to f/1.4 in an ideal world)
> ...



Compare your spec list to the new Zeiss 55mm...it's quite amusing really and puts us all into a very distinct bracket in the market place.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 10, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > As I've written numerous times on CR before, I would be happy with a new Canon 50mm prime.
> ...



Yes... I did look at the new Zeiss 55mm lens... and actually I believe while it will have 'outstanding IQ' (eg superior bokeh, sharper, more contrast) - I can't justify the price for such a lens. Plus I rely on AF in too many situations. :-\

I'd much rather spend big bucks on the Canon EF 200-400mm 1.4x L IS USM  My most expensive lens to date is the Canon EF 70-300mm L IS USM, which I love (a great portable telezoom, with quality IQ).

So, I'm still looking for a new Canon 50mm prime that meets my needs... 

Paul 8)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Actually when you look at lens design it wouldn't surprise me ( or disappoint me ) if the new 50mm IS is actually f2 in order for Canon to make it stellar wide open.
> ...



The amusing thing about the focus shift issue is that it only happens when it's stopped down. My copy is worse at f2.8, which is quite amusing because it's not that sharp at MFD and it's certainly not a macro lens. If I shoot wide open, then it's not an issue when shooting under half meter. The other thing whic i have noticed with my 50L, is the that if I use one of the outer AF points and then re-compose...then the AF accuracy at MFD / f2.8 is very good. Failing that, View view isn't effected by the focus shift at f2.8...which another workaround.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 10, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The amusing thing about the focus shift issue is that it only happens when it's stopped down.



Unfortunately, given the razor-thin dof wide open, this is bound to happen a lot :-o



GMCPhotographics said:


> The My copy is worse at f2.8, which is quite amusing because it's not that sharp at MFD and it's certainly not a macro lens.



Ok, in Canon's defense this really doesn't matter as it isn't a macro lens, it's not supposed to be optimized for mfd.



GMCPhotographics said:


> Failing that, View view isn't effected by the focus shift at f2.8...which another workaround.



Another workaround is just to skip this lens, esp for this price tag :-> ... but probably more buyers will turn up of the next Canon lens isn't f1.4 anymore but f1.8, as intended....

... if you know what you want the 50/1.2 for and how to do it, of course it's legit and a good idea, but this lens is also a prestige item: it's even available in bread-and-butter discount retailers in Germany (that's where I tested it a couple of times), and this means a lot of people are buying it because it looks cool (it does!) and *has* to be "the best" as it's f1.2.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Oct 10, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Save "IS" for 135mm or longer, so we can shoot 1/60ish
> ...




The Nifty-Fifty just doesn't hold up anymore. Nikon replaced their old 50mm 1.8 with a much better lens, while still keeping the price pretty low. It was about time Canon decided to replace their old outdated primes. A 50mm 1.8 IS USM will be welcomed by many. IS is more important to me than 1.4 aperture. I think most would agree that a 50mm 1.8 with IS beats a 50mm 1.4 without IS in most settings.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 11, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14461\"></glusone></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/?p=14461\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>EF 50 f/1.8 IS USM
> 
> 
> ...


That's good ... hope the price remains reasonable.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 11, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The amusing thing about the focus shift issue is that it only happens when it's stopped down.
> ...



My reasons for buying a 50mm f1.2 L was three fold. Firstly, I didn't care much for the 50mm f1.4 USM, it was cheap and plasticy, poor AF and build, very low contrast wide open and it's out of focus rendering was quite harsh. Secondly, I need the bright f1.2 aperture...faster the better and that's how I use them mostly. Thirdly, I needed the L build and reliability. If I buy a lens, I want it to last a long time. If I get 10 years out of it, it'll cost me roughly £100 / year for reliable no worry usage. If I sell it for 80% of what I bought it for....then that's even better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If I get 10 years out of it, it'll cost me roughly £100 / year for reliable no worry usage. If I sell it for 80% of what I bought it for....then that's even better.



Same reason here for upgrading from the 100mm non-L macro to the L version ... and my primary concern with the new non-L IS lenses, it's seldom mentioned in tech geek threads. I don't buy red ring because it looks cool (actually I taped it), but because it's much more reliable, and even after less than 10years I'm pretty confident with my 100L/70-300L/17-40L.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 11, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > If I get 10 years out of it, it'll cost me roughly £100 / year for reliable no worry usage. If I sell it for 80% of what I bought it for....then that's even better.
> ...



You both make fair points; however the build of the new series of IS primes is a big improvement over the old 'consumer grade' lenses of the past. Time will tell how robust they really are.

Personally I use less L glass now because of the AF accuracy and adjustability of the new cameras, so I basically don't use manual focus anymore, something that the L s are much better made for.

I think I'm in the minority of people on CR who don't have Elle's Disease. Good job really 'cos I have a disease involving long faces, tails and four hoofs


----------



## e17paul (Oct 13, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> AndreeOnline said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



+1

My 50/2.5 lives on my 6D. If it could freeze water hand held, it would be more versatile. I can usually manage 1/30 handheld, but IS would comfortably allow 1/15 or 1/8. With full time MF override, quiet AF and weatherproofing, it would be perfect. I'm hoping for the new lens to have closer focus than the 50/1.8, 50/1.4 & 50/1.2L. It may well do, because Canon seem to be phasing out lenses with the old noisy focus motor, in favour of USM on full frame and STM on EF-S. Fortunately, the roll out of STM lenses is solving this.

I'm guessing that the new 50 IS will come in at a higher price, and the 50/1.4 will become the bargain model. Then, there is also the 40/2.8 STM to prop up the range, as currently the 2nd cheapest and 2nd lightest prime in the lineup. Canon have to improve the perceived quality at the low end, the focus rings on some of the kit zooms feel loose and ready to fall off when tried in the shop. That might help encourage sales of L-series lenses, but it must also help the sales of mirrorless cameras by Sony, Fuji, Olympus & Panasonic


----------



## dadgummit (Oct 14, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > If I get 10 years out of it, it'll cost me roughly £100 / year for reliable no worry usage. If I sell it for 80% of what I bought it for....then that's even better.
> ...



I have had the 100mm Macro for about 6 years and it works as good as the day I first opened the box. What reliability concerns do you have? I would think that since the L has IS, and IS is almost always the weak link in any lens' reliability I would assume the older lens would last longer than the L.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 14, 2013)

dadgummit said:


> What reliability concerns do you have?



It broke down twice due to water/mist/dew/... getting in, when I saw the second repair estimate I decided that buying the L version is cheaper for outdoor shooting near ground level. Of course the non-L is fine if you use it indoors or very, very carefully outdoors, the iq is nearly the same and the IS doesn't make a difference near 1:1


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 16, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > What reliability concerns do you have?
> ...



My 100LIS macro is a little sharper than my non L was. The zoom ring on the L is a lot smoother and better geared. For macro work, this is essential. The body shell on the L is mostly magnesium / aluminium alloy, which is why it feels like plastic. It's not cool to the touch. The IS unit is great for some types of photos. When I shoot ring shots, wide open at f2.8 it's amazing. But for 1:1 stuff, a tripod is needed. The colours and contrast I'm seeing from the L lens are a lot better too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 16, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> My 100LIS macro is a little sharper than my non L was. The zoom ring on the L is a lot smoother and better geared. For macro work, this is essential. [...] The colours and contrast I'm seeing from the L lens are a lot better too. [...] The colours and contrast I'm seeing from the L lens are a lot better too.



Probably all true, but they are both very good macro lenses, and considering the price the rule of diminishing returns applies... but recently the price of the L has gone down, so it's worth the price difference by now unless it's a cheaper, used non-L.



GMCPhotographics said:


> When I shoot ring shots, wide open at f2.8 it's amazing.



Indeed, but who wants to shoot 1:1 macro at f2.8? At least I don't, that's why I keep using my 60d for some macros as it has a deeper dof (plus more working distance) than the 6d and the L is very good on both cameras. The f2.8 of the L is nice for dual use as a portrait lens though. But all ot, this used to be a 50mm thread :-o


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 20, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> ... 'cos I have a disease involving long faces, tails and four hoofs



You too?


----------

