# Canon EF 50 Prime Ongoing Dire Need Confirmed



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2018)

.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2018)

Goodbye, Porkins!


----------



## hne (Mar 16, 2018)

But... They've released the 40/2.8 pancake, TS-E 50/2.8L macro and soon follow that up with an EF-M 32/1.4 and you complain about a lack of normal lenses? A refresh of the 24-70, 70-200/4L IS on top of that and... Yeah. Like handling a hot potato.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 16, 2018)

hne said:


> But... They've released the 40/2.8 pancake, TS-E 50/2.8L macro and soon follow that up with an EF-M 32/1.4 and you complain about a lack of normal lenses? A refresh of the 24-70, 70-200/4L IS on top of that and... Yeah. Like handling a hot potato.



I'm sorry, are any of those EF 50 primes? :

I appreciate Canon is pumping out a lot of new glass. They just aren't addressing the sucking belly wound of the industry's best lens portfolio.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> .



What is that 50mm f/0.7 IS III by your name? That sounds like a nice enough lens for any of us!


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 19, 2018)

Canon EF 50mm f/1,4L IS USM!


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 19, 2018)

Well, I don't need one, so the situation isn't dire


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 19, 2018)

In the meantime I'm sure Canon will just make a 38mm f1.2 IS for their new APS-H system that's inevitably coming long before any 50mm IS prime lens.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 19, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> Canon EF 50mm f/1,4L IS USM!


Beter if it's not an L. There needs to be a non-L 50mm other than the super cheap and cheesy STM f/1.8. The 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens and didn't need to be an L, no reason the 50mm f/1.4 IS couldn't also be a regular model. All adding the L would do is put the price up.


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 19, 2018)

You may have to give in to the dark side (Sigma) to get you over the hump...


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 19, 2018)

wsmith96 said:


> You may have to give in to the dark side (Sigma) to get you over the hump...


My Sigma 35mm has been rock solid despite the negative press. I assume the 50mm is the same kind of deal, if so it's definitely a good option. Maybe I got lucky, but I'm not sure why the 35mm and 50mm have such a bad rap. My 35 misses maybe one out of every thirty shots or so, which is about the same as my Canon lenses miss?

That Tamron 45mm seems really nice too. Then there was that new Tokina announced a few weeks ago. Lots of good manual focus options as well.

I want Canon to make a nice new middle-range 50mm, but I'm not too surprised they don't considering how many good options there are already. It's probably hard to make something which can compete with the Sigma and Tamron optically but without stepping on the toes of the 50mm f/1.2. Like, look how long it took for the 85mm f/1.4L IS to be made.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 19, 2018)

Ahsanfords wait goes on.
I am surprised Canon haven't brought out a new 50mm 1.2 Prime.
I'm in a minority here as I've been quite happy with all 3 Canon 50mm lens.
Currently I have the 50 1.2 and I enjoy it as a lens.
I don't have experience with the Sigma 50mm's so I've no idea if its better but I find the Canon 50 1.2L no obstacle to getting great photographs with it.


----------



## slclick (Mar 19, 2018)

I know it's a case of preference and YMMV but I never understood the great desire for a 50. Wide, tele sure but what our normal vision is most close to? Journalism maybe....What's the huge need and desire for this focal length Adam?


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 19, 2018)

50mm - your grandfather's' focal length when cameras had a 50mm lens and that was it.

Anyway, 50mm f/1.2. Just eat packet noodles for a couple of months and save up for this instead of moaning about the lack of a 1.4 all the time 

Or get something from an alternative purveyor of lenses such as sigma.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 19, 2018)

To put it in a little perspective, Canon is making ME look to Tokina, weeeeeird, but that new Tokina 50 f1.4 sure LOOKS promising ;D


----------



## NancyP (Mar 19, 2018)

I like shooting at the 40 to 50 mm focal length. 
I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that there might be more people out there that might like a good 50 mm non-focus-by-wire fast lens, maybe with IS, by Canon. That being said, the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4 is a nice lens. The Sigma Art 50 is a huge lens, but no doubt quite good as well. There still seem to be the portrait photographers out there who don't want the clinically sharp approach and like the Canon 50 f/1.2L.


----------



## slclick (Mar 19, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I like shooting at the 40 to 50 mm focal length.
> I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that there might be more people out there that might like a good 50 mm non-focus-by-wire fast lens, maybe with IS, by Canon. That being said, the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4 is a nice lens. The Sigma Art 50 is a huge lens, but no doubt quite good as well. There still seem to be the portrait photographers out there who don't want the clinically sharp approach and like the Canon 50 f/1.2L.



I love shooting at 40...10mm at semi wide is a big difference to me.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 19, 2018)

slclick said:


> I know it's a case of preference and YMMV but I never understood the great desire for a 50. Wide, tele sure but what our normal vision is most close to? Journalism maybe....


As an event reporter, I find 50mm pretty useless. 35mm is what I go to. Most of my contemporary use either a 24-70, 16-35, 24-105, 35mm or 28mm. I don't think I know anyone who uses a 50mm as their main lens.

The thing Canon and other companies push 50mm for most these days seems to be as a beginner's first portrait lens which can then be an intermediate environmental portrait lens once someone has added an 85mm+ to their kit. I don't know if that's actually how the sales and market use work out but that is what most of the advertising seems to be built around.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 19, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> The thing Canon and other companies push 50mm for most these days seems to be as a beginner's first portrait lens which can then be an intermediate environmental portrait lens once someone has added an 85mm+ to their kit. I don't know if that's actually how the sales and market use work out but that is what most of the advertising seems to be built around.



I bought the 50mm f/1.4 to use as a portrait lens on my Rebel. It took me a while to figure out what lens to get. I knew I wanted to approximate the portrait features of an 85mm on FF, but didn't know what characteristic I was trying to emulate. Was there some magical quality to glass in that range that made portraits look good, or was it the camera-to-subject distance that I wanted to preserve? It turned out (as you guys know) to be the latter. So I got the 80mm "equivalent" for the Rebel, and had plenty of "bucket" (for you Hyacinth fans who mispronounce Japanese) wide open.

Since I bought my 6D2, I haven't used this lens at all. My 100mm f/2.8 macro works great for portraits right now, and I don't shoot very many, so getting an 85mm is somewhere down my list. I needed a recent picture of myself, so yesterday I put the 6D2 with the 100mm on a tripod, got out the cheap generic wireless trigger, flipped the screen around so I could compose the shots, and set a delay so I could concentrate on posing after I hit the button. The results were great, even given the subject matter. The lens is way too sharp, though, and picked up blemishes and such that I don't see when I look in the mirror. I didn't bother to look at some settings, and shot everything at f/7.1 in AV mode. I didn't need to blur the blank wall behind me anyway, and everything was in sharp focus.

Unless I want to shoot at f/1.4 or f/2, the reality is that anything I might want to shoot in the 50mm range on the 6D2 will be with the 24mm-105mm STM anyway.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 19, 2018)

stevelee said:


> plenty of "bucket" (for you Hyacinth fans who mispronounce Japanese)


10/10 reference, I'll have to remember that one.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 20, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> Beter if it's not an L. There needs to be a non-L 50mm other than the super cheap and cheesy STM f/1.8. The 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens and didn't need to be an L, no reason the 50mm f/1.4 IS couldn't also be a regular model. All adding the L would do is put the price up.



Was thinking Canon would continue doing what they did for the 85mm f/1,4L IS.
modern, sharper optics while maintain the legendary double gauss magic of the 85mm f/1,2L.

there is quite a lot of competition in the 50mm. From Yongnuo to Tamron VC to Zeiss....


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 20, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I like shooting at the 40 to 50 mm focal length.
> I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that there might be more people out there that might like a good 50 mm non-focus-by-wire fast lens, maybe with IS, by Canon. That being said, the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4 is a nice lens. The Sigma Art 50 is a huge lens, but no doubt quite good as well. There still seem to be the portrait photographers out there who don't want the clinically sharp approach and like the Canon 50 f/1.2L.



Hope Canon also update the 50mm f/1,2L . The optics is magical....


----------



## stevelee (Mar 20, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I like shooting at the 40 to 50 mm focal length.



And while so far, as I've said, I haven't used my 50mm on the 6D2, I realize that many of the best pictures I've ever made were taken in the 1960s with a fixed 45mm lens on the Yashica rangefinder camera I had before I got my first SLR.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 20, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> Hope Canon also update the 50mm f/1,2L . The optics is magical....


I think the reason they're keeping both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.4 IS is because those 1.2 lenses can't really be improved without totally changing how they look. So they make 1.4 IS versions instead. That way the people who just want optical quality can get the 1.4 IS version and the people who want the nice rendering can get the 1.2 version. The way I understand it, the 1.2s have that 'look' because they're not designed for total sharpness and clarity. If you make a lens which is sharper and clearer then it has a less pleasing rendering and vice-versa. That's why Sigma and Tamron lenses are super sharp but have crappier bokeh. At least that's how I understand it.
So I don't think the 50mm f/1.2L could be updated without ruining it's look. Putting IS in would change the optical formula and any attempt to make it sharper or clearer would change the rest of the rendering too. They could probably update the AF but that's about it.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 21, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> I think the reason they're keeping both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.4 IS is because those 1.2 lenses can't really be improved without totally changing how they look. So they make 1.4 IS versions instead. That way the people who just want optical quality can get the 1.4 IS version and the people who want the nice rendering can get the 1.2 version. The way I understand it, the 1.2s have that 'look' because they're not designed for total sharpness and clarity. If you make a lens which is sharper and clearer then it has a less pleasing rendering and vice-versa. That's why Sigma and Tamron lenses are super sharp but have crappier bokeh. At least that's how I understand it.
> So I don't think the 50mm f/1.2L could be updated without ruining it's look. Putting IS in would change the optical formula and any attempt to make it sharper or clearer would change the rest of the rendering too. They could probably update the AF but that's about it.



Exactly.

the f/1,2L are based on classical double gauss optical design that provide the signature look with sufficient sharpness and clarity, the new 85mm f/1,4L IS is based on modern retrofocus optical design that provide more sharpness and clarity but sufficient bokeh.

Was thinking Canon may upgrade the AF motor, internal focusing and add in weatherproof feature in a 85mm f/1,2L mark III

for the 50mm f/1,2L, think there is nothing much to improve, other than some new coatings?


----------



## Viggo (Mar 21, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> lexaclarke said:
> 
> 
> > I think the reason they're keeping both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.4 IS is because those 1.2 lenses can't really be improved without totally changing how they look. So they make 1.4 IS versions instead. That way the people who just want optical quality can get the 1.4 IS version and the people who want the nice rendering can get the 1.2 version. The way I understand it, the 1.2s have that 'look' because they're not designed for total sharpness and clarity. If you make a lens which is sharper and clearer then it has a less pleasing rendering and vice-versa. That's why Sigma and Tamron lenses are super sharp but have crappier bokeh. At least that's how I understand it.
> ...



Nothing to improve on the 50 L ?? I’d say absolutely everything except handling, build and lenshood.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 21, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Nothing to improve on the 50 L ?? I’d say absolutely everything except handling, build and lenshood.



The 50 f/1.2L is a lens you either love or you hate. 

I'm pretty sure we'll eventually see a 50mm f/1.4L IS added to the lineup and, as with the 85L lenses the 1.2 won't be discontinued - it's a different product for a more specific type of photography.

If all you care about is absolute sharpness you'll get the 1.4L IS version. If you want photos with the quality that only the 50 1.2 lens can give, you'll get that.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 21, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to improve on the 50 L ?? I’d say absolutely everything except handling, build and lenshood.
> ...



Agree with that, but the 85 L IS shows that one can have a reasonably sharp lens, yet nice rendering and pop.

I've had 5 copies of the 50 L, an for center composition it's useable, but off center is pretty useless... It's nice for something, but I still feel it can be much sharper and better corrected without looking flat and lose all it's "magic"


----------



## michi (Mar 21, 2018)

I don't have a huge need for a 50mm. I have the ancient 50/1.8. And the 50/1.4. The 1.4 actually produces nice portraits when space is tight. I do think however Canon could really stand to come up with a high quality 50/1.4 IS to match its other new fantastic lenses. Would I buy it? Not sure. I think the new rumored 135 might be first on my list.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 22, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Ah-Keong said:
> 
> 
> > lexaclarke said:
> ...



that would be addressed by a "EF 50mm f/1,4L" with a modern retrofocus design which may look like the Sigma 50mm f/1,4 Art and the result may affect the handling 
:


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 22, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The 50 f/1.2L is a lens you either love or you hate.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we'll eventually see a 50mm f/1.4L IS added to the lineup and, as with the 85L lenses the 1.2 won't be discontinued - it's a different product for a more specific type of photography.
> 
> If all you care about is absolute sharpness you'll get the 1.4L IS version. If you want photos with the quality that only the 50 1.2 lens can give, you'll get that.



Exactly. 
the 85mm lines cater to both the modern (sharpness) audience and the classic (signature) audience.

the 50mm may also follow along this path. 
:


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 22, 2018)

michi said:


> I don't have a huge need for a 50mm. I have the ancient 50/1.8. And the 50/1.4. The 1.4 actually produces nice portraits when space is tight. I do think however Canon could really stand to come up with a high quality 50/1.4 IS to match its other new fantastic lenses. Would I buy it? Not sure. I think the new rumored 135 might be first on my list.



Canon!
where is the "EF 50mm f/1,4L IS USM "?


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 22, 2018)

Just for the records:
Put me on the list for a new non-L 50 f/1.4 USM (withorwithout IS).


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Just for the records:
> Put me on the list for a new non-L 50 f/1.4 USM (withorwithout IS).



To me (and this has evolved over time), here are my 50 prime priorities:


Top priority: Hammerlock AF consistency at wide apertures, fast AF speed, not being a huge heavy pickle jar, internal focusing, faster than f/2
High priority: IS, flat plane of focus, sharpness in general, particularly better IQ than the 50 f/1.4 USM when shooting wider than f/2.8 
Medium priority: f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 (really don't care), more/better/rounded blades
Low priority: Weather sealing, if it kicks butt on a 50 MP sensor, modern bayonet hood attachment (surely, we'll get this)

Roll those all of those priorities up, and a smaller non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS (ring) USM remains the dream for me. But if the rumors are true, we'll get nano USM -- aka fancy focus by wire -- on the next non-L 50, and it won't have IS.

So if there's a future [small 50 f/1.4 (nano) USM II] and [large 50 f/1.4L IS (ring) USM], which would I get? Both have key elements of what I want, but not all. I'd effectively be balancing my desire of a smaller modern 50 prime vs. one with top AF and IS. 

For all my posting on this, you might think the former would get my vote. But I just rented an 85 f/1.4L IS last Christmas, and the _flawless_ AF experience I enjoyed at f/1.4 is something I very much want in a new 50. I'm not sure nano USM can deliver that.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the records:
> ...


As several times before I can second all your lists and priorities. Maybe some changed a little bit in order. 
And same as you nano USM or focus by wire (I have the two STM pancakes) to me could be the deal breaker for that type of lens if I invest 500+ €/$ for a lens, I don't want to get that type of AF any more.
But I also look for small primes for a decent price. 
And although I'd surely enjoy that 50L IS the size and the price are deal breakers here for me.
Because I know I wouldn't use it that often and intensively to justify the invest.


----------



## bergstrom (Mar 25, 2018)

Canon need to make a 50 1.4 ii to try and compete with sigma's 50mm 1.4, which I've read has focusing issues.


----------



## j-nord (Mar 27, 2018)

I haven't really been on here in the last year. Literally just popping in to see if there is any news on said 50 1.4 IS (sharp, fast, weather sealed). Really frustrating Canon...

I'm glad to see ahsanford is keeping the torch lit!


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

Maybe Canon should make a 50 1.4 IS (Ring or Nano USM)


Just an idea.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> Maybe Canon should make a 50 1.4 IS (Ring or Nano USM)
> 
> 
> Just an idea.



I don't know that anyone would even want one.

Just a thought.


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Canon should make a 50 1.4 IS (Ring or Nano USM)
> ...



I might if someone could come up with some graphics and charts to compel me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Or start a new thread to convince you?


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 27, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> Ah-Keong said:
> 
> 
> > Hope Canon also update the 50mm f/1,2L . The optics is magical....
> ...



It's due to the same field curvature that gives the 50/1.2 such wonderful rendering of the out of focus highlights.

It's not that such lenses are as soft as everyone thinks they are on the edges, it's just that when imaging a flat subject (like a test chart), the point of sharpest focus is slightly in front of the edges of the flat test chart when the center of the frame is perfectly focused. You can adjust the focus slightly to make the edges sharper, but of course that makes the center look soft because now it is slightly out of focus.

As far as having a lens with a flat field goes, it's not really relevant to portraiture unless you're doing a straight on mug shot of SpongeBob SquarePants.

*Unfortunately, average MTF across the entire field has replaced MP as "the number" upon which everything seems to revolve for too many gearheads. They base the quality of every lens that is introduced, regardless of whether or not the intended purpose of said lens is to do reproduction work of flat objects, upon the average MTF for the entire field.*

As a result, the lens makers have sold their souls to the gods of the flat test chart and abandoned any consideration for how a lens renders scenes that aren't perfectly flat from one side of the frame to the other.

Flat field lenses do not make the best portraits, but they do get the best scores at DxO.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Flat field lenses do not make the best portraits, but they do get the best scores at DxO.



Completely agree. 

_But not everyone is buying a fast 50 for portraiture._ 

Some folks just want a do-everything workhorse tool that doesn't give you fits with AF performance.

Besides a generally sharper lens that _doesn't_ prioritize out of focus transitions over sharpness, I would like a 50 with fire-and-forget AF confidence like the recent 85 f/1.4L IS. I've rented the 50L twice and wanted to smash it with a hammer at times. I'm tired of stopping down and overshooting/chimping to get an in-focus result with a professional instrument that costs north of $1k. 

My 85 f/1.4L IS rental was the exact opposite experience -- the AF nailed it every time and I could enjoy capturing images without the fear of missing the moment, having to reshoot, etc. I want that in a 50, and in all candor, that's not an extravagant technical ask in 2018.

Respect your position, of course, but my needs are not your needs -- and I'm pretty dug in on what I want.

- A


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2018)

By now when they do come out with new 50mm, I really doubt if it will much above the IQ of competition.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

sanj said:


> By now when they do come out with new 50mm, I really doubt if it will much above the IQ of competition.



Don't care. (It may not even outresolve the Sigma 50 Art -- a very high bar!)

But:


The AF will be a first party Canon routine.
It'll be sharper than every autofocusing Canon 50mm offering we've had before.
The AF simply _must_ be better on the wide open end than the 50L, not hunt/stutter/fail like the f/1.4 USM, and run circles speed-wise around the f/1.8 STM.
Sold. (If it's not a huge pickle jar.)

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Oh that was good.


----------

