# New 50mm On Coming Soon? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 21, 2016)

```
We’re told that a new 50mm lens was coming fairly soon. We weren’t told if it was a replacement for the f/1.4 version or the f/1.2L version.</p>
<p>I think a lot of us would assume that the 30+ year old EF 50mm f/1.4 is the likely candidate, but that’s been talked about for years. The EF 50mm f/1.2L could use an update as well and would really benefit from a floating element design.</p>
<p>The EF 50mm f/1.8 was updated last year.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## JohanCruyff (Mar 21, 2016)

I hope that the F/1.4 comes out first and it's at the "35mm F/2.0 IS" quality level.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 21, 2016)

I know a lot of people are waiting for 50mm f1.4 Is or non is lens Usm/stm. I am still waiting for a FF 60mm macro lens. Canon should really replace their prehistoric 50mm macro by now.


----------



## Gnocchi (Mar 21, 2016)

Yay.
Hope it's got internal focusing.


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 21, 2016)

ahansford is either in deep space away from any signal....
... or the sight and news of this (CR2) has stunned him into shock... 

I, for one am hoping this will turn into reality - a replacement to the f/1.4.
Yes, indeed - I am *another * person waiting for that f/1.nooneknows, which is 90% good at everything USM - and hopefully IS lens!

For me, if it has great IQ wide open, stellar stopped down, has REAL quality USM AF. (perhaps even nano USM?!), low CA (perhaps Canon can use some BR on it?!)

Well... let's see.... we wait, with baited breath! 

Thanks, CR for this news! I really enjoy my 50mm f/1.8 STM, but would like an upgrade from that....

Paul 8)


----------



## nicksotgiu (Mar 21, 2016)

I just looked up when the f/1.4 was released (June 1993). 
Can't wait for the replacement of this lens!

I've owned one but after a few years I sold it, 
I thought the chromatic aberration was a little too much of an issue in some situations.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 21, 2016)

The one that's longest in the tooth is the 50mm f/2.5 macro. But that still does what it was designed to do very well.

Are we sure this rumour isn't about the previously-discussed 50mm EF-M macro lens?


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Mar 21, 2016)

a 1.4 stm/usm is coming 
i bet it will be as good as the 50 1.8 stm


----------



## zim (Mar 21, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> ahansford is either in deep space away from any signal....



haha that was my first thought too ;D

I think Canon should call it the 50mm AH f1.4


----------



## schmidtfilme (Mar 21, 2016)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> a 1.4 stm/usm is coming
> i bet it will be as good as the 50 1.8 stm



As good ? But 3 x the cost?


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 21, 2016)

zim said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > ahansford is either in deep space away from any signal....
> ...



Only if it doesn't have IS


----------



## hugebob (Mar 21, 2016)

Please, let this be true. My 1.4 no longer autofocuses. My 5D Mk III is practically new (purchased in Jan.) and all my other lenses work fine. I know I'll have to have it repaired if I want to use. But, if an upgrade is truly on the horizon, I won't bother.


----------



## symmar22 (Mar 21, 2016)

Finally, it's more than time... It should be both 50mm 1.4 (1993) and 50 2.5 CM (1987). the 1.8 STM is decent for an entry level 50, however, the 1.4 has been put to shame by Sigma (Art), Tamron (45mm), Zeiss (Otus and Loxia) and even Sony (55mm). As canon is putting a lot of emphasis on the lens line-up, the "standard" lens choice has become clearly indecent. However, to compete, they can't just make another Planar. That means bigger, heavier and more expensive...

As for the 50mm macro, that I own myself, it does the job, between f5.6 an f16, but it's kind of the minimum of what one should expect from a modern macro lens. Everything on it is vintage, and it's more than time to release a modern one, with weather sealing, USM and stabilisation. 

Personally, I would prefer a 50-60mm f2 with 1:2 macro, than a f2.8 with 1:1 macro, since these lenses are mainly used for medium range close up, reproduction or (in my case) architecture, that is IMO the nature of a 50 "macro nowadays : a zero distortion, flat field, ultra sharp "standard" lens for critical work at medium or small apertures, f2 makes it just even more universal.

So basically, I am expecting the little brother of the 100 L IS, not sure it will happen though.


----------



## addola (Mar 21, 2016)

schmidtfilme said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > a 1.4 stm/usm is coming
> ...



The extra cost of 2/3 stop. From f/1.8 to f/1.4


----------



## unfocused (Mar 21, 2016)

What is a 50mm "On?"


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> ahansford is either in deep space away from any signal....
> ... or the sight and news of this (CR2) has stunned him into shock...



No -- just waking up. I'm in California.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is from 1993, if memory serves. It's not 30 years old, is it?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

zim said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > ahansford is either in deep space away from any signal....
> ...



+1, but only if it has USM. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

addola said:


> schmidtfilme said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...



Plus internal focusing
Plus IS
Plus a distance scale
Plus a more secure hood attachment
Plus USM
Plus far higher build quality (like the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses)

But it will cost far more than 3x the 50mm f/1.8 STM. Still don't care. Take my money when that lens happens.

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 21, 2016)

I think they should go for gusto and make a sharp-wide-open 50mmf1.0 just to spite all the crop users and cement Full Frame as the best system in the world for light gathering and Bokeh.

And because it would make a great crop lens too.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I think they should go for gusto and make a sharp-wide-open 50mmf1.0 just to spite all the crop users and cement Full Frame as the best system in the world for light gathering and Bokeh.
> 
> And because it would make a great crop lens too.



I imagine the tripod ring would be included with that? :

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 21, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We weren’t told if it was a replacement for the f/1.4 version or the f/1.2L version.


Either way good news because it shows that Canon knows they have to act here. 
I hope for a 50/1.4 replacement with the same aperture. I could live with 1.8 if it had IS and the IQ wide open was compareable to the latest non-L primes.
Even if it's the L successor this is good news because then they can focus now on the f/1.4 successor.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Mar 21, 2016)

Will this be released with the 5DIV/X?

Hopefully sooner than later . . . .


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2016)

This is the hole in my lens FL lineup. I've owned all 3 non L 50's(well, Mk 1 of the Nifty) and none of them cut it. True ring usm please....


----------



## grainier (Mar 21, 2016)

Canon will find a way to let me down with this one. I just feel it.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

In-The-Dark said:


> Will this be released with the 5DIV/X?
> 
> Hopefully sooner than later . . . .



A non-L / mid-grade 50 prime will probably not be bundled with the 5D4/5DX announcement. Besides, if you _were_ to bundle a $500-750 lens with a new camera announcement, surely the 6D2 is a more apt price/feature/customer kind of fit.

But any way that they choose to roll it out, sooner is better.

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> In-The-Dark said:
> 
> 
> > Will this be released with the 5DIV/X?
> ...



I'd like it in my hands before April 2nd. lol


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

slclick said:


> This is the hole in my lens FL lineup. I've owned all 3 non L 50's(well, Mk 1 of the Nifty) and none of them cut it. True ring usm please....



As with so many things, a spreadsheet or chart is in order. Assuming Canon doesn't go insane with pricing (let's drink that Kool Aid for now), here's my dance card on this lens:


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

That said, I'd be stunned if the new lens were slower than the nifty 50 STM. I'm just saying I'd still buy it if it was as it would be super small.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2016)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> a 1.4 stm/usm is coming
> i bet it will be as good as the 50 1.8 stm



Somehow, I do not expect another consumer grade lens with stm. The next one will be a "L" lens with blue spectrum refractive optics and USM. 1.2 or 1.4 is the question. I think the old 1.4 sales are pretty well dead, and sales of the 1.2 were never high.

I really have no use for either, 50mm doesn't work for me, but many love it. I've had dozens of 50mm lenses over the years, I'm burned out on them. I probably have 25 of them laying around of various brands.


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 21, 2016)

The Nifty Fifty was my 2nd non kit lens I bought after the Canon 100mm Macro (non L)

The very first thing I didn't enjoy about it, was the very thin, somewhat difficult to access manual focus ring. When I realized the lens/body combo struggled to autofocus the lower light environs, that focus ring killed me!

I'd love for it to be a 1.4 and have 9 aperture blades, if anything, just to offer the eye something to distinguish over the f/1.8STM. 

IS, I'm not sure if I need it. I don't need IS on my 24-70 but then again, unlike others, I believe the IS on my 100mm L macro does help. I'm thinking I'll let Canon decide this for me, I trust them. 

All that being said, my nifty fifty is sharp, I can't complain about that. I can't see this new lens doing anything other but take a step forward with IQ and improve on all associated aberrations from the f/1.4 v.1


----------



## midluk (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> As with so many things, a spreadsheet or chart is in order.
> 
> EF 50mm f/x IS Nano USM
> ... unless it is Focus by Wire



From what I have seen about the new EF-S 18-135 IS USM I would be surprised if they can make Nano USM without Focus by Wire.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > a 1.4 stm/usm is coming
> ...



Throwing out the 50mm compact macro, I still see three price points in this staple prime category:


Budget --> the 50mm f/1.8 STM ($100-150)


No frills workhorse --> the new 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM ($400-1,000 depending on the actual lens that comes forward, an internally focusing f/1.4 IS ring USM will cost a ton while an externally focusing / focus by wire / f/1.8 IS STM would not.)


L --> surely to get the BR gunk for > $1,500, but [f/1.2 vs. f/1.4] and [dreamy draw/bokeh vs. Sigma Art size/sharpness] are clearly unknown at this point. My money is on the f/1.2 sticking around for competitive exclusivity, but the design will bulk up considerably to bring better sharpness to the table.

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I think they should go for gusto and make a sharp-wide-open 50mmf1.0 just to spite all the crop users and cement Full Frame as the best system in the world for light gathering and Bokeh.
> ...



Lenses that don't have a tripod foot are really annoying, I feel like any lens that weighs more than 1lb should have one. The new Sigma 50-100 looks like the perfect implementation.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

midluk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As with so many things, a spreadsheet or chart is in order.
> ...



Didn't think of that. Do we know if the 18-135 is focus by wire only? TDP doesn't track that and does not state anything about it in their pre-review page.

If so -- if it's manual focus by wire only -- I might pass on this lens and look at the next L. I hate manual focus lag.

- A


----------



## -1 (Mar 21, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > a 1.4 stm/usm is coming
> ...



Can't see the point for Canon in making anything but a "L" to complement the 1.8... A 1.4 IS STM would only eat their L sales. Sorry...


----------



## midluk (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Do we know if the 18-135 is focus by wire only? TDP doesn't track that and does not state anything about it in their pre-review page.



One of the 80D anouncement videos from Canon had some animation of the nano USM that looks extremely like focus by wire and no way to add real manual focus.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

-1 said:


> Can't see the point for Canon in making anything but a "L" to complement the 1.8... A 1.4 IS STM would only eat their L sales. Sorry...



Disagree.

1) There's far far far more to a lens' value and appeal than it's max aperture and whether or not it has IS. 

Consider: how many reasons can you name for why someone would buy the current 50 f/1.2L USM over the current 50 f/1.4 USM? (if one's only answer is 'it's a partial stop quicker', they are completely missing the boat. Think about focus speed, quality of bokeh, weather sealing, ergonomics/handling, build quality, future resale value, etc.). 

2) Unless you are shooting video or prefer to manually focus, STM lenses will not make even the smallest dent in L (USM) lens sales. A 50mm f/1.4 IS *USM*, on the other hand, very well could dig into 50L sales, but I'm sure Canon would price that lens painfully high to mitigate that.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 21, 2016)

-1 said:


> Can't see the point for Canon in making anything but a "L" to complement the 1.8... A 1.4 IS STM would only eat their L sales. Sorry...



I disagree.

As ahsanford wrote, the L lenses offer more than wider max aperture. In the case of the 50mm f/1.2, it's such things as bokeh that make it a specialty portraiture lens. Its a niche lens that just isn't in the same category as the 50mm f/1.4 IS, or the uber 50mm lenses released lately (Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus, Nikon 58mm f/1.4, and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art).

IMHO

1) The 50mm f/1.2 is a niche lens, I don't see Canon upgrading it having it discontinued.

2) The 50mm f/1.4 requires an upgrade like the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm. I think it would compete with the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC. My guess it would cost ~U.S.$700, and decrease within a couple of years.

3) A new uber 50mm f/1.4 USM, possibly a bit longer focal length. My guess is it would cost ~U.S.$1,500, like the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G.

4) The 50mm f/1.8 STM is already a recent upgrade, I doubt it would be upgraded again any time soon.

5) I'm not sure what Canon would do with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. I wouldn't even guess what Canon would do with that one, but I somehow doubt Canon would repeat the life size adapter (= 1.4x TC & an extension tube in one) trick again.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 21, 2016)

The 50 STM doesn't replace the current 50 f/1.4. Having used one at a recent event I found the STM way behind the 50/1.4 mid frame at f/2.8 (FF). I was disappointed in it within the first five minutes. Still superb value lens for £90, especially on crop, but no 50/1.4 substitute. 

There's a huge difference in price between the STM and the L, there has to be a place in the middle for a GP 50, not a niche portrait lens such as the L is, not super cheap like the STM.

My bet is for a new 50/1.4 that will be of the optical design Canon applied for a patent on a couple of years ago, similar to the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4, including a concave front element. I don't think it will have IS, and I would imagine that the intro price will be in the region of £/$ 600, before settling at the £/$ 450 mark.


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> The 50 STM doesn't replace the current 50 f/1.4. Having used one at a recent event I found the STM way behind the 50/1.4 mid frame at f/2.8 (FF). I was disappointed in it within the first five minutes. Still superb value lens for £90, especially on crop, but no 50/1.4 substitute.
> 
> There's a huge difference in price between the STM and the L, there has to be a place in the middle for a GP 50, not a niche portrait lens such as the L is, not super cheap like the STM.
> 
> My bet is for a new 50/1.4 that will be of the optical design Canon applied for a patent on a couple of years ago, similar to the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4, including a concave front element. I don't think it will have IS, and I would imagine that the intro price will be in the region of £/$ 600, before settling at the £/$ 450 mark.



I'd prefer it didn't have IS, just a better optical design than the 1.4 (more lenses and groups such as the Milvus but not pickle jar amount like the S Art, 9 rounded blades, limited to no CA, a nice manual focusing ring, true Ring USM and at least semi weather sealed (requiring front filter of course)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

slclick said:


> I'd prefer it didn't have IS, just a better optical design than the 1.4 (more lenses and groups such as the Milvus but not pickle jar amount like the S Art, 9 rounded blades, limited to no CA, a nice manual focusing ring, true Ring USM and at least semi weather sealed (requiring front filter of course)



...and while we're at it, I'd like spot metering on my 5D3. 

Even basic weather sealing and a high quality / long-throw focusing ring will be saved for a future 50L. I don't see a non-L prime getting something heretofore reserved for L primes.

More blades? Sure.

No CA? Doubt it. CA should be better managed, but the BR gunk is not going into a non-L lens anytime soon.

Bigger design? Probably needs to happen a bit, but I hope not too much. I love the compact double gauss action we have now, I just want something more usable wider than f/2. My current EF 50mm F/1.4 is a good copy without major AF issues, but it's soft as a pillow until I stop down to f/2.2 or so.

- A


----------



## crashpc (Mar 21, 2016)

My 50 f/1.4 is quite sharp wide open, even on crop sensor. Some say best piece in the world. If they solved their variance in pieces, added newer coatings, more rounded aperture blades and IS, solved that "focus ring inside the lens, and sold it in $400 range, I would be all over it.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Assuming Canon doesn't go insane with pricing (let's drink that Kool Aid for now) ...



Given Canon's recent new lens offerings being announced at lower than anticipated (or feared) prices, there's good reason to be optimistic.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 21, 2016)

crashpc said:


> My 50 f/1.4 is quite sharp wide open, even on crop sensor. Some say best piece in the world. If they solved their variance in pieces, added newer coatings, more rounded aperture blades and IS, solved that "focus ring inside the lens, and sold it in $400 range, I would be all over it.



You must have the only copy in the world that's sharp wide open. It generally needs to be closed 1 - 2 stops to reach good sharpness and contrast. By f/4 it's biting sharp


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming Canon doesn't go insane with pricing (let's drink that Kool Aid for now) ...
> ...



I think it's pretty Jeckyll & Hyde with pricing.


The pancake pricing and 16-35 F/4L IS lenses are all great values in my book.


But the 11-24L, the original asking of the 24/28/35 IS lenses, the original asking for the 24-70 f/4L IS, the 35L II, the 100-400L II, etc. are all a little painful for what they offer.


So we shall what we get with a new 50. I'm cautiously optimistic for no other reason than Canon got absoutely singed on the 24/28/35 pricing debacle, and the 50mm is far far far more crowded competitively.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

Etienne said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > My 50 f/1.4 is quite sharp wide open, even on crop sensor. Some say best piece in the world. If they solved their variance in pieces, added newer coatings, more rounded aperture blades and IS, solved that "focus ring inside the lens, and sold it in $400 range, I would be all over it.
> ...



See attached for PZ's test. I know it's only one copy, but mine crudely runs similar to what is plotted. 

It's usable wide open with a center subject, but beyond the vignetting and CA problems you get, it's just a shade 'cloudy' at f/1.4. That clears up by f/2 and the shots are pretty sharp across the frame by f/2.8 or so. 

I honestly believe it outperforms the 50L when stopped down past f/2.8, but that's not typically why you buy a fast 50.

- A


----------



## Etienne (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > crashpc said:
> ...



That diagram illustrates my summary perfectly. 1-2 stops down it's good, by f/4 it's great. But wide open, not so much.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 21, 2016)

I'm still running with my theory
- 50mm f1.8 STM Cheapo - available now
- 50mm f1.8 IS USM at £400-500 built like a 35mm f2 IS - new
- 50mm f1.4 L non IS uber sharp and ace AF, £1000-1200, built like 35mm f1.4L
- 50mm f1.2 L - no change, artistic value

Similarly with the 85mm range
- 85mm f2.0 IS USM
- 85mm f1.4 L uber sharp and ace AF
- 85mm f1.2 L - no change


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> I'm still running with my theory
> - 50mm f1.8 STM Cheapo - available now
> - 50mm f1.8 IS USM at £400-500 built like a 35mm f2 IS - new
> - 50mm f1.4 L non IS uber sharp and ace AF, £1000-1200, built like 35mm f1.4L
> ...



Seems like a lot of lenses to offer, but sure, it's plausible.

If I had to choose, I'd take that blue one above. The red one above is flat out for me. If you want to shoot down an Otus or Sigma Art on resolving power terms, it will be ginormous. I know many folks on this forum would buy that lens, but I would not. I'll take 90% of the IQ for half the size any time.

- A


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I think it's pretty Jeckyll & Hyde with pricing.
> 
> The pancake pricing and 16-35 F/4L IS lenses are all great values in my book.
> 
> ...



I was thinking about the 16-35/4L IS and the 100-400 II when I made my comment. The 100-400 II was rumored to launch as high as $2,700 or even $3,000, so I was relieved when it came it at ~ $2,200, and bought one within a month of its release. I bought a 16-35/4L IS around the same time, although it'd been out for 6 months or so. I'm still extremely pleased with the quality and value of both purchases.

On the other hand, sure, the 11-24 is "out there" pricewise, but it's more of a specialty lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> I was thinking about the 16-35/4L IS and the 100-400 II when I made my comment. The 100-400 II was rumored to launch as high as $2,700 or even $3,000, so I was relieved when it came it at ~ $2,200, and bought one within a month of its release. I bought a 16-35/4L IS around the same time, although it'd been out for 6 months or so. I'm still extremely pleased with the quality and value of both purchases.
> 
> On the other hand, sure, the 11-24 is "out there" pricewise, but it's more of a specialty lens.



Canon seems to price its lenses one of three ways:


It's a specialty one-off type of lens that Canon is under no competitive motivation to lower over time: the 11-24L, the MP-E 65mm 5:1 macro, tilt-shifts, f/1.2 lenses, etc. 


A take-it-to-the-bank hitting of a market need, often (but not always) in the form of a II / clearly better version of an already great lens -- the new nifty fifty, the 24-70 f/2.8L, the 16-35 f/4L IS, a 70-200 II, etc. These products are in a mature market, Canon knows what the market will bear, and the price is planned out for many years in advance with no alarms and no surprises.


Stuff Canon gets wrong in shooting for the stars with the asking price -- the 24/28/35 IS refreshes, the 24-70 f/4L IS, etc. They get the original asking price wrong, sales tank, and the price plummets.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> The Nifty Fifty was my 2nd non kit lens I bought after the Canon 100mm Macro (non L)
> 
> The very first thing I didn't enjoy about it, was the very thin, somewhat difficult to access manual focus ring. When I realized the lens/body combo struggled to autofocus the lower light environs, that focus ring killed me!
> 
> ...



You bought the wrong version of the Nifty 50. My made in Japan (First Version) had the correct focus ring. The STM version has a improved focus ring as well.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 21, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> I'm still running with my theory
> - 50mm f1.8 STM Cheapo - available now
> - 50mm f1.8 IS USM at £400-500 built like a 35mm f2 IS - new
> - 50mm f1.4 L non IS uber sharp and ace AF, £1000-1200, built like 35mm f1.4L
> ...



If canon do this I suspect they'll lose sales:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0;topicseen

poll suggested demand for aperture significantly outweighs demand for IS in a mid range 50mm... accepted CR != world market.


----------



## slclick (Mar 22, 2016)

I think they'll get it right this time. It's only tied for the most common, famous and widely used focal length after all. And the idea of it undercutting L sales is ricockulous. It is a stepping stone lens for one thing. It also used to be (there weren't that many choices in 1993-film only era) and should be once again a fine piece of glass that can appeal to everyone. 

I agree, my wish for partial weather sealing is a bit much but when I talk of CA I ask for an improvement over the current model, not so much an elimination which can be done with the BR coating. I think what really needs to be done is a redesign of the optic groups while still keeping the focus internal with Ring USM.


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 22, 2016)

I'm still waiting for a new 85mm.
Either an improved L lens with fast focussing or a new 1.4 non L, I'm not fussy.


----------



## The Supplanter (Mar 22, 2016)

JS5 said:


> Dear Canon...
> 
> You don't stop amazing me with your poor choices... You prefer to worry about 250 mega trillion zillion pixel cameras that are useless, silly novelty lenses... absurd amateur bodies...and useless point and shoot cameras...
> But the most important lens that any professional should have, you save for last... seriously ?
> ...



I don't know why, but this made me laugh pretty hard. ;D


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 22, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > The Nifty Fifty was my 2nd non kit lens I bought after the Canon 100mm Macro (non L)
> ...



So the mkii took a definite step back in that regard!

Just for interest's sake, how does this lens compare optically to the mkii and STM versions?


----------



## -1 (Mar 22, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > Can't see the point for Canon in making anything but a "L" to complement the 1.8... A 1.4 IS STM would only eat their L sales. Sorry...
> ...


Well... The Canon über 50 would be the 50L, wouldn't it. An IS STM would eat of it sales just like it's 35mm sybling eats of 35L. The only reason that I could think for Canon to realease it bewould to please the cine crowd. That's a mountean of monkeys that would love something like that to go with their new 80Ds!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2016)

-1 said:


> Well... The Canon über 50 would be the 50L, wouldn't it. An IS STM would eat of it sales just like it's 35mm sybling eats of 35L. The only reason that I could think for Canon to realease it bewould to please the cine crowd. That's mountean of monkeys that would love something like that to go with their new 80Ds!



That's the problem -- *there appears to be two different ideals to reach for in a 50-ish prime lens: sharpness and 'magic'/draw/bokeh. 
*
To reach the first ideal, you need to pull some optical witchcraft on the plane of focus and turn a lens into a specialty tool --> and you end up with something like the 50L.

To reach the second ideal, you need to build a monstrous pickle jar. Sigma pulled this off, but some 50L users were unimpressed with the pictures it took and stuck with their 50L. (The 50L is not unconditionally 'better', it's just better _for them_, their needs, etc.) 

To reach _both_ ideals, I guess the Otus comes close, but $4k + MF only is double deal-breaker for many of us.

- A


----------



## johnctharp (Mar 22, 2016)

My 2013-purchased 50/1.4 USM is a pleaser too- at least, it was when I ditched the dodgy AF of my 60D for the class-leading center point of the 6D, where it no longer misses, even close wide-open. If I do my part, it does it's part, and following the performance curves that makes it a better lens than any of the f/1.8's (and I own the 50/1.8 STM, for size and close focus ability) or the 50/1.2L at every aperture except the widest shared range of <f/2.0.

I keep thinking I should sell it, but it's hard to let go of knowing that it isn't worth a whole lot!


And all that said, it's replacement just needs to be one thing: solid. Note how well the 50/1.8 optics (not changed since the first version) cleaned up with new coatings and a nicer aperture in the STM version, and apply that with maybe a tweak for contrast and lower CA with real ring USM and call it done. If they keep the size and price in check, they'll still compete well with the Tamron and Sigma lenses, as both of those are large, heavy, and expensive, and if the AF is solid too? Done. Neither third-party maker can make that claim.


----------



## Mancubus (Mar 22, 2016)

A 50mm 1.4 IS with all the new technology under 500usd would be instant buy for me.

Without IS it would have to be under 400usd.

If would be awesome if they went nuts and released a new 50mm 1.0


----------



## scyrene (Mar 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> It's a specialty one-off type of lens that Canon is under no competitive motivation to lower over time: the 11-24L, the MP-E 65mm 5:1 macro, tilt-shifts, f/1.2 lenses, etc.



With respect, the MP-E is not an expensive lens compared to these others.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 22, 2016)

I have had all canon 50's and only remains the new 50mm STM because is cheap. Waiting for a new 40/1.4 IS ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 22, 2016)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Waiting for a new 40/1.4 IS ;D


Typo? Or really wanting a *4*0 mm/1.4 IS ?


----------



## Mac Duderson (Mar 22, 2016)

The 50mm 1.2 is still way to new so it has to be the 50mm 1.4 I would think.  Some dates and discussion here (85mm but scroll down) : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29066.0


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 22, 2016)

Mac Duderson said:


> The 50mm 1.2 is still way to new ...


Of course you are right here. And I am hoping also for a mid range 50mm. 

But you also have to consider that Sigma has put some pressure on the high end 50 mm lenses and that possibly that Canon NEEDS to react here first. And having the new BR elements now, I suppose Canon wants them to be introduced into other L lenses as well, if they get an IQ advantage from it.

Also keep in mind that Sigma was so self-confident at the introduction of the 50 mm Art that they said the real competence was the Otus.


----------



## symmar22 (Mar 22, 2016)

Seems more likely the 50mm 1.4 is the next lens, the 1.2 L has its flaws, but that's what makes its special character, it's a speciality lens, to make soft images, if you improve it, the risk is to make another über sharp 50mm ART. Not sure the base users would like it.

On the other hand, to substantially improve on the 1.4 (except for the obvious AF and construction), they'll have to give up the planar formula, and the lens will be like a Sigma Art. So there is a trade off in weight, size and price.

This is the Canon "standard" lens offer I'd like to see : 

- 50mm f1.8 STM
- 50mm f1.4 USM IS (same series as the 24/28/35 IS) - Old one is 1993
- 50mm f1.2 L USM
- 55/60mm f2 Macro IS USM (L) 1:2 or 55/60mm f2.8 Macro IS USM (L) 1:1 - Old one is 1987 
- 45mm f2.8 TS L (with the recent independent movements and better optics) - Old one is 1991

Plus maybe a small 40-42mm f2 USM (1 stop brighter the the 2.8, no IS, no focus by wire, as compact as possible, but not a pancake).


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 22, 2016)

JS5 said:


> Dear Canon...
> 
> You don't stop amazing me with your poor choices... You prefer to worry about 250 mega trillion zillion pixel cameras that are useless, silly novelty lenses... absurd amateur bodies...and useless point and shoot cameras...
> But the most important lens that any professional should have, you save for last... seriously ?
> ...



Web-page link?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 22, 2016)

JS5 said:
 

> Dear Canon...
> 
> You don't stop amazing me with your poor choices... You prefer to worry about 250 mega trillion zillion pixel cameras that are useless, silly novelty lenses... absurd amateur bodies...and useless point and shoot cameras...
> But *the most important lens that any professional should have*, you save for last... seriously ?
> ...


One person's needs/preferences are not necessarily universal needs held by everyone.

Here are a few types of professional photography where 50mm f/1.x is not *the most important lens that any professional should have*:
Architecture, Real estate, Macro, Sports, Wildlife... etc.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> That's the problem -- *there appears to be two different ideals to reach for in a 50-ish prime lens: sharpness and 'magic'/draw/bokeh.
> *
> To reach the first ideal, you need to pull some optical witchcraft on the plane of focus and turn a lens into a specialty tool --> and you end up with something like the 50L.
> 
> ...



I think you have mistaken ideals 

edit: hope my meaning was clear! If the first ideal was sharpness ...


----------



## jd7 (Mar 22, 2016)

I have lost interest in a new 50. If someone brought out an auto-focus 60/1.4 or maybe 65/1.4 I might be tempted.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 22, 2016)

JS5 said:


> Dear Canon...
> 
> You don't stop amazing me with your poor choices... You prefer to worry about 250 mega trillion zillion pixel cameras that are useless, silly novelty lenses... absurd amateur bodies...and useless point and shoot cameras...
> But the most important lens that any professional should have, you save for last... seriously ?
> ...



You might want to take up comedy.

For one, hyperbole can get you into trouble, especially when you say - "But the most important lens that any professional should have"

Lets see. My last paying gig (2 days ago, was shooting sports. My go to lens is a 70-200 F/2.8 IS II, followed by 300 F/2.8 IS II, then may use either a 24 - 70, 24 - 105, or Fisheye, but 90% of my shots are with the 70 - 200.

Hmmm... There was that big game a little over a month ago... TON of Photographers. I think those guys were pros... That Super something or rather. Hmmmmm.... I saw some 200 - 400s, 300s, 400s, 500s, and even some 70-200s, even some 24-70s during the end of game. 50s? I am not sure I saw many of those. 

When I do fashion, I am still more 24-70 or 70-200 with 85 F/1.2 in there. Again, the 70-200 tends to get the most usage because the tele side of things is generally more flattering than wide, for me at least. 

Maybe it is just me, but the Two Most Important Lens, if I was to have just 1 or 2 lenses would be the 70-200 and then the 24 - 70. If I was doing architecture, something of the wide primes or even the T/S would rank up there. For Fashion / Portrait, when I look at mine, and my peers, I see the 85 F/1.2 being the more go to lens than the 50.


----------



## slclick (Mar 22, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> JS5 said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Canon...
> ...



All of the above is very relevant however it might be skewed by the fact there is not a fantastic Canon fast AF lens out there. There are great IQ 50's but none with Canon AF qualities. If they make a new midrange to L series 50 with actual and not micro USM that has good draw, round specular highlights and great color rendition than you might see them in the field a bit more.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 22, 2016)

slclick said:


> All of the above is very relevant however it might be skewed by the fact there is not a fantastic Canon fast AF lens out there. There are great IQ 50's but none with Canon AF qualities. If they make a new midrange to L series 50 with actual and not micro USM that has good draw, round specular highlights and great color rendition than you might see them in the field a bit more.



Not necessarily disagreeing with you. The Canon 50mm F/1.2 is not the best AF lens, and the F/1.4 is adequate, but a cheap lens

My point was more to the focal length. 50 is a great all around low-light walk around lens, but for fashion / portrait, the 85 is more flattering (my first prime lens was the 50mm F/1.4) and I tend to rent an 85mm F/1.2 before using the 50. 

For a wedding photographer, I can see 24-70, 70-200, 16-35 for wide and a 100 Macro as the 4 key lenses before dropping in to say an 85 for portrait / low light.

Even if the 50mm F/1.2 was as sharp as the 85, for me and the amount of fashion I have shot, the 85 makes women look better, especially if the bride is a little heavier. 

Pure portrait, I would still take 70-200, 85, and them maybe 135 F/2

Architecture? T/S tends to be king. 

I am not talking just the merits of one lens over another, but even just focal length / type of lens, I see better focal lengths or zooms that produce more results or more overall usage in general. 

The 50 is a nice focal length for some nice tight bokeh DOF shots, but hands down if I am doing a portrait, I want an 85 over a 50 for the qualities it gives to a face / body, especially anyone who could not pass as anorexic. 

Maybe the 50 is the king of New Born photography... But when I think of Portrait, Fashion, Sports, Architecture which I think covers a fair amount of the Pros. Photojournalists I see out there tend to be two bodies and the 24-70 / 70-200 combo. 

Just trying to think where my Number 1, Must have lens is the 50... Can't think of it


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 22, 2016)

I was just going to recommend JS5 pop the cap off of a good brew, kick the ol' feet up and relax for a moment. I don't think it's too healthy to get so emotionally upset over camera gear, but maybe that's just me. 

Seriously though, I get people want an updated 50mm from Canon. But it isn't like their are zero options today, especially if you consider third party. The 50mm from Canon today are not awful options.

And for Ahsanford, I still think he just needs to put the 35mm f/2 IS on a 7D/70D/80D and call it good for a while. BAM! Modern 50mm problem solved!


----------



## slclick (Mar 22, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > All of the above is very relevant however it might be skewed by the fact there is not a fantastic Canon fast AF lens out there. There are great IQ 50's but none with Canon AF qualities. If they make a new midrange to L series 50 with actual and not micro USM that has good draw, round specular highlights and great color rendition than you might see them in the field a bit more.
> ...



I completely get the gist of your meaning and your styles of shooting examples, I'm right there with you (see my gear list below) I just meant in the overall world of professional photography, especially those using a Canon system outside the studio, we might see more 50's if there was one that had those qualities. It's the whole 'Your focal lengths aren't necessarily my focal lengths, but I respect your choices' thing.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > It's a specialty one-off type of lens that Canon is under no competitive motivation to lower over time: the 11-24L, the MP-E 65mm 5:1 macro, tilt-shifts, f/1.2 lenses, etc.
> ...



Read again what I wrote -- I never said 'premium' or 'best'. I just said that group was for specialty lenses without much competition.

Consider the MP-E's comically unheard of price history the last eight years: it's price has actually gone *up* over time, and not just for a one or two time currency course-correction. The lens has no same-sensored rival, so this phenomenon shouldn't surprise us.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> And for Ahsanford, I still think he just needs to put the 35mm f/2 IS on a 7D/70D/80D and call it good for a while. BAM! Modern 50mm problem solved!



So let me get this straight: I should disregard the $3k investment in my 5D3, move to crop and kiss my bokeh goodbye.

Yup, that's the ticket. 

- A


----------



## scyrene (Mar 22, 2016)

jd7 said:


> I have lost interest in a new 50. If someone brought out an auto-focus 60/1.4 or maybe 65/1.4 I might be tempted.



Is the difference between 50 and 60mm that noticeable?


----------



## scyrene (Mar 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Um, I read what you wrote. Perhaps you meant it in a different way but I interpreted this: 



ahsanford said:


> Canon seems to price its lenses one of three ways:
> 
> 
> It's a specialty one-off type of lens that Canon is under no competitive motivation to lower over time: the 11-24L, the MP-E 65mm 5:1 macro, tilt-shifts, f/1.2 lenses, etc.
> ...



as saying the first group is expensive and premium. The MP-E's price may not have gone down (at least where you are), but it is significantly below its RRP here - ~£700-800 instead of £1250 - and not expensive compared to other macro lenses (e.g. the 100L, which is a little less, and the 180L, Sigma's 180 2.8 macro both of which cost more). I just don't think it fits into the same category as the 11-24, which is priced more like a supertele lens.

Actually I'm not sure I go along with your tripartite system anyhow, but that's by the by.


----------



## slclick (Mar 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I have lost interest in a new 50. If someone brought out an auto-focus 60/1.4 or maybe 65/1.4 I might be tempted.
> ...



It is for me between 40 and 50. That's why I use the pancake where others use a 50.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 22, 2016)

slclick said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



Sure but as you go higher, each mm means less difference right? So 10 to 20 is a much bigger leap than 20 to 30... so 50 to 60 is even less of a difference than your 40 to 50. I just wonder at what point it's splitting hairs. After all, some companies produce 55 or 58 instead of 50.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > And for Ahsanford, I still think he just needs to put the 35mm f/2 IS on a 7D/70D/80D and call it good for a while. BAM! Modern 50mm problem solved!
> ...



well there's always the 35LII.. that would get roughly equal boke to a 50f2 on a FF


----------



## In-The-Dark (Mar 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But any way that they choose to roll it out, sooner is better.
> 
> - A



Yup, sooner would be much welcome.

And if it's usable wide open (similar to the 35/2 IS), with improved contrast, real USM, and reliable AF on the outer points of my 6D, I'll be looking forward to replace my existing 50/1.4.


----------



## Mac Duderson (Mar 23, 2016)

New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2016)

Mac Duderson said:


> New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???



My guess (not a particularly brave one):

The next update to the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM will not get it. Non-L lenses won't get it.

The next update to the 50L will get it. I think all L primes will get it eventually.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 23, 2016)

Mac Duderson said:


> New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???



In a ~U.S.$700 lens, 35mm f/2 IS USM class lens? I bet no.

In a ~U.S.$1,500 lens, Nikon 58mm f/1.4G class lens? Possibly.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 23, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Mac Duderson said:
> 
> 
> > New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???
> ...



The Nikkor 58mm certainly needs it.....


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 23, 2016)

Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.



Some folks believe that the next 50L just needs to be a Sigma 50 Art with reliable Canon USM.

Meanwhile, some folks would probably stab me for that allegation. 

It's the whole bokeh/magic/draw/unquantifiable 'belief' camp vs. the sharpness/resolution/test chart studying camp. 

Neither is right, neither is wrong, and neither is going away. So I contend that a '50L that fixes all' will never come to pass. Canon will either slightly sharpen up the 50 f/1.2L to preserve the magic, or they'll blow up that design and go huge like the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus.

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 23, 2016)

This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?

Just throwing my own opinion into the hat here but how would the costing of this goo compare to say a lens element or other lens mechanic?

It's also unique in the sense that the cost of it can be spread across every Canon lens to be released from here on out. One could contend that the huge steps forward many 3rd party lenses have taken, Canon need to bring something extra to the table and perhaps the goo ticks that box?

On the other hand, Canon's marketing strategy is beyond my intellect and maybe they do consider this to be a L series exclusive feature


----------



## Memdroid (Mar 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.
> ...



I hope this won't be the case. I don't like the idea that Canon is aping Sigma and bringing giant super sharp lenses on the market. I have the 50L, while it is an amazing lens it just needs to be a tad sharper wide open. I recently upgraded from the 35 f2 IS to the 35mm L II. It is a night and day difference, the colors contrast and the uber sharpness is beyond excellent. And on an assignment it is invaluable. It just is not a lens that I would grab for a quick fun, run n' gun recreational shoot as I do with the 50L or did with the 35 IS. The size and weight is the primary reason for this. The next 50L should not be that drastic IMO.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I think they should go for gusto and make a sharp-wide-open 50mmf1.0 just to spite all the crop users and cement Full Frame as the best system in the world for light gathering and Bokeh.
> ...



Now you're talking!!

I'd BUY that!!!!

I seriously hope for a 50L 1.2 upgrade..I'm on the precipice of buying one...and have been holding off to see if the 1.2 gets the update...


cayenne


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?
> 
> [truncated]
> 
> On the other hand, Canon's marketing strategy is beyond my intellect and maybe they do consider this to be a L series exclusive feature



I see BR staying on the top end until the L's have it, then it might trickle down like other standard features might.

A really rough chart on prime segmentation is attached. (Yes, I know some L primes aren't sealed -- I'm speaking in recent terms, what we might expect in a future lens, etc.)

- A


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 23, 2016)

Memdroid said:


> I recently upgraded from the 35 f2 IS to the 35mm L II. It is a night and day difference, the colors contrast and the uber sharpness is beyond excellent. And on an assignment it is invaluable. It just is not a lens that I would grab for a quick fun, run n' gun recreational shoot as I do with the 50L or did with the 35 IS. The size and weight is the primary reason for this. The next 50L should not be that drastic IMO.



Interesting, reading your take on the 35 L II vs. the 35/2 IS, the latter of which I own. Most photographers I have read who upgrade from a mid-range prime to the L line have described the L lens as "just that much sharper," "just that much better," "just that much faster," etc. I've never read anyone describe it as a "night and day difference."


----------



## midluk (Mar 23, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?
> 
> Just throwing my own opinion into the hat here but how would the costing of this goo compare to say a lens element or other lens mechanic?



They might indeed add it to mid level lenses, but then they will likely not use that to reduce CA completely but to get away with a much simpler lens design while still having only normal levels of CA.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.
> ...



Wedding and environmental portrait photographers would be happy with a 50mm 1.2 as sharp as the 85 1.2 and as accurate and quick with AF as a 24-70mm II. Asking too much?


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> It's the whole bokeh/magic/draw/unquantifiable 'belief' camp vs. the sharpness/resolution/test chart studying camp.
> 
> Neither is right, neither is wrong, and neither is going away. So I contend that a '50L that fixes all' will never come to pass. Canon will either slightly sharpen up the 50 f/1.2L to preserve the magic, or they'll blow up that design and go huge like the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus.



Canon is a business out to make a profit, hence, if there's money to be made from both camps, Canon will make two lenses.

It seems to me (as I don't have sales & profit figures to prove any of it) that

A) Canon is making money from the 50mm f/1.2L, so why stop making it?

B) Zeiss, Nikon, and Sigma show there's money in making a sharp 5Xmm f/1.4 lens, so why not start making one?


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?
> ...



I like your chart, ahsanford… (and I have liked other charts you have previously posted).

As a generalisation, I also agree your chart is quite accurate.

(Note – sorry for the typo I made in your name in an earlier post on this threat, ahsanford!)

The 50mm f/no one(yet)knows will hopefully have all those boxes ticked. These are the more important features for me:
-	very good IQ wide open,
-	fast, accurate, consistent AF (yes please: USM, or nano USM!)
-	4 stop IS
f/2 is fast enough for me (though f/1.4 or f/1.6 would be a treat!)
Internal focussing is not that important
Distance scale… nice and somewhat handy, but not essential for my purposes.
I am more than happy to purchase a non-Canon lens hood online, as I have done for my other lenses.

Having some BR gunk / goo on the lens, as an inexpensive way to manage CAs is an interesting, and perhaps valid concept!

A small, handy sized lens (58mm pretty please, as I have several 58mm filters already!) would be ideal. I have enjoyed using my 50mm f/1.8 STM, but a step up (when Canon produces it) – will be wonderful.

Regards

Paul 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> The 50mm f/no one(yet)knows will hopefully have all those boxes ticked. These are the more important features for me:
> -	very good IQ wide open,
> -	fast, accurate, consistent AF (yes please: USM, or nano USM!)
> -	4 stop IS
> ...



A few thoughts:


A distance scale is not sexy, but it helps define the 'nice' level of quality/features you are getting, like a car with anti-lock brakes in the year 2000. It isn't going to make the sale, but it underscores that you aren't getting a bargain basement product. It's also somewhat useful for guess / chimp / adjust MF work when the AF has no chance to operate (really dark rooms).


A 58mm filter ring seems unlikely. Though the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses maintained the older lenses' max aperture, two of the three lenses saw a jump in filter diameter (presumably to get more glass to chase a sharper image?). Heck the 35mm f/2 IS USM jumped in filter diameter by a good 15mm! 


As I've said on a host of other threads, if the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM turns out to be f/2, I'd buy it -- it would be nice and small. But I don't know how you have a budget / mid-level / L-series value proposition where the mid-level is _slower_ than the budget 50mm f/1.8 STM -- so as much as _I'd_ buy it, I think there's zero chance Canon would ever offer it.


I've just never liked external focusing (though I'll be the first to call this a pretty petty set of reasons):
The externally focusing lenses I've used have historically been cheap and slow focusing. All the internally focusing lenses I've used have been fast and well built.
The externally telescoping barrel is a natural path of ingress for dust, moisture, dirt, etc.
Ext. focusing lenses mean you need to tighten down filters on the sliding/telescoping internal barrel. I strongly prefer to crank on filter rings that are decoupled from sensitive optical tasks (which internal focusing lets you do), but someone could talk me down on that I'm missing something.
This is really niche, but ext. focusing messes with bokeh shape templates you drape over the front of the lens barrel. (It's an amateur's pursuit, I must admit, but a fast 50mm is a great lens to do that on.)


- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2016)

Also, weird question since I brought up external focusing: because the front element is moving in and out to focus, wouldn't that mean that somewhere in the focus range, your shading is less than ideal? 

In an internally focusing lens, the front element and hood mount would not move with respect to each other, so this wouldn't happen and you'd get ideal shading.... _right?_ (Please straighten me out if I've missed something.)

- A


----------



## midluk (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> In an internally focusing lens, the front element and hood mount would not move with respect to each other, so this wouldn't happen and you'd get ideal shading.... _right?_ (Please straighten me out if I've missed something.)


I think you missed focus breathing.


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> A few thoughts:
> 
> A distance scale is not sexy, but it helps define the 'nice' level of quality/features you are getting, like a car with anti-lock brakes in the year 2000. It isn't going to make the sale, but it underscores that you aren't getting a bargain basement product. It's also somewhat useful for guess / chimp / adjust MF work when the AF has no chance to operate (really dark rooms).
> 
> ...



Dot point reply:

- Distance scale certainly helps cement the fact that this lens is a step up from 'basic'. I also do use it when shooting in darkness (usually outside, at night).

- I probably should concede an update middle-class 50mm will be larger than 58mm. But I like the feel of all my 58mm USM lenses... and I have a number of 58mm filters (1x62mm and 1x67mm).. and many at 72mm. I don't want my 50mm prime being 72mm though... 

- Though unlikely, it's possible Canon will provide a newer middle-class 50mm at slower than the STM (i.e. >f/1.8) But we must wait!!! Arrggghh.. the waiting! 

- Thanks for sharing your points about external focusing. I think you might indeed be confusing external focusing with a) focus breathing and b) rotation of the front filter. As far as I know, not all externally focusing lenses rotate the front element. I certainly would appreciate internal focusing, AND a non-rotating front element. Focus breathing particularly an issue for close-up photography (especially 1:1 macros, etc). Glad my 100mm USM is great in this regard... little to no focus breathing.

Cheers!

Paul 8)


----------



## MayaTlab (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> As I've said on a host of other threads, if the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM turns out to be f/2, I'd buy it -- it would be nice and small. But I don't know how you have a budget / mid-level / L-series value proposition where the mid-level is _slower_ than the budget 50mm f/1.8 STM -- so as much as _I'd_ buy it, I think there's zero chance Canon would ever offer it.



Me too, I can't see Canon offering a higher-end-than-el-cheapo-but-great-50mm-STM lens with a smaller aperture, but boy do I want it. If Canon releases a 50mm f2 IS USM the size of the 28mm IS USM with a 58mm filter ring (if that is possible) with the exact same attributes (or even better with weather sealing, but that isn't going to happen), and sharp wide open, I'll buy it on the spot and it will only solidify my attachment to the system.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> - Thanks for sharing your points about external focusing. I think you might indeed be confusing external focusing with a) focus breathing and b) rotation of the front filter.



I appreciate everyone's comments about breathing, but no, I am referring to the front element telescoping in and out during focusing, i.e. the lens _changes physical length during focusing_.

And no, I am not referring to a rotating front element during focusing that the cheapest lenses do. Those make CPL use a nightmare, so they've all but been abandoned by Canon.

I just prefer lenses that do not change in length while in use. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2016)

As for my hood comments, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is fairly unique compared to more modern lenses in that the hood is attached to the barrel of lens and does not move when the lens changes its length.

Isn't this a less than optimal shading situation, or do internal focusing primes have this same phenomenon?

Your normal standard 24-something L zoom has something like this problem as well when you zoom, btw. Only one end of the zoom range is ideal for shading. (This is more of a focal length problem than an external focusing problem, as the hood on the L lenses moves with that front element. Only the 24-70 f/2.8L overcomes this, but it does so with a nutty reverse telescoping + huge hood design.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2016)

Dutch_Snapper said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As for my hood comments, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is fairly unique compared to more modern lenses in that the hood is attached to the barrel of lens and does not move when the lens changes its length.
> ...



Translating (to make sure I understand you): since the hood is decoupled from telescoping, leaving the hood on protects that telescoping bit from being pushed in, which in turn protects the lifespan of that famously fragile lens. Did I get that right?

Hmmm. Never thought of that. I am somewhat obsessive that I always turn the focus ring to retract the telescoping bits before I put the camera back in my bag, put my lens away in the cabinet, etc.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> As for my hood comments, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is fairly unique compared to more modern lenses in that the hood is attached to the barrel of lens and does not move when the lens changes its length.
> 
> Isn't this a less than optimal shading situation, or do internal focusing primes have this same phenomenon?
> 
> ...



I am a very strong hood user.

The design of the 50 f1.4 hood is close to optimal, as you focus closer your focal length gets shorter so you get a wider fov, this means the geometry is close to perfect, though a petal shape or rectangle will always be 'better'.

One of the main reasons I still have my MkI 24-70 f2.8 is the very good hood design, the MkII design is effectively worthless at anything over closest focus at 24mm!


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 25, 2016)

slclick said:


> I completely get the gist of your meaning and your styles of shooting examples, I'm right there with you (see my gear list below) I just meant in the overall world of professional photography, especially those using a Canon system outside the studio, we might see more 50's if there was one that had those qualities. It's the whole 'Your focal lengths aren't necessarily my focal lengths, but I respect your choices' thing.



I think my only complaint/criticism etc was the OP defining the 50mm as the most important lens for Professional Photographers, and so I was just enumerated a great many pros where the 50 was likely not even top 3. 

Every lens has its place (for the most part) whether it is the super cheap kit lens, to very specialized tools like the T/S 

Another way I could put it. Which would be a bigger seller? An updated 85mm (say a 1.4 or 1.8 IS) or a new 50? I think I am pretty safe in saying that there would be higher sales on Canon retiring the 85mm F/1.8 and something like a $1000 85mm F/1.4 or F/1.8 IS would fly. Not sure they would go 1.4 since it would likely cannibalize the 1.2L sales. But at the same time the old 50 F/1.4 vs the 50 F/1.2 shows that they will do this. I could also see with the Tamron and potential Sigma ART that may provide more motivation. 

I think the 50 F/1.2 has some focus issues which is why I never really considered it. A great many would love an updated version.


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2016)

I'd love a CR3 to keep this CR2 in the 'soon' territory.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 25, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I completely get the gist of your meaning and your styles of shooting examples, I'm right there with you (see my gear list below) I just meant in the overall world of professional photography, especially those using a Canon system outside the studio, we might see more 50's if there was one that had those qualities. It's the whole 'Your focal lengths aren't necessarily my focal lengths, but I respect your choices' thing.
> ...



I'm not so sure.. the 85 is pretty good.. if you feel you can't use it wide open, get the 100f2 that's very good wide open.

Of the old mid level lenses (28f1.8, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 100f2.0) the 50f1.4 stands out as being a major weakness, partly in optics, but mostly in overall build and AF. I have the 100 and the 28, I went with the 50STM as it's AF is IMHO superior to the 1.4, and it's cheap enough to be disposable, for me the 1.4 isn't disposable. put ringUSM on the 50 and make it such that a dink on the front can't push the main barrel out of shape causing the lens AF to fail (i.e. like the 28, 85 or the 100) and I'd buy it. Sharper wide open is secondary, (but matters too).


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Of the old mid level lenses (28f1.8, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 100f2.0) the 50f1.4 stands out as being a major weakness, partly in optics, but mostly in overall build and AF. I have the 100 and the 28, I went with the 50STM as it's AF is IMHO superior to the 1.4, and it's cheap enough to be disposable, for me the 1.4 isn't disposable. put ringUSM on the 50 and make it such that a dink on the front can't push the main barrel out of shape causing the lens AF to fail (i.e. like the 28, 85 or the 100) and I'd buy it. Sharper wide open is secondary, (but matters too).



If the new mid-level 50mm stays with external focusing (internal bits telescoping out while focusing), I will eat my monitor.

The fix for what you described above (in red) is simple, accomplishable, and 100% will happen -- they will design an internal focusing lens. That's not an L lens luxury feature anymore.

The pic I always link on these rumors (below) is just a 35mm f/2 IS USM that I've doctored up. I really think the new 50 will look something highly similar though perhaps a shade longer in barrel., slightly different filter diameter, etc.

- A


----------



## romanr74 (Apr 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Of the old mid level lenses (28f1.8, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 100f2.0) the 50f1.4 stands out as being a major weakness, partly in optics, but mostly in overall build and AF. I have the 100 and the 28, I went with the 50STM as it's AF is IMHO superior to the 1.4, and it's cheap enough to be disposable, for me the 1.4 isn't disposable. put ringUSM on the 50 and make it such that a dink on the front can't push the main barrel out of shape causing the lens AF to fail (i.e. like the 28, 85 or the 100) and I'd buy it. Sharper wide open is secondary, (but matters too).
> ...



Did I ever mendion that i think people who make "everyone" statements are poorly informed/educated (to say it very very friendly)?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Did I ever mendion that i think people who make "everyone" statements are poorly informed/educated (to say it very very friendly)?



You just quoted two posts that did not have the word 'everyone' in it at all. Could you be more specific?

If you are referring to the 'everyone' in my frequently posted "canon please give us this lens" graphic, the use of that word is clearly being used for comedy purposes to express a plurality of folks who want such a lens. It's not being used to express an ignorant worldview or belittle others' opinions.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (May 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Did I ever mendion that i think people who make "everyone" statements are poorly informed/educated (to say it very very friendly)?
> ...



Keep your sense of humour ahsanford, you're going to need it over the next few years when you don't get your EF 50mm f/1.4 IS


----------

