# EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Mentioned Again



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 6, 2015)

```
<p>Our original source for the upcoming Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM has let us know that the previously “leaked” image of the lens was definitely a fake, which is something that was figured out relatively quickly by folks on the forum.</p>
<p>Our source says about the physical design of the new lens:</p>
<blockquote><p>The diameter of the lens body is the same, not variable like in the picture. The focus ring is also not as wide as in the fake picture.</p></blockquote>
<p>We’re still expecting to see this announced sometime in April, with availability coming soon after.</p>
```


----------



## lintoni (Apr 6, 2015)

Yes, but when will the Yongnuo clone arrive?


----------



## kirbyzhou (Apr 6, 2015)

So, no IS and keep the old optics design?


----------



## mrzero (Apr 6, 2015)

Does your source have any thoughts on why we aren't getting the 50mm IS version yet? It seems like this is way overdue, and an STM 1.8 isn't going to entice many of us waiting for the IS version.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 6, 2015)

It seems to me that the Canon 50mm F1.8 STM will compete with YONGNUO, and should be priced below $ 300. It would be difficult to keep the price below $ 300 if Canon includes Image Stabilizer.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2015)

kirbyzhou said:


> So, no IS and keep the old optics design?



Possible, but I think the story was more referring to the _shape of the *body* of the lens_ -- sounds like it will have a constant outer diameter (like we might expect in a budget lens) and not flare out around the focus ring as the fake photo showed.

No IS is a fair guess but we're not sure yet. We don't know. If there will only* be this lens and the 50L in our future, then this lens will have IS. But most would argue that it's a _three_ layer cake with (current --> future):


50 f/1.8 --> this rumored new lens, likely a 50 f/1.8 STM *without* IS
50 f/1.4 USM --> 50 f/nooneknows IS USM
50 f/1.2L USM --> 50 f/1.2L II 

(*No, the Canon 50 f/2.5 Macro is 50 by coincidence. I don't really consider it one of Canon's 50 primes. Yep, I said it. )

But you bring up a fair question about the lens formula: for cost reasons, can Canon just dump the vast majority of the same lens elements and such into a new body with STM focusing? Or does STM (or possibly Yongnuo's penchant for cloning) mean that Canon must tweak the optical design?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems to me that the Canon 50mm F1.8 STM will compete with YONGNUO, and should be priced below $ 300. It would be difficult to keep the price below $ 300 if Canon includes Image Stabilizer.



It'll be under $300 for sure. Keep in mind that the current nifty fifty that this STM lens would replace only costs about $115. So I think this lens will be a modernization of the nifty fifty to STM and not include IS, and run about $150 or so.

But even though I don't think it will have IS, remember some IS lenses are cheap as hell due to manufacturing volume and elimination of some creature comforts (like a metal mount, internal focusing, non-rotating front element, etc.). Canon's been making different versions of 18-55 IS kit lenses for non-kit sale around $150 for quite some time.

- A


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 6, 2015)

Sounding more like a 50mm pancake every time it's mentioned - £150, bargain... Then a f1.8 IS as the replacement to the f1.4, at say £400 boo hiss !


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 6, 2015)

Although, Lensbaby are popping a f1.6 55mm prime out onto the market tomorrow for probably about £300 - I'd imagine that it will be manual focus though :-/


----------



## lintoni (Apr 6, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> Sounding more like a 50mm pancake every time it's mentioned - £150, bargain... Then a f1.8 IS as the replacement to the f1.4, at say £400 boo hiss !


I don't see where you're getting a pancake from???


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Sounding more like a 50mm pancake every time it's mentioned - £150, bargain... Then a f1.8 IS as the replacement to the f1.4, at say £400 boo hiss !
> ...



Speculation to be sure, but in fairness, every *STM prime* Canon has ever produced -- EF-S 24 STM, EF 40 STM, EF-M 22 STM -- is a pancake. This 50 could be as well.

That said, this lens is a 'gateway prime' to buying more expensive primes. In that light, I think it should have roughly similar ergonomics/handling/form factor as a more expensive lens, so that:


Once you've been shooting with the 50 f/1.8 STM, other primes will feel familiar in your hands
Comparing your 50 f/1.8 STM to other lenses will logically _geometrically_ make sense -- "oh, that's a nicer focus ring", "Oh, there's a switch for IS on that nicer lens?"

And then there's the notion that Canon might not change the lens optical setup too much because they've been making it forever at a very low cost. 

So -- all things considered -- my money is on this lens having some kind of short barrel like the current nifty fifty. I don't think it will be a pancake. But I could be wrong here.

- A


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 6, 2015)

lintoni said:


> I don't see where you're getting a pancake from???



The nifty fifty replacement has to be cheap, why tool up with a bespoke lens body when you already have a cheap body in the 24/40mm pancakes that you could share tooling costs with. There's no IS, so you don't need a larger body like the 24/28/35mm IS primes, the lens also features STM, which has been put to good use and fits in the existing 22/24/40mm pancakes that Canon produce.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 6, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see where you're getting a pancake from???
> ...


From the initial post in this thread, it would appear that CR's source has physically seen the lens (or at least an image of it). If it was a pancake lens, do you not think it would have been described as such?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 6, 2015)

lintoni said:


> From the initial post in this thread, it would appear that CR's source has physically seen the lens (or at least an image of it). If it was a pancake lens, do you not think it would have been described as such?



Not necessarily - the source may be tied into a non-disclosure contract, or perhaps isn't as well informed as they would like to think they are. My views are purely speculation, just as everyone else's, it's called fun !


----------



## lintoni (Apr 6, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > From the initial post in this thread, it would appear that CR's source has physically seen the lens (or at least an image of it). If it was a pancake lens, do you not think it would have been described as such?
> ...


Sounds more like a semi-disclosure contract.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > From the initial post in this thread, it would appear that CR's source has physically seen the lens (or at least an image of it). If it was a pancake lens, do you not think it would have been described as such?
> ...



+1. Super fun to speculate. That's why I'm here!

This gets into *who* is leaking info here at CR, Northlight, Digicame, Photo Rumors, etc. I'm sure it's a mixed bag of sources, but my money would be on a combination of early adopter test photographers and large internet storefront folks (who have access to marketing materials before items get listed). And some may be legit Canon-approved leaks to keep folks believing that the item they really want is right around the corner.

I'd be really surprised if a North American based rumor site has a source in Canon in Japan somewhere (corporate, in a factory, a Canon supplier partner, etc.). Leaks from those sources are professional death sentences, and most leading tech companies don't make it easy to do. A lot of companies protect leaks a manner not far off from counter-intelligence movie: codified false leaks are dropped to specific folks, and whichever leaks get out walks right back to the very small list of people who saw the original item. Apple has been reported to use such tactics, and it appears to work quite well.

- A


----------



## Frage (Apr 6, 2015)

How will it compare to the 40mm stm?
I can not be cheaper. So, I asume it could replace the 50mm 1,4. because it will be certainly sharper wide open.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 6, 2015)

Using only the logic (I'm not optical engineer) I would say this 50mm F1.8 STM will have similar mechanics to 40mm pancake, but it should be higher, because F1.8 requires more optical elements.

I would not call it pancake, but it could be something like a pancake with yeast, which would be about the size of the current Canon 50mm F1.8. Perhaps 4 centimeter in length, and a barrel extending over the focus.


----------



## Joey (Apr 6, 2015)

As I understand it, there are no 50mm pancake lenses on the market for SLR cameras. A 50mm lens must have its optical centre 50mm from the focal plane at infinity focus. That's rather a thick pancake. 40mm lenses can be made very flat because 40mm from the focal plane is not far beyond the lens throat. The EFS 24mm pancake lens has its rear element recessed into the lens throat. Wider angle lenses use complex retrofocus design, resulting in an optical centre of the lens beyond the rear element of the lens. Conversely telephoto lenses are designed so that the optical centre of the lens is beyond the outer element of the lens. Both techniques require additional lens elements and complex distortion correction strategies. A pancake lens doesn't have the space or, usually, the budget, to incorporate such technology, so for full frame or cropped sensor SLR cameras, pancake lenses are going to continue to be around the 24-40mm focal length range.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 6, 2015)

Joey said:


> As I understand it, there are no 50mm pancake lenses on the market for SLR cameras. A 50mm lens must have its optical centre 50mm from the focal plane at infinity focus. That's rather a thick pancake. 40mm lenses can be made very flat because 40mm from the focal plane is not far beyond the lens throat. The EFS 24mm pancake lens has its rear element recessed into the lens throat. Wider angle lenses use complex retrofocus design, resulting in an optical centre of the lens beyond the rear element of the lens. Conversely telephoto lenses are designed so that the optical centre of the lens is beyond the outer element of the lens. Both techniques require additional lens elements and complex distortion correction strategies. A pancake lens doesn't have the space or, usually, the budget, to incorporate such technology, so for full frame or cropped sensor SLR cameras, pancake lenses are going to continue to be around the 24-40mm focal length range.


I believe it would be technically possible to make a pancake lens 50mm, if the maximum aperture was just F2.8. But such hypothetical lens would be unnecessary when there is already a 40mm F2.8.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 6, 2015)

I'd pick one of the upgraded f/1.8 lenses up if:

1.) More than 5 aperture blades, preferably rounded ones (why not?).
2.) At least a little less flimsy.
3.) AF smoother, less jerky and "buzzy".
4.) Under $300.

If they also tweaked the optics to make it a little sharper in some way, preferably when wide open, then I'd run not walk to get one.

I am just not that worked up over IS. I think the other items above are more important.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 6, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> I'd pick one of the upgraded f/1.8 lenses up if:
> 
> 1.) More than 5 aperture blades, preferably rounded ones (why not?).
> 2.) At least a little less flimsy.
> ...


Your requirements are quite realistic, and every reason to believe that Canon will offer a decent upgrade, below $ 300.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 6, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> I'd pick one of the upgraded f/1.8 lenses up if:
> 
> 1.) More than 5 aperture blades, preferably rounded ones (why not?).
> 2.) At least a little less flimsy.
> ...



Agree. Those are reasonable expectations. That lens is likely to occur.

I, personally, will pass on that one and wait for a few extra nice things for the future 50 f/nooneknows* IS USM:


Rock solid ring USM that is fast, accurate and consistent
Internal focusing -- no externally telescoping leading element.
IS
*Perhaps a fraction of a stop faster (we've heard many rumors of f/1.4 IS and f/1.8 IS)

But that's just me being a very consistent obsessive. I want a 50mm version of the 35 f/2 IS USM very, very much. 

- A


----------



## lintoni (Apr 7, 2015)

Joey said:


> As I understand it, there are no 50mm pancake lenses on the market for SLR cameras. A 50mm lens must have its optical centre 50mm from the focal plane at infinity focus. That's rather a thick pancake. 40mm lenses can be made very flat because 40mm from the focal plane is not far beyond the lens throat. The EFS 24mm pancake lens has its rear element recessed into the lens throat. Wider angle lenses use complex retrofocus design, resulting in an optical centre of the lens beyond the rear element of the lens. Conversely telephoto lenses are designed so that the optical centre of the lens is beyond the outer element of the lens. Both techniques require additional lens elements and complex distortion correction strategies. A pancake lens doesn't have the space or, usually, the budget, to incorporate such technology, so for full frame or cropped sensor SLR cameras, pancake lenses are going to continue to be around the 24-40mm focal length range.


As I understand it, a 50mm lens could (conceivably) be a pancake, if it included a magnifying element in its design.


----------



## OMD (Apr 7, 2015)

Very disappointed it's not going to have IS. It goes from a must purchase to a probably not. IS is just so useful for video.


----------



## richro (Apr 7, 2015)

If it's not a pancake, IS, or f/1.4, I'm not interested.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Apr 7, 2015)

Just face it, Canon will get your money with the 50mm f1.8 STM, and will get your money again with the 50mm f1.4 IS USM. lol Canon has the correct strategy, despite the gripes of forum peeps. I mean who will buy the $200 1.8 if they already bought the $800 1.4 IS?


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 7, 2015)

If there are 2 options, I’m more interested in a f/1.4 – f/2 with USM than a f/1.8 STM, as I expect the USM will also be the ‘superior’ of the 2 (similar to how Canon’s current f/1.4 is overall superior to the f/1.8 – also in build quality).

I have recently been thinking, a f/1.6 could be a great compromise (cf Lensbaby's 55mm f/1.6 possibility)… 

What I would like is an EF Canon 50mm prime lens soon, with IS and great image quality (IQ) wide open, please! 

Paul


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 7, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> Sounding more like a 50mm pancake every time it's mentioned...


Hi Haydn! 

Although rumors and guessing is nice I can't follow your thought. 
As lintoni pointed out, there would have been information on this from this source.

And as far as I understand optical lens design there is a limit for good pancake lenses in focal length and aperture, depending on the sensor size as well. And as This seems to become a FF lens (as EF) it is quite difficult.
Or could you find any (good) 50/1.8 pancake lens (for FF) from other manufacturer?
Me not. But I am willing to learn.

But here I am very sure that they will improve the actual optical design and not make something completely new.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 7, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> *Just face it, Canon will get your money with the 50mm f1.8 STM, and will get your money again with the 50mm f1.4 IS USM*. lol Canon has the correct strategy, despite the gripes of forum peeps. I mean who will buy the $200 1.8 if they already bought the $800 1.4 IS?


No they won't. I got fed up of waiting for a decent f/1.4 upgrade, so Sigma received my pennies.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Apr 7, 2015)

lintoni said:


> No they won't. I got fed up of waiting for a decent f/1.4 upgrade, so Sigma received my pennies.



An excellent lens, but at what cost? The Sigma (815g) weighs more than the 24-70 f/2.8 (805g), which is a very large lens. 

My 24-70 f/4 (600g) feels pretty good on my 6D, but the 35mm f/2 IS (335g) feels perfect to me. I like Sigmas balls-to-the-wall approach but I enjoy a lens that's about half the weight of their 50.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 7, 2015)

If that lens has no IS I am NOT interested - the 40mm will be good enough.
Some say "a fast lens doesn't need IS" - not my opinion. Large aperture lenses are ideal for IS because it extends their usage in low light furthermore in situations where a tripod is not allowed or not ideal.




pj1974 said:


> If there are 2 options, I’m more interested in a f/1.4 – f/2 with USM than a f/1.8 STM, as I expect the USM will also be the ‘superior’ of the 2 (similar to how Canon’s current f/1.4 is overall superior to the f/1.8 – also in build quality).
> 
> I have recently been thinking, a f/1.6 could be a great compromise (cf Lensbaby's 55mm f/1.6 possibility)…
> 
> ...



100% consensus with you last statement and 1.6 would be sufficient (but I like more the 1.4 because it is easier to calculate exposure with standard aperture values).

If Canon doesn't deliver an EF 50mm/1.x IS USM (ii) lens in the next ~12 months and there is a strong need for 1.4/50mm I think about converting my FD 1.4 50mm S.S.C. which performs great on my EOS M. Just gone full frame with two 5D classic - the FD lens will easily deliver great IQ at f/1.4 on the 5MPix of the 5D classic in its APS-C region if it delivers good IQ on an EOS M ...

But looking at the annountced 5D flavours with 50MPIx sensors I am absolutely shure Canon will deliver a mark ii of at least one of both lenses, the EF 50/1.4 and EF 50/1.2 - to give options beyond Sigma or Zeiss choices.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 7, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > No they won't. I got fed up of waiting for a decent f/1.4 upgrade, so Sigma received my pennies.
> ...


The size and weight are a compromise that I decided to accept. There are some benefits, in that it shares 77mm filters with most of my other lenses. 
At the moment, there is no 50mm lens in Canon's line-up that meets with the compromises that I'd accept. The L is an expensive speciaity portrait lens, the 1.8 is a budget design that is very good for its price, but...
If they'd come out with a decent refresh of their f/1.4 with a ring USM and reliability issues sorted, and IQ slightly improved on their current model, I'd have been a customer for such a lens. IS would be the cherry on that particular cake. But you can't take photos with a nonexistent lens.


----------



## pulsiv (Apr 7, 2015)

I don't get it... who needs an IS on a 50mm prime lens that is f/1.8 or brighter? 
I'd rather drink a beer if my hands tremble.


----------



## brianleighty (Apr 7, 2015)

pulsiv said:


> I don't get it... who needs an IS on a 50mm prime lens that is f/1.8 or brighter?
> I'd rather drink a beer if my hands tremble.


Video is the main market but then again take that 1.8 and and IS and now you can shoot still life in even lower light.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 7, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Solar Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



Everyone is different, but personally I really don't mind, or even notice, a couple hundred grams difference in lens weight, and size doesn't bother me either until things get to a size that makes the Canon worker gnomes reach for the white paint instead of the black. . 
Good IQ and a competitive price matter a lot more to me, and I actually like a lens that feels solid rather than one that is feather light and too little to grip and work with easily.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2015)

pulsiv said:


> I don't get it... who needs an IS on a 50mm prime lens that is f/1.8 or brighter?
> I'd rather drink a beer if my hands tremble.



Here's an old passage on why I'd rather have an f/2.8 IS over an f/1.4 lens (from another thread about another lens). The same is true even when comparing f/1.8 to f/1.8 IS per your question.

_I would love IS. I'm a handheld, available light shooter who often ends up in the ISO 3200 - 6400 range on my 5D3. I'd take IS on everything if I could.

In low light / non-moving subject scenes, IS simply buys you speed and options. IS lets you either bring the ISO down to something more reasonable or lets you stop the lens down to gain more DOF and sharpness. 

Remember, a huge aperture lens like an F/1.4 might seem a creative opportunity, but lack of IS on it will make that F/1.4 a light-driven necessity that punishes you when you don't want a small DOF. 

Put differently, an F/1.4 lens might seem better than (say) an F/2.8 IS lens, but *if you always have to slam the F/1.4 wide open to net a long enough shutter, your shots will be soft and have a limited DOF*. Stopping the F/2.8 down to F/4 will net sharper shots with more working DOF, so in low light, and for what I shoot, I'd choose the F/2.8 IS over the F/1.4 every time.
_
- A


----------



## Act444 (Apr 7, 2015)

I completely agree. In fact, for that very reason I've found myself using the 24-105 at events where I'd normally use the 24-70 2.8 for that very reason. F2.8 is awesome...until it is time for that group shot or still portrait, then you get hosed having to stop down and no IS. I find I actually take more high-ISO shots with the 2.8 then with the 4 due to the lack of IS (but the shots with the 2.8 have a look that you just can't get with the 4, so...)

Anyway I think there is a place for both types of lenses. Until Canon finally comes out with a 24-70 2.8 IS anyway.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2015)

Act444 said:


> I completely agree. In fact, for that very reason I've found myself using the 24-105 at events where I'd normally use the 24-70 2.8 for that very reason. F2.8 is awesome...until it is time for that group shot or still portrait, then you get hosed having to stop down and no IS. I find I actually take more high-ISO shots with the 2.8 then with the 4 due to the lack of IS (but the shots with the 2.8 have a look that you just can't get with the 4, so...)
> 
> Anyway I think there is a place for both types of lenses. Until Canon finally comes out with a 24-70 2.8 IS anyway.



Yep. 

Weird anecdote along those lines. I was in a restaurant some time ago and had my rig with me. I wanted a snap of the four of us at our table, and it was an old cocktail lounge semi-circular booth. It was dark as all get out in there and a flash was not an option, but I handed my 5D3 and 28 f/2.8 IS to another restaurant patron to take the shot.

Since we were in a weird booth where we couldn't pile on to one side of the table, I stopped down to f/5 or so and needed ISO 10,000 to cover for that. (Yeah. 10,000.)

But the guy I gave the camera to owned an SLR as well, and his eyes exploded when he saw ISO 10,000. He politely implied wasn't on top of it settings-wise, dropped the ISO down to 3200, slammed it open to f/2.8 and took the shot. He was very proud of himself.

*I* was in focus, which was great. My friends? Not so much. 

That scenario goes from difficult to outright impossible with an f/1.4 non-IS lens. To get everyone in field with that, _you'd still need to stop down_, and the ISO would have been stratospheric without IS.

- A


----------



## bholliman (Apr 7, 2015)

I've been in the market for a new 50mm prime for some time, but am holding off waiting to see what Canon is going to do. If they don't announce a new 50 IS prime, I'll probably buy a Sigma Art 50. I rented a Sigma over the Christmas holidays and loved everything about it other than its size and weight. I'm OK with a lens that size (similar to my standard zoom), but would love to have a small/light lens similar to my 35/2 IS with image stabilization.

I agree with the comments from Ahsanford and Act444 about advantages of IS lenses. IS just provides more options and allows hand held shots in really low light without razor thin DOF. I can get sharp pictures using my 35/2 IS at shutter speeds under 1/8 of a second that would require a 3-4x faster shutter speed with my 24-70 2.8 at higher ISO.


----------



## degos (Apr 12, 2015)

IS is lovely for non-moving subjects ( _e.g. if you can persuade the dinner party to stop talking for a moment _) but unfortunately in Canon's eyes means the opportunity for huge price premium.




The 50mm 1.8 is affordable even for a kid wanting to move-up from kit lens. A few months saving pocket-money and he can have his first prime lens.


The 40mm 2.8 is next but probably not of much interest to such a beginner ( max aperture fairly useless indoors )


Then there's a yawning chasm to the old but reliable mid-range 50 / 85 / 100. 


And then another leap to the recent IS-overhauls of the wide-angles aimed at the amateur / low-budget video crowd.

If they go bells-and-whistles on the 50mm 1.8 replacement they won't have anything on the market under £100. Perhaps that's what they want, but I think it would just corral young & beginning photographers towards mirrorless.


----------

