# When the hell will I get my EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM?!



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2016)

All this new body speculation is taking the photography universe off-topic. 

_Where the hell is my new 50 prime?_ *C'MON.
*
- A


----------



## NancyP (Mar 1, 2016)

I am not hopeful. Sigma stole a march on them for image quality. Tamron stole a march on them for IS (granted, 45mm). People are still very happy with the rendering of the f/1.2 Canon 50 for portraiture, though more often the 85 f/1.2 is used. I would love a sharp-wide-open f/1.8 or f/2.0 50 with IS and not weighing a ton.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 1, 2016)

You already got it: it's made by Tamron and it's off by 5 mm


----------



## jma5terj (Mar 1, 2016)

I'd like one too but I'm making do with the 50 STM for now. I love my 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## wsheldon (Mar 1, 2016)

jma5terj said:


> I'd like one too but I'm making do with the 50 STM for now. I love my 35 f/2 IS.



Same here on the 50 STM. I hate the construction (although it's better than its predecessor), but it does deliver tremendous IQ for the money. Far better experience than the 1.4, which I never got on with.


----------



## mrzero (Mar 1, 2016)

I agree that the 50mm STM probably put a slowdown on this release as well. As much as I'd like to see the rumored new IS 50, I'm even more interested in the new IS 85mm that was rumored to accompany it. The 35mm IS doesn't seem to have dampened enthusiasm for the new 35mm L II. I'd love to put together a poor man's prime trinity here, and 24-28-35 isn't it.


----------



## Click (Mar 1, 2016)

Ahsanford, I voted "Next year" to give you some hope.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2016)

mrzero said:


> I agree that the 50mm STM probably put a slowdown on this release as well. As much as I'd like to see the rumored new IS 50, I'm even more interested in the new IS 85mm that was rumored to accompany it. The 35mm IS doesn't seem to have dampened enthusiasm for the new 35mm L II. I'd love to put together a poor man's prime trinity here, and 24-28-35 isn't it.



Agree.

I'd love a compact, light, sharp, modern, internal focusing, reliable rock-solid first party AF with USM set of primes.

I'd personally go 28 - 50 - 85, but 35s are a great, too.

As far as why the 50 and 85 are taking so long, I always forget that the old early 90s USM primes were a mid-level product at the time and the 24/28/35 were a lower end product at the time (no USM, squeaky AF motor, all that). So every time I get grouchy that Canon 'stopped' their IS refresh effort, they didn't. Technically, they _completed_ it. 

So now we need a _new_ IS refresh effort for those old USM lenses, the 28 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.4, the 85 f/1.8, etc.

- A


----------



## RGF (Mar 1, 2016)

Don't own a 50 prime. So no idea.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 1, 2016)

Canon expects all users of the plastic fantastic will update to the STM 50mm.
Only then we will be able to upgrade to a 50mm F1.4 IS.

In the future, when we upgraded to F1.4 IS, there will come a F1.2L ii, to spend the third time ...


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 1, 2016)

Click said:


> Ahsanford, I voted "Next year" to give you some hope.


I voted This Year to give me some hope.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 1, 2016)

I think we will see a 50 f/1.4 USM that will be optically similar to the Tamron 45 f/1.8 and the Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 

No IS.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 1, 2016)

It is likely that we will see a Canon 50mm F1.7 Image Stabilizer. :-X


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Canon expects all users of the plastic fantastic will update to the STM 50mm.
> Only then we will be able to upgrade to a 50mm F1.4 IS.



I don't disagree that's what happening, but everyone who is unhappy with the 50 f/1.4 USM is clearly willing to spend $349 for a 50 prime, so selling those people a $110 lens is leaving considerable money on the table, and Canon can't be happy about that.

There's a chasm in price and quality between the 50 f/1.8 STM and the 50L, 50 Art, etc., and Canon needs to fill that gap with an '8 out of 10 at everything' lens around $500-600. It would sell like hotcakes.

- A


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Canon expects all users of the plastic fantastic will update to the STM 50mm.
> ...


The Tamron 45mm F1.8 VC shook the market.
It can not take more than 18 months for Canon up your ass chair. 8)


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 1, 2016)

Ahsanford, you'll get your new 50mm Prime at the same time as I get my new 400f5.6 Prime.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I think we will see a 50 f/1.4 USM that will be optically similar to the Tamron 45 f/1.8 and the Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4
> 
> No IS.



Not buying it, respectfully. 

Please name me the last time Canon put out a [non-L] + [EF] + [USM] + [prime] lens that _didn't_ have IS. It's been a long time. Just skimming Northlight's EF lens chronology page, I believe it was 16 years ago with the non-L 100mm f/2.8 USM macro.

Now look at my chart again. If you were going to refresh those middle-level lenses and try to get roughly $600 for a new version, do you really Canon would just refresh the optical design and call it good? You do that with L lenses, but not something as consumer/enthusiast-oriented as a non-L prime. I think you need to clearly differentiate the old/new designs for the enthusiasts to get them to part ways with their cash, and a feature-based sell with IS immediately comes to mind.

But hey, I very well could be wrong.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Ahsanford, you'll get your new 50mm Prime at the same time as I get my new 400f5.6 Prime.



Don't you dare tangle your unfulfilled lens dreams with mine. 

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I think we will see a 50 f/1.4 USM that will be optically similar to the Tamron 45 f/1.8 and the Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4
> ...



What has non L got to do with it ? Do you mean L primes are less likely to have IS than a non L lens ?

More likely the aperture has more to do with it. You name me an f/1.4 lens that has IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> What has non L got to do with it ? Do you mean L primes are less likely to have IS than a non L lens ?
> 
> More likely the aperture has more to do with it. You name me an f/1.4 lens that has IS.



That's fair. I still think Canon will keep its L standard primes without IS for size/weight reasons whereas slower non-L lenses will get it.

The knuckleball, of course, is 'slower' in the context of a 50mm lens. You can uniquely make a small/light f/1.4 lens at the 50mm focal length, so it's a rare case of mid-level lens at a (nearly) top end speed.

So at a _family_ level, it makes sense all of them get IS. But, on the other hand, for something _already with f/1.4_, yes, adding IS introduces a boatload of questions: will they charge too much for it, will it steal the L's thunder, will it get really big/heavy, etc.

And THAT is why I call it the f/nooneknows IS USM. I'd rather they abandon the aperture (just a shade, say f/1.8 or f/2) than make it a pickle jar.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 1, 2016)

Can you "short" the 50STM?

Once the new 1.4 comes out a lot of STMs are going to appear on the second hand market.

Anway one spec I'd really like to see from it is vignetting of under 2 stops, and no coma in the corners.

cue wooshing and oinking sound.


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2016)

Get the Tammy, 45 is more like the human eye anyhow.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 1, 2016)

slclick said:


> Get the Tammy, 45 is more like the human eye anyhow.



cheers.. 

It does look fairly good (low coma) in the corners.. though 2 stops of vignetting on a 1.8 is not the same as a 1.4.

My No.1 though is accurate ringUSM. what's the point if F1.4 if you can't hit focus reliably.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Get the Tammy, 45 is more like the human eye anyhow.
> ...



+1. Same reason I won't get that Tamron or the Sigma Art. Sharp is lovely, IS is nice. But fire and forget AF you can bet your life on is paramount to me, esp. with larger aperture lenses.

Why don't the various review sites do hit-rate studies? That's an easy test to run, even if it's on a tripod on static targets. I'd love to see head to head with Art vs. L shot wide open.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 1, 2016)

I have no use for a 50mm lens with IS. Perhaps for video, and then I would want STM. Starting at about 135-200mm, IS becomes useful. I have too much subject movement to use slow shutter speeds.

Perhaps on a 1 inch sensor, 50mm with IS might fall into the range where it would benefit me.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 1, 2016)

I have no use for IS at all - well at least for the last 2 years. So I would be happy to see a new 50mm 1.4 (?) with just upgraded optics. I would also love to see a new 16-35 F4 L, 300 F2.8 L and 800 F5.6 L with no IS as well!
Not going to happen - but I can hope.................


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 2, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have no use for a 50mm lens with IS. Perhaps for video, and then I would want STM. Starting at about 135-200mm, IS becomes useful. I have too much subject movement to use slow shutter speeds.
> 
> Perhaps on a 1 inch sensor, 50mm with IS might fall into the range where it would benefit me.





johnf3f said:


> I have no use for IS at all - well at least for the last 2 years. So I would be happy to see a new 50mm 1.4 (?) with just upgraded optics. I would also love to see a new 16-35 F4 L, 300 F2.8 L and 800 F5.6 L with no IS as well!
> 
> Not going to happen - but I can hope.................



Certainly respect your opinions, which are shared by many. However, with the 16-35/4L IS and 35/2 IS (among others), Canon certainly sees a market opportunity for normal- to wide-angle IS, and I am part of that market (I own both these lenses).

When using a lens equipped with IS, you can always switch it off if you don't need it. But if you need it and don't have it, well ...

Canon would provide the most choice if they were to release every lens in both IS and non-IS variants, but that's not going to happen, either. And I do appreciate that those wanting non-IS versions of lenses only available with IS are paying (in $$, size, weight and image quality, however negligibly) for a feature they don't want.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Mar 2, 2016)

I too am hopeful for an EF 50mm IS USM. Wouldn't matter if it's f/1.8 . . . as long as it remains light, compact, is sharp wide-open, and with accurate AF.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 2, 2016)

I voted next year, but hope its sooner. Who knows?



rfdesigner said:


> Can you "short" the 50STM?
> 
> Once the new 1.4 comes out a lot of STMs are going to appear on the second hand market.



I'm one of those "getting by" with the STM until when/if the mythical 50/1.8 IS appears. The STM is a nice little lens, but not very sturdy and mine has started having AF problems. I probably won't bother to sell mine even when I buy a better 50mm prime since the money I'd get for the STM is hardly worth the effort to sell it. I'll keep it as a lens to keep in my pocket for emergency use, maybe hand it down to the kids.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 2, 2016)

bholliman said:


> I voted next year, but hope its sooner. Who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it's only 1.8 then I'll pass until my STM dies.

IS does nothing for depth of field


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2016)

Oh, I sold my STM, and I got what I paid for but then the buyer (after a month) sent me this.....


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> If it's only 1.8 then I'll pass until my STM dies.
> 
> IS does nothing for depth of field



Agree, buuuuut... 

1) Internal focusing is nice.
2) Far better build quality is nice.
3) For stills, USM obliterates STM. 
4) Distance scales are useful for rough range bracketing in super low light or street shooting.
5) I'd prefer a solid lens hood attachment, and I presume a new mid-level 50 would have one (the 24/28/35 hoods are terrific).
6) Three stops IS = three stops _latitude_ with either ISO or DOF when shooting static subjects in low light handheld. (I am in this situation constantly.)
7) FTM _mechanical_ focusing is worlds better than focus by wire. 

...so, IMHO, there's far more to the EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM value proposition than what 'nooneknows' turns out to be. In my mind, *this lens is much more about being a comprehensively better, full-featured lens much more than it is 'possibly slightly faster than the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM'*. 

So if 'f/nooneknows' turns out to be f/1.8, they'll get my money on day one without hesitation.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 2, 2016)

slclick said:


> Oh, I sold my STM, and I got what I paid for but then the buyer (after a month) sent me this.....



Brilliant!!!... you made my day!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2016)

slclick said:


> Oh, I sold my STM, and I got what I paid for but then the buyer (after a month) sent me this.....


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2016)

I was a bit more tactful in my response.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 2, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> If it's only 1.8 then I'll pass until my STM dies.
> 
> IS does nothing for depth of field



Agree, buuuuut... 

1) Internal focusing is nice.

yes but it doesn't make my photos better.

2) Far better build quality is nice.

yes but it doesn't make my photos better. (actually I'd like better build but bang for buck I can't complain about the STM)

3) For stills, USM obliterates STM. 

This one I really want and is one reason for rejecting the current 1.4 and the ART.. what's the point in f1.4 if the AF is flakey?

4) Distance scales are useful for rough range bracketing in super low light or street shooting.

I have an EG-S focus screen, I can see my DOF, for super low light there's live view, I haven't looked at distance scales since I gave up on my praktica gear.

5) I'd prefer a solid lens hood attachment, and I presume a new mid-level 50 would have one (the 24/28/35 hoods are terrific).

but it doesn't make the photos better... but yes I'd still like it.

6) Three stops IS = three stops _latitude_ with either ISO or DOF when shooting static subjects in low light handheld. (I am in this situation constantly.)

My subjects move, at least a little bit, I generally use AUTOISO with a minimum speed of 1/125... so yes nice if it's free and doesn't affect aperture but it doesn't make my photos any better.

7) FTM mechanical focusing is worlds better than focus by wire. 

yes but it doesn't make my photos better (though it does save battery which is much appreciated)


----------



## Kwwund (Mar 2, 2016)

I'd love a 50mm/f/1.4 IS but it will never happen. All the thought leaders say "you don't need IS because the lens is so fast, or else you should be using a tripod." By the same logic, no one would have more than one pair of shoes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2016)

Kwwund said:


> By the same logic, no one would have more than one pair of shoes.



See above - we were talking about bare feet. Or not.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2016)

Kwwund said:


> I'd love a 50mm/f/1.4 IS but it will never happen. All the thought leaders say "you don't need IS because the lens is so fast, or else you should be using a tripod." By the same logic, no one would have more than one pair of shoes.



Yeah, everyone who says 'you don't need IS for stills' with an f/1.4 lens must love capturing nighttime available light shots at ISO 12800. 

I'd rather shoot the same shot at ISO 1600 or have the latitude to stop down for more working DOF. If your subject isn't moving (a good deal of what I shoot), IS gets you that. It's clearly, obviously, undeniably useful.

Not all of us have a tripod on us, own a studio, prefer to add light to scenes, etc. Some of us would prefer our gear could do a little more in difficult/realtime/unorthodox photography situations. IS is a means to do that.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 2, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Kwwund said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love a 50mm/f/1.4 IS but it will never happen. All the thought leaders say "you don't need IS because the lens is so fast, or else you should be using a tripod." By the same logic, no one would have more than one pair of shoes.
> ...



Don't disagree. I just see an IS lens as a 50Macro replacement... say 50 f2_and_a_bit IS USM.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2016)

@ *ahsanford*, out of curiosity have you tried the _I'm going to keep talking about this lens ad infinitum until Canon gets so tired of it they make the lens just to shut me up_ strategy over on Canon's own forums? Unlike CR, I think they actually read those posts...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Don't disagree. I just see an IS lens as a 50Macro replacement... say 50 f2_and_a_bit IS USM.



I have to believe the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM must outsell the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro by a comfortable margin (but I honestly have no data). 

That 50 macro is sort of a duckbill platypus trying to do so much. It's not fast enough for portraiture, 1:2 macro is okay but I prefer working AF without tubes that a proper 1:1 macro gives, and though it hasn't been tested too much head to head against the 50 macro, I believe the 50 f/1.4 is a sharper optic. Overall, I see the 24-70 f/4L IS -- yeah, a zoom -- juggle standard and macro work as a 'hybrid' lens far better, but I recognize there are many devotees to that 50 macro.

I'm not shooting down your theory -- I welcome it -- but I'd wager there are 5x the folks waiting for an EF 50 f/1.4 USM replacement than there are folks pining for a 50mm f/2.5 Macro update, so if the f/nooneknows turns out to be 'f/2.something macro', I do not think it will sell very well.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ *ahsanford*, out of curiosity have you tried the _I'm going to keep talking about this lens ad infinitum until Canon gets so tired of it they make the lens just to shut me up_ strategy over on Canon's own forums? Unlike CR, I think they actually read those posts...



Would Bernie give his stump speech at the _Republican_ convention? I. THINK. NOT.

No, my good man. CR is my sounding board and this is where I will beat my drum. 

*If forever it will take, I volunteer for the first lifetime shift.*

- A


----------



## lightthief (Mar 2, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It is likely that we will see a Canon 50mm F1.7 Image Stabilizer. :-X



Ah, come on. Believe in Canon. They can do it better. They will give us a full third stop improvement over the tamron. 

I fear, Canon were shocked by the Art ond Tamrons 45 1.8, so they dumped their 2.0 IS and went back to the drawing board.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2016)

lightthief said:


> I fear, Canon were shocked by the Art ond Tamrons 45 1.8, so they dumped their 2.0 IS and went back to the drawing board.



Not so much:

1) Canon doesn't quake in its boots about Tamron lenses that will cost the same price as Canon's future non-L offering. Not one bit. Good on Tamron for spotting a market gap (a 45-55mm IS prime), but in the future state where the EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is available side by side with the Tamron for _about_ the same price (depending on the max aperture Canon ends up offering), I expect Tamron sales to plummet. Consider for comparision: who the hell would buy the 35mm f/1.8 IS Tamron for the same price as a first party Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM?

2) The EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is not competing with the Sigma Art -- in optical quality, weight, customer, etc.. That's for a future 50L to do.

- A


----------



## lightthief (Mar 2, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Consider for comparision: who the hell would buy the 35mm f/1.8 IS Tamron for the same price as a first party Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM?


Yes, that's right. Many people will prefer the first party (AF, service, maybe better resale price) over one third stop of light. At least, i would do it.



ahsanford said:


> 2) The EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is not competing with the Sigma Art -- in optical quality, weight, customer, etc.. That's for a future 50L to do.


You know that, many other people, and me, too. But i know people how prefer things with the best numbers. 1.4 seems to be better than x.x with IS. They will compare the non-L with the Art, especially when Canon's price will be close to the Art and the L will be far more expensive.

I hope i'm wrong, for Canon and my purse.


----------



## lightthief (Mar 2, 2016)

Ashanford, why didn't you offer "in the next two months" in your poll. The 24/28mm 2.8 IS were introduced in Feb. 2012 and i cannot remember any rumors before. Maybe we will be surprised by Canon again?

I keep my fingers crossed for us 

lightthief


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2016)

lightthief said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 2) The EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is not competing with the Sigma Art -- in optical quality, weight, customer, etc.. That's for a future 50L to do.
> ...



The price doesn't define these lenses as much for me. These are apples and oranges in so many other ways.

The Sigma Art puts IQ at the top of the list and chases that. It results in a massive pickle jar of a lens that takes great pictures.

The 50mm non-L Canon (present or future) is meant to only be 90% as good optically, but pack a ton of quality into a much smaller/lighter package. 

I personally disqualify that great Sigma 50 Art because primes shouldn't be (and don't have to be) pickle jars, and I strongly prefer rocksolid AF and IS more than I want the top dog resolution-tested lens.

Our needs vary, and so do the tools. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2016)

lightthief said:


> Ashanford, why didn't you offer "in the next two months" in your poll. The 24/28mm 2.8 IS were introduced in Feb. 2012 and i cannot remember any rumors before. Maybe we will be surprised by Canon again?
> 
> I keep my fingers crossed for us
> 
> lightthief



Why not? Too many false dawns. Too many rumors of a 50 f/1.4 USM replacement.

Believe you me, I would love a surprise refresh for sure. Sadly, given all the new bodies queued up for landing, this sure doesn't appear to be another 'Year of the Lens'. Further, if you paired such lens up with a body logically release-timing-wise, this lens would be (from a market perspective) logically released alongside a 6D2 -- which is going to be a while. 

- A


----------



## NancyP (Mar 3, 2016)

Currently when I want a 50, I use an adapted AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 on a 6D with the superfine screen. It's not a pickle jar - maybe only a caper jar. : Yes, the Sigma Art will blow the film-era Nikkor away for f/1.4 to f/2.0 overall image quality. But, the Nikkor is a pound lighter, and that makes a difference if I am shooting with a multiple lens kit and can afford some misses due to manual focus.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Mar 3, 2016)

For performance shooting I would love to have fast 50, 85 or 100, and 135 primes with IS. My 35 IS is stuck on the camera, or when I need reach I put on the 24-105 IS and crank the ISO. I've been shooting Canon (for 35mm format) since the new F1 but that Pentax with in body stabilization looks interesting. Want to see samples at 6400 to 8000 ISO.


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 3, 2016)

I'm betting will be announced with the new 5D IV


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 3, 2016)

Mount the new 35mm f/2 IS on a crop camera!

Boom! You're Welcome!


----------



## Gnocchi (Mar 3, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> All this new body speculation is taking the photography universe off-topic.
> 
> _Where the hell is my new 50 prime?_ *C'MON.
> *
> - A


I don't reckon it'll have image stabilisation! But I'd put 20 cents on it that it'll have the all new nano u.s.m.
It will still be 1.4 and have new upto date coatings and whatever. 
It won't be a beast everyone wants, it'll just get the job done. Thats the canon way!


----------



## jd7 (Mar 3, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> lightthief said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Similar to you, I had disqualified the Sigma 50 Art on size/weight grounds too ... but then I tried one out in a shop recently, and got bitten by the Sigma Art bug. That thing is impressive! I'd actually gone in to have a look at the Tamron 45 1.8 VC, and it's a nice lens, but I came away wanting the 50 Art (and, umm, well, owning a 35 Art) ... which is why I voted for hijacking your thread to talk about Siggy and the 50L 

Now I just need to remember ... I do not need a 50mm prime, I do not need a 50mm prime, I do not need a 50mm prime ...


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 3, 2016)

Hi ahsanford! 

I voted:
"Not sure, but I think it will ... crush your dreams, ahsanford"

Not because it will have STM but because it WON'T have IS. 

I think Canon will make a 50/1.4 MkII and that's it. 
I could live with that one because I'd take f1.4 over an f1.8 or f2.0 with IS.
But I don't believe we'll see it before 2017


----------



## docsmith (Mar 3, 2016)

Sorry, I went dream crushing. I also think it will likely not have IS. But, I think we need to remember when the 24/28 mm f/2.8 IS and 35 mm f/2 IS were released, the price point was very high. About $800-900 here in the US. Someone in Canon thought they would sell at that price point. They didn't. And soon, not 3-4 years later, but 3 months to a year later the prices started to drop dramatically. Now they are $500-$600.

Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 3, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.



I agree, but think it's a bit too simplistic.

Canon's lenses face competition with Tamron's SP 45mm & 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD, so in order to prevent loss of sales, Canon would have to eventually come out with 50mm & 85mm IS lenses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 3, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.
> ...


May God hear you ...


----------



## docsmith (Mar 3, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.
> ...



It is simplistic, agreed. But I think your logic could go another direction. At least the businesses I've been involved in do not target areas that are most competitive. If anything, they avoid them. The margins get too low. Instead, they target markets that give them the greatest return on their investment or greatest profit margin on a per unit basis. 

I do think Canon will eventually update the 50 f/1.4, but I really would not hold my breath. Btw, as a previous owner, I loved that lens, amazing from f/2.8-f/8 but upgraded to the Sigma 50 Art for better performance wider open.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 3, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have no use for a 50mm lens with IS. Perhaps for video, and then I would want STM. Starting at about 135-200mm, IS becomes useful. I have too much subject movement to use slow shutter speeds.
> 
> Perhaps on a 1 inch sensor, 50mm with IS might fall into the range where it would benefit me.



+1

I'm in that camp as well. Even still, portrait type shots, I don't like to go below 1/60th. So using that as my floor, at 135mm, IS gets me a stop. It starts to become a nice to have and even more so once I hit 200mm. 

The other thing is I like high keeper rates. So even though Canon may advertise 4 stops I don't usually feel it is ever that good, at least to consistently hit the shot. Reviewers always like to show that shot they got at 1/5th a second but it's not like they get that consistently. So even when I have IS I try to keep it within 2 stops, sometimes push to 3 type of usage. I'd rather push the ISO (especially with todays sensors), use speedlites, or tripod the camera (say night cityscape or something) before pushing the IS system too far.


----------



## lightthief (Mar 3, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Sorry, I went dream crushing. I also think it will likely not have IS. But, I think we need to remember when the 24/28 mm f/2.8 IS and 35 mm f/2 IS were released, the price point was very high. About $800-900 here in the US. Someone in Canon thought they would sell at that price point. They didn't. And soon, not 3-4 years later, but 3 months to a year later the prices started to drop dramatically. Now they are $500-$600.
> 
> Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.



ahsanford's arguments were a hard hit to my wishes/dreams... but, you... you have killed them  
Come on Canon, proof them wrong!

I want a 50 IS for low light and sometimes for video.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 3, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



IMHO, Canon might choose that path from time to time, but not as a method.

As a method, that would translate to Canon folding whenever someone makes a grab at a spot in it's line of lenses (and nowadays, that happens in both the low end and the high end), which would lead to too much lost sales, and make Canon look like a loser.

I think Canon has gone your way in some cases, e.g. releasing an EF 11-24mm f/4L USM rather than going head to head with an EF 14-24mm f/2.8. I doubt that would be the case with mainstream lenses.

My money is on Canon will eventually bring out an uber 50mm f/1.4, as well as a 50mm with IS.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 3, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> My money is on Canon will eventually bring out an uber 50mm f/1.4, as well as a 50mm with IS.



Mine too. They will eventually. But this is why I mentioned the 50/85/100 mm prime refresh maybe moving down in their priorities. But, now that they have updated most of the common/popular zoom lenses, I am really curious to see what their next emphasis will be. EFS lenses? EF-m lenses? EF "L" primes? Regular primes? And I could still see a couple of common/popular zooms (UWA f/2.8, etc). 



lightthief said:


> ahsanford's arguments were a hard hit to my wishes/dreams... but, you... you have killed them
> Come on Canon, proof them wrong!
> 
> I want a 50 IS for low light and sometimes for video.



Sorry.


----------



## lightthief (Mar 3, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Sorry.



okay


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.
> ...



This back and forth is very familiar:


For the 20/28/50/85/100 USM non-L lenses, there are those who believe an optical design refresh + modernization (internal focusing, better build, etc.) is all that is needed -- make a "II" version, make it better, and that's all you need.


...and then there are the rest of us, who think it's an far easier market road for Canon to take to do the above and slap IS on it. Because IS jumps out in the product title and differentiates the lens from its predecessor much more clearly than "new optical formal, internal focusing, better hood attachment, etc."
I'm in the second group.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > My money is on Canon will eventually bring out an uber 50mm f/1.4, as well as a 50mm with IS.
> ...



Short answer: all money would be on 16-35 f/2.8L III as the biggest hole in the professional 'should be updated fairly often' lineup, and then after that I expect a slow but steady stream of super duper L standard/short tele primes with the BR gunk in it: 24, 50, 85, 135, etc.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Mar 3, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Exactly my thoughts. Fast UWA zoom would be next. Then the "L" primes. My thought there is that the 85 f/1.2 L is a very popular lens with one issue I hear constantly, AF speed. I can see them updating it with BR (imagine minimal fringing at f/1.2?) and making its AF much faster (portrait and indoor sports lens). I think that would sell and sell at high margins.

Back to the 50 f/1.4 topic...I am definitely in the group that thinks they will provide a new optical formula in any update. Especially if they include IS, as that alone would alter the optical design (unless I am very much mistaken).


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Back to the 50 f/1.4 topic...I am definitely in the group that thinks they will provide a new optical formula in any update. Especially if they include IS, as that alone would alter the optical design (unless I am very much mistaken).



I 100% expect a new optical design. The old one is over 20 years old and (one would presume) the patent protections have expired. Forgetting the obvious optical improvements we'd expect, it behooves Canon to tweak the design so that they can patent it and try to keep Yongnuo's of the world at bay.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 3, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> lightthief said:
> 
> 
> > I fear, Canon were shocked by the Art ond Tamrons 45 1.8, so they dumped their 2.0 IS and went back to the drawing board.
> ...


Me. 

I actually traded in my 35/1.4 L for the Tamron 35/1.8 + UV filter.


----------



## Khufu (Mar 3, 2016)

Over in mirrorless APS-C land:

Sony do a fantastic pair of affordable 35mm and 50mm OSS lenses... the M2 would be a beast of a wee casual/"arty"-videography (+ audio) cam with similar lenses... Sony only put mic jacks on their stupid-expensive releases. Sometimes it feels like these companies collaborate to not-quite-offer what the people* want!
*read: 'me' (what the ME wants!)


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 3, 2016)

I'm seeing two 50mm lenses coming...

1, a f1.8 IS version similar in build to the 35mm f2 IS, this will come with a macro converter add on kit
2, a f1.4 non IS, but L level super sharp lens of perfection

The f1.8 STM remains as the plastic fantastic, the f1.2 L remains as an artistic speciality lens.

Bring it on ! Now !

Plus a EF-M native too please ;-)


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 7, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.



Tamron's 85mm f/1.8 VC price was announced at $749. If the price sticks, Canon should be able to charge an extra $100.


----------



## jedy (Mar 7, 2016)

Well, the main appeal of the current, popular f1.4 is the price. It is a good lens for many cash strapped photographers to experience their first prime lens. Do Canon simply replace it with an updated version for little or no extra cost, like the f1.8 STM or do they produce a 1.4 IS at twice the price (like the 24, 28 and 35) and aim to compete with Sigma and Tamron? I think it would be a shame if it wasn't 1.4, IS or not.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 7, 2016)

jedy said:


> Well, the main appeal of the current, popular f1.4 is the price. It is a good lens for many cash strapped photographers to experience their first prime lens. Do Canon simply replace it with an updated version for little or no extra cost, like the f1.8 STM or do they produce a 1.4 IS at twice the price (like the 24, 28 and 35) and aim to compete with Sigma and Tamron? I think it would be a shame if it wasn't 1.4, IS or not.



If the IS version starts at >$700, I think Canon can keep the non-IS version on the market until the IS version's price drops so low, the IS-less model stops selling.

As for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, its in a different spot, along with the Nikon 58mm f/1.4 and Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus. I think Canon will release another lens in this spot, which cost closer to $1,500.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Me.
> 
> I actually traded in my 35/1.4 L for the Tamron 35/1.8 + UV filter.



How do you like it? Can you compare/contrast it with the 35L you got rid of? Do you miss the f/1.4? Is the Tamron usable wide open?

-Thanks


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 7, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Me.
> ...



This is OT, but head here for the mother lode of 35mm head to head review work from CR's reviewing partner Dustin Abbott:

http://dustinabbott.net/2016/01/35mm-shootout/

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


Sorry for not getting back to you guys. With all the 1D-X II and 5D"x" rumors I completely lost track of this one.

I didn't like the 35L/1.4 wide open, and ended up using it more at f/2 or f/2.8most of the time. While sharpness was okay in the center of frame at f/1.4 it was not fantastic. The corners were quite soft at maximum aperture and I didn't like the background blur characteristics, especially when for example shooting with strong highlights filtering through trees. (The edges of the blur circles were harsh.) Chromatic aberration was quite severe as well. 

The strength of my 35L was that its autofocus was extremely fast and accurate, however I found that this was not as useful for me at this focal length. When shooting events I generally wanted more depth of field than 35/1.4 offered and more of these low light shots would be shots where I'd have people or groups pose so AF speed was less critical and AF accuracy would be sufficient.

Anyway, so onto the Tamron. Yes, it is usable wide open.

You can pixel-peep the crops on TDP for sharpness:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1003&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
It also holds up pretty well on the 5DsR and I have no reservations using it on 18-20MP APS-C bodies.

Vignette is low compared to say the 35/2 IS or the f/1.4 lenses at their maximum aperture. For my low light shooting this is an important consideration. If you are shooting at ISO-1600 or ISO-3200 and you need to brighten corners by more than 2 stops then they become extremely noisy. So I highly regard low vignette.

I consider the AF accuracy to be reliable but slow. At least 30-50% slower than the 35L USM.

Then onto the Tamron triple act: Vibration Compensation, close-focus capability and weather sealing. These three combine to make the Tamron a great option for my travel kit. That and the fact that it performs well on both FF and APS-C makes it very versatile.
I've included a comparison with my 60D+35VC and 5D-III+40STM. Remember that my 5D-III loses weather-sealing status when using the 40STM whereas the 60D retains its weather sealing status when the 35VC is attached.

While I love the Tamron for my purposes, it is not a perfect lens. I've already touched on the slow AF speed, but (like the 35L) it also suffers from a purple fringing problem with extreme contrast transitions. Lastly there is one more issue, which I believe is field-curvature related, that I happened to pick up when shooting stars. The tangential and radial planes of sharp focus appear to curve in opposite directions. So If you defocus the stars slightly then astigmatism is increased and you'll render peripheral stars as seagulls or comets depending on which direction you bias focus.

This was my decision for my needs, but I expect others priorities to be different and come to different conclusions on what is workable for them.

p.s. Ideally I'd like to get the 35L II to use for paid work and night sky, but I wont sell the Tamron which I'd still keep for use in a lighter travel kit and for casual shooting.


----------

