# Any News On Canon 50mm Image Stabilized Lens ?



## Nitroman (Jun 9, 2015)

Would love to know if and when Canon are likely to release an image stabilized 50mm full frame lens ? 

Ideally f1.2 or f1.4 ..!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 9, 2015)

Cuing ahsanford's "attn Canon, we want this not this" pic in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## bereninga (Jun 9, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Cuing ahsanford's "attn Canon, we want this not this" pic in 3... 2... 1...



lmao Wait for it...


----------



## mrzero (Jun 9, 2015)

The announcement has been held up due to problems with the included oxygen mask, needed to revive those of us who have been holding our breath waiting for the lens.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 9, 2015)

mrzero said:


> The announcement has been held up due to problems with the included oxygen mask, needed to revive those of us who have been holding our breath waiting for the lens.



You're saying they used the oxygen generator from the F-22?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 9, 2015)

If? ??? For sure will come someday. :
When? :-\ Only Canon know. 

Yongnuo was neutralized by the new Canon 50mm F1.8 STM.
On the other hand, the great (optically) Samyang 50mm, and Sigma Art are stealing sales from Canon.

I suppose that a 50mm F1.4 Image Stabilizer will arrive by 2017.
I myself could not stand to wait that and bought the Sigma Art.


----------



## tolusina (Jun 10, 2015)

Why?


----------



## Nitroman (Jun 10, 2015)

The Sigma doesn't have image stabilizer tho does it ? 

I need 50mm IS for video with wide apertures. Suits my photo style ...

Atm i'm using the 24-105mm F4 L which isn't ideal but love the IS.


----------



## mrzero (Jun 10, 2015)

I would add that there is nothing to suggest that the 50mm IS will be 1.4 -- except for some commentors' hopes and dreams. The last rumor suggested 1.8. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/is-versions-in-50mm-85mm-135mm-coming-cr1/ The previous IS primes all came in at the same apertures as the non-USM versions they replaced (24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 2.0). I could see the 50mm (and 85mm) being 2.0 as well. Although the current 50mm 1.4 is not exactly the same USM as other lenses, I think the 50mm 1.4 remake could likely get bumped up to L status and price.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 16, 2015)

mrzero said:


> I would add that there is nothing to suggest that the 50mm IS will be 1.4 -- except for some commentors' hopes and dreams. The last rumor suggested 1.8. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/is-versions-in-50mm-85mm-135mm-coming-cr1/ The previous IS primes all came in at the same apertures as the non-USM versions they replaced (24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 2.0). I could see the 50mm (and 85mm) being 2.0 as well. Although the current 50mm 1.4 is not exactly the same USM as other lenses, I think the 50mm 1.4 remake could likely get bumped up to L status and price.



I think it's highly unlikely they release a 50mm 1.8 IS USM; F1.4 is much more likely, for several reasons. 

1) product overlap - Canon just refreshed the $125 50mm F1.8 STM, so I doubt IS and USM alone, with no aperture difference, would justify a substantially higher price. Besides, there aren't many of examples of 2 different primes with the same focal length and aperture with different prices - the only example I can think of is the 100mm 2.8 macro and the 100mm 2.8L IS. Generally, Canon's pro lenses are faster than their prosumer ones, which are in turn faster than their entry level consumer ones (if an entry level exists).

2) manufacturing ability - 50mm is pretty much the easiest focal length to make for a wide aperture DSLR lens. It doesn't require a retrofocus design like 35mm or wider lenses, and it doesn't require huge lens elements like longer lenses do. If Canon can easily produce a 50mm 1.4 USM (even though it's not great) for $300ish, then I'm sure they can turn a profit selling an optically upgraded F1.4 with IS for $600ish (the price of the comparable 35mm F2 IS).

3) Sigma - the 50mm F1.4 Art is a phenomenally sharp pro-grade lens that is well regarded, and is "only" around $800, so I think that would make it hard for Canon to throw out a 50mm 1.8 IS unless they really made it cheap (i.e. roughly the same price as the current 1.4, which if that's the case, then why bother?). It worked with the 35mm IS at F2 (after they got the price right, but that's a retrofocus lens that is difficult to make at F1.4, and the lens it was replacing was also F2. On the other hand, a $600 50mm F1.4 IS should be pretty easy to produce, and should really stem Sigma's momentum. And with Canon's new coatings, F1.4 might actually be T1.4 (all canon's new primes have equal F and T stops), which means it would actually be brighter, and way more handholdable, than Sigma.

4) the current 50mm F1.4 is a dog, and I'm sure canon knows it. Crappy non-ring USM motor, and you have to stop it way down for usable photos. For most people, the new F1.8 STM is the better buy, and I suspect sales of the F1.4 have already dropped a lot. It's screaming for a refresh, and I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't change the formula and add IS given what theyve done with the wider primes.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 16, 2015)

gobucks said:


> I think it's highly unlikely they release a 50mm 1.8 IS USM; F1.4 is much more likely, for several reasons.
> 
> 1) product overlap - Canon just refreshed the $125 50mm F1.8 STM, so I doubt IS and USM alone, with no aperture difference, would justify a substantially higher price. Besides, there aren't many of examples of 2 different primes with the same focal length and aperture with different prices - the only example I can think of is the 100mm 2.8 macro and the 100mm 2.8L IS. Generally, Canon's pro lenses are faster than their prosumer ones, which are in turn faster than their entry level consumer ones (if an entry level exists).



It's not all about aperture - I'd take a 50/2 IS USM with a modern lens design over the 50 STM. Give it serious glass, not that ancient double-gauss design, and no one will confuse the two except rank beginners who wouldn't spend for a serious lens anyway.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 16, 2015)

mrzero said:


> I would add that there is nothing to suggest that the 50mm IS will be 1.4 -- except for some commentors' hopes and dreams. The last rumor suggested 1.8. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/is-versions-in-50mm-85mm-135mm-coming-cr1/ The previous IS primes all came in at the same apertures as the non-USM versions they replaced (24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 2.0). I could see the 50mm (and 85mm) being 2.0 as well. Although the current 50mm 1.4 is not exactly the same USM as other lenses, I think the 50mm 1.4 remake could likely get bumped up to L status and price.


I also doubt the new 50mm WITH IS (keep dreaming) will have an aperture wider than f1.8. If I am wrong this lens will be superb.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 16, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > I would add that there is nothing to suggest that the 50mm IS will be 1.4 -- except for some commentors' hopes and dreams. The last rumor suggested 1.8. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/is-versions-in-50mm-85mm-135mm-coming-cr1/ The previous IS primes all came in at the same apertures as the non-USM versions they replaced (24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 2.0). I could see the 50mm (and 85mm) being 2.0 as well. Although the current 50mm 1.4 is not exactly the same USM as other lenses, I think the 50mm 1.4 remake could likely get bumped up to L status and price.
> ...



I really don't understand what is so far-fetched about the idea of a 50mm 1.4 IS. So far Canon has updated 3 primes with IS, the 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm F2 - all three have the same aperture as their predecessors, I have no idea why Canon wouldn't do the same with the 50mm, where 50mm is the easiest focal length for wide aperture lenses. If you were taking the SATs, and had a problem that read "2.8 -> 2.8, 2.8 -> 2.8, 2.0 -> 2.0, 1.4 -> ??", the most logical answer would be "1.4", not "2.0".

One other thing - Canon is extremely conscious about their product positioning. The 6D, for example, had certain features (slow flash sync, 1/4000 max shutter, etc) that seemed clearly intended to make it clear that it was lower end than the 5DIII. They also seem to have avoided making an overly competent EOS-M that might risk cannibalizing their DSLR line. Creating a prosumer $600ish 50mm F1.8 IS would be confusing - pros probably aren't considering it over the 50L, and for the rest of us, I don't think they'd sell many 1.8 IS lenses at $600 when a very good 1.8 lens was just released at $125. If it's F2, then it's REALLY gonna be awkward... do you want slower and pricier but IS, or faster and cheaper but no IS? Sure, Sony/Zeiss has the 55mm 1.8, but that's a $1000 lens that is basically an "L" equivalent, and it's the only normal prime available for Sony right now. It makes no sense in Canon's lineup.

Im not saying there is no way Canon releases a slower version of the 50mm IS, but I really don't see any reason that they would. The fact that some people would be fine with 1.8 isn't really an argument that this is the probable direction that Canon will go.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 16, 2015)

gobucks said:


> I really don't understand what is so far-fetched about the idea of a 50mm 1.4 IS. So far Canon has updated 3 primes with IS, the 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm F2 - all three have the same aperture as their predecessors, I have no idea why Canon wouldn't do the same with the 50mm, where 50mm is the easiest focal length for wide aperture lenses. If you were taking the SATs, and had a problem that read "2.8 -> 2.8, 2.8 -> 2.8, 2.0 -> 2.0, 1.4 -> ??", the most logical answer would be "1.4", not "2.0".





gobucks said:


> One other thing - Canon is extremely conscious about their product positioning. The 6D, for example, had certain features (slow flash sync, 1/4000 max shutter, etc) that seemed clearly intended to make it clear that it was lower end than the 5DIII. They also seem to have avoided making an overly competent EOS-M that might risk cannibalizing their DSLR line.



I understand the point about Canon's prime lens updates have replaced an old lens with a new lens having the same aperture, but the fact is so far Canon hasn't produced any IS lens with an aperture wider than f/2 - and there is only one at f/2 (the 35mm). All other Canon IS lenses are f/2.8 or slower. Perhaps there is some technical issue which makes it fundamentally more difficult to put IS on a wide aperture lens (at least for a FF sensor)?

Regarding Canon not producing a better EOS M because it might cannibalise the DSLR line, I have seen that sort of comment quite a bit but personally I remain unconvinced about that. If Canon cannibalises its DSLR sales through EOS M sales, Canon is still selling cameras so why should it care which type of camera it sold? Obviously there is production cost / profit per camera to consider so it's possible Canon could do better out of DSLR sales than it could have done out of more EOS M sales, but it doesn't seem clear that would be the case.

My personal feeling is that Canon doesn't think mirrorless performance (as an overall/general purpose photographic tool) can match DSLR performance (or at least, not for comparable cost), so they have produced a mirrorless camera (and indeed a mirrorless system) which concentrates on delivering one of the big advantages mirrorless can give over DSLR: a camera which is small and light. I realise the performance of mirrorless cameras from other manufacturers has been continuing to improve all the time, and I think we will see a "better" Canon mirrorless camera when Canon can produce one it thinks performs as well as a DSLR which it can profitably sell at a comparable price. Will be interesting to see what the future holds!


----------



## gobucks (Jun 16, 2015)

jd7 said:


> I understand the point about Canon's prime lens updates have replaced an old lens with a new lens having the same aperture, but the fact is so far Canon hasn't produced any IS lens with an aperture wider than f/2 - and there is only one at f/2 (the 35mm). All other Canon IS lenses are f/2.8 or slower. Perhaps there is some technical issue which makes it fundamentally more difficult to put IS on a wide aperture lens (at least for a FF sensor)



I think it is incorrect to look at the narrower aperture IS primes and extrapolate that to mean that IS and an F1.4 aperture are incompatible, for a simple reason - the difficulty of making a 1.4 lens is not uniform among all focal lengths. A huge lens cost is grinding the front element, and costs to up exponentially with size. Wide lenses require wide, fat, retrofocus designs so it doesnt hit the mirror, which increases front element size. conversely, in telephoto lenses, the longer the focal length, the larger the front element for a given aperture. the normal range (say 40-60mm) is the sweet spot, where a comparably small element can be used. My 35mm F2 IS has a larger element than my 50mm 1.8 STM, and my 100mm F2 is way larger. Canon's L lineup is similarly helpful in understanding manufacturing difficulty - their 14mm lens is the slowest and priciest (f2.8, 2k+). 24mm is cheaper and faster (1.4, 1550), the 35mm is cheaper still (1.4, 1480), but then the 50mm gets even faster and cheaper (1.2, 1449). the 85mm stays 1.2, but the price is 2k. beyond that, no lenses are faster than f2. clearly the sweet spot is at 50mm. I think the reason that all IS primes have kept the same aperture, and will likely continue to do so, is that canon's lens lineup is a pretty accurate reflection of what focal point/aperture combo they can deliver profitably given cost, size, and technical constraints.


----------



## KateH (Jun 16, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> It's not all about aperture - I'd take a 50/2 IS USM with a modern lens design over the 50 STM. Give it serious glass, not that ancient double-gauss design, and no one will confuse the two except rank beginners who wouldn't spend for a serious lens anyway.



Eh? It's pretty difficult to escape double-gauss derived formulas with 50mm lenses, and Double-Gauss doesn't have to mean "outdated"- there are plenty of modernized variants out there. All of Canon's 50's (including the 50 1.2L and legendary 50 1.0L) are double-gauss derivatives. All of Leica's 50s (including the Noctiluxes) are double-gauss derivatives. Olympus made some fantastic modernized 50's in the 1980s and 1990s. Even the well-regarded Planar & Sonnar-type designs (which are themselves around 100 years old) are essentially gauss-type.

The only recent "normal" SLR lens I'm aware of that's not a Gauss or Gauss-derivative is the new Zeiss 55mm f/1.4- which uses a retrofocus _Distagon_ formula and as a result contains 12 elements, is nearly 4 times the weight of Canon's 50mm 1.4, and costs 4000$. The Zeiss is a work of art and has it's purpose, but surely you don't want Canon to emulate Zeiss' exotic retrofocus design and have a 50mm f/2 that's as large as the 35mm f/1.4L? If no, then the answer is a modified double-gauss formula.

If you're referring specifically to the "traditional" 6/5 formula the 50mm STM uses, I imagine that was a choice by Canon to balance IQ, BOM cost, R&D cost, and size/mass. I'm sure that for the 600$ price point that keeps coming up, Canon could make a 7 or 8-element 50mm f/2.0 that has better wide-open performance than the 50 STM, but at that point why not just make a better 50mm f/1.4 with added IS? It wouldn't be the fault of "rank beginners" that a 600$ 50mm f/2 wouldn't sell; that would just be an awful business choice to have two competing lenses that are identical except one gains IS and slightly better performance at f/2.0- for an additional 450$ over the existing lens. And it would really just be better performance at f/2.0, maybe a vanishingly-small difference at f/2.8. That "ancient double gauss" design in all of Canon's 50mm 1.8 lenses can match even the 50mm 1.2L at 5.6 and smaller, that's why such an old design is still used. It works and doesn't come with a preposterous cost or complexity.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 16, 2015)

You can now just throw your favorite 50mm on a Sony A7 II or A7R II and instantly gain 5-axis IS!


Seriously though...I wish Canon would give us a new mid-range 50mm with IS...


----------



## bereninga (Jun 16, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> You can now just throw your favorite 50mm on a Sony A7 II or A7R II and instantly gain 5-axis IS!
> 
> 
> Seriously though...I wish Canon would give us a new mid-range 50mm with IS...



Hahah Boom! 50mm 1.4 IS USM.


----------



## gregorywood (Jun 16, 2015)

KateH said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It's not all about aperture - I'd take a 50/2 IS USM with a modern lens design over the 50 STM. Give it serious glass, not that ancient double-gauss design, and no one will confuse the two except rank beginners who wouldn't spend for a serious lens anyway.
> ...



I just learned quite a bit. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 17, 2015)

KateH said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It's not all about aperture - I'd take a 50/2 IS USM with a modern lens design over the 50 STM. Give it serious glass, not that ancient double-gauss design, and no one will confuse the two except rank beginners who wouldn't spend for a serious lens anyway.
> ...



Thanks for the explanation (truly), but I note you didn't mention the Sigma 50 Art. I thought it was retrofocal as well, and certainly cheaper than the Zeiss? Large, yes, but affordable (at least, relatively).

And, if I'm wrong and that level of quality can be achieved with a DG formula, great! I take that comment back. But I'd like better optics than the current 50/1.4, especially if the price is going to approach or exceed that of the 50A.

Also, "legendary" it may be, but isn't the 50/1.0 not known for great image quality?


----------



## KateH (Jun 17, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Thanks for the explanation (truly), but I note you didn't mention the Sigma 50 Art. I thought it was retrofocal as well, and certainly cheaper than the Zeiss? Large, yes, but affordable (at least, relatively).
> 
> And, if I'm wrong and that level of quality can be achieved with a DG formula, great! I take that comment back. But I'd like better optics than the current 50/1.4, especially if the price is going to approach or exceed that of the 50A.
> 
> Also, "legendary" it may be, but isn't the 50/1.0 not known for great image quality?



I did forget about the Sigma! I looked it up and I think you're right, it looks like a retrofocus design.

I think the current EF 50mm 1.4 is an aberration- it's just not a good lens at all. Suited perhaps for the expectations of photogs in the mid-90s, but not for today's high-resolution digital sensors. Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 AFs and 58mm 1.4 AFs are both modified gauss-type designs and both perform excellently even wide-open so it can be done. Not that I think the retrofocus 50's are not worth it, but I'd personally like to see more work done on optimizing max-aperture performance of double-gauss designs before jumping to massive retrofocus lenses.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 17, 2015)

KateH said:


> I did forget about the Sigma! I looked it up and I think you're right, it looks like a retrofocus design.
> 
> I think the current EF 50mm 1.4 is an aberration- it's just not a good lens at all. Suited perhaps for the expectations of photogs in the mid-90s, but not for today's high-resolution digital sensors. Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 AFs and 58mm 1.4 AFs are both modified gauss-type designs and both perform excellently even wide-open so it can be done. Not that I think the retrofocus 50's are not worth it, but I'd personally like to see more work done on optimizing max-aperture performance of double-gauss designs before jumping to massive retrofocus lenses.



Well, if you tell me a DG 50mm can give the same level of image quality as the 50A, I'll believe you, and look forward to someone doing it for Canon (I have no experience with the Nikons). I just want the 50A with Canon AF, though f/2 and IS (also with Canon AF) would work too. Ah well, we will see.


----------



## mrzero (Jun 17, 2015)

gobucks said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > mrzero said:
> ...



To clarify, the three lenses that were already replaced with IS versions are not USM lenses with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.4 is a "Micro USM" lens with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.8 II was the non-USM non-FTM lens at that slot. Hence, from a marketing and overall product line perspective, it seemed like 50mm 1.8 was the next to be replaced with the IS USM, and it would remain at 1.8. That would leave the existing 50mm 1.4 USM in the lineup, just like Canon left the 28mm 1.8 USM lens with FTM in the lineup. The last rumor that came out was for the 50mm IS at 1.8. However, the 50mm 1.8 STM came out without much notice in the rumor mill, much like the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM did. 

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if the 50mm IS came out at 1.4, 1.8, or even 2.0. Frankly, I just hope it comes out at all! However, I still think that it is more likely to come in at 1.8, or even 2.0. If it comes out at 1.4, that would be great, but it would be a deviation from the prior course.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 17, 2015)

I'm perfectly happy for Canon to stick with double gauss, since it seems that results in a much more compact lens than the retrofocus of sigma and zeiss. The Sigma is nearly as big and heavy as my Tamron 24-70VC, so lugging it around kills one of the main advantages of a prime over a zoom. Canon's prosumer lenses are not studio lenses. They are for travel, events, and walk-around. Most people who would buy a $300-600 prime are probably putting them on a 6D or 7D or something like that. I mostly shoot during frequent vacations, and it's hard to describe how much more pleasant a day of shooting is with a prime like my 35mm IS (on a wandering around town day) than when I have to carry my Tamron cuz I need the wide coverage. Ignoring resale value, I dont think I'd trade my 35 IS for eithe the sigma or 1.4L for my own needs.

If they can make a pretty decent cheap double gauss 1.8, and a very good 1.2, im sure they can make a much better 1.4 this time around. The current 1.4 is just a 24 year old dog of a lens, it doesnt mean double gauss as a whole is bad.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 18, 2015)

mrzero said:


> To clarify, the three lenses that were already replaced with IS versions are not USM lenses with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.4 is a "Micro USM" lens with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.8 II was the non-USM non-FTM lens at that slot. Hence, from a marketing and overall product line perspective, it seemed like 50mm 1.8 was the next to be replaced with the IS USM, and it would remain at 1.8. That would leave the existing 50mm 1.4 USM in the lineup, just like Canon left the 28mm 1.8 USM lens with FTM in the lineup. The last rumor that came out was for the 50mm IS at 1.8. However, the 50mm 1.8 STM came out without much notice in the rumor mill, much like the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM did.
> 
> At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if the 50mm IS came out at 1.4, 1.8, or even 2.0. Frankly, I just hope it comes out at all! However, I still think that it is more likely to come in at 1.8, or even 2.0. If it comes out at 1.4, that would be great, but it would be a deviation from the prior course.



Are you telling me that the 35/2 IS I have is _not_ full-time-manual focus, ring-USM? Because I'm 99% sure it is. Or did I misunderstand you somehow?


----------



## mrzero (Jun 18, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > To clarify, the three lenses that were already replaced with IS versions are not USM lenses with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.4 is a "Micro USM" lens with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.8 II was the non-USM non-FTM lens at that slot. Hence, from a marketing and overall product line perspective, it seemed like 50mm 1.8 was the next to be replaced with the IS USM, and it would remain at 1.8. That would leave the existing 50mm 1.4 USM in the lineup, just like Canon left the 28mm 1.8 USM lens with FTM in the lineup. The last rumor that came out was for the 50mm IS at 1.8. However, the 50mm 1.8 STM came out without much notice in the rumor mill, much like the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM did.
> ...



The old lenses are not USM lenses and they don't have full-time manual focus. They were replaced with IS versions that are USM with FTM.


----------



## Proscribo (Jun 18, 2015)

gobucks said:


> If they can make a pretty decent cheap double gauss 1.8, and a very good 1.2, im sure they can make a much better 1.4 this time around. The current 1.4 is just a 24 year old dog of a lens, it doesnt mean double gauss as a whole is bad.


Uhh... but I think it's even older actually. I mean, isn't the EF 50mm 1.4 pretty much the same thing as the FD 50mm 1.4? Making it kinda like over 40 years old? Of course there are now better coatings etc. but still.. AFAIK this is what I've read from a few places, even on this forum someone has stated so.


----------



## KateH (Jun 18, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> Uhh... but I think it's even older actually. I mean, isn't the EF 50mm 1.4 pretty much the same thing as the FD 50mm 1.4? Making it kinda like over 40 years old? Of course there are now better coatings etc. but still.. AFAIK this is what I've read from a few places, even on this forum someone has stated so.



I checked block diagrams, and the EF 50mm 1.4 and nFD 50mm 1.4 are very similar but not identical. Pretty much the same =/= the same; every 50mm 1.4 (or 1.5) from every manufacturer has used more or less the same formula since the 1930s but even super minor tweaks to element shape & position will have a large effect on sharpness, aberrations and bokeh.

I've owned both the nFD 50mm f/1.4 and the EF 50mm f/1.4 and they definitely have different character- I actually liked the nFD better wide-open. Of course, all 50mm lenses have nearly indistinguishable performance by f/5.6 but I absolutely noticed a difference between the EF and nFD 50's wide-open.


----------



## Gman (Jun 24, 2015)

I would be interested in a new 50mm model to update my current f/1.4.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 27, 2015)

I'd like to see the 85mm f/1.8 IS myself, that focal length needs it more IMO.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 30, 2015)

i just ordered an S50A, so you're all welcome! I'm sure it'll be announced tomorrow.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 5, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> i just ordered an S50A, so you're all welcome! I'm sure it'll be announced tomorrow.



If you have ordered it online this is not the worst case ... you have 2 or 4 weeks to send it back!


----------



## crashpc (Jul 12, 2015)

Rehashed 1.4 to STM IS, please, please!


----------



## crashpc (Jul 12, 2015)

Depends. Everything is wishfull thinking.
Mabe new design of tack sharp 1.8 IS USM/STM could be controlled very well. Who knows.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 13, 2015)

Nitroman said:


> Would love to know if and when Canon are likely to release an image stabilized 50mm full frame lens ?
> 
> Ideally f1.2 or f1.4 ..!


A 50mm with IS is everyone's hope. I'd also add a budget 85mm f1.8 IS


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 13, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> The only reason to upgrade from my 50 1.8 STM to a 50 1.4 STM IS would not be the stabilizer but a lens design which prevents comatic (not chromatic) abberations. I guess this is wishful thinking as coma correction is only something for Canon's L-series... rrrright?


I have a few L lenses and they all suffer from coma at maximum aperture, even the expensive ones.


----------

