# No New 50mm Lens Coming in 2017 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 23, 2016)

```
<p>Sometimes no news is bad news.</p>
<p>We’re told that Canon is developing a new 50L and working with different apertures, but that no announcement of a new 50L should be expected in 2017. The Canon world is waiting impatiently for a new 50 f/1.4 or a new 50 f/1.2L, but it looks like we’ll be waiting a long while longer.</p>
<p>We haven’t nailed down when the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM is going to be announced during the year, but we do wonder if the new lens will lead to a new 50mm f/1.2L and a new 135 f/2L IS?</p>
<p>One interesting bit of information we’ve heard about a new 50mm lens is that Canon is testing an f/1.0 design, which would be quite the followup to the original “classic”. We haven’t seen any patents for such optical formulas yet, but we may over the next year.</p>
<p>We’re expecting 4-5 lens to be announced by Canon next year, starting with the new EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (woo!).</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 23, 2016)

a 50mm 1.0 would be great, maybe the price would be more great than nice. Make it optically reasonable at 1.0 , good at 1.4 and excellent at 2.0, add IS and it would be the last ever needed 50mm


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 23, 2016)

Thanks, Canon. We wouldn't want you to be hasty. Happy Holidays.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2016)

I can hear ahsanford wailing already. He probably won't stop until 2018...or later.


----------



## j-nord (Nov 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can hear ahsanford wailing already. He probably won't stop until 2018...or later.


*gets popcorn and waits for ahsanford*

In all seriousness, this is a real bummer. The 50 updates are years later than a lot of people would have liked. Even more people are going to jump ship and try the sigma.


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Nov 23, 2016)

I think this lens, more than any other, will be a struggle for the designers / management to agree on. At some point, and we may have reached it, if all you do is make perfectly clinical lenses, then the artistry will have been lost completely. I hope they decide to retain the nature that has made the 50L - the 50L - and only improve CA and give some critical sharpness @ F1.2 which isn't there like it is with the 85Lii. I do understand the rumoured 85Liii 1.4 IS because that has to be the monied portrait lens for 5DSR type megapixel cameras (I own a 5DSR and sold the 85Lii for the Tamron 85 1.8VC because of the VC), and the 35Lii is already amazingly sharp at F1.4 so the wedding 35/85 crowd will have what they need - but Canon should attempt to keep the 50L being more artistic and less clinical imo.


----------



## slclick (Nov 23, 2016)

Well can you blame them? There's too many resources going into the 18-55 Mk78.


----------



## Joatamos (Nov 23, 2016)

Pfft!! Stuff 50mm.... where's the 200-600??!?!!??


----------



## Berowne (Nov 23, 2016)

A new fast 50mm-Lens will be expensive, especially when linked with Image-Stabilisation. So Canon has a pretty good 50mm-Lens. The new Nifty-Fifty is as sharp as you need for most purposes. But a 50L IS USM, which can make wide open full use of the of a 50MP-Sensor will be very expensive.


----------



## Beastiedawg (Nov 23, 2016)

Oh no, oh no what are all the Wedding chicks going to do now? Keep shooting their old 50mm?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 23, 2016)

wallstreetoneil said:


> I think this lens, more than any other, will be a struggle for the designers / management to agree on. At some point, and we may have reached it, if all you do is make perfectly clinical lenses, then the artistry will have been lost completely. I hope they decide to retain the nature that has made the 50L - the 50L - and only improve CA and give some critical sharpness @ F1.2 which isn't there like it is with the 85Lii. I do understand the rumoured 85Liii 1.4 IS because that has to be the monied portrait lens for 5DSR type megapixel cameras (I own a 5DSR and sold the 85Lii for the Tamron 85 1.8VC because of the VC), and the 35Lii is already amazingly sharp at F1.4 so the wedding 35/85 crowd will have what they need - but Canon should attempt to keep the 50L being more artistic and less clinical imo.



That's the combo I'm moving to. The Tamron is a really underrated lens, and the new 35L II is Canon's best in a while.


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 23, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re expecting 4-5 lens to be announced by Canon next year, starting with the new EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM.



Starting with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (Ring-type) USM and 300mm IS (Ring-type) USM macro with 1m+ minimum focusing distance and 2:1 maximum magnification.


----------



## David (Nov 23, 2016)

I guess Canon shows that it has other priorities than releasing new DSLR L lenses. Maybe Canon is busy developing a mirrorless pro body.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 23, 2016)

I'd be interested to see if Canon could pull of a sharp(or at least 50mm f/1.2 "sharp") 50mm f/1.0 that can be used more functionally than the previous one. That could be a unique lens for me as a photojournalist-- it would be great to capture images in almost pure darkness at f/1.0 and ISO 25,600 on my 1DX mark II. My only issue would be that it would have to have fast enough AF for some decent action(nothing fast, just enough to get people walking.) and not be priced too much. That would definitely go in my bag-- you could get shots in such low light levels that no one else was capable of getting.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Nov 23, 2016)

Bummer... but then the 50L isn't bad. I wish they would update the 50 1.4 though.. imo the lens that is in need of the most upgrade. I'm glad I "upgraded" to the 50 1.8 stm. It's a good lens, especially for venues requiring silence.


----------



## -1 (Nov 23, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> wallstreetoneil said:
> 
> 
> > I think this lens, more than any other, will be a struggle for the designers / management to agree on. At some point, and we may have reached it, if all you do is make perfectly clinical lenses, then the artistry will have been lost completely. I hope they decide to retain the nature that has made the 50L - the 50L - and only improve CA and give some critical sharpness @ F1.2 which isn't there like it is with the 85Lii. I do understand the rumoured 85Liii 1.4 IS because that has to be the monied portrait lens for 5DSR type megapixel cameras (I own a 5DSR and sold the 85Lii for the Tamron 85 1.8VC because of the VC), and the 35Lii is already amazingly sharp at F1.4 so the wedding 35/85 crowd will have what they need - but Canon should attempt to keep the 50L being more artistic and less clinical imo.
> ...


35-90 an possible a 21 is the classic Leica "battlefield" combo. Imyself have a 28/85 MF set for the 1D2 and 22/50 for the "M" giving me those perspectives. With some UWA around mostly...
If think that the prefered option here would be a conservative and predictable 50/1.4.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 23, 2016)

Sad news, bad news! 

If that's true, it looks like I'll be taking a closer look at the alternatives like the Tammy 45 mm.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 23, 2016)

A couple of good EF-M primes would be welcome. But not even an announcement for a 50mm in 2017 is disappointing. This lens may not see shelves until 2019. Might as well go for Tamron 45 1.8 IS.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 23, 2016)

The Canon EF 85mm f1.2L II lens has been a stalwart for the company among fashion and portrait / wedding shooters but time as the say marches on. 

The change occurred with the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Otus lens a benchmark for optical quality, Nikon revamped their full frame offering with the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 G AF-S and more recently Sigma launched the 85mm f 1.4 Art lens again showing how the independent lens makers have stepped up the pressure with high end optics. The Tamron SP 85mm f1.8 VC is worth a mention but is nearly a stop slower, albeit again high quality. 
Canon has to respond and knows it does particularly as the Sony G Master lenses including the FE 85mm f1.4 G Master are first & foremost targeting Canon users that shoot fashion & portrait / wedding and in some cases using Canon glass on Sony bodies (rumors here suggest a new EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM lens is also coming in 2017) and Sony is getting good reviews with these optics. 

Why Canon is choosing to give the market yet another EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens is a mystery when the 85mm and 50mmL lenses both need an upgrade but they know their business better than I do. As regards to "too much" sharpness you can break a lens down with filters or in post but you cannot make a bad lens great and Canon can improve CAs in both these lenses without compromising the smooth out of focus transition. If you pay £££ / $$$ on 5DS / 5DSr / 5D MKIV or 1D X MKII you want the best optics to match and Canon is going to deliver incremental improvements.


----------



## Fatalv (Nov 23, 2016)

This CR2 is obviously wrong... I recently purchased a refurb 50 f1.2L so I expect a refresh to be announced any day now


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 23, 2016)

alot of tears here.

new 50's are certainly needed .. But a little perspective people are whining about a lens that canon will ship millions of next year, and is the first and sometimes only canon lens that people purchase. so a little bit of reality when it comes to kit lenses and their importance.

I have a feeling that people think that a new lens is developed and ready for manufacturing in their mom's basement in a few month's time.

The last that nikon was quoted anything about lens benchmarks - they stated it takes them 7 years and their goal is to try and hit 7 x 7 (7 lenses per year, taking 7 years to develop). Canon has never stated anything, but I certainly doubt it's much quicker.

So it's not as if canon (or probably anyone) can go .. oh we should have a new 50! and have it out next year. these lenses are incredibly complex and take a while to get through the development phase - especially you'd have to think it's an entirely new design, and not just a redraft of the same element design and a new frame, AF motor etc.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 23, 2016)

The language seems a bit ambiguous...either we're not getting announcements for any 50mm or we're not getting announcements for a L series 50mm. 

I'm gonna read this as we may possibly see a 50mm f/1.4 in the next 12 months


----------



## richro (Nov 23, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re expecting 4-5 lens to be announced by Canon next year, starting with the new EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (woo!).



Can't wait for the new 18-55 IS STM! (said no one ever...)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 23, 2016)

I thin I am the only one not missing a new 50mm. I've owned at least 50 Canon 50mm lenses over my 60 years of photography, and have 3 or 4 FD lenses laying around, and one EF 1.8 II made in Japan.

I never keep them around very long, since I find its a focal length that gets little use.


----------



## PureClassA (Nov 23, 2016)

On one hand I'm sorta glad because I just finally bit down and bought the new 35L II instead of waiting any more after a year of whining for this thing to come out.

On the other hand... DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN!!!


----------



## slclick (Nov 23, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I thin I am the only one not missing a new 50mm. I've owned at least 50 Canon 50mm lenses over my 60 years of photography, and have 3 or 4 FD lenses laying around, and one EF 1.8 II made in Japan.
> 
> I never keep them around very long, since I find its a focal length that gets little use.



I'm with you, if I ever use that FL it's with my 24-70 f/2.8L ll


----------



## pwp (Nov 23, 2016)

Sigma stocks just rose a little...

-pw


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 23, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> alot of tears here.
> 
> new 50's are certainly needed .. But a little perspective people are whining about a lens that canon will ship millions of next year, and is the first and sometimes only canon lens that people purchase. so a little bit of reality when it comes to kit lenses and their importance.
> 
> ...


The company I work for designs & builds lenses (to a higher standard than Canon & lower volume) and it doesnt take us 7 years to design & manufacture a lens and we dont have anywhere near the resources Canon has (they are considerably more in cost though). When we design we do it as either a short set or a full set because we want commonality of certain parts to reduce costs and lower the overall stock of those parts not just in manufacture but as spares. Canon Im sure try to use common parts all mass market manufacturers try to do so and with over 120M EOS lens made its in their interest to keep standards high and keep ahead of competition and in some areas thats not the case the EF50 f1.4 being a good example of a lens past its best.


----------



## dsut4392 (Nov 23, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I thin I am the only one not missing a new 50mm. I've owned at least 50 Canon 50mm lenses over my 60 years of photography, and have 3 or 4 FD lenses laying around, and one EF 1.8 II made in Japan.
> 
> I never keep them around very long, since I find its a focal length that gets little use.



If you don't use them, why do you keep buying them? Or are they all relics from the first 40 years of your photography career when it was often cheaper to buy a kit including the standard 50 than to buy a body only? I actually like 50mm focal length, but although I have a few old Olympus OM 50s, I have only owned one (Sigma 50/1.4 EX) since DSLRs became a thing, because the kit lens is usually a zoom.


----------



## Haulien (Nov 23, 2016)

Would love a sharper 50mm f/1.0..... 

The f/1.4 needs a serious update also. 

No matter the aperture, I'm curious if they're gonna try and match the Zeiss Otus/Sigma Art lenses for wide-open sharpness and colour.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 24, 2016)

hendrik-sg said:


> a 50mm 1.0 would be great, maybe the price would be more great than nice. Make it optically reasonable at 1.0 , good at 1.4 and excellent at 2.0, add IS and it would be the last ever needed 50mm



At f1.0 you wont need IS....it will magically create light in places that look dark.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 24, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> wallstreetoneil said:
> 
> 
> > I think this lens, more than any other, will be a struggle for the designers / management to agree on. At some point, and we may have reached it, if all you do is make perfectly clinical lenses, then the artistry will have been lost completely. I hope they decide to retain the nature that has made the 50L - the 50L - and only improve CA and give some critical sharpness @ F1.2 which isn't there like it is with the 85Lii. I do understand the rumoured 85Liii 1.4 IS because that has to be the monied portrait lens for 5DSR type megapixel cameras (I own a 5DSR and sold the 85Lii for the Tamron 85 1.8VC because of the VC), and the 35Lii is already amazingly sharp at F1.4 so the wedding 35/85 crowd will have what they need - but Canon should attempt to keep the 50L being more artistic and less clinical imo.
> ...



Speaking as a wedding photographer...no one needs a 50mp+ camera at weddings. I sell the odd A1 print, but it's rare and the current 20+mp are more than adequate. The current 35/85 combo have been my staple shooting kit for years and I don't see much need at the moment to side-grade.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 24, 2016)

slclick said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am the only one not missing a new 50mm...
> ...



I'm also no fan of the focal length. Even back in the days when every camera came with a 50mm lens, I hardly ever used it once I bought a 24mm. In those ancient times, I had a 24 for everyday use, a 35 f2 when the light wasn't good enough for the 24mm and a 135mm for portraits. 

Honestly, zooms are so good today that I think people would be surprised at how few primes of any focal length Canon sells.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 24, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > alot of tears here.
> ...



except what you describe is something that canon wouldn't be doing. for starters, they would have to procure the patents, designs, pass it through legal as far as the various countries that it would be sold in, finalize the design, parts, etc. prototype, finalize production, train qa, and test centers worldwide for it's release,etc,etc.

there is most certainly a finite amount that canon can do in a year, even if you look at it over the years, around the max has been 5-6 a year - unless there was common elements to the designs.

but regardless of the duration. 

the whining about a lens that will be used by millions as early as next year versus a 50L that will be made in small batches and sold and never hit the same volume of scale?

While replacing the 50's is important .. it's quite foolish to dismiss the importance of the kit lenses.


----------



## KiagiJ (Nov 24, 2016)

NoooooooooooooooOOo00ooo. Over a year more having to live view focus the sigma on my 1dx2 as the piece o shit doesn't viewfinder focus right. Awkward ass candids. NoooOoOO00ooo


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 24, 2016)

oh, there are so many alternatives to that Sigma lens you are dislike that much!
Tamron 45 1.8 VC, Dustin Abbott swears by it. etc. 



KiagiJ said:


> NoooooooooooooooOOo00ooo. Over a year more having to live view focus the sigma on my 1dx2 as the piece o S___ doesn't viewfinder focus right. Awkward ass candids. NoooOoOO00ooo


----------



## infared (Nov 24, 2016)

I have my Sigma Art...so I don't care. 8)


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 24, 2016)

I don't consider this to be bad news. I have the Sigma Art which I have tweaked with the dock and camera body AFMA. It is a solid performer. Canon would be wasting its time to equal that performance and I think they know that. Very interested to hear that an f/1 may be in the works. I'd be very interested in that. An F/1 along with a solid f/1.4 (perhaps with IS) would be a reasonable response to the current crop of 3rd party 50mm offerings. Canon should take the time required to produce a superior 50mm.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 24, 2016)

Canon discovered long ago that low cost manufacturing was the key to success and profits. The AE-1 was a landmark of this philosophy. It was very good, not necessarily the best, but they could afford to have a huge advertising campaign, and make big bucks that others could only dream of.

They continue to design products with a goal is to have that it performs well and has a high volume of sales. 

This philosophy has put them on the top of the food chain, and they continue to pinch every penny. This benefits the buyer by giving him a reliable product that has excellent support, but has a less than state of the art design because of the cost to manufacture sensitivity.

There is a huge amount of competition, and for some products, having the best state of the Art product does mean profit. The 70-200mm L for example, that is a huge cash cow.


----------



## ranplett (Nov 24, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I thin I am the only one not missing a new 50mm. I've owned at least 50 Canon 50mm lenses over my 60 years of photography, and have 3 or 4 FD lenses laying around, and one EF 1.8 II made in Japan.
> 
> I never keep them around very long, since I find its a focal length that gets little use.



Clearly you don't keep them around long (except for the 3 or 4 FDs), you buy them on average every 1.2 years! And if you don't use them much, why have you owned so many? Contract obligations?


----------



## Respinder (Nov 24, 2016)

For me, an f1.0 is all I would care about. The original, although flawed, was still pushing the envelope, and I think that is really what Canon needs to continue to do here - we really need more innovative lenses that really push the boundaries of what is capable. I would buy one in a heartbeat - no matter the price.


----------



## KiagiJ (Nov 24, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> oh, there are so many alternatives to that Sigma lens you are dislike that much!
> Tamron 45 1.8 VC, Dustin Abbott swears by it. etc.
> 
> 
> ...



Oh no I love my sigma art image quality that's why I use it. It's that I lost focus through the viewfinder switching from a 6d to 1dx2 and it can't be resolved on the dock or afma, so I'm stuck live view shooting ugh


----------



## pwp (Nov 24, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'm also no fan of the focal length...


Every few years an annoying amnesia kicks in and I buy another 50mm and then quickly remember why I tend not to keep them. It's because it hardly gets used. The same amnesia may well kick in again some time in 2017. Will I ever learn?



unfocused said:


> Honestly, zooms are so good today....


Especially the 24-70 f/2.8II. This astoundingly classy lens must have pushed an untold number of primes out of busy photographers bags and into the store room or onto the second-hand market. My last short prime, a 24 f/1.4II came out of the store-room a few weeks ago and used on a prospectus project. Meh...it's now up for sale. My only remaining primes are 300 f/2.8is and 100L f/2.8is macro. But I've always been a zooms guy...

-pw


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Nov 24, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > a 50mm 1.0 would be great, maybe the price would be more great than nice. Make it optically reasonable at 1.0 , good at 1.4 and excellent at 2.0, add IS and it would be the last ever needed 50mm
> ...



haha, not to mention a 50 f/1 with IS would be the diameter of a coffee can.. LOL
Not sure many realize how much more room IS requires on really fast lenses..


That said, the current 50mm L is still fine and the 50mm STM is stupidly sharp and has great color and micro contrast.. Cant remember how many times I have seen the 50mm STM stuck on a 5DSR becuase its that sharp.. If someone is that upset no 50mm is coming, just spend the 125 bucks on the STM and stay out of the rain.  

That said, likely the 85mm and 100mm will get updated together in 2017 followed by the 50mm and 135mm in 2018.. IMHO


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 24, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I thin I am the only one not missing a new 50mm. I've owned at least 50 Canon 50mm lenses over my 60 years of photography, and have 3 or 4 FD lenses laying around, and one EF 1.8 II made in Japan.
> 
> I never keep them around very long, since I find its a focal length that gets little use.



True: it is a "no fish nor meat"-focal length. But it is (or was?) the easiest way to get 1.4 at good quality for a moderate price - between expensive retrofocus constructions for 35mm & below or large and thick lenses for 85mm & above.

A 50mm with very good IQ, compact built, IS and 1:5 closeup capability at 700-800$/EUR (1 year after market introduction) would be THE low light lens for me. But ... if I look at the 1.8 45 Tamron I think the price will be above 1000EUR ...
____

Your remarks (later post) about "Canon is not state of the art in every respect" are true - and the "machines" they produce are really reliable, they work mostly as expected. With high compatibility along the timeline. It is great to see the FD 3.5/135 on a EOS M and it's incredible IQ (the lens!). Or to use an old fashioned 2.8 24 non-IS EF lens on the 5D knowing that a 16-35 IS will work flawlessly with this 10 year old (great) camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 24, 2016)

Sorry to disappoint and delay the popcorn folks -- I'm on vacation with my family and lack a computer + PS with which to artfully render how I feel right now. 

But imagine a man shoving his head inside of his own butt. That would be me for waiting for the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM for so long. 

Or it might be Canon marketing/development staff for leaving this part of their lens portfolio to rot for so long. 

- A


----------



## ntt2007 (Nov 24, 2016)

Well, maybe Canon need some more pressure from third party manufacture, but I think there are at least 2 possibilities:
- a new 50 1.0L replace for 1.2
- no more f1.2 for L lens (f1.0 also out of the picture) as Canon mentioned about new 85 1.4L IS but no news about 85 1.2L III. In this case, new 50 1.4 will be L lens and Canon will have budget lens with aperture at 1.8 and L lens aperture 1.4.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 24, 2016)

I'm sure we'd all much rather have a 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5 II


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 24, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> I don't consider this to be bad news. I have the Sigma Art which I have tweaked with the dock and camera body AFMA. It is a solid performer. Canon would be wasting its time to equal that performance and I think they know that. Very interested to hear that an f/1 may be in the works. I'd be very interested in that. An F/1 along with a solid f/1.4 (perhaps with IS) would be a reasonable response to the current crop of 3rd party 50mm offerings. Canon should take the time required to produce a superior 50mm.



Well they actually did take all their time. We are approaching 30 years for the 50 macro (1987), 26 years for the 45mm TS-E (1991), 24 years for the 50 f1.4 (1993) and 11 years for the 50 f1.2 (2006). Considering the competition, (mainly Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Sony and to some extend Nikon) everyone has several modern 50mm available, only Canon still sells prehistoric models, and has obviously no plan to at least try to match the others (actually they should do better). 

The 50mm f1.8 can barely be called an update, as the optics are the same, but for the price, it's a good deal. The 50 macro and f1.4 are simply a shame for modern standards, the f1.2 has a place as a "dreamy" portrait lens, and IMHO is not the one that should be replaced first. The 45mm TS-E has horrible chroma and very average sharpness.

The 50mm is not my favourite focal, I would prefer a true standard lens (40-45mm). I am using a 50 f2.5 macro because there is no other Canon choice for my needs, though I have been waiting for an updated 45mm TS-E since ever. I will likely end buying the Tamron 45 f1.8 (thanks Dustin for your nice review), only because Canon has no decent standard lens to offer.

So IMO they took enough time to think about it, it's more than time to actually do something.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 24, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm sure we'd all much rather have a 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5 II



If it's driven by USM, has f/2.0 and keeps the 1:2, gets IS, staying still compact and is roughly 550 EUR/$ ... a very interesting option!


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 24, 2016)

I'm probably in a minority but I don't see an urgency to replace the current 50mm lens range. Maybe it's because I take photographs with them as opposed to checking charts. I am very happy with the 50 1.2. I find it sharp and reliable.I loved the 50 1.4 and was sorry I sold it. Not the sharpest of lens but it made beautiful pictures.. I had a 50 1.8 too and loved it. It introduced me to bokeh. A frond of mine dropped it and it didn't bounce. All of them as tools to take photographs I thought were and are great. They are certainly no impediment to taking great photographs. When I had an APS-C camera only they were great portrait lens and tack sharp stepped down in a studio. I like 50mm as a walk around on full frame.


----------



## Maiaibing (Nov 24, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe it's because I take photographs with them as opposed to checking charts. I am very happy with the 50 1.2. I find it sharp and reliable.


No, its because you are happy with less for your money than some others are.

I passed on buying the 50mm f/1.2 first and foremost due to the lack of a floating element and the resulting focus shift - which is exactly at its worst at the most useful portrait distances.

YMMV. Maybe you use it for something else or always shoot the lens wide open and thus never get hit by focus shift. Or you do not need sharp shots. All very legit. However, for the price I cannot stomach its limitations. And I think many others feel the same.


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 24, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm probably in a minority but I don't see an urgency to replace the current 50mm lens range. Maybe it's because I take photographs with them as opposed to checking charts. I am very happy with the 50 1.2. I find it sharp and reliable.I loved the 50 1.4 and was sorry I sold it. Not the sharpest of lens but it made beautiful pictures.. I had a 50 1.8 too and loved it. It introduced me to bokeh. A frond of mine dropped it and it didn't bounce. All of them as tools to take photographs I thought were and are great. They are certainly no impediment to taking great photographs. When I had an APS-C camera only they were great portrait lens and tack sharp stepped down in a studio. I like 50mm as a walk around on full frame.



1. You are minority for sure. 2. You are happy because you don't know about the other options available out there. 

The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off. But canon just playing typical turtle game...


----------



## pokerz (Nov 24, 2016)

Please replace all ancient len AF motors with STM, the era of STM is yet to come


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


> The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off.



I didn't know sharpness was the most important characteristic of a lens. I'm so glad you're here to educate all of us on what aspects of image quality we should find most important. I guess we've foolishly thought that things like bokeh and color rendering matter. Thanks for setting us straight!

Not that sharpness is unimportant, but some people treat it as the sole criterion for evaluating lens performance, probably because reducing a complex set of objective and subjective parameters to a simple, uncomplicated number makes it easier for simple, uncomplicated minds to grasp.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off.
> ...


Ive sat in a whole bunch of meetings lately discussing sharpness and how modern cameras & lenses are too sharp. These conversations have been with cinematographers and fashion photographers in particular who deal with either actresses or models at the top of their game and they are not happy to see every pore. This can be dealt with by either reducing the sharpness / contrast of lenses at design, post processes or filters. Many post processes make skin look like plastic weve all seen over corrected images promoting software plug-ins so their use must be subtle. diffusion filters are another route as is in camera sharpening adjustments but again these need to be used wisely. 
Larger format with shallow depth of field or fast primes like the Canon 50mm f1.2L or 85mm f1.2L help by having a very narrow plain of focus but I believe the main reason for upgrades is not sharpness but better correction of CAs (50mm) and bokeh fringing (50 & 85mm). Of the two the 50mm is the weaker lens but it does have a creamy out of focus bokeh which has been its trade mark feature.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 24, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



I'd be quite happy with the current 1.4, but new coatings for reduced flair, maybe a new glass for better CA, a propper AF mechanism like.. oh I don't know.. RING USM!!!

And the whole thing in a properly built package, something akin to the 28f1.8/85f1.8/100f2.0 in terms of robustness.

Anyway looking on the bright side, the news is good for my bank account.


----------



## zim (Nov 24, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Ive sat in a whole bunch of meetings lately discussing sharpness and how modern cameras & lenses are too sharp. These conversations have been with cinematographers and fashion photographers in particular who deal with either actresses or models at the top of their game and they are not happy to see every pore. This can be dealt with by either reducing the sharpness / contrast of lenses at design, post processes or filters. Many post processes make skin look like plastic weve all seen over corrected images promoting software plug-ins so their use must be subtle. diffusion filters are another route as is in camera sharpening adjustments but again these need to be used wisely.
> Larger format with shallow depth of field or fast primes like the Canon 50mm f1.2L or 85mm f1.2L help by having a very narrow plain of focus but I believe the main reason for upgrades is not sharpness but better correction of CAs (50mm) and bokeh fringing (50 & 85mm). Of the two the 50mm is the weaker lens but it does have a creamy out of focus bokeh which has been its trade mark feature.



yeah I was hoping for a 50L refresh, correction of CAs and fringing rather than a totally new lens, Oh and a little faster AF if possible 
wish they could have squeezed that into their busy schedule :'(


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 24, 2016)

pokerz said:


> Please replace all ancient len AF motors with STM, the era of STM is yet to come



No, no, no! No more STM or NanoUSM lens, please!  Except if they are released as EF-V lenses for videographers and A+ mode users. As a macro photographer I want Ring-type USM in all new lenses since it's the only motor that supports Full Time Manual focusing.


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off.
> ...



It's always nice to see delusional people who are extreme fanboys too  people like you are an asset to a company like canon who's moto is to move like Turtle and milk customers as long as they can. And Nah... Some people can't ever be educated 

I just mentioned sharpness for sake of argument. Here it's for you: horrible CA, slow AF, inaccurate AF, curved focus plane needs to be fixed in that prehistoric garbage lens as well. Hope you are happy now  I guess all those garbage aspects of this lens makes an image artistic for you


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



Hard to be unhappy with such logic as yours. The 50L has inaccurate AF? Don't hear that too often...but you were praising the Sigma 50 Art, which has a reputation for stellar AF accuracy. 

Curved focus plane? When you figure out the difference between field curvature and focus shift, by all means let me know, mmmmkay? :


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yep...these days...everyone is a lens critique and a lens design expert. Unfortunately...not many happen to be photographic experts though....


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 25, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



LOL! Here's my Instagram page. Please show me your work. I'm dying to see what an incredible 'photographic expert' you are lmao 

https://www.instagram.com/craftersimagework/


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 25, 2016)

Which ones on the instagram page have been disastrously destroyed by the horrible 50 1.2?
I can't spot them.


----------



## slclick (Nov 25, 2016)

Since when have photographic experts been using Instagram to showcase their work? I thought it was for your daily meal and 11 year old boys.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

slclick said:


> Since when have photographic experts been using Instagram to showcase their work? I thought it was for your daily meal and 11 year old boys.



Portfolio on instagram, contract discussions on snapchat. Where've you been?


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 25, 2016)

slclick said:


> Since when have photographic experts been using Instagram to showcase their work? I thought it was for your daily meal and 11 year old boys.





neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Since when have photographic experts been using Instagram to showcase their work? I thought it was for your daily meal and 11 year old boys.
> ...



LOL! Why it matters where my portfolio is???!! Look at the work not which site it is at lmao! Btw, if that matters, search Crafter's Imagework on 500px, flickr, facebook, google, tumblr lol (whichever gives you the feel of elitisam lamo).

Just to add, I am a professional wedding photographer and covered 28 weddings this year. 6 (yes SIX) of them were from instagram. And god knows how many portrait session I booked through social media. Maybe prehistoric old gents like you are not familiar with new marketing tools  good for me. I will gladly take those bookings each year lamo.

Although, you just showed how incredibly naive and clueless you are by commenting about that instagram thing lol.


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 25, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> Which ones on the instagram page have been disastrously destroyed by the horrible 50 1.2?
> I can't spot them.



None of these were taken with 50L. I owned 50L till 2014 and sold it as soon as 50 Art came out. One of the best decision of my life


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Portfolio on instagram, contract discussions on snapchat. Where've you been?
> ...



Just to add, I wasn't being facetious. Instagram is quite a popular platform. 

Although, you just showed how incredibly rude and asinine you are by assuming about that instagram thing lol.


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Since when have photographic experts been using Instagram to showcase their work? I thought it was for your daily meal and 11 year old boys.
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> *Just to add, I wasn't being facetious.* Instagram is quite a popular platform.
> 
> Although, you just showed how incredibly rude and asinine you are by assuming about that instagram thing lol.



Umm.... May be you should see a doctor? ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


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



I see one every time I look in the mirror, thanks. 

My point is that it makes sense to use the communication tools that your clients natively use. You seem to understand that, based on you choosing to host a portfolio on instagram. However, either your comprehension of the English language is poor, or you're just an ass (not that those are mutually exclusive).


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Since when have photographic experts been using Instagram to showcase their work? I thought it was for your daily meal and 11 year old boys.
> ...






CanonGuy said:


> Just to add, I am a professional wedding photographer and covered 28 weddings this year. 6 (yes SIX) of them were from instagram. And god knows how many portrait session I booked through social media. Maybe prehistoric old gents like you are not familiar with new marketing tools  good for me. I will gladly take those bookings each year lamo.



Times have certainly changed....

"digital photography is a fad and will never replace film"
"someday there will be a phone in every city"
"there will be a Telidon (pre-web and HTML) terminal in every library"

and our behaviour has changed too. If your market is on Facebook and/or snapchat, why not your portfolio?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> If your market is on Facebook and/or snapchat, why not your portfolio?



Exactly. Times have definitely changed from a technology standpoint. What hasn't changed is some people's rude behavior...but that's going to be around as long as humanity.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 26, 2016)

The lens in the post, is that the 50 1.0? It has a focus limiter on it.


----------



## JMZawodny (Nov 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > If your market is on Facebook and/or snapchat, why not your portfolio?
> ...



I was going to comment, but instead I'll let this last statement stand on its own.


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > If your market is on Facebook and/or snapchat, why not your portfolio?
> ...



Are you looking at the mirror again? lol! Read the previous comments and see who was rude. Who was calling people 'ass'! I wish this forum had a way to block rude and mental people like you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



There is a way to block whoever you want. Perhaps you're smart enough to figure it out. You can also delete your account, if you choose. By the way, who called who naive and clueless because they failed to understand a simple comment and made an incorrect ASSumption about it? Yeah, that's what I thought. 

I guess your clientele has a high tolerance for rudeness, or perhaps you are just able to mask your personality sufficiently to conduct business.


----------



## CanonGuy (Nov 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You are a special thing lol! You started this thing by your pinching comment. Remember the comment bellow? Next time keep your craps within yourself. And yes I'm educated. Possibily more than you  I'm an electrical engineer and a Dr. (not the kind who can help you tho lol). And why would I delete my account?! If you step on poop, do you cut your own leg?! lol


"I didn't know sharpness was the most important characteristic of a lens. I'm so glad you're here to educate all of us on what aspects of image quality we should find most important. I guess we've foolishly thought that things like bokeh and color rendering matter. Thanks for setting us straight!

Not that sharpness is unimportant, but some people treat it as the sole criterion for evaluating lens performance, probably because reducing a complex set of objective and subjective parameters to a simple, uncomplicated number makes it easier for simple, uncomplicated minds to grasp."

Anyways, I'm done with this. I wont be reading your commment again. So keep writing as much as you want


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


> You are a special thing lol! You started this thing by your pinching comment. Remember the comment bellow? Next time keep your craps within yourself. And yes I'm educated. Possibily more than you  I'm an electrical engineer and a Dr. (not the kind who can help you tho lol). And why would I delete my account?! If you step on poop, do you cut your own leg?! lol



The above is like the forum equivalent of watching someone become so agitated that spittle flies from their foaming mouth as they rant. How sad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2016)

Daniel Flather said:


> The lens in the post, is that the 50 1.0? It has a focus limiter on it.



Yes, it's an image CRguy used in his review. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-50mm-f1-0l/


----------



## crashpc (Nov 27, 2016)

There is a rumor that there will be 50mm prime lens for Canon M system. How about that? 
50mm f/1.8 IS or f/1.4 w/o IS would do. Now I´m struggling without 50mm native prime...


----------



## slclick (Nov 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > You are a special thing lol! You started this thing by your pinching comment. Remember the comment bellow? Next time keep your craps within yourself. And yes I'm educated. Possibily more than you  I'm an electrical engineer and a Dr. (not the kind who can help you tho lol). And why would I delete my account?! If you step on poop, do you cut your own leg?! lol
> ...



I like how Doctor Rant used the photographic term 'bellow' instead of the word 'below'. But what do I know, I only have a Bachelor's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2016)

slclick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



Lol. Or bellow as in to shout, which goes hand in hand with ranting. 

A doctorate in electrical engineering, working as a wedding/portrait photographer? I wonder if that's because he's following his passion, which is admirable, or if it's a second (or worse, primary) job because he can't earn a sufficient wage in his chosen field, which is rather sad.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Sorry to disappoint and delay the popcorn folks -- I'm on vacation with my family and lack a computer + PS with which to artfully render how I feel right now.
> 
> But imagine a man shoving his head inside of his own butt. That would be me for waiting for the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM for so long.
> 
> ...



Also:


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 28, 2016)

Maybe the [CR2] is simply incorrect. Or somebody in marketing at Canon floated it to sell a few more of the old clunkers before the updated 1.2 L is released, one that is on par with the wonderful 35mm 1.4 L II...


----------



## geekpower (Nov 28, 2016)

i like the 50 f/1.2L. if they update it, great. if they don't, that's fine too.

to add some salt to the sharpness debate, i have to admit that i do look at charts, and care more than a little bit what they say, but at the end of the day, when i post pics to my social media, to be consumed by people who don't know anything about cameras or lenses, the ones taken with the 50L get way more likes and comments than the ones taken with sharper lenses like the 16-35 f4L. i have "ways" to work around the focus shift, not so much the CA, which i wish was better, but nonetheless, the bokeh wins people over, even/especially those who don't even know what "bokeh" is.

i would say it would be a shame if they broke the bokeh trying to make it sharper, except for the fact that i simply wouldn't upgrade it if they did, so it's fine, whatever they plan to do/not do.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 29, 2016)

geekpower said:


> i like the 50 f/1.2L. if they update it, great. if they don't, that's fine too.
> 
> to add some salt to the sharpness debate, i have to admit that i do look at charts, and care more than a little bit what they say, but at the end of the day, when i post pics to my social media, to be consumed by people who don't know anything about cameras or lenses, the ones taken with the 50L get way more likes and comments than the ones taken with sharper lenses like the 16-35 f4L. i have "ways" to work around the focus shift, not so much the CA, which i wish was better, but nonetheless, the bokeh wins people over, even/especially those who don't even know what "bokeh" is.
> 
> i would say it would be a shame if they broke the bokeh trying to make it sharper, except for the fact that i simply wouldn't upgrade it if they did, so it's fine, whatever they plan to do/not do.



Can't you just add some "extra blur" in PP? Based on my experience a sharp lens wide open + good light deliver pretty cool, 3d looking pictures. Mostly because of the strong sharpness/blur separation, and a punch of light to make the separation even stronger. And when I don't want details in the background, I just use blur (PS) / clarity tool (LR). IMHO it's much harder to make parts of an image sharper than blurrier


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Can't you just add some "extra blur" in PP?



Just as lens image quality is about more than sharpness, bokeh is about more than the quantity of blur. But of course, you should do whatever works for you. Heck, there are even tutorials for a "polarizing filter" in Photoshop, so I guess we don't need those on a lens anymore, either?


----------



## j-nord (Nov 29, 2016)

If a 50 f1.4 IS and possibly a new f1.2 or f1.0 come out, do you think the current 50 f1.2 will drop in price in the used market? Or do you think it will pretty much maintain value with out a huge hit?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 29, 2016)

j-nord said:


> If a 50 f1.4 IS and possibly a new f1.2 or f1.0 come out, do you think the current 50 f1.2 will drop in price in the used market? Or do you think it will pretty much maintain value with out a huge hit?


I doubt the price of the current 50mm F1.2 will drop significantly when a new model arrives. After all, magic bokeh is something subjective ...
Magic can not be overcome by science, right? :


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 29, 2016)

j-nord said:


> If a 50 f1.4 IS and possibly a new f1.2 or f1.0 come out, do you think the current 50 f1.2 will drop in price in the used market? Or do you think it will pretty much maintain value with out a huge hit?



Depends on what Canon puts out next. If Canon's next 50mm lens is...


An EF 50mm f/1.2L USM II in a straight sequel to the tool we have now (or perhaps a resurrection of the 50mm f/1.0L) --> they would be tripling down on where they came from, the first version will be obsoleted and it will slowly drop in price until it burns down its inventory. 


An EF 50mm f/1.4L USM (with or without IS) in a huge pickle jar sized offering to compete resolution-wise with the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 --> such a new lens would be massive and some folks might love the small size of the current 50L (in comparison) and keep it around. Also, there are some bokeh-prioritized folks out there that believe that any advantage that fraction of a stop f/1.2 gives over f/1.4 is preferable to a modernization/resolution bump and might opt out of an f/1.4L altogether. So the 50 f/1.2L _might_ hang around and be sold alongside it a new 50 f/1.4L. The current 50L price wouldn't drop in this case.


An EF 50mm of any sort that is a non-L (perhaps the one that I want ) --> the current 50 f/1.2L will live on. Even the sexiest of the all variations of the 50mm f/nooneknows IS nooneknows -- an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM -- might steal business from the L camp but people wouldn't pay a crazy L premium for it. So even if Canon offered such a kingly non-L lens at an inflated $999 price, they would not surrender the L price point and the current 50L would live on at current pricing.

Just a guess. I could certainly be wrong.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 29, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > If a 50 f1.4 IS and possibly a new f1.2 or f1.0 come out, do you think the current 50 f1.2 will drop in price in the used market? Or do you think it will pretty much maintain value with out a huge hit?
> ...



Unless Canon's next 50mm lens is 'Magic II'. If they make a straight sequel of the f/1.2L lens, the price of the current version will drop.

But if the next 50mm is either (a) a huge Art-like pickle jar or (b) not an L lens, I think the 50 f/1.2L will live on at/near it's current price, which has hovered just under it's initial $1,599 asking price 10 years ago.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



Refurbs were below $1000 last week.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can't you just add some "extra blur" in PP?
> Just as lens image quality is about more than sharpness, bokeh is about more than the quantity of blur.



No doubt about that 



neuroanatomist said:


> But of course, you should do whatever works for you. Heck, there are even tutorials for a "polarizing filter" in Photoshop, so I guess we don't need those on a lens anymore, either?



The new photoshop is supposed to replace the whole sky in a few clicks. Crazy stuff...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 29, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Unless Canon's next 50mm lens is 'Magic II'. If they make a straight sequel of the f/1.2L lens, the price of the current version will drop.
> ...



Sure. I don't include sales, refurbs, or in your case, a _sale on a refurb _in my statement. When I talk pricing, I am referencing the Canon MAP pricing you'd get at Amazon, Adorama, B&H etc. for a new item.

And j-nord, don't bother with used when (as Yuenglinger wisely points out) you can get an effectively new refurbished lens from Canon with a 1 year warranty on sale for 2/3 the price of new. Canon refurbs are 100% the way to go.

- A


----------



## slclick (Nov 29, 2016)

Jopa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you just add some "extra blur" in PP?
> ...



Every year the days of GIRIC are lost more and more to PP.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 29, 2016)

slclick said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Unless you are taking the sharpest possible pictures of crisp new bills.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 29, 2016)

geekpower said:


> i like the 50 f/1.2L. if they update it, great. if they don't, that's fine too.



I still like my FD 50 1.2 L! (Smaller, lighter, cheaper and, to my taste, more attractive than its EF successor, and fun to use on a mirrorless body.)


----------



## geekpower (Nov 29, 2016)

actually, the quality of the bokeh has little to do with the 1/3 stop wider aperture, and even less do to with magic; it's all about the spherical aberration, which turns out is actually science:

http://toothwalker.org/optics/spherical.html

we can talk about SA being a "defect" of the lens because it makes the image softer, overall, but it is qualitatively different than what a simple blur in post can do, as it becomes gradually more pronounced at the edges, which helps to pull attention to the subject. perhaps a more advanced post process could do something similar, but a simple one certainly can't. in addition, if the photographer decides to intentionally front or back focus, it can make the bokeh look different, so there is a lot of room for creativity.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 29, 2016)

geekpower said:


> actually, the quality of the bokeh has little to do with the 1/3 stop wider aperture, and even less do to with magic; it's all about the spherical aberration, which turns out is actually science:
> 
> http://toothwalker.org/optics/spherical.html
> 
> we can talk about SA being a "defect" of the lens because it makes the image softer, overall, but it is qualitatively different than what a simple blur in post can do, as it becomes gradually more pronounced at the edges, which helps to pull attention to the subject. perhaps a more advanced post process could do something similar, but a simple one certainly can't. in addition, if the photographer decides to intentionally front or back focus, it can make the bokeh look different, so there is a lot of room for creativity.



Point taken -- the weird love of the f/1.2L is more than just a fraction of a stop. Its nutty spherical plane of focus is somewhat unique: some folks describe how it renders as 'magical' while others just call it soft. 

It would appear that there are two camps with 50 primes -- give me magic or give me sharpness. The former spoons with their 50L at night while the latter straps enormous pickle jars to their rigs (Sigma Art, Zeiss Otus) to get razor sharp images.

I'm in a clear minority compared to those two groups. I care less about bokeh and best possible sharpness. I want a lens that is 90% as good as the best lens is optically, but only half as big. I love love love the 35mm f/2 IS USM and just want something similar (I'll take f/1.4 if it's not enormous) at the 50mm focal length. 

- A


----------



## meywd (Nov 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > actually, the quality of the bokeh has little to do with the 1/3 stop wider aperture, and even less do to with magic; it's all about the spherical aberration, which turns out is actually science:
> ...



Well I wish they could make one with 90% of both, a very smooth bokeh and very sharp on the subject, I know it's near impossible and if not then very expensive, which means I can't afford it, but I want it to be there in the case I can afford it.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 29, 2016)

meywd said:


> Well I wish they could make one with 90% of both, a very smooth bokeh and very sharp on the subject, I know it's near impossible and if not then very expensive, which means I can't afford it, but I want it to be there in the case I can afford it.



I can't speak to bokeh quality as that seems a bit subjective, but I believe the mere existence of the 35 f/2 IS USM vs. the 35L II or 35 Art implies you can get sharp + (relatively) fast + small, so I think there's hope for 50mm lenses as well.

The $64,000 questions have always been with the non-L EF 50mm f/1.4 refresh to a EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM: *what is 'nooneknows'* and *how big will it be*?

- A


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > actually, the quality of the bokeh has little to do with the 1/3 stop wider aperture, and even less do to with magic; it's all about the spherical aberration, which turns out is actually science:
> ...



How do you feel about the bokeh quality (seems to be decent at best) and the weird ghosting effects?

I like the lens also, even though i bought it to be a 'crop 50mm'.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 30, 2016)

ashmadux said:


> How do you feel about the bokeh quality (seems to be decent at best) and the weird ghosting effects?
> 
> I like the lens also, even though i bought it to be a 'crop 50mm'.



As I said, bokeh is subjective to judge, but it seems fine to me for a wider f/2 lens. I haven't seen any weird flare with the 35mm f/2 IS USM. I've actually been fairly pleased with it.

Others have tested this more aggressively than I have and come to a similar conclusion:

http://www.lenstip.com/365.9-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_2_IS_USM_Ghosting_and_flares.html

And from TDP:

_"The [35mm f/2] IS lens design has 3 additional lens elements (10/8 vs. 7/5) over the previous non-IS design, but remarkably shows the same or less flare than the previous lens. Which is very little - flare is very well controlled by this lens. The f/2 non-IS shows slightly more flare than the f/2 IS at very narrow apertures - f/11 and narrower. The 35 L and its larger glass show modestly more flare than the two f/2 lenses at narrow apertures."_

- A


----------



## Josh Denver (Dec 2, 2016)

It might not show but I want that 50mm IS even more than Ahsanford. Yes. 

The deal is, in film, people LOVE shallow depth, especially when not TOO shallow (85mm1.2like) but more 50mm1.8 shallow on S35 (aps-c). It's the sweet spot for film and most hollywood kings have the 50mm f/1.8-2.8 as their favourite and the one to shoot an entire film on.

It's the close up on subject look, coupled with diffused background that separates the subject yet gives attention to background details and layers, atmosphere. And you can go back and close down to 5.6 and get a very dreamy full body shot with slight background separation. 

I still shoot video and films on Canon DSLRs (yes - it's the colours and inability to afford a new sony every couple of month and a new 4K editing rig and film school money for learning colouri.. sorry, correcting footage) 

When you're in the video business you shoot a lot of high end cameras because rental is a thing, much less so in photography. But still my very owned personal gear is Canon APS-C cameras and Canon glass. 

It's sharp enough for 720p television (maximum spec) and web (where all my work goes) and even projects in theatres magically. No need to change. And the point is, I've always shot the Canon 50mm 1.4, just because the 1.8 II didn't have a focus ring. And the 1.4 gave identical image both at 1.8. Never use lower than 1.8-2 so 1.4 and 1.2 is of no concern. The 1.4 Canon was cheap and well made and gave me hollywood grade footage coupled with a Canon camera's Jpeg engine colour rendition. I then bought the 50mm STM when it came out as a backup at 120$, and it now replaced my 1.4! Just a better lens. Sharper too and has a smoother focus ring (Fly by wire but no where near as bad as Sonys do it, it's linear). The build quality is too steep but I bough another copy, juse because! Both together still cheaper than the 1.4 and each is superior. This says it all about the current 1.4. IT NEEDS replacement. 

Guess what's the biggest shooting problem that I have now shooting on set? Stability. 

You just CANNOT shoot 50mm video handheld. So you need a rig, and it transforms a rebel/80d+Niftyfifty look into a monster cinema shooter look! Plus they all work 10-20% out of the times badly in stability. While optical stabilization is numerical and always dead on (owning the 35mm IS, that is)

I just can't imagine how easy it would make my life if Canon created a 50mm IS. So many creative shots ruined by the need to add post stabilization and so many great frames went uncaptured because it can't be done without a rig I don't have on me... 

This need for that lens made me think seriously about jumping to Sony due to their 50mm 1.8 OSS (plus IBIS). But the colours and bodies and heating and all that noise turn me off. They just don't make Canon-like video. Just go see youtube videos/films shot on both. My client like the images I give and I am not compromising that.

Now that Canon is not giving a 50mm soon, worst news I've heard all month, I have two options: looks for a third party alternative, or get a Sony/pana camera with IBIS. 

The former appeals better to me for all the reasons above. What do you guys think of that Tamron 45mm VC? What are the other options? 

(BTW for 6D/5D/1D shooters reading this: s35 50mm f/1.8 looks like 85mm f/2.8 on your 5D, that's the look I mean)


----------



## Josh Denver (Dec 2, 2016)

BTW the EOS M5 has (5axis stabilization -electronic) in video mode. If that works well, it's my ticket out. Will sell my newly acquired 80D and get that body + adapter. 

I have to ask, most people here are photogs, what is your sooo urgent need for an IS 50mil? 

I have some russian m42 glass and the 135mm prime works great in photography, you just pump up that dial called shutter speed. 

Can't think of anythng other than lowlight still subject shooting with a 50, like in a meuseum or some sort... 

We video shooters however, normally, starve for it. So what's the so urgent need??


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 2, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> BTW the EOS M5 has (5axis stabilization -electronic) in video mode. If that works well, it's my ticket out. Will sell my newly acquired 80D and get that body + adapter.
> 
> I have to ask, most people here are photogs, what is your sooo urgent need for an IS 50mil?
> 
> ...


I read somewhere, that body image stabilization (IBIS) works well with wide-angle lenses, and not very well with tele lenses.

The 80mm (50mm APS-C) viewing angle should benefit most from an optical image stabilizer, and the Tamron 45mm VC is the only option at this time.

Yes, dark places like museums, would be the priority use for a 50mm IS.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 2, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I read somewhere, that body image stabilization (IBIS) works well with wide-angle lenses, and not very well with tele lenses.



penny drops!.. of course it does!

With a WA the camera has to wobble an awful lot to move the image at all, with a telephoto hardly any movement results in image shift. Any accelerometer in the camera will be limited (noise & resolution), and that limit will show up at the "long" end of the lens range first.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 3, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > I read somewhere, that body image stabilization (IBIS) works well with wide-angle lenses, and not very well with tele lenses.
> ...


Obviously I compared stabilization in the lens, versus stabilization in the body, both with the same viewing angle.

In this scenario, IBIS is competitive with wide-angle lenses.
On the other hand, with tele lenses, IBIS is ineffective COMPARING WITH STABILIZER ON THE LENS.


----------



## Josh Denver (Dec 3, 2016)

Keep im mind the EOS M5 while technically has IBIS (in body image stabilization), because it has stabilization, well, in body, it is not what other IBIS from Panasonic and Sony. In the EOS M5 the camera takes a bigger resolution than 1080p, and corrects for motion by moving the frame electronically, while the others actually move the sensor to compensate with motion, so it works for photo mode, while the m5 needs a supersampled resololution thus only video mode. 

Electronis IS has been VERY BAD at some cameras and VERY GOOD at others. From the M3, it's in the very good category. I hope the M5 does it well. 

So my only option for a stabilized 50 prime for my SLRs is the Tamron 45mm VC? Bummer. 

It'd be interesting to see how it would work with VC + M5 IBIS though. 

BTW the M5 makes a never-before-heard claim, which is 5 axis electronic IBIS. How is that even a physical possibility? Doesn't sensor motion need to work for 5 axis? Are they doinh some overly clever software manipulations? Over-wording from marketing department?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 3, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> ...BTW the M5 makes a never-before-heard claim, which is 5 axis electronic IBIS. How is that even a physical possibility? Doesn't sensor motion need to work for 5 axis? Are they doinh some overly clever software manipulations? Over-wording from marketing department?


I have a Panasonic AG-AC8 video camera with 5-axis optical + electronic stabilizer. This means that MOTION SENSORS capture motion in 5 different directions.

Direction 1:
Vertical rotation on the central axis of the camera (when the front moves up, the back moves down) that corrects itself through the displacement in the lens.

Direction 2: Vertical movement without turning (both the front and the back move to the same side) that is corrected through the displacement in the lens.

Direction 3:
Horizontal rotation in the central axis of the camera (when the front moves to the left, the back moves to the right) that corrects itself through the displacement in the lens.

Direction 4: Horizontal movement without turning (both the front and the back move to the same side) that is corrected by the displacement in the lens.

Direction 5: Horizon's tilt movement, which will be leveled electronically through a small digital zoom.

In a lens without OPTICAL STABILIZER, directional corrections 1, 2, 3, 4 would have to be made electronically, with reduced efficiency.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> BTW the M5 makes a never-before-heard claim, which is 5 axis electronic IBIS. How is that even a physical possibility? Doesn't sensor motion need to work for 5 axis? Are they doinh some overly clever software manipulations? Over-wording from marketing department?



I think it's likely 'overwording'. But...it may be true, in a convoluted way (i.e., technically true as written, but practically false). Here's what the press release states:

[quote author=Canon USA]
The Canon EOS M5 also features Combination IS with in-camera 5-axis image stabilization, while capturing video, a first in the Canon EOS series. With a compatible lens attachediv, Combination IS leverages optical IS and in-camera digital IS to help create tremendously smooth videos. *The DIGIC 7 Image Processor makes the 5-axis IS possible even with lenses that do not contain IS*, because the in-camera image stabilization functions independently to help reduce camera shake when shooting videos.

ivMaximum image stabilization is achieved when using either the EF-M 18–150mm f/3.5–6.3 IS STM or the EF-M 15–45mm f/3.5–6.3 IS STM with the lens firmware update.
[/quote]

To simplify ajfotofilmagem's statement, the 5 axes are pitch, yaw, roll, and translational movements in X and Y. Sensor movement IS can correct all five. Lens IS can correct four – all except roll (however, most lens IS systems only correct pitch and yaw, which are the major sources of motion at non-closeup distances; Canon's Hybrid IS corrects X/Y translation, too). Electronic IS can generally correct three – roll and X/Y translation. The part I bolded above likely isn't possible. 

However, real electronic 5-axis IS _might_ be possible in the future, based on dual-pixel architecture. Given that a DP RAW file allows limited forward/backward adjustment, it's theoretically possible to correct pitch and/or yaw by post-hoc moving focus forward on one half of the frame and back in the other. Since current DP architecture has all the pixels split in the same direction, it would currently only be possible to correct pitch _or_ yaw, not both (you'd need mixed orientation of dual pixels, or quad-pixels, for both).

The M5 doesn't have DP-RAW for stills, and for the 5DIV with Digic 6+ you need the processing power of a real computer for microadjusting focus. But _possibly_ Digic 7 can do it on the fly for video resolution. So if you put that string of ifs together with the fact that if you shoot video with the camera in portrait orientation (I know, why?!?), pitch becomes yaw (at least relative to the Canon logo, even if not in real space), then the M5 has 5-axis electronic stabilization (even though it can only do four axes at any one time).


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 6, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> On the other hand, with tele lenses, IBIS is ineffective COMPARING WITH STABILIZER ON THE LENS.



Not at all. 1) IBIS is "always on" in-lens stabilization is not and needs time to "settle" which will ruin some pictures if it does not have the time to do so. 2) IBIS can now combine with in-lens stabilization giving the best of two worlds. 3) IBIS "upgrades" the IS of all your lenses for every generation. The best IBIS systems now clearly out-perform Canon's older in-body (2 stop) system.

Some people used to claim that it was "impossible" or "difficult" to see through a non-stabilized viewfinder on a big white. However, after Canon introduced its "sports-mode" without a stabilized viewfinder this spurious claim has finally subsided. 

The reason for having this settings is due to another weakness of the in-lens stabilization - you risk "fighting" against the stabilization system when framing your shot. This is also the official Canon reason for introducing this setting which makes sure IS only kicks in when you press the shutter fully.

Canon - I want IBIS NOW!!!!!!!


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 10, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> I have to ask, most people here are photogs, what is your sooo urgent need for an IS 50mil?
> 
> I have some russian m42 glass and the 135mm prime works great in photography, you just pump up that dial called shutter speed.
> 
> ...



Video is shot @ 1/24s or faster (AFAIK the common speed is 1/48), with at most 4K (= ~8MP).

Why do you think video shooters would strive for IS at 1/48 at 8MP, but stills photographers shooting 1/60 with >20MP would not, at the same focal length?

And, mind you, stills cameras are shot handheld much more often than video.


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2016)

#50in2020


Like an election meme


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 10, 2017)

I continue to take wonderful pictures with my no-fail 50 1.4. 

It has worked for me so well that I use my beloved 70-200 only a few times a year- though im looking to change that.

The AF on mine is dead on after it was first serviced some years back. It took 5 copies to find a good one, but man, its been a treasure ever since. The green fringing in particular is very noticeable, and sometimes is way more difficult to take otu in post then it looks, however purple fringing is a non issue.

Updated lenses are great too, however I'm mildly disappointed withe the cheesy bokeh and ghosting of the 35mm f2IS. It works great for behind the scenes stuff, but nothing comes close to the accuracy of my 5d3 + 50mm 1.4 combo. Actually, the closest was my t2i+70-200.

Ah well, happy shooting


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2017)

ashmadux said:


> I continue to take wonderful pictures with my no-fail 50 1.4.



My Canon 50 f/1.4 nails focus (eventually -- it hunts quite a bit) but I only use it at f/2.8 or narrower for most use as I don't find the wider aperture shots all that appealing. The bokeh is all right I guess, but images seem cloudy and 'off' when I shoot on the wide open end, especially in higher contrast scenes (backlit skies, street lights in the background at night, etc.). Occasionally, the light is good and even and I net some strong keepers, but it's more the exception to the rule.

I can't say it any more plainly -- we need a 24/28/35 IS refresh for the 50 f/1.4. I'm not married to f/1.4 or even IS with this 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM, but it must have a new optical design + USM + internal focusing for me. 

- A


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > I continue to take wonderful pictures with my no-fail 50 1.4.
> ...


My experience with the Canon 50mm F1.4 was like this: Great quality at F2.8 and just reasonable at F1.8. Simply unacceptable contrast in F1.4.

Now with Sigma 50 Art, I am always delighted with the image quality, even wide open.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Now with Sigma 50 Art, I am always delighted with the image quality, even wide open.



The optics are stellar, yes, but it's the size of a standard zoom and has AF inconsistency issues.

I just want something in the form factor of the one on the right with 90% of the IQ of the one on the left -- with reliable/fast/consistent first party AF.

- A

P.S. Didn't mean to judge -- the Sigma Art is a wonderful instrument. I just value compact size and AF speed/accuracy/consistency _more_ than best-best-best IQ. For instance, I chose the 35mm f/2 IS USM over the Sigma 35 Art for the exact same reason. In your hands, however, the Art may very well be the best choice.


----------



## mikekx102 (Mar 27, 2017)

My interest has been peaked with the news that Canon is looking into an f1.0 design :O With the latest Canon technology that could be amazing! I would be interested if we knew any more about the time frame though. No availability in 2017 sucks, but I would hope it was 2018 not later... I'd love a 50mm, but since I don't NEED one I'm not sure what to do in the mean while.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 27, 2017)

mikekx102 said:


> My interest has been peaked with the news that Canon is looking into an f1.0 design :O With the latest Canon technology that could be amazing! I would be interested if we knew any more about the time frame though. No availability in 2017 sucks, but I would hope it was 2018 not later... I'd love a 50mm, but since I don't NEED one I'm not sure what to do in the mean while.



I doubt Canon will release an f/1.0 lens, because

* Canon has already released one for the bragging rights.

* As ISO performance improved significantly, there's less need for such a fast lens.

* With DSLR sales going down, Canon will invest in lenses that sell best, which is probably not a 50mm f/1.0 lens.

My guess Canon will upgrade a few primes (50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2), and then upgrades will go back to what it was in the film days.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Now with Sigma 50 Art, I am always delighted with the image quality, even wide open.
> ...



The Sigma gets a lot of praise, but I have a big issue with the 50ART.

I have the 50L, the Tamron 45 f1.8, and got the Sigma 50 ART as partial payment from a lens I sold a month ago..

My Sigma 50 ART is now for sale. 

The Sigma is the sharper lens, and has less chromatic aberration. My copy focuses pretty good on my 1DXII as well. The weight isn't really bothering me either. So why not keep the Sigma?

It makes my pictures lifeless and flat. I took pictures of some friends the other night, with the 50L and the Sigma, all in the same situation and same lighting, same aperture (f2.5) and same shutter speed. 

One thing I noted was that the ISO was raised by 2/3 of a stop compared to the Canon, so light transmission seems worse. 

After reviewing and sorting out the pictures, I had two pictures from the Sigma left, and approximately 15 from the 50L. Focus accuracy was not the issue. Almost all the Sigma-pictures made my friends faces look flat, and the pictures looked like a sticker of them was glued on to a blurry background. The pictures from the 50L had much more depth and life in them, and looked much more pleasing. Unless you are addicted to sharpness, I believe you will be more satisfied with the 50L or Tamron 45 f1.8. 

For those of you who find this interesting, take a look on these pictures from Flickr and see for yourself. I suggest you look at all the pictures before clicking on info to see witch lens is used. (Note that the Sigma pictures dont seem to say witch lens is used, but they are all from a Sigma 50 ART group on Flickr) It is most easily seen in headshots.

https://flic.kr/p/RunETW

https://flic.kr/p/NoJoTc

https://flic.kr/p/N7KFGY

https://flic.kr/p/QXXi5b

https://flic.kr/p/NMf5vt

https://flic.kr/p/RpYNCa

https://flic.kr/p/SytryE

https://flic.kr/p/SngXZQ

https://flic.kr/p/SQgjkf

I might sell either the Canon or Tamron in the end, but So far I really like both of them. The depth issue I mention is definitely not an issue with the Tamron.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 27, 2017)

"Almost all the Sigma-pictures made my friends faces look flat, and the pictures looked like a sticker of them was glued on to a blurry background."


Yes, a thousand times yes. And this is why I love the Zeiss lenses for being everything the Sigma's are not


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...we need a 24/28/35 IS refresh for the 50 f/1.4. I'm not married to f/1.4 or even IS with this 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM, but it must have a new optical design + USM + internal focusing for me.



The Canon 24/28/35 IS lineup is one of their best ever made IMO. Great quality (maybe not Zeiss Otus level, but come close) in a small, lightweight and easy-to-use lens. I'd love if Canon not only continues there with a 50mm, but also come out with a 20mm or even a bit wider in the same fashion. 

I do also have the 50STM; focusing isn't bad, but USM is just a bit more responisve and feels better overall, so maybe I'd sell it for a 50mm IS USM. I'm not even looking for better image quality - just the internal focusing unit and stabilizer would be worth the money IMO.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 28, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> The Sigma gets a lot of praise, but I have a big issue with the 50ART.
> 
> I have the 50L, the Tamron 45 f1.8, and got the Sigma 50 ART as partial payment from a lens I sold a month ago..
> 
> ...



Just had a look at the photos on flickr and, well, my initial reaction is I feel like I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Of course there is an element of subjectivity in this but to me the headshots with the 50 Art have a similar depth effect, if not more so in some cases, than the 50L headshots. (I was going to go into more detail, but I didn't want to post a message which gives away which photos are which  )

I have never owned a 50L but I have seen plenty of photos from it I've really liked, so don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bag the 50L or say the 50 Art is better. And I have seen a few shots taken with the 35 Art and 50 Art which have given me an impression of the subject being a sticker on a blurry background. However, I regard that as the exception rather than the rule, and as I say, looking at the photos in the links on my screen here, I just don't feel like I'm seeing a flatness to the 50 Art images in comparison to the 50L images.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'll be interested to see what other people's opinions are!

Edit: do you by any chance use Lightroom and have lens profile corrections turned on? I do feel like having that turned on makes images look much "flatter" in a way I often don't like.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 28, 2017)

jd7 said:


> Just had a look at the photos on flickr and, well, my initial reaction is I feel like I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Of course there is an element of subjectivity in this but to me the headshots with the 50 Art have a similar depth effect, if not more so in some cases, than the 50L headshots. (I was going to go into more detail, but I didn't want to post a message which gives away which photos are which  )
> 
> I have never owned a 50L but I have seen plenty of photos from it I've really liked, so don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bag the 50L or say the 50 Art is better. And I have seen a few shots taken with the 35 Art and 50 Art which have given me an impression of the subject being a sticker on a blurry background. However, I regard that as the exception rather than the rule, and as I say, looking at the photos in the links on my screen here, I just don't feel like I'm seeing a flatness to the 50 Art images in comparison to the 50L images.
> 
> ...



I have to admit that the effect I am talking about is not obvious in every picture. That said, when I showed a number of pictures to my non-technical wife and asked the same question: "does this look flat or not". She picked out the Sigma pictures as fla, and the 50L pictures as 3D-like, all without hesitation. 

I admit that pictures taken with the 50L can look flat as well. I have tried to figure out why some pictures appear flat, while others dont. I find that the distance to the subject has a lot to do with it. The lighting also plays a big part of it. Shallow depth of field does not help. f2.8 or f4 may on a 50mm lens on full frame seems to be good.

If it is subjective or not? I am not so shure. Once you have noticed what I mean, I believe you will recognize it much more often than if you are unaware.

I actually find that my 24LII and 28mm f2.8IS is very good at making pictures with a sense of depth in them. Have a look at these pictures, taken with a Canon crop sensor camera, and the 28mm f2.8 IS:

https://flic.kr/p/K1hGg1 

https://flic.kr/p/LcNgof

https://flic.kr/p/S2btB3

And with the 24LII:

https://flic.kr/p/pswYhP

https://flic.kr/p/RxoiBS

When I look at these pictures, it gives me a true to life impression, as I was standing where the camera was.

Your thoughts?


----------



## jd7 (Mar 29, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Just had a look at the photos on flickr and, well, my initial reaction is I feel like I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Of course there is an element of subjectivity in this but to me the headshots with the 50 Art have a similar depth effect, if not more so in some cases, than the 50L headshots. (I was going to go into more detail, but I didn't want to post a message which gives away which photos are which  )
> ...



I certainly agree those images do give a sense of depth. The one called "Otto" (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15396477279/) is a good example, I think. (I see was taken at 24 mm with a full frame camera, but it must have been cropped in post.)

I don't pretend to be an expert, and apologies if much of this seems very basic/obviously, but here goes with my theories about why some photos seem flat while others give a sense of depth ...

A photo is a 2D representation of a 3D scene (obviously), so if we perceive a "depth" to a photo it's because we are picking up clues in the photo which our brains are using to interpret the scene and interpolate the sense of depth. 

One clue to depth is from shadows, so directional light used well helps give a sense of depth. I think you can see that in a number of the photos you linked, including "Otto" and this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariazuelo/30449645921/ Even a slight vignette on the image can sometimes help give a sense a depth. 

Another clue to depth is from in focus areas versus blur. That's clear enough when you see background blur, but I think it's often particularly noticeable when you have blurred foreground areas as well, eg in this photo I found on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/behzad_rad/32318420484/in/pool-zeissotus55/ where you get a clear impression of depth "layers", and I think you can see it in this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/32482571716/ which you linked to earlier, where the tip of the nose is blurred.

Another clue can be the relative sizes of objects (which means choice of focal length and distance to subject are at least potentially relevant). I think the "Otto" photo is an example of that, with the guy's nose being a little on the large size. You can argue about whether or not its flattering, but I think it does help add a sense of depth to the photo. In the case of portraits, I think it also tends to make you feel like you are standing closer to the subject, which is an effect I actually like sometimes.

There are other things too of course, eg straight lines getting closer together, such as looking along a railroad track, etc, etc.

All of that said, some lenses do seem to be better than others at giving a sense of depth. The ability to blur out of focus areas is probably part of it, but I agree it's not the whole of it. My belief is, at least in the past, lenses designed for portraiture (eg 50L, 85L, etc) have tended to "suffer" from field curvature issues, ie they don't have a "flat field", and I wonder whether something about the lack of a flat field actually helps in creating a sense of depth? I think relatively recent lenses have tended to have flatter fields, so perhaps I'm on the wrong track there. I've also seen someone on CR (can't recall who), saying that higher end lenses tend to use glass elements in places where cheaper lenses use polycarbonate elements, and the glass elements do a better job of creating a depth effect and "pop".

Regarding images where the subject seems like a sticker on the background, my feeling is that tends to happen when the subject is the nearest object in the photo and the background is quite blurred but obviously not that far away, and especially if the light is "flat" as well. And I wonder whether it can be exacerbated with newer lenses (like the Arts) which are very sharp even wide open, because they can create such a precisely defined edge to the subject?

This 50 Art shot I found on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/32039657674/in/pool-sigma-50mm-art/ almost looks like the subject is a sticker (I think) if you look at the right side of the photo (eg subject's left shoulder). However, her right side gets blurry around the shoulder and upper arm, giving the impression the subject is attached to / part of the rest of the image, so in the end I don't think the "sticker effect" is really there. Similarly, I think you can see it starting to happen in this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/orsonwang/32615125323/in/pool-canon35mm_is_usm/ if you just look around the head and next, but again it's counteracted by other parts of the photo. In contrast, I do think you can see the "sticker effect" at least somewhat in this shot https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/32497215313/in/pool-zeissotus55/ and this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/ileohidalgo/32884247933/in/[email protected]/ . I have a particularly good example of the "sticker effect" in a shot I took last year with the 35 Art, but I don't have it handy to upload it.

I realise the examples above come from a number of different lenses, but they are just what I found having a quick look around flickr now.

Anyway, at least generally I would choose a photo which gives a sense of depth over a "sharper", so I'm intrigued by your belief the 50 Art does not do a good job of creating a sense of depth - although I'm not ready to say I agree that's the case 

Sorry for the long post, but I find this quite an interesting topic, as you may have gathered!


----------



## jd7 (Mar 29, 2017)

I came across this review of a new Fuji lens 
https://fstoppers.com/originals/fstoppers-reviews-fujifilm-50mm-f2-wr-170657
and I think the first photo gives a sense of depth, but if you scroll down about half way there are three similar portraits (street in background) which I think give that impression of the subject being a sticker on the background. Just thought I'd mention it for interest!

And here are two last examples - both Sigma 35 Art at f/1.4. I like one shot quite a lot, while I think the other demonstrates that "sticker effect" ...


----------



## zim (Mar 29, 2017)

jd7 said:


> I came across this review of a new Fuji lens
> https://fstoppers.com/originals/fstoppers-reviews-fujifilm-50mm-f2-wr-170657
> and I think the first photo gives a sense of depth, but if you scroll down about half way there are three similar portraits (street in background) which I think give that impression of the subject being a sticker on the background. Just thought I'd mention it for interest!
> 
> And here are two last examples - both Sigma 35 Art at f/1.4. I like one shot quite a lot, while I think the other demonstrates that "sticker effect" ...




Really interesting stuff about ‘sticker’ effect. My uneducated 2 pence worth 
*Lighting*
There is just something ‘off’ with the lighting in the first picture but correct in the second, maybe its colour balance between subject and background?
*Subject matter*
There are items in the second image which connect through to the background. Image one is completely disconnected.
*Composition*
The vertical angle of view enhances the disconnect between subject and background

I suspect all three ‘faults’ could be replicated with just about any lens?


----------



## slclick (Mar 29, 2017)

The sticker effect looks a lot like the 'soap opera' effect you see on 4k tv's.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 29, 2017)

jd7 said:


> I don't pretend to be an expert, and apologies if much of this seems very basic/obviously, but here goes with my theories about why some photos seem flat while others give a sense of depth ...
> 
> A photo is a 2D representation of a 3D scene (obviously), so if we perceive a "depth" to a photo it's because we are picking up clues in the photo which our brains are using to interpret the scene and interpolate the sense of depth.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your long post. I appreciate your interest on this matter.

I pretty much agree with your observations. As you point out, the pictures we look at are presented 2D. This is also a reason why it is hard to understand (and illustrate) that some lenses create a 3D-like effect while others don´t. I would highly appreciate if someone could _explain_ it.

I agree that the mix of light (direction) and shadows, vignette, and relative sizes seems to play a part with creating a "3D-effect". 

I am not so sure that the blur/bokeh plays a major part though. I don´t think that the "Maria" picture (https://flic.kr/p/ReSmsh) has much depth in it. Her facial features look flat to me, and I dont see neither the foreground or background blur to be helping out. I have a theory though, that the transition between the in focus and the out of focus area plays an important part, but I am unable to describe it further.

Lenses I have experience with, in terms of creating depth can be summed up like this:

Canon 24LII - Fantastic
Canon 85LII - Fantastic
Canon 35LII - very good +
Canon 28 f2.8 IS - very good +
Canon 50L - very good
Canon 135L - very good
Zeiss 50mm f2 macro-planar - very good
Sigma 50mm f1.4 (the old one) - very good
Tamron 45mm f1.8 - very good
Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) - good +
Canon 24-70 LII - good +
Canon 16-35 f4 L IS - good (especially on crop sensor (7DII))
Canon 24-70 f4 L IS - good
Sigma 20mm ART - good
Sigma 35 ART - poor
Sigma 50 ART - poor


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 29, 2017)

jd7 said:


> I came across this review of a new Fuji lens
> https://fstoppers.com/originals/fstoppers-reviews-fujifilm-50mm-f2-wr-170657
> and I think the first photo gives a sense of depth, but if you scroll down about half way there are three similar portraits (street in background) which I think give that impression of the subject being a sticker on the background. Just thought I'd mention it for interest!
> 
> And here are two last examples - both Sigma 35 Art at f/1.4. I like one shot quite a lot, while I think the other demonstrates that "sticker effect" ...



I agree with your observations. The first portrait in the article has a fair amount of depth in it, while the three similar at the bottom don´t. As for the last three, I believe it is due to flat lightening of her face, and that no lenses would make them look 3D-like. 

One thing I would like to point out, is that I think black and white pictures often appear more 3D-like.

As for your pictures, the woman in the restaurant does not appear flat, and I suppose that was your point.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 30, 2017)

zim said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this review of a new Fuji lens
> ...



That's my feeling. That said, I think it is probably more likely to happen with wide aperture shots taken with sharp lenses, because if the subject is in focus the edges of the subject will be crisply defined, and if there is bit of distance between the subject and background the background will be quite blurred, helping to give that "disconnected" look. I think it at least a bit less noticeable if the background is very long way away - perhaps because we more readily perceive the blurriness of the background compared wtih the sharpness of the foreground as natural?


----------



## jd7 (Mar 30, 2017)

slclick said:


> The sticker effect looks a lot like the 'soap opera' effect you see on 4k tv's.



I'll have to look that one up!


----------



## jd7 (Mar 30, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I came across this review of a new Fuji lens
> ...



If that's right about black and white images - maybe seeing an image in black and white makes it easier to pcik up subtle changes in tone, with the changes in tone (amount of shadow/light, if you like) helping give the 3D effect?


----------



## jd7 (Mar 30, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Thank you for your long post. I appreciate your interest on this matter.
> 
> I pretty much agree with your observations. As you point out, the pictures we look at are presented 2D. This is also a reason why it is hard to understand (and illustrate) that some lenses create a 3D-like effect while others don´t. I would highly appreciate if someone could _explain_ it.
> 
> ...



I agree with you about the subject's face in the Maria" photo seeming fairly flat. Probably not a great example of what I was trying to show, although I do think the foreground blur helps to give at least some depth to the photo overall, if not the subject's face. Here are a couple more examples
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/33131443920/in/pool-canonef85mmf12l/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/laynachu/33175397450/in/pool-canonef85mmf12l/
but you may be right that in focus/out of focus blur doesn't do much to create a 3D effect on the subject. Maybe that's simply because generally you'd have the subject in focus??

Anyway, I think we are largely in agreement about the sorts of factors which are relevant to giving that sense of depth, although I would give less weight to the lens itself than I think you would. 

I also largely agree with the ordering in your list of lenses, except for where you've put the Arts. At this point, at least, I am not persuaded they are poor  I will try to do some more tests with my own lenses over the next few weeks though - just don't have time to do them immediately. Interestingly enough (and perhaps as we should expect?), you're list generally has wide aperture prime lenses up the top, then wide aperture zooms, then slower aperture zooms. (I also see you've given Sigma's old 50 1.4 EX a "very good" rating. I used to own that lens, I noticed how often non-photographers were drawn to the images it produced, notwithstanding issues like the colour fringing it can produce.)

As for a proper explanation of all of this, I'm afraid I'll have to leave that to someone with more knowledge than me  If you find out more, I'd be interested to hear!


----------



## Viggo (Mar 30, 2017)

As far as an explanation for the 3D, I think it's mostly down to how smooth and long or short the falloff from sharp focus to blurry background. I feel Sigma has a very short very sharp falloff, where Zeiss for example, has a longer more rounded soft falloff.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 30, 2017)

jd7 said:


> I agree with you about the subject's face in the Maria" photo seeming fairly flat. Probably not a great example of what I was trying to show, although I do think the foreground blur helps to give at least some depth to the photo overall, if not the subject's face. Here are a couple more examples
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/33131443920/in/pool-canonef85mmf12l/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/laynachu/33175397450/in/pool-canonef85mmf12l/
> but you may be right that in focus/out of focus blur doesn't do much to create a 3D effect on the subject. Maybe that's simply because generally you'd have the subject in focus??



I have reviewed many pictures of the 85L pictures that are on flickr, and find that many of them actually look a bit flat, compared to my own experience with the 85L. One factor in many of the flickr pictures is that photoshopping/smoothening the skin seems bad for the 3D-effect. Pictures that are out of focus are bad too.

Further, and probably more important, shooting at f1.2 is not helping at creating a sense of depth. From my own experience with the 85L, I see more of a 3D effect if I shoot at f2.8 and f4.

This may very well correspond with Viggo's explanation, that it is the quality and the "length" of the falloff from sharp focus to the background, that plays the most important part when comparing different lenses. The other factors we have mentioned, light, shadow, distance to subject + + + will also play a part in creating a 3D-effect, but will play an equal role no matter what lens you are using (given that focal length and aperture is the same).


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 30, 2017)

Viggo said:


> As far as an explanation for the 3D, I think it's mostly down to how smooth and long or short the falloff from sharp focus to blurry background. I feel Sigma has a very short very sharp falloff, where Zeiss for example, has a longer more rounded soft falloff.



Great theory, Viggo!

This is the best explanation anyone has come up with so far. Your theory also supports my experience, that shooting a 50/85/135mm lens at at apertures of f2.8 and f4 may be better than shooting at f1.4.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 30, 2017)

Looking back at all the images.. "cut out" images often appear to have direct in-line with camera light sources or even light (over-cast available light).

the ones with more 3D often have dominant light sources off axis from the camera, especially laterally... so create very 3D making shadows on peoples faces.

If lighting is different for the subject vs background this effect can be profound, one reason to go easy on fill flash, especially if the flash colour doesn't quite match the available light.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 30, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> Looking back at all the images.. "cut out" images often appear to have direct in-line with camera light sources or even light (over-cast available light).
> 
> the ones with more 3D often have dominant light sources off axis from the camera, especially laterally... so create very 3D making shadows on peoples faces.
> 
> If lighting is different for the subject vs background this effect can be profound, one reason to go easy on fill flash, especially if the flash colour doesn't quite match the available light.



The lighting definitely plays a part, and I agree that off axis light sources seems important. But lighting isn't the whole explanation. Have a look at these pictures, which have even and not very dominant light sources in them, but still renders depth in a very good way:

24LII:
https://flic.kr/p/RxoiBS
https://flic.kr/p/GzUgPJ

50L:
https://flic.kr/p/vu6cih

85LII:
https://flic.kr/p/KGBNPt
https://flic.kr/p/Mbxz3n


----------



## jd7 (Mar 31, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> I have reviewed many pictures of the 85L pictures that are on flickr, and find that many of them actually look a bit flat, compared to my own experience with the 85L. One factor in many of the flickr pictures is that photoshopping/smoothening the skin seems bad for the 3D-effect. Pictures that are out of focus are bad too.
> 
> Further, and probably more important, shooting at f1.2 is not helping at creating a sense of depth. From my own experience with the 85L, I see more of a 3D effect if I shoot at f2.8 and f4.
> 
> This may very well correspond with Viggo's explanation, that it is the quality and the "length" of the falloff from sharp focus to the background, that plays the most important part when comparing different lenses. The other factors we have mentioned, light, shadow, distance to subject + + + will also play a part in creating a 3D-effect, but will play an equal role no matter what lens you are using (given that focal length and aperture is the same).



My understanding is:

how much blur, and how shallow a depth of field, you can achieve is directly related to the physical aperture size - for example, a 135 f/2 lens (67.5mm aperture) can create more blur than an 85 f/1.4 lens (60.7mm aperture). Of course, if the 135 causes you to go back further from your subject, that will tend to increase your DOF, so it's possible you could end up with more DOF despite the larger physical aperture.

the relative aperture tells you about how quickly an image will transition from in focus to out of focus: for example, an f/1.4 shot will give a quicker transition from in focus to out of focus compared with an f/2 shot.

My belief is that the ability to get DOF large enough to suit a person while still greatly blurring the background is part of the reason why longer lenses with wide apertures, like the 135/2, 200/2, etc, are highly regarded as portrait lenses.

I guess that's a long-winded way of saying I can believe there might be something in the idea that how quickly a shot transitions from in focus to out of focus could be part of creating the 3D effect ... although I have to say I'm not really seeing how it would work. I can see why it might be good for the image overall, but I'm struggling to see how it would help create the 3D effect. Anyone got a theory about that?

I certainly agree about skin smoothing. My guess is it's because the smoothing messes around with the transition from light to shadow.


Edit: Just dug up this old CR thread which you might find interesting if you haven't seen it before:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27986.15


----------



## jd7 (Mar 31, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> The lighting definitely plays a part, and I agree that off axis light sources seems important. But lighting isn't the whole explanation. Have a look at these pictures, which have even and not very dominant light sources in them, but still renders depth in a very good way:
> 
> 24LII:
> https://flic.kr/p/RxoiBS
> ...



For what it's worth, my attempt to explain the feeling of depth in those photos is:

the lighting may not be strong but, at least in most of them, it's not completely flat - it has some direction to it. For example, if you look at the 50L shot the right side of the girl's head is clearly in shadow and there are changes of tone over her face

there are layers apparent in the images, eg in the 50L shot, the woman holding the girl is clearly closer to the camera (based on relative sizes, and on fact she is a bit blurred), then the girl who is the subject, then a man a bit further back, then other people further back again.

I'm not saying the lens couldn't be part of it too, and/or other factors as well, but my feeling is the combination of lighting, composition and depth of field are probably major contributors.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 31, 2017)

I thought I recalled reading a Neil van Niekerk article about creating a 3D effect in images, and I just managed to dig it up:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/making-your-images-pop-through-lens-choice/

Not sure it adds much to what we've been talking about, but worth a quick look I think.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 31, 2017)

jd7 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I have reviewed many pictures of the 85L pictures that are on flickr, and find that many of them actually look a bit flat, compared to my own experience with the 85L. One factor in many of the flickr pictures is that photoshopping/smoothening the skin seems bad for the 3D-effect. Pictures that are out of focus are bad too.
> ...



I do follow your logic all the way, and I have the same questions as you do. 

With regards to the calculation of aperture and blur, I guess that it goes more into it than the physical size of the aperture. Different lenses has varius numbers of elements and different construction. I guess it is hard/impossible to understand how the "blur" works in a a particular lens, without understanding the lens design and how it affects blur. (which is way, way over my head..)


----------



## Viggo (Mar 31, 2017)

I often feel a slight edge light along with my main light gives better separation and pop. And it helps with a longer focal length and wide aperture, but I have plenty of shots with shorter focal lengths that also pops, and very wide apertures.

Pop! ;D


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 1, 2017)

jd7 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > The lighting definitely plays a part, and I agree that off axis light sources seems important. But lighting isn't the whole explanation. Have a look at these pictures, which have even and not very dominant light sources in them, but still renders depth in a very good way:
> ...



I agree that what you are pointing to are factors that contributes to the depth rendition. However, I am more convinced than you, that the lenses used is the main explanation. I just dont experience such kind of 3D-effects with all lenses, and I have noticed over quite some time that the L-series primes + the 28mm f2.8 IS is particularly good at giving this effect.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 1, 2017)

jd7 said:


> I thought I recalled reading a Neil van Niekerk article about creating a 3D effect in images, and I just managed to dig it up:
> http://neilvn.com/tangents/making-your-images-pop-through-lens-choice/
> 
> Not sure it adds much to what we've been talking about, but worth a quick look I think.



I had a quick look at the article, and I would like to let you know that I have had more useful input from you on the matter, than I got from that article.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Viggo said:


> I often feel a slight edge light along with my main light gives better separation and pop. And it helps with a longer focal length and wide aperture, but I have plenty of shots with shorter focal lengths that also pops, and very wide apertures.
> 
> Pop! ;D



Nicely done Viggo. And I certainly agree a rim/edge light is great for giving separation and pop!


----------



## jd7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I recalled reading a Neil van Niekerk article about creating a 3D effect in images, and I just managed to dig it up:
> ...




I did wonder if it was worth including the link to that article here ... at least it was pretty short


----------



## geekpower (Apr 20, 2017)

as much as i love the 50L, and do think its RSA does contribute to drawing the eye to the subject, on the topic of whether certain lenses have a "sticker on a background" effect, i think that has more to do with composition/technique than the lens. if there is enough DOF to get the whole subject in focus, but also a large distance between the subject and the background, you will get the sticker look. to avoid it, you either need a shallower DOF, so the edges of the subject are already starting to blurr, or some intermediate background objects that are less blurred than the furthest background objects (or better yet, a continuous rough surface like grass, that fades from sharp to slightly blurred, to very blurred.


----------



## Ozarker (May 13, 2017)

As much as I'd like to round out my fast prime lens collection in one year, it won't be happening for me anyway ($$$$).

I do hope everyone gets what is on their wish lists announced this year though. If nothing else it gives us a way to plan purchases.

I never thought I needed a lens faster than f/2.8 until I got the new 35mm f/1.4. Wow.

Now I believe it would be great to have a fast 50L and 85L.

These are exciting times what with the BR optics coming out at just the right time for those just starting on their lens collections. One lens a year is all I can handle as a casual hobbyist. :'(


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 11, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I never thought I needed a lens faster than f/2.8 until I got the new 35mm f/1.4. Wow.
> 
> Now I believe it would be great to have a fast 50L and 85L.



Ahhh haaaaaaa!


----------

