New - EF 50 f/1.2 L in February 2006 ?

[roli_bark]

Talks about it in Fred-Miranda forum here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/321474

Added the rumor link on DPReview:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=16220076

[peterdoomen]

I heard that rumour too, but as always with Canon, there's a lot of noice and only a bit of signal. Not in their cameras of course ;-)

Anybody know a good source for Canon "pre-announcements" like these?

P.

[ron chappel]

Thinking back i don't think i can remember a rumour about lenses that has ever come true.They seem to surprise us every time-the opposite of the cameras it seems where most can guess approximately what is comming next.

I really don't see much point to an f1.2 50mm lens.
About the only scenario that makes sense to me is if they replace the expensive 50/1.4 with the 1.2 without raising the price (much).
That would at least give them some justification for charging SO much more for their good fifty compared to the budget 50/1.8
And it would give them some neat one upmanship over nikon

[MrChad]

Didn't we have a $1000+ 50mm 1.0L, why go down that road again.
The only reason to launch this lens is to give Dante something else to buy.

[grego]

If this were true, there would finally be an L for the 50. I doubt it would kill off the production of the 1.4 because I'm sure it sells well.

They can have both as long as the 1.2 would have full ring usm, better build quality, and sharp wide open.

[cosworth]

Didn't we have a $1000+ 50mm 1.0L, why go down that road again.
The only reason to launch this lens is to give Dante something else to buy.

Last time I saw one go it was priced at $3000+

[MrChad]

Last time I saw one go it was priced at $3000+

OK so I didn't know the price off my head....geez.
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=588

Anyway here is the review. I still question the need for an L 50mm, like a world of photos is missing from the current group of 50mm on the market Canon or not. I think some folks just want the red ring...

[grego]

^^There are differences that could be made. Like full time manual focusing with ring USM. Better build quality, and sharp wide open. Although it is tough to really improve on a great lens like the 1.4 is.

[MrChad]

^^There are differences that could be made. Like full time manual focusing with ring USM. Better build quality, and sharp wide open. Although it is tough to really improve on a great lens like the 1.4 is.

The current 50mm is a FT-M lens now, ring USM or not. Now we are simply nit picky. An L 50 1.2 would run likely around $1500, wow that is alot of cash for 50mm standard lens. You could kill a few 1.4 lenses in the rain and not rack up that kind of change too. But for those that must have Lverything in a photo I guess....

The build of my L's doesn't improve the pictures I take, they are just as crappy as any other photo my skills produce. :)

Now, I can really see the value of fast glass, but from 1.4-->1.2 that just seems niggly don't you think? I mean the 50 f1.4 isn't exactly in the league of bad glass to use.

[grego]

The current 50mm is a FT-M lens now, ring USM or not. Now we are simply nit picky. An L 50 1.2 would run likely around $1500, wow that is alot of cash for 50mm standard lens. You could kill a few 1.4 lenses in the rain and not rack up that kind of change too. But for those that must have Lverything in a photo I guess....

The build of my L's doesn't improve the pictures I take, they are just as crappy as any other photo my skills produce. :)

Now, I can really see the value of fast glass, but from 1.4-->1.2 that just seems niggly don't you think? I mean the 50 f1.4 isn't exactly in the league of bad glass to use.

Yeah, my mistake. on the full time. I should know that myself, having the lens.

Well the 1.2 85 is probably going to be more, since it takes more glass. So I'd expect the 1.2 to be a little less than the 85 1.2.

Well, thats where I disagree a little. Generally the good L's have better contrast and saturation. I have owned/used the 70-200 L IS and Sigma 70-200 2.8. And one of the things that stood out to me was the better contrast and saturation. The same is seen between the 85 1.2 and 1.8.

Now is that worth the huge price difference. Depends on who you are. For someone who does portraits for a living, I can see a huge market for it especially on cropped cameras(80 on a 1.6 crop).

And will this lens make me trade in my 1.4 ever. No. Just saying there are some things that can be done to it to make it better and possibly have an argument for people to buy it over the 1.4, which is nearly an L itself.

[cmM]

An L 50 1.2 would run likely around $1500

Any reason for this assumption? The 85 1.2 is about that price, longer, more elemets. Why would a normal focal lenght like 50mm be more expensive?

Is there reason for it? Maybe not for general purposes, but for some who shoot in available darness like myself and need every bit of light we can get it might come in handy, even though it's less than a stop faster than the 50 1.4

Anyway, just rumors at this point.
If the price were reasonable when/if such a lens should appear on the maeket, I'd deffinitely consider it.

**Edit: Grego beat me to it :oops:

[Tom W]

The 50/1.4 is a wonderful lens, but there are some things that could be better - a lot better. The build is adequate, but that 50/1.0L like it's 85 mm counterpart, was built like a tank. It had a manual-focus ring designed so that you could actually manually focus with great accuracy. It had a floating focus mechanism as opposed to the more standard setup used on the 50/1.4 & 50/1.8.

And of course, you can't argue with the bokeh of the 50/1.0. It wasn't the stellar performer that it could have been in terms of sharpness, but it was a bokeh-monster.

I think part of what made the 50/1.0L so expensive was that it had such a complex design - much more complex than the more simple 50/1.4 and even simpler 50/1.8.

Anyway, after saying all that, I would prefer that Canon simply update the 50/1.4 to the same ring-type USM scheme and build as the 28/1.8, 85/1.8, and other lenses. It's a much smoother system. And they could tweak the optics a bit as well, though it certainly isn't a slouch in that department.

[Tom W]

Any reason for this assumption? The 85 1.2 is about that price, longer, more elemets. Why would a normal focal lenght like 50mm be more expensive?

Is there reason for it? Maybe not for general purposes, but for some who shoot in available darness like myself and need every bit of light we can get it might come in handy, even though it's less than a stop faster than the 50 1.4

Anyway, just rumors at this point.
If the price were reasonable when/if such a lens should appear on the maeket, I'd deffinitely consider it.

**Edit: Grego beat me to it :oops:

It really doesn't reflect a potential 50/1.2L lens in the future, but the 50/1.0L had 11 elements in 9 groups as opposed to the 85/1.2L's 8 elements in 7 groups. I suspect though that there was an optical hurdle in getting to f/1.0 that may not be a problem if f/1.2 is the goal.

[cmM]

I suspect though that there was an optical hurdle in getting to f/1.0 that may not be a problem if f/1.2 is the goal.

My thoughts exactly.

Anyway, we;re discussing the lens design of a 50mm that doesn't exist yet.

[Bob_A]

When I first started using an SLR I seem to recall that most of the manufacturers had an f/1.8, f/1.4 and f/1.2 50mm or 55mm lens. I agree with Tom that there is likely an "optical hurdle" to cross to get to f/1.0.

[MrChad]

My guess for the price was based on looking at all the other sweet L primes. I would have to agree with Tom W, does it really need to be L, and carry the $1000+ price or could we simply upgrade to a 50mm f1.4 mark II with a smoother more damped focus ring, and a tweak on the optics and build so the lens could stay below say $500, I mean I like the price point it's in right now.

[JaertX]

Well they would sell a few of them. It doesn't make any sense for me to upgrade my 50mm f/1.8 II right now. I wouldn't even consider getting the 1.4 until I have quite a few other lenses. By that time I'll probably be more capable of making a large upgrade and a 1.2L, if it lived up to it's hype, would be my first choice.

[MrChad]

So my question is why would an f1.2L be so much more likely to succeed then the f1.0L before it. I can't believe it was a price issue, folks on this forum by L's and 1D's like it's nothing :)

[grego]

So my question is why would an f1.2L be so much more likely to succeed then the f1.0L before it. I can't believe it was a price issue, folks on this forum by L's and 1D's like it's nothing :)

I think it would be specialized like the 85 1.2. So would it sell? Yes. But would it be a common sell. Probably not. For people dealing with portraits, I think it would be up there with the 85 1.2 and 35 1.4.

[garbidz]

In the old times I had the FD 1.2/55mm that had a unique, dreamlike rendition.
It literally fell apart in the middle of a shooting. A pity.
Is anybody using the variable soft-focus portrait lenses?
My "Inner Hamilton" could be interested in having one...

[mijbril]

When I was in Singapore, I went into John 3:16 to have a look & saw the 50mm f/1.0 in a box high on a shelf.

I decided not to insult the salesman by asking if he could take it down & let me try a couple of shots before asking the price & then returning it.

I did get the f/1.4 (elsewhere) though, an absolute stoater of a lens it is too :D

[grego]

When I was in Singapore, I went into John 3:16 to have a look & saw the 50mm f/1.0 in a box high on a shelf.

I decided not to insult the salesman by asking if he could take it down & let me try a couple of shots before asking the price & then returning it.

I did get the f/1.4 (elsewhere) though, an absolute stoater of a lens it is too :D

Are you going to sell your 1.8 then?

[Tom W]

So my question is why would an f1.2L be so much more likely to succeed then the f1.0L before it. I can't believe it was a price issue, folks on this forum by L's and 1D's like it's nothing :)

There were a couple of reasons that the 50/1.0L didn't stay on the market. One of them was the fact that it contained leaded glass. Another was that it was very expensive. It's optical reputation wasn't all that good either, though it did produce very smooth bokeh.

[EOSX]

Oh God, here we go again; more rumors and speculations. :rolleyes:

While we are at, make me a 200 f/1.0. :D

[mijbril]

Are you going to sell your 1.8 then?

Not sure... I think as I upgrade cameras & lenses slowly, it might be handy to keep to the 1.8 attached permanently to the 350D.

Then again, if someone offered my $100 Australian (they go for about $150 Au brand new), I might say yes.

But I'm also the sentimental type & like to keep old stuff, especially when it works well :D

[DocFrankenstein]

Oh God, here we go again; more rumors and speculations. :rolleyes:

While we are at, make me a 200 f/1.0. :D
Ditto

[grego]

Not sure... I think as I upgrade cameras & lenses slowly, it might be handy to keep to the 1.8 attached permanently to the 350D.

Then again, if someone offered my $100 Australian (they go for about $150 Au brand new), I might say yes.

But I'm also the sentimental type & like to keep old stuff, especially when it works well :D

Fair enough. Glad to see you are happy with the 1.4. It's my only prime that I own for my EOS system, but I love it.

[Tom W]

Oh God, here we go again; more rumors and speculations. :rolleyes:

While we are at, make me a 200 f/1.0. :D

YEAH, BABY!!! :D

Now, you're talking! :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

How did somones wishfull thinking on another forum become a "rumor" ???

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Oh God, here we go again; more rumors and speculations. :rolleyes:

While we are at, make me a 200 f/1.0. :D


Oh jesus. How much do you think that would cost? Bets? If a stinkin' 50 is going for $3k+, I'm thinking this would easily do $10-12k. That having been said, I wouldn't buy one even if I had the money lying around. Just too short for an expensive prime like that. I'm either for wide, or reaaaaaaaally long.

[grego]

How did somones wishfull thinking on another forum become a "rumor" ???

Ohh, you know we still remember the super duper telephoto 70-400mm f/1.8L IS rumor you started a while back. :lol:

[Krapo]

Oh jesus. How much do you think that would cost? Bets? If a stinkin' 50 is going for $3k+, I'm thinking this would easily do $10-12k. That having been said, I wouldn't buy one even if I had the money lying around. Just too short for an expensive prime like that. I'm either for wide, or reaaaaaaaally long.
It's not only the price, it's the size as well!
By the way, I would be interested in knowing a bit more about physics and about what size/number of elements you need to get, let's say, a 400mm f/1 :D
Is it at all feasible?(even if it means you end up with a 6 meters, 400kg lens...)
Do you know any resource on the net where this kind of thing is explained?

[Andy_T]

How did somones wishfull thinking on another forum become a "rumor" ???

My thoughts exactly....

But to chime in ... a 50/1.2 L would make a lot less sense IMO than the 85/1.2L, because the difference is not as pronounced to the great 50/1.4 lens as between the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.2.

And the typical 1.6x crop camera user (for whom the 85/1.2L might be too long) most likely won't shell out > US$ 1,000 on a 50 mm lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[roli_bark]

Latest posts object the 50mm f/1.0.

But returning back to a potential 50mm f/1.2 L issue...I think there's a lot of fixing to be done on the 50mm f/1.4:

1. A Ring USM motor which is supposed to be more reliable, faster, and quieter.
2. A faster lens, with good WIDE-OPEN performance.
3. It shouldn't be as massive as the 85mm f/1.2L
4. Build quality of an L class.
5. Reasonable price.

[grego]

Latest posts object the 50mm f/1.0.

But returning back to a potential 50mm f/1.2 L issue...I think there's a lot of fixing to be done on the 50mm f/1.4:

1. A Ring USM motor which is supposed to be more reliable, faster, and quieter.
2. A faster lens, with good WIDE-OPEN performance.
3. It shouldn't be as massive as the 85mm f/1.2L
4. Build quality of an L class.
5. Reasonable price.

Well as far as reasonably priced, the 50 1.4 is. It's one of the best values out there along with the 85 1.8.

For all those demands, it won't be as reasonably priced.

[roli_bark]

Well as far as reasonably priced, the 50 1.4 is. It's one of the best values out there along with the 85 1.8.

For all those demands, it won't be as reasonably priced.

Well, not demands exactly, but a wish-list...and given I don't have a 50mm prime yet - I would "throw" $600 for such....

[grego]

Well, not demands exactly, but a wish-list...and given I don't have a 50mm prime yet - I would "throw" $600 for such....

Well keep in mind, if it stayed at f/1.4 and became an L prime, it probably would still be closer to the 1,000 range, as evident by the 35 1.4, which is what wishes you have for it.

That 50 currently is still a great lens.

[roli_bark]

...That 50 currently is still a great lens.

Of course. And if the 50mm f/1.2 doesn't show up next year, I'll definately cash-in for the 50mm f/1.4 ....:cool:

[Andy_T]

OK, let's listen to the Canon Marketing / Product Development thought process ...
1. A Ring USM motor which is supposed to be more reliable, faster, and quieter.
... Can be done ...
2. A faster lens, with good WIDE-OPEN performance.
... A bit tricky, but can be done ...
3. It shouldn't be as massive as the 85mm f/1.2L
... OK, point taken. Can be done ...
4. Build quality of an L class.
... OK, we'll do that ...
5. Reasonable price.
... Haha ... maybe we have different views about what's reasoable :lol: ...

Best regards,
Andy

[grego]

That's funny Andy.

Yeah, that 1200mm is a great value according to Canon. ;)

[roli_bark]

There used to be an FD 50 f/1.2 L lens, which was quite affordable.
As a matter of fact it was offered as one of Canon's kit option at that time.

Read more about it - here:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm

[roli_bark]

According DPREVIEW "Lens Forum" (yes - it is a rumor...but...)
The 50mm f/1.2 L will be announced by Spring 2006:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=16220076

[Pekka]

See same guy posting last year same time:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=11896347
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=11810338

[Andy_T]

Yes, but this year he has it 'from a reliable source' :wink:

Well, time will tell :D

Best regards,
Andy

[Bob_A]

Yes, but this year he has it 'from a reliable source' :wink:



Har! Almost fell out of my chair :lol:

[Tom W]

Send my your 50/1.4 and I'll make it a 1.2 with my drill press. Optics will be transparent, as though they aren't even there. ;)

[DocFrankenstein]

2. A faster lens, with good WIDE-OPEN performance.
The only 50/1.4 which is better wide open is the Zeiss planar.

So it'd be kinda hard to do. ;)