Canon 50mm f1.4 Mk II on CanonRumors

[John_TX]

CanonRumors has posted that this lens might be released with whatever EOS body (presumably a Rebel) that is to be announced on March 25 in Copenhagen.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/03/ef-50-f14-ii-usm/#comments

And again
Two emails today telling me to expect a new EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM to be announced alongside the new Rebel. One of them went as far as to say it’d be image stabilized.
I don’t for a second believe the lens will get IS’d.
I know the 50 f/1.4 has been backordered for a couple of months at a few places in Canada. However, Canon doesn’t appear to be stocking much in Canada at the moment and everything is backordered. Two months is a long time though.
cr

[joe mama]

I *love* my 50 / 1.2L. That said, I will be first in line to buy a 50 / 1.4 II IS to compare with my 50 / 1.2L. Does IS really matter to me that much? Nope. But it matters more than 1/3 of a stop faster aperture. And depending on how the optics and AF work out, a 50 / 1.4 II IS may be the better choice.

[lukeap69]

to counter the 50 1.4 of nikon?

[Boucher]

If this is true, I'll be very happy!

[Jim G]

If this is true, I'll be very happy!

+1. I was never satisfied with the quality of my 50mm 1.4 and don't have the cash free for a 50L so this would fit the bill juuuuuuust right if it was of 85 1.8 quality. Mmm-mmm.

[Boucher]

Well let's face it, I'll never have enough money for a 50L. But I really hope canon keep the MK II in the 400-500 range like it is now.

[John_TX]

Well let's face it, I'll never have enough money for a 50L. But I really hope canon keep the MK II in the 400-500 range like it is now.

Canon needs to keep the price below the Sigma 50 f1.4, especially if Canon keeps the lens groups at 58mm or bumps them up to 62mm or 67mm.
Besides the fact that the Sigma can produce some excellent shots, the only reason it's popularity has surged is because of the obvious gap in Canon's 50's (the 50 f1.4 after all, was released in 1993).
As shown by the Sigma, many people will pay a little more for better quality (but maybe not to the extent of the 50 1.2L).

For all practical purposes, they have two low-end 50's & one really high-end 50. I know they can do better than the current 50 f1.4 Mk I and for a similar price-point as well.

[nuffi]

Canon needs to keep the price below the Sigma 50 f1.4, especially if Canon keeps the lens groups at 58mm or bumps them up to 62mm or 67mm.
Besides the fact that the Sigma can produce some excellent shots, the only reason it's popularity has surged is because of the obvious gap in Canon's 50's (the 50 f1.4 after all, was released in 1993).
As shown by the Sigma, many people will pay a little more for better quality (but maybe not to the extent of the 50 1.2L).

For all practical purposes, they have two low-end 50's & one really high-end 50. I know they can do better than the current 50 f1.4 Mk I and for a similar price-point as well.

I don't agree that the price point for this lens needs to be lower than the sigma. If they make a lens that is superior in every way then ppl will be happy to pay maybe up to a hundred bucks more than the sigma.

I also welcome this news though. I have just plunked down every spare brass penny for my camera + lenses but omitted a 50mm from my lineup (cause I ran outta cash but mostly) because I couldn't figure out which one to get. This may make it easier. :)

[aliflack]

I'd love this to be true, thinking of picking up a 50mm f1.4 at the moment but haven't found any in stock...figured there might be something afoot

[franklinn]

I would pick up this lens in a heart-beat if it were real.

[[Hyuni]]

considering the 85mm 1.8 is $355, I'd hope that (if this was true) the mkII would be somewhere less than $500.

Anything more would make me seriously re-consider the value vs utility of the lens.

[fumanchewable]

the zeiss ze 50mm and the sigma 50mm have proven that people are prepared to plunk down for a higher-tier 50mm 1.4. the canon 1.8 is just too cheap and flimsy for many, but these same people don't want to spend 1300 euros on the next significant step up in IQ.

canon might have been forced to respond, now that it's been established that there's a market for nice-ish 50s.

cheers.

[Jpiano]

WOw new 50 f1.4! It may have IS? that would be the first IS prime.

[05Xrunner]

WOw new 50 f1.4! It may have IS? that would be the first IS prime.
are you forgetting about the 200 f2IS, 300 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, 500 f4IS,300 f4IS, 600 f4IS, 800 f5.6IS

[Oteck]

i wish they redesign the 1.2 instead with IS :) but if they did they'll have to update the 85L later on with IS too...

[joe mama]

i wish they redesign the 1.2 instead with IS :) but if they did they'll have to update the 85L later on with IS too...


I wish they would put IS in the camera, so I would get it on all my other lenses without having to buy new glass.

[NickSimcheck]

I don't understand why anybody would want IS below 85mm. Seems that IQ suffers a little no matter what. Sure you could shoot nightscapes at high ISO, but I would rather bring a tripod if I was gonna do it, might as well do it right.

Only real reason that I can see is if you need the DOF of f/4 to get the shot, but then I'd just use a zoom.

[joe mama]

I don't understand why anybody would want IS below 85mm. Seems that IQ suffers a little no matter what. Sure you could shoot nightscapes at high ISO, but I would rather bring a tripod if I was gonna do it, might as well do it right.

Only real reason that I can see is if you need the DOF of f/4 to get the shot, but then I'd just use a zoom.


Allow me to demonstrate:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/60, ISO 800

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/83573865

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/83573865/original.jpg



Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/50, ISO 1600

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/80379021

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/80379021/original.jpg



Canon 5D + 15 / 2.8 FE @ f / 2.8, 1/13, ISO 800

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/108974394

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/108974394/original.jpg



And, of course, there are numerous occasions, as you mention, when I want to stop down to get more DOF, and must use wicked high ISOs to do so. And, no, I do not want to switch lenses to a zoom with IS for those shots and then switch back to my fast primes to resume shallow DOF shooting, especially as sensor IS will work on *all* my lenses (inlcuding the 200 / 2.8L and 100 / 2).

So, yes, I want it.

[John_TX]

One thing Canon has done with their marketing is touted the benefits of in-lens IS.
As such, one if their goals should be to introduce reasonably priced IS into as many of their lenses as possible, including fast primes like the 35 & 50.

I think they've really got many people over a barrel with the "cost" IS adds to many of their higher end lenses. Look at the price differences between the 4 70-200 models. Do we really need FOUR lenses in this range? Why not chalk up the cost of IS as 10% of the lens price and reduce product & product lines accordingly. Hell, the savings alone, from not having to produce 4 separate lines could easily free up capacity for updating more lenses per year.

If Canon wants to stick with in-lens IS, they need to get the consumer to support this road Canon chose and NOT stick it to the consumer by tacking on an additional $300-$600 per lens JUST for the IS feature. 10% of the non-IS lens cost seems reasonable for putting IS in it.

Canon showed their cards with the 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS by showing the world that they can put 4-stop IS into a lens for less than $50. Canon needs to take its lumps and commit to reasonably priced IS in all of their new lenses if they want to stop people from pissing & moaning about in-body IS.

In-lens IS is probably the better way to go IMHO, so why Canon doesn't use this to their advantage by putting it in ALL of their lenses is beyond me (especially since they've ALREADY developed the technology!).

Such a move really jamb thumbs into the eyes of others with less effective in-body IS systems. In addition, the economies of scale would kick in if Canon put IS into everything (primes & zooms).

[joe mama]

One thing Canon has done with their marketing is touted the benefits of in-lens IS.
As such, one if their goals should be to introduce reasonably priced IS into as many of their lenses as possible, including fast primes like the 35 & 50.

I think they've really got many people over a barrel with the "cost" IS adds to many of their higher end lenses. Look at the price differences between the 4 70-200 models. Do we really need FOUR lenses in this range? Why not chalk up the cost of IS as 10% of the lens price and reduce product & product lines accordingly. Hell, the savings alone, from not having to produce 4 separate lines could easily free up capacity for updating more lenses per year.

If Canon wants to stick with in-lens IS, they need to get the consumer to support this road Canon chose and NOT stick it to the consumer by tacking on an additional $300-$600 per lens JUST for the IS feature. 10% of the non-IS lens cost seems reasonable for putting IS in it.

Canon showed their cards with the 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS by showing the world that they can put 4-stop IS into a lens for less than $50. Canon needs to take its lumps and commit to reasonably priced IS in all of their new lenses if they want to stop people from pissing & moaning about in-body IS.

In-lens IS is probably the better way to go IMHO, so why Canon doesn't use this to their advantage by putting it in ALL of their lenses is beyond me (especially since they've ALREADY developed the technology!).

Such a move really jamb thumbs into the eyes of others with less effective in-body IS systems. In addition, the economies of scale would kick in if Canon put IS into everything (primes & zooms).


Of course, we are talking about the same company that released their premiere pro sports cam with defective AF. Canon is one big contradiction, as perhaps are all the other manufacturers. It has always seemed to me that there are geniouses and idiots running that company, and it's merely a toss of the coin as to who gets their way on any given day.

So, bringing this all back to IS, yes, of course the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS both *clearly* demonstrate how inexpensive in-lens IS is. But Olympus, Pentax, and Sony have also *clearly* demonstrated how inexpensive sensor IS is. At and below 100mm, I really doubt that in-lens IS has any benefits over sensor IS, and limited advantages even at 200mm. Past that point, all Canon's lenses (save the 400 / 5.6L) already have IS, so it's a moot point.

But for Canon to actively deny IS in primes below 300mm (with the ironic exception of the 200 / 2L IS), while incorporating it into their cheapest zooms, is almost as insulting as not incorporating a "real" functional auto ISO (although I think the 5DII finally did?) and featuring a Direct Print Button instead of a Custom Button.

Many people complain that they don't need or want IS. OK. Landscape shooters don't need AF or fast primes. So?

OK, I feel better now. : )

[Daniel Browning]

But for Canon to actively deny IS in primes below 300mm (with the ironic exception of the 200 / 2L IS), while incorporating it into their cheapest zooms, is almost as insulting as not incorporating a "real" functional auto ISO (although I think the 5DII finally did?) and featuring a Direct Print Button instead of a Custom Button.


Nope, 5D2 still has no real auto ISO. It becomes ISO 400 in manual mode or with flash. The genius that turned on ISO-as-metadata in the 10D has lost out to the "other guys" at Canon, since that feature has been gone ever since(ISO 25600 is literally the same as 3200 underexposed 3 stops, except that it literally has 3 stops of highlight headroom deleted for no reason.)

[spelunker]

The combined rumours of an upgraded 50 1.4 and a new full frame model are very interesting indeed. Imagine the 50mm 1.4 II sold as a FF kit. Very retro.

[nuffi]

I'd be surprised if the new FF body wasn't a pro level thing, and therefore not likely to have anything less than a Luxury lens as its kit companion.

[aliflack]

Maybe it'll earn the L designation ;)

[KayakPhotos]

sounds promising. I think that the 50mm f/1.4 could use an upgrade. It seems like a decent lens optically, but if Canon could make a Mark II version that had ring USM, was sharper wide open and had better bokeh it would probably be a great seller.

[dynastysmartparts]

I don't understand why anybody would want IS below 85mm. Seems that IQ suffers a little no matter what. Sure you could shoot nightscapes at high ISO, but I would rather bring a tripod if I was gonna do it, might as well do it right.

Only real reason that I can see is if you need the DOF of f/4 to get the shot, but then I'd just use a zoom.
only thing i ever see IS truly useful for is help with panning shots during sports/racing

[AdamJL]

Can't see the need to update this lens tbh.

Ring USM? Nice, but not necessary. Updated IQ? Nice, but not necessary for the sub 21mp cameras. IS? Nice, but not necessary.

I'd rather a 24-70 update.

Still, with manufacturers slowing down production in the current climate, I'll take what I can get!

[dylshi]

Asked a local online Canon dealer about the new version of 50 prime, he said there would be none; Canon just slowed down the production of all lenses.

[Medic85]

I would expect to see the price jacked up quite a bit if there is IS included.

[lbennett]

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/83573865/original.jpg



beautiful image

[Sean]

I could see them releasing a 1.4 upgrade, but without IS.

[aliflack]

Yeah, I don't reckon we'll see IS on this prime...

[Dpsteak]

Anyone else upset that Canon didn't release this lens with the new rebel today? I was hoping they would respond to either Sigma's 50 1.4 or 30 1.4. But I guess rumors are rumors for a reason...

[John_TX]

Anyone else upset that Canon didn't release this lens with the new rebel today? I was hoping they would respond to either Sigma's 50 1.4 or 30 1.4. But I guess rumors are rumors for a reason...

I was expecting SOMETHING on the lens front.
Waiting until this fall to release more lenses sounds like a bad idea.
Lots of folks travel during the summer and what better way to bump up sales than releasing something in March, with availability in April or May.

[javanutsy]

Anyone else upset that Canon didn't release this lens with the new rebel today? I was hoping they would respond to either Sigma's 50 1.4 or 30 1.4. But I guess rumors are rumors for a reason...

Yeah, I'm a little disappointed...

[gary88]

Canon would never offer a prime lens as part of a kit, especially for a Rebel. There would be too many complaints about the lack of zoom :)

[KayakPhotos]

Canon would never offer a prime lens as part of a kit, especially for a Rebel. There would be too many complaints about the lack of zoom :)

+1. As much as people in "the know" might like to see a prime kit lens, it will never happen. I personally think that starting with a prime lens would be great for learning photography.

[spb]

is the rumor still on? if so, i am getting in line.

[s2kdriver80]

They should update this lens, to correct the AF issue if for nothing else. Seems like a good number of the owners' AF fails sooner or later - not acceptable. I'm looking to get a 50mm prime but the choices are pretty lousy. 85mm is too long for what I would shoot since I have a cropped FOV (if I had a FF, the 85 1.8 would be the obvious choice). If they don't release a mark II soon, might just settle for the harsh bokeh 1.8. :)

[KayakPhotos]

They should update this lens, to correct the AF issue if for nothing else. Seems like a good number of the owners' AF fails sooner or later - not acceptable. I'm looking to get a 50mm prime but the choices are pretty lousy. 85mm is too long for what I would shoot since I have a cropped FOV (if I had a FF, the 85 1.8 would be the obvious choice). If they don't release a mark II soon, might just settle for the harsh bokeh 1.8. :)

The Sigmalux is a great option as well, if you're willing to shell out a few extra copies and don't mind the inevitable trip to the Sigma service center that seems to come packaged with this lens.