Any news on new 50mm lenses

It seems a while back there was talk of Canon producing 50mm 1.8, 1.4 and even 1.2 IS lenses - I'd love to see a 50mm 1.2 IS - is there any word on it lately?

no new word. those rumors died a while back and havent resurfaced.

i was really hoping for an update on the 50 1.8 and a new 50 1.4 with more reliable AF motor that lasts longer, that micro-USM isnt all that great but the lens is just wow in IQ. my 50 1.4 at work broke a long time ago and is starting to fall apart as pieces of plastic are breaking off from use. the lens still functions but looks like hell

As a 50mm shooter I was really hoping for a 1.8 or even 1.4 IS 50mm to surface in light of those, now old, rumors. Even as someone who loves the 50L, I'd really like an IS option with IQ on par with the newer 35/2 IS. THAT would be an awesome lens. Given that Canon refreshed the 35 and 28 IIRC, it stands to reason they'd refresh the 50 and 85 "budget" primes as well. There's always next year.

i doubt they're coming out with an f1.2 IS lens any time soon...all the IS primes they've introduced haven't really been very fast...

Get the new Sigma.

I rented the 35 and 50 Art and was thoroughly impressed with both. Ended up buying the 35 last week.

If I were you, I would skip await a mythical IS version that may not appear for over another year.

I find the IS to be a great feature of my 100mm lens, but find little use for it in wider angle lenses.
It was a good feature to have on my 17-55 lens, but I was more concerned with keeping ISO low, than my SS.
99% of my work is handheld, but given the option of IS on my 24L and 50L lenses, I would not rush to 'upgrade' and I would not even consider an IS version if it resulted in a slow lens. (f stop)
I enjoy my available thin DOF.

EF 50 f/1.8 STM I would like. Don't need IS, would rather have lower weight and lower price

I've come to realise with time, that while the 1.8 and 1.4 are certainly cheaper and, depending on which review you read, are better/equal at some apertures, that the only way you can get proper build quality is with the L lenses.

There's the argument then, of how many 50/1.8s you can buy until you would've been better off with a 50/1.2. I've handled a 50/1.4 and the difference is negligible to the 1.8. Ultimately I don't consider the 1.4 a choice - the AF motor is not proper USM which people seem to constantly overlook, but build and feel don't come close to the 1.2 which, admittedly I've only handled in an airport departure lounge.

I suppose what I'd really like to see is an updated 50/1.2 - to do away with the focus shift and chroma that seems to be a feature of most reviews. I'm not fussed whether a lens has IS or not, but even for the 'IS isn't necessary' crowd, even a 1.2 can benefit from IS if it's dark enough.

Canon really needs to update its aging USM line (gold ring lenses).

They've started to with their new IS 24, 28, 35 lenses. With time, I don't doubt they'll do the same with their 20, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and discontinue the 100 f2. Maybe update the 50 1.8 cosmetics as well to be in line with the rest of the system.

I'm all for a consistent lineup in terms of design and build quality, since the optics of any of their primes have never REALLY been an issue.

UKmitch86 wrote in post #17186621
It seems a while back there was talk of Canon producing 50mm 1.8, 1.4 and even 1.2 IS lenses - I'd love to see a 50mm 1.2 IS - is there any word on it lately?

50L at 1.2 would make horrible images with IS and longer exposures because of the thin depth of field. I would say it would be unusable at 1.2. And seriously, who would buy a 1.2 lens costing and weighting too much to shoot it stopped down? Pretty dumb the ise IMHo

davidfarina wrote in post #17188529
50L at 1.2 would make horrible images with IS and longer exposures because of the thin depth of field. I would say it would be unusable at 1.2. And seriously, who would buy a 1.2 lens costing and weighting too much to shoot it stopped down? Pretty dumb the ise IMHo

I don't understand why, with a wide aperture and a modern AF system, that you wouldn't benefit from IS in exactly the same way you would benefit from increased ISO - after all, that's all you're getting, just a couple of stops flexibility.

What's IS got to do with image quality? (apart from the obvious)

UKmitch86 wrote in post #17189448
I don't understand why, with a wide aperture and a modern AF system, that you wouldn't benefit from IS in exactly the same way you would benefit from increased ISO - after all, that's all you're getting, just a couple of stops flexibility.

What's IS got to do with image quality? (apart from the obvious)

As a true fan of IS I would have agreed with you until yesterday!
Canon UK confirmed if the shutter speed is greater than or especially greater than 2x the focal length, then it is best to turn OFF IS!

This was in response to my question having heard that statement elsewhere.
Bluntly I asked them why was it not in the manual?
And why?

They double checked and said say I put my 70-200L F2.8 II at 100mm, and set my shutter speed at 1/200 my pictures would be better with IS off! A little bit sharper!
That was a total eye opener for me.
Most of my work is 70 to 100mm in a studio with a shutter speed of 1/160 ( max synch speed ) 😳
Apparently its not in the manual as many novices would leave IS off when say the shutter speed was lowered; and as the benefits of turning off IS above the FL shutter speed is marginal, but to turn it off under the FL shutter speed can be dramatic - they went for protecting the Lens's reputation. Apparently this is documented on the CPS support pages.
I did have a quick look and couldnt find the article but there is a lot there!

Submariner wrote in post #17189462
As a true fan of IS I would have agreed with you until yesterday!
Canon UK confirmed if the shutter speed is greater than or especially greater than 2x the focal length, then it is best to turn OFF IS!

This was in response to my question having heard that statement elsewhere.
Bluntly I asked them why was it not in the manual?
And why?

They double checked and said say I put my 70-200L F2.8 II at 100mm, and set my shutter speed at 1/200 my pictures would be better with IS off! A little bit sharper!
That was a total eye opener for me.
Most of my work is 70 to 100mm in a studio with a shutter speed of 1/160 ( max synch speed ) ��
Apparently its not in the manual as many novices would leave IS off when say the shutter speed was lowered; and as the benefits of turning off IS above the FL shutter speed is marginal, but to turn it off under the FL shutter speed can be dramatic - they went for protecting the Lens's reputation. Apparently this is documented on the CPS support pages.
I did have a quick look and couldnt find the article but there is a lot there!

That's really good to know, I knew about the tripod rule (i.e. turn it off on a tripod), this must be a similar principle. I have to admit I don't own any IS lenses (apart from the recent 100-400) and IS has never been an attraction, but I've been swayed lately. I've been using the camera more in twilight conditions and finding that I maintain a barely acceptable shutter speed, while if I had IS I could drop ISO from 1600 to 800 which makes a serious difference on the 5Dc.

There isn't anything to wait for, 35L is replaced with Sigma 35 Art and 50 1.2L is replaced with Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

Sigma's Artline is really that good, don't underestimate it!
In past I also was an 'only L' shooter, but I opened my eyes.

Some Canon lenses are really aging, developing new ones is very slow, not speaking of the prices.
That's why competitors take advantage over Canon.

Recently I bought the Canon 16-35 f4L IS as there are no other competitors delivering that sharpness, but it has been ages since I bought a new Canon L, I only buy secondhand normally.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17189527
There isn't anything to wait for, 35L is replaced with Sigma 35 Art and 50 1.2L is replaced with Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

Sigma's Artline is really that good, don't underestimate it!
In past I also was an 'only L' shooter, but I opened my eyes.

Some Canon lenses are really aging, developing new ones is very slow, not speaking of the prices.
That's why competitors take advantage over Canon.

Recently I bought the Canon 16-35 f4L IS as there are no other competitors delivering that sharpness, but it has been ages since I bought a new Canon L, I only buy secondhand normally.

I still see reports of poor AF with Sigma - there's no denying that they're reverse engineering the Canon AF routines, they have to - it's this requirement that puts me off - I had a 300/2.8 and 50/1.4, neither of which were right. MFA didn't help. I'm not Sigma bashing, but it's just my experience - my 15mm FE is amazing, old school AF too, sounds like the 50/1.8 but it's perfect.