Not one 50mm I want to buy

smorter wrote in post #16057302
The 24-70 II added a huge price premium too. And that had no IS.

My conclusion is that IS doesn't add much to the cost of a new version of a lens. The new optical design does.

My conclusion is that any time Canon introduces a new or redesigned lens, it will be expensive. The only exception was the 40mm f/2.8 pancake. I am not sure how that one got past the accountants.

On the subject of the Pancake,. this is my 50mm.
I gave up on the 1.8 and never wanted to pay for a 1.4, but I do really like the 40mm!

The problem of course is it's not exactly a lot magnet by any standard,. but the AF is good solid and pretty quick.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16057774
On the subject of the Pancake,. this is my 50mm.
I gave up on the 1.8 and never wanted to pay for a 1.4, but I do really like the 40mm!

The problem of course is it's not exactly a lot magnet by any standard,. but the AF is good solid and pretty quick.

But it's so cute. Will match the cute VW or Mini. Chick magnet. But yeah, state of art focus hardware.

I love my Canon 50 1.4. It is on my 7D 75% of the time. Sometimes I amazed at the shots I get when I don't really have time to focus.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16057774
On the subject of the Pancake,. this is my 50mm.
I gave up on the 1.8 and never wanted to pay for a 1.4, but I do really like the 40mm!

The problem of course is it's not exactly a lot magnet by any standard,. but the AF is good solid and pretty quick.

I have a 40mm pancake, too, but it doesn't replace my 50L. It does replace my 50mm f/1.4, though, as a light weight, smaller prime lens for travel or casual walking around. At the price I paid for the pancake ($119 refurbished), it was impossible not to add it to the kit.

Scott M wrote in post #16058418
I have a 40mm pancake, too, but it doesn't replace my 50L. It does replace my 50mm f/1.4, though, as a light weight, smaller prime lens for travel or casual walking around. At the price I paid for the pancake ($119 refurbished), it was impossible not to add it to the kit.

I hear what you're saying and my heart says that I should get the 40/2.8 as just the kind of lens that should suit me. However, I just can't see it displacing the 50/1.2L as my default lens on the 5D - that's a marriage made in heaven! My standard walk-around kit is a 5D+50L, with a 24/2.8 (old) just in case I need something wide. Or, sometimes, a 5D+35/2 (a lovely old-style EF lens that seems vastly underrated) if I'm doing one camera, one lens. I can't see the 40/2.8 squeezing in between the competition for my actual uses. Yet, somehow, that seems a shame because I love the concept of the 40 pancake.

Still, looking at my shots - and EXIF data on the focal length I most often use with a mid-range zoom - it seems I naturally "see" at about 50mm, so the expense of my much-used 50L seems justified. I do dearly love the results - long after the pain of the $$ outlay has receded. And I don't begrudge the size/weight at all. Everything about the 5D/50L combination feels "just right" to me I know others' preferences differ but on my experience I'd recommend buying the 50/1.2L to save yourself from working your way through the other 50s first.

...Mike

mfunnell wrote in post #16059369
I hear what you're saying and my heart says that I should get the 40/2.8 as just the kind of lens that should suit me. However, I just can't see it displacing the 50/1.2L as my default lens on the 5D - that's a marriage made in heaven! My standard walk-around kit is a 5D+50L, with a 24/2.8 (old) just in case I need something wide. Or, sometimes, a 5D+35/2 (a lovely old-style EF lens that seems vastly underrated) if I'm doing one camera, one lens. I can't see the 40/2.8 squeezing in between the competition for my actual uses. Yet, somehow, that seems a shame because I love the concept of the 40 pancake.

Still, looking at my shots - and EXIF data on the focal length I most often use with a mid-range zoom - it seems I naturally "see" at about 50mm, so the expense of my much-used 50L seems justified. I do dearly love the results - long after the pain of the $$ outlay has receded. And I don't begrudge the size/weight at all. Everything about the 5D/50L combination feels "just right" to me I know others' preferences differ but on my experience I'd recommend buying the 50/1.2L to save yourself from working your way through the other 50s first.

...Mike

I know what you mean. The 50L and the 5D were made for one another.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/carloalcala/8​840893086/

mfunnell wrote in post #16059369
I hear what you're saying and my heart says that I should get the 40/2.8 as just the kind of lens that should suit me. However, I just can't see it displacing the 50/1.2L as my default lens on the 5D - that's a marriage made in heaven! My standard walk-around kit is a 5D+50L, with a 24/2.8 (old) just in case I need something wide. Or, sometimes, a 5D+35/2 (a lovely old-style EF lens that seems vastly underrated) if I'm doing one camera, one lens. I can't see the 40/2.8 squeezing in between the competition for my actual uses. Yet, somehow, that seems a shame because I love the concept of the 40 pancake.

Still, looking at my shots - and EXIF data on the focal length I most often use with a mid-range zoom - it seems I naturally "see" at about 50mm, so the expense of my much-used 50L seems justified. I do dearly love the results - long after the pain of the $$ outlay has receded. And I don't begrudge the size/weight at all. Everything about the 5D/50L combination feels "just right" to me I know others' preferences differ but on my experience I'd recommend buying the 50/1.2L to save yourself from working your way through the other 50s first.

...Mike

I am enamored with the 40mm. Aside from being small, light and cheap, I find it to be the perfect angle of view for most family photos. And most importantly, the 40mm is just so cute!

Given the distance that I usually stand from my subjects with this lens, it is not too close to introduce linear perspective distortion issues with people (well, just a little) and close enough that I can position a flash where needed in relation to the subject(s). At f/2.8, I get great results and enough of my subject in focus.

Sure, f/1.2-1.4 will give you great subject/background separation with full body shots or smaller objects that need less DoF, but for people photos I like to get in close where f/4+ is better. If I do need less depth of field, I will break out the 50mm or, preferrably and if possible, the 85mm.

i know you have a love-hate relationship with the Sigma 85 but have you even tried the Sigma 50 first ?
a lot of my friends have the same relationship with their S-85 but most I know of with S-50 love theirs including mine.

didnt have to calibrate it on my 5Dc or 5DII

JeffreyG wrote in post #16056914
I found the focus performance of the 50/1.8 to be unnacceptable, and while the 50/1.4 works well in good light it begins to hunt and miss in the lowest of light levels. The number one reason I have the 50L is because it focuses well.

My exact reason for having a 50L. Sharpness doesn't matter if you can't focus; and I really don't trust myself to mf in the dark.

mfunnell wrote in post #16059369
Snip

...Mike

Yes, yes, I said it upthread, but this is my absolutely favorite combo! I might just be a bit crazy with my love for the 50L.

the softness of the 50L kind of irks me, since my other primes are sharp wide open.

Charlie wrote in post #16060599
the softness of the 50L kind of irks me, since my other primes are sharp wide open.

I think all AF 50s are a bit soft wide open.

taemo wrote in post #16060367
i know you have a love-hate relationship with the Sigma 85 but have you even tried the Sigma 50 first ?
a lot of my friends have the same relationship with their S-85 but most I know of with S-50 love theirs including mine.

didnt have to calibrate it on my 5Dc or 5DII

I have not tried the S-50, yet. I actually went as far as to order one and then cancelled.

It seems that all the sigma primes focus differently at different distances (maybe not true for all, but a large number and even the new 35 1.4). For my 85 it's not usually a problem and I know the MFA for 'close' vs infinity, but I usually shoot from about the same distance anyway (adjustment is pretty consistent from 5-15ft).

I may well be working my way through the 50's before getting the 50L, but really it's not a FL I work with all that much - as you can see from my lens list it was not exactly first on my list to get. I used to MF my 50 on my A-1 with a split prism, even for moving subjects, but I don't think my eyesight would allow that anymore even if I had a split prism and practiced a lot.

Probably going to try the Canon 1.4 first. My plan is to see how much i (dis)like this and what I really will or want to use 50mm for. Then either keep it or if I find I really like 50mm primes, get the 50L. If I don't use it enough to warrant the L, then I'll try a couple of copies of the Sigma and take it from there. The Canons I'll likely buy used, but not the sigmas - I want to be able to easily return those is necessary.

If you were willing to invest the $$s you could rent them and do a side by side comparison to see which one appeals to you the most. Obviously this is not taking into consideration copy to copy variations, but could give you an idea about each lens' quirks. HTH.