What type of new 50mm f1.4 lens you want from Canon?

Canon 50mm 1.4 is an old lens and needs o be updated according to many users. It is an older design where the lenses are somewhat hazy at the largest aperture (due to spherical aberration) and gain contrast by stopping down to f2 and beyond. Other lenses of similar design are Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 and Nikon 50mm f1.4G, they show similar characteristics. But the advantage of these lenses are, they have fewer optical elements and so they are light and small, and are relatively cheap.

On the other hand there are modern 50mm lenses from Sigma and Zeiss, which are better performer at wider apertures. These lenses have more optical elements to correct spherical aberrations and so they are heavier and larger, and pricier and much better performer at wide apertures.

Here is a comparison between these lenses:

Lens - No. of optical elements/ groups - weight

Nikon 50mm 1.4G - 8/7 - 280 grams
Canon 50mm f1.4 - 7/6 - 268 grams
Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 - 7/6 - 380 grams

Zeiss Otus 55mm f1.4 - 12/10 - 1020 grams
Zeiss Milvus 50mm f1.4 - 10/8 - 922 grams
Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art - 13/8 - 815 grams

One example of older design lens vs newer heavier better performer replacement is Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 vs Milvus 50mm f1.4.
So what type of new 50mm f1.4 lens you want from Canon? Older design, moderately priced, light lens (though of course comparatively better performer with better focusing than the current lens, because otherwise there would be no point of releasing a new version). Or a newer design, larger and heavier and much better performer at a higher price point?

I would like to see:

Improved optics, along the lines of the 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 and 35mm f2 lenses that Canon released a short while ago.

Ring type USM focusing motor, as opposed to the current USM micro motor.

Image Stabilising, although this would not necessarily be a deal breaker for me in a lens with a f1.4 aperture.

The above improvements would probably result in a heavier lens, but the weight needs to be kept down as much as possible.  The Sigma Art and Zeiss lenses may well be very good performers, but in my opinion, they are too heavy for this focal length.

Once again, the above improvements would probably result in a higher price tag.  However, this needs to be kept down as much as possible.  As in the case of the weight issue mentioned above, the Sigma Art and Zeiss lenses are too expensive, relative to their focal lengths (IMO).

If Canon could achieve the above, I  think they would outsell the other 50/55mm lenses by a long margin.

Cheers, Tony

I prefer the light uncorrected 50mm 1.8 STM at the moment.  At wide open apertures, having it sharp frame to frame is great for test charts, otherwise the spherical aberration is fine for some portraits along with very simplistic and pristine bokeh highlights compared to onioned ones.

I'd rather they revamped the 85mm 1.8 and do away with sample variation like they did the STM.

Canon EF 50mm f/2 L IS USM Macro 1:2

...essentially the 50mm brother to the 100L, very sharp and very contrasty from the get-go.

Great Bustard wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

I prefer the light uncorrected 50mm 1.8 STM at the moment. At wide open apertures, having it sharp frame to frame is great for test charts, otherwise the spherical aberration is fine for some portraits along with very simplistic and pristine bokeh highlights compared to onioned ones.

I'm not a fan of the wide open haze, thing. Lower resolution, sure, but I hate the haze.

I'd rather they revamped the 85mm 1.8 and do away with sample variation like they did the STM.

I think an 85 / 1.8 IS is the most important update Canon could release at the moment, assuming it has the same IQ improvement from the 85 / 1.8 that the 35 / 2 IS had from the 35 / 2. Myself, I'm anxiously awaiting a 100 / 2 IS along the same lines.

Yes the astigmatism coma is crazy.  But carrying the 50mm 1.8 STM + 6D is very carefree and light compared to a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art.

I like to experiment and see how much I have to PP the photo and resize to take away the characteristic Canon 50mm wide open look.

Timbukto wrote:

At wide open apertures, having it sharp frame to frame is great for test charts, otherwise the spherical aberration is fine for some portraits along with very simplistic and pristine bokeh highlights compared to onioned ones.
--

I agree. I also like wide open softness in portraits. Though many here will argue that you can capture the sharpest possible photo and make it softer in post process as well. Here is a portrait at f2, captured with 50mm STM. Even at f2, you will be able to see the acnes on her face.

Nikon 58 1.4 is designed to have a certain balance such that wide open it obviously has its share of spherical aberration.  It's also a light lens, but not cheap.

kotmj wrote:

We already know how Canon's fast 50mm will look like. There has been a string of patents. Pretty long barrel.

Didn't know that!

Great Bustard wrote:

...with better bokeh, less CA, and IS at 400g and $699 would be the ticket. But, that's not gonna happen, of course. I'm hoping the 50 / 1.2L II will be just as good, if not better than, the 35 / 1.4L II.

I would love the same or more sharpness as 50mm 1.4G, around ~350g and $450-500.

I have the old 50mm f/1.0L, and it has issues: but I think Canon could make several optical and hardware improvements that could make it really stand out among the "Me too" 50mm f/1.4 lenses.

kotmj wrote:

Canon's latest patent for a 50/1.4

How bad is the current Canon 50 f/1.4? Is it worth $275?

Many say it is not good, many have problems with it, especially these who don't handle it very genly, but I must say it still has something over these 1.8 versions, and I don't have big problems in geting very sharp image wide open for no smaller resolution than 2560x1440p. I'd still recommend it for these who know what they nee, and for those who value faster aperture setting for good money.