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

KLO82 wrote:

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.

This would work, too, but would be nice to see a stabilized 50 / 1.4.  Then again, since Canon lenses can AF on the A7RII which has IBIS, maybe not so important after Sony FF mirrorless prices come down a bit.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

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.

...were smaller and lighter than the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, and cost no more than it, I think I'd get it.

mrmjs wrote:

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

It's really about the value proposition.  Prior to the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM launching, the EF 50mm f/1.4 made a lot of sense to a lot of people.  I personally haven't shot with the 50mm f/1.8 STM but many say it's greatly improved over the EF 50mm f/1.8 II.  The other competitor in the last few years has been the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens.  It's roughly 3x the price of the EF 50mm f/1.4, but for that 3x price increase, you get LOADS of sharpness at all apertures whereas the 50mm f/1.4 really doesn't sharpen up nicely until about f/2.5+.  I find the EF 50mm f/1.4 usable at f/2, but it's not what I would call impressive.

Many are still purchasing the EF 50mm f/1.4.  Others who would have purchased it in the past are now opting for the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM instead, and saving $150-175.

So, to ask if it's worth $275, I can't answer that as it's an individuals personal value proposition at play.  Is 2/3 of a stop of light worth an extra $150-175 over the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM?  For some yes, for others no.  Would paying 3x as much for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art be a better value proposition since it is razor sharp at f/1.4?  For some  yes, for others no.

trulandphoto wrote:

I haven't bothered reading the thread but I'm sure others have said the same thing.

I want a match to the 24/28/35 IS USM trio in a 50mm f/1.4 lens. It could be $100 more and still worth it.

Seems like it should be a no brainer but who knows.

Are you saying $100 more than the current 50/1.4, or $100 more than the 24/28/35 IS USM lenses? If the former, I don't think that's realistic. If the latter, yeah... I can get on board with that, especially if it maintains f/1.4 while receiving IS.

I would be fine with F1.8 or F2 and IS, if optical quality winds up comparable to the 35F2IS. The 50 F1.4 has plenty of resolution at F2, but contrast is not as good as I would like. AF needs an update to USM. The 50F1.4 is plenty sharp stopped down to F4, but I want a lens that does well at F1.8 or F2.

I certainly won't shell out bucks for a 50 that is the size and weight of the 24-105F4IS. I wouldn't mind if the lens is somewhat heavier and larger than the current 50F1.4 by Canon, but I would really not want to put a brick on the front of the camera....unless absolutely necessary. The size, weight, and AF of some of the newer 3rd party primes are a turnoff for me.

KLO82 wrote:

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?

Since it's almost Christmas time, so I have a wish if Santa or Canon can bring me a new 50mm preferably in a F1.2L version with the edge to edge sharpness of the Sigma 50 Art and Bokeh of the Zeiss 50 1.4 Milvus. No focus shift like the one I sold a while back please, I don't care about size and weight, in fact, I hate small and light  plastic lens so anything like the Sigma or Zeiss will be perfect, oh, yes, I am prepared to see a high price tag for such lens, it won't be a cheap one but it will be a great one.

amd wrote:

Also from a Canon ROI market segmentation I would not invest into a Sigma A competition. Rather do a modest update of the current one alike they did with the 1.8 for a very low price, or do a 2.0 IS STM for 400$. Then investing into the 1.2L where the Sigma can't compete would give them a better ROI than competing on the price...

This.

A 1.4 STM at 50mm would be brilliant.

If you know what you're doing there's hardly any need for IS at 1.4. And buying a 1.4

means taking advantage of that aperture. Otherwise, opt for the 1.8 STM and stop down.

IS does offer some relief when shooting video, though, but I fear it would add considerable heft.

EduPortas wrote:

amd wrote:

Also from a Canon ROI market segmentation I would not invest into a Sigma A competition. Rather do a modest update of the current one alike they did with the 1.8 for a very low price, or do a 2.0 IS STM for 400$. Then investing into the 1.2L where the Sigma can't compete would give them a better ROI than competing on the price...

This.

A 1.4 STM at 50mm would be brilliant.

If you know what you're doing there's hardly any need for IS at 1.4.

If you really know what you're doing you will set up three strobes in reflectors and soft boxes and shoot at f8 etc? What kind of a comment is that?

fishy wishy wrote:

EduPortas wrote:

amd wrote:

Also from a Canon ROI market segmentation I would not invest into a Sigma A competition. Rather do a modest update of the current one alike they did with the 1.8 for a very low price, or do a 2.0 IS STM for 400$. Then investing into the 1.2L where the Sigma can't compete would give them a better ROI than competing on the price...

This.

A 1.4 STM at 50mm would be brilliant.

If you know what you're doing there's hardly any need for IS at 1.4.

If you really know what you're doing you will set up three strobes in reflectors and soft boxes and shoot at f8 etc? What kind of a comment is that?

Good one, Fishy!

amd wrote:

While I agree that a 50mm 1.4 IS is pretty unlikely (I suggested a 2.0 btw.) I can only partially follow your argument. If I use 1.4 to stop the motion, IS would be pretty obsolete at that FL (agreed). For available light use though you could keep ISO very low, and be more flexible with the shutter speed. So IS would have some use. Personally I would always prefer the lens without IS and rather be faster (1.4 or 1.2 over 2.0), if I have to choose. For me speed would be more useful than IS. There we seem to concur if I read you correctly.

My "guessing" was actually mostly about what would make sense in order to respond to a market that has the choice of Sigma ART lenses now. As Abu suggested in another post, adding macro would make this lens nice enough to be paired with the 1.2L for me.

On my wish list remains a 50mm f/1.2L II that's razor sharp at 1.2 without any focus shift and super fast AF :-D. I fear I would pay a hefty premium for such a gem, and accept size and weight being out of the norm.

Some here, I also would rather much have a good lens at 1.4 or 1.2 without IS. Canon's

24-35mm series with IS are superb lenses. I own the 28mm version my self

and of course appreciate the stabilization under very low lighting.

For video, for example, it can be very useful.

I completely agree with the rest of your thoughts, my friend. C'mon Canon, show us the goods!

EduPortas wrote:

amd wrote:

While I agree that a 50mm 1.4 IS is pretty unlikely (I suggested a 2.0 btw.) I can only partially follow your argument. If I use 1.4 to stop the motion, IS would be pretty obsolete at that FL (agreed). For available light use though you could keep ISO very low, and be more flexible with the shutter speed. So IS would have some use. Personally I would always prefer the lens without IS and rather be faster (1.4 or 1.2 over 2.0), if I have to choose. For me speed would be more useful than IS. There we seem to concur if I read you correctly.

My "guessing" was actually mostly about what would make sense in order to respond to a market that has the choice of Sigma ART lenses now. As Abu suggested in another post, adding macro would make this lens nice enough to be paired with the 1.2L for me.

On my wish list remains a 50mm f/1.2L II that's razor sharp at 1.2 without any focus shift and super fast AF :-D. I fear I would pay a hefty premium for such a gem, and accept size and weight being out of the norm.

Some here, I also would rather much have a good lens at 1.4 or 1.2 without IS. Canon's

24-35mm series with IS are superb lenses. I own the 28mm version my self

and of course appreciate the stabilization under very low lighting.

For video, for example, it can be very useful.

I completely agree with the rest of your thoughts, my friend. C'mon Canon, show us the goods!

... and I get to use my 50mm rarely enough at f1.4 that I'd prefer a 50mm f1.8 IS for the same money, if it were as good at f1.8

I've seen Canon patenting many fast 50 concepts. I think they have spent a long time developing a successor to the current 50/1.4 -- after all, they spent none on the 50/1.8. When they finally unveil it after years of exploring many concepts and designing dozens of versions, it will be a simple but magnificent lens.