EF 50mm f/1.4 USM update?

<p>Anybody knows anything about the update to the 50mm f/1.4 lens?<br>

<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/ef-50-f1-4-ii-usm-cr2/">http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/ef-50-f1-4-ii-usm-cr2/</a><br>

If/When/How Much?</p>

<p>Gee Thanks,<br>

After using the EF 50mm 1.8 and it's plastic mount for 6 years, I just recently saved and found a used 1.4 so that I could justify the cost and image quality to the 1.8!</p>

<p>Now, . . . You have just "busted my bubble!"<br>

or, . . .<br>

Maybe not!<br>

I don't expect Canon to do "very much" because of their 50mm f/1.2, but will be watching to see how the 1.4 II turns out.<br>

The link indicates the current 1.4 as "problematic," but I've never had any problems with mine!<br>

Would also be curios to hear what problems have been encountered?<br>

Maybe Bob Atkins will shed some light on your question and mine. </p>

 

<p>I understand people have problems with the autofocus on this camera. I've seen reviews talking about autofocus getting stuck or not functioning after some time of using the lens. I also have seen people praise the lens highly. I don't trust rumors too much, often it's just wishful thinking, but if this lens gets the autofocus fixed, I'll wait a few months.</p>

<p>It's about 17 years overdue. I hope it's true.</p>

<p>Rumor, rumor....<br>

If it's true, the new one will likely cost a lot more, so you may be happy when all is done, Jim.</p>

<p>I'd just point out the comment on build quality in reference to all the bad mouthing here on other threads of the old 50mm f/1.8 cheapness:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Build upgrade. The current 50 f/1.4 from Canon is one of the most unreliable in the lineup</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, that's perhaps of the same quality as the rest of the rumors.</p>

<p>This <em>is</em> a long overdue upgrade, of course. Someday, the rumor may be true, even.</p><div></div>

<p>The 10mm 2.8 EF-S and 15mm 2.8 EF-S is about to be released along with an 85 2.0 with 52mm filter size. I hope no one believes these rumors I just made up. The new 50 may be true, who knows. No one has mentioned this rumor for, what a week or two.</p>

<p>Maybe they will release it with the 24-70 2.8 IS that has been coming for years :-}. Who knows if this is true, it would be nice. I like the 50 1.4, its a very good lens except for the crappy micro USM. L primes are to big and expensive so I would love some new USM non L primes, 35 and 50 in particular. </p>

<p>That would be the same site that published the specifications and talked about the imminent release of the EOS 60D three or four months ago wouldn't it?</p>

<p>The call them rumors (or in this case unsubstantiated rumors) for a reason. People often make them up. It attracts traffic to the site so why not. Occasionally they will be correct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...</p>

<p>So send in your favorite rumors to that site. Odds are you'll see them published whether or not you made them up. Send in enough rumors and sooner or later one of them is bound to turn out to be correct.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would love some new USM non L primes, 35 and 50 in particular.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My biggest issue with the tiny and otherwise wonderful 35/2 is the cheapo aperture. Give it two more blades, a better hood, cut the price, and I'm fine. No need for a EF-S 30/1.8 then unless it goes pancakey. USM is nice but tends to add both size and cost.</p>

<p>I love my nifty fifty 50mm f/1.8 II (the plastic one with the plastic mount). I dropped it from about 4 feet the other day onto a tile floor and there was absolutely no harm. People can talk about poor build all they want, but I have no reason to upgrade. I love my 1.8 and my wallet's a little fatter for it.</p>

<p>Not to dwell on the obvious, but it IS a "rumor" site... ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't expect Canon to do "very much" because of their 50mm f/1.2, but will be watching to see how the 1.4 II turns out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 1.4 and 1.2 are in different classes in so many ways. I don't think having the 1.2 in any way lets Canon off-the-hook regarding an upgrade for the 1.4, the current version is clunky and cheap feeling (I have one).</p>

<p>Frankly I am more confused now than before.<br>

Rumors aside, I am trying to pick a good lens for indoor/low light portraits for a full frame Canon.<br>

I thought 50mm f/1.4 was a good pick.</p>

<p>I have no problem with my EF 50 f1.4, it's great and very reliable,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I thought 50mm f/1.4 was a good pick.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a good lens but I don't know if I would use it for portraits just because 50 may be a little on the wide side. But overall the 50 1.4 is very good, mine is sharp wide open and stopping down makes it razor sharp. The only issue I have is sometimes the focus is not as good as my other lenses ( which are all USM ) For the money you can't go wrong.<br>

For more traditional portraits you may look at the 85 1.8, excellent lens. </p>

<p>Krzysztof,<br>

Why didn't you ask that question in the first place?<br>

Yes, the EF 50 f/1.4 or even the EF 50 f/1.8 in my opinion is a "must have" in my equipment bag. Especially when I'm shooting film which would be full frame. Either are also useful with my digital equipment but I prefer the wider 17-50mm zoom with the 1.6 crop factor and small sensor.<br>

Even though the so called "build quality" and feel of the EF 50 f/1.8 is cheap, so is the $100.00 price tag and can produce outstanding images. I had mine for several years, and would still be using it had I not come across a decent used purchase on the f/1.4.<br>

As for Portraits, which I don't do many . . . I would be using my 100mm f/2.8 Macro but that's me, and if I could consider it (afford it) I might be interested in checking up on the 85 1.8 that Tommy mentions.<br>

Thanks Bob, I knew if there was "a straight answer to be had" that you would chime in. I personally don't spend time on other photo sites, this one seems to give me all the answers/opinions I need!<br>

Yes, I like my EF 50 f/1.4 and I have had absolutely no problems with mine, nor did I have any problems with the EF 50 f/1.8 with reasonable care.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have both the 1.8 and 1.4. I'm quite happy with the 1.4 and would only consider getting rid of it when I get the 85 1.2, I wont really need the 50mm 1.4 and I could sell it toward the better purchase. <br>

ultimately though, the 50 1.8 is the best IQ you can get per dollar spent especially if used. </p>

<p>50mm fast prime lens is what I want. I was just curious if anyone may have solid info of the update that is circling on the web. I may be too influenced by the negative feedback that the current 50mm f/1.4 is getting, but for the price, I think it's worth a try.<br>

Thank you everyone for the great input. I love this site.</p>

<p>I love the EF 50 f/1.4 lens. It's pretty light. It can almost focus in the dark. It offers wonderful optical performance that belies it's relatively cheap entry fee. It really is dirt cheap for the performance it offers. It delivers awesome great shallow DOF when called for, even on my crop cameras, and if I ever manage to destroy it by risking more than I can cover in getting a shot, it won't make me cry. I would likely cry (in private, of course) if I killed any of my 50 f/1.2 lenses (FD or EF) over a stupid attempt at getting a shot, but considering that my FD series f/1.4 lenses have survived for a couple of decades already, and that my EF f/1.4 lens is working on surviving it's first full decade of abuse, neither type owes me a dime, and I consider both to be the "REAL" Nifty Fifty standard prime.<br>

I still own an FD 50 f/1.8 lens, but it came with a camera way back when. As good as the EF 50 f/1.4 lens is for the price, I would never even think about replacing the EF 50 f/1.8 lens I sold back in 1998 or so. There is just plain cheap, and there is cheap with serious value. The EF 50 f/1.4 is the latter. Could it be improved? Sure it can. Any lens can be improved, but at what cost? I think the EF 50 f/1.4 offers a near perfect ballance of performance vs cost. It is a genuine Rockstar "bang for the buck" performer in the Canon lineup.</p>

<p>You want even more? Pay for it. I did. Leave the "Fabulous Fifty" as it is for those of us who like to tote a seriously fast 50 mm lens that is a clear step up from the "uber frugal" f/1.8 lens, while still being cheap enough to shoot waist-deep surf shots without getting permission from your insurance agent..... <br>

Long live the cheap EF 50 f/1.4! </p>

<p>I'm a portrait photographer and I love my 50 f/1.4! I think it's great for portraits, allowing for many different styles, and the shallow DOF is terrific. The auto focus may hang up occasionally in certain strongly back-lit conditions, but it usually not a big deal to just flip it to manual focus for those shots. Sure, it's not a super high quality lens, but it's affordable and does a great job. Well worth the money.</p>

<blockquote><p>10mm 2.8 EF-S</p></blockquote>

 

<p>Oh, if only that were true... I could even live with an F4 lens. Just make it compact, like the Pentax 15mm.</p>

 

<p>As for the OP: I'm still waiting for that 50mm f1.4 USM <b>IS</b> anouncement.</p>

<p>A vote for an update. The 50mm was a standard lens for a long time. The double-gauss design gave a decent image quality wide open and excellent results stopped down. This was good enough for occasional low light photography, whereas the regular use was stopped down in good light. Today, the fast 50mm prime has become a more specialized lens where shooting wide open is the primary use. Newer aspherical lens designs offer more image quality wide open (sacrificing some peak sharpness at f 5.6 or 8) in terms of sharpness AND bokeh. IMHO it is time for a fresh optical and mechanical design of the 1.4 50mm lens. I even think that there is a place for that lens besides the 1.2 50mm. The 1.2 is designed for maximum (background) blur, the 1.4 can be designed for maximum sharpness.</p>

<p>The 50mm is hardly a "specialized" lens- it's still a very popular focal length and great seller in stores.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not to dwell on the obvious, but it IS a "rumor" site... ;-)

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

 

<br>

 

 

<br>

 

 

</p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr">Yes, but it does post accurate data 2-3 days before almost each and every actual announcement. Thus, while of course not all rumors materialize or in any way all are accurate, the higher ranked rumors (CR4 and CR5) has some credibility in my eyes. It is not the case of northlight-images where almost all rumors are bogus almost all the time.

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">

 

 

 

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,

 

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.

<p>

<p> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr">

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

 

<p dir="ltr">

<p>

 

 

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Brian, being poular and a great seller does not contradict the more specialized use. The vast majority DSL owners have 1.6x crop camera bodies where 50mm hardly can be called a "standard" lens. But they are the largest group of lens buyers. I think the low light capabilities and the usefulness for portraits are the main reason to buy these lenses (paired with a comparatively low price). These uses for me are "specialized", it is not the walkaround lens for most people. And these uses require a lens with the best possible wide open capabilities. </p>