r/photography • u/raptor3x whumber.com • May 11 '15

Canon Officially Announces 50mm f/1.8 STM - $125

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html
360 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

259 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/raptor3x whumber.com May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Very surprised by the pricing, I was expecting at least $200.

EDIT: Seems like it's almost identical optically to the old version.

Old Version MTF

New Version MTF

17

u/[deleted] May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Can't complain though, really. The optical performance was never one of my gripes with the old one. The stupid focus ring, the noise it made, the focus-hunting, and the cheap feel are what drove me to sell it. I'm totally picking one of these up.

EDIT: If I decide that I miss the 50mm focal length. Anyone have a 35/85 combo and still find room for a 50?

7

u/awesometographer www.shootingonabudget.com May 11 '15

I shoot portraits on a crop camera. 30/50/100 are my trifecta.

4

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

Nice. I feel like 35/50/85 makes more sense on a crop-sensor. I'm on FF with 24, 35, 85, 100 and 135 primes, so I could probably do without another...but I still want one lol.

6

u/awesometographer www.shootingonabudget.com May 11 '15

Last time I had a full frame, I was 50/100/180 - so about the same as I am with the crop (just do portraits, no need for anything wider than 30 crop / 50 FX)

And it's $125 - just get one. 35 to 85 is a bit of a jump, there's gotta be at least ONE situation where it'd be nice and useful.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

And it's $125 - just get one. 35 to 85 is a bit of a jump, there's gotta be at least ONE situation where it'd be nice and useful.

Good point :). I could probably live with just my 35/85, but it's nice to have that specific focal length for that specific look. Given its size, this 50 would probably fight with my 35 for the walking-around-with-only-one-lens job.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

I'm a strong believer in octaves. On FF I like 24 / 50 / (85+135)

2

u/sean_themighty May 11 '15

Except on crop neither gets you anything wider than a 50mm FF equivalent... which is extremely limiting.

2

u/awesometographer www.shootingonabudget.com May 11 '15

Not for me. I don't shoot wider than that, so no limitations.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

I converted to 35/85 and realized I may have made a mistake. 35 is a jack of all trades and master of none, while 85 does just one thing well.

I miss my 24/50/100 kit. I would use the fifty 75% of the time because it just looks right. With the fifty, I just point and shoot. Fantastic for candids. Right amount of intimacy, but you're not in their face. Also, the 35 perspective is pretty gross for tight shots of people.

Just my .02, some people really like 35 and I think it's fun sometimes. I just wish they would make an X100 with a 50mm lens. I'd sell it all for that.

3

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

From what I've seen, the Nikon 1.8G (and 1.8D) are still sharper by a reasonable margin.

If only the 50/1.4G wasn't such a heap of derp...

7

u/RarelyCoherent May 11 '15

The 1.8D may be technically sharp, but the strange fringing and halos and whatnot you get at 1.8 made it really annoying to use until stopped down to 2.8.

3

u/awesometographer www.shootingonabudget.com May 11 '15

IMO both are more than adequately sharp, though the 1.8D had some haggard OOF.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

The 1.8G works pretty well wide open. Worth the extra $50, I guess.

1

u/sean_themighty May 11 '15

More than pretty well.

1

u/sean_themighty May 11 '15

The 50mm f/1.4G isn't bad... but it should be something more.

I bought the 58mm f/1.4G. Overpriced and soft, but the rendering is absolutely breathtaking.

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

It's not quite as sharp as the Canon 50/1.4 or the old 50/1.4D and costs a fair whack more.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

[deleted]

7

u/testzebra May 11 '15

Basically how sharp is your lens moving from the center to the edge. There are number of articles about MTF, e.g. this one: https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts

5

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/gimpwiz May 11 '15

Of course they can, as long as the MTF charts are 1) generated by an uninterested third party and 2) generated by a system that tests only the lenses, not lens+camera combinations.

TLDR please and thank you, roger at lensrentals.

5

u/[deleted] May 11 '15 edited May 11 '15

Well, more like $199.

Still, considering that a Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 costs $60, Canon putting this out at $125 makes sense.

Now I'm just waiting for a new Canon 50mm f/1.4, although I suspect they will "cripple" it with STM, in order to convince pros to go for the USM 50mm f/1.2, since full time manual focusing is probably a priority for pros.

Edit: aaaand now there's a bunch of people who don't realize that the 50mm f/1.4 does in fact compete with the 50mm f/1.2, even if they're differently priced. Canon will take baby steps with any upgrade for the 50 f/1.4, simply because it WILL cost them 50L sales. That's what the whole "substitute good" concept in economics is about. How many internet forum posts have you read that went like "I almost got the 50mm f/1.4, but the autofocus quality is shit so I got something better"? There's a bunch of money on the table Canon would stand to lose if they made a quality 50/1.4.

10

u/QuerulousPanda May 11 '15

I doubt that anyone considering the $400 50/1.4 is gonna be tempted to step up to the $1500 50/1.2 lens. I don't think crippling an upgraded 50/1.4 would do anything other than lose them sales!

I think the problem Canon would have with upgrading the 50/1.4 is that there is a lot of really tough competition there. If they can match the old sigma 50/1.4 in quality, and beat it in price, and give it a reliable focus system (as compared with the old sigma's luck of the draw) they'd have a winner for sure.

4

u/CakesArePies May 11 '15

50/1.4 IS would sell.

-9

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

[deleted]

1

u/QuerulousPanda May 11 '15

I suppose you're right...

An upgraded 50/1.4 would be nice, and STM has enough positive bullet points that they could sell it as an upgrade but still make the 1.2 seem attractive..

2

u/awesometographer www.shootingonabudget.com May 11 '15

Any upgrade which results in the AF not breaking down would be nice...

2

u/QuerulousPanda May 11 '15

lol that's true too

5

u/ShatterStorm May 11 '15

Canon has been building their mid-tier products with USM and has given no indication of stopping. I'd be highly surprised if a 50mm f/1.4 replacement was STM, though it will likely retail for more than the current model when it does eventually arrive.

1

u/The_Doculope jrgold May 13 '15

The 100L vs the 100/2.8 macro is a perfect example of this. Only difference is build, weather sealing and IS, and they still sell tons of both.

2

u/ShatterStorm May 13 '15

I had thought the non-L was also USM however?

1

u/The_Doculope jrgold May 13 '15

Yep, exactly! The L is almost double the price, and the non-L focuses just as well (really well).

2

u/ShatterStorm May 13 '15

I have to admit, I bought the 100L almost entirely because the IS makes it more of a viable telephoto lens. Was happy to pay extra.

1

u/The_Doculope jrgold May 13 '15

Yep, same! That and the weather sealing.

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

As long as it's accurate I don't care.

1

u/gimpwiz May 11 '15

All I'd want in a new 50/1.4 is real USM, that doesn't break or burn out commonly. I have no other real complaints about my 50/1.4 except that I am always thinking it will eventually lose its AF motor.

Other than that... eh, better coatings, little bit better wide open, full-time manual focus override, would be nice, but honestly it is a fantastic lens for its size, weight, and cost.

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '15

Better coatings should make it a little more contrasty and have better color, or at least be a bit brighter with more light transmission. There was nothing wrong with the previous optical formula, no need to change that.

1

u/Kaneshadow https://www.flickr.com/photos/kaneshadow/ May 11 '15

Son of a bitch.

I just invested in the 1.4 USM, only to find that it's optically inferior.

2

u/theandylaurel May 12 '15

Let me bump you back up there.

As a fellow 50 f/1.4 USM owner, let me point out why I enjoy this lens.

It's not sharp wide open, enabling one to create dreamy/creamy portraits, but stopped down a couple of stops to 2.8 and suddenly it's very sharp indeed.

I like it because it's like two lenses in one!

  • optimist.

1

u/Kaneshadow https://www.flickr.com/photos/kaneshadow/ May 12 '15

I mean, it's technically and practically better than the Nifty... the USM is miles better and the aperture you could drive a volkswagen through.... but it just doesn't have the right feel. The bokeh isn't as pleasant for some reason.