johnctharp wrote:
Honestly I'd take a 50/1.8 IS USM, should it be produced up to the standard of the current triplet. Compact, light, with top-end IS and USM, and wide-open sharpness and contrast, and hopefully a bit better control of LoCA.
Canon BADLY needs some new 50mm lenses. At this point, I don't even care what type of 50mm lens it is, they just need to show some interest in fixing the problems that each of their current 50mm lenses has. Even if it was that 50mm macro that no one remembers exists!
That 50 macro is the best one, . Yeah, they really need to update the 50mm 1.4 first imho. That thing is... yeah. 50mm 1.8 needs to be updated to the Nikon 50mm 1.8 standards, give it an STM focus motor at least.
johnctharp wrote:
If you have the 16-35/2.8L II, you'd lack stabilization and corner to corner sharpness; if you have the 16-35/4L IS, you're missing a stop. Both are significantly larger and heavier; even Nikon's spectacular 28/1.8G dwarfs Canon's little 28/2.8 IS. But it's not any better optically.
I don't happen to think that one extra stop would merit buying (and carrying around) a separate lens, hence the 28 IS would make little sense even if I had the 16-35/4 IS (towards which I'm gravitating, but rumors/announcements of new UWA zooms from Tamron, Canon and Sigma are giving me a pause). Besides, the convenience of the zoom in my case gains the upper hand; as far as faster primes go, I'm thinking more of the 24/1.4L.
The Nikon 28/1.8 is not by any means huge, and it shows that a good lens can be created within these specs... if there's a will to do so.
If this 11-24 is real, I'll be debating between this, the upcoming Tamron 15-30/2.8, the rumored Sigma 14-24 and the Canon 16-35/4 IS. The first three cases would also involve selling my venerable Sigma 14/2.8 and getting a midrange zoom in the vein of Tamron 24-70 (I was avoiding this for so long... but it looks like resistance is futile lol). Of course I could just put a thumb on my GAS and just soldier on with what I have - it's not like I'm using utter junk! But the above shows how infectious these new releases and announcements are... just like the 70-200/2.8 IS suddenly became a sh*tty lens as soon as the Mk. II was released.
Snopchenko wrote:
One hole when considering Canon vs. Nikon lens lineup is that Nikon has a (near) full lineup of up-to-date f/1.8 primes (now from 20 mm through 28, 35 and 50 to 85mm) whereas Canon's lenses in this vein are either dated or nonexistent, the 28/1.8 being particularly far from stellar, as per reviews). The 35/2 IS is, unless I'm missing something, the only new moderately affordable fast prime.
NOTE: I'm a Canon user.
I had that f/1.8 lineup (except for the new 20) before I moved to Canon. The Canon 28/1.8 and 50/1.8 are indeed awful compared to Nikon's. I don't miss the 28 now that I have the 35IS, which easily tops Nikon's. And I found that the Canon 85/1.8 is at least as good as Nikon's, even though it is much older. That was quite a surprise. I don't know if I got an unusually good copy of that lens. So what's mainly missing from my viewpoint is a modern 50/1.8.
SeverianTL wrote:
The only negative is that it is f/4 not f/2.8
You're joking. A f/2.8 would bring it to a size, weight, and price only few would be interested in. That would make a huge difference. A f/4 seems to be a nice and realistic option.
kezeka wrote:
Canon BADLY needs some new 50mm lenses.
I'm using a 50 1.2 Zuiko and a 50 f2 Ai Nikkor - neither are ideal for events, use is personal walk around. I am eyeing the possible 24-70 f2 OS Sigma as a contender - instead of a single FL 50 from Canon.
I've read the price will be over $2800 somewhere. It will tough to buy if the new siggy, I believe, is @14-24 with a 82mm filter ring at nearly half the cost. IQ being the other question though.
. Yeah, they really need to update the 50mm 1.4 first imho. That thing is... yeah. 50mm 1.8 needs to be updated to the Nikon 50mm 1.8 standards, give it an STM focus motor at least.