Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but does anyone know, or believe Canon will release an update to the 50 1.4.Perhaps with ring USM and better build quality. The 1.2 is just too much $ and I've heard many complaints about the current 1.4s focus. I'd love to get the 35 1.4 L, but again it's a bit too much. 50 would be perfect.Canon has updated a few of their lenses lately, so do you think they'll update this standard?Thanks!

This could happen, for the reasons you give.Mostly just to get rid of the "Micro USM" that current version has, in favor of regular USM.But then again, if they don't revise this lens soon, that too wouldn't be a surprise.Either way, it wouldn't be a surprise, I'd say.Although both the 16-35 L revision, and the 50mm L revision ... these were revisions of L lenses. And the 50mm f/1.4 isn't an L.

Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but does anyone know, or believe Canon will release an update to the 50 1.4.Unlikely that they will anytime soon as it may be too soon and compete with the 50 / 1.2L. Perhaps in a couple of years, after other lens updates.That said, even though I love the 50 / 1.2L, I'd be interested in a 50 / 1.4 II. But I'm more interested in an update of the 50 / 2.5 macro, and that might be likely. Certainly more likely than a 50 / 1.4 II.Perhaps with ring USM and better build quality. The 1.2 is just too much $ and I've heard many complaints about the current 1.4s focus. I'd love to get the 35 1.4 L, but again it's a bit too much. 50 would be perfect.That's the problem -- a 50 / 1.4 II would be perfect for a lot of people, and pull sales away from the 50 / 1.2L. Perhaps an update of the 35 / 2 might be forthcoming, because it's a stop slower than the 35 / 1.4L, whereas the 50 / 1.4 is only a third stop slower than the 50 / 1.2L.Canon has updated a few of their lenses lately, so do you think they'll update this standard?Again, no time soon. But I welcome an update to the 50 / 2.5 macro, and think that is far more likely. Let's take a look at Canon's recent updates in chronological order (I think):70-300 / 4-5.6 IS 85 / 1.2L II 70-200 / 4L IS 50 / 1.2L 16-35 / 2.8L II 14 / 2.8L IIWhere are they going next? A 24 / 1.4L II is a good bet, as is a 300 / 4L IS II and 400 / 5.6L IS, or perhaps even a 24-70 / 2.8L IS (although many people want it to be a 24-85 / 2.8L IS, but I'd bet heavily against that).I'd like to believe a 200 / 2.8L IS is coming, but I have a feeling it isn't. Also, it's possible that one or more of the macros get updates, but the 50 / 2.5 macro is the only one that really "needs" it (although IS in the 100 / 2.8 macro ala Nikon's 105 / 2.8 IS macro would be a hit).

True, but they have updated non L lenses too:http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442But, you're right, most are in the "L" class. I know I'd be happy.

Where are they going next? A 24 / 1.4L II is a good bet, as is a 300 / 4L IS II and 400 / 5.6L IS, or perhaps even a 24-70 / 2.8L IS (although many people want it to be a 24-85 / 2.8L IS, but I'd bet heavily against that).Wow, 24-85 2.8... that would be a beast! I thought the 24-70 2.8 was big enough, though the extra 15mm would be nice.

Where are they going next? A 24 / 1.4L II is a good bet, as is a 300 / 4L IS II and 400 / 5.6L IS, or perhaps even a 24-70 / 2.8L IS (although many people want it to be a 24-85 / 2.8L IS, but I'd bet heavily against that).Wow, 24-85 2.8... that would be a beast! I thought the 24-70 2.8 was big enough, though the extra 15mm would be nice.'Tis my thinking as well. However, the compactness and IQ of the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 has many thinking that Canon can create a 24-85 / 2.8L IS no larger than the current 24-70 / 2.8L.In any event, even if they could, they won't. They'll use the same range as they've done with all their other updates -- they won't design a new lens.

No idea but if they did make a 50 1.4 with IQ, build and price comparable to the 85 1.8 I'd buy it.

An MkII version with ring USM and improved glass coatings will never happen as it would make a $300-400 lens about 95% as good as the EF 50 1.2L for a fraction of the price.Remember, Canon wants to make money. Canon wants you to buy the F1.2L.

moving 4mm up from the wide end should save some weight and mass, and 70 is still not long enough. They should put the new IS if it's the same quality as the more complex one, and make it the smallest possible. And that 24-70/2.8 design where the wide is the longest physical length is pretty cool. I'll take that too.But I agree that it's pretty unlikely. However, If I were to bet, I'd say an update to the 50/1.4 would be very probable, and not so much for a 24/1.4. A 400/5.6 IS is almost imminent.joe mamawrote:Where are they going next? A 24 / 1.4L II is a good bet, as is a 300 / 4L IS II and 400 / 5.6L IS, or perhaps even a 24-70 / 2.8L IS (although many people want it to be a 24-85 / 2.8L IS, but I'd bet heavily against that).Wow, 24-85 2.8... that would be a beast! I thought the 24-70 2.8 was big enough, though the extra 15mm would be nice.'Tis my thinking as well. However, the compactness and IQ of the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 has many thinking that Canon can create a 24-85 / 2.8L IS no larger than the current 24-70 / 2.8L.In any event, even if they could, they won't. They'll use the same range as they've done with all their other updates -- they won't design a new lens.

Here here

But, think how many more people could afford it.Canon has to make more money from their cheaper lenses then from the L's... right?

I don't see it happening anytime soon. The 50/1.4 is probably one of their best selling lenses. Why spend money on R&D when there is very little competition!As some have mentioned before, they want to sell more 50L's.Although Micro USM, I can't say I've had any issues with autofocus what so ever on my 5D.

oops, I meant to say "volume and mass" or "weight and size" pick one.saynomorewrote: moving 4mm up from the wide end should save some weight and mass, and 70 is still not long enough. They should put the new IS if it's the same quality as the more complex one, and make it the smallest possible. And that 24-70/2.8 design where the wide is the longest physical length is pretty cool. I'll take that too.But I agree that it's pretty unlikely. However, If I were to bet, I'd say an update to the 50/1.4 would be very probable, and not so much for a 24/1.4. A 400/5.6 IS is almost imminent.joe mamawrote:Where are they going next? A 24 / 1.4L II is a good bet, as is a 300 / 4L IS II and 400 / 5.6L IS, or perhaps even a 24-70 / 2.8L IS (although many people want it to be a 24-85 / 2.8L IS, but I'd bet heavily against that).Wow, 24-85 2.8... that would be a beast! I thought the 24-70 2.8 was big enough, though the extra 15mm would be nice.'Tis my thinking as well. However, the compactness and IQ of the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 has many thinking that Canon can create a 24-85 / 2.8L IS no larger than the current 24-70 / 2.8L.In any event, even if they could, they won't. They'll use the same range as they've done with all their other updates -- they won't design a new lens.

i wouldn't venture to guess what canon will do.but i wish they would spruce-up some of their sensible mid-level primes.canon seems to put all their resources on elite L lenses and el-cheap-o kit zooms but neglecting the practical middle.i think the 50mm 1.4 could benefit from an upgrade.how about the 35mm f/2? i'd jump on that in a heartbeat.

IMO it's unlikely that Canon will mess with a pretty good lens like that, especially (as others have said) since the 1.2L was just introduced. OK, the 1.4 it has funky focus but it's fast enough and has FTM. OK, so the bokeh can look too dreamy at times, but it ain't that bad.I hope instead that Canon turns its attention to the 24-35mm primes, all of which are in serious need of updating IMO, especially the 35 f/2 and the 28 f/1.8.

Although Micro USM, I can't say I've had any issues with autofocus what so ever on my 5D.Good to know... was one of my concerns.

Seems to be the common theme these days!

chowywrote:I don't see it happening anytime soon. The 50/1.4 is probably one of their best selling lenses. Why spend money on R&D when there is very little competition!I checked and it is #15 overall on the (kakaku.com) Japanese Canon lens sales list. In primes second only behind the 50/1.8mk2 in overall sales. #16 is the 35/2 and #17 is the 28/1.8 (at nearly $500 no less), #18 the 135L, #19 the 50L and #20 the 35L. Considering how many of the top 14 lenses are the high price tag (apparently high volume) L zooms, I doubt Canon sees much reason to redesign such a cheap prime in this day and age (so don't hold your breath on the 28/2.8 WAY down at the bottom). This of course doesn't even add 3rd party lenses into the mix, so I am sure, in terms of EF mount lens sales, the overall rank of the Canon primes are much lower.

... if they make the build like the 28 and 85 f/1.8 lenses and make the diaphragm an 8 or 9 blade system instead of the current 5 blade.I might change my current f/1.4 to that even