Talk:Canon EF 50mm lens

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Photography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I note there is still no official word on Canon's web site about the 50mm f/1.2 L. However, it seems now that the leak is correct so I'll let the text stand. Any chance of references when official stuff becomes available? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very strange page. It starts off "The EF 50mm lens is a normal prime lens made by Canon Inc", implying that it talks about a single lens. In fact, it talks about six completely different lenses. Two of these are no longer in production, so the use of the present tense in the opening sentence seems dubious.

Would it not be better to have a separate page for each lens or rewrite it as a page about "Canon's range of 50mm lenses"?

Dricherby 13:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to talk about physical objects that still exist in the present tense, except when dealing with their history. However, I agree that the wording is awkward in this article. It should probably be renamed into the plural, since it's talking about a set of different lenses of the same focal length. I believe the reason to combine them into one article is that there's not necessarily that much to say about each lens except statistics. If enough could be written, though, there's nothing wrong with splitting it up. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think we should pluralize the introduction. I also think splitting up each lens would make article less confusing, and cleaner looking. I might look into doing just that when I have completed 35mm lenses article. But if you want to see what I'm thinking about doing, look at Canon EF 85mm lens

Nebrot 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add EF-S 18-55mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS which is the current kit lens for the Rebels which adds image stabilization. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.57.38 (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but this article is about Canon 50mm prime lenses. There are so many zoom lenses that include 50mm in their range, it would be confusing to include them here. There's already an article dedicated to the Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens, anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews section seems to be getting out of hand, but I don't know which of these sites are actually good valid resources. Anyone who knows a bit more want to whittle them down a bit? -- Avocado (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The current crop - Photodo, Photozone, DPReview, The-Digital-Picture, SLRGear are all very useful according to me. Photo.net often has useful historical information although it tends not to have ISO charts and so forth. The other links were blog posts; I have a blog, too, but I don't stick it on Wikipedia for the hits because I'm better than most people. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://www.flickr.com/groups/50mmf095/discuss/72157611448380750/

http://photolenses.ru/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/1961-d0bad0bed0bfd0b8d18f.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.119.16.26 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the 50mm f/0.95 was an S mount. This article is about the EF mount 50mm lenses. There are currently (AFAIK) no articles whatsoever for S mount lenses or cameras. Only the Canon (company) and lens speed articles talk about this lens. Nebrot (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In this case, BTW, phrase "These lenses have an EF type mount..." incorrect. 85.249.167.249 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 1.8 a double-Gauss lens? It looks from this review like it is. What about the others? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, this is confirmed by Canon itself here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_18ii.html I'm not sure about others. Nebrot (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all are a double Gauss lens, as visible in optical scheme of each lens. Actually I've traced all scheme, which is the best method to insert in a page? I think reduced in a table. What do you think about? --Alessio Facchin (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article says a lot about the crop factor but that's not needed. let's remove some info on crop factor. Cogiati (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the entire section dedicated to crop factor and tightened up the lead accordingly as the science behind it is best left to the crop factor article. In the past I have removed similar cruft from other lens articles but missed this one. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "Street Value" supposed to be? There's no context for this, and seems out of place for a scholarly article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolamite02 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "Street Value" mentioned? Or do you mean "Street Price"? That, as not exactly defined, I would rate the price at a "normal" Store, wich might be different from the list price. Or do you mean "retail value"? That would be something like eBay price for me, as this device not manufactured anymore. But as mentioned in the article, a reference is missing. So that could be removed, if you like. GodeNehler (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GodeNehler: It's in the tables. Given that it's also unsourced, I'll go ahead and remove it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]