# So where is the EF version of the new 50mm f/1.2?



## YuengLinger (Sep 6, 2018)

Did I miss the rumors? And why is you-know-who so quiet?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2018)

It's not coming. You were right all along. EF is dead. Long live RF.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 6, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's not coming. You were right all along. EF is dead. Long live RF.


I knew you'd come around.

So...When do EF shooters get one?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2018)

I really doubt if we will see one, this is a area where the short flange back allows design of a much better lens, It a person wants $2K+ lenses, they won't mind buying a new R body for them will they?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 6, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I really doubt if we will see one, this is a area where the short flange back allows design of a much better lens, It a person wants $2K+ lenses, they won't mind buying a new R body for them will they?


So you're predicting the end of new higher-end lenses for EF? Or are you being facetious?

The new R mount is only fully compatible with supertelephoto lenses made in 2011 and after.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 6, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> So you're predicting the end of new higher-end lenses for EF? Or are you being facetious?
> 
> The new R mount is only fully compatible with supertelephoto lenses made in 2011 and after.



I think this is actually a good question. I am not particularly keen to get an EOS R myself (because I still prefer OVF, short battery life, limited FPS in servo AF, etc) but I do wonder how much effort Canon will put into new EF lenses versus RF lenses. On the assumption a DSLR is going to remain better than a mirrorless for sports/action photography for a while yet, the new EF super teles make sense. However, is it possible that for fast primes which are likely to be used for things like portraits, such as the 50L, Canon will put all its efforts into RF now? If RF allows higher IQ (at least for that sort of lens/focal length), and considering mirrorless AF features (eg Eye-AF when using a very shallow depth of field), perhaps Canon won't bother with those sorts of lenses for EF in future?

A week ago I would have said there was no way the EF line was in any danger at all, but Canon does seem to be saying RF offers more advantages for lens design than I realised might be the case, and I get the feeling Canon sees RF as the future and that future may be closer than I was expecting.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 6, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I think this is actually a good question. I am not particularly keen to get an EOS R myself (because I still prefer OVF, short battery life, limited FPS in servo AF, etc) but I do wonder how much effort Canon will put into new EF lenses versus RF lenses. On the assumption a DSLR is going to remain better than a mirrorless for sports/action photography for a while yet, the new EF super teles make sense. However, is it possible that for fast primes which are likely to be used for things like portraits, such as the 50L, Canon will put all its efforts into RF now? If RF allows higher IQ (at least for that sort of lens/focal length), and considering mirrorless AF features (eg Eye-AF when using a very shallow depth of field), perhaps Canon won't bother with those sorts of lenses for EF in future?
> 
> A week ago I would have said there was no way the EF line was in any danger at all, but Canon does seem to be saying RF offers more advantages for lens design than I realised might be the case, and I get the feeling Canon sees RF as the future and that future may be closer than I was expecting.



I agree. Nobody thought the EF lenses would be obsolete instantly, but if anybody with an open mind watches Rudy Winston's series of videos introducing the new FF mirrorless, Canon has clearly stated the R mount is the future of their pro/enthusiast line. Saying the R mount is "an addition, not a replacement," is soothing marketing talk.

Some of the hostility I've encountered when bringing up the possibility of the EF mount being retired is likely fueled by fear among photographers with a closet full of EF lenses.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

No I don't think it is at all. If we see a high-end RF mount Cinema camera, when we might see a very slow transition. But the fly-by-wire focus might not meet such a warm welcome there.

There will be new EF lenses like a 24-70/2.8 with image stabilisation.
They've made the 85/1.4 IS not too long ago as well, announced a brand new 70-200 f/4 IS II and so on. They are doing this the logical way, with as small overlapping as possible.

But of course if there are lenses which would appeal to a limited amount of buyers, they just won't make it, and the EF 50/1.2 is exactly like that, how many of the existing users would upgrade, if they saw the monumental increase in price weight and size?


----------



## jd7 (Sep 6, 2018)

padam said:


> No I don't think it is at all. If we see a high-end RF mount Cinema camera, when we might see a very slow transition. But the fly-by-wire focus might not meet such a warm welcome there.
> 
> There will be new EF lenses like a 24-70/2.8 with image stabilisation.
> They've made the 85/1.4 IS not too long ago as well, announced a brand new 70-200 f/4 IS II and so on. They are doing this the logical way, with as small overlapping as possible.
> ...



I had forgotten about the FBW focusing with the RF lenses ... which sounds like a negative to me, although I guess we need to wait and see what it's like in real use.

As for the recent releases of EF lenses like the EF 85/1.4L IS, etc, yes, they do suggest Canon hasn't given up on EF yet. Still, when you look at the MTFs for the RF 50/1.2L versus the EF 50mm lenses, and even the RF 28-70L versus the EF 24-70L II, it does seem like RF really might allow for a step forward in lenses. I know there is a lot more to a lens than its MTF so again we need to wait to see how the new lenses go in real use, but I am wondering about thet future of EF a lot more now than I was a week ago. I mean, 50mm is a commonly used focal length and both the EF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.4 are fairly old designs, but instead of an update to either of those the first Canon high end 50mm in a long time is RF.

Anyway, personally I'll be happy if EF continues for the foreseeable future, but we will just have to wait and see I guess.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I had forgotten about the FBW focusing with the RF lenses ... which sounds like a negative to me, although I guess we need to wait and see what it's like in real use.
> 
> As for the recent releases of EF lenses like the EF 85/1.4L IS, etc, yes, they do suggest Canon hasn't given up on EF yet. Still, when you look at the MTFs for the RF 50/1.2L versus the EF 50mm lenses, and even the RF 28-70: versus the EF 24-70L II, it does seem like RF really might allow for a step forward in lenses. I know there is a lot more to a lens tan its MTF so again we need to wait to see how the new lenses go in real use, but I am wondering about thet future of EF a lot more now than I was a week ago. I mean, 50mm is a commonly used focal length and both the EF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.4 are fairly old designs, but instead of an update to either of those the first Canon high end 50mm in a long time is RF.
> 
> Anyway, personally I'll be happy if EF continues for the foreseeable future, but we will just have to wait and see I guess.



It has more to do with the age of the lenses, it is six years older and also considerably lighter and cheaper. Back then it set a new general standard for sharpness while also becoming lighter then its predecessor.
There are advantages to the new mount of course and enabling other crazy designs, but overall it might not be night and day.
I expected the RF 50/1.2 to be shorter, but it seems that in that case you can't correct that well, if it still has internal autofocus, sealing, electronics, etc. and while I like fast lenses, in that case I might have preferred something slower (or relying more on software corrections) that is at least not that much heavier than the body itself. The RF 28-70/2 is borderline ridiculously heavy, but it does set a whole new standard, so I still like it.

You look at something like an EF 35/1.4 L II and you can see that while it might not be small, it is crazy sharp (actually slightly diffraction limited in the center reaching the peak at f/2.8 already) with almost no distortion or chromatic aberration at all.
It would be interesting to compare it to a Leica M 35/1.4 ASPH FLE or Zeiss ZM Distagon 35/1.4 lens on the EOS R to see how these two different design principles behave against each other (all I know is from using them, they are stiff competition)
I haven't taken a look at the RF 35/1.8 IS, but I would be surprised if the EF 35/1.4 L II wasn't beating it. But it is also a whole lot less cumbersome.

But you know, most of these newer lenses are so good generally, that a bit of MTF curve difference (with possible changes in measurement standards, like measuring the lowest EV AF with a faster lens...) won't make that much of a difference.
For instance apart from the distortion, the anciently old EF 35/1.4 is also very very sharp around at f/8, where the new lens 'degrades' to basically the same level or even a bit worse, because it was not optimized for that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 6, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I had forgotten about the FBW focusing with the RF lenses ... which sounds like a negative to me, although I guess we need to wait and see what it's like in real use.
> 
> As for the recent releases of EF lenses like the EF 85/1.4L IS, etc, yes, they do suggest Canon hasn't given up on EF yet. Still, when you look at the MTFs for the RF 50/1.2L versus the EF 50mm lenses, and even the RF 28-70: versus the EF 24-70L II, it does seem like RF really might allow for a step forward in lenses. I know there is a lot more to a lens tan its MTF so again we need to wait to see how the new lenses go in real use, but I am wondering about thet future of EF a lot more now than I was a week ago. I mean, 50mm is a commonly used focal length and both the EF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.4 are fairly old designs, but instead of an update to either of those the first Canon high end 50mm in a long time is RF.
> 
> Anyway, personally I'll be happy if EF continues for the foreseeable future, but we will just have to wait and see I guess.



Some of the very recent lens updates might include firmware to make them work better with the R mount adapter for EF. Rudy Winston said that only super-tele lenses built 2011 and after are fully compatible, so recent updates might include tweaks to make sure they are quick and accurate with the adapter.

If focus by wire is the new norm, and implemented with the feel of mechanical, I think it will be widely embraced.

padam's point about the limited appeal of a new 50mm 1.2L may be valid; I have no idea what the demand would be. But then why would one of the four lenses launched with the EOS R be a new version? I say EF is now a legacy technology that will be put out to pasture gradually--because of the massive "herd" of EF lenses in the hands of Canon customers.


----------



## LDS (Sep 6, 2018)

The new 50/1.2 looks to be fully designed to take advantage of the R mount design. The rear group, as shown in the R system white paper, is made with larger lenses closer to the sensor. I don't know if part of the design could be reused for an EF lens, but now I don't think it is possible.


----------



## te1973 (Sep 7, 2018)

Canon seems to be completely without strategy.
On the one hand they consider the 50mm so important that it's one of the first lenses for the new system on the other
hand they do not update it since decades for the EF system. My point still is that the 50mm 1.2 EF is NOT properly
focussing for short distances even in live view. (focus shift) It's by design.


----------



## scipion (Sep 8, 2018)

the market will decide. Canon is not alone on the ef market, I doubt they are going to offer it to Sigma and Tamron! no chance!
there is already a 50mm 1.2. it may be not perfect, however it works on our reflex cameras for half price of the RF one...


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 8, 2018)

Sure, some of the new lens designs will not be offered in EF mount. The big reason for the new short flange distance RF mount is the ability to produce new superior optical designs that were simply not possible in the EF mount. What is so hard to understand about that.
Over time, I believe that most of the Canon ff line of cameras and lens will migrate to RF. Then for remaining legacy EF glass there is an adapter.


----------



## scipion (Sep 8, 2018)

MTF comparisons, like in the white paper, are not going to convince anyone. you need a real quantum jump to get a consumer decision. the new 28-70? no way, far too costly and heavy in my taste!! and I have still an "old" 28-70 L producing most excellent results - it is still a researched second hand product. 
Canon is not going to make seppuku. they will continue to occupy all segments of the market, like they are doing very efficiently. engineering advancement will continue on reflex cameras.like on all their products. and in the end they will let the market decide.
as for today, after having already tried Sony, which is producing a (far) better product, as a consumer who prefer reflex cameras, I fail to identify why I would decide to by this one and thrown my reflex gear...


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 8, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Sure, some of the new lens designs will not be offered in EF mount. The big reason for the new short flange distance RF mount is the ability to produce new superior optical designs that were simply not possible in the EF mount. What is so hard to understand about that.
> Over time, I believe that most of the Canon ff line of cameras and lens will migrate to RF. Then for remaining legacy EF glass there is an adapter.


Superior? I'd be happy to have a 50mm that is equal to the new 35mm and new 85mm. What is so hard to understand about that?


----------



## dak723 (Sep 8, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> .... I say EF is now a legacy technology that will be put out to pasture gradually--because of the massive "herd" of EF lenses in the hands of Canon customers.



Your prediction may be correct or may be completely wrong. The market will decide. Based on the initial comments in this forum, it seems as if most current Canon high end FF users have no intention to get the new camera, as their existing camera does what they want and need. Others see this as a new backup. Sports, Wildlife and Birders may NEVER switch to the new R due to battery issues. 

Considering that Canon has put out 4 new EF lenses this year makes it seem like they have no intention of discontinuing the line. Considering that in North America and Europe DSLRs still outsell Mirrorless, only time will tell if DSLRs are phased out or will ALWAYS be sold side-by-side with mirrorless.

Even if - over the next decade - the EF lenses are put out to pasture, here's why you shouldn't worry. 

1) You can use your existing lenses the rest of your life if needed (provided they don't break down). If I get the new R camera, I will be using an EF lens made in the late 1980's. Despite the hype, the improvements in lenses over the years have been minor, and if you don't pixel peep, many of the older lenses are as good as the newer models.

2) You will still be able to buy the existing EF lenses for many years to come - either new or used.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 8, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Your prediction may be correct or may be completely wrong. The market will decide. Based on the initial comments in this forum, it seems as if most current Canon high end FF users have no intention to get the new camera, as their existing camera does what they want and need. Others see this as a new backup. Sports, Wildlife and Birders may NEVER switch to the new R due to battery issues.
> 
> Considering that Canon has put out 4 new EF lenses this year makes it seem like they have no intention of discontinuing the line. Considering that in North America and Europe DSLRs still outsell Mirrorless, only time will tell if DSLRs are phased out or will ALWAYS be sold side-by-side with mirrorless.
> 
> ...


All valid points, and I am accepting that innovation will be directed towards RF lenses. The new EF lenses you refer to seem to be clearing the old pipeline and perhaps including tweaks that make them work better with the RF adapter.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 8, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Superior? I'd be happy to have a 50mm that is equal to the new 35mm and new 85mm. What is so hard to understand about that?


So you think that Canon is going to release two wide aperture 50mm L lenses in two different mounts at about the same time? Good luck waiting for that.


----------



## BillB (Sep 8, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> All valid points, and I am accepting that innovation will be directed towards RF lenses. The new EF lenses you refer to seem to be clearing the old pipeline and perhaps including tweaks that make them work better with the RF adapter.


Maybe the 85 f1.4 IS was clearing the pipeline, but Canon must have put a lot of effort into its development after it was heavily into the R development. It could have held back and put the 85 out as an RF, but it didn't. Why not?


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 8, 2018)

BillB said:


> Maybe the 85 f1.4 IS was clearing the pipeline, but Canon must have put a lot of effort into its development after it was heavily into the R development. It could have held back and put the 85 out as an RF, but it didn't. Why not?


Just speculating like all of us. I would say the 85 was ready and would stem some of the bleeding (Sigma). Also the teles don’t benefit much, if any, from the shorter flange distance, so with the adapter it will work perfectly on the RF mount. Also currently a lot more mirrorslappers out there, so greater sales. Now is the transition period where there will be lens releases in both formats, but not likely the same lens in both formats.


----------



## BillB (Sep 8, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Just speculating like all of us. I would say the 85 was ready and would stem some of the bleeding (Sigma). Also the teles don’t benefit much, if any, from the shorter flange distance, so with the adapter it will work perfectly on the RF mount. Also currently a lot more mirrorslappers out there, so greater sales. Now is the transition period where there will be lens releases in both formats, but not likely the same lens in both formats.





BeenThere said:


> Just speculating like all of us. I would say the 85 was ready and would stem some of the bleeding (Sigma). Also the teles don’t benefit much, if any, from the shorter flange distance, so with the adapter it will work perfectly on the RF mount. Also currently a lot more mirrorslappers out there, so greater sales. Now is the transition period where there will be lens releases in both formats, but not likely the same lens in both formats.


Makes sense. Logically, the RF mount should be helpful in designing lenses up to a certain focal length, but not above that. It looks like the critical focal length may be between 50mm and 85mm.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 8, 2018)

And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)

Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)


----------



## zim (Sep 8, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)
> 
> Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)



<tinfoilhaton>
and in their white paper to compare the 50Ls against each other as an example of how the new mount has allowed them to improve lens design and performance is a total joke, oh and lets not forget the 6d2 sensor, they couldn't have that being better than the 5d4/R
<tinfoilhatoff>


----------



## dak723 (Sep 9, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> All valid points, and I am accepting that innovation will be directed towards RF lenses. The new EF lenses you refer to seem to be clearing the old pipeline and perhaps including tweaks that make them work better with the RF adapter.



You obviously beleive that RF is replacing EF - despite Canon stating that this is NOT the case. But consider one thing - the vast majority of Canon ILC owners own DSLRs, not mirrorless. And at this moment, 100% of the FF Canon owners own EF not RF lenses. 100%. The average camera buyer probably buys a new camera maybe every 4-7 years. So the number of DSLR owners will still be a majority for probably most of that time frame. So, as a company, do you stop making lenses for the majority of your customers? I think not.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 9, 2018)

dak723 said:


> You obviously beleive that RF is replacing EF - despite Canon stating that this is NOT the case. But consider one thing - the vast majority of Canon ILC owners own DSLRs, not mirrorless. And at this moment, 100% of the FF Canon owners own EF not RF lenses. 100%. The average camera buyer probably buys a new camera maybe every 4-7 years. So the number of DSLR owners will still be a majority for probably most of that time frame. So, as a company, do you stop making lenses for the majority of your customers? I think not.



We'll see. I think there will be plenty of all current lenses in stock for several years, but I don't think there will too many new versions of EF L lenses. If a new 50 1.2 comes out for EF very soon, I'll buy; otherwise, I'll wait for a better version of the EOS R, hoping it will have IBIS, two slots, faster FPS, and maybe a new, longer lasting battery. 

I think Canon wonders what will happen to sales of IS lenses if they do offer an effective IBIS. Or maybe they know that it will cause disruption, so they stall implementing it?


----------



## scipion (Sep 10, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)
> 
> Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)



you have valid points there. The engineers are certainly the same. But one have to understand indeed why the 7D MkII was restrained in terms of IQ, why the 6D MkII was too more generally, why the 24-105 II is so disappointing, the new 70-200 III a near nothing compared to II etc etc... and why the EOS R is like that and not something else. It is Canon strategy to occupy all segments, and segment within. They are doing that more and more. After all, it is about making money But I tend to think Canon go too far these last years. Probably some decisions were made with the EOS R, and other products to come or existing in mind. However the consumer is not that stupid... For exemple I can buy an old 24-105 I or the new Sigma Art. or a second hand 5D MKIII. And nobody is going to be tricked in the new EOS if it is not a considerate choice.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)
> 
> Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)



Or might it be that Canon decided to make the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS more usable by not making a mayonnaise jar size/weight lens like the Sigma 85mm ART? Perhaps they made it an EF lens, rather than an RF lens, because the shorter registration distance would have been of no benefit for an 85mm f/1.4 lens? As an EF lens, it can be used by owners of APS-C and FF DSLRs, owners of APS-C mirrorless EF-M bodies, and owners of the new EOS R FF ML bodie(s).

Might it be that Canon's update of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS was more for manufacturing considerations - and to give the lens the ability to be more compatible with the EOS RF (the original was released in 2005, well before the 2011 cutoff you quoted earlier in this discussion) - than for IQ improvement? The 24-105 has never been a high IQ lens, it has always been a workhorse. It's a Clydesdale, not a Thoroughbred. If you want the ultimate in IQ, you don't hang a 4X zoom on your 5Ds R, or even on your Rebel.

Might it be that several other recent L lens updates that everyone is complaining are 'underwhelming' are for similar reasons? Because most, if not all, of them replaced lenses released prior to 2011.

Is it really _that hard_ to connect all of the dots?

On one hand you and A.H. Sanford say you want a small, compact update of the EF 50mm f/1.4. Then on the other hand you complain because the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS is relatively small and compact instead of large and heavy in exchange for incrementally better IQ that 95% of photographers will never see in their work that they don't print and only upload to social media at limited resolutions.




YuengLinger said:


> So you're predicting the end of new higher-end lenses for EF? Or are you being facetious?
> 
> The new R mount is only fully compatible with supertelephoto lenses made in 2011 and after.



No, he's predicting no more new higher end EF lenses in the ranges that benefit from the shorter registration distance of the new RF mount. Apparently, that is somewhere between 50mm and 85mm for very wide aperture prime lenses. There will still be more new EF lenses for a time with focal lengths longer than 85mm, and maybe even shorter focal length lenses with narrower maximum apertures that don't gain much or any benefit of the shorter FFD like wide aperture, wide angle lenses do.

This would be not much different than the way Canon has handled the EF-S and EF-M lens lineups.

Where EF-S benefitted from the the shorter back focus distance allowed by the EF-S mount, or from cheaper costs allowed by the smaller image circle needed for EF-S lenses, Canon offered EF-S lenses. For lenses that would not have benefitted from those two advantages, Canon did not offer EF-S lenses, but made EF-S compatible with EF so that APS-C DSLR owners could use EF lenses if they needed a 300/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8.

EF-M is similar. Canon is releasing EF-M lenses that benefit from the shorter FFD, narrower maximum aperture, and smaller image circle. They aren't releasing any EF-M lenses that would be just as large, heavy, and expensive as their EF counterparts.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I think Canon wonders what will happen to sales of IS lenses if they do offer an effective IBIS. Or maybe they know that it will cause disruption, so they stall implementing it?



Or maybe Canon do not have the technology to introduce IBIS and have higher priorities. Sometimes the simple answers are more likely than some grandiose conspiracy theory.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 11, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Or maybe Canon do not have the technology to introduce IBIS and have higher priorities. Sometimes the simple answers are more likely than some grandiose conspiracy theory.



Part of the fun of a Rumors site is brainstorming, imaginative speculation. It's ok to have fun. Give yourself permission.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> It's ok to have fun. /QUOTE]



Oh, I am


----------



## Bjorn Holmsen (Sep 11, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I think this is actually a good question. I am not particularly keen to get an EOS R myself (because I still prefer OVF, short battery life, limited FPS in servo AF, etc) but I do wonder how much effort Canon will put into new EF lenses versus RF lenses. On the assumption a DSLR is going to remain better than a mirrorless for sports/action photography for a while yet, the new EF super teles make sense. However, is it possible that for fast primes which are likely to be used for things like portraits, such as the 50L, Canon will put all its efforts into RF now? If RF allows higher IQ (at least for that sort of lens/focal length), and considering mirrorless AF features (eg Eye-AF when using a very shallow depth of field), perhaps Canon won't bother with those sorts of lenses for EF in future?
> 
> A week ago I would have said there was no way the EF line was in any danger at all, but Canon does seem to be saying RF offers more advantages for lens design than I realised might be the case, and I get the feeling Canon sees RF as the future and that future may be closer than I was expecting.


The EF lens system is the main competitive advantage of Canon. It would be a disaster if people lost trust and stopped buying EF lenses before they have an RF system in place, which will take years. It is in Canon's interest to keep the EF system alive for another ten years or so. My guess is that the next R camera will be a high resolution body since the 5Ds is long in the tooth (forcing photographers to buy into the R system if they want high res). We could also expect to see new EOS cameras, at least successors to 1DX and 5D4, with a hybrid viewfinder, Canon has a patent, offering both OVF and EVF. Sports photographers may prefer that since they will be working with the long white lenses anyway, and the larger body with better grip and more estate for direct buttons and dials suit their needs. With a hybrid viewfinder, they get the best of both worlds. And let's not forget all EF lenses used for movie making, and the cinema line. EF lenses


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 11, 2018)

Bjorn Holmsen said:


> The EF lens system is the main competitive advantage of Canon. It would be a disaster if people lost trust and stopped buying EF lenses before they have an RF system in place, which will take years. It is in Canon's interest to keep the EF system alive for another ten years or so. My guess is that the next R camera will be a high resolution body since the 5Ds is long in the tooth (forcing photographers to buy into the R system if they want high res). We could also expect to see new EOS cameras, at least successors to 1DX and 5D4, with a hybrid viewfinder, Canon has a patent, offering both OVF and EVF. Sports photographers may prefer that since they will be working with the long white lenses anyway, and the larger body with better grip and more estate for direct buttons and dials suit their needs. With a hybrid viewfinder, they get the best of both worlds. And let's not forget all EF lenses used for movie making, and the cinema line. EF lenses


Ok, so when do you think, if ever, we will get a new ef 50mm f/1.2, or some L series variant of a fast 50mm prime?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 11, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Or might it be that Canon decided to make the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS more usable by not making a mayonnaise jar size/weight lens like the Sigma 85mm ART? Perhaps they made it an EF lens, rather than an RF lens, because the shorter registration distance would have been of no benefit for an 85mm f/1.4 lens? As an EF lens, it can be used by owners of APS-C and FF DSLRs, owners of APS-C mirrorless EF-M bodies, and owners of the new EOS R FF ML bodie(s).
> 
> Might it be that Canon's update of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS was more for manufacturing considerations - and to give the lens the ability to be more compatible with the EOS RF (the original was released in 2005, well before the 2011 cutoff you quoted earlier in this discussion) - than for IQ improvement? The 24-105 has never been a high IQ lens, it has always been a workhorse. It's a Clydesdale, not a Thoroughbred. If you want the ultimate in IQ, you don't hang a 4X zoom on your 5Ds R, or even on your Rebel.
> 
> ...



I don't see how making the ef 85mm f/1.4 a tad sharper and with less CA would have added an unacceptable amount of weight or size.

As for the 24-105mm f/1.4L IS II, sometimes companies simply make mistakes. That's what happened in this case--it is a dog of a lens. Sure, they might have saved money per unit, but they are producing a lens with lower IQ than its predecessor.

The "new version" of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is another indication that Canon has put further development of EF lenses in the rearview mirror. I don't know if a tear down would reveal a firmware change, some new chip maybe, but I think any internal tweak to it was done to make it work better with RF bodies. Maybe, maybe not, but otherwise it would be the single most useless "update" ever.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't see how making the ef 85mm f/1.4 a tad sharper and with less CA would have added an unacceptable amount of weight or size.
> 
> As for the 24-105mm f/1.4L IS II, sometimes companies simply make mistakes. That's what happened in this case--it is a dog of a lens. Sure, they might have saved money per unit, but they are producing a lens with lower IQ than its predecessor.
> 
> The "new version" of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is another indication that Canon has put further development of EF lenses in the rearview mirror. I don't know if a tear down would reveal a firmware change, some new chip maybe, but I think any internal tweak to it was done to make it work better with RF bodies. Maybe, maybe not, but otherwise it would be the single most useless "update" ever.




I thought I had seen an article of the lens designers talking about how difficult it was to design the 85 f/1.4L and I thought the constraint was the IS. It was claimed that the 85 f1.4L has an IS unit that is only slightly smaller than the 400 f/2.8 IS II.

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/ef85mm-f14l-is-usm-developer-interviews-1


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 11, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I thought I had seen an article of the lens designers talking about how difficult it was to design the 85 f/1.4L and I thought the constraint was the IS. It was claimed that the 85 f1.4L has an IS unit that is only slightly smaller than the 400 f/2.8 IS II.
> 
> https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/ef85mm-f14l-is-usm-developer-interviews-1



Sometimes I forget that photography, above many other pursuits, demands compromise. Excellent illustration. Thanks!


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't see how making the ef 85mm f/1.4 a tad sharper and with less CA would have added an unacceptable amount of weight or size.


You would have to be part of the Canon design team to know this.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 11, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> You would have to be part of the Canon design team to know this.


You mean the team that no longer works on EF lenses?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't see how making the ef 85mm f/1.4 a tad sharper and with less CA would have added an unacceptable amount of weight or size.



Then you don't understand lens design and what is needed to correct for the aberrations caused by a lens with elements that have real thickness, rather than theoretical zero thickness thin lenses. Each corrective element, and the additional corrective elements needed to correct the aberrations introduced by the first corrective element, adds size and weight.

You also may not understand that a lens made primarily to be a portrait lens often leaves field curvature un/undercorrected to allow for smoother bokeh. That will make such a lens look less "sharp" on a flat test chart because the shape of the field of sharpest focus is a portion of a sphere, not a flat plane. News flash: even the best "flat field" macro lenses have fields of focus that are shaped more like a lasagna noodle than a flat plane. And the price we pay for that flat field correction is busy/harsh bokeh.

Instead of comparing the flat test chart performance of lenses intended for shooting portraits, perhaps you should compare the bokeh produced by the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG ART shot wide open at typical portrait distances. It's not even close, and the Sigma is not the winner!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> As for the 24-105mm f/1.4L IS II, sometimes companies simply make mistakes. That's what happened in this case--it is a dog of a lens. Sure, they might have saved money per unit, but they are producing a lens with lower IQ than its predecessor.



If a lens that has basically the same performance as its predecessor can be considered a "dog", then I suppose it is a "dog". It is slightly sharper at some FLs and Avs, it is slightly less sharp at other FLs and Avs.



YuengLinger said:


> The "new version" of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is another indication that Canon has put further development of EF lenses in the rearview mirror. I don't know if a tear down would reveal a firmware change, some new chip maybe, but I think any internal tweak to it was done to make it work better with RF bodies. Maybe, maybe not, but otherwise it would be the single most useless "update" ever.




It may or may not be such an indication. It may just be that there wasn't much possibility to improve over the current optical formula without making the lens much more expensive (cough, cough... Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR... cough).

There was apparently a need to upgrade the electronics for the upcoming EOS RF _and_ it was well past time to add the superior anti-reflective coatings (ala the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II) that do significantly reduce lens flare in certain shooting scenarios. If you are a photographer that desires the better flare performance, this is no "minor" upgrade.

Just because something does not show up on a shot of a flat test chart under ideal lighting from a relatively short distance does not mean that it's not there.

Well, unless your only goal is to be able to brag that you own a lens with the best possible performance when shooting a flat test chart under ideal lighting from a relatively short distance.


----------



## Bjorn Holmsen (Sep 12, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, so when do you think, if ever, we will get a new ef 50mm f/1.2, or some L series variant of a fast 50mm prime?


I doubt we will see one. The new 50 was delayed because they developed it for R instead. With the EF and R system they will have even better tools to force photographers to buy more specialized equipment, multiple cameras and lenses in order to perform various tasks, so you will never find all functions in one body or system or all lenses in one mount. I guess we could see see a new 50/1.4 though.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 12, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> If a lens that has basically the same performance as its predecessor can be considered a "dog", then I suppose it is a "dog". It is slightly sharper at some FLs and Avs, it is slightly less sharp at other FLs and Avs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be clear, by "dog," I mean a lens that I wouldn't own. I do own the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and I used to own the 24-105mm f/4L too--and I actually used both. The 24-105mm was for daytime street, travel, and family photos; the 24-70mm f/2.8L II for events, child-portraits, and corporate group shots. The 24-105mm was also very good for studio lighting when I was going back and forth between groups and individuals. But the 24-105mm f/4L IS II was so bad in three or four brand new copies that I gave up on it, very disappointed with the whole focal-length range.

The only reason I had hoped to replace the version 1 was because I sold my 5D III kit which included it, right at the time preorders were out for the version 2. One of the only times I bought before a review. The owner of my former version 1, a friend of mine, is tickled pink with her kit, but I realized with version 2 that Canon had made an uncharacteristically disappointing new version and gave up on it. Reading reviews after the fact, I think many other people who speak frankly are also characterizing it as a "dog."

As for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I've never had a complaint about the lens flare or cleaning or other coating related issues. And in fact, a very reliable post here by Lens Rentals indicates there isn't much superior about the new coatings, and they might actually wipe off a little too easily now. This, to me, is another good indication that Canon is clearly moving on from quality innovation in the EF lenses.

Yes they have released new lenses in the past two years. A new 35mm f/1.4L was keenly anticipated because version 1 had some serious shortcomings wide-open, shortcomings which were emphasized by Sigma's Art version, to be sure, but which had been a pain for photographers before Sigma showed what could be done.

I would love to be wrong, to have members here laughing about my prediction months ago that EF was, this year, becoming a legacy tech, supported but no longer innovated. I always predicted there would be an adapter for the new mount, one that would be adequate, but I believed that a new FF mirrorless would bring new lenses that would BEGIN to make EF look second-rate. Is there anything in the release of the four new lenses plus the EOS R that makes you believe Canon is not developing RF as its new pro level mount?

As for the 85mm 1.4L IS being a little soft and still having some minor CA annoyance, how can somebody say Canon is concerned about lens size and weight when they have just released massive RF beauties? Look at that 28-70 IS, and, be still my heart, that NEW FREAKING 50MM F/1.2L!


----------



## scipion (Sep 12, 2018)

for half price the EF one is a real bargain!
and as for the R 28-70... really too heavy and costly...no way.
there is nothing in the white paper showing that these new lenses are a "revolution" . Their MTF are better than their EF counterparts, that is not making the EF line "second rate".


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 12, 2018)

scipion said:


> for half price the EF one is a real bargain!
> and as for the R 28-70... really too heavy and costly...no way.
> there is nothing in the white paper showing that these new lenses are a "revolution" . Their MTF are better than their EF counterparts, that is not making the EF line "second rate".


Choice between “good” and “better”. Expensive and more expensive.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 12, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> To be clear, by "dog," I mean a lens that I wouldn't own. I do own the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and I used to own the 24-105mm f/4L too--and I actually used both. The 24-105mm was for daytime street, travel, and family photos; the 24-70mm f/2.8L II for events, child-portraits, and corporate group shots. The 24-105mm was also very good for studio lighting when I was going back and forth between groups and individuals. But the 24-105mm f/4L IS II was so bad in three or four brand new copies that I gave up on it, very disappointed with the whole focal-length range.
> 
> The only reason I had hoped to replace the version 1 was because I sold my 5D III kit which included it, right at the time preorders were out for the version 2. One of the only times I bought before a review. The owner of my former version 1, a friend of mine, is tickled pink with her kit, but I realized with version 2 that Canon had made an uncharacteristically disappointing new version and gave up on it. Reading reviews after the fact, I think many other people who speak frankly are also characterizing it as a "dog."



Boy am I glad I waited for the reviews on that 24-105. I had the $$ set aside waiting to jump on version 2, with high hopes. But as soon as the (lackluster) reviews began rolling in, I backed off. My copy of V1, with its flaws, also has its strong areas (e.g., great performance at 50mm) which apparently aren't shared by the new lens. Looks like I'll do the same with the 70-200 2.8, no point going from II to III.


----------



## neonlight (Sep 15, 2018)

I expected the FF MILC to have a native EF mount. And with the pre-reviews suggesting the new RF lenses are pretty spectacular, I think EF is ******* too now. Most of Canon's designers will want to work on the future stuff, but I think Canon will keep EF going for 10 years, with one or two releases every so often, but I have no doubt that they will produce the better lenses on RF from now. The questions I think are how many EF lenses will Canon update and will the updates be worth it? Some of us would like a decent 24-105L and 50 1.4L ...


----------



## gwooding (Sep 19, 2018)

Quite frankly my 50 1.2L is probably my favorite lens especially when I consider the end results that it produces. I bought mine second hand for less than a new Sigma ART. At the time I compared the two and picked the Canon as I just preferred the images it produced (no where near as sharp but I just preferred them). I find the nice compact size a nice bonus to the 50 1.2L.

With that said as an engineer I know all engineering design is an exercise in balancing different pros and cons. I don't believe that Canon could meaningfully improve the sharpness of the 50 1.2L without significantly increasing the cost, size, weight and potentially losing the look of the current lens. I think the RF 50 1.2L illustrates this perfectly.

I also noticed many people stating that the new lenses prove that better lenses can be designed for the RF, now I am not going to go into the argument whether this is the case but I don't believe the RF 50 is a good example, if we compare the RF 50 to the Otus and the Sigma ART we can see that lenses are all in the same size and weight ballpark. So unless the RF 50 completely blows away the Otus and ART I don't think 50mm is actually a focal length that benefits much from the reduced flange distance.

I don't for one second believe that Canon is unable to produce a new 50 1.2L in EF that is every bit as good as the Otus and ART. The thing is that size and weight would have to be in the same region as those two lenses. In this case I don't believe I would be a customer (I wonder how many other EF 50 1.2L owners would buy a new Otus sized lens for $2200+).

I think with RF canon were left a little between a rock and a hard place, they wanted to produce a nice 50 for the system but I think reviewers would have crucified them if they had made a double gauss lens with size, weight and performance close to the current EF 50L. So they had no choice but to go huge.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 19, 2018)

gwooding said:


> Quite frankly my 50 1.2L is probably my favorite lens especially when I consider the end results that it produces. I bought mine second hand for less than a new Sigma ART. At the time I compared the two and picked the Canon as I just preferred the images it produced (no where near as sharp but I just preferred them). I find the nice compact size a nice bonus to the 50 1.2L.
> 
> With that said as an engineer I know all engineering design is an exercise in balancing different pros and cons. I don't believe that Canon could meaningfully improve the sharpness of the 50 1.2L without significantly increasing the cost, size, weight and potentially losing the look of the current lens. I think the RF 50 1.2L illustrates this perfectly.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I found your summary very useful.
At the moment I am making do with a very old Canon 50mm F1.4. I have always been persuaded not to go for the 50mm F1.2 because apparently it is not very sharp and it suffers from pronounced chromatic aberration. As you say, the Sigma is a great lens but it is also very large - too large for a 50mm lens in my opinion. If the existing F1.2 is going to be the end of the line for EF 50mm lenses then would in be worth upgrading now or is the F1.4 just as good?
I think I understand what you are saying about preferring the quality of the images from the 50mm F1.2 despite what all the MTF graphs are telling us. Recently I bought the 85mm F1.4L, initially to replace my 85mm F1.2. However I have not been able to persuade myself to sell the F1.2, at least not yet, because I like the images it produces so much. The 85mm F1.4 has weather sealing and image stabilisation, so it is a more practical lens, but the F1.2 lens produces images with a wonderful texture that is difficult to define.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 19, 2018)

gwooding said:


> ...
> 
> With that said as an engineer I know all engineering design is an exercise in balancing different pros and cons. I don't believe that Canon could meaningfully improve the sharpness of the 50 1.2L without significantly increasing the cost, size, weight and potentially losing the look of the current lens. I think the RF 50 1.2L illustrates this perfectly.
> 
> ...



I think that if Canon had designed the RF 50 as a f/1.4 lens as a f/1.2 lens, then it would have been a bit smaller and lighter. The EF 50 f/1.4 is much smaller/lighter than the 50L and both feature a design based on the double Gauss. The more relevant question is how much bigger would the OTUS and Sigma Art have been if they were f/1.2 lenses rather than f/1.4 lenses.

I do have a 50L and it's focus accuracy has always been behind the 85 and 35 L-primes. I'd love to try it on the EOS R to see if the focus accuracy improves. If it does, that would be one great reason to pick up the R.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 20, 2018)

I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have). 
The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)

On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
I think all design changes will be in the EOS R lens.
They will slowly build a full range for R and that will be their priority.
So in a way EF will be dead but it will be a slow death with some blips of life of new upgraded lens along the way.

Sad for me as I'm heavily invested in EF but that's progress.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 20, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have).
> The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)
> 
> On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
> ...



Thanks for this post, Hector, as I've very recently reconsidered the "old" 1.2L. I've heard bad things from fellow photographers in my area whom I respect, but they may have been using an older or bad copy. In fact, I've been keeping my eyes open for a refurbished bargain.

But I'd still much rather have a new version, so I'm not sure I'll pull the trigger. Canon may have been after customers like myself, so desperate for a new 1.2L that we will buy an RF mount. But the first release, the EOS R, simply doesn't seem appealing enough. I don't like the ergonomics I'm seeing in previews, nor a rehashed 5DIV sensor, nor the slow actual FPS. I'm also holding out for two card slots. (I know, people react by saying their cards have never failed, but I'm the one who fails with cards--in other words, I might lose the CF and still get lucky and have the SD still in camera with the images safe. And I have had a few images corrupted on a CF a few times, though never the whole batch.)


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 20, 2018)

So. Remember the patent a while back about a lens mount that can detect what kind of interface it is attached to and adapt accordingly, ie if it's a more modern interface it will work faster?

Well, this allows for a new generation of EF lenses to gain the full performance benefits of the RF lenses on an RF body. They may need a slightly different adaptor to the current one (and such an adaptor may even be specific for the lens and bundled) but essentially the lens would be able to offer enhanced features if connected to an RF body via the adaptor, but would work as a normal EF lens (without those advantages) on an EF body.

It's likely that new EF lenses (eg the new big whites) already have at least some of this capability built in, and it may therefore be possible for this faster communication to work even with the current adaptors. 

I think that we'll see EF lenses continue for quite some time, because anything that CAN be designed to fit the EF mount currently has a much bigger market than anything that doesn't. 

So I don't see any big whites with RF mount imminent. No need.

And although there won't be an EF 50mm 1.2L in the near future, I can imagine there may be an EF 50mm f/1.4L IS which, when adapted, would also work great with the new body.

What I don't think we'll see, for reasons above, is anything like immediate replacements for existing EF lenses. So probably no RF 50mm f/1.8 STM unless they can make it very much more compact for very little more cash. They didn't go this route with EF-M, they probably won't with RF.


----------



## KevinP (Sep 22, 2018)

I think the 50 f/1.2 as an RF is a Sony keep-away move. It's so close to the sensor that an adapter becomes impractical or impossible. The sharpest 50 only fits a Canon. Likewise the 28-70 f/2. When a higher spec body arrives, that'll signal the time to start migrating to Canon mirrorless. The 35 and 85 Canon updates seem like answers to the Sigma Art series. 



Mikehit said:


> Or maybe Canon do not have the technology to introduce IBIS and have higher priorities. Sometimes the simple answers are more likely than some grandiose conspiracy theory.



Ditto. The R seems like a camera designed to clear a first set of must-haves, and slow the flow of Canon to Sony customers. A top end FF mirrorless needs or wants about five features not in a Canon previously: FF sensor w adaptations for mirrorless, nicer EVF, Eye AF software, more pixels, IBIS. Canon picked the first two because they were necessary, picked up the third because it was already partially developed, and finished the camera so you can order it now. Each feature probably costs in the millions (or tens of them) and many months to develop, so you take it in bites. Sensor upgrades and IBIS will be nice when they do a $3900 camera next year.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 24, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Thank you. I found your summary very useful.
> At the moment I am making do with a very old Canon 50mm F1.4. I have always been persuaded not to go for the 50mm F1.2 because apparently it is not very sharp and it suffers from pronounced chromatic aberration. As you say, the Sigma is a great lens but it is also very large - too large for a 50mm lens in my opinion. If the existing F1.2 is going to be the end of the line for EF 50mm lenses then would in be worth upgrading now or is the F1.4 just as good?
> I think I understand what you are saying about preferring the quality of the images from the 50mm F1.2 despite what all the MTF graphs are telling us. Recently I bought the 85mm F1.4L, initially to replace my 85mm F1.2. However I have not been able to persuade myself to sell the F1.2, at least not yet, because I like the images it produces so much. The 85mm F1.4 has weather sealing and image stabilisation, so it is a more practical lens, but the F1.2 lens produces images with a wonderful texture that is difficult to define.



What you are struggling to define about the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II is the uncorrected field curvature that gives the images such a "smooth" look and creamy bokeh. Because the field of focus is not corrected to be as flat as can be (that would destroy the rendering quality given by the uncorrected field curvature), it doesn't do as well shooting the edges/corners of a flat test chart as a lens that is highly corrected for field curvature.




Random Orbits said:


> I think that if Canon had designed the RF 50 as a f/1.4 lens as a f/1.2 lens, then it would have been a bit smaller and lighter. The EF 50 f/1.4 is much smaller/lighter than the 50L and both feature a design based on the double Gauss. The more relevant question is how much bigger would the OTUS and Sigma Art have been if they were f/1.2 lenses rather than f/1.4 lenses.
> 
> I do have a 50L and it's focus accuracy has always been behind the 85 and 35 L-primes. I'd love to try it on the EOS R to see if the focus accuracy improves. If it does, that would be one great reason to pick up the R.






Hector1970 said:


> I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have).
> The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)
> 
> On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
> ...



Image quality tests are generally done using painstaking manual focus. PDAF does not enter the equation at all for testing lens "sharpness."


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 24, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have).
> The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)
> 
> On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
> ...


You could not have said it better, Hector. EF lenses are now legacy technology that will be supported but no longer developed. This is a point that has met with much hostility here. Any new EF lenses have been in the pipeline of development and marketing for some time.

I hope I am proven wrong with a new ef 50mm 1.2.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 24, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> EF lenses are now legacy technology that will be supported but no longer developed.


yes.



YuengLinger said:


> This is a point that has met with much hostility here.


yes.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 24, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Image quality tests are generally done using painstaking manual focus. PDAF does not enter the equation at all for testing lens "sharpness."



I wasn't referring to the 50L's lack of resolution toward the edges; I was referring to the the lack of focus accuracy with my 5DIII/5DIV. Some shots in a sequence are much sharper than others. If the R can deliver accurate focus away from the center, then the 50L would behave like a "new lens."


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 24, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I wasn't referring to the 50L's lack of resolution toward the edges; I was referring to the the lack of focus accuracy with my 5DIII/5DIV. Some shots in a sequence are much sharper than others. If the R can deliver accurate focus away from the center, then the 50L would behave like a "new lens."[/]



My 85mm 1.2L II focused significantly better on points outside the center (though not at the very edges) on the 5DIV than it did on the 5DIII; however, I still wanted snappier AF plus IS, so I traded it in for the 1.4L IS. I think it was the right move.

I would have thought the 50mm 1.2L would work better on the 5DIV also. Sorry to hear that isn't the case for you. Please follow up if you do try it on an R body!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 24, 2018)

So I summary, is this thread meant to “demonstrate” that EF is dead because there are not two simultaneous releases of each new lens?

If so, sorry, that’s preposterous.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 24, 2018)

EF is not dead, it is "legacy". And all those who don't want to believe it will notice that there will be lots of new RF lenses, but no new EF lenses.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 24, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> My 85mm 1.2L II focused significantly better on points outside the center (though not at the very edges) on the 5DIV than it did on the 5DIII; however, I still wanted snappier AF plus IS, so I traded it in for the 1.4L IS. I think it was the right move.
> 
> I would have thought the 50mm 1.2L would work better on the 5DIV also. Sorry to hear that isn't the case for you. Please follow up if you do try it on an R body!



I've found the the 85L f/1.2L II focused well on the 5DIII and better on the 5DIV. With both bodies, the 85L II and the 85 f/1.4L focused better than the 50L with the outer AF points. I was tempted when there was a Canonpricewatch deal for the R, but I'm looking for something at or above the 5D level.

I'm definitely interested in trying one out when they're available in the local camera stores.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EF is not dead, it is "legacy". And all those who don't want to believe it will notice that there will be lots of new RF lenses, but no new EF lenses.


What about the 400mm F2.8L iii and the 600mm F4L that were announced earlier this month? Don't they count?


----------



## dak723 (Sep 27, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> What about the 400mm F2.8L iii and the 600mm F4L that were announced earlier this month? Don't they count?



They don't count when a person is so biased in their opinions that they refuse to face the facts.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 27, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> What about the 400mm F2.8L iii and the 600mm F4L that were announced earlier this month? Don't they count?



While these lenses are welcome updates of Canon's highest end EF lenses, they were likely in the pipeline for some time. I also expect that some of the updates help these lenses work better with the RF adapter, as Canon has already said that lenses released before 2012 will not take advantage of all available RF features.

The same tweaks for better RF performance might explain the strange case of the 70-200mm IS III update, which, otherwise, seems to be only a new paint job and less resilient lens coatings.

To repeat yet again, few posters here, if any, have claimed that Canon would immediately shut down production of EF lenses. I'm a Canon customer who believes that EF as the flagship, central lens mount for Canon is now in the rear view mirror. Yes, updates that cut production costs of existing, popular and very profitable per-unit lenses (such as the big whites) will still be released for a year or so. As said, these are clearing the pipeline during the transition to RF.

I think those who claim "hysteria" or "bias" against those of us who believe EF is now a legacy tech are actually arguing against a timeline, not a concept. Will the last EF lens be produced two years from now? Probably that is too soon. Five years from now? In my opinion, quite possibly. But, once again, EF lenses will be serviceable and worth buying after production officially ends because there will be many working EOS bodies circulating for many years beyond.

I think people who don't believe that RF will replace EF don't believe Canon has actually come up with something better, or that Canon would ever phase out something that has been around for 30 years even if RF is better for them and customers. 

But I've also admitted in this thread that I might have overestimated the speed at which Canon is actually capable of making the transition, especially after reading the article with the general managers who claimed they simply didn't have better sensor tech or IBIS tech ready for the EOS R.

If calling my thought process "bias" makes you feel more comfortable during a time of exciting transition, that's ok. I will repeat my thanks to those posters here who have patiently explained why they believe EF lenses are still, generally, a good buy for quite some time.


----------

