# Nifty Fifty and/or a Pancake lens are coming to the RF mount in 2020 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 9, 2020)

> We have been told that Canon will introduce at least one inexpensive prime lens for the RF mount in 2020, and they could actually bring two. One of which would come later in 2020.
> First up, an f/2.8 pancake is definitely in the works and should be announced sometime in the first half of 2020.
> Secondly, the source claims that an RF 50mm f/1.8 has been shown on a roadmap which didn’t include a date for an announcement.
> I suspect that we’ll definitely see at least one of these lenses this year.
> Note: The image used for this post is the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake.



Continue reading...


----------



## Karlbug (Jan 9, 2020)

I hope it's a $500 lens like RF 35mm/1.8 and not a $100 cheapo lens like EF 50/1.8. We've been waiting for a moderately priced decent 50mm prime for years, Canon!


----------



## HikeBike (Jan 9, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> I hope it's a $500 lens like RF 35mm/1.8 and not a $100 cheapo lens like EF 50/1.8. We've been waiting for a moderately priced decent 50mm prime for years, Canon!


Yes, RF 50mm f/1.8 IS for $500, please.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 9, 2020)

I can hear at least one member yelling and crying how fast a consumer 50mm comes to RF
(and not to EF)


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

Remains to be seen how quickly Canon will flesh out the cheaper end of the RF platform.

Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic: 

There is a $1k FF body now, some folks are absolutely looking to start an FF setup on the cheap.
It's only f/1.8 and historically a simple DG design for 50mm is bone cheap to make -- folks may balk at a pricey f/1.8 fifty when they've been cheap from Canon for decades.
They want to keep it very small
Why it might be a nice but not L $500-ish lens

They are trolling me
They make this a 1:2 macro as well (that would be something)
They change their lens tier strategy to:
Best = buy the L RF lens
Middle = buy a pricier RF version of the EF middle price point (EF 50 f/1.4 USM)
Lowest = adapt the nifty fifty EF _because the RF mount will never get that crap -- _this may let them claim that there are three price points while only having to offer two new RF lenses.

Hard to say.

But it will probably be the trolling me reason.

- A


----------



## HaroldC3 (Jan 9, 2020)

Their 50 1.4 needs overhauled. This would be a good time.


----------



## David (Jan 9, 2020)

I repeatedly post in this forum: A *RF 40mm f2.0L* would become one of Canons most successful prime lenses IMHO. Why the 'L' should be reserved for HQ, large and fast lenses and the other choice is small, cheap and low IQ is not comprehensible. A fine small 'L' prime for the new mirrorless R would provide a small, light and easily portable do-everything-FF-combo with excellent IQ. Canon could call it *LS*, if they want, for *Lsmall* and open a new lens line for small f2.0 HQ primes around 28/40/75mm. This surely would come closer to the 'mirrorless should be smaller' wish-list than todays impractical huge f1.2 RF L-prime lenses for those very rare use cases.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Remains to be seen how quickly Canon will flesh out the cheaper end of the RF platform.
> 
> Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic:
> 
> ...



You know it's gonna be a RF 50mm 1.4 IS USM just to troll you and everyone that really needs a good EF 50mm 1.4


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

David said:


> I repeatedly post in this forum: A *RF 40mm f2.0L* would become one of Canons most successful prime lenses IMHO. Why the 'L' should be reserved for HQ, large and fast lenses and the other choice is small, cheap and low IQ is not comprehensible. A fine small 'L' prime for the new mirrorless R would provide a small, light and easily portable do-everything-FF-combo with excellent IQ. Canon could call it *LS*, if they want, for *Lsmall* and open a new lens line for small f2.0 HQ primes around 28/40/75mm. This surely would come closer to the 'mirrorless should be smaller' wish-list than todays impractical huge f1.2 RF L-prime lenses for those very rare use cases.




I'm down with f/2 and keeping it small, but calling it L (of any sort) will doom this idea. L = $$$ and no one in their right mind will part with bigger dollars for an f/2 standard prime when heretofore EF had small, faster than f/2 lenses and both were under $500.

Love the idea personally, but the market will laugh and turn these into overpriced problem children, like the EF non-L 24/28/35 IS refreshes.

Now, yanking the L, I'd be down with a $500 'small line' of non-L RF primes, but haven't they somewhat already started that line with the RF 35 f/1.8 STM 1:2 Macro? Why not just make more of those to build a simple non-L prime roster of 24 / 35 / 50 / 85? (Bonus points if all of them are 1:2 macro)

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2020)

David said:


> I repeatedly post in this forum: A *RF 40mm f2.0L* would become one of Canons most successful prime lenses IMHO.


I strongly disagree with that. The 40mm length would not be considered the classic 35mm or the ubiquitous 50mm that tradition has drummed into people are the 'right' focal lengths. Further, how many people choose the 35mm f2 IS over the 35mm f1.4 L if they could buy either? I'd guess very very few (apart from me), f2 just isn't considered a premium/serious aperture.


----------



## tron (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Remains to be seen how quickly Canon will flesh out the cheaper end of the RF platform.
> 
> Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic:
> 
> ...


For now:
You can have RF 50 1.2L (but no IS) and/or RF 35 1.8 IS (but no 50mm).
So they may troll you. But just a little if that helps


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Further, how many people choose the 35mm f2 IS over the 35mm f1.4 L if they could buy either? I'd guess very very few (apart from me), f2 just isn't considered a premium/serious aperture.




Agree with PBD. I personally love a compact FF setup with f/2 primes and f/4 zooms, but neither are considered premium and trying to do so will result in lower demand.

EF 24-70 f/4L IS was a wonderful design IMHO -- compact, 0.7x macro, hybrid IS, etc. Dropped from initial asking of $1499 down to ~ $900 pretty quickly. There was a rather loud user backlash to that initial asking, if I recall.
The 24/28/35 IS refreshes are wonderful lenses that in some case outperformed the last-gen L primes of the same FLs. Initial asking price was $749-849 if memory serves, and (we presume) they tanked commercially because the prices plummeted -- and within the first year.
As much as there absolutely is a push to make things smaller, it appears that Canon is trying to do that organically / across the board without it being a spec takeaway from the EF version. They dramatically reduced the size of the 70-200 2.8, but giving up a stop was never on the table -- so they switched it to an externally zooming design. The 24-105L was lovingly tweaked to reduce its size, but they didn't drop it down to a 24-70 or make it f/5.6 to do it.

I just don't think that Canon wants to gamble on small and premium. They may leave that business to the two fixed lens premium FF offerings (Leica Q, Sony RX1R, etc.).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

tron said:


> For now:
> You can have RF 50 1.2L (but no IS) and/or RF 35 1.8 IS (but no 50mm).
> So they may troll you. But just a little if that helps




As brilliant as the RF 50L is (tried one out with a CPS loaner), it's still a pickle jar. I'd prefer smaller and pitching whatever retrofocus paperweight nonsense is in there.

Lack of IS does not kill me so much as disappoint me, and we all presume that IBIS has to eventually surface on RF. As I've spec wishlisted before, I'd take a proper new optical design EF 50 f/1.4 sans IS if the AF was fire-and-forget money at f/1.4. 

I don't need an L with this, I just a basically competent 50 prime that every other manufacturer offers -- focuses consistently and reliably and delivers useful content wider than f/2. No EF lens does that today. The RF does (and I would likely get one if I convert from EF), but I don't need face splitting sharpness and all that heft.

- A


----------



## David (Jan 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I strongly disagree with that. The 40mm length would not be considered the classic 35mm or the ubiquitous 50mm that tradition has drummed into people are the 'right' focal lengths. Further, how many people choose the 35mm f2 IS over the 35mm f1.4 L if they could buy either? I'd guess very very few (apart from me), f2 just isn't considered a premium/serious aperture.



If there will ever come a RF 35mm f*1.4*L. It is more likely a giant f1.2L even larger than the RF50L since those 35mm' always are bigger than the 50mm'. Many shake their heads in lack of understanding Canon's decision to create those very big lenses. But if you ever used the fine Zeiss Batis 2/40 you'd understand my intention. Canon needs such a lens...


----------



## KrisK (Jan 9, 2020)

Good grief not another 50 or 35. Something wide, please.


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> I hope it's a $500 lens like RF 35mm/1.8 and not a $100 cheapo lens like EF 50/1.8. We've been waiting for a moderately priced decent 50mm prime for years, Canon!


However the 40 2.8 is by far the best bang for your buck lens in the EF lineup. Now, If I was in the R ecosystem I'd rather have something like the Voigtlander Ultron but with better corners. With that flange, this might be amazingly small and well controlled.


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> As brilliant as the RF 50L is (tried one out with a CPS loaner), it's still a pickle jar. I'd prefer smaller and pitching whatever retrofocus paperweight nonsense is in there.
> 
> Lack of IS does not kill me so much as disappoint me, and we all presume that IBIS has to eventually surface on RF. As I've spec wishlisted before, I'd take a proper new optical design EF 50 f/1.4 sans IS if the AF was fire-and-forget money at f/1.4.
> 
> ...


He's back!


----------



## Bradzphotos (Jan 9, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> I hope it's a $500 lens like RF 35mm/1.8 and not a $100 cheapo lens like EF 50/1.8. We've been waiting for a moderately priced decent 50mm prime for years, Canon!


You and the rest of Canon users since 1987!!!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

David said:


> If there will ever come a RF 35mm f*1.4*L. It is more likely a giant f1.2L even larger than the RF50L since those 35mm' always are bigger than the 50mm'. Many shake their heads in lack of understanding Canon's decision to create those very big lenses. But if you ever used the fine Zeiss Batis 2/40 you'd understand my intention. Canon needs such a lens...




100% yes an RF 35L will happen -- f/1.4 vs. f/1.2 remains to be seen. I'd be pretty surprised if Canon shot 1.2 all the way up and down the (not too long) prime spectrum. Some would get bonkers huge.

But I'd expect RF L lenses for what we have in EF, but surely they'll start with the staples:

24L = coming, lower priority​35L = coming​50L = done​85L = done (twice!)​100L Macro = coming, higher priority (no native 1:1 macro in the system yet)​135L mondo pickle jar of destiny = eventually, no idea when (it's a prestige lens they might have led with, but it's not a 'must' so much as a bug zapper to draw folks to the brand)​
There will be more lenses of course, but above are the staples one would expect.

- A


----------



## amorse (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ....
> Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic:
> 
> There is a $1k FF body now, some folks are absolutely looking to start an FF setup on the cheap.
> ...


My money is on cheaper 50mm. I was kind of surprised in talking with friends and colleagues who are looking at photography as a new hobby - more than I would have expected were cross-shopping the m50 and the RP as a starting point for getting into photography. The deciding factor was the lenses - they weren't ready to pony up for more of the RF glass, while the M glass was more reasonable and included at a better price point. Yes, very small sample size, but surprising never the less.

If consumers are choosing between the M series and R series bodes, anything that encourages conversion up to full frame creates some more opportunity for Canon in the long run for sales of other lenses - they just need something to get them into the ecosystem. I guess we'll see soon!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

If I'm honest, I'm more surprised at the trick clubs in the bag (two 85Ls already, the 28-70 f/2, etc.) and a 10x super zoom happened before the more obvious blocking and tackling opportunities:

A line of tiny f/4 or possibly f/5.6 zooms: a 24-70 f/4-6.3 would be as big as a minute
A pancake
A non-L nifty fifty
A 1:1 macro
But Canon knows where the money is, and possibly migrating existing users from EF --> RF (with an RF equiv to what they already have) is more important than Sony's take on lens nation-building. Sony started with unsexy smaller/slower lenses and then had to bring out the big guns to be taken seriously.

- A


----------



## David (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> 100% yes an RF 35L will happen -- f/1.4 vs. f/1.2 remains to be seen. I'd be pretty surprised if Canon shot 1.2 all the way up and down the (not too long) prime spectrum. Some would get bonkers huge.
> 
> But I'd expect RF L lenses for what we have in EF, but surely they'll start with the staples:
> 
> ...



I do not doubt a RF35L is coming. I doubt its useful size. With useful size I mean a practical all day long HQ lens for travelling, hiking, sight seeing, carrying long hours. The 35mm FL is the most used FL as far as I know, so it needs to be practical and very good.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 9, 2020)

Bring on the cheap RF pancakes!

One of those will literally turn the RP into a pocketable camera, a modern day equivalent of the old Yashica T4 I loved back in the early 90's. With the rotatable screen I even have something functionally akin to the super scope.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

David said:


> I do not doubt a RF35L is coming. I doubt its useful size. With useful size I mean a practical all day long HQ lens for travelling, hiking, sight seeing, carrying long hours. The 35mm FL is the most used FL as far as I know, so it needs to be practical and very good.




+1. I live between 24-50mm FF, and [thinking face  ] not surprisingly, six out of my eight lenses cover some part of that range.

If one FL was permanently set on my camera for all time, it would be 28 or 35. (But maybe that's because we lack a proper 50.)

- A


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> As brilliant as the RF 50L is (tried one out with a CPS loaner), it's still a pickle jar. I'd prefer smaller and pitching whatever retrofocus paperweight nonsense is in there.



"Give me a good 50mm prime."

*Canon engineers the best 50mm ever made*

"No not THAT good!"


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> "Give me a good 50mm prime."
> 
> *Canon engineers the best 50mm ever made*
> 
> "No not THAT good!"




That implies 'good' is a binary thing. It's clearly more nuanced than that. The RF 50 f/1.2L is great at many things, but it doesn't tick all my boxes.

EF 50 f/1.8 II = giggle
EF 50 f/1.8 STM = meh, slow focusing and IQ nothing to write home about
EF 50 f/1.4 USM = decently sharp, still compact but the AF hunts and getting useable output wider than f/2 is dubious
EF 50 f/1.2L USM = wide open can be magical, but AF is a finnicky diva (a comical hit rate compared to a modern lens) and it's just not sharp across the frame
RF 50 f/1.2L USM = AF great, sharpness great, but it is not small and it is not light

First party AF + form factor is clearly a big deal for me. I effectively want an EF 35 f/2 IS USM in a 50mm FL design. It would not need to that big to pull it off.

I just find it comical that Canon offers offers ancient Yugos, an aging Ferrari and a proper modern Mercedes... when all I need is a decent Honda. 

- A


----------



## peters (Jan 9, 2020)

nice! I think pancakes like the 40mm 2,8 stm are quite bad when it comes to corner sharpness and are also quite prone to flares - but its a PERFECT lense for travel. In combination with a tiny camera like the RP its a perfect companion for travel.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 9, 2020)

I feel like the only way you would be happy would be if Canon made ten different 50mm f1.2s, each one slightly larger and with better image quality than the last.

I really don't know what you want them to do. There is not that much room between the quality of the EF 50mm 1.2 and the RF. It would be foolish for them to have made anything less than the best 50mm possible being that the EF 50mm 1.2 is still a decent lens. And unfortunately making the absolute best 50mm comes with a size/weight penalty. Either accept it, or accept the EF's shortcomings.


----------



## ritholtz (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> EF 50 f/1.8 II = giggle
> EF 50 f/1.8 STM = meh, slow focusing and IQ nothing to write home about
> EF 50 f/1.4 USM = decently sharp, still compact but the AF hunts and getting useable output wider than f/2 is dubious
> EF 50 f/1.2L USM = wide open can be magical, but AF is a finnicky diva (a comical hit rate compared to a modern lens) and it's just not sharp across the frame
> ...


Basically you need a Canon version of Honda Accord. I have a habit of comparing everything I buy with traits Honda Accord.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2020)

David said:


> If there will ever come a RF 35mm f*1.4*L. It is more likely a giant f1.2L even larger than the RF50L since those 35mm' always are bigger than the 50mm'. Many shake their heads in lack of understanding Canon's decision to create those very big lenses. But if you ever used the fine Zeiss Batis 2/40 you'd understand my intention. Canon needs such a lens...


No I have never used the Zeiss Batis 2/40, what I do know is that most Canon owners wouldn't pay anywhere near $1,300 for an f2 unless it was over 135mm! That means the lens has such a small potential market it doesn't make sense for a mass market company like Canon to make it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I really don't know what you want them to do. There is not that much room between the quality of the EF 50mm 1.2 and the RF.




I'm getting a vibe of 'best' means sharper from your writing. If that's your bar, sure -- to really improve the EF f/1.2L you take a page from all the third parties, leave DG behind, and go big. Everyone and their mother has a pickle jar 50-ish prime now.

But there are $400-500 non-L lenses that mop the floor with that EF 50L from an AF perspective, or in providing a flatter field of focus for when you aren't shooting portraits.

I'm just saying that smaller and inexpensive lenses don't have to be crap and left to rot for so long. At this FL, they are due for a once-this-century sort of update.

- A


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jan 9, 2020)

The 5DsR with the EF 40 2.8 and EF 100-400 II was such a great travel combo. Looking forward to the Rs + RF 40 + RF 70-400 as replacements.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm getting a vibe of 'best' means sharper from your writing. If that's your bar, sure -- to really improve the EF f/1.2L you take a page from all the third parties, leave DG behind, and go big. Everyone and their mother has a pickle jar 50-ish prime now.
> 
> But there are $400-500 non-L lenses that mop the floor with that EF 50L from an AF perspective, or in providing a flatter field of focus for when you aren't shooting portraits.
> 
> ...



What's with all this RF 50 f/1.2 is a pickle jar? You all must have much smaller pickle jars than I do. Now the RF 28-70 f/2, now _that's_ a pickle jar.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No I have never used the Zeiss Batis 2/40, what I do know is that most Canon owners wouldn't pay anywhere near $1,300 for an f2 unless it was over 135mm! That means the lens has such a small potential market it doesn't make sense for a mass market company like Canon to make it.




Agree. Things that turn off a price-conscious market:

Standard-ish f/2 primes > $1000
Standard-ish f/4 zooms > $1000
Crop-only lenses north of $600-700 (if you have a FF platform as well as crop -- Fuji uniquely can go after pricey crop lenses)

And Canon has generally avoided them. I want to say that the 16-35 f/4L IS right around $1k right now (but it's brilliant piece of kit).

But the point David brings up is fair. Lens size does matter for some us. Some folks got into mirrorless because of size, and Canon, for whatever reason, isn't doing backflips specifically for that camp of mirrorless shooter right now. If they were, we'd see some nutty lenses for the ultra-compact crowd -- and not just pancakes: I wonder how small a variable max aperture 16-35 or 24-70 (or even 24-50) might get.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> That implies 'good' is a binary thing. It's clearly more nuanced than that. The RF 50 f/1.2L is great at many things, but it doesn't tick all my boxes.
> 
> EF 50 f/1.8 II = giggle
> EF 50 f/1.8 STM = meh, slow focusing and IQ nothing to write home about
> ...


I find it comical, in a sort of _One Penny Opera_, bittersweet way, that you obsess over getting precisely the 50mm lens that you want. Canon hit it out of the park with the ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the RF 50mm L and the rf 85mm L--but they aren't the right price or weight or focal length for you. And apparently third-party choices that fit EF aren't Goldilocks either. Ok, it was a cool shtick, but, really, ahsanford, a one-trick pony gets tiresome.

And for, what, four or five years now, you go on and on and on with clever, snarky, puffed up rhetoric about how Canon has let you down by just this much. Ok, we get it.

Fight the power!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> What's with all this RF 50 f/1.2 is a pickle jar? You all must have much smaller pickle jars than I do. Now the RF 28-70 f/2, now _that's_ a pickle jar.




I'm just saying that primes (esp. 35, 50 primes) went from fairly svelt little buggers to absoute beasts in the last 10 years.

A few years back I made this diagram, wondering what the next 50L would be:

​
Canon did end up abandoning DG with the RF 50L to chase the sharpness beast, which is fine (it's an aweome lens). I'm just saying that they clearly gave up something to get it.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 9, 2020)

And by the way, I was one who _anguished_ over moving to the R to get a world class 50mm 1.2. I didn't like the idea of the weight at first, but it balances so beautifully on the R, and it AF's so well, my hit rate is higher with it than even with IS lenses on the 5DIV. What's the compromise? Money. And it squeezes into my SUV's center console, but at least it doesn't rattle around in there.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 9, 2020)

I don't know how much the new 50mm RF cost to develop, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the millions of dollars. We probably won't see another 50mm L for at least ten years. And we're looking at 75mp cameras becoming a reality within the next one or two years.

So after spending all that money to develop a lens that will be the newest model for at least the next ten years, you really expect them to hold back on making *all* aspects of it as good as they can, just because it makes the lens a little bigger? Why on earth would they do this? Why would they not put everything they can into the new lens, including increasing sharpness, when by the time they are ready to retire this lens, cameras will probably be over 100mp?

As competent as the EF 50mm was, it was not a sharpness beast. It was a fine lens for its time, but putting it on a 75mp camera would really hinder that camera. With that resolution on the horizon, they had no choice but to make a sharper lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> And by the way, I was one who _anguished_ over moving to the R to get a world class 50mm 1.2. I didn't like the idea of the weight at first, but it balances so beautifully on the R, and it AF's so well, my hit rate is higher with it than even with IS lenses on the 5DIV. What's the compromise? Money. And it squeezes into my SUV's center console, but at least it doesn't rattle around in there.




Love that lens, dude, it's really really good. I finally got to try a 50 prime with the near perfect wide open AF experience I had with the EF 85 f/1.4L IS. Canon pulled it off.

Money's not my hang up. Personally, I'm not ready for an EOS R migration, but even if I was, gear that big/heavy tends to stay at home rather than come out with me. When I migrate to EOS R, it likely will be more about being able to build an aggregate smaller bag of gear. So as much as that lens is amazing, I think I will use smaller, slower lenses more often and those options will more likely get my money.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

Sigma's 40 is arguably their finest prime.Now, it's as large as a Canon 24-70 Mk2. But what it does show us is the desire for a company to create such a fantastic lens in that particular focal length . 40 on FF is akin to a classic Cine look (28 on super 35) The corners on the Canon 40 are not that bad by the way, not nearly as the older manual focus pancakes of the film era. The color is remarkable for a $120 lens and hell, it doubles as a body cap. Will the RF flange allow even smaller length pancakes or will it allow finer optic groups with the same size as the EF and EF-S versions?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Love that lens, dude, it's really really good. I finally got to try a 50 prime with the near perfect wide open AF experience I had with the 85 f/1.4L IS. Canon pulled it off.
> 
> Money's not my hang up. Personally, I'm not ready for an EOS R migration, but even if I was, gear that big/heavy tends to stay at home rather than come out with me. When I migrate to EOS R, it likely will be more about being able to build an aggregate smaller bag of gear. So as much as that lens is amazing, I think I will use smaller, slower lenses more often and those options will more likely get my money.
> 
> - A



I understand the desire for compact. I belong to an ancient camera club with ancient members. I ain't no spring chicken, but I'm the youngest member by at least ten years! All around me, fellow members are buying Olympus. Then sort of missing the clean images they were used to working on in LR CC.

And I have an 80D with a permanently attached ef-s35mm f/2.8 IS Macro. Not the widest aperture, but better than a pancake for AF and IQ, imo. That's what I take out with the kids. But the 80D is fun with other lenses too.

But I believe it is possible that Canon threw up their hands, waved the white flag, and decided they could either compete against the smartphone era with mediocre compact gear or truly differentiate by making the best possible primes and mid-focal-lenght zooms regardless of size.

Have you seen how amazingly great the current generation of smartphones is right now? Even passionate, top photographers I know have decided that for their travel and family photography, their everyday compulsion type photography, it's just too easy to carry only the smartphone. I find this kind of sad, kind of like the passing of an era, but these days anything more than a smartphone seems cumbersome, seems like it intrudes on other activities, and creates something of a dedicated outing.

If I can't carry it in my pocket, then it might as well be a beast of a lens and body combo that gets the best possible results. You don't see a lot of people carrying ANY kind of SLR when out and about (outside tourist areas), but it no longer makes me self-conscious to do so myself. I go to the grocery store, or to pick up the kids, or whatever, I have a big or bigger combo. I don't care. If there is the chance of getting an outstanding photo, I want to be using my favorite gear. Snapshots, documented cute moments, etc., a smartphone works. And it is really not much more of an inconvenience to have a little bigger, heavier gear than what you have been talking about these past several years.

Does this make sense? Canon saw the death of point-and-shoot, and they are doing their best to sustain, and bring some new energy to hobby, enthusiast, and pro photography.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 9, 2020)

I don't care what it is just quite with the STM BS


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Does this make sense? Canon saw the death of point-and-shoot, and they are doing their best to sustain, and bring some new energy, to hobby, enthusiast, and pro photogrphy.




I hear you, and I really appreciate the post.

I was fully expecting Canon to push limits and put out sexy kit to establish RF as a top platform, and they did not disappoint. We will continue to see really high end glass come out over the next few years as they build up the RF portfolio, and our jaws will continue to drop as they put out some yowza glass -- a really high end 135, perhaps a coma obliterating astro UWA prime, etc.

But some of your argument above implies (and I could be misreading you) that the only people buying ILCs now are camera forum denizens and working photographers becuase casual shooters stopped buying cameras in favor of cell phones. Some of that surely has happened, but I think a lot of young people still want to make their IG pop, to make their food photography sing, or to get a really nice selfie-video quality for their youtube how-to / unboxing / whatever channel. And some of these people have disposable cash to burn -- all while FF bodies are getting more affordable than ever. Some of these folks wouldn't mind a less involved / obtrusive / burdensome thing to carry around to capture their lives and interests.

Consider: one of the first RF lenses for sale (35 f/1.8 STM) was not a high end staple at all. It was compact, relatively inexpensive, had a FOV not unlike a cell phone and offered a nice 1:2 macro for food / travel photography. People post pictures _of the camera itself_ on social media and comment how wonderfully small it is.

I simply contend that there is money in decent smaller glass. Canon hasn't made it a priority for RF yet, but I'm confident it's coming.

- A


----------



## SirMcSquish (Jan 9, 2020)

Was hoping they were going to update the 50mm 1.4 USM as well. I hope they at least improve upon the design in some way to make it worthwhile. Quieter, IS or something else nifty.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm just saying that primes (esp. 35, 50 primes) went from fairly svelt little buggers to absoute beasts in the last 10 years.
> 
> [...edit...]
> 
> ...



They didn't just chase sharpness, they took the paradigm that modern "over-engineered" lenses have less character and turned that on its head.

One of the best painterly and pleasing bokeh of any lens I've ever used is generated by the Contax Zeiss 50 f/1.4 C/Y and the Classic ZE version as well (Contax is better at MFD and Classic at infinity, but bokeh is nearly identical). I simply don't reach for the Contax any more after getting the RF 50, it's that good – not just sharpness edge-to-edge even at f/1.2 and infinity, but bokeh quality that rivals retro designs. The combination of the RF 50 f/1.2's bokeh character with stunning sharpness from wide open to f/2 is a wonder to behold.

The only thing they "gave up" was size/weight, but as has been pointed out, this is largely offset by the balance of the rig as a whole. They basically took the bulk they removed from the 5D body by going mirrorless and moved the weight to the lens. Holding the R+RF 50 f/1.2 is nearly an identical feel to the 5D4 or 5DsR with the EF 50 f/1.2.

When I use the RF 50 f/1.2, I don't see it as a "they gave up something" kind of lens. I see it as a "thank God they left behind all the shortcomings of the EF version and kept a wonderful character to the rendering" kind of lens.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 9, 2020)

HikeBike said:


> Yes, RF 50mm f/1.8 IS for $500, please.



I would be really shocked if they didn't put out an RF 50mm f/1.4 with IS (if any), and then continue to use a cheap/light/small design for the f/1.8. I know Nikon has a fancy f/1.8 but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have cheap AND expensive f/1.8's with no f/1.4, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to have four 50mm AF lenses either. 

My preference would be the 50mm f/1.4 IS and a pancake wider than that, then I would sell my RF 50mm f/1.2, which is a fantastic lens but it's just not reasonable for me to have as my 50 prime if another option is available...I don't need f/1.2 that much.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I hear you, and I really appreciate the post...
> 
> But some of your argument above implies (and I could be misreading you) that the only people buying ILCs now are camera forum denizens and working photographers becuase casual shooters stopped buying cameras in favor of cell phones. Some of that surely has happened, but I think a lot of young people still want to make their IG pop, to make their food photography sing, or to get a really nice selfie-video quality for their youtube how-to / unboxing / whatever channel. And some of these people have disposable cash to burn -- all while FF bodies are getting more affordable than ever. Some of these folks wouldn't mind a less involved / obtrusive / burdensome thing to carry around to capture their lives and interests.
> 
> ...



Thanks, ahsanford. You didn't completely misread me. I do think that the ILC's are becoming more of an upscale photography option now--for people who are purposefully into photography, who have a deeper than average interest and desire to produce better than average images.

But the customers you reference here, I believe, have it both ways. They want their ILCs for all the excellent examples you have mentioned, but they generally leave their ILC's at home. Yes, technically we can get better images of food in a restaurant, for example, with better gear, but only to a point. Beyond that we need lighting and backgrounds and lots of management cooperation to do tremendously better with an R than with the best smartphones on the market atm. 

Sure, there is a market for budget lenses, but I don't think it is as profitable as you seem to think, because volume just isn't there anymore.

The Rf 24-105mm f/4L IS seems to be an interesting lens relevant to the discussion. Compared to so many "budget" options, this is an amazing lens for portrait and landscape. But it gets little respect from "forum denizens," and is seen as high-end by beginning photographers. It's a great walkaround too! But it was born with the limitation of f/4. Sigh...It's light. The AF is quick. The IQ is very good. The IS is excellent. And, by RF L-series standards, it's a bargain.

And I believe the rf 35mm is a bargain too, and there is nothing wrong with it as an entry level. We will see more. But if Canon's mission is to bring excitement again to FF ILC, the results (and specs) from the L primes are easier to market.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 9, 2020)

After trying the RF 35mm I think canon has understood what -I- want: A very flexible lightweight lens with very good IQ - flexibility due to the 1:2 Macro and the IS.
I would like to see an RF 100mm f/2.0 1:2 Macro with IS as a complementary lens also for landscape, but for closer portrait work and for generally more "concentrated" photos. This one would be a good fusion of EF 2.8 100 macro & EF 2.0 100 and would help me to avoid the decision which one to take ...
Think about two RPs with 35 + 100mm, stabilized, unlimited closeup photography, STM motors therefore well suited for video. A lightweight and universal package.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> 100% yes an RF 35L will happen -- f/1.4 vs. f/1.2 remains to be seen. I'd be pretty surprised if Canon shot 1.2 all the way up and down the (not too long) prime spectrum. Some would get bonkers huge.
> 
> But I'd expect RF L lenses for what we have in EF, but surely they'll start with the staples:
> 
> ...



I know I'm in the minority, but I really wish Canon would do a 28mm f/1.4 like Nikon. I have the Sigma and adapt it, and will probably convert or trade should they release an RF version because it's a great lens, but I love 28mm specifically and it also replaces the need for both 24 and 35 for me (I also carry a 24 - 105 so it's not like I can't get to those precise focal lengths).


----------



## hangtime (Jan 9, 2020)

I'm not an expert but I thought that the pancake design works best if the focal length is approximately the flange distance of the mount. Thus we have a 40mm f/2.8 for the 44mm EF/EF-S mount, and a 22mm f/2 for the 18mm EF-M mount. Given that the RF mount is 20mm, can we assume that a pancake design would be in the ballpark of a 24mm focal length? Or does crop vs full-frame make a difference?

Personally, I'm more interested in a 85 or 100mm equivalent of my RF35. I have a few wider angle lenses already and the adapted EF 50mm/1.8STM is sufficient for my simple needs.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> After trying the RF 35mm I think canon has understood what -I- want: A very flexible lightweight lens with very good IQ - flexibility due to the 1:2 Macro and the IS.
> I would like to see an RF 100mm f/2.0 1:2 Macro with IS as a complementary lens also for landscape, but for closer portrait work and for generally more "concentrated" photos. This one would be a good fusion of EF 2.8 100 macro & EF 2.0 100 and would help me to avoid the decision which one to take ...
> Think about two RPs with 35 + 100mm, stabilized, unlimited closeup photography, STM motors therefore well suited for video. A lightweight and universal package.




Fascinating, thanks.

I think an 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro is an automatic/certain add to the lineup (100 f/2 less so). The system simply has to offer a 1:1 macro solution, and Canon has excelled here for a long time (the old non-L was also quite good). And Canon has shown an aptitude for innovating here (didn't hybrid IS start on the 100L?).

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> ... how many people choose the *35mm f2 IS* over the 35mm f1.4 L if they could buy either? ...


Have it! Fell in love with it! 
Couldn't believe it, but because of the combination of (relatively) small size, really good IQ, IS and decent price (after the drop of the initial MRSP) makes it a no brainer to me.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> EF 50 f/1.4 USM = decently sharp, still compact but the AF hunts and getting useable output wider than f/2 is dubious
> ...


Don't forget the delicate mechanical built of the AF...
Main reason to me to never take this one into account.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

hangtime said:


> Don't forget the delicate mechanical built of the AF...
> Main reason to me to never take this one into account.




Yeah, my 50 1.4 never had it's micro USM / focusing ring function broken. Eight years old now (after buying it new), and it still works 'fine' -- the AF hunts, but it eventually locks.

I used to live really close to the (at the time) shiny new Canon facility in Burbank. I brought my 5D3 to get looked over and have the rubbery grippable material replaced. My 50 1.4 was with me when I brought it in and somewhat sarcastically asked the technician if they tune up lenses, improve the focusing, etc.

To my surprise, he took it from my hands and aggressively / rapidly cranked on the focusing ring back and forth. Rough-housing would be putting it kindly -- he was beating this thing up and I just cringed through the process. 

He handed it back to me, saying [something to the effect of] 'Nope. Not much we can do unless you want us to tear it down, which will probably cost you as much as the lens is worth. I was just checking to see if you had already broken it, but it's indexing in and out just fine, so I think you're good!' 

He effectively was doing the routine 'yeah it's broken' assay he does on all the 50 1.4s. It was almost like he was a physio doing a Lachman (drawer) test on an injured player's knee to assess the ACL. 

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Love that lens, dude, it's really really good. I finally got to try a 50 prime with the near perfect wide open AF experience I had with the EF 85 f/1.4L IS. Canon pulled it off.
> 
> Money's not my hang up. Personally, I'm not ready for an EOS R migration, but even if I was, gear that big/heavy tends to stay at home rather than come out with me. When I migrate to EOS R, it likely will be more about being able to build an aggregate smaller bag of gear. So as much as that lens is amazing, I think I will use smaller, slower lenses more often and those options will more likely get my money.
> 
> - A



I just hope that Canon doesn't copy Nikon's playbook and release a bunch of f/1.8 lenses at $800. Personally, I'm glad Canon went for L glass first rather than what Nikon did. Who wants to build a lens set of f/1.8 lenses at 800 apiece only to have the better stuff come out later at much higher prices. The EF 24, 28 and 35 IS were not very popular when they came out at 700-800 each...


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 9, 2020)

HaroldC3 said:


> Their 50 1.4 needs overhauled. This would be a good time.



That is my question. Why is the 1.4 being so ignored. Does not need to be L level but with computers etc. and modern manufacturing can still be outstanding IQ.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree with PBD. I personally love a compact FF setup with f/2 primes and f/4 zooms, but neither are considered premium and trying to do so will result in lower demand.
> 
> EF 24-70 f/4L IS was a wonderful design IMHO -- compact, 0.7x macro, hybrid IS, etc. Dropped from initial asking of $1499 down to ~ $900 pretty quickly. There was a rather loud user backlash to that initial asking, if I recall.
> The 24/28/35 IS refreshes are wonderful lenses that in some case outperformed the last-gen L primes of the same FLs. Initial asking price was $749-849 if memory serves, and (we presume) they tanked commercially because the prices plummeted -- and within the first year.
> ...



In spite of people on these sites demanding primes, I see from this string talking of prime prices plummeting as soon as introduced shows there is not that much call for primes contrary to a small vocal bunch. If they were in high demand the prices would not crash as they did and zoom lenses would not dominate so much. New cameras have ISO capabilities that can easily make up for 1-2 stops with no real or perceptible degradation of the image in the real world.


----------



## navastronia (Jan 9, 2020)

Just adding that I would be so grateful for a pancake for my RP. Anything from 24-50 would do.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 9, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> That is my question. Why is the 1.4 being so ignored. Does not need to be L level but with computers etc. and modern manufacturing can still be outstanding IQ.


Like YuengLinger said, photography has changed. The 50mm 1.4 came out in 1993. That was about a decade before cell phones even had (awful) cameras on them. There just isn't enough of a market left in photography to design something as specialized as a mid-level prime lens and sell enough of them to make it worth it.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 9, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> New cameras have ISO capabilities that can easily make up for 1-2 stops with no real or perceptible degradation of the image in the real world.


Not when you're already taking photos at ISO 10,000 at f1.2. But granted I realize most people aren't doing this.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Have it! Fell in love with it!
> Couldn't believe it, but because of the combination of (relatively) small size, really good IQ, IS and decent price (after the drop of the initial MRSP) makes it a no brainer to me.


That makes you, me and Sporgon! I'd never move to the L after taking the f2 IS around the world a couple of times, never once has anybody said to me "great picture shame about the IQ" when seeing images from it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> I just hope that Canon doesn't copy Nikon's playbook and release a bunch of f/1.8 lenses at $800. Personally, I'm glad Canon went for L glass first rather than what Nikon did. Who wants to build a lens set of f/1.8 lenses at 800 apiece only to have the better stuff come out later at much higher prices. The EF 24, 28 and 35 IS were not very popular when they came out at 700-800 each...




Agree, but Canon's approach was different:

Canon was offering those non-L primes in two instances (24 and 28) two full stops slower than a traditionally 'high end' f/1.4 prime --> Nikon did not do that
Canon thought people wanted IS more than pure lens speed and would pay just as much for it --> Nikon did not do that
I think that folks in general value speed far in excess of valuing IS. I love IS, don't get me wrong, but folks _pay_ for speed. I would guess that if Canon's 24/28/35 refresh was instead a trio of bigger/stouter f/1.8 lenses without IS, the price for the lenses today would be closer to the original asking price than what we have today. No way to know for sure, but checking those the three Nikon newer f/1.8G lenses: 

20mm = $797​28mm = $697​35mm = $527​
That's not bad compared to the non-L 24/28/35 refresh, which dropped to $549, 469 and $549 respectively. (It's closer than I thought it would be, though.)

And keep in mind: this is coming from me, a guy who has 2 of the those IS refresh lenses and loves them.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> That is my question. Why is the 1.4 being so ignored. Does not need to be L level but with computers etc. and modern manufacturing can still be outstanding IQ.




The EF 50 f/1.4 can get a _bit_ better optically in that $400-500ish price point but not like the Sigma Art or anything like that due to the really simple double gauss design it uses. To really jump it up in IQ it needs to 'jump the retrofocal cliff' and get big, huge and expensive. I don't ever see that happening in a non-L.

But it's AF could get worrrrrrrrrlds better (slay the micro, move to ring) and IS could be implemented without too much fuss / size / weight. Not much glass in there to corral and keep honest.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> New cameras have ISO capabilities that can easily make up for 1-2 stops with no real or perceptible degradation of the image in the real world.




For _exposure_, sure, but cranking up the ISO on a zoom won't make your subject pop or the background dissolve like a quick prime can.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That makes you, me and Sporgon! I'd never move to the L after taking the f2 IS around the world a couple of times, never once has anybody said to me "great picture shame about the IQ" when seeing images from it.




I love my 35 f/2 IS -- a wonderful single lens for travel if you are space constrained.

But I've only shot the old 35L I. The 35L II is crackingly well reviewed and gives you that environmental portraiture / street isolation and pop. I just don't want one more stop badly enough to have $1649 leave my pocket. 

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Fascinating, thanks.
> 
> I think an 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro is an automatic/certain add to the lineup (100 f/2 less so). The system simply has to offer a 1:1 macro solution, and Canon has excelled here for a long time (the old non-L was also quite good). And Canon has shown an aptitude for innovating here (didn't hybrid IS start on the 100L?).
> 
> - A


An RF version of the 100L would be a wonderful carrot to dangle. However they allowed for remarkable adapting of EF glass, something not always achieved or desired by marketing when new mounts are launched. There's the two fold of keeping you in the Canon system yet not needing you to purchase much more than bodies. It's a customer centric move, therefore I would have thought they RF lenses would be variations other than the classic EF lenses. Not sure if we'll see a 135, a 200, a 24/28. It would be nice if everyone got what they wanted and with two possible bodies on the way this year, we just might. Except that 50 of course.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

slclick said:


> An RF version of the 100L would be a wonderful carrot to dangle. However they allowed for remarkable adapting of EF glass, something not always achieved or desired by marketing when new mounts are launched. There's the two fold of keeping you in the Canon system yet not needing you to purchase much more than bodies. It's a customer centric move, therefore I would have thought they RF lenses would be variations other than the classic EF lenses. Not sure if we'll see a 135, a 200, a 24/28. It would be nice if everyone got what they wanted and with two possible bodies on the way this year, we just might. Except that 50 of course.




But imagine an EOS R2 (or R3) with IBIS + improved focus stacking* + a shiny new 1:1 macro. I think they could build both a compelling handheld macro opportunity and a cool tabletop stacking opportunity.

*who knows, drape front + back peaking 'planes' to virtually/interactively set depth limits in a LiveView scene? 

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> But imagine an EOS R2 (or R3) with IBIS + improved focus stacking* + a shiny new 1:1 macro. I think they could build both a compelling handheld macro opportunity and a cool tabletop stacking opportunity.
> 
> *who knows, drape front + back peaking 'planes' to virtually/interactively set depth limits in a LiveView scene?
> 
> - A


Oh yeah baby....


I'm usually shooting with a Novoflex rail, old school style with manual movements. Stacking that way and without magickal macro software is tough, so tough I just attempt single shots usually. Give me the ability to do more in camera, in the field? (I'm usually on my belly or knees getting dirty and or wet , none of this controlled indoor shite) I'd be a happy camper.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 9, 2020)

peters said:


> nice! I think pancakes like the 40mm 2,8 stm are quite bad when it comes to corner sharpness and are also quite prone to flares - but its a PERFECT lense for travel. In combination with a tiny camera like the RP its a perfect companion for travel.


 Do you really have the 40 mm pancake?
Mine is sharp right into the corners, really sharp.
You could also read the "Optical limits" review. Quote: "corner quality is on a very high level straight from f/2.8 "
As to lens flare : see the results on TDP, almost perfect !
That's why I find your statement a bit strange...


----------



## dwarven (Jan 9, 2020)

A 50mm 1.4 is all the lens I need.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 9, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I know I'm in the minority, but I really wish Canon would do a 28mm f/1.4 like Nikon. I have the Sigma and adapt it, and will probably convert or trade should they release an RF version because it's a great lens, but I love 28mm specifically and it also replaces the need for both 24 and 35 for me (I also carry a 24 - 105 so it's not like I can't get to those precise focal lengths).


Canon will make a 28mm L, but it will be f/1.2. I think any non-L will be f/1.8.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

slclick said:


> Oh yeah baby....
> 
> 
> I'm usually shooting with a Novoflex rail, old school style with manual movements. Stacking that way and without magickal macro software is tough, so tough I just attempt single shots usually. Give me the ability to do more in camera, in the field? (I'm usually on my belly or knees getting dirty and or wet , none of this controlled indoor shite) I'd be a happy camper.




I don't follow EOS R onboard stuff very well, but is anyone using this? 






Do they like it? Is there enough control for the people who have done it the old fashioned way?

- A


----------



## peters (Jan 9, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Do you really have the 40 mm pancake?
> Mine is sharp right into the corners, really sharp.
> You could also read the "Optical limits" review. Quote: "corner quality is on a very high level straight from f/2.8 "
> As to lens flare : see the results on TDP, almost perfect !
> That's why I find your statement a bit strange...


Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.








Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Maybe my copy isnt the best, but anyway. When it comes to quality its pretty much my last choice  I do like it for travel though very very much. A new RF version is truely a good idea. I dont know why they didnt include it in lineup when the EOS R came out. That was somehow strange: they made a new, very compact FF camera, but offered pretty much nothing but SUPER heavy, highend lenses like the 28-70 f2 or 50mm f1,2... I think the pancakes are the obvious choise for a mirrorless camera... especialy when they presented the EOS RP - a SUPER tiny FF camera, but without any small lenses for it (besides the 35mm, which is stil not super small)


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 9, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Fascinating, thanks.
> 
> I think an 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro is an automatic/certain add to the lineup (100 f/2 less so). The system simply has to offer a 1:1 macro solution, and Canon has excelled here for a long time (the old non-L was also quite good). And Canon has shown an aptitude for innovating here (didn't hybrid IS start on the 100L?).
> 
> - A



Yes, the 100L introduced the hybrid IS and the RF-35 has it too ...
Because I would like to have a 1:2 wide open light tele, what about the following compromise:
RF 85 f/1.8 1:2 Macro (f/2 maybe) STM non-L AND
RF 100 f/2.8 L 1:1 USM Macro ?
Canon could sell two different lenses and I have my RF 85 1:2 . If I need 1:1 I would use my non-L 100mm USM Macro which is definitely a brilliant lens in terms of IQ (not design .


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 9, 2020)

peters said:


> Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not shure if you can do a 40mm pan cake on the RF mount which is super flat - I think the pan cake would be more in the 25...30mm range but I presume that it would suffer from an extreme vignetting because the angle of light is very flat for the corners having lots of reflections on the sensor surface.
I have the RP with the RF 35 and it is very compact just with the 35mm and I must say, I appreciate the IS (for video too), the large max aperture AND the 1:2 max. reprod. ratio very much.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> I think the pan cake would be more in the 25...30mm range but I presume that it would suffer from an extreme vignetting because the angle of light is very flat for the corners having lots of reflections on the sensor surface.




I would take a wider pancake, sure.

How bad would be the vignetting be?

(I mean, the RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS is still out there, and from what little I've seen, correcting the vignetting in those shots is like a DPReview EXMOR shadow push demonstration. )

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

peters said:


> Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have a poor copy, simple as that.


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

peters said:


> Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They also made the grip larger than most FF Mirrorless bodies because the ML = Small things is just yesterdays dream. (Unless you want noise, horrible menus, crappy weather sealing and poor customer service) Balance is key with Canon.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 9, 2020)

I would eat up a RF pancake ...


----------



## peters (Jan 9, 2020)

slclick said:


> They also made the grip larger than most FF Mirrorless bodies because the ML = Small things is just yesterdays dream. (Unless you want noise, horrible menus, crappy weather sealing and poor customer service) Balance is key with Canon.


But the EOS RP is super tiny? (Smallest FF camera after the SIgma, which is a pretty unorthodox camera anyway)


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

peters said:


> But the EOS RP is super tiny? (Smallest FF camera after the SIgma, which is a pretty unorthodox camera anyway)


Oh are we discussing the stepchild?


----------



## mangobutter (Jan 9, 2020)

I think gone are the days of cheap DG-based 50mm lenses. A 50mm 1.8 for FF mirrorless will likely follow the example of Sony in terms of overall size, shape, price, optical formula, etc. I honestly wouldn't mind if all of Canon's non-L primes follow the example of the RF 35. an RF 24, 28, and even RF 20 would be super awesome too. 

As far as pancakes, I doubt we'll get 40mm.. but who knows maybe. I doubt it due to the flange distance. You're likely looking at something a bit wider to keep the size down. Maybe an RF 30 or RF 35 pancake. Look at this pancake made for sony systems and you'll get an idea of what to expect. Generally the point of a pancake is to keep the optical formula cheap and high quality. meaning path of least resistance straight to the sensor. So on FF SLRs that tended to work out to 40mm. so FF mirrorless.. appears its a bit wider. but who knows maybe Canon can work some optical magic but that tends to go against keeping the lens affordable.


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2020)

40 just gives a look the *YAWN* 50 cannot. It is the ultimate semi wide walk around (for me)


----------



## navastronia (Jan 9, 2020)

slclick said:


> 40 just gives a look the *YAWN* 50 cannot. It is the ultimate semi wide walk around (for me)



I confess, I just don't like the look of 50 very much.



mangobutter said:


> Generally the point of a pancake is to keep the optical formula cheap and high quality. meaning path of least resistance straight to the sensor. So on FF SLRs that tended to work out to 40mm. so FF mirrorless.. appears its a bit wider. but who knows maybe Canon can work some optical magic but that tends to go against keeping the lens affordable.



I hope you're right! A 24, 28, or 30mm pancake would be absolutely tremendous. I'd be willing to pay . . . Let's say, $300 for one, at f/2.8.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2020)

slclick said:


> They also made the grip larger than most FF Mirrorless bodies because the ML = Small things is just yesterdays dream. (Unless you want noise, horrible menus, crappy weather sealing and poor customer service) Balance is key with Canon.




But the EOS R grip is still smaller than I'd like, if I'm honest. I would argue that Sony's was both hysterically too small and far too close to the mount for one's fingers. Canon didn't fall for either of those blunders, but that's a pretty low bar to clear, IMHO.

I previously said that I want a small build, and I do. But the size of the grip has next to zero to do with bag fit. A tiny grip helps you with a broken down rig -- max packing efficiency in a backpack on your flight, let's say -- but it does not do you any good once a mounted lens longer than the grip is attached (i.e. for a day's carry in a bag, ready to shoot).

​

So I was one of the weirdos saying 'huge chunky 5D3 grip + thumbwheel' + 'nice tiny lenses'. Even Frankensteining that combo together with an EF-M lens shows that you are mainly packing the [body thickness and the length of the lens] in the front-back direction, and the width of the back in the left-right direction.

So bring on a proper Canon-made 5D sized grip and leave room for my fingers when I've a bigger barrel L lens attached. 

- A


----------



## ColinJR (Jan 10, 2020)

HaroldC3 said:


> Their 50 1.4 needs overhauled. This would be a good time.


Yes... the 1.4 is _really_ old—moreover, it's just not a great lens by any measure.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 10, 2020)

I want a “body cap” pancake. Let the designers show off how short they can design an RF lens. Let focal length, aperture, price, and everything else be secondary.

Image quality can be adequate, and they can let the camera correct all the distortion and vignetting sins.

I switched from Nikon to Canon for light and compact designs like the RF 70-200 and 400 IS iii. More Please!


----------



## Jethro (Jan 10, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I want a “body cap” pancake. Let the designers show off how short they can design an RF lens. Let focal length, aperture, price, and everything else be secondary.
> 
> Image quality can be adequate, and they can let the camera correct all the distortion and vignetting sins.
> 
> I switched from Nikon to Canon for light and compact designs like the RF 70-200 and 400 IS iii. More Please!


Much as I like the idea of an RF body-cap (and would immediately buy one), I think the IQ trade-off would be too much for Canon at this stage of the RF's development.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2020)

Jethro said:


> Much as I like the idea of an RF body-cap (and would immediately buy one), I think the IQ trade-off would be too much for Canon at this stage of the RF's development.




Surely a body cap / pinhole-like f/8 pancake would be a waste of Canon's time -- leave it to RokiBowYang to make some plastic thing for $50.

Is there actually that much demand for a body cap lens over a properly focusing $125 f/2.8 pancake?

- A


----------



## tapanit (Jan 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> ... how many people choose the 35mm f2 IS over the 35mm f1.4 L if they could buy either? I'd guess very very few (apart from me)



I did.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 10, 2020)

tapanit said:


> I did.


Me too.


----------



## BillB (Jan 10, 2020)

So far, the only horse in the RF small prime race is the RF 35mm, which was a good place to start in my opinion. So, one question is which lenses would best complement the RF 35. My guess is the next non L prime will be longer, either 70-85mm, or maybe a 50, and then maybe something wider like 24mm. I think it will be a while before we see anything in the vicinity of 35mm, like between 28 and 40mm.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 10, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Surely a body cap / pinhole-like f/8 pancake would be a waste of Canon's time -- leave it to RokiBowYang to make some plastic thing for $50.
> 
> Is there actually that much demand for a body cap lens over a properly focusing $125 f/2.8 pancake?
> 
> - A


Probably not. I’ll take a good 2.8 that doesn’t need to have L optics. If it doesn’t increase the length I’m fine paying more for IS and better optics.

How about this: the adapter body cap includes a toy lens? ;-)


----------



## twoheadedboy (Jan 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon will make a 28mm L, but it will be f/1.2. I think any non-L will be f/1.8.



I would take that as well, though I'd rather have a 1.4 IS.


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 10, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Remains to be seen how quickly Canon will flesh out the cheaper end of the RF platform.
> 
> Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic:
> 
> ...


Please let this second option be true!


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Thanks, ahsanford. You didn't completely misread me. I do think that the ILC's are becoming more of an upscale photography option now--for people who are purposefully into photography, who have a deeper than average interest and desire to produce better than average images.
> 
> But the customers you reference here, I believe, have it both ways. They want their ILCs for all the excellent examples you have mentioned, but they generally leave their ILC's at home. Yes, technically we can get better images of food in a restaurant, for example, with better gear, but only to a point. Beyond that we need lighting and backgrounds and lots of management cooperation to do tremendously better with an R than with the best smartphones on the market atm.
> 
> ...


I don’t believe ahsanford was particularly arguing for a “budget” 50mm as much as a compact alternative. I would happily pay $1k for a 50/1.4 with the size, weight and character of my old Sigma 50/1.4 Ex but the AF of a modern lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2020)

dsut4392 said:


> I don’t believe ahsanford was particularly arguing for a “budget” 50mm as much as a compact alternative. I would happily pay $1k for a 50/1.4 with the size, weight and character of my old Sigma 50/1.4 Ex but the AF of a modern lens.




^^^ This. All day. Hell, I'd honestly drop $500 right now on the old 1993 EF 50 f/1.4 USM optics being dropped into a new reliable ring USM design. Canon: pull a 'new' 70-200 2.8 III with the 50 1.4. I dare you. 

For RF, the main question I have is whether a new ILC portfolio in the age of the cell phone Borg (consuming the bottom end of the market) still warrants three 50 primes: L + Nice + Budget.

I expect a nifty fifty $150-ish lens to happen, because they are gateway drugs to buying more lenses. So the question is: will the 'Nice' bucket get a lens with this system?

I would argue (on merit, in general -- not just for a 50) that Canon would make more money if there was a line of 'Nice' lenses on par with the RF 35 f/1.8 Macro. Less well-financed folks could build up a nice lineup of primes with high confidence the usage, size, feel, and features would be consistent. Folks buying these would be building equity in a platform that would more likely retain them as longer term users, and it would make them targets for pricier RF lenses someday.

I would also argue (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that if we can justify *two* 85 1.2 primes north of $2k and an absolute show pony of a 28-70 f/2 that vaguely resembles the head of Mjolnir, Canon isn't trying to just knock out the EF staples in RF. Making this lens (eventually, perhaps not as a high priority) would not be an unreasonable development.

- A


----------



## Dexter75 (Jan 10, 2020)

About time. The nifty fifty is their best selling lens ever and how they didn’t have an RF version ready to go from day 1 was a huge mistake that cost them literally thousands of R body sales. They better have this out like tomorrow.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 10, 2020)

One attractive target is the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8. 120grams and 30mm protrusion length. Excellent image quality. Not cheap.

I’d challenge the designers to an inch of protrusion length. Maybe something clever with a replaceable protective element within that length.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 10, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> For RF, the main question I have is whether a new ILC portfolio in the age of the cell phone Borg (consuming the bottom end of the market) still warrants three 50 primes: L + Nice + Budget.


It absolutely doesn't. This is the main thing you don't seem to be able to accept.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 10, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I would take a wider pancake, sure.
> 
> How bad would be the vignetting be?
> 
> ...



I think that a wider pan cake for FF need sth. like two-digit numbers for vignetting. For vignetting the old EF mount needed more distance between back lens and sensor so they had to bend the light at steeper angles which reduces the vignetting.

Think about f/2.8 20mm which would be the equivalent to the EF 40 (because of flange distance) and a simple construction you would have ~45 degree incidence. Check that in real world trying to view into a cars windows while you have bright light outside.

IMO the new RF mount has the POTENTIAL for BETTER IQ in wide angles and - this was never mentioned - it has the potential to make much smaller 50mm or 85 mm lenses as tele construction (positive front group, negative back(?) group) but for the wide angle section you need larger lenses if you want reasonable vignetting.

Or ... but that is another construction site ("eine andere Baustelle") .. you need sensors which have less reflection under flat angles of incident light ... and maybe Canon is working on that because they have some lenses of high IQ with vignetting on the higher side. The RF35 is one of these lenses.
It would be a big move if Canon has solved the problem with the strong reflection of off axis rays under flat angles: The sensor helps to simplify lens design or to allow better correction of other lens aberrations or have both: simple well corrected lenses!


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 10, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> For RF, the main question I have is whether a new ILC portfolio in the age of the cell phone Borg (consuming the bottom end of the market) still warrants three 50 primes: L + Nice + Budget.
> 
> I expect a nifty fifty $150-ish lens to happen, because they are gateway drugs to buying more lenses. So the question is: will the 'Nice' bucket get a lens with this system?
> 
> ...



I’d say that there is really one RF 85. Two variants.
I’d also say that “budget” isn’t the third bin for a full frame format. 
How about:
1. Exotic/extreme. Cost and weight no object flagship lens. 
2. Pro/Performance. Practical package with premium optics. Not cheap but realistic. 
3. Consumer/light/compact.

Bin 3 is for pancakes, magic zooms (eg 24-240). Not budget. Consider the thought provoking notion that the $450 35mm f1.8 is as low as they will go offering new lenses for RF full frame. $120 40mm EF is an example of the budget category. APS-C is where we may see a $249 kit zoom.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 10, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> One attractive target is the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8. 120grams and 30mm protrusion length. Excellent image quality. Not cheap.
> 
> I’d challenge the designers to an inch of protrusion length. Maybe something clever with a replaceable protective element within that length.




If it's a plastic fantastic / nifty fifty standalone super inexpensive lens: sure. Canon can knock itself out and have a one-off different kind of lens.

But if not, if it's meant to be part of a line of non-L lenses alongside the 35 f/1.8 STM, all bets are off on a nutty one-off design. They can chase a length/weight target (surely), but the feature set / look / feel / handling should resemble the rest of that line of lenses.

- A


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 10, 2020)

The EF 40mm 2.8 is a nice sharp lens but I’ve hardly ever used it. It never looks good on a full frame camera. I think the idea of a pancake and using one are two different things. It’s a great concept and they are a handy storage size but are hard to hold steady on a full frame. 
They will possibly work better on smaller mirrorless cameras. I’m sure they will do a decent 35mm and 50mm 1.4’s for the R.
I think not everyone buying the R (especially the RP) can afford the RF L lens - which are expensive


----------



## slclick (Jan 10, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> The EF 40mm 2.8 is a nice sharp lens but I’ve hardly ever used it. It never looks good on a full frame camera. I think the idea of a pancake and using one are two different things. It’s a great concept and they are a handy storage size but are hard to hold steady on a full frame.
> They will possibly work better on smaller mirrorless cameras. I’m sure they will do a decent 35mm and 50mm 1.4’s for the R.
> I think not everyone buying the R (especially the RP) can afford the RF L lens - which are expensive


You might think it looks good (the images) on a FF body if you used it, lots of glowing reviews, from myself included. Now, if you meant aesthetics...I guess it's ok to care about what others think about the little black rectangle and cylinder you're carrying around. I guess. Now for ergo sake, everyone's hands are different and the combination of camera body type/hands and lens sure can be a factor. I for one use a handstrap 95% of the time so lens size up to a certain extent is not ever an issue on a 5D series body.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> You might think it looks good (the images) on a FF body if you used it, lots of glowing reviews, from myself included. Now, if you meant aesthetics...I guess it's ok to care about what others think about the little black rectangle and cylinder you're carrying around. I guess. Now for ergo sake, everyone's hands are different and the combination of camera body type/hands and lens sure can be a factor. I for one use a handstrap 95% of the time so lens size up to a certain extent is not ever an issue on a 5D series body.




Throw aesthetics out. The EF 40 simply handles funny and is a less fun experience compared to a 'normal' EF lens:

It's weird in my hands on my 5D3. Right hand = money, left hand = reminds me of pinky up wine/tea drinking. And I have pretty ordinary sized hands, slightly on the smaller side.
The focus ring is a crime against humanity -- no resistance, no feel, and half-shutter down to drive it? 

Whatever crappier variant of STM it has is not a satisfying stills experience. I want the bullet 'on' of USM.
I'm OCD about packing it away while the inner barrel is pushed out, and unlike a mechanically focusing lens, I have to power it back on to get it to collapse back down.
Sounds like a quiet version of a desktop scanner when it moves through the focus range.
Mounting it requires (b/c of thickness) your fingers to be very close the mount, and our hands aren't always so clean when we're out in the world.
(Never bought the hood or a CPL for it, so I won't comment there. But I'm sure CR peeps have thoughts.)
Glad to own the lens, it's a wonderful bargain. It takes lovely shots. Canon should make more pancakes.

But for more reasons than I can enumerate above, I choose the EF 35 f/2 IS USM or EF 50 f/1.4 USM over that almost every time.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 11, 2020)

I have ZERO issues with it ergonomically, even with very large hands  but as I stated, YMMV. That's what makes the world go round, unless you are one of those 'I don't like it so no one should have it' people, which we have learned earlier from CanonFanBoy, those people suck. I actually sold both my 35 f/2 IS and 50 1.4 because they could not match the color rendering of the 40 nor the perspective.

Touche' Adam! (This thread beats the pants off the 1DX3 bitching and moaning posts)


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree, but Canon's approach was different:
> 
> Canon was offering those non-L primes in two instances (24 and 28) two full stops slower than a traditionally 'high end' f/1.4 prime --> Nikon did not do that
> Canon thought people wanted IS more than pure lens speed and would pay just as much for it --> Nikon did not do that



I think Canon's problem is the f/2.8 IS primes compete with the f/2.8 IS-less zooms. I usually have the EF 27-40mm f/2.8L mkII on my camera. I wouldn't switch to an f/2.8 prime just to get IS. I would for an extra stop, so I bought the 35mm f/2 IS USM. I don't have free cash for the f/1.4L primes, so I didn't buy the 24mm.

If Canon released a 20mm f/1.8, or f/2 IS, I would have bought it.


----------



## tron (Jan 11, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> PRIORITIES:
> 
> 1) MUST be portable otherwise what's the point. My gauge is: doesn't stick out farther than the right grip.
> 
> ...


 35/2.0 is not necessary. There is a RF35 1.8 IS macro


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Jan 11, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I strongly disagree with that. The 40mm length would not be considered the classic 35mm or the ubiquitous 50mm that tradition has drummed into people are the 'right' focal lengths. Further, how many people choose the 35mm f2 IS over the 35mm f1.4 L if they could buy either? I'd guess very very few (apart from me), f2 just isn't considered a premium/serious aperture.


I owned the 35 F1.4L before getting the 35 F2 IS. I sold the L after realizing that I was always using the F2 IS lens when I wanted 35.


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 11, 2020)

Canon not brining out another 50 1.4 after 20 + years boggles the mind, but then it doesn't - these are the guys that had the same sensor throughout manyyyy years of rebels and M bodies, and to a lesser extent the FF sensors.

All I want is IS for christs sakes. Thankfully I dont listen to any of the ramblings of the _"you dont need IS.."_ useless crowd  - many of us already know it's always useful and canon should have made it a years ago.

Thankfully, my 50 1.4 has been going strong for many fashion weeks (14 so far), but under 2.8, the focus is horrendously unreliable. I'd like to finally have a 1.4 option (hell, even f2!).

Cmon canon, hopefully they have had their buts kicked enough that they will address all the holes in the cheese. Because lord the non-L 50's are a big one. Huuuuuuuge even.


----------



## slclick (Jan 11, 2020)

There is a giant difference between the 'useless crowd' as you say, of those who tell others they don't need IS or anything for that matter and those of us who say they personally don't want or need it. One is rational the other inane. There is also the 3rd camp who believe stabilization is only particularly useful at certain focal lengths and therefore glass based IS is fine for those people. This is not an all or nothing issue.

I for one do not list it as a need to me to jump to the R ecosystem. There are many other things above that in my list.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 11, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I think Canon's problem is the f/2.8 IS primes compete with the f/2.8 IS-less zooms. I usually have the EF 27-40mm f/2.8L mkII on my camera. I wouldn't switch to an f/2.8 prime just to get IS. I would for an extra stop, so I bought the 35mm f/2 IS USM. I don't have free cash for the f/1.4L primes, so I didn't buy the 24mm.
> 
> If Canon released a 20mm f/1.8, or f/2 IS, I would have bought it.




The 24 f/2.8 IS or 28 f/2.8 IS are not quicker than EF zooms, but they are smaller, have IS and cost considerably less than an f/2.8 zoom. They have a reason to be in the EF lineup, surely. (But the 35 f/2 IS is a stop quicker than the zoom and isn't that big. I'm guessing it dramatically outsells the 24 IS and 28 IS.)

But now, _if all the RF f/2.8 zooms have IS_, Canon may have to give the non-L value proposition a rethink. Perhaps all the non-L RF primes could...

Move to something quicker than the EF f/2.8 primes (say f/1.8 or f/2)
Offer new clever designs to be remarkably small
Every FL of prime doubles as a 1:2 macro?
The first option above would seem to make the most business sense. Folks pay for speed. 

- A


----------



## brad-man (Jan 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The 24 f/2.8 IS or 28 f/2.8 IS are not quicker than EF zooms, but they are smaller, have IS and cost considerably less than an f/2.8 zoom. They have a reason to be in the EF lineup, surely. (But the 35 f/2 IS is a stop quicker than the zoom and isn't that big. I'm guessing it dramatically outsells the 24 IS and 28 IS.)
> 
> But now, _if all the RF f/2.8 zooms have IS_, Canon may have to give the non-L value proposition a rethink. Perhaps all the non-L RF primes could...
> 
> ...


It's already the case. Every single non L RF prime has IS and is faster than 2.8...


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> There is a giant difference between the 'useless crowd' as you say, of those who tell others they don't need IS or anything for that matter and those of us who say they personally don't want or need it. One is rational the other inane. There is also the 3rd camp who believe stabilization is only particularly useful at certain focal lengths and therefore glass based IS is fine for those people. This is not an all or nothing issue.




In EF, IS is comprehensively useful if you [cannot bring/control the light] + [you are shooting handheld] + [your subject/material can handle a slower shutter]. Since that describes probably (idk) 80% of what I shoot, I always prefer it on a lens. At any FL. 

And this notion gets reinforced in odd ways. In one example, my EF 16-35 f/4L IS is meant (for me) for landscapes on a tripod, so IS isn't really why I bought it -- I just wanted a sharp landscaping lens that allowed use of the Lee 4x4 / 4x6 system. But on vaca in cities I almost always bring that lens without a tripod, and wouldn't you know that IS is super handy to shoot The Vasa, the interior of Notre Dame, the interior of the Guggenheim, a handheld nighttime cityscape where you want to stop down for sunstars, etc. It lets you bring the ISO down to earth or pull off something you otherwise wouldn't be able to do.

_...but the RF mount is going to get IBIS someday._ That could certainly change the purchasing calculus for me. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 11, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> The non L lenses are for buyers for whom lenses aren’t important enough to spend a couple hundred dollars extra.




...or for folks who want IS when the L doesn't offer it
...or for folks who value zoom reach over sharpness (24-240 vs. 24-105 or 24-70)
...or for folks who want glass that isn't conspicuous or winds up their subjects like a big L pickle jar might
...or for folks who want a smaller/lighter lens so they can carry more of them or carry a smaller bag so that they will take it out with them more often

Consider: not every non-L lens is a crappier version of an identical L that sits above it price-wise. Therefore, there are reasons to want a lens other than which one is globally, incontrovertibly the 'best.' Perhaps a rumor of a non-L lens is not just chance to save a buck: it's a chance to get the lens we actually need.

But it's _super_ fun to have someone else simplify my needs into that of an unserious cheapskate. *Do* go on.

- A


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...or for folks who want IS when the L doesn't offer it
> ...or for folks who value zoom reach over sharpness (24-240 vs. 24-105 or 24-70)
> ...or for folks who want glass that isn't conspicuous or winds up their subjects like a big L pickle jar might
> ...or for folks who want a smaller/lighter lens so they can carry more of them or carry a smaller bag so that they will take it out with them more often
> ...



My apologies. I must have misunderstood your post. I’m not sure I yet understand it so I’ll let it speak for itself.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 11, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> The non L lenses are for buyers for whom lenses aren’t important enough to spend a couple hundred dollars extra.



And some people have bought four L zooms, and don't have the extra grand+ per L prime to spend.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 11, 2020)

I'd like to see slow/lightweight/non-bulky f/1.8-f/2.8 EF R primes available before I buy into the R system. 20mm and 85mm added to the present 35mm f/1.8 would make a good start. I always use flash, Speedlites or studio strobes—so I have non need for f/0.95. f/1.2 or f/1.4. Plus I have no need for hokey-bokey (wasn't that a title of a childrens song?)


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 12, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> And some people have bought four L zooms, and don't have the extra grand+ per L prime to spend.



I made my point poorly. I had hoped to convey that the cost of an L should not be a critical concern to someone who has a critical need. If you need a greater 50mm f1.4 than current offerings then it should be tolerable if the lens that meets your most important need is an L.

in reality I also love cheap fun lenses for my less than critical needs. My three year old is showing an interest in my camera and has happily taken it from me to shoot some shots of Dad. He help press the shutter for some picture window squirrel shots. He saw my new 400 and said (paraphrasing) “Wow! Big lens, Dad!”


----------



## slclick (Jan 12, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I made my point poorly. I had hoped to convey that the cost of an L should not be a critical concern to someone who has a critical need. If you need a greater 50mm f1.4 than current offerings then it should be tolerable if the lens that meets your most important need is an L.
> 
> in reality I also love cheap fun lenses for my less than critical needs. My three year old is showing an interest in my camera and has happily taken it from me to shoot some shots of Dad. He help press the shutter for some picture window squirrel shots. He saw my new 400 and said (paraphrasing) “Wow! Big lens, Dad!”


Yeah, that reads much better, thanks.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jan 12, 2020)

I hope this lets me sneak the EOS R into concerts and events.


----------



## jedy (Jan 12, 2020)

Considering Sony have some fairly decent f1.8 lenses (no real wide options yet other than 28mm f2), Canon really need to get at least a wide a 50mm and an 85mm f1.8 trio out in order to compete for sales. Concentration on the higher end lenses is all very well but for the majority of photographers who don’t need or can’t afford L lenses, there’s next to nothing, other than adapting EF glass. One inexpensive prime this year is a bit poor though. How long will people need to wait for a decent trio of inexpensive glass? This prime better be a 50mm. All camera systems need a reasonably priced 50mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> One attractive target is the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8. 120grams and 30mm protrusion length. Excellent image quality. Not cheap.
> 
> I’d challenge the designers to an inch of protrusion length. Maybe something clever with a replaceable protective element within that length.



The only budget prime in the entire RF line at this point is a 35mm. We're not getting another budget 35mm for a while. We'll get a 24mm, 50mm , and 85mm before we see another 35mm below $1K.


----------



## lawny13 (Jan 13, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Remains to be seen how quickly Canon will flesh out the cheaper end of the RF platform.
> 
> Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic:
> 
> ...



But... the EF 50 stm is almost an affront to the RF line. It is soft wide open, it experiences focus shift, and it is noisy and not quite fast to focus. So compared to the RF 35 it is definitely a step back. 

I am not saying that canon needs to make a $500 50, but at least RF 35 level good. As you say the 50s tend to be easier to design and make. So they should do RF 35 level optics and build and prices it accordingly. And if they could throw in some weather sealing that would be great. 

For example the 40 stm is definitely a step up over the 50 stm, and it isn't $500. Consider also that all the competition has 50s at $250 and up.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 13, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The only budget prime in the entire RF line at this point is a 35mm. We're not getting another budget 35mm for a while. We'll get a 24mm, 50mm , and 85mm before we see another 35mm below $1K.



I’m not predicting or advising an offering. I’m pointing to a realistic compact design target.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 13, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The EF 50 f/1.4 can get a _bit_ better optically in that $400-500ish price point but not like the Sigma Art or anything like that due to the really simple double gauss design it uses. To really jump it up in IQ it needs to 'jump the retrofocal cliff' and get big, huge and expensive. I don't ever see that happening in a non-L.
> 
> But it's AF could get worrrrrrrrrlds better (slay the micro, move to ring) and IS could be implemented without too much fuss / size / weight. Not much glass in there to corral and keep honest.
> 
> - A



With the new molded aspherical capabilities being used in inexpensive lenses and other such things like new glass formulas would make an improvement with a simpler design.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> For example the 40 stm is definitely a step up over the 50 stm, and it isn't $500. Consider also that all the competition has 50s at $250 and up.




But that pancake is not f/1.8 and that is key. Remember the ancient 50 f/1.8 II was intended to be the beginner's first prime, the opportunity to play with a smaller DOF (it also was a nice portraiture option for the millions of folks who bought crop Rebels. It didn't need to be corner to corner sharp or be made of the finest designs/materials. It needed to help beginners (likely slinging around a crop kit lens that is 3+ stops slower at 55mm f/5.6) get some photography wow factor and catch the bug about large aperture benefits so that they would go buy more primes.

What did all of us do when we got our first nifty fifties? We slammed them wide open and played around with what that looked like.

In that regard, the $100-150 50mm f/1.8 STM is doing _exactly_ what it needs to do. I don't see Canon abandoning that.

But perhaps a revised mission statement / tagline for a cheap nifty fifty would be: 'This lens is better than your cell phone's portrait mode or you can have your money back.'

- A


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 13, 2020)

Stepping back, I have some observations on this topic. Three categories that most comments by most contributors fall into:
1. What I want.
2, What I think Canon should do.
3. What I predict Canon will do.

1. For me, what I want (putting aside technical and economic impossibilities), is the smallest possible pancake (anywhere in the 28-50 range). The RF 35mm 1.8 is close enough but bulkier than I'd prefer. The irritant of macro hunting might lead me to dump the RF 35 if a better redundant one came a long. I just tested the RF 50 1.2 and much prefer the light weight and wider angle of the 35 for daily family life shots (interior "street" photography).

1a. I also want some RF attention for the big whites: Dedicated adapters with matching white color, and teleconverters with adapter length built in. As well as a true factory conversion that replaces the rear housing on a big white 400 IS III with an RF mount rear housing.

2. Canon should review all the internal market data they have and we don't, and build cameras and lenses to maximize profit in the medium to long term.

3. I predict that Canon following #2 will mean little attention to EF, mostly RF lenses and mirrorless, mostly profitable L lenses to bring the pros to mirrorless (budget conscious consumers will follow and have adapters for now) with a few quality consumer lenses but nothing very cheap except for kit zooms for an APS-C mirrorless. OVF and flipping mirrors will be as anachronistic in 5 years as film was 5 years after the first major DSLR. I predict more lenses that the purists bemoan because they rely on camera corrections to provide quality. The real future magic is in the camera, not the lens. 

3A. I predict that 300mm f2.8 IS III ($7999) will be an RF lens with a removable de-adapter for EF. OD is fine if that's what it takes to get it under 2000g. I probably won't buy one anyway as the gap between 200 and 400 in my collection isn't worth worrying about. Unless they can cut an inch off the overall length and let the EF holdouts live with the IS II as a parallel offering. Collapsible for storage?

3B. I predict that many comments here in the years ahead will actually offer the contributor's answer to #1 while presenting it as their answer to #2. And I'll enjoy reading them all.


----------



## lawny13 (Jan 14, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> But that pancake is not f/1.8 and that is key. Remember the ancient 50 f/1.8 II was intended to be the beginner's first prime, the opportunity to play with a smaller DOF (it also was a nice portraiture option for the millions of folks who bought crop Rebels. It didn't need to be corner to corner sharp or be made of the finest designs/materials. It needed to help beginners (likely slinging around a crop kit lens that is 3+ stops slower at 55mm f/5.6) get some photography wow factor and catch the bug about large aperture benefits so that they would go buy more primes.
> 
> What did all of us do when we got our first nifty fifties? We slammed them wide open and played around with what that looked like.
> 
> ...



True... however you had the f1.8 the f1.4 and the f1.2 as options. That f1.4 was key, since people could step things up and get it. So I don't see why canon would release a 100 dollar 50 and a 3k 50 and nothing in between. So if they don't intend to come out with a f1.4 then they should do a bit better than the STM for the RF mount. 

For example, what does the competition have? The FE50 from sony is not a"great" lens, but it is optically better than the 50 stm.50 mm is like THE normal prime. So it makes sense to come out with something decent for consumers. Heck canon also needs to consider the Nikon option. Again... doesn't have to be to that level. But with the 50 stm already being adaptable, and I expect loads of people just have one to put on their R, then they need to give us a good ready to get the RF version. IS and better IQ for example. 

In fact considering that the adapter is bundled with mode of the RF bodies, beginners still have the choice to just adapt the STM. So it would make sense for canon to not copy it exactly.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 14, 2020)

Could it be that the market data shows that 50mm is no longer the desired “normal” by some shooters (like me)? If you looked at 35-40mm offerings you’ll find some well positioned lenses that fill the gaps at Canon and Sony/Zeiss. 

It may be that the casual shooters are wider shooters. 

It may be that gains in image quality enjoyed in cameras and lenses can be used to make a 35 (or even 28?) a “crop to 50” normal as needed. My old Fuji X100 taught me that. And my preference may change as the kids grow and I’m not in close on the floor for typical shots where wider makes sense.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 14, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> [..] But with the 50 stm already being adaptable, and I expect loads of people just have one to put on their R, then they need to give us a good ready to get the RF version. IS and better IQ for example.
> 
> In fact considering that the adapter is bundled with mode of the RF bodies, beginners still have the choice to just adapt the STM. So it would make sense for canon to not copy it exactly.



Since I already have the 50 STM and the CPL adapter, an RF 50mm would need to offer a lot more before I'll consider buying it. For me that would be IS, f/1.4 or both. But the pricing would need to work, an f/1.8 IS STM for €200-€300 or an f/1.4 STM for €400-€500. If it's above that the RF f/1.2 becomes an option again, since that can be had for €1600 nowadays.


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 14, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Since I already have the 50 STM and the CPL adapter, an RF 50mm would need to offer a lot more before I'll consider buying it. For me that would be IS, f/1.4 or both. But the pricing would need to work, an f/1.8 IS STM for €200-€300 or an f/1.4 STM for €400-€500. If it's above that the RF f/1.2 becomes an option again, since that can be had for €1600 nowadays.



This support my opinion that when Canon already has a dirt-cheap and capable lens that serves well on an adapter, they don't need to invest any time soon in a cheap RF lens. 

Never mind the specs, but there is room for a $500-1000 50mm for RF before too long.


----------



## lawny13 (Jan 14, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Could it be that the market data shows that 50mm is no longer the desired “normal” by some shooters (like me)? If you looked at 35-40mm offerings you’ll find some well positioned lenses that fill the gaps at Canon and Sony/Zeiss.
> 
> It may be that the casual shooters are wider shooters.
> 
> It may be that gains in image quality enjoyed in cameras and lenses can be used to make a 35 (or even 28?) a “crop to 50” normal as needed. My old Fuji X100 taught me that. And my preference may change as the kids grow and I’m not in close on the floor for typical shots where wider makes sense.



well the issue with your comment shows up when you mention Fuji. That’s a crop. So a 50 on FF is like a 35 on crop. That 35 or 28 on crop is already around 50 FF equivalent.

so in terms of FF Equivalence shooting 35mm on FF is like 23 on crop.To crop such an image to give that 50 look you would be throwing out a whole lot of MPs. Don’t see the point of going from a 30MP image on my R to 10MP.

anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.




Which is why EF-M got the 32mm f/1.4 STM.

Speaking of that, here is the number of primes faster than f/2.8 for each mount:

EF-S: 0 (in the history of that mount, wow)
EF-M: 2

If curious -- non-L EF offerings here:
28 1.8* / 35 2* / 35 2 IS / 50 1.4 / 50 1.8 II* / 50 1.8 STM / 50 2.5 compact macro* / 85 1.8 / 100 2*

*now discontinued

So, over time between EF-S and EF-M, Canon appears to see _*more*_ opportunity (either in lens sales or existence of such lenses pulling folks into the system) in quick + not super pricey primes for crop... yet it can't find the gumption to do something similar for EF. Sadness.

- A


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 14, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> well the issue with your comment shows up when you mention Fuji. That’s a crop. So a 50 on FF is like a 35 on crop. That 35 or 28 on crop is already around 50 FF equivalent.
> 
> so in terms of FF Equivalence shooting 35mm on FF is like 23 on crop.To crop such an image to give that 50 look you would be throwing out a whole lot of MPs. Don’t see the point of going from a 30MP image on my R to 10MP.
> 
> anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.



I understand how crop sensors work. The Fuji has a 23mm lens that provides the 35mm equivalent angle of view I was saying I have come to prefer as a “normal” lens given the high IQ that enables cropping to 50 equivalent


----------



## slclick (Jan 14, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> well the issue with your comment shows up when you mention Fuji. That’s a crop. So a 50 on FF is like a 35 on crop. That 35 or 28 on crop is already around 50 FF equivalent.
> 
> so in terms of FF Equivalence shooting 35mm on FF is like 23 on crop.To crop such an image to give that 50 look you would be throwing out a whole lot of MPs. Don’t see the point of going from a 30MP image on my R to 10MP.
> 
> anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.


43mm focal length for the human eye a few experts say. Maybe this is why I prefer the 40 over the 50 as well as over the 35.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2020)

slclick said:


> 43mm focal length for the human eye a few experts say. Maybe this is why I prefer the 40 over the 50 as well as over the 35.




I have a different perspective.

Simple capturing of my life, family, interests, etc. = 28-35mm. I love informal environmental work, candids, activities, and putting people in context in a bigger scene. It also tends to be a great all-around FL for a host of types of photography. So if I only get one lens and my 24-70 f/4 is off the table, it's a good bet I head out with my 28 or 35. So I'm not surprised to see cell phone cameras started around these FLs before they started offering different FLs and superwide selfies and what not.

Getting pop / isolation from a lens = 50mm and up. For some reason, 50 f/1.4 is this nice inflection point for bokeh / lens size / not too long to get great iso and pop without always needing to back up.

I suppose I should love something exotic like a 35 f/1.0 more -- so I'd get isolation and pop in my preferred FL range. But a simple DG 50 is amazing at generating isolation in a small package. I think that's why I love it so much (and would love a better one).

- A


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 16, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I’m not predicting or advising an offering. I’m pointing to a realistic compact design target.



Realistic design and realistic marketing decisions are two different things. The engineers don't get a green light until the marketing department decides they can make money with such a lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 16, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> But... the EF 50 stm is almost an affront to the RF line. It is soft wide open, it experiences focus shift, and it is noisy and not quite fast to focus. So compared to the RF 35 it is definitely a step back.
> 
> I am not saying that canon needs to make a $500 50, but at least RF 35 level good. As you say the 50s tend to be easier to design and make. So they should do RF 35 level optics and build and prices it accordingly. And if they could throw in some weather sealing that would be great.
> 
> For example the 40 stm is definitely a step up over the 50 stm, and it isn't $500. Consider also that all the competition has 50s at $250 and up.



I rarely shoot at f/2.8 or narrower with my EF 50mm f/1.4, so the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is not a step up for me for most of what I do with a 50mm. It's not a step up for a 35mm f/2 when you need to use an aperture wider than f/2.8, either. Stopped down to f/2.8, the EF 50mm f/1.4 holds its own against the EF 40mm f/2.8.

Canon also has a 50mm at $250 and up: The EF 50mm f/1.4. Sure, the AF could use an update/upgrade, but optically it's no worse than other $500 or less 50mm lenses from other makers.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Which is why EF-M got the 32mm f/1.4 STM.
> 
> Speaking of that, here is the number of primes faster than f/2.8 for each mount:
> 
> ...



When was the 100/2 discontinued?


----------



## slclick (Jan 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> When was the 100/2 discontinued?


According to Wiki (so it's not necessarily true...) It is still in production. 




__





Canon EF 100mm lens - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> According to Wiki (so it's not necessarily true...) It is still in production.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



B&H and Adorama show it as discontinued. Wiki probably hasn't been updated since it was discontinued. It was still available new at all of the major retailers in 2016 when I bought a refurbished EF 100mm f/2 from Canon's (US) refurb store.


----------



## Dexter75 (Jan 23, 2020)

Only one inexpensive RF lens coming this entire year? This is getting ridiculous. It’s going on two years and we still only have ONE RF lens under $1k. About to sell my RP, EF lenses and switch systems, I’m not interested in buying any more 30 year old EF lenses And I’m not spending an absurd $2300+ to get new lenses.


----------



## Joules (Jan 24, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Only one inexpensive RF lens coming this entire year? This is getting ridiculous. It’s going on two years and we still only have ONE RF lens under $1k. About to sell my RP, EF lenses and switch systems, I’m not interested in buying any more 30 year old EF lenses And I’m not spending an absurd $2300+ to get new lenses.


Do you know all the lenses scheduled to be released this year, or where did you get the notion that this will be the only lower cost one?

Also, we have 2 sub 1k lenses in the RF 35mm and 24-240mm already.


----------



## koketso (Jan 27, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> I hope it's a $500 lens like RF 35mm/1.8 and not a $100 cheapo lens like EF 50/1.8. We've been waiting for a moderately priced decent 50mm prime for years, Canon!


50mm f/1.8 STM is a gem. Canon will simply re-make it with RF mount, better build, and of course... no IS. Tamron will then come in 2 years later with an RF-mount version of their SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC to fill the gap and price it between $699 - $799.


----------



## Karlbug (Jan 27, 2020)

koketso said:


> 50mm f/1.8 STM is a gem. Canon will simply re-make it with RF mount, better build, and of course... no IS.



I have it, I use it, it makes sense in EF lineup... but it is soft without contrast until f/2.8, it's slow to focus and it can have unpleasant bokeh. I doubt RF version would be much better for just $100.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> 40 just gives a look the *YAWN* 50 cannot. It is the ultimate semi wide walk around (for me)


By the rule of thumb that the “normal” focal length equals the diagonal of the sensor, a “normal” lens on “full frame” would be about 43mm. So 50mm would be slightly telephoto, and 40mm would be barely wide angle. It is not unreasonable that some folks use 35mm as their “normal” lens.

I bought the 50mm f/1.4 for my Rebel to use as a quasi 80mm, portrait lens, etc. I haven’t found a reason to use it on my full-frame DSLR.


----------



## lawny13 (Jan 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I rarely shoot at f/2.8 or narrower with my EF 50mm f/1.4, so the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is not a step up for me for most of what I do with a 50mm. It's not a step up for a 35mm f/2 when you need to use an aperture wider than f/2.8, either. Stopped down to f/2.8, the EF 50mm f/1.4 holds its own against the EF 40mm f/2.8.
> 
> Canon also has a 50mm at $250 and up: The EF 50mm f/1.4. Sure, the AF could use an update/upgrade, but optically it's no worse than other $500 or less 50mm lenses from other makers.




Of course this stuff isn't apples to apples. When I state that the 40 stm is a step up it is in every respect except the obvious, which is the aperture. But it is sharper wide open, it is quite to focus and it seems to be build better than the 50 stm. So... Of course I want a 50 f1.8 or f1.4. Just don't want an RF version like the nifty fifty. I would prefer all of that but with the above mentioned improvements.Smoother/quieter AF, better build, and better IQ across the aperture settings.

As for the EF 50 f1.4. I know of it, and I have used it, but it definitely needs an update. The whole thing about the AF motor and how fragile it is if you push on the front of the lens always put me off from getting it.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 30, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I hear you, and I really appreciate the post.
> 
> I was fully expecting Canon to push limits and put out sexy kit to establish RF as a top platform, and they did not disappoint. We will continue to see really high end glass come out over the next few years as they build up the RF portfolio, and our jaws will continue to drop as they put out some yowza glass -- a really high end 135, perhaps a coma obliterating astro UWA prime, etc.
> 
> ...


I think YuengLinger makes some good points. It seems, though, like Canon has made newer, decent, small IS versions of 24 mm, 28 mm, and 35 mm in EF, and now a new, decent, small IS 35 mm in RF, but still no new, decent, small IS in 50 mm. That still seems very odd to me. I'm with ahsandord, give me a 50 mm f/1.8 or f/2, with IS, and decent (not world-class) IQ, like the EF 35 f/2 IS or RF 35 f/1.8 STM IS. Why do 24, 28, and 35 get more love from Canon than 50?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Of course this stuff isn't apples to apples. When I state that the 40 stm is a step up it is in every respect except the obvious, which is the aperture. But it is sharper wide open, it is quite to focus and it seems to be build better than the 50 stm. So... Of course I want a 50 f1.8 or f1.4. Just don't want an RF version like the nifty fifty. I would prefer all of that but with the above mentioned improvements.Smoother/quieter AF, better build, and better IQ across the aperture settings.
> 
> As for the EF 50 f1.4. I know of it, and I have used it, but it definitely needs an update. The whole thing about the AF motor and how fragile it is if you push on the front of the lens always put me off from getting it.




In other words, you're dissing a lens you've never used while talking to someone who uses it often, and has been using the same copy for around a decade (in which it has yet to spontaneously combust - all internet chatter about it aside)?


----------



## lawny13 (Jan 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> In other words, you're dissing a lens you've never used while talking to someone who uses it often, and has been using the same copy for around a decade (in which it has yet to spontaneously combust - all internet chatter about it aside)?



So I said that I know the lens and have used it. And your reply is that I never used it?

I make informed decisions. The friend I borrowed it from (for a month) warned me about the AF motor and the internet confirmed it. It was his second copy as the first one suffered from the issue. But ya... thanks for the non-constructive and snippy comment.


----------



## BillB (Jan 31, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> I think YuengLinger makes some good points. It seems, though, like Canon has made newer, decent, small IS versions of 24 mm, 28 mm, and 35 mm in EF, and now a new, decent, small IS 35 mm in RF, but still no new, decent, small IS in 50 mm. That still seems very odd to me. I'm with ahsandord, give me a 50 mm f/1.8 or f/2, with IS, and decent (not world-class) IQ, like the EF 35 f/2 IS or RF 35 f/1.8 STM IS. Why do 24, 28, and 35 get more love from Canon than 50?


My guess is that Canon has decided that there isn't a lot of money to be made in developing and marketing new, small, decent IQ primes with IS at a price point of around $500 when they have put a lot of work into some pretty good zooms that sell for around $1000. 

The EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 doesn't cost much more than a 35mm f2.0 IS, and apparently a RF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 is on the way. For an enthusiast on a tight budget, the less expensive Canon zooms look pretty good. I've been there. I have a 28 f2.8 IS, but I wouldn't have bought it if the EF 16-35 f4 had been available then. Much as I like the 28, I haven't used it much since I got the 16-35.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 31, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> The friend I borrowed it from (for a month) warned me about the AF motor and the internet confirmed it. It was his second copy as the first one suffered from the issue.


I never experienced any problems with my copy. I used it on my Rebel, but I don't see why that would be a factor. It made good, clear pictures with blurry enough backgrounds when I chose to open it up an appropriate amount for the shot.

As I said above, I haven't had occasion to use it on my full-frame camera. The kit zoom covers that focal length just fine, and I bought a reconditioned 85mm f/1.8 to use for portraits. But if I felt a sudden need to use a 50mm f/1.4 lens, I wouldn't hesitate to use it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 1, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> So I said that I know the lens and have used it. And your reply is that I never used it?
> 
> I make informed decisions. The friend I borrowed it from (for a month) warned me about the AF motor and the internet confirmed it. It was his second copy as the first one suffered from the issue. But ya... thanks for the non-constructive and snippy comment.



Okay, I'll revise that.

In other words, you're dissing a lens you've used for less than a month but never owned while talking to someone who uses it often, and has been using the same copy for around a decade (in which it has yet to spontaneously combust - all internet chatter about it aside)? And you let hearsay found on the internet that your friend repeated while owning a working copy of said lens affect your opinion of it more than your actual experience using it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 1, 2020)

BillB said:


> My guess is that Canon has decided that there isn't a lot of money to be made in developing and marketing new, small, decent IQ primes with IS at a price point of around $500 when they have put a lot of work into some pretty good zooms that sell for around $1000.
> 
> The EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 doesn't cost much more than a 35mm f2.0 IS, and apparently a RF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 is on the way. For an enthusiast on a tight budget, the less expensive Canon zooms look pretty good. I've been there. I have a 28 f2.8 IS, but I wouldn't have bought it if the EF 16-35 f4 had been available then. Much as I like the 28, I haven't used it much since I got the 16-35.




I could be totally wrong here, but I'm guessing Canon makes more profit by selling an EF 35mm f/2 IS for $500 than by selling an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II for $1000 or an EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for $650. Especially if they also sell an EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, a 50mm f.1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 to go along with that 35/2...

The level of complexity of a 24-105mm IS zoom compared to 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, or 100mm IS primes is significant.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 1, 2020)

I have thought of a use for the 50mm on my 6D2: Somewhere in a box in the depths of my walk-in closet is a Spiratone fish-eye adaptor from the 1970s. I think it will fit on a 58mm thread, so could work great on the 50mm. Maybe I will be motivated to find it some day, or I could come across it by accident. I might even shoot some video with it. That could be fun.


----------



## BillB (Feb 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I could be totally wrong here, but I'm guessing Canon makes more profit by selling an EF 35mm f/2 IS for $500 than by selling an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II for $1000 or an EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for $650. Especially if they also sell an EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, a 50mm f.1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 to go along with that 35/2...
> 
> The level of complexity of a 24-105mm IS zoom compared to 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, or 100mm IS primes is significant.


I think a key question is the number of lenses sold, in addition to the profit on each lens sold. I believe that the popular zooms sell in much higher volume than the primes, especially over the last decade or so. We don't know for sure how many people are buying several primes to cover the range of a 24-105, but that is one of the factors Canon would be looking at. Looking at it another way, how many people are there who have an interchangeable lens camera but a do not have a normal zoom?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 1, 2020)

BillB said:


> I think a key question is the number of lenses sold, in addition to the profit on each lens sold. I believe that the popular zooms sell in much higher volume than the primes, especially over the last decade or so. We don't know for sure how many people are buying several primes to cover the range of a 24-105, but that is one of the factors Canon would be looking at. Looking at it another way, how many people are there who have an interchangeable lens camera but a do not have a normal zoom?



How many ILC owners have a normal zoom that was bought separately from the camera, which gave them a significant discount on the cost of the lens, thus cutting Canon's profit on the lens?

I'd be willing to bet there are more Canon EF camera owners who bought a prime (the EF 50mm f/1.8, to be sure) than who bought another normal zoom beyond the one that came with their camera. If they later bought another zoom, it is most likely an EF 55-250mm or an EF 70-300mm (or third party equivalents).


----------



## stevelee (Feb 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How many ILC owners have a normal zoom that was bought separately from the camera, which gave them a significant discount on the cost of the lens, thus cutting CAnon's profit on the lens?


That wasn’t the case when I bought the 6D2 in September after it came out. You could buy the body alone or with a choice of 24-105mm zooms. The kits cost the same as if you bought the body and lens separately.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 2, 2020)

stevelee said:


> That wasn’t the case when I bought the 6D2 in September after it came out. You could buy the body alone or with a choice of 24-105mm zooms. The kits cost the same as if you bought the body and lens separately.



I got my 5D Mark II + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS "kit" for only $600 more than the 5D Mark II body only was going for at a time when the lens was selling for $1,100 in the U.S. That's been a while, though.

But here we're talking mostly about Rebels and 18-55mm kit lenses, not mid to upper tier bodies and L series "kit" lenses. How many Rebel + 18-55mm kits has Canon sold for each FF body + 24-105mm L "kit" they've sold?


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I got my 5D Mark II + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS "kit" for only $600 more than the 5D Mark II body only was going for at a time when the lens was selling for $1,100 in the U.S. That's been a while, though.



Stores around here sold EF 24-105mm mkI for $600 for a very long time. That was possible because it was sold with at least two different models of the 5D, so whenever a photographer came in to upgrade the camera, but not the lens, so the store could take the lens out of the box and sell it separately.

IIRC, it was speculated on the forum that one of the reasons for the mkII's release was to put a stop to that.



Michael Clark said:


> But here we're talking mostly about Rebels and 18-55mm kit lenses, not mid to upper tier bodies and L series "kit" lenses. How many Rebel + 18-55mm kits has Canon sold for each FF body + 24-105mm L "kit" they've sold?



I'm sure the Rebel kits outsell the FF kits, but that owners of FF cameras buy more primes, with the possible exception of 50mm f/1.8.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 2, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> Stores around here sold EF 24-105mm mkI for $600 for a very long time. That was possible because it was sold with at least two different models of the 5D, so whenever a photographer came in to upgrade the camera, but not the lens, so the store could take the lens out of the box and sell it separately.
> 
> IIRC, it was speculated on the forum that one of the reasons for the mkII's release was to put a stop to that.



It wasn't until around 2013 when the street price of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS dropped from around $1,100 to $800 in retail packaging from authorized dealers. That's a long time from 2005 when the lens was first introduced and only three years before it was replaced in 2016. "White box" prices are an entirely different discussion when comparing a retail boxed Camera + lens kit price to the cost of buying a retail boxed lens bought seperately from a retail boxed camera.

The basic cause seemed to be the free fall of the yen versus the USD that allowed gray market importers to buy them in Hong Kong and sell them in the U.S. for well less than the list price. After 2013 or so, a lot of what buyers thought were "white box" lenses (lenses pulled from kits) turned out to be "gray market" instead.




uri.raz said:


> I'm sure the Rebel kits outsell the FF kits, but that owners of FF cameras buy more primes, with the possible exception of 50mm f/1.8.



Owners of FF cameras probably buy more zooms _and_ primes than owners of Rebels. But there are a *LOT* more Rebels than FF Canon cameras that have been bought over the years.

My initial observation was that buyers of Rebels, who vastly outnumber buyers of FF cameras, rarely buy a normal zoom other than the one that came with the camera when it was purchased.


----------



## Pape (Feb 2, 2020)

slclick said:


> 43mm focal length for the human eye a few experts say. Maybe this is why I prefer the 40 over the 50 as well as over the 35.


Hmm for me perspective looks same when i use 70mm ,is it cause i am big dude or becouse eyeglasses?
Could it be moving toward 35mm becouse asian peoples are very short and so their head quite small?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 2, 2020)

Pape said:


> Hmm for me perspective looks same when i use 70mm ,is it cause i am big dude or becouse eyeglasses?



Perspective has nothing to do with focal length. It's determined by position of the eye (or camera) and the relative distances of various objects one is looking at.

The whole "human eye equals 40mm/45mm/50mm" thing is a misunderstanding of mixing up _magnifications_ when lenses were combined with typical viewfinders during the SLR era and comparing focal lengths to 135 format diagonal measurements.

If I look through a camera viewfinder with my right eye and leave my left eye open I will see an object in front of me with both eyes. If the apparent sizes are the same for both eyes, we would say the lens system (consisting of the total combination of elements in the camera lens as well as the mirror, viewscreen/focusing screen, prism, and eyepiece elements in the viewfinder) to be a magnification of 1X. If the object looks twice as large with my right eye, we would say the magnification is 2X. If the object looks half as large as seen with the right eye via the viewfinder then we would say the magnification is 0.5X.

Now let's discuss the viewfinders in typical SLR cameras. How large something appears when viewed in a camera's eyepiece depends on two factors:


The focal length of the lens. This affects the size of objects as they are projected on the camera's focusing screen (sometimes also called a viewscreen) as well as projected on the camera's imaging medium. Since the mirrors in every SLR I have ever seen are flat, they provide no magnification as they flip the image up onto the focusing screen. The same is true of the pentaprism or pentamirror in the viewfinder. Since all of the reflecting surfaces are flat they provide no magnification.
The magnification of the eyepiece. The lenses in a camera's eyepiece are very much like the lenses in a telescope or binocular eyepiece. They provide a magnification, usually a fractional one (that is they make things smaller), and project collimated light through the exit pupil. Our eyes then focus on this collimated light to view the image through the eyepiece. The size of the cylinder (or rectangle) of collimated light projected by the eyepiece is called the exit pupil size.
Many, if not most, 35mm SLR cameras during the second half of the 20th century had viewfinders that provided magnification similar to each other. With a 55-60mm lens attached the apparent magnification was about 1X. That means what we saw through the viewfinder with our right eye was approximately the same size as what we saw with our unaided left eye looking directly at the same scene.

The following cameras listed with their viewfinder magnifications with a 50mm lens focused at infinity: Canon F1 - 0.8X, Nikon F - 0.8X, Canon AE-1 - 0.86X, Minolta X-570 - 0.9X, Pentax K2 - 0.88X, Pentax ME-F - 0.87X. A 0.9X viewfinder would give 1X apparent magnification at roughly 55mm, a 0.8X viewfinder would do so at roughly 62mm. 

In the digital age that standardization has been severely altered. Cameras have a wide variety of sensor sizes. Viewfinder sizes vary more from camera to camera. In the manual focus only portion (which was most) of the film era even lower priced cameras needed large, bright viewfinders to enable their users to focus them properly. With the advent of autofocus large bright viewfinders have become more of a luxury than a necessity and are seen mostly on the more expensive models. Differences in sensor sizes affect how much magnification is needed for the viewfinder to display approximately the same field of view as the FoV the imaging sensor will capture. It can take anywhere from 50mm to 70mm to get 1X viewfinder magnification, depending on the camera, sensor size, and viewfinder size. *All of Canon's FF cameras with 0.71X VF magnification require a 70mm lens to give the same magnification of distant objects as the naked eye sees. *

If you're using a 5D, 5D Mark II, III, or IV, 5Ds/5Ds R, or a 6D/6D Mark II, then your perception that a 70mm lens makes an object look the same size in the viewfinder as it looks to your naked eye, you are spot on!


----------



## Pape (Feb 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Perspective has nothing to do with focal length. It's determined by position of the eye (or camera) and the relative distances of various objects one is looking at.
> 
> The whole "human eye equals 40mm/45mm/50mm" thing is a misunderstanding of mixing up _magnifications_ when lenses were combined with typical viewfinders during the SLR era and comparing focal lengths to 135 format diagonal measurements.
> 
> ...


Thanks i never realized videfinder is x 0,71  . My understanding of physic and camera tech is bit limited.
But doesnt it affect how we like about picture ,how close ours natural eye focal lenght it is . So if we want impress ours 160cm tall wife 40mm pancake could be perfect.
Could be error to use lens we like ,because we arent photographing for ouselves.


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 2, 2020)

BillB said:


> My guess is that Canon has decided that there isn't a lot of money to be made in developing and marketing new, small, decent IQ primes with IS at a price point of around $500 when they have put a lot of work into some pretty good zooms that sell for around $1000.
> 
> The EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 doesn't cost much more than a 35mm f2.0 IS, and apparently a RF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 is on the way. For an enthusiast on a tight budget, the less expensive Canon zooms look pretty good. I've been there. I have a 28 f2.8 IS, but I wouldn't have bought it if the EF 16-35 f4 had been available then. Much as I like the 28, I haven't used it much since I got the 16-35.


You’re probably right. I still wonder, though, why they did the 24, 28, and 35 before a 50, and then decided not to do any more.


----------



## BillB (Feb 2, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> You’re probably right. I still wonder, though, why they did the 24, 28, and 35 before a 50, and then decided not to do any more.


Canon still sells a lot of EF 50mm f1.4 lenses for less than $350, and stopped down it is pretty sharp, even though there are people here who don't think much of it. The 24 ,28 and 35 IS lenses replaced lenses that were about as old as the 50 f1.4, but the IS lenses were introduced in 2012 in the $800 range, maybe because of exchange rates, and Canon took a lot of grief about the price. I think Canon has been wary about the small prime market ever since.


----------



## lawny13 (Feb 3, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Okay, I'll revise that.
> 
> In other words, you're dissing a lens you've used for less than a month but never owned while talking to someone who uses it often, and has been using the same copy for around a decade (in which it has yet to spontaneously combust - all internet chatter about it aside)? And you let hearsay found on the internet that your friend repeated while owning a working copy of said lens affect your opinion of it more than your actual experience using it?
> 
> ...



You I don't know. My friend I do. He told me to be careful with applying any pressure on the lens because in his experience what you can find online about it potentially damaging the motor is true. 

So am I supposed to take his word on this or yours? Am I dissing the optical quality of the lens? Nope, not at all. I liked the images I was getting using it. So... i took his warning and look it up online and found that it is statistically a known weak point of the lens. As such I opted to getting the stm version while I wait for canon to release a native RF f1.8 or f1.4. I don't get why making an informed decision like that irks you. 

The RF lenses are of newer design. Silent AF system, with the control ring, and other modern tech advantages. So why wouldn't I prefer that over picking up the 50 f1.4?


----------



## lawny13 (Feb 3, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I never experienced any problems with my copy. I used it on my Rebel, but I don't see why that would be a factor. It made good, clear pictures with blurry enough backgrounds when I chose to open it up an appropriate amount for the shot.
> 
> As I said above, I haven't had occasion to use it on my full-frame camera. The kit zoom covers that focal length just fine, and I bought a reconditioned 85mm f/1.8 to use for portraits. But if I felt a sudden need to use a 50mm f/1.4 lens, I wouldn't hesitate to use it.



Again... the issue is not with the lens performance in general. 

But, apparently it can mess up the AF motor is pressure is applied to the front and thus the AF motor. I didn't exactly test out. How much pressure is needed to mess it up? Simply putting the lens on a table reading on the front won't do anything. But how about with the camera's weight on it, like a 1DXII? How about it is in my camera back and my kid sits on it? Yes, it is something that shouldn't happen, but 4 year olds aren't exactly logical. 

I ... ME... personally didn't want to take the risk and opted to just go cheap with the stm version while I wait for the RF. How does that not make sense?


----------



## koketso (Feb 3, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> I have it, I use it, it makes sense in EF lineup... but it is soft without contrast until f/2.8, it's slow to focus and it can have unpleasant bokeh. I doubt RF version would be much better for just $100.


Remember... The 50mm f/1.8 is made to target a specific price point. There will be other RF lenses for better IQ, contrast, bokeh, and for Tamron's case... IS. Samyang/Rokinon and Zeiss will follow up with the improved-IQ alternatives, Sigma will follow up with an f/1.4 Art.

It's called the nifty fifty for a reason.
For the casual shooter and hobbyist, a plastic fantastic RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will be the first addition to their kit and cost between the current EF 50mm STM and the RF 35mm because of the custom ring. Wait and see.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 3, 2020)

koketso said:


> Remember... The 50mm f/1.8 is made to target a specific price point. There will be other RF lenses for better IQ, contrast, bokeh, and for Tamron's case... IS. Samyang/Rokinon and Zeiss will follow up with the improved-IQ alternatives, Sigma will follow up with an f/1.4 Art.
> 
> It's called the nifty fifty for a reason.
> For the casual shooter and hobbyist, a plastic fantastic RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will be the first addition to their kit and cost between the current EF 50mm STM and the RF 35mm because of the custom ring. Wait and see.



Sure, the nifty fifty is likely the best selling Canon lens. The question is: is it sold mostly to fullframe users as a standard lens or to the crop users as a cheap portrait lens? If it's the second case, then it doesn't make sense to offer it in RF mount. Also: Does it still make sense to offer three 50mm lenses (1.2, 1.4, 1.8)? If not and if Canon introduces cheapo RF 50mm, than our chances for an affordable stabilized 50mm lens are slim.

About Tamron/Rokinon RF lenses... I think we still don't know if they can make native RF mount lenses. Sure, there is Rokinon RF lens with autofocus, but we don't know if it's RF-protocol lens or and EF-protocol lens. (*If someone knows more about this, then I am all ears!*) It may sound like a detail, but EF lenses have some limitations. They cannot have a control ring, they don't support high speed display mode and they will probably not support combination of IBIS+IS and other high speed communication demanding things. I wouldn't want a 3rd party RF lens now.

It may very well make sense for Canon to make this lens. It just doesn't make sense for me to buy it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> You I don't know. My friend I do. He told me to be careful with applying any pressure on the lens because in his experience what you can find online about it potentially damaging the motor is true.
> 
> So am I supposed to take his word on this or yours? Am I dissing the optical quality of the lens? Nope, not at all. I liked the images I was getting using it. So... i took his warning and look it up online and found that it is statistically a known weak point of the lens. As such I opted to getting the stm version while I wait for canon to release a native RF f1.8 or f1.4. I don't get why making an informed decision like that irks you.
> 
> The RF lenses are of newer design. Silent AF system, with the control ring, and other modern tech advantages. So why wouldn't I prefer that over picking up the 50 f1.4?



Making a fully informed decision doesn't irk me. Making a blanket statement implying that all EF 50mm f/1.4 lenses have the issues that a few in isolated batches (which Canon recalled based on serial number range and fixed at no charge - even if the lens was out of warranty) by only telling part of the story is what irks me.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> You’re probably right. I still wonder, though, why they did the 24, 28, and 35 before a 50, and then decided not to do any more.



Most likely the 24, 28, and 35 didn't sell as well as Canon had hoped.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> Again... the issue is not with the lens performance in general.
> 
> But, apparently it can mess up the AF motor is pressure is applied to the front and thus the AF motor. I didn't exactly test out. How much pressure is needed to mess it up? Simply putting the lens on a table reading on the front won't do anything. But how about with the camera's weight on it, like a 1DXII? How about it is in my camera back and my kid sits on it? Yes, it is something that shouldn't happen, but 4 year olds aren't exactly logical.
> 
> I ... ME... personally didn't want to take the risk and opted to just go cheap with the stm version while I wait for the RF. How does that not make sense?



The issue was not with the AF motor directly, it was with the front of the slots on the focusing helicoid at the front of the lens. If the lens was extended (for close focus) and enough lateral force was applied to the extended portion of the lens, the slots could be deformed. This deformation caused too much moving resistance causing the focus position to get stuck and would then put too much load on the AF motor when it was attempting to move the focus position. If the user continued to try and get the lens to AF while stuck, it could eventually burn out the directly geared motor.

When the lens is focused at infinity and the front barrel is fully retracted it is not any more susceptible to damage than any other similar lens. The issue only manifests itself when it receives a lateral blow and the front of the lens is extended. I've always stored all of my lenses with them retracted, both in terms of zoom movements and focus movements. For most lenses that means infinity focus and shortest focal length. For a few zoom lenses (like 18-55mm kit lenses), that means a mid focal length where the optical formula shifts from a retrofocus to a non-retrofocus design based on the relative distances of the different groups.

The amount of lateral force needed to deform the slots would not be provided by the static weight of a camera body, even a 1-series. It would take a pretty good bump or drop to do it. Then it would take a user continually trying to AF the lens when it was stuck to damage the AF motor. If the user doesn't let the AF motor continually engage while the focus mechanism is stuck, it doesn't damage the AF motor. There are plenty of instructions that can be found on the internet on how to fix the shape of the bent helicoid slots that is a fairly easy DIY project.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> About Tamron/Rokinon RF lenses... I think we still don't know if they can make native RF mount lenses. Sure, there is Rokinon RF lens with autofocus, but we don't know if it's RF-protocol lens or and EF-protocol lens. (*If someone knows more about this, then I am all ears!*) It may sound like a detail, but EF lenses have some limitations. They cannot have a control ring, they don't support high speed display mode and they will probably not support combination of IBIS+IS and other high speed communication demanding things. I wouldn't want a 3rd party RF lens now.
> 
> It may very well make sense for Canon to make this lens. It just doesn't make sense for me to buy it.



The RF protocol is an enhanced EF protocol. No EF lens loses anything it can do on an EF camera when it is used on an RF camera instead. Nothing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> Sure, the nifty fifty is likely the best selling Canon lens. The question is: is it sold mostly to fullframe users as a standard lens or to the crop users as a cheap portrait lens? If it's the second case, then it doesn't make sense to offer it in RF mount. Also: Does it still make sense to offer three 50mm lenses (1.2, 1.4, 1.8)? If not and if Canon introduces cheapo RF 50mm, than our chances for an affordable stabilized 50mm lens are slim.



EF 50mm f/1.8 II was a best seller long before digital EF mount cameras, and thus APS-C format EF mount cameras, existed.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The RF protocol is an enhanced EF protocol. No EF lens loses anything it can do on an EF camera when it is used on an RF camera instead. Nothing.



I agree. What I said is that EF lenses may loose some things in comparison with RF lenses – right now it's the high speed display mode (no big deal). What this means for future fast communication demanding things is unknown.



Michael Clark said:


> EF 50mm f/1.8 II was a best seller long before digital EF mount cameras, and thus APS-C format EF mount cameras, existed.



Thanks for clarifying. Do you think it makes sense for Canon to sell three versions of 50mm lens in RF mount?


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 4, 2020)

Joules said:


> Do you know all the lenses scheduled to be released this year, or where did you get the notion that this will be the only lower cost one?
> 
> Also, we have 2 sub 1k lenses in the RF 35mm and 24-240mm already.



There is no roadmap for 2020 and Canon has shown they are committed to nothing but massive, expensive lenses. Two lenses under $2200, wow neat.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 4, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> There is no roadmap for 2020 and Canon has shown they are committed to nothing but massive, expensive lenses. Two lenses under $2200, wow neat.



Granted I have nothing to go on but impressions I've picked up "out there" and on these forums, but I think what we've seen so far in RF land is Canon putting out two good (but not superlative) bodies to establish a mirrorless/full frame presence, and a bunch of actually spectacular lenses, showing their strength, while developing a couple of superlative bodies. The R and RP, and those lenses, were an announcement of Canon's arrival...now we see a variety of bodies and we'll more than likely see some "regular people" RF lenses, too. That's been a lower priority because an EF+adapter could do the job too. But as more people move away from EF mounts, there's more reason for Canon to produce native RF lenses that do the same things EF lenses are already capable of.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 4, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Granted I have nothing to go on but impressions I've picked up "out there" and on these forums, but I think what we've seen so far in RF land is Canon putting out two good (but not superlative) bodies to establish a mirrorless/full frame presence, and a bunch of actually spectacular lenses, showing their strength, while developing a couple of superlative bodies. The R and RP, and those lenses, were an announcement of Canon's arrival...now we see a variety of bodies and we'll more than likely see some "regular people" RF lenses, too. That's been a lower priority because an EF+adapter could do the job too. But as more people move away from EF mounts, there's more reason for Canon to produce native RF lenses that do the same things EF lenses are already capable of.



I had the RP and rented the expensive RF lenses. They are really nice but your average buyer isn’t in the market for $2200+ lenses. I’m a professional photographer and I’m not even spending that kind of money, by the time Canon gets around to making lenses for the vast majority of users, it will be too little too late. More people keep moving to other systems daily, Canon should have had at least 4-5 lenses around $500 to go from day 1. A couple walk around zooms and a couple f/1.8 or f/2 primes. Plenty of users would have been more than happy to put those on an RP. I know there is an EF adaptor, I had one. It’s a PITA because it just adds size and weight and makes lenses protrude further out and makes everything front heavy. The lack of affordable lenses is why the R line has sold so poorly, not the bodies.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 4, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I had the RP and rented the expensive RF lenses. They are really nice but your average buyer isn’t in the market for $2200+ lenses. I’m a professional photographer and I’m not even spending that kind of money, by the time Canon gets around to making lenses for the vast majority of users, it will be too little too late. More people keep moving to other systems daily, Canon should have had at least 4-5 lenses around $500 to go from day 1. A couple walk around zooms and a couple f/1.8 or f/2 primes. Plenty of users would have been more than happy to put those on an RP. I know there is an EF adaptor, I had one. It’s a PITA because it just adds size and weight and makes lenses protrude further out and makes everything front heavy. The lack of affordable lenses is why the R line has sold so poorly, not the bodies.



Yup, and that's why Nikon is gaining market share with their S lenses -- oh wait, Nikon is still losing market share. They started with f/4 zooms and f/1.8 primes, and that strategy worked real well...


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

angrykarl said:


> Thanks for clarifying. Do you think it makes sense for Canon to sell three versions of 50mm lens in RF mount?



Until they've filled out a lot of other areas of the RF lens stable, no it doesn't.

Eventually, once 50mm EF lenses are no longer available new, perhaps.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> When the lens is focused at infinity and the front barrel is fully retracted it is not any more susceptible to damage than any other similar lens. The issue only manifests itself when it receives a lateral blow and the front of the lens is extended. I've always stored all of my lenses with them retracted, both in terms of zoom movements and focus movements. For most lenses that means infinity focus and shortest focal length. For a few zoom lenses (like 18-55mm kit lenses), that means a mid focal length where the optical formula shifts from a retrofocus to a non-retrofocus design based on the relative distances of the different groups.



One of the coolest features on the R is that it automatically retracts the focus elements when you turn off the camera. No more needing to do this manually before removing the lens.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 5, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> There is no roadmap for 2020 and Canon has shown they are committed to nothing but massive, expensive lenses. Two lenses under $2200, wow neat.



EF remains the perfectly viable budget option. RF is where they appear to be generating profits (and happy customers).


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 5, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I had the RP and rented the expensive RF lenses. They are really nice but your average buyer isn’t in the market for $2200+ lenses. I’m a professional photographer and I’m not even spending that kind of money, by the time Canon gets around to making lenses for the vast majority of users, it will be too little too late. More people keep moving to other systems daily, Canon should have had at least 4-5 lenses around $500 to go from day 1. A couple walk around zooms and a couple f/1.8 or f/2 primes. Plenty of users would have been more than happy to put those on an RP. I know there is an EF adaptor, I had one. It’s a PITA because it just adds size and weight and makes lenses protrude further out and makes everything front heavy. The lack of affordable lenses is why the R line has sold so poorly, not the bodies.



You might weigh that Canon's market research gives them much better data about the "average buyer" than one person's assumptions, which always are affected by personal bias (talking about me, not you, of course).

See the advice in my signature.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 6, 2020)

Rule556 said:


> One of the coolest features on the R is that it automatically retracts the focus elements when you turn off the camera. No more needing to do this manually before removing the lens.



Meh. I've been in the habit of doing it every time I put a lens/camera with lens mounted away for almost four decades. It took a little retraining myself when focus-by-wire lenses first came out, but I managed. It's second nature.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Meh. I've been in the habit of doing it every time I put a lens/camera with lens mounted away for almost four decades. It took a little retraining myself when focus-by-wire lenses first came out, but I managed. It's second nature.



Well, yeah I get it, I learned on film with manual focus too. Just saying, it’s a nice feature, that will probably save some people’s lenses over time.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 6, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Yup, and that's why Nikon is gaining market share with their S lenses -- oh wait, Nikon is still losing market share. They started with f/4 zooms and f/1.8 primes, and that strategy worked real well...



Nikon is not the same company as Canon last time I checked. The ONLY reason Canon got their marketshare lead was off the backs of great affordable gear like the Rebel series and the 50 f/1.8 It sure as hell wasnt off $3500 cameras and $2k lenses...


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 6, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> EF remains the perfectly viable budget option. RF is where they appear to be generating profits (and happy customers).



no, they don’t, adapters suck, they add size and they add weight. The length of my EF 135 f/2 grew another 3 inches with the adaptor and was ridiculously stupid front heavy on my RP. I was holding the lens, the RP was basically a rear lens cap. An adaptor is not an excuse to be lazy releasing affordable lenses while you are too busy making $3k to drive your profit margins up, that’s why the R has been a dismal failure and has hardly sold anything,


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 6, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> You might weigh that Canon's market research gives them much better data about the "average buyer" than one person's assumptions, which always are affected by personal bias (talking about me, not you, of course).
> 
> See the advice in my signature.



Well if Canons research told them people want overpriced and under speced cameras and $3k lenses, they did a very poor job because that’s not what people want. That’s why the R system was a complete failure from a sales perspective until they slashed the price on the R in half for the holidays,


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 6, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Well if Canons research told them people want overpriced and under speced cameras and $3k lenses, they did a very poor job because that’s not what people want. That’s why the R system was a complete failure from a sales perspective until they slashed the price on the R in half for the holidays,



Has it occurred to you that you might not be the typical Canon buyer, and if they cater to your desires they might not make as much money than if they followed what their data says? 

Nothing wrong with posting an "I want!" post. But don't pretend that it's necessarily "what people want."

That said, I agree that "adapters suck." Even if they function perfectly they are a compromise and not a pleasant one. The deciding factor in my rejecting a big white lens until they make one for the RF. I don't get how a 1" adapter added 3" to your lens.

"I want" a big white made for RF, even if it's the same optics as the EF. If they can make a 3kg 400 f2.8, might they make a 2 kg 300? Or maybe they'll win me to a long zoom to 400 or 500.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 6, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> no, they don’t, adapters suck, they add size and they add weight. The length of my EF 135 f/2 grew another 3 inches with the adaptor and was ridiculously stupid front heavy on my RP. I was holding the lens, the RP was basically a rear lens cap. An adaptor is not an excuse to be lazy releasing affordable lenses while you are too busy making $3k to drive your profit margins up, that’s why the R has been a dismal failure and has hardly sold anything,


Well, sounds like the R/RF system isn't for you. Although it still seems to inspire quite a bit of passion. The rest of us are waiting to see the (apparently large number of) new announcements and releases over the next six months or so. Which we may or may not (depending upon what is actually released and our individual needs) add to the R and RF products we already have and enjoy using.


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Nikon is not the same company as Canon last time I checked. The ONLY reason Canon got their marketshare lead was off the backs of great affordable gear like the Rebel series and the 50 f/1.8 It sure as hell wasnt off $3500 cameras and $2k lenses...


Some of us think that the EF lens mount had something to do with Canon's market share, that and a solid product line and excellent customer support.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 7, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Nikon is not the same company as Canon last time I checked. The ONLY reason Canon got their marketshare lead was off the backs of great affordable gear like the Rebel series and the 50 f/1.8 It sure as hell wasnt off $3500 cameras and $2k lenses...



No, Nikon is not Canon, but they did more of what you wanted Canon to do. Nikon led with better mirrorless bodies and f/1.8 zooms, which is what you wanted, and the results so far is that Nikon did not turn its fortunes around (even if you restrict to FF mirrorless), which is what your logic would have predicted. The bulk of your consumers don't buy f/1.8 lenses either; they buy zooms. which is why most of the EF-M and EF-s lenses are zooms and not primes. They are looking to pair the RP with the RF 24-240 or a 24-105, not f/1.8 primes. The market is contracting, and some think that the volume will go back to the pre-digital days. Back that, zooms were not nearly as good as they are now and they were a lot more expensive compared to primes, which is why primes made more sense then. They don't now. What "average consumer" is going to carry a 24, 35, 50 and a 85mm prime when most already prefer their cell phone to a ILC with just a single general purpose zoom?


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 7, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> No, Nikon is not Canon, but they did more of what you wanted Canon to do. Nikon led with better mirrorless bodies and f/1.8 zooms, which is what you wanted, and the results so far is that Nikon did not turn its fortunes around (even if you restrict to FF mirrorless), which is what your logic would have predicted. The bulk of your consumers don't buy f/1.8 lenses either; they buy zooms. which is why most of the EF-M and EF-s lenses are zooms and not primes. They are looking to pair the RP with the RF 24-240 or a 24-105, not f/1.8 primes. The market is contracting, and some think that the volume will go back to the pre-digital days. Back that, zooms were not nearly as good as they are now and they were a lot more expensive compared to primes, which is why primes made more sense then. They don't now. What "average consumer" is going to carry a 24, 35, 50 and a 85mm prime when most already prefer their cell phone to a ILC with just a single general purpose zoom?



Some good points but the fact remains that the EF 50 f/1.8 is Canons best selling lens of all time. The fact that they did not have an RF version ready to go on day 1 remains a huge oversight, especially with the sub par bodies released.


----------

