# Here is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2020)

> As you know, Canon will soon be announcing the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens. This is a small, light and affordable 50mm option for the EOS R system.
> You can expect an official announcement from Canon soon.



Continue reading...


----------



## marathonman (Oct 29, 2020)

Nifty.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 29, 2020)

Looks like they went for the nifty fifty class, vs the 35/85 class of lens. Not that I'm complaining. No macro capability evident. That bodes well for the 'affordable' price on this. Now we can speculate on what Canon thinks is 'affordable'.


----------



## marathonman (Oct 29, 2020)

Affordable is *******.


----------



## Daner (Oct 29, 2020)

Including this as a kit lens with the RP will be great for lowering the barrier to FF mirrorless.

That being the case, there is nothing to prevent Canon from following this up with an RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro for those who would like the matching set of affordable 35/50/85 IS Macro primes.


----------



## Maru (Oct 29, 2020)

What are the advantages from EF 50mm f1.8


----------



## marathonman (Oct 29, 2020)

Maru said:


> What are the advantages from EF 50mm f1.8



Well, size. Putting an RF-EF adapter on to a lens that is intended to be small negates some of the smallness benefits that small seekers were hoping to achieve in purchasing a small lens.

Control ring.

A feeling of smugness that you have an RF lens versus the peasants that refuse to let go of their EF arsenal.

That's about it.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2020)

A cheep as chips 50mm instead of a cheeper pro lens it seems. I am sure as many others have said though, it'll be great on the RP.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 29, 2020)

Daner said:


> Including this as a kit lens with the RP will be great for lowering the barrier to FF mirrorless.
> 
> That being the case, there is nothing to prevent Canon from following this up with an RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro for those who would like the matching set of affordable 35/50/85 IS Macro primes.



I think a kit lens would most likely be some sort of zoom. They're generally intended to be versatile whereas any prime is inherently a bit specialized.

Nevertheless I'm sure plenty of people will want this lens, and that's what matters. For what it's worth, I'm pretty happy for now with my EF f/1.4, and use primes infrequently enough that I can't justify buying another of the same focal length. I won't be in this market, but I know plenty of other people will be. And expanding the range of choices is a good thing whether or not I'm interested in the new option!


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 29, 2020)

I think this nifty fifty will be telling in terms of Canon's intended direction on price for the whole RF lineup. If it's $120-$150 initial retail, it will indicate that Canon probably intends on fleshing out the RF lineup with roughly equivalently-priced lenses to the old EF system. If it's > that, it means Canon is going to skew things upwards in price generally. Will be interesting to see as an indicator.


----------



## SnowMiku (Oct 29, 2020)

I have the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and I actually like the non rounded bokeh.


----------



## peters (Oct 29, 2020)

Very nice! This looks nearly like a pancake! 
If I use my 40 f2,8 Pancake with the EF R Adapter its probably the same size! 
If image quality is halfwaht decent, that would be a great little lense for travel, street and general walk around =) =)


----------



## IR-Photo-Tours (Oct 29, 2020)

Looks very much like Canon have gone mirrorless through and through, but being a canon user for over 12 years and investing into there stunning L series EF lenses it is very difficult for me to go sell all the ef lenses and jump to the RF lenses, it would for me be too expensive even though I have got an eos R, I think the old nifty 50 will be just as good as the new one personally, at the end of the day it is about the image quality.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 29, 2020)

marathonman said:


> Well, size. Putting an RF-EF adapter on to a lens that is intended to be small negates some of the smallness benefits that small seekers were hoping to achieve in purchasing a small lens.
> 
> Control ring.
> 
> ...



I tried the EF50 f/1.8 STM on my R5 last week and it's by far the worst result among all my EF lenses. It gives a focus confirmation, but it is out of focus 90% of the time with moving subjects. On my 7D and M6II it focusses fine, on the RP I sold it was 'OK', but it the R5 hates it. If I didn't have other cameras to try it on I would've said "broken lens" and chucked it in the recycling bin.

So I'm looking forward to be able to buy some of that smugness and retire this peasant EF lens  I predict that Canon will fix this issue in firmware right after the RF50 STM gets delivered.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 29, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I think this nifty fifty will be telling in terms of Canon's intended direction on price for the whole RF lineup. If it's $120-$150 initial retail, it will indicate that Canon probably intends on fleshing out the RF lineup with roughly equivalently-priced lenses to the old EF system. If it's > that, it means Canon is going to skew things upwards in price generally. Will be interesting to see as an indicator.



I predict something around $200 less than the RF35 since it lacks IS, so it will end up costing $300. For $150 I'd pre-order it the moment it goes live.


----------



## marathonman (Oct 29, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So I'm looking forward to be able to buy some of that smugness and retire this peasant EF lens  I predict that Canon will fix this issue in firmware right after the RF50 STM gets delivered.


That's the spirit! Make sure to walk around and tell everybody how it's just as good as that stupidly large f1.2 50mm for good measure.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 29, 2020)

So cute! The optical design can't be much more complicated than the classic double Gauss of the EF nifty fifty, so it's interesting to see if they've managed to improve IQ at f/1.8.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Oct 29, 2020)

I wonder if will use the same filter size than the 35mm 1.8. Shame that this 50 is not IS/macro, but pancake size looks great! Let's see for the price tag


----------



## dancan (Oct 29, 2020)

marathonman said:


> Affordable is *******.


Am I the only one who can't see these "*******" messages any more?


----------



## LesC (Oct 29, 2020)

Nice! I bet it will still be twice the price of the EF version though - $199/£199 ?

Just from an aesthetic point of view, I don't like the way the lens barrel protrudes from the front of the lens as with the RF35. Just me I guess ...


----------



## Mahk43 (Oct 29, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I tried the EF50 f/1.8 STM on my R5 last week and it's by far the worst result among all my EF lenses. It gives a focus confirmation, but it is out of focus 90% of the time with moving subjects.



I have the same issue with my R.
I wanted something compact with a 50 and not a 35, but it is not so compact with the ring adapter, and quality is bad. Let's see what this RF50 can do


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 29, 2020)

Mahk43 said:


> I have the same issue with my R.
> I wanted something compact with a 50 and not a 35, but it is not so compact with the ring adapter, and quality is bad. Let's see what this RF50 can do



For stationary things the EF50 delivers great results, especially if I run it through DPP4+DLO first. If only my kids would stay still and pose for the candids 
It still lacks contrast, but sharpness is suprisingly OK at 45MP. Provided it focussed properly.


----------



## derpderp (Oct 29, 2020)

this better cost more than $300.


----------



## ctk (Oct 29, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> So cute! The optical design can't be much more complicated than the classic double Gauss of the EF nifty fifty, so it's interesting to see if they've managed to improve IQ at f/1.8.


I'm honestly going to be pissed off if they didn't. All the EF 50 1.8s were terrible. I was hoping for a little more optical complexity. Hopefully they managed to improve the IQ through coatings and exotic elements. Also hoping they made the front element big enough to minimize vignetting. I like my 35 1.8 and really want a 50 that matches (or improves on) its performance.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 29, 2020)

ctk said:


> [..] Also hoping they made the front element big enough to minimize vignetting[..]



If Canon designed this with IBIS in mind, the image circle should be big, which gives me good hopes for the vignetting.


----------



## fred (Oct 29, 2020)

Nikon Z 50mm F1.8S (€500) *≈ *Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 (€750) >>> Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM (€300?)
Is it just me or was anyone else hoping for a high-end 50mm F1.8 (like Nikon, Sony) with internal autofocus (≠ RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM)?


----------



## fred (Oct 29, 2020)

That external autofocus on the RF 35mm F1.8 is an absolute joke indeed!!


----------



## mpb001 (Oct 29, 2020)

It would have been nice to see IS added to this lens, but I guess the way Canon is going most of their future cameras will have IBIS anyway. IBIS will eventually just be accepted as standard on most mirrorless bodies.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Oct 29, 2020)

Not macro like 35/85 and not IS also. I was expecting a little more from Canon on this one. I feel that in 50mm area Canon is always not giving their best in affordable versions...


----------



## ctk (Oct 29, 2020)

fred said:


> Nikon Z 50mm F1.8S (€500) *≈ *Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 (€750) >>> Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM (€300?)
> Is it just me or was anyone else hoping for a high-end 50mm F1.8 (like Nikon, Sony) with internal autofocus (≠ RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM)?


No, not me. I was hoping for something with similar IQ to the 35 1.8 in a 50mm FL. I couldn't care less about internal focus or fancy build quality. None of that has an effect on image quality and AF performance is acceptable.


----------



## esglord (Oct 29, 2020)

I'm glad there is no IS here. Don't want to pay extra for it on an f/1.8 at this focal length. Different strokes for different folks though I guess.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Oct 29, 2020)

Oh No!.. I like it... More money to shell out... 

Looks like a pancake


----------



## OTMT (Oct 29, 2020)

I've been anticipating this lens since I bought my R last year. I'm def sad about the lack of IS and Macro, but the size (and hopefully price) makes up for that. 

I'm guessing it will be around $200, but I would be a bit shocked if this lense cost more than $250. A $200 price point would make it a perfect first prime for the 24-105 f/4-7.1 buyers.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 29, 2020)

fred said:


> Nikon Z 50mm F1.8S (€500) *≈ *Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 (€750) >>> Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM (€300?)
> Is it just me or was anyone else hoping for a high-end 50mm F1.8 (like Nikon, Sony) with internal autofocus (≠ RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM)?


it's probably far less than the 300. while it probably has a more complex design than the EF 50mm F1.8, it's most likely not as complex as the RF 35mm

While people may have wanted a "better" lens, this lens has always been a go-to first prime lens for the EF mount, I don't think Canon wanted to put it out of the reach of all photographers.


----------



## mccasi (Oct 29, 2020)

cute indeed!
no IS makes it worse for the RP (and R) though, primes don't need IS usually ofc because they're faster, but if the whole package is so lightweight and 50mm (~ iphone 11/12 tele lens) tends to get shaky already, i'd say with an RP you could not hit the 1/100 reliably and the ISO on the RP isn't that great.
Minor gripe, but I always thought they would design it with the RP in mind.
Probably 4 stops with R5/R6, don't think they add much of an extra image circle, but still that's 16/50 ~ 1/3 second handholdable


----------



## Traveler (Oct 29, 2020)

mariosk1gr said:


> Not macro like 35/85 and not IS also. I was expecting a little more from Canon on this one. I feel that in 50mm area Canon is always not giving their best in affordable versions...


They always have to chose what the selling point is. The RF 35mm is a universal lens (IS, half macro, reasonable quality). The 50mm’s selling point is small and hopefully cheap. 
IS or macro would make it more expensive and bigger. 
I think it’s a good choice. If you need macro or IS you can chose the 85 or 35 and there’s this tiny 50mm


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 29, 2020)

LesC said:


> Just from an aesthetic point of view, I don't like the way the lens barrel protrudes from the front of the lens as with the RF35. Just me I guess ...



Given that the size practically necessitates external focusing, it would be difficult to attach filters if the barrel didn't protrude.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 29, 2020)

As we mentioned in our article https://www.canonnews.com/first-look-at-the-canon-rf-50mm-f18-is-stm

I suspect this is the element design. Similar to the EF 50mm, but a little more complex.


----------



## TMHKR (Oct 29, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> On my 7D and M6II it focusses fine, on the RP I sold it was 'OK', but it the R5 hates it. If I didn't have other cameras to try it on I would've said "broken lens" and chucked it in the recycling bin.


EF 50mm STM has by far the worst version of STM, the gear-type one. Unlike its lead-type counterpart (which can be found in STM kit lenses), it's much slower and less accurate when you shoot through viewfinder on DSLR cameras.


----------



## heysavnac (Oct 29, 2020)

No IS, or 1:2 Macro Capability like it’s wider and medium tele siblings? I believe they did this to minimize the size and maintain the “nifty fifty” design to avoid making an oversized (for 50mm) big one like Nikons. I am glad they went this route, I’d rather have a tiny 50mm with no IS than to have a bigger one with a function my R6 already has. As for macro, 50mm isn’t really practical for it anyways, (neither is 35), and although it would’ve been nice, I’m ok with sacrificing it for a smaller size.

*I do have one question. *We notice there is only one ring, which explains the Focus and Control switch. My question is, will that engage the click for Control function, and disengage the click for Focus function? I guess we will see.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 29, 2020)

hmm... 

It seems Canon continues the road that no midrange 50 mm (e.g. 50/1.4 IS or /1.8 IS) is needed. 
Now let's see the price.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 29, 2020)

fred said:


> That external autofocus on the RF 35mm F1.8 is an absolute joke indeed!!


I've never heard of "external autofocus" (I've never considered that lens). What do you mean by this (I'm genuinely curious)?


----------



## Sludz (Oct 29, 2020)

soooo many feelings on this. I would love for canon to consider a mid range 50, it’s just been too dang long. I sold my EF 50 1.2 before switching to the new mount because it was just too fussy and I grew to dislike it. I thought I’d pick up the new 1.2, but then I up and preordered the c70 which took the rest of my lens funds. Was really hoping to get a sibling to the RF 35 but despite all that I do understand needing a nifty lil fella’.


----------



## Mr.Burberry (Oct 29, 2020)

IR-Photo-Tours said:


> Looks very much like Canon have gone mirrorless through and through, but being a canon user for over 12 years and investing into there stunning L series EF lenses it is very difficult for me to go sell all the ef lenses and jump to the RF lenses, it would for me be too expensive even though I have got an eos R, I think the old nifty 50 will be just as good as the new one personally, at the end of the day it is about the image quality.


Then stick to your EF lenses. No one is pressing you to switch. Keep your quality L glass and enjoy it.


----------



## Joules (Oct 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I've never heard of "external autofocus" (I've never considered that lens). What do you mean by this (I'm genuinely curious)?


As the focus moves, so does the front of the lens. Internal focusing lenses don't change size while changing focus.


----------



## fred (Oct 29, 2020)

It‘s fairly obvious I think. Just watch Christopher Frost’s video on YT for example, he always tests the handling and also autofocus speed/noise seperately. The front element (or whatever) extends while focussing. It feels like a point-and-shot compact camera from the early 2000s. In the 2020s and in such a high-end system, it is an absolute NO. Only Fuji retro fanboy hipsters will accept such a thing (they’ll even praise it!).


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 29, 2020)

Joules said:


> As the focus moves, so does the front of the lens. Internal focusing lenses don't change size while changing focus.


Thanks, Joules!
Ahhh, yes I've seen that in lots of lenses. I just didn't know it was called that, but it makes perfect sense.


----------



## ildyria (Oct 29, 2020)

Maru said:


> What are the advantages from EF 50mm f1.8


12 FPS mechanical


----------



## esglord (Oct 29, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> hmm...
> 
> It seems Canon continues the road that no midrange 50 mm (e.g. 50/1.4 IS or /1.8 IS) is needed.
> Now let's see the price.


I was thinking the opposite. If this comes in small and cheap, there is a lot of room in between it and the large, expensive f/1.2L to be able to offer a high quality 50/1.4 at a different price point. I hope they do, but could take a couple years.


----------



## mangobutter (Oct 29, 2020)

I wonder what the optical formula is? I can't imagine a double gauss design for FF mirrorless... I love the size though!


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 29, 2020)

Nice, if this is 300 or under I'll pick one up for the hell of it. 

Seeing this though, I am 100% convinced this means Canon will release an RF 50mm F/1.4 IS. This is a cheap nifty fifty without IS and doesn't even have a dedicated focus or control ring. They have the low end and the high end, I have no doubt there will be a midrange option between 600-1200 versus the very expensive F/1.2. In my opinion it sets the stage for a line up exactly like the EF 85mm line up.


----------



## mangobutter (Oct 29, 2020)

fred said:


> It‘s fairly obvious I think. Just watch Christopher Frost’s video on YT for example, he always tests the handling and also autofocus speed/noise seperately. The front element (or whatever) extends while focussing. It feels like a point-and-shot compact camera from the early 2000s. In the 2020s and in such a high-end system, it is an absolute NO. Only Fuji retro fanboy hipsters will accept such a thing (they’ll even praise it!).



External focus keeps a lens compact not only when storing, but for most of its usage. For example since the RF 35 Macro does... well... macro, it needs to extend far. If this was internally focusing, you'd have a much bigger lens (like the Nikon Z 35) for 99% of its use... when NOT in macro.

I fully appreciate both style of lenses depending on the application. I like my lenses to store compactly as possible... a la RF 70-200.


----------



## mangobutter (Oct 29, 2020)

fred said:


> That external autofocus on the RF 35mm F1.8 is an absolute joke indeed!!



The external focus on the RF 35 is absolutely GRAND and high end. The reason is because it's a macro lens and it keeps the lens compact. Having internal focus on this lens would cause it to be 2-3" longer. The lens is NOT extended that far out unless you're shooting macro ALL the time. 

So absolutely praise the Canon engineers for making the right call.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 29, 2020)

fred said:


> Nikon Z 50mm F1.8S (€500) *≈ *Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 (€750) >>> Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM (€300?)
> Is it just me or was anyone else hoping for a high-end 50mm F1.8 (like Nikon, Sony) with internal autofocus (≠ RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM)?



This is more likely the plastic fantastic, only in the RF version. A more featured version would be a f/1.4, hopefully with IS and better IQ.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 29, 2020)

Yeah I hate to be a Goldilocks, but I was hoping for a lens just like the RF 35mm; two rings, modern optics. And sure, I'm projecting without full specs--this will prolly be a fine lens. It'll certainly fill the niche until an *f/1.4 L* comes out......


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 29, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I wonder what the optical formula is? I can't imagine a double gauss design for FF mirrorless... I love the size though!



See canonnews's comment earlier in this thread.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> This is more likely the plastic fantastic, only in the RF version. A more featured version would be a f/1.4, hopefully with IS and better IQ.



I don't think it has to be a 1.4 to be more featured. But we do have the tide turned on the f/1.8 lenses by Nikon as they have put out excellent pro level f/1.8 lenses and now on Canon we have huge f/1.2s or decidedly non L f/1.8s & f/2.0s. It'll depend what each companies road map is going to be, I am wondering what Nikon's non S primes will be or if they are only covering that with zooms.

Personally I would like f/1.8 L lenses from Canon to complement the f/1.2's. No compromises, you just pick the light one or the black hole depending on task.


----------



## VICYASA (Oct 29, 2020)

I'm new to photography... if I pair this with the EOS r5, what are the best situations for this lens and why should I get one? What can I shoot, theoretically, what it can be used best for?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 29, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> I'm new to photography... if I pair this with the EOS r5, what are the best situations for this lens and why should I get one? What can I shoot, theoretically, what it can be used best for?



A 50mm like this would get you most walkabout and full body portraits. It is a great lens for walking about a market to get shots that take in some of the context of your subject. Though, if you are new consider the 24-105 f/4 to give you shots you can't get on a phone.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Nice, if this is 300 or under I'll pick one up for the hell of it.
> 
> Seeing this though, I am 100% convinced this means Canon will release an RF 50mm F/1.4 IS. This is a cheap nifty fifty without IS and doesn't even have a dedicated focus or control ring. They have the low end and the high end, I have no doubt there will be a midrange option between 600-1200 versus the very expensive F/1.2. In my opinion it sets the stage for a line up exactly like the EF 85mm line up.



That would be the sweet spot for me. The EF f/1.4 is fairly economical, but the price takes a HUGE jump going up to 1.2. I tend to buy at the "knee" in the price curve unless I really do need the killer top-end item.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 29, 2020)

canonnews said:


> it's probably far less than the 300. while it probably has a more complex design than the EF 50mm F1.8, it's most likely not as complex as the RF 35mm
> 
> While people may have wanted a "better" lens, this lens has always been a go-to first prime lens for the EF mount, I don't think Canon wanted to put it out of the reach of all photographers.



I think Canon needs a middle 50mm. Too much price gap between this under $300 lens and the RF501.2 which is over $2000


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 29, 2020)

Maru said:


> What are the advantages from EF 50mm f1.8


Advantages over what?


----------



## fariff (Oct 29, 2020)

This is a terribly crude way of comparing the size but it does look very compact - the RF35 protrudes just about 3 inches and the RF50 looks like it’s just 2. Hope the image quality is as good as the RF35. The RF50 and the RP would make a great lightweight combo.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Oct 29, 2020)

peters said:


> Very nice! This looks nearly like a pancake!
> If I use my 40 f2,8 Pancake with the EF R Adapter its probably the same size!
> If image quality is halfwaht decent, that would be a great little lense for travel, street and general walk around =) =)



I do the same thing. I’m. Really hoping for a real pancake 40mm, though this doesn’t look much longer than their EF pancakes.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Oct 29, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I think this nifty fifty will be telling in terms of Canon's intended direction on price for the whole RF lineup. If it's $120-$150 initial retail, it will indicate that Canon probably intends on fleshing out the RF lineup with roughly equivalently-priced lenses to the old EF system. If it's > that, it means Canon is going to skew things upwards in price generally. Will be interesting to see as an indicator.



I'm curious as well....Canon is introducing some attachements for cellphones that act as lenses for the cameras on those. If this lens is priced higher it would indicate they're ceding the lower-price-tier completely to cellphones and focusing on more dedicated camera crowds. I'm hoping they don't do that though, it's going to be hard to break into photography if the initial cost is too high, especially if you don't even know if you're going to like it or not.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2020)

fariff said:


> This is a terribly crude way of comparing the size but it does look very compact - the RF35 protrudes just about 3 inches and the RF50 looks like it’s just 2. Hope the image quality is as good as the RF35. The RF50 and the RP would make a great lightweight combo.



This is probably better.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Oct 29, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> I'm new to photography... if I pair this with the EOS r5, what are the best situations for this lens and why should I get one? What can I shoot, theoretically, what it can be used best for?



An R5 is a helluva lot of camera for someone new to photography. Personally I would suggest, if it's not too late, to go R6 and have a lot of money left over for more lenses. Don't let your camera body cost be the reason you go cheap on lenses, it should always be the reverse. It would be even better to get an RP and even more glass (and/or other gear, like filters, a camera bag, a tripod, an external flash, etc.) Then when you figure out what your needs and preferences are, get the right body in the system for that. Might be an R5 but might be whatever supplants it in 2 years, as well.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Oct 29, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I think Canon needs a middle 50mm. Too much price gap between this under $300 lens and the RF501.2 which is over $2000



For sure...I'd pay $800 - $1200 for an RF 50mm f/1.4 IS


----------



## VICYASA (Oct 29, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> An R5 is a helluva lot of camera for someone new to photography. Personally I would suggest, if it's not too late, to go R6 and have a lot of money left over for more lenses. Don't let your camera body cost be the reason you go cheap on lenses, it should always be the reverse. It would be even better to get an RP and even more glass (and/or other gear, like filters, a camera bag, a tripod, an external flash, etc.) Then when you figure out what your needs and preferences are, get the right body in the system for that. Might be an R5 but might be whatever supplants it in 2 years, as well.


I have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. I'm rich, beeyotch. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread. 

Thanks!


----------



## Joules (Oct 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> This is probably better.
> 
> View attachment 193682


What a cute little lens.


----------



## fariff (Oct 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> This is probably better.
> 
> View attachment 193682




Oh much better! Thanks for putting that together!


----------



## Dantana (Oct 29, 2020)

This looks like a cool little lens that will replace my 40mm/adapter combo. I'd also be tempted by a mid-level lens, but it seems that if we are to get one, it will be a little later, which is understandable in a system that has only existed for 2 years. I'm looking forward to seeing some images and test results out of this one.

On a side note, I was very tempted a few months ago when there were a couple discount codes for the Canon refurbished store that seemed to work together. They made the price on the 1.2 much closer to something I could afford.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 29, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> I have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. I'm rich, beeyotch. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread.
> 
> Thanks!



It's a very compact, fairly fast, normal length prime lens, that looks like it will be in the lower price range.


----------



## VICYASA (Oct 29, 2020)

Dantana said:


> It's a very compact, fairly fast, normal length prime lens, that looks like it will be in the lower price range.


Thanks! What situations would you use this lens?


----------



## BakaBokeh (Oct 29, 2020)

Awww. It's a baby!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 29, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I don't think it has to be a 1.4 to be more featured. But we do have the tide turned on the f/1.8 lenses by Nikon as they have put out excellent pro level f/1.8 lenses and now on Canon we have huge f/1.2s or decidedly non L f/1.8s & f/2.0s. It'll depend what each companies road map is going to be, I am wondering what Nikon's non S primes will be or if they are only covering that with zooms.
> 
> Personally I would like f/1.8 L lenses from Canon to complement the f/1.2's. No compromises, you just pick the light one or the black hole depending on task.



It doesn't have to be f/1.4 to be more featured, but it's hard to sell a lens that is f/1.8 at a price higher than f/1.4s from other companies. The max aperture is a top line spec that sells lenses. Plus, EF has the legacy of having f/1.8, f/1.4 and f/1.2 options. A RF f/1.4 will have a lot of leeway to given how small the RF f/1.8 and how large the RF f/1.2L are... in price, IS, size, weight, etc., and it can be priced accordingly.

For now, I like Canon's strategy of lower priced f/1.8-f/2 options rather than Nikon's higher priced S prime options. Given the shrinking market, it's nice to have a lower priced line. The pros and enthusiasts are going to buy what they want, but the camera companies need to sell to those with more limited budgets. Canon came out with 2-lens kits to sell a few years ago. The 50 f/1.8 and EF-S 10-18 kit sells for under $400, and that is something that is "sellable" in big box stores.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 29, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> What can I shoot, theoretically, what it can be used best for?


A 50mm is arguably the most useful lens available. It closely matches the eye's natural perspective, it's small, lighweieght, inexpensive. You could leave it on your camera full-time and never need another lens. You'll likely WANT more, but if you're just beginning it's wise not to go spending money before you know WHY you want another lens. This is the ideal 'starter' lens. You won't regret getting one.

I did all these at 50mm: https://aarondougherty.com/West-Bottoms Though it was with a 24-105 zoom lens, I chose to stick to 50mm to keep that view across all the images.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 29, 2020)

peters said:


> Very nice! This looks nearly like a pancake!
> If I use my 40 f2,8 Pancake with the EF R Adapter its probably the same size!
> If image quality is halfwaht decent, that would be a great little lense for travel, street and general walk around =) =)


not quite, it's probably pretty close to the same size as the original EF 50mm 1.8


----------



## Dantana (Oct 29, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> A 50mm is arguably the most useful lens available. It closely matches the eye's natural perspective, it's small, lighweieght, inexpensive. You could leave it on your camera full-time and never need another lens. You'll likely WANT more, but if you're just beginning it's wise not to go spending money before you know WHY you want another lens. This is the ideal 'starter' lens. You won't regret getting one.
> 
> I did all these at 50mm: https://aarondougherty.com/West-Bottoms Though it was with a 24-105 zoom lens, I chose to stick to 50mm to keep that view across all the images.


Well put. A lens like this used to be the "kit" lens that people would start off with on their SLR. My dad's AE-1, and a 50 1.8 got me a long way until I added a couple other used lenses.

For quite some time the mid range zoom has been used as the kit lens. It gives you more flexibility on focal length with the cost of a smaller aperture and a larger lens. To me, neither approach is wrong or right. Given the option, I may have picked this up with my R instead of the zoom (24-105L), though it is my most used lens and I am happier with it than the EF v1 that it replaced.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 29, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I don't think it has to be a 1.4 to be more featured. But we do have the tide turned on the f/1.8 lenses by Nikon as they have put out excellent pro level f/1.8 lenses and now on Canon we have huge f/1.2s or decidedly non L f/1.8s & f/2.0s. It'll depend what each companies road map is going to be, I am wondering what Nikon's non S primes will be or if they are only covering that with zooms.
> 
> Personally I would like f/1.8 L lenses from Canon to complement the f/1.2's. No compromises, you just pick the light one or the black hole depending on task.


the cool thing about lens ecosystems, is that they can do multiple versions. ie: they can do the 50mm F1.8 STM, and a 50mm F1.8 Macro IS STM.

Nothing what we're seeing here prevents a better F1.8, but having a cheaper RF version of the 50mm F1.8 is an instant win for most photographers.


----------



## Tangent (Oct 29, 2020)

Good optics (better than EF nifty fifty), reasonable price: will buy.
The build quality looks OK to me -- it does still have a metal mount, after all.


----------



## Maru (Oct 29, 2020)

marathonman said:


> Well, size. Putting an RF-EF adapter on to a lens that is intended to be small negates some of the smallness benefits that small seekers were hoping to achieve in purchasing a small lens.
> 
> Control ring.
> 
> ...


I didnt understand 50mm f1.8 use {personally}... it was just something everyone should have so i got it too lol


----------



## SteveC (Oct 29, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Oh, and by the way, what does "beeyotch" mean? - just curious!



I'm going to assume English isn't your first language; if that's wrong I apologize for explaining some things that are obvious to you. It's slang for "bitch" (female dog), which used to just be a derogatory term applied to women, but now seems to be used on everyone.

It's actually an extreme crudity in origin (referring to prison rape; the man being raped is the "bitch" of the man doing the raping). I should hasten to point out that it's very rarely meant that way literally when used casually.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 29, 2020)

esglord said:


> I was thinking the opposite. If this comes in small and cheap, there is a lot of room in between it and the large, expensive f/1.2L to be able to offer a high quality 50/1.4 at a different price point. I hope they do, but could take a couple years.


I really hope you're right! 
But it is interesting they start with the cheapo first - again. And in EF they lost interest in a better 50 mm...


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 29, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Thanks! What situations would you use this lens?



I think the main question to ask yourself is do I need a prime lens or will zoom lenses better suit my needs. 40 years ago when I got my first 35mm SLR, a 50mm was the popular kit lens, but by the time I got my next camera around 1995, zooms had come a long way and I had no need for a prime lens and have never even considered one since. I shoot mostly landscapes, so I never have the need of very shallow Depth of Field - that is one of the benefits of a prime lens. And over the years, zooms have gotten even better, so any increase in sharpness that a prime might provide is not necessary for me. You may feel differently. For myself, the overall composition is one the most important characteristic of a photo, so I will always be choosing the versatillity of a zoom lens. But if I needed a very shallow DOF, then, in many cases, I would be better off with primes, as zooms rarely are faster than f/2.8 (and those are big and expensive) and are more likely f/4 or higher.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 29, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> hmm...
> 
> It seems Canon continues the road that no midrange 50 mm (e.g. 50/1.4 IS or /1.8 IS) is needed.
> Now let's see the price.



I came into this thread to claim the opposite  

With this 50 coming in one the low end, with no IS or macro, with a seemingly simple formula and in a small form factor, this completely opens up the field for a 50/1.4. If this 50/1.8 had the features I mentioned and ran around $500-600, like the 35 and 85, it would be a different story. Without them, we could easily see a 50/1.4 at $1200, IMO.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Nice, if this is 300 or under I'll pick one up for the hell of it.
> 
> Seeing this though, I am 100% convinced this means Canon will release an RF 50mm F/1.4 IS. This is a cheap nifty fifty without IS and doesn't even have a dedicated focus or control ring. They have the low end and the high end, I have no doubt there will be a midrange option between 600-1200 versus the very expensive F/1.2. In my opinion it sets the stage for a line up exactly like the EF 85mm line up.



Strong agree. I think it's the only reasonable conclusion. Ahsanford will be happy!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Nice, if this is 300 or under I'll pick one up for the hell of it.
> 
> Seeing this though, I am 100% convinced this means Canon will release an RF 50mm F/1.4 IS. This is a cheap nifty fifty without IS and doesn't even have a dedicated focus or control ring. They have the low end and the high end, I have no doubt there will be a midrange option between 600-1200 versus the very expensive F/1.2. In my opinion it sets the stage for a line up exactly like the EF 85mm line up.





navastronia said:


> Strong agree. I think it's the only reasonable conclusion. Ahsanford will be happy!


Why? They never brought out an EF 50 f1.4 IS and they could have very easily. It seems unlikely to me given the RF 50 f1.2L has dealt with all the usability issues the EF 50 f1.2L had, like focus accuracy, softness off center, focus creep, etc.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 29, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I think the main question to ask yourself is do I need a prime lens or will zoom lenses better suit my needs. 40 years ago when I got my first 35mm SLR, a 50mm was the popular kit lens, but by the time I got my next camera around 1995, zooms had come a long way and I had no need for a prime lens and have never even considered one since. I shoot mostly landscapes, so I never have the need of very shallow Depth of Field - that is one of the benefits of a prime lens. And over the years, zooms have gotten even better, so any increase in sharpness that a prime might provide is not necessary for me. You may feel differently. For myself, the overall composition is one the most important characteristic of a photo, so I will always be choosing the versatillity of a zoom lens. But if I needed a very shallow DOF, then, in many cases, I would be better off with primes, as zooms rarely are faster than f/2.8 (and those are big and expensive) and are more likely f/4 or higher.



An awesome reply...it gets behind the surface question and gets down to some important principles that a "newbie" (even a rich one) should be asking himself. I should have seen it, as I mostly use zooms myself, but I did not.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 29, 2020)

Some other quick thoughts,

This 50mm is absolutely tiny, like, almost smaller than the tiny EF 50mm. Notice that the silver around the lens mount is the same diameter of the rest of the lens, which makes this lens even smaller in width than the RF 35mm, which grows after the lens mount. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it barely sticks out from beyond the handgrip of the EOS R5, which would make it practically a pancake lens at that point.

My next hope is that the RF 24mm F/1.8 materializes soon with a similar pancake-ish footprint. My current generic travel kit for my EOS R5 is the RF 35mm F/1.8, EF 24-70 F/2.8 with control ring adapter, and RF 70-200mm F/2.8. I honestly mostly grab the EF 24-70 just to get 24mm when I need to go wider than the RF 35mm, so I think in my travel kit I could honestly replace the EF 24-70 with just a RF 24mm F/1.8, which would be brighter and probably barely the size of the control ring adapter on the 24-70. At this rate, I could easily fit a 24mm F/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8 in the space of just the EF 24-70 in my shoulder bag. Not a bad deal at all.

I also wonder if a midrange 50mm F/1.4 IS could end up still being an L-series lens, but along the lines of the 24-105mm F/4L and closer in price to around 800 bucks.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Why? They never brought out an EF 50 f1.4 IS and they could have very easily. It seems unlikely to me given the RF 50 f1.2L has dealt with all the usability issues the EF 50 f1.2L had, like focus accuracy, softness off center, focus creep, etc.



I mean that a 50/1.4 is coming, not that a 50/1.4 IS is coming.


----------



## esglord (Oct 29, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I really hope you're right!
> But it is interesting they start with the cheapo first - again. And in EF they lost interest in a better 50 mm...


Once they've sold as many 1.2's and 1.8's as possible would be the time to announce the 1.4 I suppose


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I mean that a 50/1.4 is coming, not that a 50/1.4 IS is coming.


Yeh... I'm still not convinced. Don't get me wrong I am practically the only member of the 'CR EF 50 f1.4 Appreciation Club' and have extolled it's virtues here many times, but the logic for a three or four tiered 50mm range isn't supported by the current market.

Back in the day it was common to get a 50mm lens in a kit with a body, that kind of flowed over into the digital market but not really very well because most entry level cameras were crop cameras so the focal lengths went out the window. Then as iso performance got better the 'need' and desire for faster lenses waned in the mass market as along with the iso 'correction' for slower apertures the zoom lens image quality got better. Which meant a lens range with a 50 f1.8, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.2 L and 50 2.5 Macro made no sense, 50's might be called the "nifty fifty" but with relatively good general purpose zooms available for not much more money they make little sense and the truth is vastly fewer people buy them nowadays than in years gone by.

This leads me to believe the market for prime lenses will get a lot of market research before being thought about as a production item and we will see far fewer of them as the market is smaller and the perceived need for them has diminished.

However, me personally, and I understand I am a data point of one so am irrelevant, will happily get the RF 35 1.8 and the RF 85 f2.0 when I end up getting an R5.


----------



## cwabramowicz (Oct 29, 2020)

I'm looking forward to this lens, so that I don't have to adapt my EF 50 anymore and double the size of the lens. With the high quality of RF lenses to date, even the cheaper ones, I look forward to seeing how it performs compared to the EF version.


----------



## riker (Oct 29, 2020)

Maru said:


> What are the advantages from EF 50mm f1.8



Based on the pic it's even smaller and lighter. And of course much smaller than EF50/1.8+adapter.


----------



## riker (Oct 29, 2020)

I'm still whishing for a compact non-IS 50/1.4 like the original.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Oct 29, 2020)

Traveler said:


> They always have to chose what the selling point is. The RF 35mm is a universal lens (IS, half macro, reasonable quality). The 50mm’s selling point is small and hopefully cheap.
> IS or macro would make it more expensive and bigger.
> I think it’s a good choice. If you need macro or IS you can chose the 85 or 35 and there’s this tiny 50mm


They could charge between 35 and 85 in my opinion and include macro and IS. That would be an amazing budget trinity prime lens for the enthusiast user!


----------



## Skux (Oct 29, 2020)

"Affordable"

Like Nifty Fifty affordable or RF 35mm 'affordable'?


----------



## navastronia (Oct 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yeh... I'm still not convinced. Don't get me wrong I am practically the only member of the 'CR EF 50 f1.4 Appreciation Club' and have extolled it's virtues here many times, but the logic for a three or four tiered 50mm range isn't supported by the current market.
> 
> Back in the day it was common to get a 50mm lens in a kit with a body, that kind of flowed over into the digital market but not really very well because most entry level cameras were crop cameras so the focal lengths went out the window. Then as iso performance got better the 'need' and desire for faster lenses waned in the mass market as along with the iso 'correction' for slower apertures the zoom lens image quality got better. Which meant a lens range with a 50 f1.8, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.2 L and 50 2.5 Macro made no sense, 50's might be called the "nifty fifty" but with relatively good general purpose zooms available for not much more money they make little sense and the truth is vastly fewer people buy them nowadays than in years gone by.
> 
> ...



These are all fine points. Whether the market still supports 4-tiered segmentation at 50mm is one worthy question. Another, to me, is whether Canon is willing to offer 50mm primes at only $300 and $2,300 price points, creating an enormous gap between the two for third-party lens makers to fill, which I think is quite unlikely.


----------



## Fotofriend (Oct 29, 2020)

LesC said:


> Nice! I bet it will still be twice the price of the EF version though - $199/£199 ?
> 
> Just from an aesthetic point of view, I don't like the way the lens barrel protrudes from the front of the lens as with the RF35. Just me I guess ...


Not just you... and from an aesthetic (and maybe also functional) point as well, I also hope there’s a real and nice looking lens hood just like the older ones for the EF 50’s. Not some atrophied pseudo lens hood like for the RF 35 1.8...


----------



## Fotofriend (Oct 29, 2020)

Mahk43 said:


> I have the same issue with my R.
> I wanted something compact with a 50 and not a 35, but it is not so compact with the ring adapter, and quality is bad. Let's see what this RF50 can do


Me too, on my R and also the M50 (albeit to a lesser degree) the image quality is quite bad. And not only due to unprecise focusing IMO


----------



## ctk (Oct 29, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I mean that a 50/1.4 is coming, not that a 50/1.4 IS is coming.


Not following. There's no 35 or 85 1.4 to span those gaps; can't see why Canon would do any different here.

Personally I will just be happy if it has good IQ and AF. I think Canon can do both in this size. I am game if it does that for under $350.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> However, me personally, and I understand I am a data point of one so am irrelevant, will happily get the RF 35 1.8 and the RF 85 f1.8 when I end up getting an R5.



Unless I missed something there won't be an RF 85 f/1.8. It's going to be an f/2.0.

Which is a shame because aside from my 100mm macro (which is for a totally different use case; I have to remind myself it's a prime I own), the EF version is my favorite prime.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 29, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Another, to me, is whether Canon is willing to offer 50mm primes at only $300 and $2,300 price points, creating an enormous gap between the two for third-party lens makers to fill, which I think is quite unlikely.



I'll add to this, the RF 50mm F/1.2 has definitely taken the crown of getting as much light and image quality as possible, no matter the size. In the EF mount, the "top-of-the-line" 50mm was still small and compact and around $1,200 with lesser image quality.

I think having the *only* options be either $300 and absolutely tiny with lesser IQ, or $2300 and absolutely huge with perfect IQ, leaves a big gap for the kind of people who would pick up the R6 with the RF 24-105mm F/4 and aren't looking to buy an expensive, huge 50mm prime that almost costs as much as their R6.

I can wholeheartedly imagine in the next few years there will be a RF 50mm F/1.4 IS that's around the size of the EF 50mm f/1.2. Maybe it's not the first priority in the line-up, but Canon is going to miss out on a lot of sales to third-party primes in that $900-1200 segment if these are the only two options. 

I personally will pick up this RF 50mm F/1.8 just as a why-not throwaway, but I would totally see myself upgrading that to a 50mm F/1.4 if it was around the size of the EF 50mm f/1.2.


----------



## peters (Oct 29, 2020)

canonnews said:


> not quite, it's probably pretty close to the same size as the original EF 50mm 1.8


Jeah, but if I compare my 40mm pancake PLUS the adapter with the original EF 50mm its pretty close in size =) 
Anyway, its a promising lense. F1,8 is good enough for pretty much all situation, at least if the sharpness wide open is at least somewhat okay. I guess corner sharpness will be bad wide open, but I guess I can survive that :-D
The Sigma 50mm is my favorite lense and 50mm is simply the most useful focal lense ever in my opinion =)


----------



## navastronia (Oct 29, 2020)

ctk said:


> Not following. There's no 35 or 85 1.4 to span those gaps; can't see why Canon would do any different here.
> 
> Personally I will just be happy if it has good IQ and AF. I think Canon can do both in this size. I am game if it does that for under $350.



See what I said here, at:


navastronia said:


> These are all fine points. Whether the market still supports 4-tiered segmentation at 50mm is one worthy question. *Another, to me, is whether Canon is willing to offer 50mm primes at only $300 and $2,300 price points, creating an enormous gap between the two for third-party lens makers to fill, which I think is quite unlikely.*


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 29, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I think the main question to ask yourself is do I need a prime lens or will zoom lenses better suit my needs. 40 years ago when I got my first 35mm SLR, a 50mm was the popular kit lens, but by the time I got my next camera around 1995, zooms had come a long way and I had no need for a prime lens and have never even considered one since. I shoot mostly landscapes, so I never have the need of very shallow Depth of Field - that is one of the benefits of a prime lens. And over the years, zooms have gotten even better, so any increase in sharpness that a prime might provide is not necessary for me. You may feel differently. For myself, the overall composition is one the most important characteristic of a photo, so I will always be choosing the versatillity of a zoom lens. But if I needed a very shallow DOF, then, in many cases, I would be better off with primes, as zooms rarely are faster than f/2.8 (and those are big and expensive) and are more likely f/4 or higher.


The other time when primes are necessary is when the light level is extremely low. In the mid-2000's, I got into photographing local rock bands in small clubs (and lost a lot of hearing in the process). A typical exposure was 1/60, f/2, ISO3200. That's when I accumulated a set of five prime lenses ranging from 24mm to 135mm, lenses that I rarely use now. I use my f/4 trinity most of the time now.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 29, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I'll add to this, the RF 50mm F/1.2 has definitely taken the crown of getting as much light and image quality as possible, no matter the size. In the EF mount, the "top-of-the-line" 50mm was still small and compact and around $1,200 with lesser image quality.
> 
> I think having the *only* options be either $300 and absolutely tiny with lesser IQ, or $2300 and absolutely huge with perfect IQ, leaves a big gap for the kind of people who would pick up the R6 with the RF 24-105mm F/4 and aren't looking to buy an expensive, huge 50mm prime that almost costs as much as their R6.
> 
> ...



Yes, all of this. And not to beat a dead horse, but if this 50/1.8 _did_ have macro and IS, and cost closer to $600 (which implies superior image quality, in addition to said added features), it would be a whole different ball game. In that scenario, there'd be far less room for a 50/1.4 (costing $900-1200) than there is with what we have going on right now.


----------



## tataylino (Oct 29, 2020)

I have been waiting for the EF-M version for this lens for so long... when they release an affordable version of R, (M50 equivalent) I might consider it.


----------



## heysavnac (Oct 29, 2020)

marathonman said:


> Well, size. Putting an RF-EF adapter on to a lens that is intended to be small negates some of the smallness benefits that small seekers were hoping to achieve in purchasing a small lens.
> 
> Control ring.
> 
> ...


This RF shouldn’t cost more than the $300 total of adapting the EF. I think 299 is a great price for it.. and not having IS or Macro capability, I don’t see it surpassing 399.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Unless I missed something there won't be an RF 85 f/1.8. It's going to be an f/2.0.
> 
> Which is a shame because aside from my 100mm macro (which is for a totally different use case; I have to remind myself it's a prime I own), the EF version is my favorite prime.


Yes sorry it was a typo. Still happy with an 85 f2 though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2020)

navastronia said:


> These are all fine points. Whether the market still supports 4-tiered segmentation at 50mm is one worthy question. Another, to me, is whether Canon is willing to offer 50mm primes at only $300 and $2,300 price points, creating an enormous gap between the two for third-party lens makers to fill, which I think is quite unlikely.


I think Canon Corp are of a scale that they inevitably leave crumbs, and I suspect they would consider $600-$1,500 50mm primes crumbs given the size of the market when they offer the two options anyway. Let's not forget they have a very long history of sales data to make good projections on viability and most keen amateurs and pros that are committed to the focal length will want to get the RF 50 f1.2L anyway.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 29, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> I have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread.
> Thanks!


All lenses have trade-offs
- If money is important then R5+RF50mm will be the cheapest body + RF lens option. If money is no object then this lens may not be for you
- The quality will be okay but not great. The RF zooms will probably be sharper. Wait for the reviews
- If size is important then this is the smallest R5+ RF lens you can get. Use your legs for the zoom. The EF40mm + R mount adapter may be comparable in size
- The minimum focusing distance will be better than the RF70-200mm (0.7m) but maybe not the RF15-35mm (0.23m).
- Some people love the "natural" focal length of 50mm (not wide and not telefocal) and your zooms don't cover it.
- If low light is important then this could be useful. f1.8 is significantly better than the zooms. Indoor/tricky lighting could mean the RF50mm gets the shots that they others can't or at such a high ISO that the noise distracts from the image quality. That said, the R5 high ISO performance is great.
- Indoor band / theatre productions (remember them!) etc
- I was shooting a kids indoor trampolining party with EF24-105mm @ ISO12800 and 1/200s came out great for social media. I wouldn't print some of them but that wasn't important.
- Shooting milky way or aurora could have much better detail/noise than f2.8 ie shorter shutter speeds at lower ISO. 50mm isn't used as often as wider astrolandscapes but can be useful
- The bokeh will be different from your zooms. Generally f1.8 will be better to isolate your subject from background but the quality will be interesting ie is the bokeh distracting. The reviews will be interesting. This was one of the reasons I got the EF50/1.4 for newborn shooting.

If you like the 50mm focal length, money is no object and size is no object then get the RF50mm/f1.2 which is even better quality and aperture.

For me, I sold my EF50mm/1.4 as my EF100mm macro was much better (quality/focus distance) for both portraits and macro and I can crop from my EF16-35mm @ 35mm if needed. I either take my EF24-105mm as a single walkaround lens or EF16-35mm + RF70-200mm as a dual kit or maybe now EF16-35mm + RF100-500mm for any situation.

As with everything, YMMV


----------



## navastronia (Oct 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I think Canon Corp are of a scale that they inevitably leave crumbs, and I suspect they would consider $600-$1,500 50mm primes crumbs given the size of the market when they offer the two options anyway. Let's not forget they have a very long history of sales data to make good projections on viability and most keen amateurs and pros that are committed to the focal length will want to get the RF 50 f1.2L anyway.



I disagree that popular primes in common focal lengths constitute breadcrumbs. It may just be that Canon's decision not to make a 50/1.4 yet is the same reason they haven't made a 24-70/4, yet -- it's the wrong time for it, but in a year or two, perhaps.

Certainly, Canon sells whatever it believes makes money, just as Sigma, makers of the current champion high-performing/competitively priced 50/1.4, does. Does Sigma make money on that lens, but not Canon? It's possible. What's more likely to me is that Canon is just doing one thing at a time. For now, they've left such ample room for a 50/1.4, I would be surprised if they didn't fill it by, say, 2023.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I disagree that popular primes in common focal lengths constitute breadcrumbs. It may just be that Canon's decision not to make a 50/1.4 yet is the same reason they haven't made a 24-70/4, yet -- it's the wrong time for it, but in a year or two, perhaps.
> 
> Certainly, Canon sells whatever it believes makes money, just as Sigma, makers of the current champion high-performing/competitively priced 50/1.4, does. Does Sigma make money on that lens, but not Canon? It's possible. What's more likely to me is that Canon is just doing one thing at a time. For now, they've left such ample room for a 50/1.4, I would be surprised if they didn't fill it by, say, 2023.


It's a forum, it would be a boring place if we all agreed 

Given the size of Canon compared to Sigma I think it is fair to say a third prime with the same focal length would be a breadcrumb. Let's not forget normal focal length prime lenses are niche products now, and Canon have the low end and the high end covered I think they will be fine to let the midlevel go as they explore things like a newly aligned RF C-line, a range of RF cine lenses (which can sell for $10,000's per lens)


----------



## jvillain (Oct 29, 2020)

This lens will have some value for people using a gimbal or an inclined slider for video where weight and size are important factors. Normally I like some thing a little wider when on a gimbal or hand held but some times some thing a little longer like a 50 makes sense.


----------



## Tidy Media (Oct 30, 2020)

Maru said:


> What are the advantages from EF 50mm f1.8


An RF mount


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 30, 2020)

Ordering immediately once available for pre-order. 50mm is my jam.


----------



## researcher (Oct 30, 2020)

I was hoping/expecting Canon would do an APSC R-series camera, if only to tap the entry level market. Have they said if/when they are going to discontinue the non-pro DSLR's yet? What is the point of making Rebel or xxD series DSLRs if their mirrorless lines are the future?


----------



## Togorus (Oct 30, 2020)

Nice! Looking to get a 20-50-85 prime trio in RF mount


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 30, 2020)

Nice! Makes getting an R6 all that more achievable for me!


----------



## esglord (Oct 30, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> I have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. I'm rich, beeyotch. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread.
> 
> Thanks!


Given what you've already got, this would probably be a great lens for you. While the quality won't be as high as your zooms, it's still faster than what you've got, it hits a versatile focal length that you don't have already have covered, and you can find out if you like prime lenses before blowing a couple grand on an L lens. Most of the time it's wide enough but not so wide that it would distort photos of people. That makes it a good option if you aren't sure what you are planning to photograph and maybe just want to go for a stroll and leave the heavy stuff at home. Also, it's less conspicuous and deals better with the low light of say a museum or inside a church. Combined with IBIS in the R5, you should get excellent performance from this in dark situations. The EF version is what I carry if I plan on being in a more harsh scenario, think sandy beach, or while out drinking  If that cheap lens gets damaged, it's not that big a deal.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 30, 2020)

Daner said:


> Including this as a kit lens with the RP will be great for lowering the barrier to FF mirrorless.
> 
> That being the case, there is nothing to prevent Canon from following this up with an RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro for those who would like the matching set of affordable 35/50/85 IS Macro primes.



Agree looks like a good edition to the RF family.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Oct 30, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> I have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. I'm rich, beeyotch. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread.
> 
> Thanks!



Well, a fool and their money are soon parted, as has been said before.

I didn't suggest not acquiring an R5 on the basis that you would be constrained in other ways by doing so, though it is certainly a valid reason to follow what I said.

If your goal is to be a camera collector instead of a photographer, and you simply want to own the best and money is no object, then go buy the RF 50mm f/1.2. It's a way better lens than this will be, almost certainly at all f-stops until at least f/2.8 or f/4 where the overall IQ will probably be very similar any smaller. It also has more rings for more utility in its use. Weight is not a factor because you already have 2 big heavy lenses and are a collector, not a photographer in the field.

A 50mm lens of any kind certainly covers a focal range you don't have. A zoom like the RF 24 - 70mm f/2.8 (or the smaller EF f/4 + adapter) more explicitly covers every focal length you don't have with minimal crossover, the RF 28 - 70 f/2 would be even better with less crossover, and a 24 - 105 (either one in RF) is probably a lens with more utility unto itself, even if it crosses into areas covered by both of your existing lenses. You may still want a 50mm fixed lens, and possibly others, even if you have zooms covering the range - I do, I have 28 f/1.4/50 f/1.2/85 f/1.4 in addition to my zooms.

But you self-identified as a n00b and your question would have revealed that even if you didn't. If you don't even KNOW whether a lens like this is a good choice for you, you have a lot to learn, because this is the most common lens type available, and as a fixed lens of a certain size and aperture, does one specific thing. And that's why I suggested a different camera body than the R5 - the R5 "is the best" but it is very complicated, and gives some very advanced tools to a knowledgeable photographer who can use them. Someone who is still learning would be better served by a simpler body, and no I'm not suggesting getting a manual-focusing film camera or anything like that. But if you were to shoot with an RP for example, you would find it much easier to work with in some ways (as well as being more compact to carry around), and then in others you would eventually run into limitations that would ideally be resolved - possibly by the R5, possibly by something else. And as a n00b, the image quality differences between the two are not yet relevant to you - there is certainly no technical reason a great shot on the RP wouldn't be able to be blown up to art gallery or billboard size, or entered into a contest. Far worse cameras than that have been used for such purposes.

This, again, assumes you want to learn how be a photographer, learn how to take good photos. You didn't ask if this would be a good lens relative to what you shoot or intend to shoot, so maybe that's a faulty assumption on my part. If you just want to be a camera collector, then continue on.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Oct 30, 2020)

VICYASA said:


> Thanks! What situations would you use this lens?



You'd use this lens if you needed a small and light relatively fast prime. It's 50mm, so roughly right in the middle of the zoom range of the 24-70. It's f/1.8, so you get about a stop more light than the 2.8 24-70. If you needed a wider field of view, then step back, if you needed a tighter field of view, step forward. 50mm is the "standard prime" for 35mm full frame. For a lens of this size and price, the only time I'd use it is if I wanted/needed a smaller lighter lens than a big ole zoom, but if you have a big ole body (like the R5), it'll work, but it's really much better paired with something like an RP. Small and light body paired with a small and light lens makes for a super easy carry around.

Other than that, the RF 50 1.2 or RF 28-70 2.0 will both be optically superior, but way more expensive, and way heavier. If cost or size isn't a problem, then go for those two over this lens.


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Oct 30, 2020)

I wouldn’t buy this lens, if it’s past $150. Seems like a cute pancake.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Oct 31, 2020)

I believe it won’t be a great quality lens like the RF 35mm 1.8, which is the best “bang for bucks“ imho and therefore it needs to be pretty cheap because in these times there’s nobody who spends money on a lens for nostalgic reasons only.


----------



## jonbenz (Nov 1, 2020)

it does not have a dedicated focus ring. Can it be manually focussed with the "control ring"?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 1, 2020)

researcher said:


> I was hoping/expecting Canon would do an APSC R-series camera, if only to tap the entry level market. Have they said if/when they are going to discontinue the non-pro DSLR's yet? What is the point of making Rebel or xxD series DSLRs if their mirrorless lines are the future?



As far as I'm aware, Canon has said nothing about DSLRs. Whether they have released their last is a matter of belief and supposition at this point.

The point of making those low end DSLRs is - they sell well even now, and capture a low end of the market. Nothing in the R range approaches their cheapness. If an APS-C R body is released, we don't know if it will be targeted at the budget-conscious, or the 7D crowd, in which case it has no bearing on 'Rebel' buyers. Also presumably low end DSLRs are inexpensive to make. Mirrorless has been 'the future' for years, though when it becomes the present is still unclear


----------



## adrian_bacon (Nov 1, 2020)

jonbenz said:


> it does not have a dedicated focus ring. Can it be manually focussed with the "control ring"?



yes, the switch on the barrel switches between control ring and manual focus. If it’s set to control, it’s a control ring and you get autofocus. If it’s set to focus, you get manual focus and no control ring.


----------



## TonyPM (Nov 2, 2020)

Looks like a great little portrait lens for the future RF apsc camera.


----------



## BBarn (Nov 2, 2020)

Yes, it would seem to make more sense as an apsc lens.

I was really hoping for IS on a lower cost 50mm. With no IS, no Macro, and only one ring, I simply don't see the point. Especially for anyone who has an EF to RF adapter.

The single ring is a bit puzzling. Normally a focus ring has no clicks and a programmable ring has them. A single ring would seem strange sharing those possible functions unless the clicks come and go with according to the mode selected (focus or other).

I don't see it as a good option for a kit lens. Zooms are standard on the cheapest cameras as well as phones and I think most buyers of a kit would be a bit confounded with the limitations of only one focal length. A fixed lens would likely seem strange and cumbersome to someone graduating from a point and shoot or phone.


----------

