# Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM coming in 2019? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 31, 2019)

> We’re told one of the lenses coming from Canon in 2019 will be an RF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM. We’re also told that this lens will be built much better than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and include USM over STM.
> I think if we’re getting an upmarket RF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM for the RF mount, we’re not going to see another 50 f/1.4 from Canon for quite some time, if ever.  That said, with the price of the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L, there’s definitely going to be pricing room to fit in another 50mm lens.
> Note the [CR1] rating of this post and treat this information accordingly.



Continue reading...


----------



## slclick (Jan 31, 2019)

for Adam


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 31, 2019)

50mm F1.8 IS... US$250?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 31, 2019)

Has Ashanford ever bought an EOS-R?
But this should not be ring USM.


----------



## knight427 (Jan 31, 2019)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> 50mm F1.8 IS... US$250?



That would be great, I assume this is a wishful guess? The RF 35mm f/1.8 is $499. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is $349 (and not well respected). I think Canon is moving the f/1.8 lineup from bargain to mid range in response to 3rd party lens offerings for EF. And if you want a low cost option, you can always use the EF 50mm f/1.8 with the adapter. Long story short, I'm thinking it will be in the $500 range.


----------



## Stuart (Jan 31, 2019)

A NOT THRIFTY Nifty 50

"built much better than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and include USM over STM. "


----------



## Stuart (Jan 31, 2019)

I was excited they'd have an affordable standard lens for the new 'affordable' FF mirror-less models.


----------



## padam (Jan 31, 2019)

From the RF lenses teaser video, it is not going to be much bigger than the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS, but I think the pricing will be more and not far off Nikon's new 50mm f/1.8 S lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> for Adam


+1

But interesting to see that they've started a midrange prime system with the RF 35 *STM* and now continue with an USM?
I would not bet on it but guess that this could also have STM. Just my 2 cents.
And as long as this is [CR1], everything could happen...


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 31, 2019)

In yesterday's post about their future plans for R mount, they mentioned the following:


> We will strive to improve total profitability by expanding sales of the full-frame model like the EOS R which *will lead to expanded sales of lenses that have high profitability.*


 (emphasis mine)

I wonder if the aps-c price points on R lenses are going away? If the former mid-range lenses are now the "low" end, this might explain the pricing of the 2.0 zoom lens - the 2.8 closest equivalent of that lens zoom range can when released as part of the "holy trinity" on the R mount could sit right between the f4 and f2 versions on price.

I wouldn't be surprised if the variable aperture standard zooms are the only "cheap" lenses on this mount. The same press release mentions a higher proportion of Full Frame body sales. I'm guessing that means we may not see a aps-c R camera body. However canon always called the aps-h bodies full frame even though they weren't, so there could potentially be a potential for that. They never made lenses for that specific size sensor, they were always full frame lenses for those bodies. This would force users into stepping up the price chain for all lens purchases too beyond the kit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 31, 2019)

Hear me now and believe me later: APS-H is DEAD at Canon.


----------



## melgross (Jan 31, 2019)

I don’t understand why this would preclude a 1.4 for the R mount. Even if this is better optically and mechanically, unless Canon sells it as an L Pro lens, which it has never done, a pro 1,4 is still warranted. At $2,300, the 1.2 is still too expensive for many pros. A $1,500 1.4 would be about right, as long as it’s top notch.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 31, 2019)

I still can't understand why we've not had an L series 35, 50, 85 1.8L set of primes. Not everyone wants 1.2 but they'd still love the L quality.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jan 31, 2019)

so no IBIS for awhile.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> for Adam


Did he pass away?


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 31, 2019)

I think you guys are missing the point that it has image stabilization. That's a great addition, FINALLY. USM over STM.. I don't even know why they put in STM in the first place. So yes it'll be more expensive. but there are two upgrades in the lens, plus I'm sure the optics will improve based on a different design approach.


----------



## riker (Jan 31, 2019)

I bet it will be heavier than the 50/1.4, cost the same if not more but still 1.8. And we should all be happy for IS. In this case no thanks. Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.
50/1.4 was just too good, they take it away, not good enough business wise.


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 31, 2019)

Jun 1993 -> EF 50 1.4 USM
Aug 2006 -> EF 50 1.2 L USM
May 2015 -> EF 50 1.8 STM

Sep 2018 -> RF 50 1.2 L USM
??? 2019 -> RF 50 1.8 IS USM

That's how long EF users had to wait for something better than Double Gauss 50mm lens design from Canon and when they finally got two in maybe less then year, they will not be able to use them on their EF cameras. Well done.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 31, 2019)

riker said:


> Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.



Nonsense. IS is tremendously useful on wider focal lengths just before and after sunrise and sunset, at night, and when hiking in canyons. IS also means you can handhold 2-3 exposures for HDR in post.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 31, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> That's how long EF users had to wait for something better than Double Gauss 50mm lens design from Canon and when they finally got two in maybe less then year, they will not be able to use them on their EF cameras. Well done.



Keep in mind that in the EF market Canon has had strong competition in the 50mm segment. Right now the 50mm segment is dominated by the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC. 

I own the latter and I don't see how Canon could convince me to buy an upgraded EF 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 31, 2019)

riker said:


> I bet it will be heavier than the 50/1.4, cost the same if not more but still 1.8. And we should all be happy for IS. In this case no thanks. Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.
> 50/1.4 was just too good, they take it away, not good enough business wise.


That's tellin' 'em.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 31, 2019)

riker said:


> I bet it will be heavier than the 50/1.4, cost the same if not more but still 1.8. And we should all be happy for IS. In this case no thanks. Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.
> 50/1.4 was just too good, they take it away, not good enough business wise.



You sure shot your credibility with this: "IS below 85mm is marketing shit." and even with this: "50/1.4 was just too good"


----------



## padam (Jan 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Hear me now and believe me later: APS-H is DEAD at Canon.



If they come out with their own focal reducer adapter for the EOS M system, it will live on in this 'virtual' form, because the patent suggests it is going to be 0.8x so the new crop factor will be 1.28x


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Hear me now and believe me later: APS-H is DEAD at Canon.


It has been dead for years and years.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 31, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> I think you guys are missing the point that it has image stabilization. That's a great addition, FINALLY. USM over STM.. I don't even know why they put in STM in the first place. So yes it'll be more expensive. but there are two upgrades in the lens, plus I'm sure the optics will improve based on a different design approach.


STM was a nod to the video guys. Less noise in the focusing and smoother.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 31, 2019)

Etienne said:


> You sure shot your credibility with this: "IS below 85mm is marketing shit." and even with this: "50/1.4 was just too good"


My former Tamron 15-30 had VC (IS), and it was great.


----------



## riker (Jan 31, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Nonsense. IS is tremendously useful on wider focal lengths just before and after sunrise and sunset, at night, and when hiking in canyons. IS also means you can handhold 2-3 exposures for HDR in post.


Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!
As for me I really don't care for IS at 50mm, especially hiking where weight is #1 concern.
I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough. If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever. IS should not be the solution for taking a decent image at 50mm. At 200-300 it is. IS at 50mm is more marketing than necessity.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 31, 2019)

padam said:


> If they come out with their own focal reducer adapter for the EOS M system, it will live on in this 'virtual' form, because the patent suggests it is going to be 0.8x so the new crop factor will be 1.28x



That's still not an APS-H sensor. That ship has sailed, never to return.


----------



## slclick (Jan 31, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Did he pass away?


No but he might have a conniption fit when the RF gets the baby he hoped for in the EF system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 31, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It has been dead for years and years.



It's still dead.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 31, 2019)

riker said:


> Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!
> As for me I really don't care for IS at 50mm, especially hiking where weight is #1 concern.
> I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough. If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever. IS should not be the solution for taking a decent image at 50mm. At 200-300 it is. IS at 50mm is more marketing than necessity.



Not everyone uses a camera the same way you do.

There are use cases when being able to take a handheld shot at 1-2 seconds in places where tripods/monopods are not permitted is revolutionary.


----------



## slclick (Jan 31, 2019)

I think it's time to accept the notion that RF will get all the tidbits we have been begging for on EF.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It's still dead.



Like Generalissimo Francisco Franco...


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 31, 2019)

riker said:


> Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!



We do not agree.



> I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough.



Should be enough for what? For a critically sharp 24x36" print? For another stop or two of DoF in dim light? For two hand held frames that are close enough you can HDR blend them later?

I can think of many situations where steady hands and a 1/15 exposure still aren't sufficient.



> If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever.



So my choices are freedom of composition with IS, or wasting time looking for a rock that's sorta close to the composition I wanted.

I'll take IS.


----------



## Talys (Jan 31, 2019)

riker said:


> I bet it will be heavier than the 50/1.4, cost the same if not more but still 1.8. And we should all be happy for IS. In this case no thanks. Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.
> 50/1.4 was just too good, they take it away, not good enough business wise.


EF50/1.4 is too good... for what?

It's a great lens for bokeh, it is affordable (if not cheap), and it's small. But it has terrible chromatic aberration, it's a bit noisy, has slow-ish autofocus, it isn't in the same league as canon's new large aperture primes for sharpness, and it the AF mechanism can get stuck.

I'd be happy for a 50/1.8 IS


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 31, 2019)

riker said:


> Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!
> As for me I really don't care for IS at 50mm, especially hiking where weight is #1 concern.
> I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough. If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever. IS should not be the solution for taking a decent image at 50mm. At 200-300 it is. IS at 50mm is more marketing than necessity.


Less important doesn't = not important, or as you said, "Marketing $ hit." But you are right. The IS module is prohibitively heavy.  IS is not the solution for taking a decent image, but it is a tool and good to have. There isn't always a rock or tree available.  Besides, in low light it can help a great deal. Not for you? No problem. Calling it what you did is your personal crap, not reality. I'd have happily paid for IS on my 35, 24-70, and 135 had it been available at the time from Canon. It absolutely helped in low light when I had my Tamron 15-30. Especially for indoor shooting where flash is not an option. Not everyone is out hugging trees, rocks, or backpacks.

Saying you don't want or need it doesn't mean a bunch don't. Especially shaky old men like me. Marketing's job is to make a product appealing to the market. You ain't the market for IS on short focal lengths. That doesn't make IS on short focal lengths $ hit for the rest of us. Why would I want to shoot a person indoors at 1/8 sec without IS when having IS would make that shot easier or even more likely to be on focus? Mountains and rocks don't tend to move. People do... so a faster shutter speed helps. Yes, ISO can be turned up, but there comes a point where that isn't desired.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 31, 2019)

If they can do a 50mm that's close to the Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 in quality then I'd be more than happy to drop $500+ on one.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Feb 1, 2019)

Well, the RF mount desperately needs some not-so-fast, relatively affordable primes. But I was hoping the next 50mm f/1.8 IS would be for the EF-M. Canon did an amazing job with the 32mm f/1.4 - it seems like the only gap in the EOS M prime lineup is now a decent portrait lens.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Feb 1, 2019)

peterzuehlke said:


> so no IBIS for awhile.



Canon take baby step. Dual card slot come first. lol


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 1, 2019)

I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It's still dead.


Not dead. Just really sick.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 1, 2019)

drmikeinpdx said:


> No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.



I owned the pre-Art Sigma 50 f/1.4. Good lens, great bokeh, but AF was always hit or miss. The Tamron is sharper wide open, much sharper in the corners, and AF is fast and sure.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 1, 2019)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.


You live a glamorous life!


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> Not dead. Just really sick.


Reminds me of the "I'm not dead!" scene in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 1, 2019)

If this lens has (1) size of EF 1.8 85, (2) IQ comparable to EF-M 1.4 32 and (3) ~1:2 macro it can be a winner @ 600 $/EUR. It would be an upmarket replacement of the EF 50mm 2.5 macro and a good "wide angle" lens for my taste of photography.


----------



## Refurb7 (Feb 1, 2019)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.


I too have the Tamron 85mm VC. I'd call that one too damn sharp too. It's sometimes very unkind to people's complexion (but usually good).


----------



## degos (Feb 1, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> I think you guys are missing the point that it has image stabilization. That's a great addition, FINALLY.



Yay, Canon has caught-up with Tamron. The scrappy underdog finally levels with the Japanese corporate behemoth. Err, wait a moment...

I've given-up on Canon for any lens that isn't a long-white. I went through a few Sigma Arts before settling on Tamron VC lenses; their 15-30 and 45 are just lovely. If I had $$$ available I'd add the 85. That change surprised me since I've been shooting with Canon since 1988 and I didn't buy a third-party lens until the Sigma 50 Art in 2014.


----------



## riker (Feb 1, 2019)

Talys said:


> EF50/1.4 is too good... for what?
> 
> It's a great lens for bokeh, it is affordable (if not cheap), and it's small. But it has terrible chromatic aberration, it's a bit noisy, has slow-ish autofocus, it isn't in the same league as canon's new large aperture primes for sharpness, and it the AF mechanism can get stuck.
> 
> I'd be happy for a 50/1.8 IS


You do understand the meaning of "was", right? ...and it still remains a unique lens regarding aperture+mobility+lowprice, there's nothing to match. That's why I believe many of us are wishing for a next generation of it. Not 1.2, not 1.8, not IS, not big, not heavy, just an optically renewed version of the same thing. 50/1.4 whichs is not more than 300g. I really had enough of "development" where next generation lenses always cost tons of money and I still have to sacrifice something for better IQ. Usually size and weight (+price). The 50/1.8 was a nice exception where the 50/1.8 STM is a decent upgrade. Whishing the same for the the 50/1.4.


----------



## riker (Feb 1, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Well, the RF mount desperately needs some not-so-fast, relatively affordable primes. But I was hoping the next 50mm f/1.8 IS would be for the EF-M. Canon did an amazing job with the 32mm f/1.4 - it seems like the only gap in the EOS M prime lineup is now a decent portrait lens.


That's right, and the 22/2 is pretty good too. Add the 50/1.8, a 70-200/4, make a more pro body and we are good to go for travel, street, etc. Could finally compete with Sony and Fuji.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 1, 2019)

Talys said:


> Reminds me of the "I'm not dead!" scene in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail


Yeah, "It's just a flesh wound—I've had worse!"


----------



## esimmons (Feb 1, 2019)

honest question, what justifies the large increase in pricing on mirrorless lenses from all systems vs dslr lenses? they use smaller glass elements (which is the largest single parts cost) which should lower production costs. just seems like price gouging for early adopters. i've been dying for a good 50mm from canon for years now, but no way i'm paying the rumored $500ish for a 1.8, even if it does have usm and is. maybe i'm cheap and uninformed...


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2019)

Aaron D said:


> Yeah, "It's just a flesh wound—I've had worse!"


That was the first scene I thought of (the knight that gets all hacked up), then I remembered the other scene too -- where the fellow with the plague is being dumped into the cart, and keeps complaining that he's not dead


----------



## peterzuehlke (Feb 1, 2019)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.


When I first read this post, I was thinking, did I write that? HaHa! Two of my favorite lenses. Was waiting for the Canon 85mm IS but gave up. The Tamron is a little slower in focusing, but I think the bokeh is better (lower astigmatism probably). Happy with jumping ship. This is something I think Canon has to pay attention to: online there is a lot of obsessing about the cutting edge of camera sensors, but I think a lot of us actually buy a system because of lenses. I have shot Canon primarily since the mid 80s because of the lenses. Now with Tamron and Sigma making excellent glass (think Tamron builds for some Zeiss products and Sigma had made zooms for Leica) it allows other choices in bodies. And if some of them have IBIS, better AF, and now very good color, just hang some third party glass on and I at least am not the fanboy I used to be.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 1, 2019)

Talys said:


> That was the first scene I thought of (the knight that gets all hacked up), then I remembered the other scene too -- where the fellow with the plague is being dumped into the cart, and keeps complaining that he's not dead


Ha! And doesn't he eventually get clubbed on the head? Genius comedy!


----------



## cellomaster27 (Feb 1, 2019)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.



Let me put it this way.. You can work with a super sharp image but you can't work with something that isn't.


----------



## trulandphoto (Feb 1, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I still can't understand why we've not had an L series 35, 50, 85 1.8L set of primes. Not everyone wants 1.2 but they'd still love the L quality.



Yes, I picked up the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD. A bargain at it's $399 price back in the Fall.


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 1, 2019)

I always found metering off with the Tamron 85 VC, It was about -1 ev under exposed relatvie to Canon lenses. It was so bad I wrote to Bryan Carnathan about it.


----------



## Yasko (Feb 1, 2019)

esimmons said:


> honest question, what justifies the large increase in pricing on mirrorless lenses from all systems vs dslr lenses? they use smaller glass elements (which is the largest single parts cost) which should lower production costs. just seems like price gouging for early adopters. i've been dying for a good 50mm from canon for years now, but no way i'm paying the rumored $500ish for a 1.8, even if it does have usm and is. maybe i'm cheap and uninformed...



May be it‘s no double gaussian design but a more complex one like we saw with the third party lenses recently.
First let‘s see what we get and how much it costs... although Canon never was the bargain supplier for lenses .


----------



## slclick (Feb 1, 2019)

Can anyone shed some light on how retrofocus glass will be any different with the RF design vs EF? Can it be a shrinking of the pickle jar or is there no way around that?


----------



## nchoh (Feb 1, 2019)

riker said:


> That's right, and the 22/2 is pretty good too. Add the 50/1.8, a 70-200/4, make a more pro body and we are good to go for travel, street, etc. Could finally compete with Sony and Fuji.



Canon took #1 mirror-less sales for 2018 but you consider not competitive? Huh?

Also Canon already has a superb 55-200 F4.5-5.6.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 1, 2019)

nchoh said:


> Canon took #1 mirror-less sales for 2018 but you consider not competitive? Huh?
> 
> Also Canon already has a superb 55-200 F4.5-5.6.


I don't think Fuji has Canon worried.


----------



## McRphoto (Feb 2, 2019)

I think it's going to be the same quality built as the RF 35mm f/1.8 and I would be very happy about it.


----------



## analoggrotto (Feb 2, 2019)

I hope this does not preclude IBIS. We would be better with IBIS + OIS.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 2, 2019)

On the plus side, this gives the impression EOS-R would have a complete line of lenses in a couple of years.

On the minus side, this shows Canon has been neglecting the EF line of lenses.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 2, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> On the plus side, this gives the impression EOS-R would have a complete line of lenses in a couple of years.
> 
> On the minus side, this shows Canon has been neglecting the EF line of lenses.



After having introduced quite recently a lot of great lenses...and you call this "neglecting" ?????
EF 400, 600, TSE 50-90-135, 70/200 F2,8, 70/200 F4, 1,4/85


----------



## degos (Feb 2, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> After having introduced quite recently a lot of great lenses...and you call this "neglecting" ?????
> EF 400, 600, TSE 50-90-135, 70/200 F2,8, 70/200 F4, 1,4/85



I think that proves the original point; those are EF L, not really EF. The last basic EF lens from Canon was the 70-300 IS II in 2016.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 2, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> After having introduced quite recently a lot of great lenses...and you call this "neglecting" ?????
> EF 400, 600, TSE 50-90-135, 70/200 F2,8, 70/200 F4, 1,4/85



You've asked, therefore I'll answer...

The 70-200mm f/2.8L mkIII was released just to make production more efficient. It shows care for Canon's profits (nothing wrong with that), but not for the customers (which is my point).

The super teles & TS-E target small audiences. What's neglected is non-L primes for what I think is a larger audience, and I think an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM is a good example. Canon can make EF 35mm f/2 IS & EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, it can make a 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, but my money would be spent on the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC.


----------



## Ladislav (Feb 2, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Keep in mind that in the EF market Canon has had strong competition in the 50mm segment. Right now the 50mm segment is dominated by the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC.
> 
> I own the latter and I don't see how Canon could convince me to buy an upgraded EF 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4.



Let's be frank, it is not a strong competition. It is a competition where you need to make a choice between different pros and cons and many people would still prefer Canon with higher price even if it had somehow worse IQ than Sigma or Tamron. 

As I wrote before, 50 1.4 USM was released in 1993 and 50 1.2 L USM in 2006. Sigma 50 1.4 Art was released in 2014 and Tamron 45 1.8 Di VC USD in 2015. Canon had plenty of time to release new lens when there was no competition at all. 

We can talk about other 50ish lenses like Zeiss but those are a special category since they are manual focus only and thus are more competition to Sigma and its not so reliable AF than to any possible release from Canon.

I have Tamron 24-70 (1st gen) and while it is my most used lens I have very mixed experience with it. I wouldn't say I trust Tamron but since Canon is abandoning EF lens development I may end up buying 24-70 2.8 VC V2 and 45 1.8 VC as those are two lenses I've been waiting to get from Canon for years.


----------



## Talys (Feb 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't think Fuji has Canon worried.


About as worried as Netflix is about CBS All Access.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 2, 2019)

Talys said:


> About as worried as Netflix is about CBS All Access.


----------



## slclick (Feb 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


>


But Star Trek Discovery!


----------



## Jethro (Feb 2, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> On the plus side, this gives the impression EOS-R would have a complete line of lenses in a couple of years.
> 
> On the minus side, this shows Canon has been neglecting the EF line of lenses.


Canon has already said (in various executive interviews etc) that their current focus (no pun intended) is to build up the RF range over the next year or so. It's no secret - they will have multiple EOS R bodies by this time next year, and surely a decent range of L and non-L zooms and primes for them. 

They would see the EF lens range as pretty much complete, and in terms of upgrading non-L primes, that would almost certainly strike them as cannibalising their EF L lenses. The Sigma Art series (great lenses by the way) generally sit price-wise mid-way between the Canon non-L and Ls, and in fact they've been creeping up in price over time (and also in quality obviously). Other than Sigma, the 3rd party makers (to me anyway) start to get more hit and miss in terms of functionality and compatibility (although I love my manual focus Samyang wide angle).


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 3, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Canon has already said (in various executive interviews etc) that their current focus (no pun intended) is to build up the RF range over the next year or so. It's no secret - they will have multiple EOS R bodies by this time next year, and surely a decent range of L and non-L zooms and primes for them.



All manufacturers have released an upgraded 50mm lens, except Canon.



Jethro said:


> They would see the EF lens range as pretty much complete, and in terms of upgrading non-L primes, that would almost certainly strike them as cannibalising their EF L lenses.



It makes more sense to lose sales to the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC?


----------



## Jethro (Feb 3, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> It makes more sense to lose sales to the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC?


Assuming that were even true, given the whole strategy, yes it does.


----------



## sebascorzoa (Feb 3, 2019)

Someone knows something about the 85 1.8 stm rf mount?


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 3, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Assuming that were even true, given the whole strategy, yes it does.



Over the past few years, I've replaced every 3rd party lens I've bought with a Canon lens, e.g. the Sigma 12-24mm with a Canon 11-24mm f/4.

Now I'm going to buy a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, because Canon has nothing similar. That's a lost sale.

How does that make sense, given the whole strategy?


----------



## Jethro (Feb 3, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Over the past few years, I've replaced every 3rd party lens I've bought with a Canon lens, e.g. the Sigma 12-24mm with a Canon 11-24mm f/4.
> 
> Now I'm going to buy a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, because Canon has nothing similar. That's a lost sale.
> 
> How does that make sense, given the whole strategy?


Well it makes sense in your individual situation, but the world's largest camera maker's strategy is about the whole market, in comparison to which you and I are gnats on the ass of an elephant.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 3, 2019)

slclick said:


> Can anyone shed some light on how retrofocus glass will be any different with the RF design vs EF? Can it be a shrinking of the pickle jar or is there no way around that?



The size of the pickle jar, if you will, is partially governed by the ratio of the registration distance to the shorter focal length. Retrofocus lenses are basically telephoto lenses turned around backwards. Just as you need a larger lens for 400mm vs. 200mm, you need a larger lens for 10mm vs 15mm when both are designed for a mount with a longer than 15mm registration distance.

With the EF mount, the registration distance is 44mm. A 24mm lens, for example, is about half the registration distance. A 12mm lens is roughly one-quarter the registration distance.

With the RF mount, the registration distance is 20mm. A 24mm lens could, in theory, not be retrofocus at all. A 12mm focal length would be slightly more than half of the registration distance, and would only need to be about as retrofocal as a 24mm lens for the EF mount with its 44mm registration distance.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 3, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> You've asked, therefore I'll answer...
> 
> The 70-200mm f/2.8L mkIII was released just to make production more efficient. It shows care for Canon's profits (nothing wrong with that), but not for the customers (which is my point).
> 
> The super teles & TS-E target small audiences. What's neglected is non-L primes for what I think is a larger audience, and I think an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM is a good example. Canon can make EF 35mm f/2 IS & EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, it can make a 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, but my money would be spent on the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC.



I'm afraid I don't get the point.
What do you think is actually missing in the non-L range?
24 IS, 28 IS, 35 IS, 1,8 STM. The 2 lenses that could be missing are maybe 1,4/50 and 2,8/20.
Yet, it's because Canon has so many excellent "speciality" L lenses that they are leading the field and selling more cameras than anybody else. I, personally, bought Canon for their 17 and 24 TSE lenses. Nikon didn't stand a chance...Nikkor 24 shift not really good.
And, for the present time, widening the RF lens offer is vital for Canon, even though I agree, that a new 1,4/50 IS would be a nice addition...
PS: I had a 45 Tamron, brought it back for heavy focusing issues...


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 3, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I'm afraid I don't get the point.
> What do you think is actually missing in the non-L range?
> 24 IS, 28 IS, 35 IS, 1,8 STM. The 2 lenses that could be missing are maybe 1,4/50 and 2,8/20.



Since you've asked...

The EF 35mm f/2 IS is an excellent example of what I expect (sharp, fast, reasonably priced), as I bought it.

EF 20mm f/2.8 - if it was modernized, I would seriously consider it. Make it f/2.0, and I'll definitely buy it.
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS - isn't sharp enough for me to consider.
EF 50mm f/~1.8 IS - I would buy it.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 3, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Well it makes sense in your individual situation, but the world's largest camera maker's strategy is about the whole market, in comparison to which you and I are gnats on the ass of an elephant.



Somehow, it makes sense in RF mount, but not in EF mount. Enlighten me.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 3, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Since you've asked...
> 
> The EF 35mm f/2 IS is an excellent example of what I expect (sharp, fast, reasonably priced), as I bought it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 3, 2019)

Since you answered:
20mm F2: I'd buy it, if I didn't have the Zeiss 21mm F 2,8.This is the only Canon lens I really miss .
24mm F 2,8: if it was as good as the F 1,8 Nikon...but I have the TSE...
50mm F 1,8 IS: nope, prefer my adapted Leica Summicron and my Zeiss Makro Planar (both cost less than $ 400 each). OK, neither IS, nor AF...


----------



## melgross (Feb 4, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> You've asked, therefore I'll answer...
> 
> The 70-200mm f/2.8L mkIII was released just to make production more efficient. It shows care for Canon's profits (nothing wrong with that), but not for the customers (which is my point).
> 
> The super teles & TS-E target small audiences. What's neglected is non-L primes for what I think is a larger audience, and I think an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM is a good example. Canon can make EF 35mm f/2 IS & EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, it can make a 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, but my money would be spent on the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC.



It was a noticeably better lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 4, 2019)

melgross said:


> It was a noticeably better lens.



Big enough difference to notice? Wow.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 4, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Since you answered:
> 20mm F2: I'd buy it, if I didn't have the Zeiss 21mm F 2,8.This is the only Canon lens I really miss .
> 24mm F 2,8: if it was as good as the F 1,8 Nikon...but I have the TSE...
> 50mm F 1,8 IS: nope, prefer my adapted Leica Summicron and my Zeiss Makro Planar (both cost less than $ 400 each). OK, *neither IS, nor AF*...



That is such a popular choice, I have to wonder why FD disappeared...


----------



## melgross (Feb 5, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Big enough difference to notice? Wow.


Read some of the reviews.


----------



## DaveN (Feb 15, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Well, the RF mount desperately needs some not-so-fast, relatively affordable primes. But I was hoping the next 50mm f/1.8 IS would be for the EF-M. Canon did an amazing job with the 32mm f/1.4 - it seems like the only gap in the EOS M prime lineup is now a decent portrait lens.



I second this thought. When I first started in digital in 2002 with D60 and D30 bodies, the 50/1.4 USM was a very good affordable portrait lens. I currently use my 50 STM on an SL1 body for portrait work. The release of the M50 and the 32/1.4 really got my attention, and if Canon added a 15/2.8 and 50 (or 62)/1.8 IS lenses to an M5 Mk2 update, I have to believe many would go for it.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Feb 26, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Over the past few years, I've replaced every 3rd party lens I've bought with a Canon lens, e.g. the Sigma 12-24mm with a Canon 11-24mm f/4.
> 
> Now I'm going to buy a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, because Canon has nothing similar. That's a lost sale.
> 
> How does that make sense, given the whole strategy?



They got your money with the lenses they developed instead of a midrange 50mm, like that 11-24mm. They made a whole lot more selling you that lens than they would have with a 50/1.4.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 27, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> They got your money with the lenses they developed instead of a midrange 50mm, like that 11-24mm. They made a whole lot more selling you that lens than they would have with a 50/1.4.



And they would gotten more money of my money had they made a mid range 50mm as well.


----------



## scottburgess (Mar 5, 2019)

I see that Adorama now has the *EF* 50mm f/1.8 marked as "closeout" and on sale. Perhaps this rumor is indicative of a new EF version as well? Oh, oh! Possibly in even cheaper-feeling matte black Kris-krinkle plastic, with a focus ring only 2mm long tucked in by the camera mount, and a decal for the focus indicator? Focusing with the FSM (Fuckin' Slo-Mo) motor system with super-search "EEEEE---RRRR" sound reserved for only the _lightest _weight lenses! With a 100mm long zebra-striped lens hood so everyone can see what a cheap schmuck I was, _of course_. Yiddish numerals! 61.7mm filter thread mounts!! MagnetoDust lens coating!!! Rear gel filter holder!!!! All at double the price since it's a _new_ version (with the same optics)!!!!! Oh, gawd, I can't contain my excitement! Oh, oh...!


----------



## BillB (Mar 5, 2019)

scottburgess said:


> I see that Adorama now has the *EF* 50mm f/1.8 marked as "closeout" and on sale. Perhaps this rumor is indicative of a new EF version as well? Oh, oh! Possibly in even cheaper-feeling matte black Kris-krinkle plastic, with a focus ring only 2mm long tucked in by the camera mount, and a decal for the focus indicator? Focusing with the FSM (Fuckin' Slo-Mo) motor system with super-search "EEEEE---RRRR" sound reserved for only the _lightest _weight lenses! With a 100mm long zebra-striped lens hood so everyone can see what a cheap schmuck I was, _of course_. Yiddish numerals! 61.7mm filter thread mounts!! MagnetoDust lens coating!!! Rear gel filter holder!!!! All at double the price since it's a _new_ version (with the same optics)!!!!! Oh, gawd, I can't contain my excitement! Oh, oh...!


The current EF 50mm f1.8 STM is available at the Canon Store for $126. No sign of a close out on that one.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 5, 2019)

Double-gauss is over. The best double gauss in the industry is the Fuji 35 1.4 (50 F2 FF equivalent). Supremely sharp wide open across most of the frame.

I just bought the RF 35. Can't wait.

Would like to see a new RF 50mm 1.8 IS USM. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Hopefully later this year? $349 please.

Had the Tamron 45 VC for a week or so. It's superb but it's way too big. Especially with RF to EF adapter. It was nearly as big as a 70-200 F4 with a hood. The new flange distance RF mount lens should reduce a ton of unnecessary mirror box optics bulk.


----------



## xeppelin (Apr 23, 2019)

hoping for a native RF 50/1.8 IS not much bigger, heavier or more expensive than EF 50/1.8 STM. Same IQ or slightly better would already be sufficient. 

199 would be a nice price. Perfect lens for mostly budget-limited EOS RP buyers.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 23, 2019)

xeppelin said:


> hoping for a native RF 50/1.8 IS not much bigger, heavier or more expensive than EF 50/1.8 STM. Same IQ or slightly better would already be sufficient.
> 
> 199 would be a nice price. Perfect lens for mostly budget-limited EOS RP buyers.



With IS it will very likely be more expensive.


----------



## lawny13 (Nov 13, 2019)

Any update on this? Cause I am patiently waiting for such a lens. The STM is alright for now. But it does exhibit some focus shift, doesn’t have IS and is definitely not sharp corner to corner like the other RF lenses.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 13, 2019)

The 35mm 1.8 is very handy - I’d love to see a 50mm version that is around the same size/weight. Preferably with IS.


----------

