Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM II on the Horizon?

[SvO2]

I love my rf70-200/2.8 (non Z). First rf lens I bought and it was before I even got a R body as it was on special. Definitely not a mistake although the TC range is a limitation you can certainly use TCs on them.

You sure you're not confusing it with the 100-500? 70-200 non-Z can't fit a teleconverter at all (well you probably could with an extension tube)

 

[roby17269]

Well said! I think the figure probably changed, but I remember something about even most ilc buyers get the kit lens and nothing else.

I think the average was around 1.6 lenses per photographer, mostly driven by people buying 2-lens kits - we are deffo a niche of a niche

 

[frankchn]

The majority of the population won't buy a 1.4 or a 1.2, most people take photos with their mobile phones these days. And for us - fanatics
- the loss on selling a 1.4 is nothing we can't stand. :-D

The question has always been are there enough of us

 

[roby17269]

The question has always been are there enough of us

It'd be interesting to know the average number of lenses owned by CR members
I have 9 FF and 8 MF lenses currently (so average of 8.5 per system), but I've bought many more in the past

 

[Del Paso]

It'd be interesting to know the average number of lenses owned by CR members
I have 9 FF and 8 MF lenses currently (so average of 8.5 per system), but I've bought many more in the past

Only Canon or all brands?
Canon: 14 including EFs
Leica R: 5
Leica M: 12
Nikon: 1
OLympus: 1
And a few I must have forgotten somewhere.
But, recently, I've sold a bunch of EF and Leica lenses.
Bitterly missed: RF 14mm TSE

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

It'd be interesting to know the average number of lenses owned by CR members
I have 9 FF and 8 MF lenses currently (so average of 8.5 per system), but I've bought many more in the past

Here's my kit.

Photo taken with a G1X.

 

[Del Paso]

Here's my kit.

Photo taken with a G1X.

Time to do something for Canon's future...

 

[roby17269]

Only Canon or all brands?
Canon: 14 including EFs
Leica R: 5
Leica M: 12
Nikon: 1
OLympus: 1
And a few I must have forgotten somewhere.
But, recently, I've sold a bunch of EF and Leica lenses.
Bitterly missed: RF 14mm TSE

all brands: my MF lenses are all Hasselblad HC lenses. My Canon lenses are all RF apart from 1 EF: MP-E 65mm 2.8 1x-5x

 

[Del Paso]

all brands: my MF lenses are all Hasselblad HC lenses. My Canon lenses are all RF apart from 1 EF: MP-E 65mm 2.8 1x-5x

We are far far away from the average 1,6 lens/photographer...

 

[David - Sydney]

You sure you're not confusing it with the 100-500? 70-200 non-Z can't fit a teleconverter at all (well you probably could with an extension tube)

You are absolutely correct! I was confusing it with my 100-500. I used TCs with my ef70-200/2.8 which was useful but really slow AF with 2x. Getting the 100-500 was a big step up and I have never regretted buying it.

My excuse is that I am in hospital on endone for pain management

 

[roby17269]

We are far far away from the average 1,6 lens/photographer...

Indeed we are not representative of the general population.... but also we spend way more than the average 1.6 lens photographer.
While our crazy spending does not make up for our tiny population, I assume our slice of the pie is slowly growing as we "endure" while more and more 1.6 lens photographers fall off the cliff and migrate to phones (or compacts?)

 

[frankchn]

Indeed we are not representative of the general population.... but also we spend way more than the average 1.6 lens photographer.
While our crazy spending does not make up for our tiny population, I assume our slice of the pie is slowly growing as we "endure" while more and more 1.6 lens photographers fall off the cliff and migrate to phones (or compacts?)

Canon has traditionally thrived and continues to thrive in the low end (e.g. the R100 is the cheapest MILC on the market, etc...) more than all the other brands and this is a big reason why Canon continues to maintain a dominant market share in terms of ILC sales worldwide.

It would be interesting to see if there is a shift in strategy on Canon's part if the low-end melts away in favor of smartphones.

 

[P-visie]

Canon has traditionally thrived and continues to thrive in the low end (e.g. the R100 is the cheapest MILC on the market, etc...) more than all the other brands and this is a big reason why Canon continues to maintain a dominant market share in terms of ILC sales worldwide.

It would be interesting to see if there is a shift in strategy on Canon's part if the low-end melts away in favor of smartphones.

Canon does not think the “low-end” will “melt away”. According to an interview with Canon on Petapixel, Canon thinks the rising prices of smartphones provides new opportunities: ”We also believe there is potential for cameras to take the initiative in terms of price.”

See: https://petapixel.com/2025/07/25/ca...ry-level-market-and-could-help-it-grow-again/

 

[frankchn]

Canon does not think the “low-end” will “melt away”. According to an interview with Canon on Petapixel, Canon thinks the rising prices of smartphones provides new opportunities: ”We also believe there is potential for cameras to take the initiative in terms of price.”

See: https://petapixel.com/2025/07/25/ca...ry-level-market-and-could-help-it-grow-again/

Yeah, I've read that article, but I think Canon's comparison doesn't quite make sense.

In general, consumers need (and will buy) a phone much more than they need a dedicated camera, and the iPhone 16e and the R100 + 18-45 kit is the same price at $600. Hence, I don't think the entry price for Canon's entry-level camera is low enough such that they can convince the consumer to just buy the camera because it is notably cheaper, even if the output quality of the camera is significantly higher.

Regardless, all the other manufacturers have retreated from the entry-level segment, so it would be interesting to see if the entry-level segment will continue to be a growth driver for Canon or not over the next few years.

 

[EricN]

You are absolutely correct! I was confusing it with my 100-500. I used TCs with my ef70-200/2.8 which was useful but really slow AF with 2x. Getting the 100-500 was a big step up and I have never regretted buying it.

My excuse is that I am in hospital on endone for pain management

Wishing you a fast recovery or adjustment to no longer need such a strong pain medication

 

[EricN]

Yeah, I've read that article, but I think Canon's comparison doesn't quite make sense.

In general, consumers need (and will buy) a phone much more than they need a dedicated camera, and the iPhone 16e and the R100 + 18-45 kit is the same price at $600. Hence, I don't think the entry price for Canon's entry-level camera is low enough such that they can convince the consumer to just buy the camera because it is notably cheaper, even if the output quality of the camera is significantly higher.

Regardless, all the other manufacturers have retreated from the entry-level segment, so it would be interesting to see if the entry-level segment will continue to be a growth driver for Canon or not over the next few years.

One thing to consider is how frequently people buy new phones vs new cameras. For example, without any real research, it seems most people who buy a camera will use it until it's dead. On the other hand it seems most people are upgrading to a newer phone much sooner.

 

[Del Paso]

One thing to consider is how frequently people buy new phones vs new cameras. For example, without any real research, it seems most people who buy a camera will use it until it's dead. On the other hand it seems most people are upgrading to a newer phone much sooner.

For many, mostly younger users, cellphones are also a fashion and -very important- a status accessory. I could name a few in my family and neighborhood who replace their phone every 2 or 3 years, depending on Apple's or Samsung's latest products. So, every 2 or 3 years, my wife gets a free Iphone of the former generation for free...

 

[Del Paso]

You are absolutely correct! I was confusing it with my 100-500. I used TCs with my ef70-200/2.8 which was useful but really slow AF with 2x. Getting the 100-500 was a big step up and I have never regretted buying it.

My excuse is that I am in hospital on endone for pain management

Sad to read that!
I wish you a prompt recovery and a painless future!

 

[SvO2]

For many, mostly younger users, cellphones are also a fashion and -very important- a status accessory. I could name a few in my family and neighborhood who replace their phone every 2 or 3 years, depending on Apple's or Samsung's latest products. So, every 2 or 3 years, my wife gets a free Iphone of the former generation for free...

I mean a phone is definitely far more useful for my day to day than a Camera. I'd much prefer to keep the former up to date. I might count as a younger user by this forum's standard though.

In my case I can get a phone for free through work every year though, so it's not really a choice I have to think about.

 

[Del Paso]

I mean to a phone is definitely far more useful for my day to day than a Camera. I'd much prefer to keep the former up to date. I might count as a younger user by this forum's standard though.

In my case I can get a phone for free through work every year though, so it's not really a choice I have to think about.

And this is why I wrote "for many", and not for everybody!
During my active years, I also got a new phone once a year, as a work-tool. But this is a fully different case, when you must have a phone for business.
But honestly, is there really a compelling reason to replace an Iphone 15 with a model 16? For video and photo, ok. But for business?