Canon RF 20-50mm F4 PZ & RF 45mm F1.2 STM Appear on Canon Survey Form

[bn5fg]

Current 50/1.8 is just crap

The current 50mm f/1.8 is far from crap. In fact, it’s the best lens in the lineup right after the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

50mm is so important, I just don't get it why Canon is playing it like this.

I’m actually pretty happy with the 50mm f/1.4 VCM. Not sure what you’re talking about.

The 50mm f/1.2 could be a bit lighter—maybe by removing the ring USM monster of a motor—but the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 are already near perfect.

So the 50mm RF lenses are in great shape, which is why the next release is shifting toward 45mm. Makes perfect sense. The creation of the RF 50mm f/1.2 Mark II can probably wait, I guess.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Current 50/1.8 is just crap despite 24/1.8, 35/1.8 and 85/2 being excellent.

The 50 is great for the price.
The 85 AFAIK is great for the price.
The 35 is okay.
The 24 is mostly crap.

1.2 being small and lightweight?!?

I would imagine a 45mm f/1.2 non-L STM being somewhat similar to the RF 50mm f/1.4 L VCM, with extra vignetting.

 

[bn5fg]

The 24 is mostly crap.

The 24mm is mostly crap? I’d argue. Sure, you can’t crop it like you can with the 28mm f/2.8, but at native resolution it’s fine. Anecdotally, features like semi-macro, OIS, or a wider aperture can make it very useful in real world scenarios from time to time. It also responds well to stopping down for landscapes, unlike the 16mm f/2.8.

I would say it's really hard for me to find a bad lens in RF lineup. Unless you are Dustin Abbot or some other freak who shots brick walls daily and nothing else.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

The 24mm is mostly crap?

At least my copy was, but consistency has always been great on STM lenses, so...

The RF 24 1.8 was the first and, so far, still is the only RF lens I bought for myself and ended-up getting rid of it.

I don't like the 35mm, but I have to say: that lens it's much, much better. The 24 is more expensive and performs worse, it's somewhat similar to the RF 16mm, and I would be totally okay with that if it was cheap - I have no problems with cheap lenses - but the 24 is the most expensive of the three.

My experience was with the R6, no high megapixel bodies involved.

 

[bn5fg]

I don't like the 35mm, but I have to say: that lens it's much, much better. The 24 is more expensive and performs worse, it's somewhat similar to the RF 16mm, and I would be totally okay with that if it was cheap - I have no problems with cheap lenses - but the 24 is the most expensive of the three.

Creating wider lenses becomes increasingly challenging. A 24mm lens should be compared to other 24mm lenses—comparing it to a 35mm with less distortion and a reduced need for a retrofocus design simply isn’t fair.

For example, the 16mm is noticeably softer than the 24mm and one stop darker. As I mentioned before, stopping down works better on the 24mm. Does that make the 16mm a bad lens? Not at all—for a 160 g 16mm, it’s perfectly fine, and the value it provides is phenomenal.

Why is the 24mm the most expensive of the three? I suppose it’s the newest and required the most R&D. And 16mm is much more basic in general. Also, if I remember correctly, 24mm coatings are more advanced than those on the 35mm.

 

[subratasenn]

May be the 45 mm will be a pancake lens? Like the 40 mm we had on EF?
Does RF series has any?

 

[Walrus]

May be the 45 mm will be a pancake lens? Like the 40 mm we had on EF?
Does RF series has any?

https://www.canon.it/lenses/rf-28mm-f2-8-stm/

 

[Steve_FR]

The only RF series pancake I know of is the RF 28mm F/2.8. There is no equivalent to the older EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens (yet).

 

[riker]

The 50 is great for the price.
The 85 AFAIK is great for the price.
The 35 is okay.
The 24 is mostly crap.


I would imagine a 45mm f/1.2 non-L STM being somewhat similar to the RF 50mm f/1.4 L VCM, with extra vignetting.

I had enough of "great for the price" nonsense, sorry. Nobody asked for a 50mm lens (arguably one of the absolutely most important focal lengths, but definitely my favourite) to be at the price of nothing. Or well, OK, I'm not saying it's a problem that we have it. The problem is the lack of a light, relatively low-cost but still decent 50mm lens. Like the 1993 50/1.4 at 290g as we always refer.
Are you sure having a $220/160g option and the next available step being $1400/580g is a great way to go?
Is it not obvious that something around $400-600/300-350g would be very welcome by many?

I don't know what you have against the 24, 35, 85, but the 50 is nowhere near the build quality, IQ, or AF performance of those. I own the 35 and 85 and I absolutely like them. A bit canon-style pricy but otherwise there's no question they can be referred to as "decent". The 50 not. I hate it as much as I hated the EF 50/1.8 STM. It's the same crap. A piece of cheap plastic, with slow and failing AF. Yeah, if it manages to hit accurate focus, it can draw nice. If.

Canon keeps doing the same. They made the EF 35/2 IS in 2012 which was fantastic and then in 2015 they introduce the EF 50/1.8 STM which is of course better than the 1990 50/1.8 but otherwise...pff....cheap and light, end of traits. If you wanted something better, you had to buy the 50/1.2L which btw wasn't that great at all.

Just some additional fun, check out what the Sony 50/1.8 can do for just $280 compared the the canon:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1195&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

45/1.2? I still don't get it. Are they trying to make something light and affordable or professional? Would this be combining best of both worlds or worst of both worlds? Depends on the final performance/price. I think I'd be happier with a 50/1.4, 50/1.8 or 55/1.8.

 

[riker]

The current 50mm f/1.8 is far from crap. In fact, it’s the best lens in the lineup right after the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

I’m actually pretty happy with the 50mm f/1.4 VCM. Not sure what you’re talking about.

The 50mm f/1.2 could be a bit lighter—maybe by removing the ring USM monster of a motor—but the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 are already near perfect.

So the 50mm RF lenses are in great shape, which is why the next release is shifting toward 45mm. Makes perfect sense. The creation of the RF 50mm f/1.2 Mark II can probably wait, I guess.

What?! Please tell me HOW exactly is the 50/1.8 the BEST?!?! We must be living in alternate realities.
It's the cheapest, crappiest non-L prime in the lineup, nowhere near the build quality of say the 35/1.8. The price gap is not accidental of course.
The AF is slow and more importantly inaccurate even in good light conditions, but in low light it's just a ridiculous fail.
If you want something a bit less amature and tesco-low-cost but still affordable and light coz let's say you are backpacking in India, sorry nothing for you. The 1.4 VCM is definitely not fit for such a scenario. So you are willing to pay and carry 2X? Great, but nah...pay 7X and carry 3.5X.
Do we have an equivalent of the EF 50/1.4 we had in the 90s and 2000s? Nope.
I can put it many ways, if you don't understand, you don't understand.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Creating wider lenses becomes increasingly challenging. A 24mm lens should be compared to other 24mm lenses—comparing it to a 35mm with less distortion and a reduced need for a retrofocus design simply isn’t fair.

I understand that, but it was Canon's decision to make it using the same housing as the 35mm, the comparison is unavoidable.

Does that make the 16mm a bad lens? Not at all—for a 160 g 16mm, it’s perfectly fine, and the value it provides is phenomenal.

That's right.

Why is the 24mm the most expensive of the three? I suppose it’s the newest and required the most R&D.

It's not because it's the newest, even at MSRP it's the most expensive. Like I said, I don't particularly like this 35mm, but overall it performs better than its 24mm brother, image quality is more balanced on the 35, with comparable mechanics (I know the 24 has lead screw STM though).
Canon didn't have to make the two lenses using the same housing, the 24 didn't have to be so small, have IS, half-macro abilities, none of that. Those were their conscious decisions, which impact the product. If they consider the 24 to be more valuable, the least we can expect is that it delivers the same image quality as the 35 - but it doesn't, it falls bellow, and that is my issue with the lens.

I had enough of "great for the price" nonsense, sorry

Well, good for you. If you're done with "great for the price nonsense", why don't you just pay the premium, then?

Nobody asked for a 50mm lens (arguably one of the absolutely most important focal lengths, but definitely my favourite) to be at the price of nothing.

Perhaps YOU didn't ask for it, but thankfully you're just one, not a majority. There's a reason why this is Canon's best selling lens.

Like the 1993 50/1.4 at 290g as we always refer.

The one that's worse than the current RF 50mm f/1.8? Yeah I've heard of it...in fact I've had that lens. Don't miss it at all.

Are you sure having a $220/160g option and the next available step being $1400/580g is a great way to go?
Is it not obvious that something around $400-600/300-350g would be very welcome by many?

A non-L full-frame RF 45mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 STM would probably be an instant buy for me, as long as it had internal focusing, lead-screw STM, and maybe some degree of weather sealing, like the RF 16-28 and 28-70 STM have.

You're the one who seems to have a problem with the possibility of this 45mm f/1.2 non L STM lens, not me.

Just some additional fun, check out what the Sony 50/1.8 can do for just $280 compared the the canon:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1195&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

That's your idea of a much better lens? The difference is marginal.

You criticise the autofocus performance of the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, yet you defend the RF 35mm f/1.8 STM, which has the same motor (same as the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, by the way) and a much longer focus range to work with.
Definitely the 35 has better build quality, and performs better wide open, but it's not like the 50 is pure garbage next to it, specially on autofocus, they miss shots exactly the same way - as they should, afterall is the same motor.

 

[riker]

The one that's worse than the current RF 50mm f/1.8? Yeah I've heard of it...in fact I've had that lens. Don't miss it at all.

You criticise the autofocus performance of the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, yet you defend the RF 35mm f/1.8 STM, which has the same motor (same as the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, by the way) and a much longer focus range to work with.
Definitely the 35 has better build quality, and performs better wide open, but it's not like the 50 is pure garbage next to it, specially on autofocus, they miss shots exactly the same way - as they should, afterall is the same motor.

I also had the EF 50/1.4, actually still have it for my EOS 1V HS and 3. It would not stand today of course, but back in the day it was "decent." I'd say "good".
Now we have the 50/1.8 which is "cheap" and "acceptable for the price" and we have the 50/1.4L which is great quality but pricy and heavy for travel. We have no decent/good/affordable 50.
Justifying anything with the canon's sales/marketing power or assuming it is primarily driven by individual needs is just....come on...
RF mount getting closed and 3rd party lenses being unavailable for us is also what most whished for, right?

In my experience the 50 misses more than the 35 but maybe I'm using the 50 more, that's why. Fact is, it's canon's cheapest prime and thus the lowest performer not surprisingly. The performance of the 50/1.8 is just insufficient for me, the number of lost images due to AF (on R5m2) is unacceptable. The 50/1.4L has unacceptable size/weight for most of my scenarios I shoot in.
Canon has no 50 for me and that's the case since the 2010's. I don't think I'm alone with this opinion and you seem to argue everything just not the point of what I'm saying but whatever...

 

[scyrene]

Do we have an equivalent of the EF 50/1.4 we had in the 90s and 2000s? Nope.

I quite liked the EF 50 1.4 but it's been widely criticised for various issues - it certainly wasn't a great optical performer until you stopped it down a fair bit.

Canon has no 50 for me and that's the case since the 2010's. I don't think I'm alone with this opinion

But presumably they release products to target broad swathes of (potential) customers? You're unlikely to be alone, but you may still be an outlier from Canon's perspective.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

we have the 50/1.4L which is great quality but pricy and heavy for travel.

The performance of the 50/1.8 is just insufficient for me, the number of lost images due to AF (on R5m2) is unacceptable.

I don't think a 500g L lens is heavy for travel - after all, it's a L lens. That is, perhaps, one of the scenarios where you should consider the 50mm f/1.8, but...I also think one shouldn't expect the cheaper lenses to be able to handle the highest resolution camera. You paid an extra for that resolution, shouldn't you go for the best resolving lenses in the system?
These cheap lenses perform generally well on 20 to 24MP sensors that can be found on cheaper cameras. Some perform great, some perform satisfactorily, but none is garbage and, truth be told, we all know what we're paying for, right? These lenses are on the same level as most kit lenses, being their fixed focal lengths the reason for better optical performance, if compared.
Would you pair your R5 Mark II with the variable aperture 24-105mm? I assume not, but you're pairing it with other lenses of the same grade.

I understand your desire for a better 50mm f/1.8, or a lower end 50mm f/1.4, but even if such lens ever came out, if I were in your position I'd lower my expectations, because it might or might not be able to handle a 45MP camera like yours.

I own both cheap and expensive lenses: some that I use for personal stuff, others that I use for work, but I clearly separate them, even though I use a low resolution camera, the original R6. I don't expect L-level performance out of my cheap toys.

About autofocus...none of the STM lenses I ever tried (except maybe the 10-20mm f/4 L) is able to keep up with the 12fps of the mechanical shutter on my camera, much less 20 to 30 fps. 5 to 7fps probably yes but, 12fps, no way. The 16mm sometimes is able to, the 24mm was not, the 28 is not, the 35 is not, the 50 is not.

 

[Walrus]

Like the 1993 50/1.4 at 290g as we always refer.

The EF 50 1.4 was one of the crappiest EF lens we had back in the days; all the EF f1.8 iterations were much sharper.

BTW you can see down here my test last year when I compared side to side the EF 50 1.4 with today's RF 50 f1.8 , and the RF blows the EF out of the water. There was also my Sigma 40 1.4 Art but of course that's in a league of its own.

Post in thread 'Canon is in deep talks with third-party lens manufacturers'

Feb 25, 2024

My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses [..] or 50/1.4

Speaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).

So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the...

• Walrus

• 

 

[bn5fg]

What?! Please tell me HOW exactly is the 50/1.8 the BEST?!?! We must be living in alternate realities.

It’s a pocketable bokeh machine, and its focal length is extremely universal for portrait shooting. Image quality is still very decent compared to the RF 16/2.8, and the nifty fifty responds really well to stopping down since it has almost no distortion.

The nifty fifty only looks bad if you compare it to the marvelous RF 28/2.8.

It's the cheapest, crappiest non-L prime in the lineup, nowhere near the build quality of say the 35/1.8.

The 35/1.8 is small, but not really pocketable.

The AF is slow and more importantly inaccurate even in good light conditions, but in low light it's just a ridiculous fail.

I bet 85/2 is slower but you praise it a lot.

If you want something a bit less amature and tesco-low-cost but still affordable and light coz let's say you are backpacking in India, sorry nothing for you. The 1.4 VCM is definitely not fit for such a scenario. So you are willing to pay and carry 2X? Great, but nah...pay 7X and carry 3.5X.

This is why they are thinking about 45/1.2 non-L. But you dismiss the very idea. 50mm is not some holy cow, you know.

I can put it many ways, if you don't understand, you don't understand.

I just see a wider picture. I rarely shoot primes in isolation. The 50/1.8 is perfect for pairing with longer lenses—you get natural proportions without compression, still with very decent bokeh. And you don’t need insane sharpness for cropping, because you already have the longer lens for that.

35/1.8 has to be better for cropping because distance between 35 and 85 is much longer.

It's not because it's the newest, even at MSRP it's the most expensive. Like I said, I don't particularly like this 35mm, but overall it performs better than its 24mm brother, image quality is more balanced on the 35, with comparable mechanics (I know the 24 has lead screw STM though).
Canon didn't have to make the two lenses using the same housing, the 24 didn't have to be so small, have IS, half-macro abilities, none of that. Those were their conscious decisions, which impact the product. If they consider the 24 to be more valuable, the least we can expect is that it delivers the same image quality as the 35 - but it doesn't, it falls bellow, and that is my issue with the lens.

They wanted the 24/35 pair to be interchangeable for gimbal work. The 24 also had to have IS for people without a gimbal. Clearly, these were video-first lenses. Think of the 24/35 combo as a proto-VCM lineup.

And I personally I like a smaller 24/1.8 A LOT. For a portrait shooting it's not your main lens and more like an addon for 35/85 combo(and 35 is mosty VCM in my case). For this scenario it has to be small but it doesnt have to be extrasharp because you have some nice 35 already.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The EF 50 1.4 was one of the crappiest EF lens we had back in the days; all the EF f1.8 iterations were much sharper.

BTW you can see down here my test last year when I compared side to side the EF 50 1.4 with today's RF 50 f1.8 , and the RF blows the EF out of the water. There was also my Sigma 40 1.4 Art but of course that's in a league of its own.

Post in thread 'Canon is in deep talks with third-party lens manufacturers'

Feb 25, 2024

My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses [..] or 50/1.4

Speaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).

So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the...

• Walrus

• 

That comparison you posted back then is quite impressive.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

In Germany, there is a saying/ a metaphor which states:
"Das ist, als würde man (Dragonfly) Reifen auf einen Ferrari aufziehen."

"It´s like putting (Dragonfly) tires on a Ferrari."

It´s probably never a good idea to combine a top class/ high end product with "inferior" or lower customer options/ components. Combining the RF 16mm F2.8/ 35mm F1.8/ 50mm F1.8/ 85mm F2 with the R5mkii and then complaining about performance is just ridiculous. They aren't made for the fastest AF, the highest burst rates and greatest IQ (at least not at every single frame), even though in a lot of circumstances they still get the job done.

Of course, you can drive a Ferrari with bad tires, but you can't demand its full capabilities. Further more, driving the Ferrari with bad tires requires a very skilled driver. So does using a R5mkii with a cheap, affordable consumer lens. Point and shoot with burst rates won't work. Slow done, get it right and one will still get great results.

Sticking with the metaphor, I guess the RF 16mm F2.8/ 35mm F1.8/ 50mm F1.8/ 85mm F2 are meant to be driven with VW Polo or Toyota Corolla. And in these cases, the deficits don´t show that much. Or to put it into a positive wording: their strengths shine and using them is such a joy that the shortcomings don´t bother.

My personal experience with the RF 16mm F2.8/ 35mm F1.8/ 50mm F1.8/ 85mm F2 are:
When attached the EOS R:
- all of them perform well
- the AF 50mm did/ does a lot of focus hunting
- IQ was great with the 35mm, 85mm; 16mm does suffer a bit color fringing in high contrast scenes. RF35mm F1.8 IQ on that sensor is just a pure joy!
- of course, some vignetting is there (which I absolutely don´t mind)
- I compared landscapes shots of the 16mm and 14-35mm F4 L on a 65 inch TV and had difficulty telling them apart. IQ is absolutely ok.

When attached the EOS R5:
- all of them perform ok - well
- the AF 85mm is noticeably slower or least you realize the camera could be faster, but the lens can't
- IQ is "degraded" somehow. 35mm seems much softer, 85mm slightly softer.
- 16mm looses some detail, but IQ is still ok. Stopping down to f4 really helps. 2.8 is basically unusable, because the details in the corners down resolve as good as on the EOS R.
- haven´t used the 50mm F1.8 with it.

The AF on the 50mm F1.4 VCM is lightyears faster than the 85mm F2 on the R5 and especially a lot sharper. Kind a fits the metaphor. I wonder how all the lenses perform on the R8.

I do love the compact size of the RF 16mm F2.8, 35mm and 85mm, mostly the IQ and their price-performance. I can´t and won't replace the 35mm/85mm with a vcm because they are too expensive. But I'll get a R8 and pair those lenses with it.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Random question: The R8 has a AF motor which apparently the R5 does not. Does is mean that the lens will focus faster? it would be of great assistance with the 85mm F2.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Random question: The R8 has a AF motor which apparently the R5 does not. Does is mean that the lens will focus faster? it would be of great assistance with the 85mm F2.

The R8 does not have a motor. AFAIK, there isn't a single Canon EOS camera with integrated lens motor in the entire history of all three lens mounts (EF, EF-M, RF).