Is it finally happening? Canon RF 50mm f/1.4 USM [CR1]

[SNJ Ops]

Yes, we all know the market has changed dramatically. Yet through that dramatic change over the past 20 years, Canon has not only held the lead of the market they've grown to dominate it.

Including DSLR sales which are declining yes Canon dominates the market. In terms of mirrorless market share alone Canon doesn’t dominate the market. Sony is right there with them.

Incidentally, the 50/1.2 is a very high performing lens. You may not want to pay the price for it or carry the weight and that's your choice, but for the hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals who want a high performing 50mm prime, Canon has them covered.

Canon doesn’t have everyone covered judging by the number of requests for a 50mm f1.4 prime.

You're saying others have done something, so Canon should do the same. Why do you think that the strategies adopted by the market-leading company should be the same as those of the companies far behind that market leader and struggling to catch up? Prime example, the claim that Canon was 'late to mirrorless'. Canon read the market trends, and since they dominated in DLSRs they focused on that until such time as it made sense for them to shift to MILC, first in APS-C and later in FF. About 5 years after being 'late' to the APS-C MILC market, they became #1 in that segment. Now, 5 years after being 'late' to the FF MILC market, they've become #1 in total MILC market, too. All the while, they've continued to dominate the camera market as a whole.

What is being asked for isn’t some out of this world glass that’s hard to make or would cost an astronomical price. And again in terms of mirrorless Canon is not far beyond Sony at all.

To me, that says they understand the market very well...but you think you'd make better decisions than they are. Ok. As I've said, some people think the earth is flat, demonstrating that there are a fair number of fools living on this nearly-spherical planet.

A section of the market is requesting things that so far Canon hasn’t provided. Maybe they are being worked on who knows. The same could be said of many of the camera manufacturers. What is clear is that some Canon shooters are frustrated. If that doesn’t make a difference to Canon management so be it.

Choice is good for the consumer, certainly. If Canon doesn't make a modern 50/1.4 and other brands do, those consumers can choose to switch brands. Except...they're not. I trust that Canon knows quite well what's best for Canon.

And those that choose not to switch can voice their frustrations. In the main it seems all that it’s being asked for is a similar range of lenses that are available for EF but modern RF versions.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Do you still have your f/1.0?

Yep.
I would probably even get another one if it broke.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Maybe Canon is still embarrassed, 30 years later, at how bad that 50 1.4 was and are afraid to make another.

The QC on that lens was garbage. my 50 STM is better than both the 1.4 EF I had then sold after being disappointed.

Let Sigma make one if you can not step up to the plate and redesign that lens after 30 years!
They make a killer 50 1.2.....not rocket science.

I have no love for that lens either but some folks seem to feel differently,

 

[EOS 4 Life]

180mm f4 L Macro

RF 180 f/3.5 L Macro IS

I agree with every other lens that you have on your list.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If enough Canon users asked for a 28mm lens I would give it them. Again I give you the case of Sony which is why emount has 2 GM options at 50mm, choice can be good for both the manufacturer and the customer.

I think most of us agree that there are too many gaps in the RF lineup.
It is just that some folks think there are enough EF lenses to compensate.
Sony seems to have more lens and camera models than makes sense and I still find gaping holes in their lineup.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The loud cries of Canon's closed RF lenses to 3rd parties doesn't seem to be impacting the total sales at a macro level.

Loudness is overrated.
People have complained about Canon since the 1DX.
They have lost some market share since then but they have pretty much maintained what they have now.
On the other hand, they stated publicly that they want 50% of the market and have yet to achieve that again.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Your friend the Ordinary Filmmaker feels the same way.

Ordinary Filmmaker seems fine adapting EF lenses.
He just acknowledges other people's complaints of not wanting to do so themselves.

 

[chasingrealness]

No gold ring, please. It will just look tacky. Either a red (L) or a white ring, or I'm not buying.

Fair enough - I’m cool with a new ring color, too. But are you sure you don’t want a *Gould* ring, sir?

 

[scyrene]

What is being asked for isn’t some out of this world glass that’s hard to make or would cost an astronomical price. And again in terms of mirrorless Canon is not far beyond Sony at all.

A section of the market is requesting things that so far Canon hasn’t provided. Maybe they are being worked on who knows. The same could be said of many of the camera manufacturers. What is clear is that some Canon shooters are frustrated. If that doesn’t make a difference to Canon management so be it.

Choice is good for the consumer, certainly. If Canon doesn't make a modern 50/1.4 and other brands do, those consumers can choose to switch brands. Except...they're not. I trust that Canon knows quite well what's best for Canon.

And those that choose not to switch can voice their frustrations. In the main it seems all that it’s being asked for is a similar range of lenses that are available for EF but modern RF versions.

We don't know why they haven't released mid range lenses. The fact that it isn't exotic suggests it isn't because they can't. So we are left wondering. Perhaps they will but not yet. But we also know the overall market has shrunk considerably since the EF heyday. So maybe their strategy is as several people on here have suggested - to target the upper and lower ends of the market and ditch the middle. That isn't a defence of Canon's position, just an attempt to understand it. Clearly not every possible lens will be available in every system.

And sure people can voice their frustrations. But as often as not it's done in a non-constructive way (usually imagining that a given view must be widespread) and that gets boring.

As for a 50mm f/1.4, there are several 50mm options already - but there is only one true native macro lens for the RF system. I could suggest that is a bigger gap - but I have no idea how many people would buy eg a 60mm macro or a 180-200mm macro, or an updated MP-E. So I won't tell everyone it has to happen or else.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Including DSLR sales which are declining yes Canon dominates the market. In terms of mirrorless market share alone Canon doesn’t dominate the market. Sony is right there with them.

Why wouldn't you include DSLR sales? Sony used to sell DSLRs, they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon and they abandoned that segment. Of course, some people keep parsing data until it supports their point. Sony sold more cameras than any other manufacturer...in Liechtenstein...in February 2023...on a Tuesday. Yay. Sony is the number one camera brand among brands starting with the letter 'S'. Yay.

Incidentally, Canon sold 20% more mirrorless cameras than Sony in 2022. Is that 'right there with them'? Not quite.

Canon doesn’t have everyone covered judging by the number of requests for a 50mm f1.4 prime.

Seriously? Lol. A handful of requests out of the millions of cameras Canon sells annually. How many global opinion surveys have you conducted?

Even among that handful, there’s no agreement. Some want an affordable non-L version, some want an L lens, some a non-L with weather sealing (as if, lol), some say it must have IS, some it should not. I suppose you believe it should be the version you put on your list, because that’s the one that you want so it’s the one most people want, right? Sure, sure.

In any event, it’s not Canon’s goal to cover or satisfy everyone. It’s clear there are some people on this forum who would bitch even if Canon offered a 24-200 mm f/1.4 lens weighing 300 g and costing $200. “It’s too big.” “The AF is noisy.” “It only works on Canon’s crappy cameras.” Whatever.

And again in terms of mirrorless Canon is not far beyond Sony at all.

A decade ago Canon had almost no mirrorless market share. A few years ago, Canon was well behind Sony in mirrorless. Last year, Canon was ahead in mirrorless by 20%. The trend is clear, except to those who choose to ignore it.

A section of the market is requesting things that so far Canon hasn’t provided. Maybe they are being worked on who knows. The same could be said of many of the camera manufacturers. What is clear is that some Canon shooters are frustrated. If that doesn’t make a difference to Canon management so be it.

Canon is smart enough to know that some customers will always be frustrated. It’s obvious from their market share that they’ve done an excellent job of making cameras that appeal to a majority of camera buyers for two decades. Except maybe a particular majority in Liechtenstein on that specific Tuesday.

And those that choose not to switch can voice their frustrations.

Of course! They could go out in the forest and shout their frustrations as well, and it might do just as much good as posting them here. But post away.

In the main it seems all that it’s being asked for is a similar range of lenses that are available for EF but modern RF versions.

Previously, you raised the point that the market today is dramatically different from what it was previously. That is absolutely correct. What makes you think that Canon’s strategy should be to replicate/update all of the lenses they made for that dramatically different market?

 

[EricN]

Yep.
I would probably even get another one if it broke.

Please post some shots from it!

 

[roby17269]

I have no love for that lens either but some folks seem to feel differently,

Me neither...

I went through the EF 50mm 1.8 (can't remember which one but whatever was current beginning of 2000) and I did not like it because I was shooting APS-C and, honestly, I was not ready for primes - I was in a kind of "I need every mm covered from 12mm to 400mm" mood silly me.
I had the EF 50mm 1.4 on a 5D and I hated it because of the image quality / softness.
I bought the EF 50mm 1.2L when I became a prime snob and used if rarely with a 5D mkII and 1D X. I did not hate it but did not like it either since I found it almost unusable at 1.2 without the "magic" of the 85 1.2L II
I bought the RF 50mm 1.2L after I got me a R5 and I wanted a fast 35mm but Canon has not seen fit to satisfy my supreme wish ... yet! And I needed something wider than the awesome (no words for it really, it's soooo good) RF 85mm f/1.2L. This is the first Canon 50mm that really satisfies me and then some. Yes it is heavy-ish (but I'm used to the 85 1.2 and that one is way heavier), but the image quality is to die for. Admittedly, I haven't tried the RF 50mm 1.8 (no desire to do so) and the EF 50mm f/1.0L (now that one I'd gladly give it a whirl to)... but I'd be very surprised if they would sway me away from the 50 1.2

 

[esglord]

I’m interested if it turns out to be an L lens. Would love the f/1.2L, but the price is a bit more than I can justify. I do think that Canon should eventually fill out the middle price range rf primes offering even though I think they have been smart to prioritize high end and budget lenses first. It would be a strange choice to release this lens before seeing a high end 35mm in my opinion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Admittedly, I haven't tried the RF 50mm 1.8 (no desire to do so)

I'm really not a 50mm prime person, the only one I ever used was a Pentax 50/1.8 on a film SLR >40 years ago. But I will admit I am slightly tempted to click the buy button on the RF 50/1.8 with its current $99 price.

 

[roby17269]

I'm really not a 50mm prime person, the only one I ever used was a Pentax 50/1.8 on a film SLR >40 years ago. But I will admit I am slightly tempted to click the buy button on the RF 50/1.8 with its current $99 price.

I wasn't as well, until I've bought the RF 1.2

It's that good (for me, at least). Before it, between the lackluster 50mm offerings by Canon, and my own impression of 50mm being a nor fish, nor flesh type of focal length, had me against the notion of getting another 50mm. But the RF 1.2 is so good that I had to re-wire my mind Perhaps I should be grateful that Canon's coyness in releasing the 35 1.2 has pushed me towards it?

Yes the 1.8 is a steal, but, personally, I know which 50mm I'd reach for every time I want a 50mm, so, even if it was free, it'd be a waste of space in my already crowded toy cabinet.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wasn't as well, until I've bought the RF 1.2

It's that good (for me, at least). Before it, between the lackluster 50mm offerings by Canon, and my own impression of 50mm being a nor fish, nor flesh type of focal length, had me against the notion of getting another 50mm. But the RF 1.2 is so good that I had to re-wire my mind Perhaps I should be grateful that Canon's coyness in releasing the 35 1.2 has pushed me towards it?

Yes the 1.8 is a steal, but, personally, I know which 50mm I'd reach for every time I want a 50mm, so, even if it was free, it'd be a waste of space in my already crowded toy cabinet.

The 50mm focal length is 'normal'. I'm not.

 

[Sporgon]

Wow, the vitriol directed at the poor old EF 50/1.4 in this thread is remarkable, considering that lens is about as good as it gets across the frame from f/4 through to 11, seemingly defying the physics of diffraction at smaller apertures. At f/2-and-a-bit it’s very good in the centre, the poorer boarders contributing to the bokeh which, looking back at images I’ve taken with it, was often very pleasing.
It would have been interesting to see the result if Canon had given it the 50/1.8 STM treatment, not the STM motor, but the improved accuracy of optical build and coatings which, if the 50 STM is anything to go by, would have substantially improved the centre at f/1.4. At the same time do away with the Early Learning Centre mechanicals.
However, I guess if this had been done it would have threatened the 50/1.2 sales, so was never to be. Shame really, it’s the awful feel of the lens that puts me off it, rather than the optical performance.

 

[BC]

Those FD lenses go for a lot of money right now even the radioactive ones,
A lot more EF lenses were produced but I wonder if discontinued EF lenses will start to go up in value.

Honestly, once the third-party autofocus issues cured by using a mirrorless body are ruled out, most non-L EF lenses perform worse than third-party lenses. The 50 1.4 USM was hot garbage on any body unless stopped to 1.8 or more, and as someone pointed out, was based off an optical formula so old it was from a time when cigarettes were advertised as healthy.

 

[David - Sydney]

Prime example, the claim that Canon was 'late to mirrorless'. Canon read the market trends, and since they dominated in DLSRs they focused on that until such time as it made sense for them to shift to MILC, first in APS-C and later in FF. About 5 years after being 'late' to the APS-C MILC market, they became #1 in that segment. Now, 5 years after being 'late' to the FF MILC market, they've become #1 in total MILC market, too. All the while, they've continued to dominate the camera market as a whole.

To me, that says they understand the market very well...but you think you'd make better decisions than they are. Ok.

I think that it is/was fair to say that Canon was late to FF mirrorless. Of course their EF-M system was in place for a long time but Sony was the dominant FF mirrorless OEM for some time. Operating a DLSR in live view is mirrorless of course but without the EVF. It was interesting that the1DXiii had better AF in live view than using the OVF.

The R/RP don't seem to be well rounded cameras but were/are surprisingly cheap vs 5Div and 6Dii. They seemed to be rushed to market and the only real "innovation" being the touch bar whereas the R5/6 were Canon's bold step into the segment a couple of year later.

Maybe the Digic X development was problematic causing the delay. We won't ever know but moving second into a segment is not always bad as long as you have a good product. Apple iphone comes to mind which continues to dominate both volume and margin.
The iphone 16's rumour that spatial photos may come to life utilising the camera's lidar sensor could be very interesting for photography.

 

[David - Sydney]

Could be most of the surprises will be midrange RF?

Maybe but there are also 'gaps' if the EF lenses are discontinued. I am sure that Canon would prefer to sell more L lenses if they can assuming that their margin is higher than non-L and the lenses can be produced in reasonable volumes.

Allowing a 3rd party RF50/1.4 in will mean that Canon equivalent directly competes against that 3rd party forever more. Margin will always be lower in that case.