Indeed, but my concern is more that there's nothing on this list that will be cheap enough for some people, including those on this forum, who would like to move into the R ecosystem without spending a lot of money. IS drives up the cost, as I'm sure we all know, and I don't know how valuable it is in a 50mm 1.8 design that should, but is not guaranteed to, come in under $150.
But there is where I have to say you are wrong.
Most RF bodies come with an adapter included. Anyone who wants a cheap way to get in should just get the EF 50 stm. You can have it for around $80. I have been saying for a while... I am not interested in an RF 50 f1.8 that is just the same as the EF version. And suggesting that people buying into the RF system should have the option of a cheap (performance wise as well) $100 f1.8 and a $2.5k f1.2 50 mm lens is just silly.
We buy into the RF camera because it is supposed to be new. It is canon's future vision of their next camera system right? We expect good sharpness wide open even for their f1.8 lenses. They don't have to be at the same price level as the nikon S lenses, but they shouldn't be like any ol' EF lens you can simply adapt to the EOS R system.
Let me put it this way. If I as an entry user had to choose between a native mount lens that does exactly the same as the EF version, then I would be better served buying the EF lens from the second hand market at a greatly reduced price. Take the EF 70-200f2.8 III as an example. Current new prices place it at around $1800 (though its MSRP was about what the current RF version is). If it weren't for the smaller size of the RF version, and the fact that I would like to have HSD setting, I would simply get the EF and adapt and save myself $600. Where I go to 2nd hand it would likely be close to $800 if not more savings.
Therefore going full budget considering what the other options are doesn't exactly make sense. Looks like the RF 50 f1.8 macro will essentially be like the 35 f1.8 macro. But since 50s tend to be easier to make, I won't be surprised if it comes out at around $250 (maybe 300-350), which in my opinion is definitely doable. And the way canon tends to price things over time it would probably come down to $200 or so... again quite doable in my opinion. Better the 35 f1.8 performance in terms of sharpness and IQ for $250, than the performance of the EF 50 f1.8 which needs to be stopped down anyways, since it is noticeably soft wide open. Canon seems to add the macro for an extra which I think does make quite a different in versatility. Entry users wouldn't necessarily have to ever get a macro lens to dabble in close up shots.