EOS 7D MK II
- Mar 26, 2014
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.
It was a noticeably better lens.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.
That is such a popular choice, I have to wonder why FD disappeared...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...
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.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.
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.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?
And they would gotten more money of my money had they made a mid range 50mm as well.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.
The current EF 50mm f1.8 STM is available at the Canon Store for $126. No sign of a close out on that one.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...!