Nifty Fifty and/or a Pancake lens are coming to the RF mount in 2020 [CR3]

angrykarl

R, M5
Jul 19, 2017
55
46
Prague
www.flickr.com
The RF protocol is an enhanced EF protocol. No EF lens loses anything it can do on an EF camera when it is used on an RF camera instead. Nothing.
I agree. What I said is that EF lenses may loose some things in comparison with RF lenses – right now it's the high speed display mode (no big deal). What this means for future fast communication demanding things is unknown.

EF 50mm f/1.8 II was a best seller long before digital EF mount cameras, and thus APS-C format EF mount cameras, existed.
Thanks for clarifying. Do you think it makes sense for Canon to sell three versions of 50mm lens in RF mount?
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
Do you know all the lenses scheduled to be released this year, or where did you get the notion that this will be the only lower cost one?

Also, we have 2 sub 1k lenses in the RF 35mm and 24-240mm already.
There is no roadmap for 2020 and Canon has shown they are committed to nothing but massive, expensive lenses. Two lenses under $2200, wow neat.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
570
400
There is no roadmap for 2020 and Canon has shown they are committed to nothing but massive, expensive lenses. Two lenses under $2200, wow neat.
Granted I have nothing to go on but impressions I've picked up "out there" and on these forums, but I think what we've seen so far in RF land is Canon putting out two good (but not superlative) bodies to establish a mirrorless/full frame presence, and a bunch of actually spectacular lenses, showing their strength, while developing a couple of superlative bodies. The R and RP, and those lenses, were an announcement of Canon's arrival...now we see a variety of bodies and we'll more than likely see some "regular people" RF lenses, too. That's been a lower priority because an EF+adapter could do the job too. But as more people move away from EF mounts, there's more reason for Canon to produce native RF lenses that do the same things EF lenses are already capable of.
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
Granted I have nothing to go on but impressions I've picked up "out there" and on these forums, but I think what we've seen so far in RF land is Canon putting out two good (but not superlative) bodies to establish a mirrorless/full frame presence, and a bunch of actually spectacular lenses, showing their strength, while developing a couple of superlative bodies. The R and RP, and those lenses, were an announcement of Canon's arrival...now we see a variety of bodies and we'll more than likely see some "regular people" RF lenses, too. That's been a lower priority because an EF+adapter could do the job too. But as more people move away from EF mounts, there's more reason for Canon to produce native RF lenses that do the same things EF lenses are already capable of.
I had the RP and rented the expensive RF lenses. They are really nice but your average buyer isn’t in the market for $2200+ lenses. I’m a professional photographer and I’m not even spending that kind of money, by the time Canon gets around to making lenses for the vast majority of users, it will be too little too late. More people keep moving to other systems daily, Canon should have had at least 4-5 lenses around $500 to go from day 1. A couple walk around zooms and a couple f/1.8 or f/2 primes. Plenty of users would have been more than happy to put those on an RP. I know there is an EF adaptor, I had one. It’s a PITA because it just adds size and weight and makes lenses protrude further out and makes everything front heavy. The lack of affordable lenses is why the R line has sold so poorly, not the bodies.
 
Last edited:
Mar 14, 2012
2,334
216
I had the RP and rented the expensive RF lenses. They are really nice but your average buyer isn’t in the market for $2200+ lenses. I’m a professional photographer and I’m not even spending that kind of money, by the time Canon gets around to making lenses for the vast majority of users, it will be too little too late. More people keep moving to other systems daily, Canon should have had at least 4-5 lenses around $500 to go from day 1. A couple walk around zooms and a couple f/1.8 or f/2 primes. Plenty of users would have been more than happy to put those on an RP. I know there is an EF adaptor, I had one. It’s a PITA because it just adds size and weight and makes lenses protrude further out and makes everything front heavy. The lack of affordable lenses is why the R line has sold so poorly, not the bodies.
Yup, and that's why Nikon is gaining market share with their S lenses -- oh wait, Nikon is still losing market share. They started with f/4 zooms and f/1.8 primes, and that strategy worked real well...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556

Rule556

I see no reason for recording the obvious. -Weston
Dec 19, 2019
74
74
Seattle
www.flickr.com
When the lens is focused at infinity and the front barrel is fully retracted it is not any more susceptible to damage than any other similar lens. The issue only manifests itself when it receives a lateral blow and the front of the lens is extended. I've always stored all of my lenses with them retracted, both in terms of zoom movements and focus movements. For most lenses that means infinity focus and shortest focal length. For a few zoom lenses (like 18-55mm kit lenses), that means a mid focal length where the optical formula shifts from a retrofocus to a non-retrofocus design based on the relative distances of the different groups.
One of the coolest features on the R is that it automatically retracts the focus elements when you turn off the camera. No more needing to do this manually before removing the lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
There is no roadmap for 2020 and Canon has shown they are committed to nothing but massive, expensive lenses. Two lenses under $2200, wow neat.
EF remains the perfectly viable budget option. RF is where they appear to be generating profits (and happy customers).
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
I had the RP and rented the expensive RF lenses. They are really nice but your average buyer isn’t in the market for $2200+ lenses. I’m a professional photographer and I’m not even spending that kind of money, by the time Canon gets around to making lenses for the vast majority of users, it will be too little too late. More people keep moving to other systems daily, Canon should have had at least 4-5 lenses around $500 to go from day 1. A couple walk around zooms and a couple f/1.8 or f/2 primes. Plenty of users would have been more than happy to put those on an RP. I know there is an EF adaptor, I had one. It’s a PITA because it just adds size and weight and makes lenses protrude further out and makes everything front heavy. The lack of affordable lenses is why the R line has sold so poorly, not the bodies.
You might weigh that Canon's market research gives them much better data about the "average buyer" than one person's assumptions, which always are affected by personal bias (talking about me, not you, of course).

See the advice in my signature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
One of the coolest features on the R is that it automatically retracts the focus elements when you turn off the camera. No more needing to do this manually before removing the lens.
Meh. I've been in the habit of doing it every time I put a lens/camera with lens mounted away for almost four decades. It took a little retraining myself when focus-by-wire lenses first came out, but I managed. It's second nature.
 

Rule556

I see no reason for recording the obvious. -Weston
Dec 19, 2019
74
74
Seattle
www.flickr.com
Meh. I've been in the habit of doing it every time I put a lens/camera with lens mounted away for almost four decades. It took a little retraining myself when focus-by-wire lenses first came out, but I managed. It's second nature.
Well, yeah I get it, I learned on film with manual focus too. Just saying, it’s a nice feature, that will probably save some people’s lenses over time.
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
Yup, and that's why Nikon is gaining market share with their S lenses -- oh wait, Nikon is still losing market share. They started with f/4 zooms and f/1.8 primes, and that strategy worked real well...
Nikon is not the same company as Canon last time I checked. The ONLY reason Canon got their marketshare lead was off the backs of great affordable gear like the Rebel series and the 50 f/1.8 It sure as hell wasnt off $3500 cameras and $2k lenses...
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
EF remains the perfectly viable budget option. RF is where they appear to be generating profits (and happy customers).
no, they don’t, adapters suck, they add size and they add weight. The length of my EF 135 f/2 grew another 3 inches with the adaptor and was ridiculously stupid front heavy on my RP. I was holding the lens, the RP was basically a rear lens cap. An adaptor is not an excuse to be lazy releasing affordable lenses while you are too busy making $3k to drive your profit margins up, that’s why the R has been a dismal failure and has hardly sold anything,
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
You might weigh that Canon's market research gives them much better data about the "average buyer" than one person's assumptions, which always are affected by personal bias (talking about me, not you, of course).

See the advice in my signature.
Well if Canons research told them people want overpriced and under speced cameras and $3k lenses, they did a very poor job because that’s not what people want. That’s why the R system was a complete failure from a sales perspective until they slashed the price on the R in half for the holidays,
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
Well if Canons research told them people want overpriced and under speced cameras and $3k lenses, they did a very poor job because that’s not what people want. That’s why the R system was a complete failure from a sales perspective until they slashed the price on the R in half for the holidays,
Has it occurred to you that you might not be the typical Canon buyer, and if they cater to your desires they might not make as much money than if they followed what their data says?

Nothing wrong with posting an "I want!" post. But don't pretend that it's necessarily "what people want."

That said, I agree that "adapters suck." Even if they function perfectly they are a compromise and not a pleasant one. The deciding factor in my rejecting a big white lens until they make one for the RF. I don't get how a 1" adapter added 3" to your lens.

"I want" a big white made for RF, even if it's the same optics as the EF. If they can make a 3kg 400 f2.8, might they make a 2 kg 300? Or maybe they'll win me to a long zoom to 400 or 500.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
359
245
no, they don’t, adapters suck, they add size and they add weight. The length of my EF 135 f/2 grew another 3 inches with the adaptor and was ridiculously stupid front heavy on my RP. I was holding the lens, the RP was basically a rear lens cap. An adaptor is not an excuse to be lazy releasing affordable lenses while you are too busy making $3k to drive your profit margins up, that’s why the R has been a dismal failure and has hardly sold anything,
Well, sounds like the R/RF system isn't for you. Although it still seems to inspire quite a bit of passion. The rest of us are waiting to see the (apparently large number of) new announcements and releases over the next six months or so. Which we may or may not (depending upon what is actually released and our individual needs) add to the R and RF products we already have and enjoy using.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,305
539
Nikon is not the same company as Canon last time I checked. The ONLY reason Canon got their marketshare lead was off the backs of great affordable gear like the Rebel series and the 50 f/1.8 It sure as hell wasnt off $3500 cameras and $2k lenses...
Some of us think that the EF lens mount had something to do with Canon's market share, that and a solid product line and excellent customer support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556
Mar 14, 2012
2,334
216
Nikon is not the same company as Canon last time I checked. The ONLY reason Canon got their marketshare lead was off the backs of great affordable gear like the Rebel series and the 50 f/1.8 It sure as hell wasnt off $3500 cameras and $2k lenses...
No, Nikon is not Canon, but they did more of what you wanted Canon to do. Nikon led with better mirrorless bodies and f/1.8 zooms, which is what you wanted, and the results so far is that Nikon did not turn its fortunes around (even if you restrict to FF mirrorless), which is what your logic would have predicted. The bulk of your consumers don't buy f/1.8 lenses either; they buy zooms. which is why most of the EF-M and EF-s lenses are zooms and not primes. They are looking to pair the RP with the RF 24-240 or a 24-105, not f/1.8 primes. The market is contracting, and some think that the volume will go back to the pre-digital days. Back that, zooms were not nearly as good as they are now and they were a lot more expensive compared to primes, which is why primes made more sense then. They don't now. What "average consumer" is going to carry a 24, 35, 50 and a 85mm prime when most already prefer their cell phone to a ILC with just a single general purpose zoom?
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
No, Nikon is not Canon, but they did more of what you wanted Canon to do. Nikon led with better mirrorless bodies and f/1.8 zooms, which is what you wanted, and the results so far is that Nikon did not turn its fortunes around (even if you restrict to FF mirrorless), which is what your logic would have predicted. The bulk of your consumers don't buy f/1.8 lenses either; they buy zooms. which is why most of the EF-M and EF-s lenses are zooms and not primes. They are looking to pair the RP with the RF 24-240 or a 24-105, not f/1.8 primes. The market is contracting, and some think that the volume will go back to the pre-digital days. Back that, zooms were not nearly as good as they are now and they were a lot more expensive compared to primes, which is why primes made more sense then. They don't now. What "average consumer" is going to carry a 24, 35, 50 and a 85mm prime when most already prefer their cell phone to a ILC with just a single general purpose zoom?
Some good points but the fact remains that the EF 50 f/1.8 is Canons best selling lens of all time. The fact that they did not have an RF version ready to go on day 1 remains a huge oversight, especially with the sub par bodies released.