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

mangobutter

EOS 80D
Dec 11, 2014
125
32
www.e46mango.com
I think gone are the days of cheap DG-based 50mm lenses. A 50mm 1.8 for FF mirrorless will likely follow the example of Sony in terms of overall size, shape, price, optical formula, etc. I honestly wouldn't mind if all of Canon's non-L primes follow the example of the RF 35. an RF 24, 28, and even RF 20 would be super awesome too.

As far as pancakes, I doubt we'll get 40mm.. but who knows maybe. I doubt it due to the flange distance. You're likely looking at something a bit wider to keep the size down. Maybe an RF 30 or RF 35 pancake. Look at this pancake made for sony systems and you'll get an idea of what to expect. Generally the point of a pancake is to keep the optical formula cheap and high quality. meaning path of least resistance straight to the sensor. So on FF SLRs that tended to work out to 40mm. so FF mirrorless.. appears its a bit wider. but who knows maybe Canon can work some optical magic but that tends to go against keeping the lens affordable.

 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
377
413
40 just gives a look the *YAWN* 50 cannot. It is the ultimate semi wide walk around (for me)
I confess, I just don't like the look of 50 very much.

Generally the point of a pancake is to keep the optical formula cheap and high quality. meaning path of least resistance straight to the sensor. So on FF SLRs that tended to work out to 40mm. so FF mirrorless.. appears its a bit wider. but who knows maybe Canon can work some optical magic but that tends to go against keeping the lens affordable.
I hope you're right! A 24, 28, or 30mm pancake would be absolutely tremendous. I'd be willing to pay . . . Let's say, $300 for one, at f/2.8.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
They also made the grip larger than most FF Mirrorless bodies because the ML = Small things is just yesterdays dream. (Unless you want noise, horrible menus, crappy weather sealing and poor customer service) Balance is key with Canon.

But the EOS R grip is still smaller than I'd like, if I'm honest. I would argue that Sony's was both hysterically too small and far too close to the mount for one's fingers. Canon didn't fall for either of those blunders, but that's a pretty low bar to clear, IMHO.

I previously said that I want a small build, and I do. But the size of the grip has next to zero to do with bag fit. A tiny grip helps you with a broken down rig -- max packing efficiency in a backpack on your flight, let's say -- but it does not do you any good once a mounted lens longer than the grip is attached (i.e. for a day's carry in a bag, ready to shoot).

Mirrorless grip.jpg


So I was one of the weirdos saying 'huge chunky 5D3 grip + thumbwheel' + 'nice tiny lenses'. Even Frankensteining that combo together with an EF-M lens shows that you are mainly packing the [body thickness and the length of the lens] in the front-back direction, and the width of the back in the left-right direction.

So bring on a proper Canon-made 5D sized grip and leave room for my fingers when I've a bigger barrel L lens attached. :D

- A
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
I want a “body cap” pancake. Let the designers show off how short they can design an RF lens. Let focal length, aperture, price, and everything else be secondary.

Image quality can be adequate, and they can let the camera correct all the distortion and vignetting sins.

I switched from Nikon to Canon for light and compact designs like the RF 70-200 and 400 IS iii. More Please!
 

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
348
228
I want a “body cap” pancake. Let the designers show off how short they can design an RF lens. Let focal length, aperture, price, and everything else be secondary.

Image quality can be adequate, and they can let the camera correct all the distortion and vignetting sins.

I switched from Nikon to Canon for light and compact designs like the RF 70-200 and 400 IS iii. More Please!
Much as I like the idea of an RF body-cap (and would immediately buy one), I think the IQ trade-off would be too much for Canon at this stage of the RF's development.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
Much as I like the idea of an RF body-cap (and would immediately buy one), I think the IQ trade-off would be too much for Canon at this stage of the RF's development.

Surely a body cap / pinhole-like f/8 pancake would be a waste of Canon's time -- leave it to RokiBowYang to make some plastic thing for $50.

Is there actually that much demand for a body cap lens over a properly focusing $125 f/2.8 pancake?

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso and Jethro

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,261
488
So far, the only horse in the RF small prime race is the RF 35mm, which was a good place to start in my opinion. So, one question is which lenses would best complement the RF 35. My guess is the next non L prime will be longer, either 70-85mm, or maybe a 50, and then maybe something wider like 24mm. I think it will be a while before we see anything in the vicinity of 35mm, like between 28 and 40mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
Surely a body cap / pinhole-like f/8 pancake would be a waste of Canon's time -- leave it to RokiBowYang to make some plastic thing for $50.

Is there actually that much demand for a body cap lens over a properly focusing $125 f/2.8 pancake?

- A
Probably not. I’ll take a good 2.8 that doesn’t need to have L optics. If it doesn’t increase the length I’m fine paying more for IS and better optics.

How about this: the adapter body cap includes a toy lens? ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

dsut4392

EOS T7i
Jul 31, 2014
74
27
Remains to be seen how quickly Canon will flesh out the cheaper end of the RF platform.

Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic:
  • There is a $1k FF body now, some folks are absolutely looking to start an FF setup on the cheap.
  • It's only f/1.8 and historically a simple DG design for 50mm is bone cheap to make -- folks may balk at a pricey f/1.8 fifty when they've been cheap from Canon for decades.
  • They want to keep it very small
Why it might be a nice but not L $500-ish lens
  • They are trolling me
  • They make this a 1:2 macro as well (that would be something)
  • They change their lens tier strategy to:
    • Best = buy the L RF lens
    • Middle = buy a pricier RF version of the EF middle price point (EF 50 f/1.4 USM)
    • Lowest = adapt the nifty fifty EF because the RF mount will never get that crap -- this may let them claim that there are three price points while only having to offer two new RF lenses.
Hard to say.

But it will probably be the trolling me reason.

- A
Please let this second option be true!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

dsut4392

EOS T7i
Jul 31, 2014
74
27
Thanks, ahsanford. You didn't completely misread me. I do think that the ILC's are becoming more of an upscale photography option now--for people who are purposefully into photography, who have a deeper than average interest and desire to produce better than average images.

But the customers you reference here, I believe, have it both ways. They want their ILCs for all the excellent examples you have mentioned, but they generally leave their ILC's at home. Yes, technically we can get better images of food in a restaurant, for example, with better gear, but only to a point. Beyond that we need lighting and backgrounds and lots of management cooperation to do tremendously better with an R than with the best smartphones on the market atm.

Sure, there is a market for budget lenses, but I don't think it is as profitable as you seem to think, because volume just isn't there anymore.

The Rf 24-105mm f/4L IS seems to be an interesting lens relevant to the discussion. Compared to so many "budget" options, this is an amazing lens for portrait and landscape. But it gets little respect from "forum denizens," and is seen as high-end by beginning photographers. It's a great walkaround too! But it was born with the limitation of f/4. Sigh...It's light. The AF is quick. The IQ is very good. The IS is excellent. And, by RF L-series standards, it's a bargain.

And I believe the rf 35mm is a bargain too, and there is nothing wrong with it as an entry level. We will see more. But if Canon's mission is to bring excitement again to FF ILC, the results (and specs) from the L primes are easier to market.
I don’t believe ahsanford was particularly arguing for a “budget” 50mm as much as a compact alternative. I would happily pay $1k for a 50/1.4 with the size, weight and character of my old Sigma 50/1.4 Ex but the AF of a modern lens.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
I don’t believe ahsanford was particularly arguing for a “budget” 50mm as much as a compact alternative. I would happily pay $1k for a 50/1.4 with the size, weight and character of my old Sigma 50/1.4 Ex but the AF of a modern lens.

^^^ This. All day. Hell, I'd honestly drop $500 right now on the old 1993 EF 50 f/1.4 USM optics being dropped into a new reliable ring USM design. Canon: pull a 'new' 70-200 2.8 III with the 50 1.4. I dare you. :giggle:

For RF, the main question I have is whether a new ILC portfolio in the age of the cell phone Borg (consuming the bottom end of the market) still warrants three 50 primes: L + Nice + Budget.

I expect a nifty fifty $150-ish lens to happen, because they are gateway drugs to buying more lenses. So the question is: will the 'Nice' bucket get a lens with this system?

I would argue (on merit, in general -- not just for a 50) that Canon would make more money if there was a line of 'Nice' lenses on par with the RF 35 f/1.8 Macro. Less well-financed folks could build up a nice lineup of primes with high confidence the usage, size, feel, and features would be consistent. Folks buying these would be building equity in a platform that would more likely retain them as longer term users, and it would make them targets for pricier RF lenses someday.

I would also argue (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that if we can justify two 85 1.2 primes north of $2k and an absolute show pony of a 28-70 f/2 that vaguely resembles the head of Mjolnir, Canon isn't trying to just knock out the EF staples in RF. Making this lens (eventually, perhaps not as a high priority) would not be an unreasonable development.

- A
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
39
25
About time. The nifty fifty is their best selling lens ever and how they didn’t have an RF version ready to go from day 1 was a huge mistake that cost them literally thousands of R body sales. They better have this out like tomorrow.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
One attractive target is the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8. 120grams and 30mm protrusion length. Excellent image quality. Not cheap.

I’d challenge the designers to an inch of protrusion length. Maybe something clever with a replaceable protective element within that length.
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
666
396
For RF, the main question I have is whether a new ILC portfolio in the age of the cell phone Borg (consuming the bottom end of the market) still warrants three 50 primes: L + Nice + Budget.
It absolutely doesn't. This is the main thing you don't seem to be able to accept.