I confess, I just don't like the look of 50 very much.40 just gives a look the *YAWN* 50 cannot. It is the ultimate semi wide walk around (for me)
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?
Please let this second option be true!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:
Why it might be a nice but not L $500-ish lens
- 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
Hard to say.
- 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.
But it will probably be the trolling me reason.
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.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.
It absolutely doesn't. This is the main thing you don't seem to be able to accept.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.