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

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
43mm focal length for the human eye a few experts say. Maybe this is why I prefer the 40 over the 50 as well as over the 35.

I have a different perspective.

Simple capturing of my life, family, interests, etc. = 28-35mm. I love informal environmental work, candids, activities, and putting people in context in a bigger scene. It also tends to be a great all-around FL for a host of types of photography. So if I only get one lens and my 24-70 f/4 is off the table, it's a good bet I head out with my 28 or 35. So I'm not surprised to see cell phone cameras started around these FLs before they started offering different FLs and superwide selfies and what not.

Getting pop / isolation from a lens = 50mm and up. For some reason, 50 f/1.4 is this nice inflection point for bokeh / lens size / not too long to get great iso and pop without always needing to back up.

I suppose I should love something exotic like a 35 f/1.0 more -- so I'd get isolation and pop in my preferred FL range. But a simple DG 50 is amazing at generating isolation in a small package. I think that's why I love it so much (and would love a better one).

- A
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
But... the EF 50 stm is almost an affront to the RF line. It is soft wide open, it experiences focus shift, and it is noisy and not quite fast to focus. So compared to the RF 35 it is definitely a step back.

I am not saying that canon needs to make a $500 50, but at least RF 35 level good. As you say the 50s tend to be easier to design and make. So they should do RF 35 level optics and build and prices it accordingly. And if they could throw in some weather sealing that would be great.

For example the 40 stm is definitely a step up over the 50 stm, and it isn't $500. Consider also that all the competition has 50s at $250 and up.
I rarely shoot at f/2.8 or narrower with my EF 50mm f/1.4, so the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is not a step up for me for most of what I do with a 50mm. It's not a step up for a 35mm f/2 when you need to use an aperture wider than f/2.8, either. Stopped down to f/2.8, the EF 50mm f/1.4 holds its own against the EF 40mm f/2.8.

Canon also has a 50mm at $250 and up: The EF 50mm f/1.4. Sure, the AF could use an update/upgrade, but optically it's no worse than other $500 or less 50mm lenses from other makers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
Which is why EF-M got the 32mm f/1.4 STM.

Speaking of that, here is the number of primes faster than f/2.8 for each mount:

EF-S: 0 (in the history of that mount, wow)
EF-M: 2

If curious -- non-L EF offerings here:
28 1.8* / 35 2* / 35 2 IS / 50 1.4 / 50 1.8 II* / 50 1.8 STM / 50 2.5 compact macro* / 85 1.8 / 100 2*

*now discontinued

So, over time between EF-S and EF-M, Canon appears to see more opportunity (either in lens sales or existence of such lenses pulling folks into the system) in quick + not super pricey primes for crop... yet it can't find the gumption to do something similar for EF. Sadness.

- A
When was the 100/2 discontinued?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
According to Wiki (so it's not necessarily true...) It is still in production.
B&H and Adorama show it as discontinued. Wiki probably hasn't been updated since it was discontinued. It was still available new at all of the major retailers in 2016 when I bought a refurbished EF 100mm f/2 from Canon's (US) refurb store.
 

Dexter75

EOS M50
Dec 18, 2019
48
34
Only one inexpensive RF lens coming this entire year? This is getting ridiculous. It’s going on two years and we still only have ONE RF lens under $1k. About to sell my RP, EF lenses and switch systems, I’m not interested in buying any more 30 year old EF lenses And I’m not spending an absurd $2300+ to get new lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ashmadux

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
619
577
Hamburg, Germany
Only one inexpensive RF lens coming this entire year? This is getting ridiculous. It’s going on two years and we still only have ONE RF lens under $1k. About to sell my RP, EF lenses and switch systems, I’m not interested in buying any more 30 year old EF lenses And I’m not spending an absurd $2300+ to get new lenses.
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.
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
28
7
Johannesburg
I hope it's a $500 lens like RF 35mm/1.8 and not a $100 cheapo lens like EF 50/1.8. We've been waiting for a moderately priced decent 50mm prime for years, Canon!
50mm f/1.8 STM is a gem. Canon will simply re-make it with RF mount, better build, and of course... no IS. Tamron will then come in 2 years later with an RF-mount version of their SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC to fill the gap and price it between $699 - $799.
 

angrykarl

R, M5
Jul 19, 2017
55
46
Prague
www.flickr.com
50mm f/1.8 STM is a gem. Canon will simply re-make it with RF mount, better build, and of course... no IS.
I have it, I use it, it makes sense in EF lineup... but it is soft without contrast until f/2.8, it's slow to focus and it can have unpleasant bokeh. I doubt RF version would be much better for just $100.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,382
358
Davidson, NC
40 just gives a look the *YAWN* 50 cannot. It is the ultimate semi wide walk around (for me)
By the rule of thumb that the “normal” focal length equals the diagonal of the sensor, a “normal” lens on “full frame” would be about 43mm. So 50mm would be slightly telephoto, and 40mm would be barely wide angle. It is not unreasonable that some folks use 35mm as their “normal” lens.

I bought the 50mm f/1.4 for my Rebel to use as a quasi 80mm, portrait lens, etc. I haven’t found a reason to use it on my full-frame DSLR.
 

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
53
49
I rarely shoot at f/2.8 or narrower with my EF 50mm f/1.4, so the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is not a step up for me for most of what I do with a 50mm. It's not a step up for a 35mm f/2 when you need to use an aperture wider than f/2.8, either. Stopped down to f/2.8, the EF 50mm f/1.4 holds its own against the EF 40mm f/2.8.

Canon also has a 50mm at $250 and up: The EF 50mm f/1.4. Sure, the AF could use an update/upgrade, but optically it's no worse than other $500 or less 50mm lenses from other makers.

Of course this stuff isn't apples to apples. When I state that the 40 stm is a step up it is in every respect except the obvious, which is the aperture. But it is sharper wide open, it is quite to focus and it seems to be build better than the 50 stm. So... Of course I want a 50 f1.8 or f1.4. Just don't want an RF version like the nifty fifty. I would prefer all of that but with the above mentioned improvements.Smoother/quieter AF, better build, and better IQ across the aperture settings.

As for the EF 50 f1.4. I know of it, and I have used it, but it definitely needs an update. The whole thing about the AF motor and how fragile it is if you push on the front of the lens always put me off from getting it.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
83
14
I hear you, and I really appreciate the post.

I was fully expecting Canon to push limits and put out sexy kit to establish RF as a top platform, and they did not disappoint. We will continue to see really high end glass come out over the next few years as they build up the RF portfolio, and our jaws will continue to drop as they put out some yowza glass -- a really high end 135, perhaps a coma obliterating astro UWA prime, etc.

But some of your argument above implies (and I could be misreading you) that the only people buying ILCs now are camera forum denizens and working photographers becuase casual shooters stopped buying cameras in favor of cell phones. Some of that surely has happened, but I think a lot of young people still want to make their IG pop, to make their food photography sing, or to get a really nice selfie-video quality for their youtube how-to / unboxing / whatever channel. And some of these people have disposable cash to burn -- all while FF bodies are getting more affordable than ever. Some of these folks wouldn't mind a less involved / obtrusive / burdensome thing to carry around to capture their lives and interests.

Consider: one of the first RF lenses for sale (35 f/1.8 STM) was not a high end staple at all. It was compact, relatively inexpensive, had a FOV not unlike a cell phone and offered a nice 1:2 macro for food / travel photography. People post pictures of the camera itself on social media and comment how wonderfully small it is.

I simply contend that there is money in decent smaller glass. Canon hasn't made it a priority for RF yet, but I'm confident it's coming.

- A
I think YuengLinger makes some good points. It seems, though, like Canon has made newer, decent, small IS versions of 24 mm, 28 mm, and 35 mm in EF, and now a new, decent, small IS 35 mm in RF, but still no new, decent, small IS in 50 mm. That still seems very odd to me. I'm with ahsandord, give me a 50 mm f/1.8 or f/2, with IS, and decent (not world-class) IQ, like the EF 35 f/2 IS or RF 35 f/1.8 STM IS. Why do 24, 28, and 35 get more love from Canon than 50?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
Of course this stuff isn't apples to apples. When I state that the 40 stm is a step up it is in every respect except the obvious, which is the aperture. But it is sharper wide open, it is quite to focus and it seems to be build better than the 50 stm. So... Of course I want a 50 f1.8 or f1.4. Just don't want an RF version like the nifty fifty. I would prefer all of that but with the above mentioned improvements.Smoother/quieter AF, better build, and better IQ across the aperture settings.

As for the EF 50 f1.4. I know of it, and I have used it, but it definitely needs an update. The whole thing about the AF motor and how fragile it is if you push on the front of the lens always put me off from getting it.

In other words, you're dissing a lens you've never used while talking to someone who uses it often, and has been using the same copy for around a decade (in which it has yet to spontaneously combust - all internet chatter about it aside)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
53
49
In other words, you're dissing a lens you've never used while talking to someone who uses it often, and has been using the same copy for around a decade (in which it has yet to spontaneously combust - all internet chatter about it aside)?
So I said that I know the lens and have used it. And your reply is that I never used it?

I make informed decisions. The friend I borrowed it from (for a month) warned me about the AF motor and the internet confirmed it. It was his second copy as the first one suffered from the issue. But ya... thanks for the non-constructive and snippy comment.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,305
539
I think YuengLinger makes some good points. It seems, though, like Canon has made newer, decent, small IS versions of 24 mm, 28 mm, and 35 mm in EF, and now a new, decent, small IS 35 mm in RF, but still no new, decent, small IS in 50 mm. That still seems very odd to me. I'm with ahsandord, give me a 50 mm f/1.8 or f/2, with IS, and decent (not world-class) IQ, like the EF 35 f/2 IS or RF 35 f/1.8 STM IS. Why do 24, 28, and 35 get more love from Canon than 50?
My guess is that Canon has decided that there isn't a lot of money to be made in developing and marketing new, small, decent IQ primes with IS at a price point of around $500 when they have put a lot of work into some pretty good zooms that sell for around $1000.

The EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 doesn't cost much more than a 35mm f2.0 IS, and apparently a RF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 is on the way. For an enthusiast on a tight budget, the less expensive Canon zooms look pretty good. I've been there. I have a 28 f2.8 IS, but I wouldn't have bought it if the EF 16-35 f4 had been available then. Much as I like the 28, I haven't used it much since I got the 16-35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,382
358
Davidson, NC
The friend I borrowed it from (for a month) warned me about the AF motor and the internet confirmed it. It was his second copy as the first one suffered from the issue.
I never experienced any problems with my copy. I used it on my Rebel, but I don't see why that would be a factor. It made good, clear pictures with blurry enough backgrounds when I chose to open it up an appropriate amount for the shot.

As I said above, I haven't had occasion to use it on my full-frame camera. The kit zoom covers that focal length just fine, and I bought a reconditioned 85mm f/1.8 to use for portraits. But if I felt a sudden need to use a 50mm f/1.4 lens, I wouldn't hesitate to use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
So I said that I know the lens and have used it. And your reply is that I never used it?

I make informed decisions. The friend I borrowed it from (for a month) warned me about the AF motor and the internet confirmed it. It was his second copy as the first one suffered from the issue. But ya... thanks for the non-constructive and snippy comment.
Okay, I'll revise that.

In other words, you're dissing a lens you've used for less than a month but never owned while talking to someone who uses it often, and has been using the same copy for around a decade (in which it has yet to spontaneously combust - all internet chatter about it aside)? And you let hearsay found on the internet that your friend repeated while owning a working copy of said lens affect your opinion of it more than your actual experience using it?


EGjneunWoAEwY-_ (1).jpg
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
My guess is that Canon has decided that there isn't a lot of money to be made in developing and marketing new, small, decent IQ primes with IS at a price point of around $500 when they have put a lot of work into some pretty good zooms that sell for around $1000.

The EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 doesn't cost much more than a 35mm f2.0 IS, and apparently a RF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 is on the way. For an enthusiast on a tight budget, the less expensive Canon zooms look pretty good. I've been there. I have a 28 f2.8 IS, but I wouldn't have bought it if the EF 16-35 f4 had been available then. Much as I like the 28, I haven't used it much since I got the 16-35.

I could be totally wrong here, but I'm guessing Canon makes more profit by selling an EF 35mm f/2 IS for $500 than by selling an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II for $1000 or an EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for $650. Especially if they also sell an EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, a 50mm f.1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 to go along with that 35/2...

The level of complexity of a 24-105mm IS zoom compared to 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, or 100mm IS primes is significant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,382
358
Davidson, NC
I have thought of a use for the 50mm on my 6D2: Somewhere in a box in the depths of my walk-in closet is a Spiratone fish-eye adaptor from the 1970s. I think it will fit on a 58mm thread, so could work great on the 50mm. Maybe I will be motivated to find it some day, or I could come across it by accident. I might even shoot some video with it. That could be fun.