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

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,305
539
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.
I think a key question is the number of lenses sold, in addition to the profit on each lens sold. I believe that the popular zooms sell in much higher volume than the primes, especially over the last decade or so. We don't know for sure how many people are buying several primes to cover the range of a 24-105, but that is one of the factors Canon would be looking at. Looking at it another way, how many people are there who have an interchangeable lens camera but a do not have a normal zoom?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
I think a key question is the number of lenses sold, in addition to the profit on each lens sold. I believe that the popular zooms sell in much higher volume than the primes, especially over the last decade or so. We don't know for sure how many people are buying several primes to cover the range of a 24-105, but that is one of the factors Canon would be looking at. Looking at it another way, how many people are there who have an interchangeable lens camera but a do not have a normal zoom?
How many ILC owners have a normal zoom that was bought separately from the camera, which gave them a significant discount on the cost of the lens, thus cutting Canon's profit on the lens?

I'd be willing to bet there are more Canon EF camera owners who bought a prime (the EF 50mm f/1.8, to be sure) than who bought another normal zoom beyond the one that came with their camera. If they later bought another zoom, it is most likely an EF 55-250mm or an EF 70-300mm (or third party equivalents).
 
Last edited:

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,382
358
Davidson, NC
How many ILC owners have a normal zoom that was bought separately from the camera, which gave them a significant discount on the cost of the lens, thus cutting CAnon's profit on the lens?
That wasn’t the case when I bought the 6D2 in September after it came out. You could buy the body alone or with a choice of 24-105mm zooms. The kits cost the same as if you bought the body and lens separately.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
That wasn’t the case when I bought the 6D2 in September after it came out. You could buy the body alone or with a choice of 24-105mm zooms. The kits cost the same as if you bought the body and lens separately.
I got my 5D Mark II + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS "kit" for only $600 more than the 5D Mark II body only was going for at a time when the lens was selling for $1,100 in the U.S. That's been a while, though.

But here we're talking mostly about Rebels and 18-55mm kit lenses, not mid to upper tier bodies and L series "kit" lenses. How many Rebel + 18-55mm kits has Canon sold for each FF body + 24-105mm L "kit" they've sold?
 
Last edited:

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
213
134
I got my 5D Mark II + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS "kit" for only $600 more than the 5D Mark II body only was going for at a time when the lens was selling for $1,100 in the U.S. That's been a while, though.
Stores around here sold EF 24-105mm mkI for $600 for a very long time. That was possible because it was sold with at least two different models of the 5D, so whenever a photographer came in to upgrade the camera, but not the lens, so the store could take the lens out of the box and sell it separately.

IIRC, it was speculated on the forum that one of the reasons for the mkII's release was to put a stop to that.

But here we're talking mostly about Rebels and 18-55mm kit lenses, not mid to upper tier bodies and L series "kit" lenses. How many Rebel + 18-55mm kits has Canon sold for each FF body + 24-105mm L "kit" they've sold?
I'm sure the Rebel kits outsell the FF kits, but that owners of FF cameras buy more primes, with the possible exception of 50mm f/1.8.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
Stores around here sold EF 24-105mm mkI for $600 for a very long time. That was possible because it was sold with at least two different models of the 5D, so whenever a photographer came in to upgrade the camera, but not the lens, so the store could take the lens out of the box and sell it separately.

IIRC, it was speculated on the forum that one of the reasons for the mkII's release was to put a stop to that.
It wasn't until around 2013 when the street price of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS dropped from around $1,100 to $800 in retail packaging from authorized dealers. That's a long time from 2005 when the lens was first introduced and only three years before it was replaced in 2016. "White box" prices are an entirely different discussion when comparing a retail boxed Camera + lens kit price to the cost of buying a retail boxed lens bought seperately from a retail boxed camera.

The basic cause seemed to be the free fall of the yen versus the USD that allowed gray market importers to buy them in Hong Kong and sell them in the U.S. for well less than the list price. After 2013 or so, a lot of what buyers thought were "white box" lenses (lenses pulled from kits) turned out to be "gray market" instead.


I'm sure the Rebel kits outsell the FF kits, but that owners of FF cameras buy more primes, with the possible exception of 50mm f/1.8.
Owners of FF cameras probably buy more zooms and primes than owners of Rebels. But there are a LOT more Rebels than FF Canon cameras that have been bought over the years.

My initial observation was that buyers of Rebels, who vastly outnumber buyers of FF cameras, rarely buy a normal zoom other than the one that came with the camera when it was purchased.
 
Last edited:

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
510
315
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.
Hmm for me perspective looks same when i use 70mm ,is it cause i am big dude or becouse eyeglasses?
Could it be moving toward 35mm becouse asian peoples are very short and so their head quite small?
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
Hmm for me perspective looks same when i use 70mm ,is it cause i am big dude or becouse eyeglasses?
Perspective has nothing to do with focal length. It's determined by position of the eye (or camera) and the relative distances of various objects one is looking at.

The whole "human eye equals 40mm/45mm/50mm" thing is a misunderstanding of mixing up magnifications when lenses were combined with typical viewfinders during the SLR era and comparing focal lengths to 135 format diagonal measurements.

If I look through a camera viewfinder with my right eye and leave my left eye open I will see an object in front of me with both eyes. If the apparent sizes are the same for both eyes, we would say the lens system (consisting of the total combination of elements in the camera lens as well as the mirror, viewscreen/focusing screen, prism, and eyepiece elements in the viewfinder) to be a magnification of 1X. If the object looks twice as large with my right eye, we would say the magnification is 2X. If the object looks half as large as seen with the right eye via the viewfinder then we would say the magnification is 0.5X.

Now let's discuss the viewfinders in typical SLR cameras. How large something appears when viewed in a camera's eyepiece depends on two factors:

  • The focal length of the lens. This affects the size of objects as they are projected on the camera's focusing screen (sometimes also called a viewscreen) as well as projected on the camera's imaging medium. Since the mirrors in every SLR I have ever seen are flat, they provide no magnification as they flip the image up onto the focusing screen. The same is true of the pentaprism or pentamirror in the viewfinder. Since all of the reflecting surfaces are flat they provide no magnification.
  • The magnification of the eyepiece. The lenses in a camera's eyepiece are very much like the lenses in a telescope or binocular eyepiece. They provide a magnification, usually a fractional one (that is they make things smaller), and project collimated light through the exit pupil. Our eyes then focus on this collimated light to view the image through the eyepiece. The size of the cylinder (or rectangle) of collimated light projected by the eyepiece is called the exit pupil size.
Many, if not most, 35mm SLR cameras during the second half of the 20th century had viewfinders that provided magnification similar to each other. With a 55-60mm lens attached the apparent magnification was about 1X. That means what we saw through the viewfinder with our right eye was approximately the same size as what we saw with our unaided left eye looking directly at the same scene.

The following cameras listed with their viewfinder magnifications with a 50mm lens focused at infinity: Canon F1 - 0.8X, Nikon F - 0.8X, Canon AE-1 - 0.86X, Minolta X-570 - 0.9X, Pentax K2 - 0.88X, Pentax ME-F - 0.87X. A 0.9X viewfinder would give 1X apparent magnification at roughly 55mm, a 0.8X viewfinder would do so at roughly 62mm.

In the digital age that standardization has been severely altered. Cameras have a wide variety of sensor sizes. Viewfinder sizes vary more from camera to camera. In the manual focus only portion (which was most) of the film era even lower priced cameras needed large, bright viewfinders to enable their users to focus them properly. With the advent of autofocus large bright viewfinders have become more of a luxury than a necessity and are seen mostly on the more expensive models. Differences in sensor sizes affect how much magnification is needed for the viewfinder to display approximately the same field of view as the FoV the imaging sensor will capture. It can take anywhere from 50mm to 70mm to get 1X viewfinder magnification, depending on the camera, sensor size, and viewfinder size. All of Canon's FF cameras with 0.71X VF magnification require a 70mm lens to give the same magnification of distant objects as the naked eye sees.

If you're using a 5D, 5D Mark II, III, or IV, 5Ds/5Ds R, or a 6D/6D Mark II, then your perception that a 70mm lens makes an object look the same size in the viewfinder as it looks to your naked eye, you are spot on!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gruhl28 and Pape

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
510
315
Perspective has nothing to do with focal length. It's determined by position of the eye (or camera) and the relative distances of various objects one is looking at.

The whole "human eye equals 40mm/45mm/50mm" thing is a misunderstanding of mixing up magnifications when lenses were combined with typical viewfinders during the SLR era and comparing focal lengths to 135 format diagonal measurements.

If I look through a camera viewfinder with my right eye and leave my left eye open I will see an object in front of me with both eyes. If the apparent sizes are the same for both eyes, we would say the lens system (consisting of the total combination of elements in the camera lens as well as the mirror, viewscreen/focusing screen, prism, and eyepiece elements in the viewfinder) to be a magnification of 1X. If the object looks twice as large with my right eye, we would say the magnification is 2X. If the object looks half as large as seen with the right eye via the viewfinder then we would say the magnification is 0.5X.

Now let's discuss the viewfinders in typical SLR cameras. How large something appears when viewed in a camera's eyepiece depends on two factors:

  • The focal length of the lens. This affects the size of objects as they are projected on the camera's focusing screen (sometimes also called a viewscreen) as well as projected on the camera's imaging medium. Since the mirrors in every SLR I have ever seen are flat, they provide no magnification as they flip the image up onto the focusing screen. The same is true of the pentaprism or pentamirror in the viewfinder. Since all of the reflecting surfaces are flat they provide no magnification.
  • The magnification of the eyepiece. The lenses in a camera's eyepiece are very much like the lenses in a telescope or binocular eyepiece. They provide a magnification, usually a fractional one (that is they make things smaller), and project collimated light through the exit pupil. Our eyes then focus on this collimated light to view the image through the eyepiece. The size of the cylinder (or rectangle) of collimated light projected by the eyepiece is called the exit pupil size.
Many, if not most, 35mm SLR cameras during the second half of the 20th century had viewfinders that provided magnification similar to each other. With a 55-60mm lens attached the apparent magnification was about 1X. That means what we saw through the viewfinder with our right eye was approximately the same size as what we saw with our unaided left eye looking directly at the same scene.

The following cameras listed with their viewfinder magnifications with a 50mm lens focused at infinity: Canon F1 - 0.8X, Nikon F - 0.8X, Canon AE-1 - 0.86X, Minolta X-570 - 0.9X, Pentax K2 - 0.88X, Pentax ME-F - 0.87X. A 0.9X viewfinder would give 1X apparent magnification at roughly 55mm, a 0.8X viewfinder would do so at roughly 62mm.

In the digital age that standardization has been severely altered. Cameras have a wide variety of sensor sizes. Viewfinder sizes vary more from camera to camera. In the manual focus only portion (which was most) of the film era even lower priced cameras needed large, bright viewfinders to enable their users to focus them properly. With the advent of autofocus large bright viewfinders have become more of a luxury than a necessity and are seen mostly on the more expensive models. Differences in sensor sizes affect how much magnification is needed for the viewfinder to display approximately the same field of view as the FoV the imaging sensor will capture. It can take anywhere from 50mm to 70mm to get 1X viewfinder magnification, depending on the camera, sensor size, and viewfinder size. All of Canon's FF cameras with 0.71X VF magnification require a 70mm lens to give the same magnification of distant objects as the naked eye sees.

If you're using a 5D, 5D Mark II, III, or IV, 5Ds/5Ds R, or a 6D/6D Mark II, then your perception that a 70mm lens makes an object look the same size in the viewfinder as it looks to your naked eye, you are spot on!
Thanks i never realized videfinder is x 0,71 :) . My understanding of physic and camera tech is bit limited.
But doesnt it affect how we like about picture ,how close ours natural eye focal lenght it is . So if we want impress ours 160cm tall wife 40mm pancake could be perfect.
Could be error to use lens we like ,because we arent photographing for ouselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
83
14
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.
You’re probably right. I still wonder, though, why they did the 24, 28, and 35 before a 50, and then decided not to do any more.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,305
539
You’re probably right. I still wonder, though, why they did the 24, 28, and 35 before a 50, and then decided not to do any more.
Canon still sells a lot of EF 50mm f1.4 lenses for less than $350, and stopped down it is pretty sharp, even though there are people here who don't think much of it. The 24 ,28 and 35 IS lenses replaced lenses that were about as old as the 50 f1.4, but the IS lenses were introduced in 2012 in the $800 range, maybe because of exchange rates, and Canon took a lot of grief about the price. I think Canon has been wary about the small prime market ever since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
53
49
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?


View attachment 188473
You I don't know. My friend I do. He told me to be careful with applying any pressure on the lens because in his experience what you can find online about it potentially damaging the motor is true.

So am I supposed to take his word on this or yours? Am I dissing the optical quality of the lens? Nope, not at all. I liked the images I was getting using it. So... i took his warning and look it up online and found that it is statistically a known weak point of the lens. As such I opted to getting the stm version while I wait for canon to release a native RF f1.8 or f1.4. I don't get why making an informed decision like that irks you.

The RF lenses are of newer design. Silent AF system, with the control ring, and other modern tech advantages. So why wouldn't I prefer that over picking up the 50 f1.4?
 

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
53
49
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.
Again... the issue is not with the lens performance in general.

But, apparently it can mess up the AF motor is pressure is applied to the front and thus the AF motor. I didn't exactly test out. How much pressure is needed to mess it up? Simply putting the lens on a table reading on the front won't do anything. But how about with the camera's weight on it, like a 1DXII? How about it is in my camera back and my kid sits on it? Yes, it is something that shouldn't happen, but 4 year olds aren't exactly logical.

I ... ME... personally didn't want to take the risk and opted to just go cheap with the stm version while I wait for the RF. How does that not make sense?
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
28
7
Johannesburg
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.
Remember... The 50mm f/1.8 is made to target a specific price point. There will be other RF lenses for better IQ, contrast, bokeh, and for Tamron's case... IS. Samyang/Rokinon and Zeiss will follow up with the improved-IQ alternatives, Sigma will follow up with an f/1.4 Art.

It's called the nifty fifty for a reason.
For the casual shooter and hobbyist, a plastic fantastic RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will be the first addition to their kit and cost between the current EF 50mm STM and the RF 35mm because of the custom ring. Wait and see.
 

angrykarl

R, M5
Jul 19, 2017
55
46
Prague
www.flickr.com
Remember... The 50mm f/1.8 is made to target a specific price point. There will be other RF lenses for better IQ, contrast, bokeh, and for Tamron's case... IS. Samyang/Rokinon and Zeiss will follow up with the improved-IQ alternatives, Sigma will follow up with an f/1.4 Art.

It's called the nifty fifty for a reason.
For the casual shooter and hobbyist, a plastic fantastic RF 50mm f/1.8 STM will be the first addition to their kit and cost between the current EF 50mm STM and the RF 35mm because of the custom ring. Wait and see.
Sure, the nifty fifty is likely the best selling Canon lens. The question is: is it sold mostly to fullframe users as a standard lens or to the crop users as a cheap portrait lens? If it's the second case, then it doesn't make sense to offer it in RF mount. Also: Does it still make sense to offer three 50mm lenses (1.2, 1.4, 1.8)? If not and if Canon introduces cheapo RF 50mm, than our chances for an affordable stabilized 50mm lens are slim.

About Tamron/Rokinon RF lenses... I think we still don't know if they can make native RF mount lenses. Sure, there is Rokinon RF lens with autofocus, but we don't know if it's RF-protocol lens or and EF-protocol lens. (If someone knows more about this, then I am all ears!) It may sound like a detail, but EF lenses have some limitations. They cannot have a control ring, they don't support high speed display mode and they will probably not support combination of IBIS+IS and other high speed communication demanding things. I wouldn't want a 3rd party RF lens now.

It may very well make sense for Canon to make this lens. It just doesn't make sense for me to buy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koketso

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
You I don't know. My friend I do. He told me to be careful with applying any pressure on the lens because in his experience what you can find online about it potentially damaging the motor is true.

So am I supposed to take his word on this or yours? Am I dissing the optical quality of the lens? Nope, not at all. I liked the images I was getting using it. So... i took his warning and look it up online and found that it is statistically a known weak point of the lens. As such I opted to getting the stm version while I wait for canon to release a native RF f1.8 or f1.4. I don't get why making an informed decision like that irks you.

The RF lenses are of newer design. Silent AF system, with the control ring, and other modern tech advantages. So why wouldn't I prefer that over picking up the 50 f1.4?
Making a fully informed decision doesn't irk me. Making a blanket statement implying that all EF 50mm f/1.4 lenses have the issues that a few in isolated batches (which Canon recalled based on serial number range and fixed at no charge - even if the lens was out of warranty) by only telling part of the story is what irks me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
You’re probably right. I still wonder, though, why they did the 24, 28, and 35 before a 50, and then decided not to do any more.
Most likely the 24, 28, and 35 didn't sell as well as Canon had hoped.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
Again... the issue is not with the lens performance in general.

But, apparently it can mess up the AF motor is pressure is applied to the front and thus the AF motor. I didn't exactly test out. How much pressure is needed to mess it up? Simply putting the lens on a table reading on the front won't do anything. But how about with the camera's weight on it, like a 1DXII? How about it is in my camera back and my kid sits on it? Yes, it is something that shouldn't happen, but 4 year olds aren't exactly logical.

I ... ME... personally didn't want to take the risk and opted to just go cheap with the stm version while I wait for the RF. How does that not make sense?
The issue was not with the AF motor directly, it was with the front of the slots on the focusing helicoid at the front of the lens. If the lens was extended (for close focus) and enough lateral force was applied to the extended portion of the lens, the slots could be deformed. This deformation caused too much moving resistance causing the focus position to get stuck and would then put too much load on the AF motor when it was attempting to move the focus position. If the user continued to try and get the lens to AF while stuck, it could eventually burn out the directly geared motor.

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.

The amount of lateral force needed to deform the slots would not be provided by the static weight of a camera body, even a 1-series. It would take a pretty good bump or drop to do it. Then it would take a user continually trying to AF the lens when it was stuck to damage the AF motor. If the user doesn't let the AF motor continually engage while the focus mechanism is stuck, it doesn't damage the AF motor. There are plenty of instructions that can be found on the internet on how to fix the shape of the bent helicoid slots that is a fairly easy DIY project.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Optics Patent

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
About Tamron/Rokinon RF lenses... I think we still don't know if they can make native RF mount lenses. Sure, there is Rokinon RF lens with autofocus, but we don't know if it's RF-protocol lens or and EF-protocol lens. (If someone knows more about this, then I am all ears!) It may sound like a detail, but EF lenses have some limitations. They cannot have a control ring, they don't support high speed display mode and they will probably not support combination of IBIS+IS and other high speed communication demanding things. I wouldn't want a 3rd party RF lens now.

It may very well make sense for Canon to make this lens. It just doesn't make sense for me to buy it.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
Sure, the nifty fifty is likely the best selling Canon lens. The question is: is it sold mostly to fullframe users as a standard lens or to the crop users as a cheap portrait lens? If it's the second case, then it doesn't make sense to offer it in RF mount. Also: Does it still make sense to offer three 50mm lenses (1.2, 1.4, 1.8)? If not and if Canon introduces cheapo RF 50mm, than our chances for an affordable stabilized 50mm lens are slim.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee