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

[ahsanford]

If I'm honest, I'm more surprised at the trick clubs in the bag (two 85Ls already, the 28-70 f/2, etc.) and a 10x super zoom happened before the more obvious blocking and tackling opportunities:

• A line of tiny f/4 or possibly f/5.6 zooms: a 24-70 f/4-6.3 would be as big as a minute
• A pancake
• A non-L nifty fifty
• A 1:1 macro

But Canon knows where the money is, and possibly migrating existing users from EF --> RF (with an RF equiv to what they already have) is more important than Sony's take on lens nation-building. Sony started with unsexy smaller/slower lenses and then had to bring out the big guns to be taken seriously.

- A

 

[David]

100% yes an RF 35L will happen -- f/1.4 vs. f/1.2 remains to be seen. I'd be pretty surprised if Canon shot 1.2 all the way up and down the (not too long) prime spectrum. Some would get bonkers huge.

But I'd expect RF L lenses for what we have in EF, but surely they'll start with the staples:

24L = coming, lower priority​

35L = coming​

50L = done​

85L = done (twice!)​

100L Macro = coming, higher priority (no native 1:1 macro in the system yet)​

135L mondo pickle jar of destiny = eventually, no idea when (it's a prestige lens they might have led with, but it's not a 'must' so much as a bug zapper to draw folks to the brand)​

There will be more lenses of course, but above are the staples one would expect.

- A

I do not doubt a RF35L is coming. I doubt its useful size. With useful size I mean a practical all day long HQ lens for travelling, hiking, sight seeing, carrying long hours. The 35mm FL is the most used FL as far as I know, so it needs to be practical and very good.

 

[criscokkat]

Bring on the cheap RF pancakes!

One of those will literally turn the RP into a pocketable camera, a modern day equivalent of the old Yashica T4 I loved back in the early 90's. With the rotatable screen I even have something functionally akin to the super scope.

 

[ahsanford]

I do not doubt a RF35L is coming. I doubt its useful size. With useful size I mean a practical all day long HQ lens for travelling, hiking, sight seeing, carrying long hours. The 35mm FL is the most used FL as far as I know, so it needs to be practical and very good.

+1. I live between 24-50mm FF, and [thinking face ] not surprisingly, six out of my eight lenses cover some part of that range.

If one FL was permanently set on my camera for all time, it would be 28 or 35. (But maybe that's because we lack a proper 50.)

- A

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

As brilliant as the RF 50L is (tried one out with a CPS loaner), it's still a pickle jar. I'd prefer smaller and pitching whatever retrofocus paperweight nonsense is in there.

"Give me a good 50mm prime."

*Canon engineers the best 50mm ever made*

"No not THAT good!"

 

[ahsanford]

"Give me a good 50mm prime."

*Canon engineers the best 50mm ever made*

"No not THAT good!"

That implies 'good' is a binary thing. It's clearly more nuanced than that. The RF 50 f/1.2L is great at many things, but it doesn't tick all my boxes.

EF 50 f/1.8 II = giggle
EF 50 f/1.8 STM = meh, slow focusing and IQ nothing to write home about
EF 50 f/1.4 USM = decently sharp, still compact but the AF hunts and getting useable output wider than f/2 is dubious
EF 50 f/1.2L USM = wide open can be magical, but AF is a finnicky diva (a comical hit rate compared to a modern lens) and it's just not sharp across the frame
RF 50 f/1.2L USM = AF great, sharpness great, but it is not small and it is not light

First party AF + form factor is clearly a big deal for me. I effectively want an EF 35 f/2 IS USM in a 50mm FL design. It would not need to that big to pull it off.

I just find it comical that Canon offers offers ancient Yugos, an aging Ferrari and a proper modern Mercedes... when all I need is a decent Honda.

- A

 

[peters]

nice! I think pancakes like the 40mm 2,8 stm are quite bad when it comes to corner sharpness and are also quite prone to flares - but its a PERFECT lense for travel. In combination with a tiny camera like the RP its a perfect companion for travel.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I feel like the only way you would be happy would be if Canon made ten different 50mm f1.2s, each one slightly larger and with better image quality than the last.

I really don't know what you want them to do. There is not that much room between the quality of the EF 50mm 1.2 and the RF. It would be foolish for them to have made anything less than the best 50mm possible being that the EF 50mm 1.2 is still a decent lens. And unfortunately making the absolute best 50mm comes with a size/weight penalty. Either accept it, or accept the EF's shortcomings.

 

[ritholtz]

EF 50 f/1.8 II = giggle
EF 50 f/1.8 STM = meh, slow focusing and IQ nothing to write home about
EF 50 f/1.4 USM = decently sharp, still compact but the AF hunts and getting useable output wider than f/2 is dubious
EF 50 f/1.2L USM = wide open can be magical, but AF is a finnicky diva (a comical hit rate compared to a modern lens) and it's just not sharp across the frame
RF 50 f/1.2L USM = AF great, sharpness great, but it is not small and it is not light

First party AF + form factor is clearly a big deal for me. I effectively want an EF 35 f/2 IS USM in a 50mm FL design. It would not need to that big to pull it off.

I just find it comical that Canon offers offers ancient Yugos, an aging Ferrari and a proper modern Mercedes... when all I need is a decent Honda.

- A

Basically you need a Canon version of Honda Accord. I have a habit of comparing everything I buy with traits Honda Accord.

 

[privatebydesign]

If there will ever come a RF 35mm f1.4L. It is more likely a giant f1.2L even larger than the RF50L since those 35mm' always are bigger than the 50mm'. Many shake their heads in lack of understanding Canon's decision to create those very big lenses. But if you ever used the fine Zeiss Batis 2/40 you'd understand my intention. Canon needs such a lens...

No I have never used the Zeiss Batis 2/40, what I do know is that most Canon owners wouldn't pay anywhere near $1,300 for an f2 unless it was over 135mm! That means the lens has such a small potential market it doesn't make sense for a mass market company like Canon to make it.

 

[ahsanford]

I really don't know what you want them to do. There is not that much room between the quality of the EF 50mm 1.2 and the RF.

I'm getting a vibe of 'best' means sharper from your writing. If that's your bar, sure -- to really improve the EF f/1.2L you take a page from all the third parties, leave DG behind, and go big. Everyone and their mother has a pickle jar 50-ish prime now.

But there are $400-500 non-L lenses that mop the floor with that EF 50L from an AF perspective, or in providing a flatter field of focus for when you aren't shooting portraits.

I'm just saying that smaller and inexpensive lenses don't have to be crap and left to rot for so long. At this FL, they are due for a once-this-century sort of update.

- A

 

[highdesertmesa]

The 5DsR with the EF 40 2.8 and EF 100-400 II was such a great travel combo. Looking forward to the Rs + RF 40 + RF 70-400 as replacements.

 

[highdesertmesa]

I'm getting a vibe of 'best' means sharper from your writing. If that's your bar, sure -- to really improve the EF f/1.2L you take a page from all the third parties, leave DG behind, and go big. Everyone and their mother has a pickle jar 50-ish prime now.

But there are $400-500 non-L lenses that mop the floor with that EF 50L from an AF perspective, or in providing a flatter field of focus for when you aren't shooting portraits.

I'm just saying that smaller and inexpensive lenses don't have to crap, and at this FL, they are due for a once-this-century sort of update.

- A

What's with all this RF 50 f/1.2 is a pickle jar? You all must have much smaller pickle jars than I do. Now the RF 28-70 f/2, now that's a pickle jar.

 

[ahsanford]

No I have never used the Zeiss Batis 2/40, what I do know is that most Canon owners wouldn't pay anywhere near $1,300 for an f2 unless it was over 135mm! That means the lens has such a small potential market it doesn't make sense for a mass market company like Canon to make it.

Agree. Things that turn off a price-conscious market:

Standard-ish f/2 primes > $1000
Standard-ish f/4 zooms > $1000
Crop-only lenses north of $600-700 (if you have a FF platform as well as crop -- Fuji uniquely can go after pricey crop lenses)

And Canon has generally avoided them. I want to say that the 16-35 f/4L IS right around $1k right now (but it's brilliant piece of kit).

But the point David brings up is fair. Lens size does matter for some us. Some folks got into mirrorless because of size, and Canon, for whatever reason, isn't doing backflips specifically for that camp of mirrorless shooter right now. If they were, we'd see some nutty lenses for the ultra-compact crowd -- and not just pancakes: I wonder how small a variable max aperture 16-35 or 24-70 (or even 24-50) might get.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

That implies 'good' is a binary thing. It's clearly more nuanced than that. The RF 50 f/1.2L is great at many things, but it doesn't tick all my boxes.

EF 50 f/1.8 II = giggle
EF 50 f/1.8 STM = meh, slow focusing and IQ nothing to write home about
EF 50 f/1.4 USM = decently sharp, still compact but the AF hunts and getting useable output wider than f/2 is dubious
EF 50 f/1.2L USM = wide open can be magical, but AF is a finnicky diva (a comical hit rate compared to a modern lens) and it's just not sharp across the frame
RF 50 f/1.2L USM = AF great, sharpness great, but it is not small and it is not light

First party AF + form factor is clearly a big deal for me. I effectively want an EF 35 f/2 IS USM in a 50mm FL design. It would not need to that big to pull it off.

I just find it comical that Canon offers offers ancient Yugos, an aging Ferrari and a proper modern Mercedes... when all I need is a decent Honda.

- A

I find it comical, in a sort of One Penny Opera, bittersweet way, that you obsess over getting precisely the 50mm lens that you want. Canon hit it out of the park with the ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the RF 50mm L and the rf 85mm L--but they aren't the right price or weight or focal length for you. And apparently third-party choices that fit EF aren't Goldilocks either. Ok, it was a cool shtick, but, really, ahsanford, a one-trick pony gets tiresome.

And for, what, four or five years now, you go on and on and on with clever, snarky, puffed up rhetoric about how Canon has let you down by just this much. Ok, we get it.

Fight the power!

 

[ahsanford]

What's with all this RF 50 f/1.2 is a pickle jar? You all must have much smaller pickle jars than I do. Now the RF 28-70 f/2, now that's a pickle jar.

I'm just saying that primes (esp. 35, 50 primes) went from fairly svelt little buggers to absoute beasts in the last 10 years.

A few years back I made this diagram, wondering what the next 50L would be:

​

Canon did end up abandoning DG with the RF 50L to chase the sharpness beast, which is fine (it's an aweome lens). I'm just saying that they clearly gave up something to get it.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

And by the way, I was one who anguished over moving to the R to get a world class 50mm 1.2. I didn't like the idea of the weight at first, but it balances so beautifully on the R, and it AF's so well, my hit rate is higher with it than even with IS lenses on the 5DIV. What's the compromise? Money. And it squeezes into my SUV's center console, but at least it doesn't rattle around in there.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I don't know how much the new 50mm RF cost to develop, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the millions of dollars. We probably won't see another 50mm L for at least ten years. And we're looking at 75mp cameras becoming a reality within the next one or two years.

So after spending all that money to develop a lens that will be the newest model for at least the next ten years, you really expect them to hold back on making all aspects of it as good as they can, just because it makes the lens a little bigger? Why on earth would they do this? Why would they not put everything they can into the new lens, including increasing sharpness, when by the time they are ready to retire this lens, cameras will probably be over 100mp?

As competent as the EF 50mm was, it was not a sharpness beast. It was a fine lens for its time, but putting it on a 75mp camera would really hinder that camera. With that resolution on the horizon, they had no choice but to make a sharper lens.

 

[ahsanford]

And by the way, I was one who anguished over moving to the R to get a world class 50mm 1.2. I didn't like the idea of the weight at first, but it balances so beautifully on the R, and it AF's so well, my hit rate is higher with it than even with IS lenses on the 5DIV. What's the compromise? Money. And it squeezes into my SUV's center console, but at least it doesn't rattle around in there.

Love that lens, dude, it's really really good. I finally got to try a 50 prime with the near perfect wide open AF experience I had with the EF 85 f/1.4L IS. Canon pulled it off.

Money's not my hang up. Personally, I'm not ready for an EOS R migration, but even if I was, gear that big/heavy tends to stay at home rather than come out with me. When I migrate to EOS R, it likely will be more about being able to build an aggregate smaller bag of gear. So as much as that lens is amazing, I think I will use smaller, slower lenses more often and those options will more likely get my money.

- A

 

[slclick]

Sigma's 40 is arguably their finest prime.Now, it's as large as a Canon 24-70 Mk2. But what it does show us is the desire for a company to create such a fantastic lens in that particular focal length . 40 on FF is akin to a classic Cine look (28 on super 35) The corners on the Canon 40 are not that bad by the way, not nearly as the older manual focus pancakes of the film era. The color is remarkable for a $120 lens and hell, it doubles as a body cap. Will the RF flange allow even smaller length pancakes or will it allow finer optic groups with the same size as the EF and EF-S versions?