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

[privatebydesign]

Have it! Fell in love with it!
Couldn't believe it, but because of the combination of (relatively) small size, really good IQ, IS and decent price (after the drop of the initial MRSP) makes it a no brainer to me.

That makes you, me and Sporgon! I'd never move to the L after taking the f2 IS around the world a couple of times, never once has anybody said to me "great picture shame about the IQ" when seeing images from it.

 

[ahsanford]

I just hope that Canon doesn't copy Nikon's playbook and release a bunch of f/1.8 lenses at $800. Personally, I'm glad Canon went for L glass first rather than what Nikon did. Who wants to build a lens set of f/1.8 lenses at 800 apiece only to have the better stuff come out later at much higher prices. The EF 24, 28 and 35 IS were not very popular when they came out at 700-800 each...

Agree, but Canon's approach was different:

• Canon was offering those non-L primes in two instances (24 and 28) two full stops slower than a traditionally 'high end' f/1.4 prime --> Nikon did not do that
• Canon thought people wanted IS more than pure lens speed and would pay just as much for it --> Nikon did not do that

I think that folks in general value speed far in excess of valuing IS. I love IS, don't get me wrong, but folks pay for speed. I would guess that if Canon's 24/28/35 refresh was instead a trio of bigger/stouter f/1.8 lenses without IS, the price for the lenses today would be closer to the original asking price than what we have today. No way to know for sure, but checking those the three Nikon newer f/1.8G lenses:

20mm = $797​

28mm = $697​

35mm = $527​

That's not bad compared to the non-L 24/28/35 refresh, which dropped to $549, 469 and $549 respectively. (It's closer than I thought it would be, though.)

And keep in mind: this is coming from me, a guy who has 2 of the those IS refresh lenses and loves them.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

That is my question. Why is the 1.4 being so ignored. Does not need to be L level but with computers etc. and modern manufacturing can still be outstanding IQ.

The EF 50 f/1.4 can get a bit better optically in that $400-500ish price point but not like the Sigma Art or anything like that due to the really simple double gauss design it uses. To really jump it up in IQ it needs to 'jump the retrofocal cliff' and get big, huge and expensive. I don't ever see that happening in a non-L.

But it's AF could get worrrrrrrrrlds better (slay the micro, move to ring) and IS could be implemented without too much fuss / size / weight. Not much glass in there to corral and keep honest.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

New cameras have ISO capabilities that can easily make up for 1-2 stops with no real or perceptible degradation of the image in the real world.

For exposure, sure, but cranking up the ISO on a zoom won't make your subject pop or the background dissolve like a quick prime can.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

That makes you, me and Sporgon! I'd never move to the L after taking the f2 IS around the world a couple of times, never once has anybody said to me "great picture shame about the IQ" when seeing images from it.

I love my 35 f/2 IS -- a wonderful single lens for travel if you are space constrained.

But I've only shot the old 35L I. The 35L II is crackingly well reviewed and gives you that environmental portraiture / street isolation and pop. I just don't want one more stop badly enough to have $1649 leave my pocket.

- A

 

[slclick]

Fascinating, thanks.

I think an 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro is an automatic/certain add to the lineup (100 f/2 less so). The system simply has to offer a 1:1 macro solution, and Canon has excelled here for a long time (the old non-L was also quite good). And Canon has shown an aptitude for innovating here (didn't hybrid IS start on the 100L?).

- A

An RF version of the 100L would be a wonderful carrot to dangle. However they allowed for remarkable adapting of EF glass, something not always achieved or desired by marketing when new mounts are launched. There's the two fold of keeping you in the Canon system yet not needing you to purchase much more than bodies. It's a customer centric move, therefore I would have thought they RF lenses would be variations other than the classic EF lenses. Not sure if we'll see a 135, a 200, a 24/28. It would be nice if everyone got what they wanted and with two possible bodies on the way this year, we just might. Except that 50 of course.

 

[ahsanford]

An RF version of the 100L would be a wonderful carrot to dangle. However they allowed for remarkable adapting of EF glass, something not always achieved or desired by marketing when new mounts are launched. There's the two fold of keeping you in the Canon system yet not needing you to purchase much more than bodies. It's a customer centric move, therefore I would have thought they RF lenses would be variations other than the classic EF lenses. Not sure if we'll see a 135, a 200, a 24/28. It would be nice if everyone got what they wanted and with two possible bodies on the way this year, we just might. Except that 50 of course.

But imagine an EOS R2 (or R3) with IBIS + improved focus stacking* + a shiny new 1:1 macro. I think they could build both a compelling handheld macro opportunity and a cool tabletop stacking opportunity.

*who knows, drape front + back peaking 'planes' to virtually/interactively set depth limits in a LiveView scene?

- A

 

[slclick]

But imagine an EOS R2 (or R3) with IBIS + improved focus stacking* + a shiny new 1:1 macro. I think they could build both a compelling handheld macro opportunity and a cool tabletop stacking opportunity.

*who knows, drape front + back peaking 'planes' to virtually/interactively set depth limits in a LiveView scene?

- A

Oh yeah baby....


I'm usually shooting with a Novoflex rail, old school style with manual movements. Stacking that way and without magickal macro software is tough, so tough I just attempt single shots usually. Give me the ability to do more in camera, in the field? (I'm usually on my belly or knees getting dirty and or wet , none of this controlled indoor shite) I'd be a happy camper.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

Do you really have the 40 mm pancake?
Mine is sharp right into the corners, really sharp.
You could also read the "Optical limits" review. Quote: "corner quality is on a very high level straight from f/2.8 "
As to lens flare : see the results on TDP, almost perfect !
That's why I find your statement a bit strange...

 

[dwarven]

A 50mm 1.4 is all the lens I need.

 

[Ozarker]

I know I'm in the minority, but I really wish Canon would do a 28mm f/1.4 like Nikon. I have the Sigma and adapt it, and will probably convert or trade should they release an RF version because it's a great lens, but I love 28mm specifically and it also replaces the need for both 24 and 35 for me (I also carry a 24 - 105 so it's not like I can't get to those precise focal lengths).

Canon will make a 28mm L, but it will be f/1.2. I think any non-L will be f/1.8.

 

[ahsanford]

Oh yeah baby....


I'm usually shooting with a Novoflex rail, old school style with manual movements. Stacking that way and without magickal macro software is tough, so tough I just attempt single shots usually. Give me the ability to do more in camera, in the field? (I'm usually on my belly or knees getting dirty and or wet , none of this controlled indoor shite) I'd be a happy camper.

I don't follow EOS R onboard stuff very well, but is anyone using this?

Do they like it? Is there enough control for the people who have done it the old fashioned way?

- A

 

[peters]

Do you really have the 40 mm pancake?
Mine is sharp right into the corners, really sharp.
You could also read the "Optical limits" review. Quote: "corner quality is on a very high level straight from f/2.8 "
As to lens flare : see the results on TDP, almost perfect !
That's why I find your statement a bit strange...

Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Maybe my copy isnt the best, but anyway. When it comes to quality its pretty much my last choice I do like it for travel though very very much. A new RF version is truely a good idea. I dont know why they didnt include it in lineup when the EOS R came out. That was somehow strange: they made a new, very compact FF camera, but offered pretty much nothing but SUPER heavy, highend lenses like the 28-70 f2 or 50mm f1,2... I think the pancakes are the obvious choise for a mirrorless camera... especialy when they presented the EOS RP - a SUPER tiny FF camera, but without any small lenses for it (besides the 35mm, which is stil not super small)

 

[mb66energy]

Fascinating, thanks.

I think an 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro is an automatic/certain add to the lineup (100 f/2 less so). The system simply has to offer a 1:1 macro solution, and Canon has excelled here for a long time (the old non-L was also quite good). And Canon has shown an aptitude for innovating here (didn't hybrid IS start on the 100L?).

- A

Yes, the 100L introduced the hybrid IS and the RF-35 has it too ...
Because I would like to have a 1:2 wide open light tele, what about the following compromise:
RF 85 f/1.8 1:2 Macro (f/2 maybe) STM non-L AND
RF 100 f/2.8 L 1:1 USM Macro ?
Canon could sell two different lenses and I have my RF 85 1:2 . If I need 1:1 I would use my non-L 100mm USM Macro which is definitely a brilliant lens in terms of IQ (not design .

 

[mb66energy]

Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Maybe my copy isnt the best, but anyway. When it comes to quality its pretty much my last choice I do like it for travel though very very much. A new RF version is truely a good idea. I dont know why they didnt include it in lineup when the EOS R came out. That was somehow strange: they made a new, very compact FF camera, but offered pretty much nothing but SUPER heavy, highend lenses like the 28-70 f2 or 50mm f1,2... I think the pancakes are the obvious choise for a mirrorless camera... especialy when they presented the EOS RP - a SUPER tiny FF camera, but without any small lenses for it (besides the 35mm, which is stil not super small)

I am not shure if you can do a 40mm pan cake on the RF mount which is super flat - I think the pan cake would be more in the 25...30mm range but I presume that it would suffer from an extreme vignetting because the angle of light is very flat for the corners having lots of reflections on the sensor surface.
I have the RP with the RF 35 and it is very compact just with the 35mm and I must say, I appreciate the IS (for video too), the large max aperture AND the 1:2 max. reprod. ratio very much.

 

[ahsanford]

I think the pan cake would be more in the 25...30mm range but I presume that it would suffer from an extreme vignetting because the angle of light is very flat for the corners having lots of reflections on the sensor surface.

I would take a wider pancake, sure.

How bad would be the vignetting be?

(I mean, the RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS is still out there, and from what little I've seen, correcting the vignetting in those shots is like a DPReview EXMOR shadow push demonstration. )

- A

 

[slclick]

Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Maybe my copy isnt the best, but anyway. When it comes to quality its pretty much my last choice I do like it for travel though very very much. A new RF version is truely a good idea. I dont know why they didnt include it in lineup when the EOS R came out. That was somehow strange: they made a new, very compact FF camera, but offered pretty much nothing but SUPER heavy, highend lenses like the 28-70 f2 or 50mm f1,2... I think the pancakes are the obvious choise for a mirrorless camera... especialy when they presented the EOS RP - a SUPER tiny FF camera, but without any small lenses for it (besides the 35mm, which is stil not super small)

You have a poor copy, simple as that.

 

[slclick]

Yes I have it. You are right though, I think I had the nifty fifty in mind, which is realy ugly in the corners. But the pancake got some pretty bad vignetting, heavy CA and also the sharpness isnt that nice.

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Maybe my copy isnt the best, but anyway. When it comes to quality its pretty much my last choice I do like it for travel though very very much. A new RF version is truely a good idea. I dont know why they didnt include it in lineup when the EOS R came out. That was somehow strange: they made a new, very compact FF camera, but offered pretty much nothing but SUPER heavy, highend lenses like the 28-70 f2 or 50mm f1,2... I think the pancakes are the obvious choise for a mirrorless camera... especialy when they presented the EOS RP - a SUPER tiny FF camera, but without any small lenses for it (besides the 35mm, which is stil not super small)

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.

 

[Jethro]

I would eat up a RF pancake ...

 

[peters]

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 RP is super tiny? (Smallest FF camera after the SIgma, which is a pretty unorthodox camera anyway)