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

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. :p)

- A

I think that a wider pan cake for FF need sth. like two-digit numbers for vignetting. For vignetting the old EF mount needed more distance between back lens and sensor so they had to bend the light at steeper angles which reduces the vignetting.

Think about f/2.8 20mm which would be the equivalent to the EF 40 (because of flange distance) and a simple construction you would have ~45 degree incidence. Check that in real world trying to view into a cars windows while you have bright light outside.

IMO the new RF mount has the POTENTIAL for BETTER IQ in wide angles and - this was never mentioned - it has the potential to make much smaller 50mm or 85 mm lenses as tele construction (positive front group, negative back(?) group) but for the wide angle section you need larger lenses if you want reasonable vignetting.

Or ... but that is another construction site ("eine andere Baustelle") .. you need sensors which have less reflection under flat angles of incident light ... and maybe Canon is working on that because they have some lenses of high IQ with vignetting on the higher side. The RF35 is one of these lenses.
It would be a big move if Canon has solved the problem with the strong reflection of off axis rays under flat angles: The sensor helps to simplify lens design or to allow better correction of other lens aberrations or have both: simple well corrected lenses!
 
Upvote 0

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
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.

I expect a nifty fifty $150-ish lens to happen, because they are gateway drugs to buying more lenses. So the question is: will the 'Nice' bucket get a lens with this system?

I would argue (on merit, in general -- not just for a 50) that Canon would make more money if there was a line of 'Nice' lenses on par with the RF 35 f/1.8 Macro. Less well-financed folks could build up a nice lineup of primes with high confidence the usage, size, feel, and features would be consistent. Folks buying these would be building equity in a platform that would more likely retain them as longer term users, and it would make them targets for pricier RF lenses someday.

I would also argue (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that if we can justify two 85 1.2 primes north of $2k and an absolute show pony of a 28-70 f/2 that vaguely resembles the head of Mjolnir, Canon isn't trying to just knock out the EF staples in RF. Making this lens (eventually, perhaps not as a high priority) would not be an unreasonable development.

- A

I’d say that there is really one RF 85. Two variants.
I’d also say that “budget” isn’t the third bin for a full frame format.
How about:
1. Exotic/extreme. Cost and weight no object flagship lens.
2. Pro/Performance. Practical package with premium optics. Not cheap but realistic.
3. Consumer/light/compact.

Bin 3 is for pancakes, magic zooms (eg 24-240). Not budget. Consider the thought provoking notion that the $450 35mm f1.8 is as low as they will go offering new lenses for RF full frame. $120 40mm EF is an example of the budget category. APS-C is where we may see a $249 kit zoom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
One attractive target is the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8. 120grams and 30mm protrusion length. Excellent image quality. Not cheap.

I’d challenge the designers to an inch of protrusion length. Maybe something clever with a replaceable protective element within that length.


If it's a plastic fantastic / nifty fifty standalone super inexpensive lens: sure. Canon can knock itself out and have a one-off different kind of lens.

But if not, if it's meant to be part of a line of non-L lenses alongside the 35 f/1.8 STM, all bets are off on a nutty one-off design. They can chase a length/weight target (surely), but the feature set / look / feel / handling should resemble the rest of that line of lenses.

- A
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hector1970

CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,554
1,162
The EF 40mm 2.8 is a nice sharp lens but I’ve hardly ever used it. It never looks good on a full frame camera. I think the idea of a pancake and using one are two different things. It’s a great concept and they are a handy storage size but are hard to hold steady on a full frame.
They will possibly work better on smaller mirrorless cameras. I’m sure they will do a decent 35mm and 50mm 1.4’s for the R.
I think not everyone buying the R (especially the RP) can afford the RF L lens - which are expensive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
The EF 40mm 2.8 is a nice sharp lens but I’ve hardly ever used it. It never looks good on a full frame camera. I think the idea of a pancake and using one are two different things. It’s a great concept and they are a handy storage size but are hard to hold steady on a full frame.
They will possibly work better on smaller mirrorless cameras. I’m sure they will do a decent 35mm and 50mm 1.4’s for the R.
I think not everyone buying the R (especially the RP) can afford the RF L lens - which are expensive
You might think it looks good (the images) on a FF body if you used it, lots of glowing reviews, from myself included. Now, if you meant aesthetics...I guess it's ok to care about what others think about the little black rectangle and cylinder you're carrying around. I guess. Now for ergo sake, everyone's hands are different and the combination of camera body type/hands and lens sure can be a factor. I for one use a handstrap 95% of the time so lens size up to a certain extent is not ever an issue on a 5D series body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
You might think it looks good (the images) on a FF body if you used it, lots of glowing reviews, from myself included. Now, if you meant aesthetics...I guess it's ok to care about what others think about the little black rectangle and cylinder you're carrying around. I guess. Now for ergo sake, everyone's hands are different and the combination of camera body type/hands and lens sure can be a factor. I for one use a handstrap 95% of the time so lens size up to a certain extent is not ever an issue on a 5D series body.


Throw aesthetics out. The EF 40 simply handles funny and is a less fun experience compared to a 'normal' EF lens:
  • It's weird in my hands on my 5D3. Right hand = money, left hand = reminds me of pinky up wine/tea drinking. And I have pretty ordinary sized hands, slightly on the smaller side.
  • The focus ring is a crime against humanity -- no resistance, no feel, and half-shutter down to drive it? :sick:
  • Whatever crappier variant of STM it has is not a satisfying stills experience. I want the bullet 'on' of USM.
  • I'm OCD about packing it away while the inner barrel is pushed out, and unlike a mechanically focusing lens, I have to power it back on to get it to collapse back down.
  • Sounds like a quiet version of a desktop scanner when it moves through the focus range.
  • Mounting it requires (b/c of thickness) your fingers to be very close the mount, and our hands aren't always so clean when we're out in the world.
  • (Never bought the hood or a CPL for it, so I won't comment there. But I'm sure CR peeps have thoughts.)
Glad to own the lens, it's a wonderful bargain. It takes lovely shots. Canon should make more pancakes.

But for more reasons than I can enumerate above, I choose the EF 35 f/2 IS USM or EF 50 f/1.4 USM over that almost every time.

- A
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
I have ZERO issues with it ergonomically, even with very large hands o_O but as I stated, YMMV. That's what makes the world go round, unless you are one of those 'I don't like it so no one should have it' people, which we have learned earlier from CanonFanBoy, those people suck. I actually sold both my 35 f/2 IS and 50 1.4 because they could not match the color rendering of the 40 nor the perspective.

Touche' Adam! (This thread beats the pants off the 1DX3 bitching and moaning posts)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
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 Canon's problem is the f/2.8 IS primes compete with the f/2.8 IS-less zooms. I usually have the EF 27-40mm f/2.8L mkII on my camera. I wouldn't switch to an f/2.8 prime just to get IS. I would for an extra stop, so I bought the 35mm f/2 IS USM. I don't have free cash for the f/1.4L primes, so I didn't buy the 24mm.

If Canon released a 20mm f/1.8, or f/2 IS, I would have bought it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
PRIORITIES:

1) MUST be portable otherwise what's the point. My gauge is: doesn't stick out farther than the right grip.

2) MUST be strong enough to be in my backpack 365 days a year because that's how it will be used.

3) MUST have better IQ than my iPhone otherwise what's the point

4) MUST have bigger aperture than the corresponding zoom. Sorry, but if I have f/2.8 trinity, then an f/2.8 prime brings nothing to the table in situations I'm willing to take the zooms. In contrast, an f/2.0 is compelling not only when I'm travelling light, but even when I'm doing a project and have my zooms with me.

NON-PRIORITIES:

1) IS. Soon we'll have IBIS it seems, and anyway with today's high ISOs and again the big aperture you can shoot in candlelight without IS. I mean I'd take it if there were no tradeoffs, but there ARE tradeoffs. Show me an IS mini-prime and I basically won't buy it on suspicion that thx to the IS it's totally bulked up and damaging the must-have features.

2) Macro. I mean I'd take it if there were no tradeoffs, but there ARE tradeoffs. Show me a macro lens and I basically won't buy it on suspicion that thx to the macro it's totally bulked up and damaging the must-have features. And anyway, close-up lenses exist. (Let's see some RF extension tubes too.)

3) price point. I'll pay relatively high bucks. Heck, I'm using a Leica 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 with an RF adapter.

TOSS-UP:

1) size vs. aperture. Leica's rangefinder lens lineup has had really small and really big lenses with the same spec (e.g., 35/1.4) and the bigger the better the IQ it seems. Give me a choice between, hypothetically, a 35/2.0 that's crazy sharp and a 35/1.4 that has coma like crazy that are otherwise same price and size? I dunno, I'd probably take the... uhh... I don't know. Both?

SUGGESTED LINEUP:

20/2.8 (would have to be much better IQ than zooms), 24/2.4, 28/2.2, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 75/2.8 (again either much better IQ than zooms, or so cheap I don't mind buying a lens that brings absolutely nothing to the experience when I'm working with my full kit at my disposal) (I suggest this spec as it would have same front element size as 50/1.8, basically)

Basically I'm too ingrained into Canon to switch to Fuji X, but I wish Canon would offer the RF lenses I'd need so I wouldn't wish I had gotten into Fuji X...

35/2.0 is not necessary. There is a RF35 1.8 IS macro
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I strongly disagree with that. The 40mm length would not be considered the classic 35mm or the ubiquitous 50mm that tradition has drummed into people are the 'right' focal lengths. Further, how many people choose the 35mm f2 IS over the 35mm f1.4 L if they could buy either? I'd guess very very few (apart from me), f2 just isn't considered a premium/serious aperture.
I owned the 35 F1.4L before getting the 35 F2 IS. I sold the L after realizing that I was always using the F2 IS lens when I wanted 35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
578
145
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Canon not brining out another 50 1.4 after 20 + years boggles the mind, but then it doesn't - these are the guys that had the same sensor throughout manyyyy years of rebels and M bodies, and to a lesser extent the FF sensors.

All I want is IS for christs sakes. Thankfully I dont listen to any of the ramblings of the "you dont need IS.." useless crowd :rolleyes: - many of us already know it's always useful and canon should have made it a years ago.

Thankfully, my 50 1.4 has been going strong for many fashion weeks (14 so far), but under 2.8, the focus is horrendously unreliable. I'd like to finally have a 1.4 option (hell, even f2!).

Cmon canon, hopefully they have had their buts kicked enough that they will address all the holes in the cheese. Because lord the non-L 50's are a big one. Huuuuuuuge even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
There is a giant difference between the 'useless crowd' as you say, of those who tell others they don't need IS or anything for that matter and those of us who say they personally don't want or need it. One is rational the other inane. There is also the 3rd camp who believe stabilization is only particularly useful at certain focal lengths and therefore glass based IS is fine for those people. This is not an all or nothing issue.

I for one do not list it as a need to me to jump to the R ecosystem. There are many other things above that in my list.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
I think Canon's problem is the f/2.8 IS primes compete with the f/2.8 IS-less zooms. I usually have the EF 27-40mm f/2.8L mkII on my camera. I wouldn't switch to an f/2.8 prime just to get IS. I would for an extra stop, so I bought the 35mm f/2 IS USM. I don't have free cash for the f/1.4L primes, so I didn't buy the 24mm.

If Canon released a 20mm f/1.8, or f/2 IS, I would have bought it.


The 24 f/2.8 IS or 28 f/2.8 IS are not quicker than EF zooms, but they are smaller, have IS and cost considerably less than an f/2.8 zoom. They have a reason to be in the EF lineup, surely. (But the 35 f/2 IS is a stop quicker than the zoom and isn't that big. I'm guessing it dramatically outsells the 24 IS and 28 IS.)

But now, if all the RF f/2.8 zooms have IS, Canon may have to give the non-L value proposition a rethink. Perhaps all the non-L RF primes could...
  • Move to something quicker than the EF f/2.8 primes (say f/1.8 or f/2)
  • Offer new clever designs to be remarkably small
  • Every FL of prime doubles as a 1:2 macro?
The first option above would seem to make the most business sense. Folks pay for speed.

- A
 
Upvote 0

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,673
580
S Florida
The 24 f/2.8 IS or 28 f/2.8 IS are not quicker than EF zooms, but they are smaller, have IS and cost considerably less than an f/2.8 zoom. They have a reason to be in the EF lineup, surely. (But the 35 f/2 IS is a stop quicker than the zoom and isn't that big. I'm guessing it dramatically outsells the 24 IS and 28 IS.)

But now, if all the RF f/2.8 zooms have IS, Canon may have to give the non-L value proposition a rethink. Perhaps all the non-L RF primes could...
  • Move to something quicker than the EF f/2.8 primes (say f/1.8 or f/2)
  • Offer new clever designs to be remarkably small
  • Every FL of prime doubles as a 1:2 macro?
The first option above would seem to make the most business sense. Folks pay for speed.

- A
It's already the case. Every single non L RF prime has IS and is faster than 2.8...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
There is a giant difference between the 'useless crowd' as you say, of those who tell others they don't need IS or anything for that matter and those of us who say they personally don't want or need it. One is rational the other inane. There is also the 3rd camp who believe stabilization is only particularly useful at certain focal lengths and therefore glass based IS is fine for those people. This is not an all or nothing issue.


In EF, IS is comprehensively useful if you [cannot bring/control the light] + [you are shooting handheld] + [your subject/material can handle a slower shutter]. Since that describes probably (idk) 80% of what I shoot, I always prefer it on a lens. At any FL.

And this notion gets reinforced in odd ways. In one example, my EF 16-35 f/4L IS is meant (for me) for landscapes on a tripod, so IS isn't really why I bought it -- I just wanted a sharp landscaping lens that allowed use of the Lee 4x4 / 4x6 system. But on vaca in cities I almost always bring that lens without a tripod, and wouldn't you know that IS is super handy to shoot The Vasa, the interior of Notre Dame, the interior of the Guggenheim, a handheld nighttime cityscape where you want to stop down for sunstars, etc. It lets you bring the ISO down to earth or pull off something you otherwise wouldn't be able to do.

...but the RF mount is going to get IBIS someday. That could certainly change the purchasing calculus for me.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
The non L lenses are for buyers for whom lenses aren’t important enough to spend a couple hundred dollars extra.


...or for folks who want IS when the L doesn't offer it
...or for folks who value zoom reach over sharpness (24-240 vs. 24-105 or 24-70)
...or for folks who want glass that isn't conspicuous or winds up their subjects like a big L pickle jar might
...or for folks who want a smaller/lighter lens so they can carry more of them or carry a smaller bag so that they will take it out with them more often

Consider: not every non-L lens is a crappier version of an identical L that sits above it price-wise. Therefore, there are reasons to want a lens other than which one is globally, incontrovertibly the 'best.' Perhaps a rumor of a non-L lens is not just chance to save a buck: it's a chance to get the lens we actually need.

But it's super fun to have someone else simplify my needs into that of an unserious cheapskate. Do go on.

- A
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
...or for folks who want IS when the L doesn't offer it
...or for folks who value zoom reach over sharpness (24-240 vs. 24-105 or 24-70)
...or for folks who want glass that isn't conspicuous or winds up their subjects like a big L pickle jar might
...or for folks who want a smaller/lighter lens so they can carry more of them or carry a smaller bag so that they will take it out with them more often

Consider: not every non-L lens is a crappier version of an identical L that sits above it price-wise. Therefore, there are reasons to want a lens other than which one is globally, incontrovertibly the 'best.' Perhaps a rumor of a non-L lens is not just chance to save a buck: it's a chance to get the lens we actually need.

But it's super fun to have someone else simplify my needs into that of an unserious cheapskate. Do go on.

- A

My apologies. I must have misunderstood your post. I’m not sure I yet understand it so I’ll let it speak for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I'd like to see slow/lightweight/non-bulky f/1.8-f/2.8 EF R primes available before I buy into the R system. 20mm and 85mm added to the present 35mm f/1.8 would make a good start. I always use flash, Speedlites or studio strobes—so I have non need for f/0.95. f/1.2 or f/1.4. Plus I have no need for hokey-bokey (wasn't that a title of a childrens song?)
 
Upvote 0

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
And some people have bought four L zooms, and don't have the extra grand+ per L prime to spend.

I made my point poorly. I had hoped to convey that the cost of an L should not be a critical concern to someone who has a critical need. If you need a greater 50mm f1.4 than current offerings then it should be tolerable if the lens that meets your most important need is an L.

in reality I also love cheap fun lenses for my less than critical needs. My three year old is showing an interest in my camera and has happily taken it from me to shoot some shots of Dad. He help press the shutter for some picture window squirrel shots. He saw my new 400 and said (paraphrasing) “Wow! Big lens, Dad!”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0