So where is the EF version of the new 50mm f/1.2?

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
986
204
All valid points, and I am accepting that innovation will be directed towards RF lenses. The new EF lenses you refer to seem to be clearing the old pipeline and perhaps including tweaks that make them work better with the RF adapter.
Maybe the 85 f1.4 IS was clearing the pipeline, but Canon must have put a lot of effort into its development after it was heavily into the R development. It could have held back and put the 85 out as an RF, but it didn't. Why not?
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
832
162
Maybe the 85 f1.4 IS was clearing the pipeline, but Canon must have put a lot of effort into its development after it was heavily into the R development. It could have held back and put the 85 out as an RF, but it didn't. Why not?
Just speculating like all of us. I would say the 85 was ready and would stem some of the bleeding (Sigma). Also the teles don’t benefit much, if any, from the shorter flange distance, so with the adapter it will work perfectly on the RF mount. Also currently a lot more mirrorslappers out there, so greater sales. Now is the transition period where there will be lens releases in both formats, but not likely the same lens in both formats.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
986
204
Just speculating like all of us. I would say the 85 was ready and would stem some of the bleeding (Sigma). Also the teles don’t benefit much, if any, from the shorter flange distance, so with the adapter it will work perfectly on the RF mount. Also currently a lot more mirrorslappers out there, so greater sales. Now is the transition period where there will be lens releases in both formats, but not likely the same lens in both formats.
Just speculating like all of us. I would say the 85 was ready and would stem some of the bleeding (Sigma). Also the teles don’t benefit much, if any, from the shorter flange distance, so with the adapter it will work perfectly on the RF mount. Also currently a lot more mirrorslappers out there, so greater sales. Now is the transition period where there will be lens releases in both formats, but not likely the same lens in both formats.
Makes sense. Logically, the RF mount should be helpful in designing lenses up to a certain focal length, but not above that. It looks like the critical focal length may be between 50mm and 85mm.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,319
341
Southeastern USA
And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)

Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)
 
Last edited:

zim

EOR R
Oct 18, 2011
1,863
53
And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)

Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)
<tinfoilhaton>
and in their white paper to compare the 50Ls against each other as an example of how the new mount has allowed them to improve lens design and performance is a total joke, oh and lets not forget the 6d2 sensor, they couldn't have that being better than the 5d4/R
<tinfoilhatoff>
 
Reactions: YuengLinger

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
All valid points, and I am accepting that innovation will be directed towards RF lenses. The new EF lenses you refer to seem to be clearing the old pipeline and perhaps including tweaks that make them work better with the RF adapter.
You obviously beleive that RF is replacing EF - despite Canon stating that this is NOT the case. But consider one thing - the vast majority of Canon ILC owners own DSLRs, not mirrorless. And at this moment, 100% of the FF Canon owners own EF not RF lenses. 100%. The average camera buyer probably buys a new camera maybe every 4-7 years. So the number of DSLR owners will still be a majority for probably most of that time frame. So, as a company, do you stop making lenses for the majority of your customers? I think not.
 
Reactions: stevelee

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,319
341
Southeastern USA
You obviously beleive that RF is replacing EF - despite Canon stating that this is NOT the case. But consider one thing - the vast majority of Canon ILC owners own DSLRs, not mirrorless. And at this moment, 100% of the FF Canon owners own EF not RF lenses. 100%. The average camera buyer probably buys a new camera maybe every 4-7 years. So the number of DSLR owners will still be a majority for probably most of that time frame. So, as a company, do you stop making lenses for the majority of your customers? I think not.
We'll see. I think there will be plenty of all current lenses in stock for several years, but I don't think there will too many new versions of EF L lenses. If a new 50 1.2 comes out for EF very soon, I'll buy; otherwise, I'll wait for a better version of the EOS R, hoping it will have IBIS, two slots, faster FPS, and maybe a new, longer lasting battery.

I think Canon wonders what will happen to sales of IS lenses if they do offer an effective IBIS. Or maybe they know that it will cause disruption, so they stall implementing it?
 

scipion

I'm New Here
Oct 8, 2017
12
8
And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)

Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)
you have valid points there. The engineers are certainly the same. But one have to understand indeed why the 7D MkII was restrained in terms of IQ, why the 6D MkII was too more generally, why the 24-105 II is so disappointing, the new 70-200 III a near nothing compared to II etc etc... and why the EOS R is like that and not something else. It is Canon strategy to occupy all segments, and segment within. They are doing that more and more. After all, it is about making money;) But I tend to think Canon go too far these last years. Probably some decisions were made with the EOS R, and other products to come or existing in mind. However the consumer is not that stupid... For exemple I can buy an old 24-105 I or the new Sigma Art. or a second hand 5D MKIII. And nobody is going to be tricked in the new EOS if it is not a considerate choice.
 
Reactions: YuengLinger

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
587
256
And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)

Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)
Or might it be that Canon decided to make the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS more usable by not making a mayonnaise jar size/weight lens like the Sigma 85mm ART? Perhaps they made it an EF lens, rather than an RF lens, because the shorter registration distance would have been of no benefit for an 85mm f/1.4 lens? As an EF lens, it can be used by owners of APS-C and FF DSLRs, owners of APS-C mirrorless EF-M bodies, and owners of the new EOS R FF ML bodie(s).

Might it be that Canon's update of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS was more for manufacturing considerations - and to give the lens the ability to be more compatible with the EOS RF (the original was released in 2005, well before the 2011 cutoff you quoted earlier in this discussion) - than for IQ improvement? The 24-105 has never been a high IQ lens, it has always been a workhorse. It's a Clydesdale, not a Thoroughbred. If you want the ultimate in IQ, you don't hang a 4X zoom on your 5Ds R, or even on your Rebel.

Might it be that several other recent L lens updates that everyone is complaining are 'underwhelming' are for similar reasons? Because most, if not all, of them replaced lenses released prior to 2011.

Is it really that hard to connect all of the dots?

On one hand you and A.H. Sanford say you want a small, compact update of the EF 50mm f/1.4. Then on the other hand you complain because the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS is relatively small and compact instead of large and heavy in exchange for incrementally better IQ that 95% of photographers will never see in their work that they don't print and only upload to social media at limited resolutions.


So you're predicting the end of new higher-end lenses for EF? Or are you being facetious?

The new R mount is only fully compatible with supertelephoto lenses made in 2011 and after.
No, he's predicting no more new higher end EF lenses in the ranges that benefit from the shorter registration distance of the new RF mount. Apparently, that is somewhere between 50mm and 85mm for very wide aperture prime lenses. There will still be more new EF lenses for a time with focal lengths longer than 85mm, and maybe even shorter focal length lenses with narrower maximum apertures that don't gain much or any benefit of the shorter FFD like wide aperture, wide angle lenses do.

This would be not much different than the way Canon has handled the EF-S and EF-M lens lineups.

Where EF-S benefitted from the the shorter back focus distance allowed by the EF-S mount, or from cheaper costs allowed by the smaller image circle needed for EF-S lenses, Canon offered EF-S lenses. For lenses that would not have benefitted from those two advantages, Canon did not offer EF-S lenses, but made EF-S compatible with EF so that APS-C DSLR owners could use EF lenses if they needed a 300/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8.

EF-M is similar. Canon is releasing EF-M lenses that benefit from the shorter FFD, narrower maximum aperture, and smaller image circle. They aren't releasing any EF-M lenses that would be just as large, heavy, and expensive as their EF counterparts.
 
Reactions: stevelee

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,169
375
I think Canon wonders what will happen to sales of IS lenses if they do offer an effective IBIS. Or maybe they know that it will cause disruption, so they stall implementing it?
Or maybe Canon do not have the technology to introduce IBIS and have higher priorities. Sometimes the simple answers are more likely than some grandiose conspiracy theory.
 
Aug 25, 2014
8
3
I think this is actually a good question. I am not particularly keen to get an EOS R myself (because I still prefer OVF, short battery life, limited FPS in servo AF, etc) but I do wonder how much effort Canon will put into new EF lenses versus RF lenses. On the assumption a DSLR is going to remain better than a mirrorless for sports/action photography for a while yet, the new EF super teles make sense. However, is it possible that for fast primes which are likely to be used for things like portraits, such as the 50L, Canon will put all its efforts into RF now? If RF allows higher IQ (at least for that sort of lens/focal length), and considering mirrorless AF features (eg Eye-AF when using a very shallow depth of field), perhaps Canon won't bother with those sorts of lenses for EF in future?

A week ago I would have said there was no way the EF line was in any danger at all, but Canon does seem to be saying RF offers more advantages for lens design than I realised might be the case, and I get the feeling Canon sees RF as the future and that future may be closer than I was expecting.
The EF lens system is the main competitive advantage of Canon. It would be a disaster if people lost trust and stopped buying EF lenses before they have an RF system in place, which will take years. It is in Canon's interest to keep the EF system alive for another ten years or so. My guess is that the next R camera will be a high resolution body since the 5Ds is long in the tooth (forcing photographers to buy into the R system if they want high res). We could also expect to see new EOS cameras, at least successors to 1DX and 5D4, with a hybrid viewfinder, Canon has a patent, offering both OVF and EVF. Sports photographers may prefer that since they will be working with the long white lenses anyway, and the larger body with better grip and more estate for direct buttons and dials suit their needs. With a hybrid viewfinder, they get the best of both worlds. And let's not forget all EF lenses used for movie making, and the cinema line. EF lenses
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,319
341
Southeastern USA
The EF lens system is the main competitive advantage of Canon. It would be a disaster if people lost trust and stopped buying EF lenses before they have an RF system in place, which will take years. It is in Canon's interest to keep the EF system alive for another ten years or so. My guess is that the next R camera will be a high resolution body since the 5Ds is long in the tooth (forcing photographers to buy into the R system if they want high res). We could also expect to see new EOS cameras, at least successors to 1DX and 5D4, with a hybrid viewfinder, Canon has a patent, offering both OVF and EVF. Sports photographers may prefer that since they will be working with the long white lenses anyway, and the larger body with better grip and more estate for direct buttons and dials suit their needs. With a hybrid viewfinder, they get the best of both worlds. And let's not forget all EF lenses used for movie making, and the cinema line. EF lenses
Ok, so when do you think, if ever, we will get a new ef 50mm f/1.2, or some L series variant of a fast 50mm prime?
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,319
341
Southeastern USA
Or might it be that Canon decided to make the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS more usable by not making a mayonnaise jar size/weight lens like the Sigma 85mm ART? Perhaps they made it an EF lens, rather than an RF lens, because the shorter registration distance would have been of no benefit for an 85mm f/1.4 lens? As an EF lens, it can be used by owners of APS-C and FF DSLRs, owners of APS-C mirrorless EF-M bodies, and owners of the new EOS R FF ML bodie(s).

Might it be that Canon's update of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS was more for manufacturing considerations - and to give the lens the ability to be more compatible with the EOS RF (the original was released in 2005, well before the 2011 cutoff you quoted earlier in this discussion) - than for IQ improvement? The 24-105 has never been a high IQ lens, it has always been a workhorse. It's a Clydesdale, not a Thoroughbred. If you want the ultimate in IQ, you don't hang a 4X zoom on your 5Ds R, or even on your Rebel.

Might it be that several other recent L lens updates that everyone is complaining are 'underwhelming' are for similar reasons? Because most, if not all, of them replaced lenses released prior to 2011.

Is it really that hard to connect all of the dots?

On one hand you and A.H. Sanford say you want a small, compact update of the EF 50mm f/1.4. Then on the other hand you complain because the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS is relatively small and compact instead of large and heavy in exchange for incrementally better IQ that 95% of photographers will never see in their work that they don't print and only upload to social media at limited resolutions.




No, he's predicting no more new higher end EF lenses in the ranges that benefit from the shorter registration distance of the new RF mount. Apparently, that is somewhere between 50mm and 85mm for very wide aperture prime lenses. There will still be more new EF lenses for a time with focal lengths longer than 85mm, and maybe even shorter focal length lenses with narrower maximum apertures that don't gain much or any benefit of the shorter FFD like wide aperture, wide angle lenses do.

This would be not much different than the way Canon has handled the EF-S and EF-M lens lineups.

Where EF-S benefitted from the the shorter back focus distance allowed by the EF-S mount, or from cheaper costs allowed by the smaller image circle needed for EF-S lenses, Canon offered EF-S lenses. For lenses that would not have benefitted from those two advantages, Canon did not offer EF-S lenses, but made EF-S compatible with EF so that APS-C DSLR owners could use EF lenses if they needed a 300/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8.

EF-M is similar. Canon is releasing EF-M lenses that benefit from the shorter FFD, narrower maximum aperture, and smaller image circle. They aren't releasing any EF-M lenses that would be just as large, heavy, and expensive as their EF counterparts.
I don't see how making the ef 85mm f/1.4 a tad sharper and with less CA would have added an unacceptable amount of weight or size.

As for the 24-105mm f/1.4L IS II, sometimes companies simply make mistakes. That's what happened in this case--it is a dog of a lens. Sure, they might have saved money per unit, but they are producing a lens with lower IQ than its predecessor.

The "new version" of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is another indication that Canon has put further development of EF lenses in the rearview mirror. I don't know if a tear down would reveal a firmware change, some new chip maybe, but I think any internal tweak to it was done to make it work better with RF bodies. Maybe, maybe not, but otherwise it would be the single most useless "update" ever.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,272
155
I don't see how making the ef 85mm f/1.4 a tad sharper and with less CA would have added an unacceptable amount of weight or size.

As for the 24-105mm f/1.4L IS II, sometimes companies simply make mistakes. That's what happened in this case--it is a dog of a lens. Sure, they might have saved money per unit, but they are producing a lens with lower IQ than its predecessor.

The "new version" of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is another indication that Canon has put further development of EF lenses in the rearview mirror. I don't know if a tear down would reveal a firmware change, some new chip maybe, but I think any internal tweak to it was done to make it work better with RF bodies. Maybe, maybe not, but otherwise it would be the single most useless "update" ever.

I thought I had seen an article of the lens designers talking about how difficult it was to design the 85 f/1.4L and I thought the constraint was the IS. It was claimed that the 85 f1.4L has an IS unit that is only slightly smaller than the 400 f/2.8 IS II.

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/ef85mm-f14l-is-usm-developer-interviews-1
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,319
341
Southeastern USA
I thought I had seen an article of the lens designers talking about how difficult it was to design the 85 f/1.4L and I thought the constraint was the IS. It was claimed that the 85 f1.4L has an IS unit that is only slightly smaller than the 400 f/2.8 IS II.

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/en/ef85mm-f14l-is-usm-developer-interviews-1
Sometimes I forget that photography, above many other pursuits, demands compromise. Excellent illustration. Thanks!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
587
256
I don't see how making the ef 85mm f/1.4 a tad sharper and with less CA would have added an unacceptable amount of weight or size.
Then you don't understand lens design and what is needed to correct for the aberrations caused by a lens with elements that have real thickness, rather than theoretical zero thickness thin lenses. Each corrective element, and the additional corrective elements needed to correct the aberrations introduced by the first corrective element, adds size and weight.

You also may not understand that a lens made primarily to be a portrait lens often leaves field curvature un/undercorrected to allow for smoother bokeh. That will make such a lens look less "sharp" on a flat test chart because the shape of the field of sharpest focus is a portion of a sphere, not a flat plane. News flash: even the best "flat field" macro lenses have fields of focus that are shaped more like a lasagna noodle than a flat plane. And the price we pay for that flat field correction is busy/harsh bokeh.

Instead of comparing the flat test chart performance of lenses intended for shooting portraits, perhaps you should compare the bokeh produced by the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG ART shot wide open at typical portrait distances. It's not even close, and the Sigma is not the winner!
 
Last edited:
Reactions: stevelee