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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
232
40
#41
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.
If a lens that has basically the same performance as its predecessor can be considered a "dog", then I suppose it is a "dog". It is slightly sharper at some FLs and Avs, it is slightly less sharp at other FLs and Avs.

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.

It may or may not be such an indication. It may just be that there wasn't much possibility to improve over the current optical formula without making the lens much more expensive (cough, cough... Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR... cough).

There was apparently a need to upgrade the electronics for the upcoming EOS RF and it was well past time to add the superior anti-reflective coatings (ala the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II) that do significantly reduce lens flare in certain shooting scenarios. If you are a photographer that desires the better flare performance, this is no "minor" upgrade.

Just because something does not show up on a shot of a flat test chart under ideal lighting from a relatively short distance does not mean that it's not there.

Well, unless your only goal is to be able to brag that you own a lens with the best possible performance when shooting a flat test chart under ideal lighting from a relatively short distance.
 
#42
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?
I doubt we will see one. The new 50 was delayed because they developed it for R instead. With the EF and R system they will have even better tools to force photographers to buy more specialized equipment, multiple cameras and lenses in order to perform various tasks, so you will never find all functions in one body or system or all lenses in one mount. I guess we could see see a new 50/1.4 though.
 
Likes: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,945
34
Southeastern USA
#43
If a lens that has basically the same performance as its predecessor can be considered a "dog", then I suppose it is a "dog". It is slightly sharper at some FLs and Avs, it is slightly less sharp at other FLs and Avs.




It may or may not be such an indication. It may just be that there wasn't much possibility to improve over the current optical formula without making the lens much more expensive (cough, cough... Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR... cough).

There was apparently a need to upgrade the electronics for the upcoming EOS RF and it was well past time to add the superior anti-reflective coatings (ala the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II) that do significantly reduce lens flare in certain shooting scenarios. If you are a photographer that desires the better flare performance, this is no "minor" upgrade.

Just because something does not show up on a shot of a flat test chart under ideal lighting from a relatively short distance does not mean that it's not there.

Well, unless your only goal is to be able to brag that you own a lens with the best possible performance when shooting a flat test chart under ideal lighting from a relatively short distance.
To be clear, by "dog," I mean a lens that I wouldn't own. I do own the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and I used to own the 24-105mm f/4L too--and I actually used both. The 24-105mm was for daytime street, travel, and family photos; the 24-70mm f/2.8L II for events, child-portraits, and corporate group shots. The 24-105mm was also very good for studio lighting when I was going back and forth between groups and individuals. But the 24-105mm f/4L IS II was so bad in three or four brand new copies that I gave up on it, very disappointed with the whole focal-length range.

The only reason I had hoped to replace the version 1 was because I sold my 5D III kit which included it, right at the time preorders were out for the version 2. One of the only times I bought before a review. The owner of my former version 1, a friend of mine, is tickled pink with her kit, but I realized with version 2 that Canon had made an uncharacteristically disappointing new version and gave up on it. Reading reviews after the fact, I think many other people who speak frankly are also characterizing it as a "dog."

As for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I've never had a complaint about the lens flare or cleaning or other coating related issues. And in fact, a very reliable post here by Lens Rentals indicates there isn't much superior about the new coatings, and they might actually wipe off a little too easily now. This, to me, is another good indication that Canon is clearly moving on from quality innovation in the EF lenses.

Yes they have released new lenses in the past two years. A new 35mm f/1.4L was keenly anticipated because version 1 had some serious shortcomings wide-open, shortcomings which were emphasized by Sigma's Art version, to be sure, but which had been a pain for photographers before Sigma showed what could be done.

I would love to be wrong, to have members here laughing about my prediction months ago that EF was, this year, becoming a legacy tech, supported but no longer innovated. I always predicted there would be an adapter for the new mount, one that would be adequate, but I believed that a new FF mirrorless would bring new lenses that would BEGIN to make EF look second-rate. Is there anything in the release of the four new lenses plus the EOS R that makes you believe Canon is not developing RF as its new pro level mount?

As for the 85mm 1.4L IS being a little soft and still having some minor CA annoyance, how can somebody say Canon is concerned about lens size and weight when they have just released massive RF beauties? Look at that 28-70 IS, and, be still my heart, that NEW FREAKING 50MM F/1.2L!
 
Last edited:
Oct 8, 2017
11
7
#44
for half price the EF one is a real bargain!
and as for the R 28-70... really too heavy and costly...no way.
there is nothing in the white paper showing that these new lenses are a "revolution" . Their MTF are better than their EF counterparts, that is not making the EF line "second rate".
 
Likes: Michael Clark

BeenThere

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 4, 2012
710
68
#45
for half price the EF one is a real bargain!
and as for the R 28-70... really too heavy and costly...no way.
there is nothing in the white paper showing that these new lenses are a "revolution" . Their MTF are better than their EF counterparts, that is not making the EF line "second rate".
Choice between “good” and “better”. Expensive and more expensive.
 

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
878
38
#46
To be clear, by "dog," I mean a lens that I wouldn't own. I do own the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and I used to own the 24-105mm f/4L too--and I actually used both. The 24-105mm was for daytime street, travel, and family photos; the 24-70mm f/2.8L II for events, child-portraits, and corporate group shots. The 24-105mm was also very good for studio lighting when I was going back and forth between groups and individuals. But the 24-105mm f/4L IS II was so bad in three or four brand new copies that I gave up on it, very disappointed with the whole focal-length range.

The only reason I had hoped to replace the version 1 was because I sold my 5D III kit which included it, right at the time preorders were out for the version 2. One of the only times I bought before a review. The owner of my former version 1, a friend of mine, is tickled pink with her kit, but I realized with version 2 that Canon had made an uncharacteristically disappointing new version and gave up on it. Reading reviews after the fact, I think many other people who speak frankly are also characterizing it as a "dog."
Boy am I glad I waited for the reviews on that 24-105. I had the $$ set aside waiting to jump on version 2, with high hopes. But as soon as the (lackluster) reviews began rolling in, I backed off. My copy of V1, with its flaws, also has its strong areas (e.g., great performance at 50mm) which apparently aren't shared by the new lens. Looks like I'll do the same with the 70-200 2.8, no point going from II to III.
 
Jul 10, 2015
93
2
#47
I expected the FF MILC to have a native EF mount. And with the pre-reviews suggesting the new RF lenses are pretty spectacular, I think EF is doomed too now. Most of Canon's designers will want to work on the future stuff, but I think Canon will keep EF going for 10 years, with one or two releases every so often, but I have no doubt that they will produce the better lenses on RF from now. The questions I think are how many EF lenses will Canon update and will the updates be worth it? Some of us would like a decent 24-105L and 50 1.4L ...
 
#48
Quite frankly my 50 1.2L is probably my favorite lens especially when I consider the end results that it produces. I bought mine second hand for less than a new Sigma ART. At the time I compared the two and picked the Canon as I just preferred the images it produced (no where near as sharp but I just preferred them). I find the nice compact size a nice bonus to the 50 1.2L.

With that said as an engineer I know all engineering design is an exercise in balancing different pros and cons. I don't believe that Canon could meaningfully improve the sharpness of the 50 1.2L without significantly increasing the cost, size, weight and potentially losing the look of the current lens. I think the RF 50 1.2L illustrates this perfectly.

I also noticed many people stating that the new lenses prove that better lenses can be designed for the RF, now I am not going to go into the argument whether this is the case but I don't believe the RF 50 is a good example, if we compare the RF 50 to the Otus and the Sigma ART we can see that lenses are all in the same size and weight ballpark. So unless the RF 50 completely blows away the Otus and ART I don't think 50mm is actually a focal length that benefits much from the reduced flange distance.

I don't for one second believe that Canon is unable to produce a new 50 1.2L in EF that is every bit as good as the Otus and ART. The thing is that size and weight would have to be in the same region as those two lenses. In this case I don't believe I would be a customer (I wonder how many other EF 50 1.2L owners would buy a new Otus sized lens for $2200+).

I think with RF canon were left a little between a rock and a hard place, they wanted to produce a nice 50 for the system but I think reviewers would have crucified them if they had made a double gauss lens with size, weight and performance close to the current EF 50L. So they had no choice but to go huge.
 
Jun 12, 2012
211
4
England
#49
Quite frankly my 50 1.2L is probably my favorite lens especially when I consider the end results that it produces. I bought mine second hand for less than a new Sigma ART. At the time I compared the two and picked the Canon as I just preferred the images it produced (no where near as sharp but I just preferred them). I find the nice compact size a nice bonus to the 50 1.2L.

With that said as an engineer I know all engineering design is an exercise in balancing different pros and cons. I don't believe that Canon could meaningfully improve the sharpness of the 50 1.2L without significantly increasing the cost, size, weight and potentially losing the look of the current lens. I think the RF 50 1.2L illustrates this perfectly.

I also noticed many people stating that the new lenses prove that better lenses can be designed for the RF, now I am not going to go into the argument whether this is the case but I don't believe the RF 50 is a good example, if we compare the RF 50 to the Otus and the Sigma ART we can see that lenses are all in the same size and weight ballpark. So unless the RF 50 completely blows away the Otus and ART I don't think 50mm is actually a focal length that benefits much from the reduced flange distance.

I don't for one second believe that Canon is unable to produce a new 50 1.2L in EF that is every bit as good as the Otus and ART. The thing is that size and weight would have to be in the same region as those two lenses. In this case I don't believe I would be a customer (I wonder how many other EF 50 1.2L owners would buy a new Otus sized lens for $2200+).

I think with RF canon were left a little between a rock and a hard place, they wanted to produce a nice 50 for the system but I think reviewers would have crucified them if they had made a double gauss lens with size, weight and performance close to the current EF 50L. So they had no choice but to go huge.
Thank you. I found your summary very useful.
At the moment I am making do with a very old Canon 50mm F1.4. I have always been persuaded not to go for the 50mm F1.2 because apparently it is not very sharp and it suffers from pronounced chromatic aberration. As you say, the Sigma is a great lens but it is also very large - too large for a 50mm lens in my opinion. If the existing F1.2 is going to be the end of the line for EF 50mm lenses then would in be worth upgrading now or is the F1.4 just as good?
I think I understand what you are saying about preferring the quality of the images from the 50mm F1.2 despite what all the MTF graphs are telling us. Recently I bought the 85mm F1.4L, initially to replace my 85mm F1.2. However I have not been able to persuade myself to sell the F1.2, at least not yet, because I like the images it produces so much. The 85mm F1.4 has weather sealing and image stabilisation, so it is a more practical lens, but the F1.2 lens produces images with a wonderful texture that is difficult to define.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 6D Mark II
Mar 14, 2012
2,098
33
#50
...

With that said as an engineer I know all engineering design is an exercise in balancing different pros and cons. I don't believe that Canon could meaningfully improve the sharpness of the 50 1.2L without significantly increasing the cost, size, weight and potentially losing the look of the current lens. I think the RF 50 1.2L illustrates this perfectly.

I also noticed many people stating that the new lenses prove that better lenses can be designed for the RF, now I am not going to go into the argument whether this is the case but I don't believe the RF 50 is a good example, if we compare the RF 50 to the Otus and the Sigma ART we can see that lenses are all in the same size and weight ballpark. So unless the RF 50 completely blows away the Otus and ART I don't think 50mm is actually a focal length that benefits much from the reduced flange distance.

I don't for one second believe that Canon is unable to produce a new 50 1.2L in EF that is every bit as good as the Otus and ART. The thing is that size and weight would have to be in the same region as those two lenses. In this case I don't believe I would be a customer (I wonder how many other EF 50 1.2L owners would buy a new Otus sized lens for $2200+).

I think with RF canon were left a little between a rock and a hard place, they wanted to produce a nice 50 for the system but I think reviewers would have crucified them if they had made a double gauss lens with size, weight and performance close to the current EF 50L. So they had no choice but to go huge.
I think that if Canon had designed the RF 50 as a f/1.4 lens as a f/1.2 lens, then it would have been a bit smaller and lighter. The EF 50 f/1.4 is much smaller/lighter than the 50L and both feature a design based on the double Gauss. The more relevant question is how much bigger would the OTUS and Sigma Art have been if they were f/1.2 lenses rather than f/1.4 lenses.

I do have a 50L and it's focus accuracy has always been behind the 85 and 35 L-primes. I'd love to try it on the EOS R to see if the focus accuracy improves. If it does, that would be one great reason to pick up the R.
 

Hector1970

EOS Rebel T7i
Mar 22, 2012
869
22
#51
I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have).
The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)

On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
I think all design changes will be in the EOS R lens.
They will slowly build a full range for R and that will be their priority.
So in a way EF will be dead but it will be a slow death with some blips of life of new upgraded lens along the way.

Sad for me as I'm heavily invested in EF but that's progress.
 
Likes: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,945
34
Southeastern USA
#52
I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have).
The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)

On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
I think all design changes will be in the EOS R lens.
They will slowly build a full range for R and that will be their priority.
So in a way EF will be dead but it will be a slow death with some blips of life of new upgraded lens along the way.

Sad for me as I'm heavily invested in EF but that's progress.
Thanks for this post, Hector, as I've very recently reconsidered the "old" 1.2L. I've heard bad things from fellow photographers in my area whom I respect, but they may have been using an older or bad copy. In fact, I've been keeping my eyes open for a refurbished bargain.

But I'd still much rather have a new version, so I'm not sure I'll pull the trigger. Canon may have been after customers like myself, so desperate for a new 1.2L that we will buy an RF mount. But the first release, the EOS R, simply doesn't seem appealing enough. I don't like the ergonomics I'm seeing in previews, nor a rehashed 5DIV sensor, nor the slow actual FPS. I'm also holding out for two card slots. (I know, people react by saying their cards have never failed, but I'm the one who fails with cards--in other words, I might lose the CF and still get lucky and have the SD still in camera with the images safe. And I have had a few images corrupted on a CF a few times, though never the whole batch.)
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
945
131
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
#53
So. Remember the patent a while back about a lens mount that can detect what kind of interface it is attached to and adapt accordingly, ie if it's a more modern interface it will work faster?

Well, this allows for a new generation of EF lenses to gain the full performance benefits of the RF lenses on an RF body. They may need a slightly different adaptor to the current one (and such an adaptor may even be specific for the lens and bundled) but essentially the lens would be able to offer enhanced features if connected to an RF body via the adaptor, but would work as a normal EF lens (without those advantages) on an EF body.

It's likely that new EF lenses (eg the new big whites) already have at least some of this capability built in, and it may therefore be possible for this faster communication to work even with the current adaptors.

I think that we'll see EF lenses continue for quite some time, because anything that CAN be designed to fit the EF mount currently has a much bigger market than anything that doesn't.

So I don't see any big whites with RF mount imminent. No need.

And although there won't be an EF 50mm 1.2L in the near future, I can imagine there may be an EF 50mm f/1.4L IS which, when adapted, would also work great with the new body.

What I don't think we'll see, for reasons above, is anything like immediate replacements for existing EF lenses. So probably no RF 50mm f/1.8 STM unless they can make it very much more compact for very little more cash. They didn't go this route with EF-M, they probably won't with RF.
 
Likes: Michael Clark
Jul 8, 2017
25
0
#54
I think the 50 f/1.2 as an RF is a Sony keep-away move. It's so close to the sensor that an adapter becomes impractical or impossible. The sharpest 50 only fits a Canon. Likewise the 28-70 f/2. When a higher spec body arrives, that'll signal the time to start migrating to Canon mirrorless. The 35 and 85 Canon updates seem like answers to the Sigma Art series.

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.
Ditto. The R seems like a camera designed to clear a first set of must-haves, and slow the flow of Canon to Sony customers. A top end FF mirrorless needs or wants about five features not in a Canon previously: FF sensor w adaptations for mirrorless, nicer EVF, Eye AF software, more pixels, IBIS. Canon picked the first two because they were necessary, picked up the third because it was already partially developed, and finished the camera so you can order it now. Each feature probably costs in the millions (or tens of them) and many months to develop, so you take it in bites. Sensor upgrades and IBIS will be nice when they do a $3900 camera next year.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
232
40
#55
Thank you. I found your summary very useful.
At the moment I am making do with a very old Canon 50mm F1.4. I have always been persuaded not to go for the 50mm F1.2 because apparently it is not very sharp and it suffers from pronounced chromatic aberration. As you say, the Sigma is a great lens but it is also very large - too large for a 50mm lens in my opinion. If the existing F1.2 is going to be the end of the line for EF 50mm lenses then would in be worth upgrading now or is the F1.4 just as good?
I think I understand what you are saying about preferring the quality of the images from the 50mm F1.2 despite what all the MTF graphs are telling us. Recently I bought the 85mm F1.4L, initially to replace my 85mm F1.2. However I have not been able to persuade myself to sell the F1.2, at least not yet, because I like the images it produces so much. The 85mm F1.4 has weather sealing and image stabilisation, so it is a more practical lens, but the F1.2 lens produces images with a wonderful texture that is difficult to define.
What you are struggling to define about the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II is the uncorrected field curvature that gives the images such a "smooth" look and creamy bokeh. Because the field of focus is not corrected to be as flat as can be (that would destroy the rendering quality given by the uncorrected field curvature), it doesn't do as well shooting the edges/corners of a flat test chart as a lens that is highly corrected for field curvature.


I think that if Canon had designed the RF 50 as a f/1.4 lens as a f/1.2 lens, then it would have been a bit smaller and lighter. The EF 50 f/1.4 is much smaller/lighter than the 50L and both feature a design based on the double Gauss. The more relevant question is how much bigger would the OTUS and Sigma Art have been if they were f/1.2 lenses rather than f/1.4 lenses.

I do have a 50L and it's focus accuracy has always been behind the 85 and 35 L-primes. I'd love to try it on the EOS R to see if the focus accuracy improves. If it does, that would be one great reason to pick up the R.

I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have).
The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)

On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
I think all design changes will be in the EOS R lens.
They will slowly build a full range for R and that will be their priority.
So in a way EF will be dead but it will be a slow death with some blips of life of new upgraded lens along the way.

Sad for me as I'm heavily invested in EF but that's progress.
Image quality tests are generally done using painstaking manual focus. PDAF does not enter the equation at all for testing lens "sharpness."
 
Likes: fullstop

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,945
34
Southeastern USA
#56
I have a 50 1.2 and its focus accuracy is far better than an 85 1.2 II (which I also have).
The 50 1.2 is a much maligned lens here but I've always found it produces great photographs (so does the 85 1.2 II but its more hit and miss on focusing)

On the Topic of new EF versions I think we will see new EF lens but they will be only marginal improvements (lens coating / weight).
I think all design changes will be in the EOS R lens.
They will slowly build a full range for R and that will be their priority.
So in a way EF will be dead but it will be a slow death with some blips of life of new upgraded lens along the way.

Sad for me as I'm heavily invested in EF but that's progress.
You could not have said it better, Hector. EF lenses are now legacy technology that will be supported but no longer developed. This is a point that has met with much hostility here. Any new EF lenses have been in the pipeline of development and marketing for some time.

I hope I am proven wrong with a new ef 50mm 1.2.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 6D Mark II
Mar 14, 2012
2,098
33
#58
Image quality tests are generally done using painstaking manual focus. PDAF does not enter the equation at all for testing lens "sharpness."
I wasn't referring to the 50L's lack of resolution toward the edges; I was referring to the the lack of focus accuracy with my 5DIII/5DIV. Some shots in a sequence are much sharper than others. If the R can deliver accurate focus away from the center, then the 50L would behave like a "new lens."
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,945
34
Southeastern USA
#59
I wasn't referring to the 50L's lack of resolution toward the edges; I was referring to the the lack of focus accuracy with my 5DIII/5DIV. Some shots in a sequence are much sharper than others. If the R can deliver accurate focus away from the center, then the 50L would behave like a "new lens."[/]
My 85mm 1.2L II focused significantly better on points outside the center (though not at the very edges) on the 5DIV than it did on the 5DIII; however, I still wanted snappier AF plus IS, so I traded it in for the 1.4L IS. I think it was the right move.

I would have thought the 50mm 1.2L would work better on the 5DIV also. Sorry to hear that isn't the case for you. Please follow up if you do try it on an R body!
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,577
124
#60
So I summary, is this thread meant to “demonstrate” that EF is dead because there are not two simultaneous releases of each new lens?

If so, sorry, that’s preposterous.
 
Likes: Michael Clark