Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM coming in 2019? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
On the plus side, this gives the impression EOS-R would have a complete line of lenses in a couple of years.
On the minus side, this shows Canon has been neglecting the EF line of lenses.
On the minus side, this shows Canon has been neglecting the EF line of lenses.
Upvote
0
I think that proves the original point; those are EF L, not really EF. The last basic EF lens from Canon was the 70-300 IS II in 2016.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You've asked, therefore I'll answer...
The 70-200mm f/2.8L mkIII was released just to make production more efficient. It shows care for Canon's profits (nothing wrong with that), but not for the customers (which is my point).
The super teles & TS-E target small audiences. What's neglected is non-L primes for what I think is a larger audience, and I think an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM is a good example. Canon can make EF 35mm f/2 IS & EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, it can make a 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, but my money would be spent on the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC.
Upvote
0
Let's be frank, it is not a strong competition. It is a competition where you need to make a choice between different pros and cons and many people would still prefer Canon with higher price even if it had somehow worse IQ than Sigma or Tamron.
As I wrote before, 50 1.4 USM was released in 1993 and 50 1.2 L USM in 2006. Sigma 50 1.4 Art was released in 2014 and Tamron 45 1.8 Di VC USD in 2015. Canon had plenty of time to release new lens when there was no competition at all.
We can talk about other 50ish lenses like Zeiss but those are a special category since they are manual focus only and thus are more competition to Sigma and its not so reliable AF than to any possible release from Canon.
I have Tamron 24-70 (1st gen) and while it is my most used lens I have very mixed experience with it. I wouldn't say I trust Tamron but since Canon is abandoning EF lens development I may end up buying 24-70 2.8 VC V2 and 45 1.8 VC as those are two lenses I've been waiting to get from Canon for years.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Canon has already said (in various executive interviews etc) that their current focus (no pun intended) is to build up the RF range over the next year or so. It's no secret - they will have multiple EOS R bodies by this time next year, and surely a decent range of L and non-L zooms and primes for them.
They would see the EF lens range as pretty much complete, and in terms of upgrading non-L primes, that would almost certainly strike them as cannibalising their EF L lenses. The Sigma Art series (great lenses by the way) generally sit price-wise mid-way between the Canon non-L and Ls, and in fact they've been creeping up in price over time (and also in quality obviously). Other than Sigma, the 3rd party makers (to me anyway) start to get more hit and miss in terms of functionality and compatibility (although I love my manual focus Samyang wide angle).
Upvote
0
All manufacturers have released an upgraded 50mm lens, except Canon.
It makes more sense to lose sales to the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC?
Upvote
0
Assuming that were even true, given the whole strategy, yes it does.
Upvote
0
Over the past few years, I've replaced every 3rd party lens I've bought with a Canon lens, e.g. the Sigma 12-24mm with a Canon 11-24mm f/4.
Now I'm going to buy a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, because Canon has nothing similar. That's a lost sale.
How does that make sense, given the whole strategy?
Upvote
0
The size of the pickle jar, if you will, is partially governed by the ratio of the registration distance to the shorter focal length. Retrofocus lenses are basically telephoto lenses turned around backwards. Just as you need a larger lens for 400mm vs. 200mm, you need a larger lens for 10mm vs 15mm when both are designed for a mount with a longer than 15mm registration distance.
With the EF mount, the registration distance is 44mm. A 24mm lens, for example, is about half the registration distance. A 12mm lens is roughly one-quarter the registration distance.
With the RF mount, the registration distance is 20mm. A 24mm lens could, in theory, not be retrofocus at all. A 12mm focal length would be slightly more than half of the registration distance, and would only need to be about as retrofocal as a 24mm lens for the EF mount with its 44mm registration distance.
Upvote
0
I'm afraid I don't get the point.
What do you think is actually missing in the non-L range?
24 IS, 28 IS, 35 IS, 1,8 STM. The 2 lenses that could be missing are maybe 1,4/50 and 2,8/20.
Yet, it's because Canon has so many excellent "speciality" L lenses that they are leading the field and selling more cameras than anybody else. I, personally, bought Canon for their 17 and 24 TSE lenses. Nikon didn't stand a chance...Nikkor 24 shift not really good.
And, for the present time, widening the RF lens offer is vital for Canon, even though I agree, that a new 1,4/50 IS would be a nice addition...
PS: I had a 45 Tamron, brought it back for heavy focusing issues...
Upvote
0
Since you've asked...
The EF 35mm f/2 IS is an excellent example of what I expect (sharp, fast, reasonably priced), as I bought it.
EF 20mm f/2.8 - if it was modernized, I would seriously consider it. Make it f/2.0, and I'll definitely buy it.
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS - isn't sharp enough for me to consider.
EF 50mm f/~1.8 IS - I would buy it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
