I think the demand would be. Many people would welcome a cheaper lens with a slightly worse aperture.Or lack of demand.
I'm afraid they could cause a severe asthma crisis...As long as the prices aren‘t breath taking…
I don't know if they would be positioned too closely together, but personally I would love to see a 16 or 18 millimeter f1.4 lens instead of 28mm oneI'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?
Canon knows how many EF50/1.4 they sold but it was a pretty poor lens in general for both IQ and quality control. Getting a "good" copy was tricky.The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.
Canon knows how many EF50/1.4 they sold but it was a pretty poor lens in general for both IQ and quality control. Getting a "good" copy was tricky.
It would make sense for one given the massive cost differential between the current RF50mm options.
The EF14mm was not a good astrolandscape lens and expensive. I am not sure what the use case for it would have been.As a nightscape enthusiast, really want something in the 14 to 20 range with a wide open aperture in the f/1.2 to f/2.0 range, with really low coma distortion in the corners. Hard to believe a company that has supported multiple astro modified camera bodies has not followed through on a lens like that for the RF mount.
That’s a good point. When I was a lot younger, the 50 came in every body. That’s was it, either buy a body, kr buy one with a 50. Everything we learned said that 50 was the natural perspective (not really true). These days people either but bodies, or buy them with some zoom. I see fewer 50mm lenses over time. A few years ago, making very expensive 50s was a thing. I’m not so sure most people cared. Look at smartphones. What’s the normal? 24 to 26mm equivalent. I think that regular camera users gave come to see that as more important than 50.Or lack of demand.
A 28 f2 would be great. 1.4 will make a lot of people happy but Canon really should do line like the Nikon G 1.8 and fill it with 20/24/28/35/50/85.
It would not be that hard to have a team sit down and do those designs back to back. Since canon refuses to allow Sigma to make RF lenses, I am sure they would sell a bucket load of these primes.
The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.
The fact that you’ve written or (1.4) in discussing the long awaited RF 35 1.2 L is making me uncomfortable. That thing better not be a 1.4! I’ll be pissed as I’ve been waiting forever for a 1.2 35. I also was gonna buy the 135 1.4 that ended up being a 1.8 which I already have in the Sigma. But the 35 1.2 is my dream lens. I would be interested in a fast 28 1.2 though. My first lens when I was in high school was a 28 and I’ve always liked that perspective as well. But a 35 is perfect for editorial/environmental portrait work.
That's what my wallet said when my only option was to either buy the tiny $270 1.8 STM or the $3000 1.2 L. (I am in Canada, so I used Canadian Pricing)
If only there was a demand for a middle class 50 like a 50mm 1.4 IS Macro to match the 24 IS Macro, 35 IS Macro and 85 IS Macro.
That would be a sweet combo for anyone starting out or a hobbyist wanting decently fast glass without having to break the bank to get the L's.
I could see even Semi-Pros rocking these combos.
Or, more likely, quite the opposite. Do you seriously not think that Canon has sales figures for how popular a 50mm 1.4 lens is? Do you seriously not think that Canon does considerable market research? The 50mm 1.4 is pretty obviously a low seller, low priority lens....
The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.
I think few people will buy all 3. Its possible that the release of all 3 at the same time, or at least announcement of them at the same time, is so people know what's coming so they can pick their favorite. Just speculation. People seem to have a favorite among these focal lengths and stick to that.I'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?