Here is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM

Fotofriend

CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
8
3
I have the same issue with my R.
I wanted something compact with a 50 and not a 35, but it is not so compact with the ring adapter, and quality is bad. Let's see what this RF50 can do
Me too, on my R and also the M50 (albeit to a lesser degree) the image quality is quite bad. And not only due to unprecise focusing IMO
 

ctk

EOS M50
Mar 25, 2020
35
35
I mean that a 50/1.4 is coming, not that a 50/1.4 IS is coming.
Not following. There's no 35 or 85 1.4 to span those gaps; can't see why Canon would do any different here.

Personally I will just be happy if it has good IQ and AF. I think Canon can do both in this size. I am game if it does that for under $350.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,861
1,722
However, me personally, and I understand I am a data point of one so am irrelevant, will happily get the RF 35 1.8 and the RF 85 f1.8 when I end up getting an R5.
Unless I missed something there won't be an RF 85 f/1.8. It's going to be an f/2.0.

Which is a shame because aside from my 100mm macro (which is for a totally different use case; I have to remind myself it's a prime I own), the EF version is my favorite prime.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
469
679
Another, to me, is whether Canon is willing to offer 50mm primes at only $300 and $2,300 price points, creating an enormous gap between the two for third-party lens makers to fill, which I think is quite unlikely.
I'll add to this, the RF 50mm F/1.2 has definitely taken the crown of getting as much light and image quality as possible, no matter the size. In the EF mount, the "top-of-the-line" 50mm was still small and compact and around $1,200 with lesser image quality.

I think having the *only* options be either $300 and absolutely tiny with lesser IQ, or $2300 and absolutely huge with perfect IQ, leaves a big gap for the kind of people who would pick up the R6 with the RF 24-105mm F/4 and aren't looking to buy an expensive, huge 50mm prime that almost costs as much as their R6.

I can wholeheartedly imagine in the next few years there will be a RF 50mm F/1.4 IS that's around the size of the EF 50mm f/1.2. Maybe it's not the first priority in the line-up, but Canon is going to miss out on a lot of sales to third-party primes in that $900-1200 segment if these are the only two options.

I personally will pick up this RF 50mm F/1.8 just as a why-not throwaway, but I would totally see myself upgrading that to a 50mm F/1.4 if it was around the size of the EF 50mm f/1.2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
353
323
not quite, it's probably pretty close to the same size as the original EF 50mm 1.8
Jeah, but if I compare my 40mm pancake PLUS the adapter with the original EF 50mm its pretty close in size =)
Anyway, its a promising lense. F1,8 is good enough for pretty much all situation, at least if the sharpness wide open is at least somewhat okay. I guess corner sharpness will be bad wide open, but I guess I can survive that :-D
The Sigma 50mm is my favorite lense and 50mm is simply the most useful focal lense ever in my opinion =)
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
629
720
Not following. There's no 35 or 85 1.4 to span those gaps; can't see why Canon would do any different here.

Personally I will just be happy if it has good IQ and AF. I think Canon can do both in this size. I am game if it does that for under $350.
See what I said here, at:
These are all fine points. Whether the market still supports 4-tiered segmentation at 50mm is one worthy question. Another, to me, is whether Canon is willing to offer 50mm primes at only $300 and $2,300 price points, creating an enormous gap between the two for third-party lens makers to fill, which I think is quite unlikely.
 

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
580
178
I think the main question to ask yourself is do I need a prime lens or will zoom lenses better suit my needs. 40 years ago when I got my first 35mm SLR, a 50mm was the popular kit lens, but by the time I got my next camera around 1995, zooms had come a long way and I had no need for a prime lens and have never even considered one since. I shoot mostly landscapes, so I never have the need of very shallow Depth of Field - that is one of the benefits of a prime lens. And over the years, zooms have gotten even better, so any increase in sharpness that a prime might provide is not necessary for me. You may feel differently. For myself, the overall composition is one the most important characteristic of a photo, so I will always be choosing the versatillity of a zoom lens. But if I needed a very shallow DOF, then, in many cases, I would be better off with primes, as zooms rarely are faster than f/2.8 (and those are big and expensive) and are more likely f/4 or higher.
The other time when primes are necessary is when the light level is extremely low. In the mid-2000's, I got into photographing local rock bands in small clubs (and lost a lot of hearing in the process). A typical exposure was 1/60, f/2, ISO3200. That's when I accumulated a set of five prime lenses ranging from 24mm to 135mm, lenses that I rarely use now. I use my f/4 trinity most of the time now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
629
720
I'll add to this, the RF 50mm F/1.2 has definitely taken the crown of getting as much light and image quality as possible, no matter the size. In the EF mount, the "top-of-the-line" 50mm was still small and compact and around $1,200 with lesser image quality.

I think having the *only* options be either $300 and absolutely tiny with lesser IQ, or $2300 and absolutely huge with perfect IQ, leaves a big gap for the kind of people who would pick up the R6 with the RF 24-105mm F/4 and aren't looking to buy an expensive, huge 50mm prime that almost costs as much as their R6.

I can wholeheartedly imagine in the next few years there will be a RF 50mm F/1.4 IS that's around the size of the EF 50mm f/1.2. Maybe it's not the first priority in the line-up, but Canon is going to miss out on a lot of sales to third-party primes in that $900-1200 segment if these are the only two options.

I personally will pick up this RF 50mm F/1.8 just as a why-not throwaway, but I would totally see myself upgrading that to a 50mm F/1.4 if it was around the size of the EF 50mm f/1.2.
Yes, all of this. And not to beat a dead horse, but if this 50/1.8 did have macro and IS, and cost closer to $600 (which implies superior image quality, in addition to said added features), it would be a whole different ball game. In that scenario, there'd be far less room for a 50/1.4 (costing $900-1200) than there is with what we have going on right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and H. Jones

tataylino

I'm New Here
Jul 14, 2020
14
12
I have been waiting for the EF-M version for this lens for so long... when they release an affordable version of R, (M50 equivalent) I might consider it.
 
Oct 29, 2020
4
3
Well, size. Putting an RF-EF adapter on to a lens that is intended to be small negates some of the smallness benefits that small seekers were hoping to achieve in purchasing a small lens.

Control ring.

A feeling of smugness that you have an RF lens versus the peasants that refuse to let go of their EF arsenal.

That's about it.
This RF shouldn’t cost more than the $300 total of adapting the EF. I think 299 is a great price for it.. and not having IS or Macro capability, I don’t see it surpassing 399.
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,191
3,412
120
Unless I missed something there won't be an RF 85 f/1.8. It's going to be an f/2.0.

Which is a shame because aside from my 100mm macro (which is for a totally different use case; I have to remind myself it's a prime I own), the EF version is my favorite prime.
Yes sorry it was a typo. Still happy with an 85 f2 though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,191
3,412
120
These are all fine points. Whether the market still supports 4-tiered segmentation at 50mm is one worthy question. Another, to me, is whether Canon is willing to offer 50mm primes at only $300 and $2,300 price points, creating an enormous gap between the two for third-party lens makers to fill, which I think is quite unlikely.
I think Canon Corp are of a scale that they inevitably leave crumbs, and I suspect they would consider $600-$1,500 50mm primes crumbs given the size of the market when they offer the two options anyway. Let's not forget they have a very long history of sales data to make good projections on viability and most keen amateurs and pros that are committed to the focal length will want to get the RF 50 f1.2L anyway.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
462
380
www.flickr.com
I have $. That's not an issue. Just talking about THIS LENS and what are the benefits if paired with a r5! That is all. So if If I pair it with my 70-200 RF and 15-35 F 2.8, just looking for the best uses of the item talked about in this thread.
Thanks! ;)
All lenses have trade-offs
- If money is important then R5+RF50mm will be the cheapest body + RF lens option. If money is no object then this lens may not be for you
- The quality will be okay but not great. The RF zooms will probably be sharper. Wait for the reviews
- If size is important then this is the smallest R5+ RF lens you can get. Use your legs for the zoom. The EF40mm + R mount adapter may be comparable in size
- The minimum focusing distance will be better than the RF70-200mm (0.7m) but maybe not the RF15-35mm (0.23m).
- Some people love the "natural" focal length of 50mm (not wide and not telefocal) and your zooms don't cover it.
- If low light is important then this could be useful. f1.8 is significantly better than the zooms. Indoor/tricky lighting could mean the RF50mm gets the shots that they others can't or at such a high ISO that the noise distracts from the image quality. That said, the R5 high ISO performance is great.
- Indoor band / theatre productions (remember them!) etc
- I was shooting a kids indoor trampolining party with EF24-105mm @ ISO12800 and 1/200s came out great for social media. I wouldn't print some of them but that wasn't important.
- Shooting milky way or aurora could have much better detail/noise than f2.8 ie shorter shutter speeds at lower ISO. 50mm isn't used as often as wider astrolandscapes but can be useful
- The bokeh will be different from your zooms. Generally f1.8 will be better to isolate your subject from background but the quality will be interesting ie is the bokeh distracting. The reviews will be interesting. This was one of the reasons I got the EF50/1.4 for newborn shooting.

If you like the 50mm focal length, money is no object and size is no object then get the RF50mm/f1.2 which is even better quality and aperture.

For me, I sold my EF50mm/1.4 as my EF100mm macro was much better (quality/focus distance) for both portraits and macro and I can crop from my EF16-35mm @ 35mm if needed. I either take my EF24-105mm as a single walkaround lens or EF16-35mm + RF70-200mm as a dual kit or maybe now EF16-35mm + RF100-500mm for any situation.

As with everything, YMMV
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and pj1974

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
629
720
I think Canon Corp are of a scale that they inevitably leave crumbs, and I suspect they would consider $600-$1,500 50mm primes crumbs given the size of the market when they offer the two options anyway. Let's not forget they have a very long history of sales data to make good projections on viability and most keen amateurs and pros that are committed to the focal length will want to get the RF 50 f1.2L anyway.
I disagree that popular primes in common focal lengths constitute breadcrumbs. It may just be that Canon's decision not to make a 50/1.4 yet is the same reason they haven't made a 24-70/4, yet -- it's the wrong time for it, but in a year or two, perhaps.

Certainly, Canon sells whatever it believes makes money, just as Sigma, makers of the current champion high-performing/competitively priced 50/1.4, does. Does Sigma make money on that lens, but not Canon? It's possible. What's more likely to me is that Canon is just doing one thing at a time. For now, they've left such ample room for a 50/1.4, I would be surprised if they didn't fill it by, say, 2023.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,191
3,412
120
I disagree that popular primes in common focal lengths constitute breadcrumbs. It may just be that Canon's decision not to make a 50/1.4 yet is the same reason they haven't made a 24-70/4, yet -- it's the wrong time for it, but in a year or two, perhaps.

Certainly, Canon sells whatever it believes makes money, just as Sigma, makers of the current champion high-performing/competitively priced 50/1.4, does. Does Sigma make money on that lens, but not Canon? It's possible. What's more likely to me is that Canon is just doing one thing at a time. For now, they've left such ample room for a 50/1.4, I would be surprised if they didn't fill it by, say, 2023.
It's a forum, it would be a boring place if we all agreed ;)

Given the size of Canon compared to Sigma I think it is fair to say a third prime with the same focal length would be a breadcrumb. Let's not forget normal focal length prime lenses are niche products now, and Canon have the low end and the high end covered I think they will be fine to let the midlevel go as they explore things like a newly aligned RF C-line, a range of RF cine lenses (which can sell for $10,000's per lens)
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
208
147
This lens will have some value for people using a gimbal or an inclined slider for video where weight and size are important factors. Normally I like some thing a little wider when on a gimbal or hand held but some times some thing a little longer like a 50 makes sense.
 

researcher

I'm New Here
May 30, 2015
19
7
I was hoping/expecting Canon would do an APSC R-series camera, if only to tap the entry level market. Have they said if/when they are going to discontinue the non-pro DSLR's yet? What is the point of making Rebel or xxD series DSLRs if their mirrorless lines are the future?