I am the only one missing a Canon new 50mm 1.4 for years??

[neuroanatomist]

Canon has been extremely slow in getting RF lenses out and you unfortunately see the reason some switch to Sony.

Their pace is faster than Sony’s over the first 5 years of their respective FF MILC lines. For 2022, Canon took the #1 MILC spot away from Sony in Japan. The global data won’t come out until 4Q, but the trend to date suggests Canon took over as the top MILC brand worldwide.

I’m sure some have switched to Sony for f/1.4 lenses. In the big picture, the number who have done so is likely meaningless.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon has seriously let down the mid-tier customer.

The STM in the RF 85mm f2 is awful. Optically it doesnt hold a candle to the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM and the RF 85mm f1.2L whilst optically brilliant is extremely heavy and expensive for many.

Who is the ‘mid-tier’ customer, and what is their budget?

The EF 50/1.2L launched at $1600, the RF 50/1.2L at $2300. The EF 85/1.2L II launched at $2100, the RF 85/1.2L at $2700.

The EF 35/1.4L II launched at $1800. The EF 85/1.4L IS launched at $1600. The EF 24/1.4L II was $1700. That suggests that RF versions of those f/1.4 lenses will be >$2000. That doesn’t sound like mid-tier to me.

On the other hand, lenses like the RF 24/1.8, RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are optically very good, as are lenses like the RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11. All of those are between $500-1000 and IMO, those are the middle tier. The lower tier is actually expanding with RF, with <$300 lenses like the 16/2.8 and 28/2.8.

I think people complaining about the ‘lack of a middle tier’ in the RF lineup are looking at the situation unrealistically. What they’re really asking for are fast L-series prime lenses in the $1000-1500 range. With a few exceptions, e.g., EF 135/2, those didn’t exist in the EF lineup, either. Those people could look at it from the perspective that the lenses they want for RF already exist – adapted EF lenses.

 

[Czardoom]

Canon has seriously let down the mid-tier customer. I think its a folly not having a complete set of f1.4 primes the same as Sony and Nikon. Been a loyal Canon customer since I was 17 now 69. I wrote to Canon UK / Europe about this and before Neuroabatomist jumps in I ran Panavision Europe for 35 years including a stills rental business and the f1.4L EF lenses always rented really well. They were also converted into cinematography lenses in PL mount and widely used in the film industry.
Canon has been extremely slow in getting RF lenses out and you unfortunately see the reason some switch to Sony.

Canon has a set of f/1.4 primes. Some people, apparently, are smart enough to buy and use EF lenses on their new RF mount cameras. Others, apparently are not. Canon, I beleive is putting out 8 new RF lenses a year. I think that is about the same as Nikon and faster than Sony did. Lots of people switched to Sony (mostly Nikon users obviously) because the Sony bullcrap propaganda has been brilliant and constantly repeated (just as you have done now) for the past 8-9 years.

 

[Czardoom]

Who is the ‘mid-tier’ customer, and what is their budget?

The EF 50/1.2L launched at $1600, the RF 50/1.2L at $2300. The EF 85/1.2L II launched at $2100, the RF 85/1.2L at $2700.

The EF 35/1.4L II launched at $1800. The EF 85/1.4L IS launched at $1600. The EF 24/1.4L II was $1700. That suggests that RF versions of those f/1.4 lenses will be >$2000. That doesn’t sound like mid-tier to me.

On the other hand, lenses like the RF 24/1.8, RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are optically very good, as are lenses like the RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11. All of those are between $500-1000 and IMO, those are the middle tier. The lower tier is actually expanding with RF, with <$300 lenses like the 16/2.8 and 28/2.8.

I think people complaining about the ‘lack of a middle tier’ in the RF lineup are looking at the situation unrealistically. What they’re really asking for are fast L-series prime lenses in the $1000-1500 range. With a few exceptions, e.g., EF 135/2, those didn’t exist in the EF lineup, either. Those people could look at it from the perspective that the lenses they want for RF already exist – adapted EF lenses.

Yes, Canon has lots of lenses for users at different price points. But people don't want to see it. They want to whine and complain. Yes, lenses are expensive, but the fact that lenses should last you 10, 15 or even 20 years or more is lost on so many Canon Rumors folks.

 

[Maximilian]

As I stated in another thread about the "mid range primes":
Consider the RF 50/1.8 STM at the successor for a 1.4. ...

The STM in the RF 85mm f2 is awful. Optically it doesnt hold a candle to the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM and the RF 85mm f1.2L whilst optically brilliant is extremely heavy and expensive for many.

Why do you quote me and my post about the 50mm lens in a thread about 50mm lenses when you're moaning over the RF85/2 ?

*off topic*
But when you're talking about the RF85/2, better compare it to the EF85/1.8 and not to L lenses.
Everything else is comparing apples with oranges. And now it looks like this:

Resolution is noticeably better, CA too:

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Renowned reviewer Dustin Abbott praises the IQ and bokeh, and the macro capability.

Canon RF 85mm F2 IS STM Review - DustinAbbott.net

Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a real world review of the Canon RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM lens - is the RF85M the one to get?

dustinabbott.net

He complains about the 85 STM AF, too.

But once again, it's not the RF50 STM AF. I own that lens.
That lens AF isn't as good as (nano) USM, sure.
But I also own the EF85/1.8. And it's (micro) USM is lame, too.

You can complain about STM, justified or not. But Canon has decided to keep USM for the L lenses. (edit: and some selected lenses as well)
Maybe we'll see an RF85/1.4 L USM in the future. But be sure, it'll cost at least the price of the EF85/1.4 L IS USM.
Pity as it is. But it's the Canon way.
*/off topic*

Now back to 50mm lenses?

 

[neuroanatomist]

You can complain about STM, justified or not. But Canon has decided to keep USM for the L lenses.

It’s not a 50mm lens, but the RF 100-400 uses Nano USM.

 

[Maximilian]

It’s not a 50mm lens, but the RF 100-400 uses Nano USM.

Thank you. I missed that!

 

[Sporgon]

But I also own the EF85/1.8. And it's (micro) USM is lame, too.

I thought the EF 85/1.8 used normal USM ? I seem to remember that Canon used the same USM drive in the EF 85/1.4 IS.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I thought the EF 85/1.8 used normal USM ? I seem to remember that Canon used the same USM drive in the EF 85/1.4 IS.

I believe the 85/1.8 has Ring USM.

 

[Sporgon]

I believe the 85/1.8 has Ring USM.

I thought so, ‘normal’ is Sporgon’s technical term for ‘Ring’. I’m pretty certain Canon stated that they used the Ring USM from the venerable 85/1.8 in the much newer and more advanced 85/1.4 IS.

 

[Maximilian]

I thought the EF 85/1.8 used normal USM ?

I must admit, I am not sure about that. But IMO and experience and in comparison it is so lame, that it doesn't feel like a ring USM.
Tech data at canon.de only tells "USM" without any details.

 

[jeffa4444]

Your all missing the point. Constant f1.4 primes are preferred by cinematographers whether shooting on a Canon R5C or a C700 for instance rather than a mix of maximum apertures in fixed of semi fixed lighting. Canon provided this before natively without resorting to adaptors and contrary to what Neurosnatomist states those lenses sold exceedingly well for Canon they were not “niche” products. It’s healthy to question the direction Canon has taken rather than immediately jump to some defensive mode you can still be loyal to a brand and be critical of certain decisions I heard that from customers all the time when I ran Panavision Europe.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You’re all missing the point. Constant f1.4 primes are preferred by cinematographers whether shooting on a Canon R5C or a C700 for instance rather than a mix of maximum apertures in fixed of semi fixed lighting. Canon provided this before natively without resorting to adaptors and contrary to what Neurosnatomist states those lenses sold exceedingly well for Canon they were not “niche” products. It’s healthy to question the direction Canon has taken rather than immediately jump to some defensive mode you can still be loyal to a brand and be critical of certain decisions I heard that from customers all the time when I ran Panavision Europe.

Where did I state that EF f/1.4 primes didn’t sell well or were niche products? Sounds like you’re jumping to a defensive mode when your statements are challenged.

I will state (and probably have before) that Canon knows exactly how many EF 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L and 85/1.4L lenses they sold. Yet they’ve waited 5 years and counting to release them in the RF mount, having prioritized 34 lenses over f/1.4L primes. Those are bona fide facts, which may to contradict your stated opinion on the popularity of the EF lenses.

It’s also worth noting that the ‘preferred’ set of f/1.4 primes has only included 85mm since Nov 2017, and the 35/1.4 II launched in 2015. Being released/updated within a few years of the RF mount is another possible reason they remain EF lenses.

Why are f/1.4 primes, specifically, preferred by cinematographers? I freely admit I know little about video (and care less), but the Canon CN-E lineup parallels EF, with 24/35 T/1.5 and 50/85 T/1.3. I can see the logic of having the same aperture (or more importantly, transmittance) across a set of lenses, but for RF the quickest path to that is an RF 35/1.2L to combine with the 50/85 1.2, rather than hoping for three new lenses including a 50/1.4L that will probably never come.

 

[Maximilian]

Your all missing the point. Constant f1.4 primes are preferred by cinematographers whether shooting on a Canon R5C or a C700 for instance rather than a mix of maximum apertures in fixed of semi fixed lighting. Canon provided this before natively without resorting to adaptors and contrary to what Neurosnatomist states those lenses sold exceedingly well for Canon they were not “niche” products. It’s healthy to question the direction Canon has taken rather than immediately jump to some defensive mode you can still be loyal to a brand and be critical of certain decisions I heard that from customers all the time when I ran Panavision Europe.

You sound like a rant for the rant.
And you‘re hijacking this thread, jumping from argument to argument as soon as someone gives a reasonable reply.

Open your own thread or focus on the original topic:
(RF) 50 mm/1.4 lenses

Yes those would be great, but don‘t expect them to come (soon).
As for that f/1.4 cine lens market:
If it was relevant for Canon they would serve it.

 

[Sporgon]

1.8 is the new 1.4

 

[Deepboy]

While praying for the RF 50 f1.4 which I'm sure will NEVER EVER arrive I ended up finding a very good price on Amazon for a brand new (I couldn't remember last time I bought a lens that wasn't already used!) Sigma Art 40 f1.4 which seems to have stellar optics, so I bought it; I could even pay it in 5 months with no extra fees tnx to Amazon offers, so it was a no brainer. Should be arriving tomorrow.

To make some space for it, I placed on eBay both the RF 35 and the 50 Art, they should exactly pay for the new 40mm, and if I'm lucky I can even get back 50/100€ more then what the 40mm cost. I bought an used RF 50 for 115€ to be the go-to vacation/personal combo with the RP.

Then, I already gave away the RF 85 STM, wasn't satisfied with AF speed and flare when shooting into the light, but now I have a big gap from the new 40mm to the 135 Art; so I'm going to sell it, too, to buy either the 85 Art or the 105 Art, depending on prices I'll find (85 it's easy to find, 105 not so much...but I want that, so I'll probably end up buying an 85 now, and then reselling it as soon as I get my hands on a 105).

What's the take on it? For me the best lenses, price/performance wise, for R cameras are still adapted EF lenses; I had 3 RF's (16, 35 and 85), ended up selling all three of them (16 and 85 sucked, 35 was good but too close with the new 40 to keep them both) just to buy the fourth which is the cheapest of them all.
While Canon camera offering is pretty good, their lens offering is unsatisfying in the low end, and unreachable in the top end; the average professional today has no real motivation to buy into the RF line-up, it's safer to buy into used EF gear, where there are focals and brightness much more interesting then the new RF's, and now you find very great prices both on used stuff and on shelf leftovers. What a shame.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Personally, I can't see Canon ever releasing a RF 50mm f1.4. I hate the ef version of the 50mm f1.4 USM...it's soft and low in contrast wide open. it's AF is slow and the build quality is really cheap and nasty. I've had two of these fall apart on my. I would choose the old ef 50mm f1.8 metal mount (for the 90's) over this lens any day.
While the ef 50mm f1.2 L get a lot of bad rap (for good reason) it still has amazing contrast wide open, it's flare control is exceptional. It has very nice rendering and it's built like a tank. It's also still relatively small.
However, would I ever get the fantastic RF 50mm f1.2L? Probably not...I just don't use a 50 that often, I'm more of a 35/85 combo guy and a 24/50 guy.