As someone who started to switch to Sony, stopped and went back to Canon, you are spot on.
But Canon should be covering the basics.
Upvote
0
Is it finally happening? Canon RF 50mm f/1.4 USM [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
But Canon should be covering the basics.
Canon don’t have to release a lens that competes with other premium options on other systems but to release something that is clearly and deliberately lesser than those I think would be unwise.
Make a lens that is premium so that it generates more profit. It what a lot of users here seem to want anyway.
Upvote
0
What, other than this little CR1 rumor and the perennial frustration of @ahsanford, makes you think Canon has to release a 50/1.4 at all?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
If I was in charge of making the decision I would make an RF 50mm f1.4 L USM which would an alternative premium option to the RF 50mm f1.2 L which for a number of users is too large, too heavy and too expensive which are the same arguments that where made by many when the 50mm f1.2 GM came out. Sony listened and gave them the 50mm f1.4 GM that they wanted while also reducing the price of the previous 50mm f1.4 Planar made with Zeiss.
Again Canon don’t have to make such a lens but it would be smart of them to do so creating another opportunity to get revenue from the users who don’t want either the RF 50mm f1.8 STM or the RF 50mm f1.2 L. I would do the same at 85mm and have an 85mm f1.4 L USM made because again the price gap between the 85mm f2 Macro and the 85mm f1.2 L is absolutely huge.
$499 - $2699
£569 - £2849
Upvote
0
Keep in mind that the people actually in charge of making the decision are the people whose decisions have resulted in Canon leading the ILC market for two decades. So while you're welcome to your own opinion on the correct decision, in all likelihood the decision Canon makes will be correct. So far, they have not chosen to release an updated 50/1.4. Hasn't seemed to have hurt them, has it?
There is a similar price gap between the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L. By your logic, Canon would be smart to fill that gap with a 100-450mm f/5-6.3 to get revenue from users who don't want either the RF 100-400 or the RF 100-500. Does that sound smart to you?
As is often the case for people, 'something I want' = logical and necessary, 'something I don't wan't' = nonsensical and unnecessary. Personally, I suspect it's to Canon's benefit that you're not in charge of making their decisions.
Upvote
0
On EF Canon have a 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and a 50mm f1. Why did they do that I wonder? One reason could have been to hit different price points. Some would like them to repeat this for the RF mount and that is more than reasonable.
I mentioned primes at focal lengths that are the most common on any any platform where often multiple options exist. Sigma have 3 35mm options for FF mirrorless, 35mm f2, 35mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.2 and they are a 3rd party that have to compete with other 3rd parties and OEM brands. Canon have no competition on RF the idea that having f1.8/f2, f1.4 and f1.2 options at 35, 50 and 85mm would be unsustainable for them is very hard to believe. In the case of 100-400mm options usually there is a premuim OEM option and a much cheaper 3rd part option. Canon just so happened to make the budget option themselves in this case.
Under my non-beneficial leadership Canon users would have;
14mm f1.4 L USM
20mm f1.4 L USM
24mm f1.4 L USM
35mm f1.4 L USM and 35mm f1.2 L USM
50mm f1.4 L USM
85mm f1.4 L USM
200mm f2 L USM
180mm f4 L Macro
40mm f2.8
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Nothing... on the other hand, they HAVE to release the 35mm f/1.2L , because I say so
From a priority perspective, my take is that there are other missing lenses that are more pressing than a RF 50mm f/1.4. Like some fast L primes. Yes they would probably sell less than a 50 1.4, but with higher margins. I am also not convinced that a high level of granularity of the offerings in specific focal lengths is desirable / sustainable in nowadays market. The more complex your lens portfolio is, the more R&D and support it costs.
Canon will do what Canon does and they know better than me. So we will see. Just release the 35 1.2 already, will ya?
Upvote
0
The 50/1.2 replaced the 50/1.0. The EF 50/1.4 was a re-housed newFD 50 1.4 which in turn was a mount update to the FD 50/1.4 II, meaning the optical design for the EF 50/1.4 is from 1973. Canon has not seen fit to update the 50/1.4 lens optics in 50 years. Just because something seems reasonable doesn't mean it's likely.
WTF, no 28mm f/1.4L USM?!? That's a total fail, restricting users' options and people will really complain about that.
After all, Sigma makes a 28/1.4 Art, Canon must do so as well or they're d00med.
Upvote
0
In those 50 years the market has changed dramatically as we all know. The market is largely made up of hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals now and many of those want higher performing lenses. Even on M mount Voigtlander who are one of the smallest manufacturers in the entire market have multiple options in the same focal length. If they can manage to make it work I don’t see why Canon couldn’t do the same.
If enough Canon users asked for a 28mm lens I would give it them. Again I give you the case of Sony which is why emount has 2 GM options at 50mm, choice can be good for both the manufacturer and the customer.WTF, no 28mm f/1.4L USM?!? That's a total fail, restricting users' options and people will really complain about that.
Upvote
0
This would be a nice addition to the lineup - in fact, the trio mentioned in another post - 24, 35, 50 f/1.4 - might well be a very nice mid-class collection of primes. By mid-class, I'm thinking that Canon would be going more for the level of the EF 85/1.4 rather than the old, small, inexpensive EF 50/1.4. Which would mean that instead of a $400 prime, something more in the $800-1000 range. Perhaps even more considering inflation.
Can't go too high with the price though, or it won't sell very well. I still have an EF 50/1.2L which is quite nice, despite or because of its imperfections. A nice portrait lens with its own character, but that's another story. Suffice to say that I can use it on my R5 and R7 without concern, and the AF is right on the money on the mirrorless bodies. What I mean is that a 50/1.4 would be a direct competitor to other competent 50 mm lenses such as the EF 50/1.2 (as long as it's still available anyway).
Can't go too high with the price though, or it won't sell very well. I still have an EF 50/1.2L which is quite nice, despite or because of its imperfections. A nice portrait lens with its own character, but that's another story. Suffice to say that I can use it on my R5 and R7 without concern, and the AF is right on the money on the mirrorless bodies. What I mean is that a 50/1.4 would be a direct competitor to other competent 50 mm lenses such as the EF 50/1.2 (as long as it's still available anyway).
Upvote
0
Yes, we all know the market has changed dramatically. Yet through that dramatic change over the past 20 years, Canon has not only held the lead of the market they've grown to dominate it.
Incidentally, the 50/1.2 is a very high performing lens. You may not want to pay the price for it or carry the weight and that's your choice, but for the hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals who want a high performing 50mm prime, Canon has them covered.
You're saying others have done something, so Canon should do the same. Why do you think that the strategies adopted by the market-leading company should be the same as those of the companies far behind that market leader and struggling to catch up? Prime example, the claim that Canon was 'late to mirrorless'. Canon read the market trends, and since they dominated in DLSRs they focused on that until such time as it made sense for them to shift to MILC, first in APS-C and later in FF. About 5 years after being 'late' to the APS-C MILC market, they became #1 in that segment. Now, 5 years after being 'late' to the FF MILC market, they've become #1 in total MILC market, too. All the while, they've continued to dominate the camera market as a whole.
To me, that says they understand the market very well...but you think you'd make better decisions than they are. Ok. As I've said, some people think the earth is flat, demonstrating that there are a fair number of fools living on this nearly-spherical planet.
Choice is good for the consumer, certainly. If Canon doesn't make a modern 50/1.4 and other brands do, those consumers can choose to switch brands. Except...they're not. I trust that Canon knows quite well what's best for Canon.
Upvote
0
Minor niggle: the EF 50/1.8 was $100. The RF version costs $199, and is currently on sale for $179.
Upvote
0
That is true only when EF lenses are still being sold (after discontinuation and after retailer stock is sold out). CRguy has already suggested that Canon Australia has stopped importing EF lenses and that they are disappearing from retailer's order sheets. The "gaps" become larger in that case.
Our logic doesn't need to match Canon's roadmap for profitable solutions. The loud cries of Canon's closed RF lenses to 3rd parties doesn't seem to be impacting the total sales at a macro level. Our patience needs to become more zen for the next 6 months for Canon to "surprise" us.
Upvote
0
Could not disagree more. My only remaining EF lens is the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM, I’m never going to buy a RF 85mm f1.2L price, size & weight. I’m never going to buy a RF 85mm f2 the STM motor sucks. I would buy a RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM and anything around £ 1,700 to £ 2,000 is fine if it’s an optically sound lens.
Canon doesn’t have ANY mid-market lenses in the RF mount and a series of f1.4L lenses like they had in the EF mount I would definitely buy a 35mm, 50mm & 85mm and I’m sure I am not alone. Your friend the Ordinary Filmmaker feels the same way.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)