Is it finally happening? Canon RF 50mm f/1.4 USM [CR1]

[Sporgon]

I'm surprised 1) to hear you think the RF50/1.8 is "just horrible" or that 2) you think an RF50/1.4 would be either better (if a double Gaussian design) or smaller than the Sigma (if a modern high-sharpness design).

Agreed, I don’t know how you’d constructively call the RF 50/1.8 ‘just horrible’. It’s pretty good at f/1.8 and stellar across the frame, corner to corner, after that. It is very light weight, and so inevitable feels somewhat ‘cheap’, (yet strangely the EF 40/2.8 doesn’t - odd) and thanks to the aspherical update to a ‘60s optical design the bokeh can get harsh under certain conditions, sometimes, but most of the time you ain’t going to tell the images from this apart from those taken on an expensive lens. The plastic moulded aspherical element seems very efficient at keeping a sharp image across the frame, and the STM focusing is fast enough surely ?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Agreed, I don’t know how you’d constructively call the RF 50/1.8 ‘just horrible’.

The Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 is well-regarded and often recommended for astrophotography. I bought one, and it was pretty close to ‘just horrible’. From the midframe out to one corner was soft, and that was the best of the four. I returned it and bought another, that one was very good.

One reason cheaper lenses cost less is that QC isn’t as stringent. If someone gets a lemon, they could justifiably call it ‘horrible’ even though it’s just bad luck.

Note that it’s not just cheap lenses. IIRC, someone had to return an RF 100-300/2.8.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 is well-regarded and often recommended for astrophotography. I bought one, and it was pretty close to ‘just horrible’. From the midframe out to one corner was soft, and that was the best of the four. I returned it and bought another, that one was very good.

One reason cheaper lenses cost less is that QC isn’t as stringent. If someone gets a lemon, they could justifiably call it ‘horrible’ even though it’s just bad luck.

Note that it’s not just cheap lenses. IIRC, someone had to return an RF 100-300/2.8.

Off topic for this thread but I didn't want to start another - I discovered today that with my R5 and EF 11-24, there are no focus points showing at all!?? You have the lens so I thought this a quick and easy place to ask.

Jack

 

[stillviking]

Probably I had back luck with my RF 50mm 1.8, because it was sharp corner to corner only at f8. I have to agree with @neuroanatomist QC for this budget lens is not great for sure and they cheaper materials are more prone when knocked to get decerented during transport trips to our home. That's just what I think, no evidence, but I live in a remote island and I would say more than 50% of my cheaper lens are decentered, while L lens are much more OK.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Off topic for this thread but I didn't want to start another - I discovered today that with my R5 and EF 11-24, there are no focus points showing at all!?? You have the lens so I thought this a quick and easy place to ask.

Jack

Hi Jack, not sure what you mean by no focus points showing at all. But my adapted 11-24 behaves like all my other RF and EF lenses on both my R3 and R8. The active AF point is visible when moving it or focusing.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Hi Jack, not sure what you mean by no focus points showing at all. But my adapted 11-24 behaves like all my other RF and EF lenses on both my R3 and R8. The active AF point is visible when moving it or focusing.

Thanks. I discovered the switch was accidentally slid to manual. Duh!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks. I discovered the switch was accidentally slid to manual. Duh!

Easy fix.

 

[mb66energy]

I bet it will be a scaled design of the great EF-M 32mm with the versatile 1:4 magnification ratio @ 650 Dollars or Euros. Glass will be 3 times more expensive but handling of the elements during building is the same and the electronics so this might be realistic compared to the roughly 450 $/€ of the EF-M 32. Maybe I will trade in the RF 35 which is great but to wide for me, on APS-C too.

 

[jaygould]

I'm surprised 1) to hear you think the RF50/1.8 is "just horrible" or that 2) you think an RF50/1.4 would be either better (if a double Gaussian design) or smaller than the Sigma (if a modern high-sharpness design).

As to sharpness, I get surprisingly sharp photos from 1/2s on up. See my thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...s-of-the-rf50-1-8-vs-the-rf24-105-4lis.42172/ for more detail.

As to lens design, refer to my post a few posts back in this thread. But 50mm designs will either be double-Gaussian and have most of the failures of the RF50/1.8 (if failures they be, I find it surprisingly good) or will be a new-school design that is as bulky and heavy as the Sigma.

Why couldn't it be smaller than the Sigma? The Sony GM f1.4 is sharper than Canon's f1.2l and much smaller than both that Canon and the Sigma f1.4.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I'm surprised 1) to hear you think the RF50/1.8 is "just horrible" or that 2) you think an RF50/1.4 would be either better (if a double Gaussian design) or smaller than the Sigma (if a modern high-sharpness design).

As to sharpness, I get surprisingly sharp photos from 1/2s on up. See my thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...s-of-the-rf50-1-8-vs-the-rf24-105-4lis.42172/ for more detail.

As to lens design, refer to my post a few posts back in this thread. But 50mm designs will either be double-Gaussian and have most of the failures of the RF50/1.8 (if failures they be, I find it surprisingly good) or will be a new-school design that is as bulky and heavy as the Sigma.

Here are the sizes and weights of existing 50mm f1.4s on the market.

Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art DG HSM
85mm x 100mm
815g (add 110g if using on an RF body for the adapter)

Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art DG DN
78mm x 109mm
670g

Sony 50mm f1.4 GM
80mm x 96mm
516g

Samyang 50mm f1.4 II (for mirrorless)
80mm x 88mm
585g

 

[kaihp]

I'm not sure that makes sense. Rather, I would think that any product at any price level would be intended to provide an appropriate return on investment and be profitable.

Offering three options is a classic product positioning strategy. Often this is done with non-physical products (think product suites like Adobe CC or Microsoft Office) but you can definitely also do it with physical product like the three EF 50mm lenses. In the example I should have made that clearer by saying "THINK 50 f/1.8" etc.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Offering three options is a classic product positioning strategy. Often this is done with non-physical products (think product suites like Adobe CC or Microsoft Office) but you can definitely also do it with physical product like the three EF 50mm lenses. In the example I should have made that clearer by saying "THINK 50 f/1.8" etc.

It’s a strategy, not THE strategy. There are plenty of product offerings with two tiers, four tiers, etc. There are 13 trim levels for the 2023 Toyota Camry.

As has been pointed out, the ‘current’ EF 50/1.4 (in stock at Canon USA) is a 50 year old optical design that Canon has not seen fit to update. I’m sure Canon has evaluated the business case for an RF 50/1.4, and they haven’t prioritized such a lens.

I’m not sure why people (in general, not you specifically) persist in thinking that if Canon is not doing something they personally want, Canon must be making a bad business decision.

 

[EricN]

There's so many forms of bias that I've forgotten the name, but there is one in which some percentage of people believe that the majority of people will answer a survey the same as their own survey would be answered. That's the one I think is probably the cause in most cases.

Along this subject, I often notice people here displaying omitted-variable bias here.

 

[Kiton]

Embarrassed because it was a best-selling lens for decades, and with the amortized development costs long recouped it was a very profitable lens?

No, I don’t think so. The phrase, ‘Laughing all the way to the bank’ comes to mind.

laughing all the way to the bank, and laughing at us because we are still dedicated canon users, despite their choices. Tonight I have to shoot a TV awards ceremony, and while I will not love the glass I will using, I know the files will be great right out of the gate.

 

[BC]

I have no idea, but I'm sure there's a good business case for it. Could be that the EF 50/1.4 still sells well enough. Could be that their data suggest giving buyers a choice between an inexpensive lens and an expensive lens is more profitable overall than offering a mid-level option (that does seem to be their general strategy). Could be that they plan to make an RF 50/1.4 but they've prioritized other lenses. Could be they just really don't like @ahsanford and their corporate strategy is intended to make him suffer.

The funny thing is that EF 50 1.4 USM is god awful. Other than just outright dying randomly because of a deeply flawed design in the AF motor it's just soft below f2 and a bad value proposition. Strangely enough the 85/100/135 USM gold rings share none of those flaws.

 

[BC]

I concur. The thing that determines a nice shot is rarely the ultra hair raising sharpness of the new designer lenses. In the age of influencer reviewers and test charts etc etc I think we have placed technique and skill on the back burner and hyperfocused on lens' performance. They get sponsored and paid by the camera companies, after all.

I don't believe Canon will release middle of the pack 1.4 lenses as they want you to buy the cheap one first, then get the itch because it eventually does not satisfy all your needs, and then spend big bucks on the L lens. A 1.4 non-L lens would likely hurt L sales with the good enough factor. And if it is not good enough, the lens would get panned because the 1.8 is SO much better bang for the buck.

I agree to some extent that we obsess too much about lens performance on paper, and YouTube gearheads are problematic, but I have also seen real-world differences between even the 50 USM and 50 1.8 STM that can make or break whether a photo is usable in a working situation.

As for Canon not giving a middle option to drive their top-end option, this has been the problem for Canon for years. Sony/Fuji/Panasonic seem to have decided you can give people tons of choice by fleshing out the lineup and allowing third-party, and folks will still gravitate toward their tier-1 lenses. Canon seems to prefer limitation to freedom, and business case or not, that I find it frustrating.

 

[koenkooi]

The funny thing is that EF 50 1.4 USM is god awful. Other than just outright dying randomly because of a deeply flawed design in the AF motor it's just soft below f2 and a bad value proposition. Strangely enough the 85/100/135 USM gold rings share none of those flaws.

There are multiple types of USM, I bet the 50 f/1.4 had the noisy one, 85, 100 macro and 100 f/2 likely had the better variants. The 135 is an L lens, those tend to get the non-sucky variants

 

[Botts]

As has been pointed out, the ‘current’ EF 50/1.4 (in stock at Canon USA) is a 50 year old optical design that Canon has not seen fit to update. I’m sure Canon has evaluated the business case for an RF 50/1.4, and they haven’t prioritized such a lens.

It'll be interesting to see over the next few quarters if there's been a general withdrawal of development activity, or if announcements were pushed back primarily due to supply chain concerns.

There's a bunch of gaps that need to be filled.

One of the big ones is a marquis APS-C lens. RF-S is begging for a 17-55 f/2.8 replacement.

 

[neuroanatomist]

One of the big ones is a marquis APS-C lens. RF-S is begging for a 17-55 f/2.8 replacement.

Is it, though? Canon did not seem to think so. They did replace the also-excellent EF-S 10-22 with the slower, darker and cheaper EF-S 10-18.

 

[Botts]

Is it, though? Canon did not seem to think so. They did replace the also-excellent EF-S 10-22 with the slower, darker and cheaper EF-S 10-18.

The 10-22 got discontinued? I thought it just got a budget alternative.

The R7 is in a weird market category if Canon intends for it only to be used with teles.

Thats why I wonder if we’re in a lull of releases because of recovering supply chain or because of a decision leading to reduction of investment.