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

[Walrus]

I am thinking it will come out with IS at US$599. I will buy one when they are US$499.

I hope you're right, but it would likely have no IS and those are "f1.8 STM" prices in term of RF primes; if it's (as it should be) "f1.4 USM", the price at best won't ever go under 999€$£ at time of release

 

[dcm]

Actually, the block diagram / optical formula for the EF 50mm f1.4 USM pre dates the EF mount, it was a direct lift from the mkII FD mount version. Optically, it's an idential lens. The EF version was the autofocus (and EF mount) version ofthe same lens. This indicates that optical design goes back to the very ancient 1979!!!

Always loved my FD 50 f1.4 back in the film days. But there was a much larger gap between fixed and zoom lenses at the time. I’m not sure a RF 50 f1.4 would get much love these days or spend time in my bag.

 

[vangelismm]

Do we have any RF lens with USM/Nano that is a non-L?

 

[Del Paso]

I am thinking it will come out with IS at US$599. I will buy one when they are US$499.

Dream on...
PS: it's a CR 1 rumor

 

[Walrus]

Do we have any RF lens with USM/Nano that is a non-L?

View by series – Lens Hall - Canon Camera Museum

Search Canon's lenses by product series and release period.

global.canon

The 100-400 and the 24-240 are both USM but non L; all the others non L are STM's

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's not only the cost but also size. Why do i need to carry a 1kg brick if i simply want a weathersealed 50mm lens?

If there’s another brand that offers a light, weather-sealed 50mm lens then you don’t. If not, or if you’re unwilling or unable to switch brands, then it’s because Canon offers only a light, leaky lens or a weather-sealed brick.

 

[diegopisante]

I don't mind paying $ 899 or $ 1,299 for a 1.4 lens as long it is as sharp and fast AF as the RF 1.2s, but comparing the RF 24 1.8 and the RF 85 1.2, it's night and day. I think the $499 RF 24 1.8 lacks a lot on AF speed and sharpness, I should be a little better! Even the RF 15-35 2.8 wide open is sharper than the RF 24 1.8.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I feel like canon needs to decide what the gold ring means for RF mount. Red ring means what it means, but the gold rings were always subpar. The 85 was quirky with terrible chromatic aberration. The 50 was too soft for modern sensors and the focus left a lot to be desired.

My take would be for canon to offer gold rings that have superb image quality, fast accurate autofocus and weather sealing. Make it small and light, and they can shop it as a travel lens - that matters more than ever now with weight restrictions tightening on flights as mentioned in the recent opinion piece on the forum.

Either way, I think that canon needs to focus on image quality and character to protect the brand and keep people “needing” more than just a smartphone for consistently great images.

I think the "gold ring" on those old lenses meant to represent the ultrasonic motor, which was something still good for marketing those days.

 

[blackcoffee17]

If there’s another brand that offers a light, weather-sealed 50mm lens then you don’t. If not, or if you’re unwilling or unable to switch brands, then it’s because Canon offers only a light, leaky lens or a weather-sealed brick.

I am not going to switch brands for 1 or 2 lenses but am i allowed to criticize Canon or should just worship it like a fanboy?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think the "gold ring" on those old lenses meant to represent the ultrasonic motor, which was something still good for marketing those days.

What about a silver ring? As Canon said about the 75-300/4-5.6 III, “The front part of the zoom ring sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.”

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am not going to switch brands for 1 or 2 lenses but am i allowed to criticize Canon or should just worship it like a fanboy?

Criticize away! Has it helped so far? Just curious…

 

[blackcoffee17]

What about a silver ring? As Canon said about the 75-300/4-5.6 III, “The front part of the zoom ring sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.”

I had once a silver ring EF-S 15-85 (loved that lens) and it was so luxurious that the silver ring peeled and fell off after a few weeks

 

[blackcoffee17]

Criticize away! Has it helped so far? Just curious…

I believe people should criticize companies and more importantly, vote with their wallets. If everyone did that, the world would be a better place.

 

[Surab]

Canon hasn’t made a non-L lens with weather sealing (unless you want to count the 400/4 DO lenses costing $6.5-7K as non-L). L lenses costing less than $1K are few. So, what you’re asking for seems unlikely.

I was not aware of that, thanks for the info.

But may that be as it is, but I'm still going to bring it up. I think that's part of a forum's task to be a forum for constructive criticism.

 

[scyrene]

I believe people should criticize companies and more importantly, vote with their wallets. If everyone did that, the world would be a better place.

How do you know people aren't voting with their wallets already?

 

[blackcoffee17]

How do you know people aren't voting with their wallets already?

I'm sure some do but many don't. I see it all the time how the most unethical companies and brands have most of the customers,

 

[miketcool]

Those FD lenses go for a lot of money right now even the radioactive ones,
A lot more EF lenses were produced but I wonder if discontinued EF lenses will start to go up in value.

I doubt many of the EF lenses will appreciate in value outside of desirable lengths and favorable glass. The astronomical prices FD lenses are fetching are because cinematographers are rehousing them for cinema use. They’re essentially low cost aspherical cine lenses that once rebuilt can fetch 6 figures as a kit of primes.

 

[AJ]

I hope you're right, but it would likely have no IS and those are "f1.8 STM" prices in term of RF primes; if it's (as it should be) "f1.4 USM", the price at best won't ever go under 999€$£ at time of release

Depends what kind of build it is. If it is a lens to compete with the Sigma art, then $999 is not out of line.
However, if it is similar in build to the RF 85/2 (which sells for $599, currently on sale at $499) then @fasterquieter may be about right with their cost estimate.

 

[kafala]

I want Canon to have a set of 1.8 primes like Panasonic that are light, same filter size, weather sealed, and have no or little no focus breathing. I also want a set of 1.4 primes like Sony's light 24mm 1.4 gm, 35mm 1.4 gm, and 50mm 1.4 gm all priced at around $1300-1400. The current cheap Rf primes are trash with their slow stm motors, no weather sealing, and doesn't even come with a lens hood. Canon is still charging $2000 for the EF 35mm 1.4 II which is a great lens but ridiculously overpriced when Sony offers the lighter and better 35mm 1.4 gm at $1400. I currently have the RF 50mm 1.2 and RF 85mm 1.2 which are great lenses but I would have preferred lighter 1.4 primes any day over the 1.2.

 

[jd7]

If you make it an "L" lens with IS, it's going to cost well over $1000, which kind of defeats the purpose of its existence.

IS adds cost and size to a lens, is it really needed with IBIS bodies becoming the norm? I'd rather a top end focus motor... After using the RF 85 f/2 IS... give me usm (or linear?) over IS any day.

Look at the EF 85 1.2L II vs the EF 85 f/1.4L IS.... they really weren't all that different in price ($1600 at launch for the 1.4). The 1.4 was just a needed modern take on a fast 85L. The RF 50 f/1.2 is already a modern design with fast autofocus.

I'd like to see such a lens with some level of weather sealing, but if you want it sub $1000, it can't be an "L".

It sounds like the lens you would like is something along the lines of a Canon version of the Sony 50mm f/1.4 GM. The Sony lens is about US$1,300 though, so as you say, if you want it to be sub-US$1,000 it's not going to be an "L" lens (GM is Sony's version of "L", of cousre). If it is a step down from "L" quality (build and probably IQ), under US$1,000 seems like it should be do-able, although it would be an interesting move from Canon given that the lens you are dsecribing would seem to occupy a mid-tier (perhaps similar to Sony's G lenses?) which Canon hasn't seemed too quick to embrace in the RF system.

Anyway, just an observation that the existence of the Sony 50mm f/1.4 GM, as well as the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DN Art (although it is a bit bigger and heavier) and Samyang 50mm f/1.4 AF II which are already under $1,000, suggests to me that Canon should be able to come up with a lens similar to the one you are describing, if Canon wants to. Sony, Sigma and Samyang seem to think there is a market for a lens along those lines. That doesn't necessarily mean Canon will make one though, of course.