I'm going with $199 to $249.I go back and forth between $149 and $199, the control ring may add a bit of cost.
RF mount tax
I'm going with $199 to $249.I go back and forth between $149 and $199, the control ring may add a bit of cost.
I wouldn't expect it as good as the RF 35mm.I consider 35 1.8 RF great on R5. hope 50 1.8 RF is close, that's all I am hoping for
[...]
What I actually find interesting is the element offset, the RF lens elements are set further forwards than the EF version and are an effective 'adapter', they are not using the advantages of the shorter flange distance here one bit, merely rejigging the thing to do the same. I'd expect performance to be somewhere between the EF 1.8 and EF 1.4, the key will be the way they have used the special element in green.
I'm pretty sure the aspherical lens in the old EF-S 18-55 kit lens was plastic, which Canon didn't actively promote because quite honestly the idea of a plastic element doesn't come across well! Maybe this will be the same. I think it was stated in an early press release, but marketing material just describes it as "aspherical". If it works, who cares?!
I'm pretty sure the aspherical lens in the old EF-S 18-55 kit lens was plastic, which Canon didn't actively promote because quite honestly the idea of a plastic element doesn't come across well! Maybe this will be the same. I think it was stated in an early press release, but marketing material just describes it as "aspherical". If it works, who cares?!
Because the market isn’t there anymore. The concept of a ‘standard prime’ can be defined as a niche, that niche can be fairly subdivided into people new to the medium who are told over and over again “you need to get a nifty fifty” and committed amateurs and pros who actually love and use the focal length. The first group buy the cheap option the second either buy or aspire to the second,. The number of undecideds in between is a subgroup within a niche within a niche and from a corporate point of view simply not large enough to cater to.Does anyone else find it odd that Canon makes "medium" quality and aperture lenses with IS in moderate wide angle (35mm RF, 24mm, 28mm, and 35 mm EF) and moderate telephoto focal lengths (85mm RF), but in the "standard" 50 mm they only make very high end and low end without IS? This was true in EF, and now it's the case with RF as well.
I'm actually surprised I haven't seen anyone complaining yet that this lens doesn't have IS. There is still no standard focal length prime lens from Canon with IS. Why?
They go to such lengths for sharpness; not compactness, not economy. And I'm sure it is a sharper lens, but the cheap old EF 50 is still one ofCanon's sharpest lenses...Its a completely different design, with 12 elements, of which 2 are aspherical and 1 ED.
I understand what you're saying, but is 50mm more of a niche than 35mm or 85mm (or 24 or 28 in EF)? You could say that every prime focal length is a niche, couldn't you?Because the market isn’t there anymore. The concept of a ‘standard prime’ can be defined as a niche, that niche can be fairly subdivided into people new to the medium who are told over and over again “you need to get a nifty fifty” and committed amateurs and pros who actually love and use the focal length. The first group buy the cheap option the second either buy or aspire to the second,. The number of undecideds in between is a subgroup within a niche within a niche and from a corporate point of view simply not large enough to cater to.
I'm going with $199 to $249.
RF mount tax![]()
Yes, and it is, and it is a shrinking niche which bodes poorly for more options. I do not believe the RF line will ever have the depth and range the EF line had.I understand what you're saying, but is 50mm more of a niche than 35mm or 85mm (or 24 or 28 in EF)? You could say that every prime focal length is a niche, couldn't you?
I don’t get it either that the S lens is so long. But, it is optically outstanding and the same price (or it was) as a Nikon Z body with a 24-70 f4 when purchased as a kit.New optics are good. I'm more like to get than I was a couple hours ago.
And how does Nikon have to make theirs twice as big? I don't get it.
I've always found if frustrating and slightly amusing that Canon just couldn't seem to be able to design and build a good / sharp 50mm. 85mm f1.2...double gauss optics...really sharp. 35mm f1.4 retrofocus double gauss...again...really sharp. 50mm f1.2...50mm f1.4 USM all soft wide open...all double Gauss designs. I use an original metal mount 50mm f1.8 from the first year of EOS manufacture which came bundled with my EOS 650. It's way sharper wide open than any of the 50mm f1.2 L's I've handled and the F1.4 USM's too.Yes, and it is, and it is a shrinking niche which bodes poorly for more options. I do not believe the RF line will ever have the depth and range the EF line had.
ffNot only that.
The basic double Gauss design stayed the same.
But I see different gaps between the elements.
And I see elements cut on both sides where one was only cut on one side (two working steps = more expensive).
And as the rear element seems to be bigger the exit pupil seems to be bigger, too.
= less refracting of the light rays in that last element = maybe less CA (but just guessing)
This is an at least much modifyed optical formula, if not totally redesigned (still based on the same double Gauss design).
Edit: and you don't see just from this drawing if they maybe added some new and better coatings.
With IBIS now becoming a thing in Canon land that will dampen some of the demand for IS in the lenses.Does anyone else find it odd that Canon makes "medium" quality and aperture lenses with IS in moderate wide angle (35mm RF, 24mm, 28mm, and 35 mm EF) and moderate telephoto focal lengths (85mm RF), but in the "standard" 50 mm they only make very high end and low end without IS? This was true in EF, and now it's the case with RF as well.
I'm actually surprised I haven't seen anyone complaining yet that this lens doesn't have IS. There is still no standard focal length prime lens from Canon with IS. Why?
I don’t get it either that the S lens is so long. But, it is optically outstanding and the same price (or it was) as a Nikon Z body with a 24-70 f4 when purchased as a kit.