Nifty Fifty and/or a Pancake lens are coming to the RF mount in 2020 [CR3]

[slclick]

I made my point poorly. I had hoped to convey that the cost of an L should not be a critical concern to someone who has a critical need. If you need a greater 50mm f1.4 than current offerings then it should be tolerable if the lens that meets your most important need is an L.

in reality I also love cheap fun lenses for my less than critical needs. My three year old is showing an interest in my camera and has happily taken it from me to shoot some shots of Dad. He help press the shutter for some picture window squirrel shots. He saw my new 400 and said (paraphrasing) “Wow! Big lens, Dad!”

Yeah, that reads much better, thanks.

 

[dirtyvu]

I hope this lets me sneak the EOS R into concerts and events.

 

[jedy]

Considering Sony have some fairly decent f1.8 lenses (no real wide options yet other than 28mm f2), Canon really need to get at least a wide a 50mm and an 85mm f1.8 trio out in order to compete for sales. Concentration on the higher end lenses is all very well but for the majority of photographers who don’t need or can’t afford L lenses, there’s next to nothing, other than adapting EF glass. One inexpensive prime this year is a bit poor though. How long will people need to wait for a decent trio of inexpensive glass? This prime better be a 50mm. All camera systems need a reasonably priced 50mm.

 

[Michael Clark]

One attractive target is the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f2.8. 120grams and 30mm protrusion length. Excellent image quality. Not cheap.

I’d challenge the designers to an inch of protrusion length. Maybe something clever with a replaceable protective element within that length.

The only budget prime in the entire RF line at this point is a 35mm. We're not getting another budget 35mm for a while. We'll get a 24mm, 50mm , and 85mm before we see another 35mm below $1K.

 

[lawny13]

Remains to be seen how quickly Canon will flesh out the cheaper end of the RF platform.

Why it might be a cheapo plastic fantastic:

• There is a $1k FF body now, some folks are absolutely looking to start an FF setup on the cheap.
• It's only f/1.8 and historically a simple DG design for 50mm is bone cheap to make -- folks may balk at a pricey f/1.8 fifty when they've been cheap from Canon for decades.
• They want to keep it very small

Why it might be a nice but not L $500-ish lens

• They are trolling me
• They make this a 1:2 macro as well (that would be something)
• They change their lens tier strategy to:
  • Best = buy the L RF lens
  • Middle = buy a pricier RF version of the EF middle price point (EF 50 f/1.4 USM)
  • Lowest = adapt the nifty fifty EF because the RF mount will never get that crap -- this may let them claim that there are three price points while only having to offer two new RF lenses.

Hard to say.

But it will probably be the trolling me reason.

- A

But... the EF 50 stm is almost an affront to the RF line. It is soft wide open, it experiences focus shift, and it is noisy and not quite fast to focus. So compared to the RF 35 it is definitely a step back.

I am not saying that canon needs to make a $500 50, but at least RF 35 level good. As you say the 50s tend to be easier to design and make. So they should do RF 35 level optics and build and prices it accordingly. And if they could throw in some weather sealing that would be great.

For example the 40 stm is definitely a step up over the 50 stm, and it isn't $500. Consider also that all the competition has 50s at $250 and up.

 

[Optics Patent]

The only budget prime in the entire RF line at this point is a 35mm. We're not getting another budget 35mm for a while. We'll get a 24mm, 50mm , and 85mm before we see another 35mm below $1K.

I’m not predicting or advising an offering. I’m pointing to a realistic compact design target.

 

[Architect1776]

The EF 50 f/1.4 can get a bit better optically in that $400-500ish price point but not like the Sigma Art or anything like that due to the really simple double gauss design it uses. To really jump it up in IQ it needs to 'jump the retrofocal cliff' and get big, huge and expensive. I don't ever see that happening in a non-L.

But it's AF could get worrrrrrrrrlds better (slay the micro, move to ring) and IS could be implemented without too much fuss / size / weight. Not much glass in there to corral and keep honest.

- A

With the new molded aspherical capabilities being used in inexpensive lenses and other such things like new glass formulas would make an improvement with a simpler design.

 

[ahsanford]

For example the 40 stm is definitely a step up over the 50 stm, and it isn't $500. Consider also that all the competition has 50s at $250 and up.

But that pancake is not f/1.8 and that is key. Remember the ancient 50 f/1.8 II was intended to be the beginner's first prime, the opportunity to play with a smaller DOF (it also was a nice portraiture option for the millions of folks who bought crop Rebels. It didn't need to be corner to corner sharp or be made of the finest designs/materials. It needed to help beginners (likely slinging around a crop kit lens that is 3+ stops slower at 55mm f/5.6) get some photography wow factor and catch the bug about large aperture benefits so that they would go buy more primes.

What did all of us do when we got our first nifty fifties? We slammed them wide open and played around with what that looked like.

In that regard, the $100-150 50mm f/1.8 STM is doing exactly what it needs to do. I don't see Canon abandoning that.

But perhaps a revised mission statement / tagline for a cheap nifty fifty would be: 'This lens is better than your cell phone's portrait mode or you can have your money back.'

- A

 

[Optics Patent]

Stepping back, I have some observations on this topic. Three categories that most comments by most contributors fall into:
1. What I want.
2, What I think Canon should do.
3. What I predict Canon will do.

1. For me, what I want (putting aside technical and economic impossibilities), is the smallest possible pancake (anywhere in the 28-50 range). The RF 35mm 1.8 is close enough but bulkier than I'd prefer. The irritant of macro hunting might lead me to dump the RF 35 if a better redundant one came a long. I just tested the RF 50 1.2 and much prefer the light weight and wider angle of the 35 for daily family life shots (interior "street" photography).

1a. I also want some RF attention for the big whites: Dedicated adapters with matching white color, and teleconverters with adapter length built in. As well as a true factory conversion that replaces the rear housing on a big white 400 IS III with an RF mount rear housing.

2. Canon should review all the internal market data they have and we don't, and build cameras and lenses to maximize profit in the medium to long term.

3. I predict that Canon following #2 will mean little attention to EF, mostly RF lenses and mirrorless, mostly profitable L lenses to bring the pros to mirrorless (budget conscious consumers will follow and have adapters for now) with a few quality consumer lenses but nothing very cheap except for kit zooms for an APS-C mirrorless. OVF and flipping mirrors will be as anachronistic in 5 years as film was 5 years after the first major DSLR. I predict more lenses that the purists bemoan because they rely on camera corrections to provide quality. The real future magic is in the camera, not the lens.

3A. I predict that 300mm f2.8 IS III ($7999) will be an RF lens with a removable de-adapter for EF. OD is fine if that's what it takes to get it under 2000g. I probably won't buy one anyway as the gap between 200 and 400 in my collection isn't worth worrying about. Unless they can cut an inch off the overall length and let the EF holdouts live with the IS II as a parallel offering. Collapsible for storage?

3B. I predict that many comments here in the years ahead will actually offer the contributor's answer to #1 while presenting it as their answer to #2. And I'll enjoy reading them all.

 

[lawny13]

But that pancake is not f/1.8 and that is key. Remember the ancient 50 f/1.8 II was intended to be the beginner's first prime, the opportunity to play with a smaller DOF (it also was a nice portraiture option for the millions of folks who bought crop Rebels. It didn't need to be corner to corner sharp or be made of the finest designs/materials. It needed to help beginners (likely slinging around a crop kit lens that is 3+ stops slower at 55mm f/5.6) get some photography wow factor and catch the bug about large aperture benefits so that they would go buy more primes.

What did all of us do when we got our first nifty fifties? We slammed them wide open and played around with what that looked like.

In that regard, the $100-150 50mm f/1.8 STM is doing exactly what it needs to do. I don't see Canon abandoning that.

But perhaps a revised mission statement / tagline for a cheap nifty fifty would be: 'This lens is better than your cell phone's portrait mode or you can have your money back.'

- A

True... however you had the f1.8 the f1.4 and the f1.2 as options. That f1.4 was key, since people could step things up and get it. So I don't see why canon would release a 100 dollar 50 and a 3k 50 and nothing in between. So if they don't intend to come out with a f1.4 then they should do a bit better than the STM for the RF mount.

For example, what does the competition have? The FE50 from sony is not a"great" lens, but it is optically better than the 50 stm.50 mm is like THE normal prime. So it makes sense to come out with something decent for consumers. Heck canon also needs to consider the Nikon option. Again... doesn't have to be to that level. But with the 50 stm already being adaptable, and I expect loads of people just have one to put on their R, then they need to give us a good ready to get the RF version. IS and better IQ for example.

In fact considering that the adapter is bundled with mode of the RF bodies, beginners still have the choice to just adapt the STM. So it would make sense for canon to not copy it exactly.

 

[Optics Patent]

Could it be that the market data shows that 50mm is no longer the desired “normal” by some shooters (like me)? If you looked at 35-40mm offerings you’ll find some well positioned lenses that fill the gaps at Canon and Sony/Zeiss.

It may be that the casual shooters are wider shooters.

It may be that gains in image quality enjoyed in cameras and lenses can be used to make a 35 (or even 28?) a “crop to 50” normal as needed. My old Fuji X100 taught me that. And my preference may change as the kids grow and I’m not in close on the floor for typical shots where wider makes sense.

 

[koenkooi]

[..] But with the 50 stm already being adaptable, and I expect loads of people just have one to put on their R, then they need to give us a good ready to get the RF version. IS and better IQ for example.

In fact considering that the adapter is bundled with mode of the RF bodies, beginners still have the choice to just adapt the STM. So it would make sense for canon to not copy it exactly.

Since I already have the 50 STM and the CPL adapter, an RF 50mm would need to offer a lot more before I'll consider buying it. For me that would be IS, f/1.4 or both. But the pricing would need to work, an f/1.8 IS STM for €200-€300 or an f/1.4 STM for €400-€500. If it's above that the RF f/1.2 becomes an option again, since that can be had for €1600 nowadays.

 

[Optics Patent]

Since I already have the 50 STM and the CPL adapter, an RF 50mm would need to offer a lot more before I'll consider buying it. For me that would be IS, f/1.4 or both. But the pricing would need to work, an f/1.8 IS STM for €200-€300 or an f/1.4 STM for €400-€500. If it's above that the RF f/1.2 becomes an option again, since that can be had for €1600 nowadays.

This support my opinion that when Canon already has a dirt-cheap and capable lens that serves well on an adapter, they don't need to invest any time soon in a cheap RF lens.

Never mind the specs, but there is room for a $500-1000 50mm for RF before too long.

 

[lawny13]

Could it be that the market data shows that 50mm is no longer the desired “normal” by some shooters (like me)? If you looked at 35-40mm offerings you’ll find some well positioned lenses that fill the gaps at Canon and Sony/Zeiss.

It may be that the casual shooters are wider shooters.

It may be that gains in image quality enjoyed in cameras and lenses can be used to make a 35 (or even 28?) a “crop to 50” normal as needed. My old Fuji X100 taught me that. And my preference may change as the kids grow and I’m not in close on the floor for typical shots where wider makes sense.

well the issue with your comment shows up when you mention Fuji. That’s a crop. So a 50 on FF is like a 35 on crop. That 35 or 28 on crop is already around 50 FF equivalent.

so in terms of FF Equivalence shooting 35mm on FF is like 23 on crop.To crop such an image to give that 50 look you would be throwing out a whole lot of MPs. Don’t see the point of going from a 30MP image on my R to 10MP.

anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.

 

[ahsanford]

anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.

Which is why EF-M got the 32mm f/1.4 STM.

Speaking of that, here is the number of primes faster than f/2.8 for each mount:

EF-S: 0 (in the history of that mount, wow)
EF-M: 2

If curious -- non-L EF offerings here:
28 1.8* / 35 2* / 35 2 IS / 50 1.4 / 50 1.8 II* / 50 1.8 STM / 50 2.5 compact macro* / 85 1.8 / 100 2*

*now discontinued

So, over time between EF-S and EF-M, Canon appears to see more opportunity (either in lens sales or existence of such lenses pulling folks into the system) in quick + not super pricey primes for crop... yet it can't find the gumption to do something similar for EF. Sadness.

- A

 

[Optics Patent]

well the issue with your comment shows up when you mention Fuji. That’s a crop. So a 50 on FF is like a 35 on crop. That 35 or 28 on crop is already around 50 FF equivalent.

so in terms of FF Equivalence shooting 35mm on FF is like 23 on crop.To crop such an image to give that 50 look you would be throwing out a whole lot of MPs. Don’t see the point of going from a 30MP image on my R to 10MP.

anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.

I understand how crop sensors work. The Fuji has a 23mm lens that provides the 35mm equivalent angle of view I was saying I have come to prefer as a “normal” lens given the high IQ that enables cropping to 50 equivalent

 

[slclick]

well the issue with your comment shows up when you mention Fuji. That’s a crop. So a 50 on FF is like a 35 on crop. That 35 or 28 on crop is already around 50 FF equivalent.

so in terms of FF Equivalence shooting 35mm on FF is like 23 on crop.To crop such an image to give that 50 look you would be throwing out a whole lot of MPs. Don’t see the point of going from a 30MP image on my R to 10MP.

anyway. The point is that 50 is normal on FF. On a crop sensor it is more like 75 which I agree is too tight.

43mm focal length for the human eye a few experts say. Maybe this is why I prefer the 40 over the 50 as well as over the 35.

 

[ahsanford]

43mm focal length for the human eye a few experts say. Maybe this is why I prefer the 40 over the 50 as well as over the 35.

I have a different perspective.

Simple capturing of my life, family, interests, etc. = 28-35mm. I love informal environmental work, candids, activities, and putting people in context in a bigger scene. It also tends to be a great all-around FL for a host of types of photography. So if I only get one lens and my 24-70 f/4 is off the table, it's a good bet I head out with my 28 or 35. So I'm not surprised to see cell phone cameras started around these FLs before they started offering different FLs and superwide selfies and what not.

Getting pop / isolation from a lens = 50mm and up. For some reason, 50 f/1.4 is this nice inflection point for bokeh / lens size / not too long to get great iso and pop without always needing to back up.

I suppose I should love something exotic like a 35 f/1.0 more -- so I'd get isolation and pop in my preferred FL range. But a simple DG 50 is amazing at generating isolation in a small package. I think that's why I love it so much (and would love a better one).

- A

 

[Michael Clark]

I’m not predicting or advising an offering. I’m pointing to a realistic compact design target.

Realistic design and realistic marketing decisions are two different things. The engineers don't get a green light until the marketing department decides they can make money with such a lens.

 

[Michael Clark]

But... the EF 50 stm is almost an affront to the RF line. It is soft wide open, it experiences focus shift, and it is noisy and not quite fast to focus. So compared to the RF 35 it is definitely a step back.

I am not saying that canon needs to make a $500 50, but at least RF 35 level good. As you say the 50s tend to be easier to design and make. So they should do RF 35 level optics and build and prices it accordingly. And if they could throw in some weather sealing that would be great.

For example the 40 stm is definitely a step up over the 50 stm, and it isn't $500. Consider also that all the competition has 50s at $250 and up.

I rarely shoot at f/2.8 or narrower with my EF 50mm f/1.4, so the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is not a step up for me for most of what I do with a 50mm. It's not a step up for a 35mm f/2 when you need to use an aperture wider than f/2.8, either. Stopped down to f/2.8, the EF 50mm f/1.4 holds its own against the EF 40mm f/2.8.

Canon also has a 50mm at $250 and up: The EF 50mm f/1.4. Sure, the AF could use an update/upgrade, but optically it's no worse than other $500 or less 50mm lenses from other makers.