The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L IS USM II has been officially discontinued

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon continues to discontinue many EF lenses as they move everything over to the RF mount. The latest lens to be discontinued is the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II. We are hoping that this tells us that Canon will be announcing fast and wide RF L prime lenses in the near future. The Canon

See full article...

 

[Berowne]

Wonder what the price will be. My EF 35L Mk II is ok for me and in the Ultra-Wide range i use the EF 16-35/4L IS.
Greetings from sunny Frankfurt am Main, not far away from Wetzlar! - Andreas

 

[TonyG]

I wonder if they will keep the RF 24 and 35 at 1.4 or try to make them a 1.2?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It is fairly annoying that Canon discontinues EF lenses before introducing the RF counterparts.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

It is fairly annoying that Canon discontinues EF lenses before introducing the RF counterparts.

Even I can no longer make excuses for the missing wide-angle L primes for the RF mount. It's a bit silly at this point.

If it's related to world events, it's time to release a roadmap of some kind.

 

[ashmadux]

Even I can no longer make excuses for the missing wide-angle L primes for the RF mount. It's a bit silly at this point.

If it's related to world events, it's time to release a roadmap of some kind.

Yet no one asks about the 50 1.4? Cmon guys....please?

I'll keep mentioning it until it manifests itself. It is utterly ridiculous how canon refuses to make this lens. AFAIC, both of thier current RF50 offering can go chuck themselves - one too cheap, one to massive + expensive. And no one seems to care about this crazy hole in canons lineup. And there is no data anywhere saying it might be addressed.

Maybe its PTSD from the junky RF 85 f2 with its embarrassing external focusing?. Or the misbegotten RF 35 macro. Or anything else non-L RF that is either optically lazy or are just plain boring.

PS- at least no one has it as bad as RF-S. What an epic disaster of lens choices. Even the EOS M has choices + 3rd party options.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

And no one seems to care about this crazy hole in canons lineup.

There are a bunch of holes in the Canon lens lineup.
Canon pretty much has expensive L lenses and cheap non-L lenses.
EF lenses used the fill the middle until most were discontinued.
At least the EF 50 f/1.2 has not been discontinued.

 

[ashmadux]

There are a bunch of holes in the Canon lens lineup.
Canon pretty much has expensive L lenses and cheap non-L lenses.
EF lenses used the fill the middle until most were discontinued.
At least the EF 50 f/1.2 has not been discontinued.

Even with that reality, there is many many defenders of lack of 3rd party options.

IMHOH, The tamron 30-150 2.8 is the poster-child of what canon uses are missing out on.
I wish i could at least have the option of using one. (critic says: you can, buy another camera lol)

And the backup rationale- "well, just use EF"...well, newer 3rd party lenses are not being released for EF. So there's that

Im getting an R62, but my stable of EF lens are saving me. I dont plan on getting a single RF lens. It would have to be an L, and those are jus too expensive to consider. If i won lotto or a fellowship or something, i would get the f2 zoom though. At least it's a unique lens worth the investment.

 

[Maximilian]

Yet no one asks about the 50 1.4? Cmon guys....please?

I suppose that almost everyone did understand that with no EF 50/1.4 II for decades and with the RF 50 STM and the RF 50/1.2 L there won't be an RF 50/1.4 - at least for a long, long time.

 

[Maximilian]

At least the EF 50 f/1.2 has not been discontinued.

Not yet! But I suppose, maybe it'll be the next one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even I can no longer make excuses for the missing wide-angle L primes for the RF mount. It's a bit silly at this point.

If it's related to world events, it's time to release a roadmap of some kind.

No doubt Canon knows how many wide-angle L and non-L primes they sold in the EF mount, how many UWA zooms they sold and who bought them. They also know who is buying R bodies.

They have released three tiers of UWA zooms, and three non-L wide/UW primes. I suspect the fact that we haven’t seen any wide L primes in RF mount is not ‘silly’ but rather reflects their prioritization based on EF lens sales and the relevant RF buyer demographics.

Often, someone else’s decision seems silly or foolish to us because we would have made a different decision. In this case, Canon has data we don’t. That doesn’t necessarily mean demand isn’t there, since Canon’s goal is to make profit not to make us happy. They could be holding off to let demand build to the point where an exorbitantly-priced offering is still able to sell well, for example.

Side note: would it be a good thing for a Canon rumors site if Canon were to tell the world exactly what lenses will be released and when?

 

[Bob Howland]

Even I can no longer make excuses for the missing wide-angle L primes for the RF mount. It's a bit silly at this point.

If it's related to world events, it's time to release a roadmap of some kind.

At the risk of repeating myself, a lens roadmap would be great for the buyers, but how does it help the seller?

Update: When I bought my high speed primes, I was photographing music groups with a 5D. Typical exposure was 1/60, f/1.4, ISO3200. My 5D3 makes excellent images at ISO12800, which means I could now be using a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. That's progress.

 

[EOS]

And this is why I bought the A7IV and the 24mm f/1.4 GM (and 20mm f/1.8 G). Weird menu system be dammed.

Their 14mm and 35mm GM glass is also great, but I’m currently planning on using that money towards a R6 Mark II.

We’ll see whether Canon ever pull their collective heads out and announce/ship fast wide L primes, but I no longer need to hold my breath waiting.

 

[entoman]

And this is why I bought the A7IV and the 24mm f/1.4 GM (and 20mm f/1.8 G). Weird menu system be dammed.

Their 14mm and 35mm GM glass is also great, but I’m currently planning on using that money towards a R6 Mark II.

We’ll see whether Canon ever pull their collective heads out and announce/ship fast wide L primes, but I no longer need to hold my breath waiting.

I can understand that decision, but I think most of us simply prefer to settle on having one system, rather than 2 or more. Not just for financial reasons, but also to eliminate or minimise differences in ergonomics, colour science etc.

Unfortunately, those of us who have chosen to settle with Canon, have to accept the fact that Canon can't and won't launch every lens that we want quite yet.

We also have to reluctantly accept the fact that neither Sigma or Tamron, for whatever reason, are going to launch the "gap-filling" or "cheap but wonderful" lenses that we desire, in the foreseeable future.

So we'll just continue to come hear and moan...

 

[rbr]

Fortunately Sigma's wonderful wide angle ART lenses are still available in EF mount and they work perfectly on my R5 with adapters including the very useful one that takes drop in filters. I couldn't care less whether or not Canon comes out with any wide angle primes. If I ever buy any Canon RF wide angles it would be something like the 15-30 STM to take on bike rides.

 

[SwissFrank]

I wonder if they will keep the RF 24 and 35 at 1.4 or try to make them a 1.2?

I'm hoping 35 is f/1.0... it shoudn't be too hard; this spec already exists for smaller sensors

 

[SwissFrank]

Sigma's wonderful wide angle ART lenses are still available in EF mount and they work perfectly on my R5 with adapters

yeah, I got the $539 Sigma 28/1.4 and love it. I'd expect the Canon to be $1500 but better, and would probably buy it though.

 

[David - Sydney]

Yet no one asks about the 50 1.4? Cmon guys....please?

I'll keep mentioning it until it manifests itself. It is utterly ridiculous how canon refuses to make this lens. AFAIC, both of thier current RF50 offering can go chuck themselves - one too cheap, one to massive + expensive. And no one seems to care about this crazy hole in canons lineup. And there is no data anywhere saying it might be addressed.

Maybe its PTSD from the junky RF 85 f2 with its embarrassing external focusing?. Or the misbegotten RF 35 macro. Or anything else non-L RF that is either optically lazy or are just plain boring.

PS- at least no one has it as bad as RF-S. What an epic disaster of lens choices. Even the EOS M has choices + 3rd party options.

I'm sorry that you are not having a good day
I sold my Canon EF50/1.4 as it wasn't great.

 

[NKD]

Wonder what the price will be. My EF 35L Mk II is ok for me and in the Ultra-Wide range i use the EF 16-35/4L IS.
Greetings from sunny Frankfurt am Main, not far away from Wetzlar! - Andreas

Its odd to think that EF glass has gone up in value..on paper. Especially Tilt shift lenses.

My 16-35 f4 was $1,240 new in 2017. 2022 it now retails for $1899 (Australia).
The equivlent RF is $2669 - Around a 40% increase in price from EF to RF in this instance.

 

[Czardoom]

It is fairly annoying that Canon discontinues EF lenses before introducing the RF counterparts.

Well, I doubt people who actually are going to buy the lens are too annoyed right now since it is:

IN STOCK at the Canon store
IN STOCK at Adorama
IN STOCK at B&H
IN STOCK at Best Buy
IN STOCK at Amazon USA
IN STOCK at Samy's.
...etc, etc, etc.