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

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

Not everyone lives in the USA.
It is impossible to get in the Canon Japan store.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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?

Lens roadmaps do not say exactly what or when.
The Nikon lens roadmap only has focal lengths and no dates whatsoever.

Canon has no public roadmaps whatsoever.

 

[danfaz]

...both of thier current RF50 offering can go chuck themselves - one too cheap, one to massive + expensive.

Interesting to see that back in 2017, even with all 3 EF variants, people complained about the same things.
If Canon does make an RF 1.4, it will surely be a compromise between the 1.8 and 1.2, and people will most likely complain about it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Interesting to see that back in 2017, even with all 3 EF variants, people complained about the same things.
If Canon does make an RF 1.4, it will surely be a compromise between the 1.8 and 1.2, and people will most likely complain about it.

View attachment 206337

It was before my time, but I read that the EF mount originally launched with the EF 50 f/1.0 and the EF 50 f/1.8.
The price difference between them was astronomical.

 

[Tom W]

It's probably going to remain in stock for a little while. Canon USA has it as well as B&H, the two places I checked.

 

[Tom W]

It was before my time, but I read that the EF mount originally launched with the EF 50 f/1.0 and the EF 50 f/1.8.
The price difference between them was astronomical.

I think that the 50/1.8 is/was very similar to the FD mount 50/1.8. A very standard design, not too expensive, and pretty good.

 

[Tom W]

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.

A road map would be nice. I mean, we kind of know that they're working on a 24/1.4, a 35/1.2, and probably a 300 and 500 super telephotos as well. It would be nice if we knew when we might expect some of them, at least a ballpark.
On the other hand, they're pushing out new lenses fairly quickly.
And on the other, other hand, I have the original 24/1.4L and rarely use it. It isn't tremendously different from the II for that lens.

 

[Skux]

I don't need or want wide and fast lenses so I'm still okay with my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 for EF, but I can understand that people are getting impatient, I know a lot of people swear by the 35mm and 24mm f1.4.

 

[Chaitanya]

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.

That whole statements about blocking 3rd parties is sending a wrong message among consumers.

 

[Juangrande]

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.

All I can say is I really love my RF 50 1.2. You don’t know what your missing. I would never settle for a 1.4 after using this lens.

 

[Juangrande]

I don't need or want wide and fast lenses so I'm still okay with my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 for EF, but I can understand that people are getting impatient, I know a lot of people swear by the 35mm and 24mm f1.4.

I’ve been waiting forever for a 1.2 35. Have zero interest in a 1.4 compromise.

 

[shadow]

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

This continues weekly doesn't it?. Besides annoying, it isn't the best customer confidence experience announcing you are dumping older products before announcing replacements, it would nicer for some time to overlap. Funny to me personally, as a few weeks ago I was offered this exact lens used for $500. from my local distributor employee who is switching from Canon over to 24mm Sony G master. But I passed on it. He has years of collected Canon glass so uses Canon lenses on Sony with the MC-11 adapter. I guess he knew it? This must be to motivate getting rid of existing inventories so once they are depleted, the R will suddenly appear? All this discontinuation stuff is helping me to switch also. I wish they would have some fire sales though, I might buy then.

 

[shadow]

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 bought the E mount Sigma 56mm f 1.4, ~$500 for my new A6400. Also available for Nikon, Fuji, etc.. not available of course in the Canon legal dispute for R mount. I also use the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM, its cheap I know.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] not available of course in the Canon legal dispute for R mount. I also use the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM, its cheap I know.

Did I miss Sigma getting sued by Canon for IP infringement?

 

[Berowne]

Remember, that most EF glass can be purchased used in good condition for a fair price. Also cheap third party AF-Lenses for the EF-Mount can be used with adapter on the R-System. And Canon offers beautiful ultra-wide zoom-lenses, the EF 11-24 and the RF 14-35. So nearly everything is ok for most Canon-Shooters, imho.

 

[Bonich]

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.

In which way is the RF 50 1.8 too cheap?
Use it, it is a nice lens!

Yes, the 1.2 is massive.

 

[Bonich]

All I can say is I really love my RF 50 1.2. You don’t know what your missing. I would never settle for a 1.4 after using this lens.

I had the EF 1.4, I was never convinced with this lens
Today I shoot RF 50 1.2, absolutely great!
And I shoot the RF 50 1.8 as well - I love this lens as I love the 1.2, just for very different reasons and applications.

 

[AJ]

We now have a 24/1.8, 35/1.8, and 85/2, all of which are semi macro (not 1:1 but close focusing). I wonder if Canon could produce a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 that is not the old-school double-Gauss design, but rather one that yields good wide-open performance and allows for close focus, perhaps at the cost of some barrel distortion. It would fit nicely in the current line-up.

 

[ethanz]

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

Wasn't there a guy on here years ago who would always talk about a 50 1.4? I forget what his name was.

 

[shadow]

Did I miss Sigma getting sued by Canon for IP infringement?

I am sure you read this link below, thought it was posted here I didn't specifically state Sigma anything other than I bought the Sigma 56 in Sony E mount in same sentence, generally speaking all major manufacturers NOW licensed lens mounts except Canon, as noted at bottom of the article. Silence from Canon and 3rd parties is all we have. I was set to buy the R10 as stated, but thanks to this site I didn't and saved me $$$. Tried to buy a Samyang RF the week they pulled off AF lens from online resellers. Plenty of RF manual lens, my M50 purchase of more M lens still pondering as the prices are on sale for some.

Canon Confirms It's Going After Lens Makers for Patent Infringement

Canon might be the only major camera maker who isn't licensing its mirrorless mount.

petapixel.com