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

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
494
332
However a 50mm f1.4 L with more costly materials, a new optical formula, nano USM motors and IQ that is near to the 50mm f1.2 L could have a much higher profit margin per unit than the former.
Still my point is that it may well cost as much as... or MORE... than the f/1.2, and might be pretty much the same size and weight. I might be wrong. But if I'm right, who'd buy it, that wouldn't otherwise buy a 50/1.2?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,937
12,642
Still my point is that it may well cost as much as... or MORE... than the f/1.2, and might be pretty much the same size and weight. I might be wrong. But if I'm right, who'd buy it, that wouldn't otherwise buy a 50/1.2?
If that were the case, Canon clearly would not make one. So this line of reasoning is specious.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 27, 2021
183
181
Sure, such a scenario could exist. As I keep saying, Canon knows more about the ILC market than anyone here. You can speculate all you want. The facts are that they've considered an RF 50/1.4 but have not made one. That's probably because they don't believe such a lens, L or non-L, would be profitable for them (not necessarily just intrinsically, but also considering the other 50mm lenses they have).
Yet Sigma is releasing a 50mm f1.4 for a platform where they are a 3rd party so charge considerably less than Sony (who have their own version coming in 2 weeks) and for L mount that has a very small market share. Sigma can make a profit in those circumstances but Canon can’t for a platform where they have no competition?
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
2,998
2,367
Yet Sigma is releasing a 50mm f1.4 for a platform where they are a 3rd party so charge considerably less than Sony (who have their own version coming in 2 weeks) and for L mount that has a very small market share. Sigma can make a profit in those circumstances but Canon can’t for a platform where they have no competition?
Not quite the same.
Sigma lenses only need to make sense on one mount in order to exist.
After that, they can be ported to other mounts at minimal costs.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 27, 2021
183
181
Not quite the same.
Sigma lenses only need to make sense on one mount in order to exist.
After that, they can be ported to other mounts at minimal costs.
But Sigma competes with multiple options both cheaper and more expensive on e mount and they are still releasing a new 50mm f1.4 DG DN Art. On L mount its a different situation as the only real competition is the existing Lumix 50mm f1.4.

An RF 50mm f1.4 would sit between the f1.8 and f1.2, which ever of the 3 someone choses Canon makes money.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
2,998
2,367
An RF 50mm f1.4 would sit between the f1.8 and f1.2, which ever of the 3 someone choses Canon makes money.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
My only point is that the cheaper EF 50 f/1.4, EF 50 f/1.2, and Sigma 50 f/1.4 for Canon EF already exist and are already an option.
Those would also need to be taken into account.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,937
12,642
Yet Sigma is releasing a 50mm f1.4 for a platform where they are a 3rd party so charge considerably less than Sony (who have their own version coming in 2 weeks) and for L mount that has a very small market share. Sigma can make a profit in those circumstances but Canon can’t for a platform where they have no competition?
You can argue in favor of reasons Canon should make a 50/1.4 L until the proverbial cows come home. My point is that your arguments are irrelevant. Because Canon has chosen to block 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount, Sigma is irrelevant (I know, you'll argue that people will switch to a mount that supports it to get Sigma's lens, but really, that's not enough people to matter to Canon).

Bottom line, it's Canon's decision, and so far their decision has been to stick with the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.2L. If they saw a good business reason to launch a RF 50/1.4, they could have done so already. So I will ask again – do you honestly believe you know more about this than Canon?
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
2,998
2,367
Bottom line, it's Canon's decision, and so far their decision has been to stick with the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.2L.
Just because it is Canon's decision now does not mean it is Canon's decision for the future.
We can only guess at Canon's plans.
There are surely many holes in the current RF lens lineup.
There will surely be more lenses then what we have available now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,937
12,642
Just because it is Canon's decision now does not mean it is Canon's decision for the future.
We can only guess at Canon's plans.
There are surely many holes in the current RF lens lineup.
There will surely be more lenses then what we have available now.
Of course. Thus, "Bottom line, it's Canon's decision, and so far their decision has been to stick with the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.2L."

It's worth noting that a Canon patent for a 50/1.4 published over two years ago, meaning it was designed at least 3.5 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 27, 2021
183
181
You can argue in favor of reasons Canon should make a 50/1.4 L until the proverbial cows come home. My point is that your arguments are irrelevant. Because Canon has chosen to block 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount, Sigma is irrelevant (I know, you'll argue that people will switch to a mount that supports it to get Sigma's lens, but really, that's not enough people to matter to Canon).

Bottom line, it's Canon's decision, and so far their decision has been to stick with the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.2L. If they saw a good business reason to launch a RF 50/1.4, they could have done so already. So I will ask again – do you honestly believe you know more about this than Canon?
I don’t know more than Canon but their no but like Sony and Nikon each system has its weak points and things that a number of users on each platform wishes they could spend their money on but are not available. Canon may well believe that it makes good business sense to have a cheap 50mm f1.8 and an expensive 50mm f1.2 with nothing in the middle despite there being demand for such an option (how much demand is open for discussion) and there being countless examples across many different markets of products and services that are priced in low, moderate and premium segments.

I mentioned Sigma because they operate on 2 rival FF platforms. You might say it’s irrelevant but for someone looking to invest in a new system then lens options do matter. Canon’s 3rd party stance is clear, but they can mitigate that by offering more options at various price points.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,937
12,642
I don’t know more than Canon but their no but like Sony and Nikon each system has its weak points and things that a number of users on each platform wishes they could spend their money on but are not available. Canon may well believe that it makes good business sense to have a cheap 50mm f1.8 and an expensive 50mm f1.2 with nothing in the middle despite there being demand for such an option (how much demand is open for discussion) and there being countless examples across many different markets of products and services that are priced in low, moderate and premium segments.

I mentioned Sigma because they operate on 2 rival FF platforms. You might say it’s irrelevant but for someone looking to invest in a new system then lens options do matter. Canon’s 3rd party stance is clear, but they can mitigate that by offering more options at various price points.
Sure, there are lots of examples of companies doing different things, offering different product mixes, etc. I'd argue that Canon has overall made the best choices over the past two decades, which is why they have led the market for that whole time and dominate it today.

Consider an example other than 50mm primes. Canon has a FF ultrawide zoom that currently sells for $500 (the RF 15-30), an upper midrange UWA zoom (RF 14-35/4) and a high end UWA zoom (15-35/2.8). Sigma's options start $900, Sony's options are even more expensive, and there are only the middle and high tiers. So there's a case where Sony offers only mid- and high-end choices, Sigma offers three choices and the cheapest of them is close to twice the cost of Canon's cheap option. Probably because you have no interest in a slow, variable aperture UWA zoom like the Canon RF 15-30, you aren't complaining that Sony and Sigma don't offer something equivalent, and you aren't arguing that Sony and Sigma are ignoring an opportunity to offer more options at various price points.

The nice thing about being an individual is that we get to view the world through the lens of our individual perspective. Manufacturers don't have that luxury, they have to try to please many buyers. Your current viewpoint seems to have a 50mm focal length and an aperture of f/1.4, but I suspect there are far more people who want and will benefit from a $500 15-30mm zoom than something like an RF 50/1.4L that will certainly cost >$1000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 27, 2021
183
181
Sure, there are lots of examples of companies doing different things, offering different product mixes, etc. I'd argue that Canon has overall made the best choices over the past two decades, which is why they have led the market for that whole time and dominate it today.

Consider an example other than 50mm primes. Canon has a FF ultrawide zoom that currently sells for $500 (the RF 15-30), an upper midrange UWA zoom (RF 14-35/4) and a high end UWA zoom (15-35/2.8). Sigma's options start $900, Sony's options are even more expensive, and there are only the middle and high tiers. So there's a case where Sony offers only mid- and high-end choices, Sigma offers three choices and the cheapest of them is close to twice the cost of Canon's cheap option. Probably because you have no interest in a slow, variable aperture UWA zoom like the Canon RF 15-30, you aren't complaining that Sony and Sigma don't offer something equivalent, and you aren't arguing that Sony and Sigma are ignoring an opportunity to offer more options at various price points.

The nice thing about being an individual is that we get to view the world through the lens of our individual perspective. Manufacturers don't have that luxury, they have to try to please many buyers. Your current viewpoint seems to have a 50mm focal length and an aperture of f/1.4, but I suspect there are far more people who want and will benefit from a $500 15-30mm zoom than something like an RF 50/1.4L that will certainly cost >$1000.
As well as the 15-30mm offering great value it shows Canon offering UWA zooms at different price points. I’m not personally interested in variable aperture UWA zoom but if Sony, Tokina, Sigma or Tamron want to make one they absolutely should.

Here in the UK the RF 50mm f1.8 costs £219 and the 50mm f1.2 L costs £2589, if Canon thinks there’s no business case for something in the middle I’d love to see their rationale. At the moment the situation also applies to the 85mm focal length.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,937
12,642
As well as the 15-30mm offering great value it shows Canon offering UWA zooms at different price points. I’m not personally interested in variable aperture UWA zoom but if Sony, Tokina, Sigma or Tamron want to make one they absolutely should.

Here in the UK the RF 50mm f1.8 costs £219 and the 50mm f1.2 L costs £2589, if Canon thinks there’s no business case for something in the middle I’d love to see their rationale. At the moment the situation also applies to the 85mm focal length.
A UWA zoom is a staple lens in many kits, and if Sony, Tokina, Sigma or Tamron think there’s no business case for making an affordable one I’d love to see their business case.

A mid-range 50/1.4 is a nice lens, and if Canon wants to make one they absolutely should.

That’s what your bias would look like if you held it up to a mirror.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 27, 2021
183
181
A UWA zoom is a staple lens in many kits, and if Sony, Tokina, Sigma or Tamron think there’s no business case for making an affordable one I’d love to see their business case.

A mid-range 50/1.4 is a nice lens, and if Canon wants to make one they absolutely should.

That’s what your bias would look like if you held it up to a mirror.
UK price for the Canon 15-30mm f4.5-f6.3 RF is £699 vs Tamron’s 17-28mm f2.8 is £849 which is the cheapest UWA zoom on emount.

As for bias I’m merely commenting on what I have seen requested at different times on different sites. That Canon has an option at 50mm that sits between the very affordable and very expensive existing options.
 
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
UK price for the Canon 15-30mm f4.5-f6.3 RF is £699 vs Tamron’s 17-28mm f2.8 is £849 which is the cheapest UWA zoom on emount.

As for bias I’m merely commenting on what I have seen requested at different times on different sites. That Canon has an option at 50mm that sits between the very affordable and very expensive existing options.

And I think that someday, they will have one. But they seem to have started off with "halo" lenses, largely to show what the RF mount could do, but also to make a lot of revenue since I'm sure they're high margin. Then...having filled out the top end of the range, they decided to fill in the bottom end of the range. Why? Because it is as different from the top end (that already exists) as can be; it will pull in more people who didn't want to buy the top end lens, whereas a middle lens would be beyond some peoples' means and be superfluous to others who bought the high end lens.

Only later on, if ever, would it make sense to backfill. Of course I'm trying to think like them and may be failing miserably, but their actions make sense to me.

But it IS undeniably frustrating to have to wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
They did not fill out the top of the range though.
The bottom actually seems more filled out.
The middle is almost completely absent without incorporating EF lenses.

True in general (and I stand corrected)...but in the case of the 50, they did have something there.
And yes, there's no middle, and I was trying to suggest a rationale as to why, and a rationale as to why it might not stay that way forever. Unfortunately I can't possibly be proved right (or wrong) except by the passage of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0