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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

I doubt Canon bases their lens product choices on what a few people on the internet say that want.

OTOH, it seems quite likely that companies looking to gain market share and 3rd parry manufacturers would make product choices based on what products Canon chooses not to make.

 

[koenkooi]

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.

With the RF non-L lenses being basically double the price of their EF counterparts, I still object to calling those 'bottom end'. I agree that there's a huge gap between non-L and L lenses in quality, features and handling, but it still feels very wrong to me that such relatively expensive lenses are called 'bottom end'.

 

[davidespinosa]

It seems like Canon currently offers three tiers of prime lenses:

$$$: 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/1.8
$$: 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 85/2
$: 16/2.8, 50/1.8

I first thought, why do we need a lens between f/1.8 and f/1.2 ?
We can just buy one or the other.
But there's clearly a distinct $$ line with IS and macro.

Here are some claims without proof -- so any of this could be wrong:

* Canon's total profit for $ lenses >> Canon's total profit for $$ lenses.
* Canon's total profit for $$ lenses >> Canon's total profit for $$$ lenses.
* Three tiers cover a significantly wider market than two tiers.
* Four tiers cover about the same size market as three tiers.

Now, in what order should Canon roll out the lenses ?

If Canon only made $$$ lenses, they wouldn't make money.
If Canon only made $ lenses, the pros wouldn't be happy, and they wouldn't tell the newbies how awesome Canon is.
If Canon only made 50/1.8, 50/1.4, and 50/1.2, then nobody would be happy.

So it seems like a non-uniform roll-out is a pretty good idea !

 

[SNJ Ops]

It seems like Canon currently offers three tiers of prime lenses:

$$$: 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/1.8
$$: 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 85/2
$: 16/2.8, 50/1.8

I first thought, why do we need a lens between f/1.8 and f/1.2 ?
We can just buy one or the other.
But there's clearly a distinct $$ line with IS and macro.

Here are some claims without proof -- so any of this could be wrong:

* Canon's total profit for $ lenses >> Canon's total profit for $$ lenses.
* Canon's total profit for $$ lenses >> Canon's total profit for $$$ lenses.
* Three tiers cover a significantly wider market than two tiers.
* Four tiers cover about the same size market as three tiers.

Now, in what order should Canon roll out the lenses ?

If Canon only made $$$ lenses, they wouldn't make money.
If Canon only made $ lenses, the pros wouldn't be happy, and they wouldn't tell the newbies how awesome Canon is.
If Canon only made 50/1.8, 50/1.4, and 50/1.2, then nobody would be happy.

So it seems like a non-uniform roll-out is a pretty good idea !

Currently on emount here are the OEM 50mm options (including the 55mm) and their UK prices brand new.

50mm f1.8 £159
50mm f2.8 Macro £449
55mm f1.8 Sonnar £679
50mm f1.4 Planar £1299
50mm f1.4 GM £1599
50mm f1.2 GM £2099

I’m not suggesting that Canon need as many 50mm options on RF mount but I don’t think Sony users and Canon users are that different in terms of what lenses they they would buy at different price points.

 

[Del Paso]

The only RF 50mm I miss is a 50 f2 L macro. It would fit in well between the $$$ 1,2/50 and the inexpensive 1,8/50, without being redundant.
And there would no longer be a need for an highly expensive and heavy (Sony!) 1,4/50. My point of view, at least!
I'm currently often using the manual-focusing Zeiss Macro Planar 50 f2, a very useful standard lens, but without AF.

 

[SNJ Ops]

The only RF 50mm I miss is a 50 f2 L macro. It would fit in well between the $$$ 1,2/50 and the inexpensive 1,8/50, without being redundant.
And there would no longer be a need for an highly expensive and heavy (Sony!) 1,4/50. My point of view, at least!
I'm currently often using the manual-focusing Zeiss Macro Planar 50 f2, a very useful standard lens, but without AF.

A 50mm f2 L macro would possibly be slow to AF which often the case with Macro lenses but I think it would have an audience, as would a 50mm f1.4 L USM.

As for the Sony 50mm f1.4 being large, heavy and expensive that is certainly true of the 50mm f1.4 Planar, the recently released 50mm f1.4 GM that replaces it is much smaller, lighter, improved IQ, better AF but also even more expensive.

 

[Del Paso]

A 50mm f2 L macro would possibly be slow to AF which often the case with Macro lenses but I think it would have an audience, as would a 50mm f1.4 L USM.

As for the Sony 50mm f1.4 being large, heavy and expensive that is certainly true of the 50mm f1.4 Planar, the recently released 50mm f1.4 GM that replaces it is much smaller, lighter, improved IQ, better AF but also even more expensive.

This is right.
What I implied was that an RF 1,4/50, if optically excellent, wouldn't be much lighter or much less expensive than the f/1,2.
And, according to other forum members (and I believe also non forum users), there is a demand for a 50 macro. Non quantifiable, of course.

 

[SNJ Ops]

This is right.
What I implied was that an RF 1,4/50, if optically excellent, wouldn't be much lighter or much less expensive than the f/1,2.
And, according to other forum members (and I believe also non forum users), there is a demand for a 50 macro. Non quantifiable, of course.

Below is a size comparison between the 50mm f1.4 Planar, 50mm f1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM.
50mm f1.4 GM - £1499 - 516g
50mm f1.2 GM - £2099 - 778g

A 50mm f2 Macro would pair nicely with the 85mm f2 Macro.

 

[koenkooi]

A 50mm f2 L macro would possibly be slow to AF which often the case with Macro lenses but I think it would have an audience, as would a 50mm f1.4 L USM. [...]

The RF100L has very quick AF, so it can be done. But a RF50 f/2 non-L will almost certainly use STM, like the RF85 f/2. Which would be fine for macro, but is too slow for my 6yo zooming by on a bike or scooter.

 

[Del Paso]

The RF100L has very quick AF, so it can be done. But a RF50 f/2 non-L will almost certainly use STM, like the RF85 f/2. Which would be fine for macro, but is too slow for my 6yo zooming by on a bike or scooter.

I wouldn't buy a non-L macro, since I'd hate attaching a ring flash to a wobbling lens tube (RF 85 f/2 !)
So, 50 L or nothing! (nothing means keeping my Zeiss and Makro Elmarit 2,8/60)

 

[Del Paso]

Below is a size comparison between the 50mm f1.4 Planar, 50mm f1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM.
50mm f1.4 GM - £1499 - 516g
50mm f1.2 GM - £2099 - 778g

A 50mm f2 Macro would pair nicely with the 85mm f2 Macro.

Honestly, if I had a Sony, I'd wait a few more months to save the 600 Pounds for the f/1,2, unless the 1,4 is optically better.
But indeed, the 1,4/50 GM isn't that heavy (unless compared to the new Summilux M 1,4/50: 337 g. but Euro 7500).

 

[koenkooi]

I wouldn't buy a non-L macro, since I'd hate attaching a ring flash to a wobbling lens tube (RF 85 f/2 !)
So, 50 L or nothing! (nothing means keeping my Zeiss and Makro Elmarit 2,8/60)

After you get the right sized step-up ring to mount the macrolite adapter, you'll notice that the lens will refuse to focus with a flash attached. My MR-14EX makes the focus motor very unhappy.
The EF100 non-L and EF-S60 are very fine non-L macro lenses, I hope a 50mm non-L macro takes inspiration from those.

 

[Del Paso]

After you get the right sized step-up ring to mount the macrolite adapter, you'll notice that the lens will refuse to focus with a flash attached. My MR-14EX makes the focus motor very unhappy.
The EF100 non-L and EF-S60 are very fine non-L macro lenses, I hope a 50mm non-L macro takes inspiration from those.

Thanks!
It confirms what I've supposed would happen, therefore, I prefer relying on L lenses. They have never disappointed me.

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

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.

I agree with EOS 4 Life. I'm starting to get the impression that Canon is going to shove all of us into either the 'cheap non-L' or the 'bazillionaire toy' categories. It's got me considering a move to Nikon. Their PF prime telephotos are starting to look good to this old wildlife shooter.

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

I joined in '95 and I actually had both. The 50/1.8 MkI was the same physical quality as the 50/1.4 (which I also had) and was just enough shorter that I could stand the camera up in my backpack easily and take it with me everywhere. It also made slightly better highlights wide-open than the 1.4 did stopped down to 1.8. The 50/1.4 was also really pretty soft at 1.4 and impossible to get in perfect focus with anything other than a centered subject. (The plane of focus wasn't a sphere, so you couldn't focus, recompose, and shoot. I hardly ever had time to move to use an off-center focus sensor on my 1N and 1V and 1Ds's, and used a split-circle focusing screen so manual focus was easy but only in the center.

And as hard as it was to use the f/1.4 wide open, the f/1.0 was even harder. I loved the lens for special-effects shots but it never took a better low-light photo than I could with the f/1.8.

So I had to rule out ever using f/1.0 or f/1.4 except when I had no other choice, like candle-lit dinners, and even then I switched to Leica M 35/1.4 ASPH.

 

[SwissFrank]

EF lenses used the fill the middle until most were discontinued.

I bought about half my lenses used. Even of my current outfit, I think only the 100-500 and 135/1.8 are new, the rest are used. It's not like used EF is suddenly unavailable. The main reason I wouldn't use EF is that in most cases the RF glass seems to bury it quality-wise. My 135/2 was the sharpest black Canon lens except maybe the 180/3.5, and possibly the 35/1.4 MkII, but the 100-500 is far sharper, as is the 100/2.8, and the 135/1.8 is massively sharper.

I generally agree though. I wanted product lines like the following:

Halo: 50/0.7. Crazy lens spec is most important. 28-70/2.0 and 1200/5.6 and 8-15 fisheye zoom and TS are examples. The goal is to have all the other system users regularly envying the possibilities of Canon shooters, even if they're mostly theoretical, mid-5-digit prices or even rental-only or purchase-by-invitation specialties.

Pro: 50/1.2: Durability AND THEN image quality is most important.

Amateur: 50/1.4: lenses with "fun" specs like semi-macro capabilities. Price and features are most important.

Street: 50/2: similar to Leica rangefinder. portability, image quality, and durability all must be ideal. Spec can be very modest, and price can actually be high.