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

[hudson]

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 shoot 50mm 1.0, 45mm .95 and am seriously considering the RF 50 1.2

 

[hudson]

I never bonded with the 24L 1.4II. Had it for a long time. Has no wow factor at all.

 

[bbeatty]

the R5 sensor delivers higher resolution than the 5DsR

while agree the R5 is excellent, this is not true. 5DSR still captures more fine detail despite the lower DR

 

[neuroanatomist]

while agree the R5 is excellent, this is not true. 5DSR still captures more fine detail despite the lower DR

Your statement was shown to be false (with appropriate sources attributed) in the other thread where you posted the same misinformation.

 

[Juangrande]

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

Ashton I think

 

[becceric]

I assume you are thinking of ashanford. Try this conversation:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...l-i-get-my-ef-50mm-f-nooneknows-is-usm.29239/

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

I don't think it will come.

Modern lens design software can come up with epic-sharpness normal lenses like the RF50/1.2, Leica 50/2 APO-APSH, and the Otus 50/1.4. But they're big, heavy, and expensive, compared to the traditional double-Gauss designs. Canon's giving us one lens of this school with the 50/1.2.

Or, we can go with the traditional double-Gauss design, which hasn't really changed much for decades. Today's RF50/1.8 isn't markedly improved from the EF50/1.8's which hadn't changed the actual lens formula since 1987, and which themselves weren't dissimilar from the FD outfit before then. These lenses are compact, light-weight, and cheap. But not really sharp.

So if Canon DID make a 50/1.4, which route would they take? Something nearly as big, heavy, and expensive as the 50/1.2? Or something really no better than the 50/1.8 except for 2/3 stop more light? I don't know if there's a third option, of something that is modern and computer-generated but less corrected and more biased towards size and portability: much bigger than the EF50/1.4 (if substantially smaller than the RF50/1.2) but much less sharp than the RF50/1.2 (even if substantially sharper than the RF50/1.8).

The only option I see open is an IS version. It seems like IS was impossible to add to either of the existing RFs, so it might be a substantially different formula for an RF50/1.4IS. This could be a very expensive lens, however.

Meanwhile, what is the demand equation? We used to need f/1.4 because even ISO800 was horribly grainy, but now we can shoot ISO10k without worry. And we used to need at least 1/60 by the reciprocal rule, but if your body has IBIS, 1/8 works fine (3 stops). It also used to light the viewfinder but we no longer need that. So there's three big reasons for a big aperture that no longer apply. Finally, we wanted to separate our foreground from background, to make the subject pop just a little. When our subject was grainy, and focus wasn't nailed, and camera shake smoothing sharp details even when they were focused, we needed a lot of aperture to differentiate the background from an already-unsharp subject. Nowadays, the RF assures that the eyelashes are perfectly focused, the sensor is essentially noiseless, and IBIS results in the subject being pictured nearly perfectly. So, it takes far less bokeh to differentiate the background from this perfectly ideally-photographed subject, and f/1.8 seems to be enough. Conversely, the current high-fidelity sensors make it far clearer than before when DOF is too limited, and I bet that in most of our favorite f/1.4 shots of the past, DOF was too limited. (We just didn't notice or care because the in-focus parts were also poorly-rendered due to grain, handshake, poor AF or MF, etc.)

Finally, interchangeable-lens camera sales are down 90%. The age when half the households had one is over. Everyone's on smart phones now. We don't have people buying 50/1.4's as their only lens, who aren't even amateurs but feel they have to have a camera. We ONLY have people who are excited about the hobby, or working professionally. And how many hobbyists or professionals are in the weird category of simply not wanting the 50/1.2, or being not able to afford it but still able to afford a lot more than the 50/1.8? It's hard to imagine.

I had the 50/1.0, 1.2, 1.4, and original MkI 1.8 for EF for well over a decade, and I totally get it. But I don't think it's happening.

----

Going off subject a bit, I felt that Canon should build its lens lineup around the following use cases:

amateur: cheap and not sturdy build, but fun-sounding features. This would have been a double-Gauss 50/1.4IS with 0.5x mac.

pro: super-sturdy build, good rendition. This is the current 50/1.2L.

street: a Leica competitor, I see a 50/2.0 designed for super-sturdy build, resolution over everything, but modest spec. 50/2.0L.

halo: something to create buzz. It may have a price over $10k or only be rented by Canon pro services or something. Something like the old EF1200/5.6L. Build quality doesn't matter, image quality doesn't actually matter much, just spec. 50/0.7L (as Kubrick used in Barry Lyndon, etc.)

 

[SNJ Ops]

I don't think it will come.

Modern lens design software can come up with epic-sharpness normal lenses like the RF50/1.2, Leica 50/2 APO-APSH, and the Otus 50/1.4. But they're big, heavy, and expensive, compared to the traditional double-Gauss designs. Canon's giving us one lens of this school with the 50/1.2.

Or, we can go with the traditional double-Gauss design, which hasn't really changed much for decades. Today's RF50/1.8 isn't markedly improved from the EF50/1.8's which hadn't changed the actual lens formula since 1987, and which themselves weren't dissimilar from the FD outfit before then. These lenses are compact, light-weight, and cheap. But not really sharp.

So if Canon DID make a 50/1.4, which route would they take? Something nearly as big, heavy, and expensive as the 50/1.2? Or something really no better than the 50/1.8 except for 2/3 stop more light? I don't know if there's a third option, of something that is modern and computer-generated but less corrected and more biased towards size and portability: much bigger than the EF50/1.4 (if substantially smaller than the RF50/1.2) but much less sharp than the RF50/1.2 (even if substantially sharper than the RF50/1.8).

The only option I see open is an IS version. It seems like IS was impossible to add to either of the existing RFs, so it might be a substantially different formula for an RF50/1.4IS. This could be a very expensive lens, however.

Meanwhile, what is the demand equation? We used to need f/1.4 because even ISO800 was horribly grainy, but now we can shoot ISO10k without worry. And we used to need at least 1/60 by the reciprocal rule, but if your body has IBIS, 1/8 works fine (3 stops). It also used to light the viewfinder but we no longer need that. So there's three big reasons for a big aperture that no longer apply. Finally, we wanted to separate our foreground from background, to make the subject pop just a little. When our subject was grainy, and focus wasn't nailed, and camera shake smoothing sharp details even when they were focused, we needed a lot of aperture to differentiate the background from an already-unsharp subject. Nowadays, the RF assures that the eyelashes are perfectly focused, the sensor is essentially noiseless, and IBIS results in the subject being pictured nearly perfectly. So, it takes far less bokeh to differentiate the background from this perfectly ideally-photographed subject, and f/1.8 seems to be enough. Conversely, the current high-fidelity sensors make it far clearer than before when DOF is too limited, and I bet that in most of our favorite f/1.4 shots of the past, DOF was too limited. (We just didn't notice or care because the in-focus parts were also poorly-rendered due to grain, handshake, poor AF or MF, etc.)

Finally, interchangeable-lens camera sales are down 90%. The age when half the households had one is over. Everyone's on smart phones now. We don't have people buying 50/1.4's as their only lens, who aren't even amateurs but feel they have to have a camera. We ONLY have people who are excited about the hobby, or working professionally. And how many hobbyists or professionals are in the weird category of simply not wanting the 50/1.2, or being not able to afford it but still able to afford a lot more than the 50/1.8? It's hard to imagine.

I had the 50/1.0, 1.2, 1.4, and original MkI 1.8 for EF for well over a decade, and I totally get it. But I don't think it's happening.

----

Going off subject a bit, I felt that Canon should build its lens lineup around the following use cases:

amateur: cheap and not sturdy build, but fun-sounding features. This would have been a double-Gauss 50/1.4IS with 0.5x mac.

pro: super-sturdy build, good rendition. This is the current 50/1.2L.

street: a Leica competitor, I see a 50/2.0 designed for super-sturdy build, resolution over everything, but modest spec. 50/2.0L.

halo: something to create buzz. It may have a price over $10k or only be rented by Canon pro services or something. Something like the old EF1200/5.6L. Build quality doesn't matter, image quality doesn't actually matter much, just spec. 50/0.7L (as Kubrick used in Barry Lyndon, etc.)

Most here won’t care but this month both Sony and Sigma will be releasing 50mm f1.4 lenses in their respective GM and Art lines so premium options.

Appreciate this anecdotal but I have seen numerous comments on different sites where Canon users are asking for a 50mm f1.4 L which is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 50mm f1.2 L but has better IQ than the 50mm f1.8 RF and has weather sealing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Appreciate this anecdotal but I have seen numerous comments on different sites where Canon users are asking for a 50mm f1.4 L which is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 50mm f1.2 L but has better IQ than the 50mm f1.8 RF and has weather sealing.

People ask for unicorns, too. If ( a big if) we see a Canon 50/1.4 IS, I highly doubt it would be an L lens.

 

[SNJ Ops]

People ask for unicorns, too. If ( a big if) we see a Canon 50/1.4 IS, I highly doubt it would be an L lens.

Sony will be releasing a 50mm f1.4 GM later this month, it will be a relatively light and compact lens with excellent IQ. Sigma will be releasing their 50mm f1.4 DG DN Art tomorrow.

Canon is more than capable of releasing a top quality 50mm f1.4 L IS, some simply can’t afford and or don’t want the weight of the 50mm f1.2 L and would love something that has similar IQ but in a smaller and lighter package.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Most here won’t care but this month both Sony and Sigma will be releasing 50mm f1.4 lenses in their respective GM and Art lines so premium options.

Appreciate this anecdotal but I have seen numerous comments on different sites where Canon users are asking for a 50mm f1.4 L which is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 50mm f1.2 L but has better IQ than the 50mm f1.8 RF and has weather sealing.

There are people who want better than the RF nifty fifty but do not want to spend RF 50 f/1.2 money.
While this is understandable there are plenty of EF options available for such people.
There is a loud contingent of "We only want native lenses" people but there might not be enough of those people who want an RF 50 f/1.4.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sony will be releasing a 50mm f1.4 GM later this month, it will be a relatively light and compact lens with excellent IQ. Sigma will be releasing their 50mm f1.4 DG DN Art tomorrow.

Canon is more than capable of releasing a top quality 50mm f1.4 L IS, some simply can’t afford and or don’t want the weight of the 50mm f1.2 L and would love something that has similar IQ but in a smaller and lighter package.

The smaller and lighter would be an advantage of an RF version over the many 50 mm EF lenses that fit the rest of the description including the EF 50 f/1.2 L.

 

[SwissFrank]

The smaller and lighter would be an advantage of an RF version over the many 50 mm EF lenses that fit the rest of the description including the EF 50 f/1.2 L.

Canon is more than capable of releasing a top quality 50mm f1.4 L IS, some simply can’t afford and or don’t want the weight of the 50mm f1.2 L and would love something that has similar IQ but in a smaller and lighter package.

Appreciate this anecdotal but I have seen numerous comments on different sites where Canon users are asking for a 50mm f1.4 L which is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 50mm f1.2 L but has better IQ than the 50mm f1.8 RF and has weather sealing.

OK, either I didn't express myself succinctly enough, or, I'm wrong but you're too polite to come out and say it :-D

I don't think Canon CAN make something smaller and lighter (and cheaper) than the 50/1.2 with the same IQ. Look at the Otus 55/1.4: it's actually heavier and longer. Some might say that's just Zeiss sturdiness or say it's due to slightly longer focal length, but I think for this generation of fully-corrected, computer-designed lenses, f/1.2 vs. 1.4 just doesn't save you much at all materials-wise.

If there was a smaller and lighter way to do it with the same IQ, Zeiss would have done it, I think.

So if Canon made a 50/1.2 mini-me 50/1.4, it's be nearly the same size, weight and price, so no-one would buy it.

To make it appreciably smaller, lighter, and cheaper, IQ would have to slide by a LOT.

And adding IS to the mix is going to make it bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Let's hypothetically say that cancels out whatever savings there are coming down from 1.2, so you'd have a 1.4IS the same size and cost of the current 1.2. Now, people might buy it. I might buy it. But not the people you're talking about.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sony will be releasing a 50mm f1.4 GM later this month, it will be a relatively light and compact lens with excellent IQ. Sigma will be releasing their 50mm f1.4 DG DN Art tomorrow.

Do Sony or Sigma have a 50mm f/1.2 GM/Art?

Canon is more than capable of releasing a top quality 50mm f1.4 L IS, some simply can’t afford and or don’t want the weight of the 50mm f1.2 L and would love something that has similar IQ but in a smaller and lighter package.

Of course Canon could make such a lens, and I’m sure people would buy it. So if Canon chooses to not release such a lens, it’s because they have valid business reasons for not doing so. Those could include too small a market, or not wanting to impact sales of the 50/1.2L.

Canon had an EF 85/1.2L (two, actually), then launched an EF 85/1.4L IS. Then went back to f/1.2 for RF. One big difference was that the 85/1.4L was noticeably better optically and in AF speed that the 85/1.2L II (I have the former and had the latter, and while ‘dreamy’ sounds nice and has been said about both the EF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, soft edges and strong LoCA aren’t what I’d call a pleasant dream).

In the case of the RF 50/1.2, there’s not much optical or AF improvement that can be squeezed out. Bodies likely to be used with L lenses have IBIS, so adding IS also doesn’t add much in a 50mm lens.

Personally, I think a 50/1.4 non-L is much more likely than a 50/1.4L (in the way that something with a 10% chance is 5 times more likely than something with a 2% chance).

 

[koenkooi]

There are people who want better than the RF nifty fifty but do not want to spend RF 50 f/1.2 money.

Hey, that's me! For some reason the RF50 consistently the worst pictures, mostly by operator error. I think it's the combination of being small, light and not wide angle that results in shaky pictures. The RF16 doesn't suffer from it, nor does the RF85 f/2.

While this is understandable there are plenty of EF options available for such people.

I'm not a fan of the Sigma 50 f/1.4 size nor a fan of the EF50 f/1.4 IQ and AF.

There is a loud contingent of "We only want native lenses" people but there might not be enough of those people who want an RF 50 f/1.4.

I agree, I'm keeping an eye on decent used copies of the RF50, but that budget might get used for a small R body instead. And that would get to use the RF50 f/1.8

 

[SNJ Ops]

Do Sony or Sigma have a 50mm f/1.2 GM/Art?

Sony have a 50mm f1.2 GM, I own one. Sigma don’t though.

Of course Canon could make such a lens, and I’m sure people would buy it. So if Canon chooses to not release such a lens, it’s because they have valid business reasons for not doing so. Those could include too small a market, or not wanting to impact sales of the 50/1.2L.

Canon had an EF 85/1.2L (two, actually), then launched an EF 85/1.4L IS. Then went back to f/1.2 for RF. One big difference was that the 85/1.4L was noticeably better optically and in AF speed that the 85/1.2L II (I have the former and had the latter, and while ‘dreamy’ sounds nice and has been said about both the EF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, soft edges and strong LoCA aren’t what I’d call a pleasant dream).

In the case of the RF 50/1.2, there’s not much optical or AF improvement that can be squeezed out. Bodies likely to be used with L lenses There are people who want better than the RF nifty fifty but do not want to spend RF 50 f/1.2 money.

While this is understandable there are plenty of EF options available for such people.
There is a loud contingent of "We only want native lenses" people but there might not be enough of those people who want an RF 50 f/1.4.

But if you are Canon surely you want to get people to spend money on new products for your new system and therefore charge a higher price?

 

[neuroanatomist]

But if you are Canon surely you want to get people to spend money on new products for your new system and therefore charge a higher price?

If you are Canon, you want to maximize your profit. If a 50/1.4L costs double what a 50/1.4 non-L costs, and they sell 4 times as many of the non-L, that's more profit. Surely.

We can be sure they have considered an RF 50/1.4 (they patented at least one design for it), and we know they have not released one. We can also be sure they have the data to support their decision. I'm not going to claim I know more than Canon does about selling cameras and lenses for profit. Are you?

 

[SNJ Ops]

If you are Canon, you want to maximize your profit. If a 50/1.4L costs double what a 50/1.4 non-L costs, and they sell 4 times as many of the non-L, that's more profit. Surely.

We can be sure they have considered an RF 50/1.4 (they patented at least one design for it), and we know they have not released one. We can also be sure they have the data to support their decision. I'm not going to claim I know more than Canon does about selling cameras and lenses for profit. Are you?

It would depend on the profit margins each prospective product.

If a 50mm f1.4 non L is made with cheaper materials, a less complex optical formula and therefore has less than superlative IQ it could have moderate profit margins. 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. A scenario could exist that Canon could make more profit by releasing higher priced product at the same time as selling less potential units. All speculation but certainly possible.

If Canon did release a 50mm f1.4 L USM for RF I don’t think many would complain, quite the opposite. But if they were to release essentially an f1.4 version of the current 50mm f1.8 I think more than few people would be disappointed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It would depend on the profit margins each prospective product.

If a 50mm f1.4 non L is made with cheaper materials, a less complex optical formula and therefore has less than superlative IQ it could have moderate profit margins. 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. A scenario could exist that Canon could make more profit by releasing higher priced product at the same time as selling less potential units. All speculation but certainly possible.

If Canon did release a 50mm f1.4 L USM for RF I don’t think many would complain, quite the opposite. But if they were to release essentially an f1.4 version of the current 50mm f1.8 I think more than few people would be disappointed.

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).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But if you are Canon surely you want to get people to spend money on new products for your new system and therefore charge a higher price?

Sure but no one is obligated to pay that higher price when there are cheaper alternatives.