Is it finally happening? Canon RF 50mm f/1.4 USM [CR1]

[EricN]

I believe people should criticize companies and more importantly, vote with their wallets. If everyone did that, the world would be a better place.

All of us are voting with our wallets. For example, I never bought an ef-s lens that didn't come in a kit. Canon knows which lenses were the most profitable and decides what to produce next. You can criticize all you want, but that won't have much effect on Canon strategy.

 

[EricN]

I'm sure some do but many don't. I see it all the time how the most unethical companies and brands have most of the customers,

you want to give some specific examples where the company is more unethical than others and doesn't provide some product or service that is not either superior, lower price or just plain old better/more advertising?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I believe people should criticize companies and more importantly, vote with their wallets. If everyone did that, the world would be a better place.

I'm sure some do but many don't. I see it all the time how the most unethical companies and brands have most of the customers,

People do vote with their wallets. In 2022, 46.5% of the people who decided to buy a digital camera voted for Canon, a slight increase from the year before and more people than voted for the next three best-selling brands (Sony, Nikon, Fuji) combined.

Incidentally, what makes you think ethics is the most important criterion for people buying a camera, or anything else for that matter? Cynical, yes...but realistic.

If I didn't know better, I'd think what was happening is that you have seen the results of the vote but you don't like them so you think people voted wrong or their votes were miscounted. But no one would think that, would they?

 

[neuroanatomist]

you want to give some specific examples where the company is more unethical than others and doesn't provide some product or service that is not either superior, lower price or just plain old better/more advertising?

I think Canon's UK pricing is rather unethical.

 

[EricN]

I want Canon to have a set of 1.8 primes like Panasonic that are light, same filter size, weather sealed, and have no or little no focus breathing. I also want a set of 1.4 primes like Sony's light 24mm 1.4 gm, 35mm 1.4 gm, and 50mm 1.4 gm all priced at around $1300-1400. The current cheap Rf primes are trash with their slow stm motors, no weather sealing, and doesn't even come with a lens hood. Canon is still charging $2000 for the EF 35mm 1.4 II which is a great lens but ridiculously overpriced when Sony offers the lighter and better 35mm 1.4 gm at $1400. I currently have the RF 50mm 1.2 and RF 85mm 1.2 which are great lenses but I would have preferred lighter 1.4 primes any day over the 1.2.

I can't imagine Canon making lenses like you want. If I were you, I would buy a Panasonic and a Sony camera then you can use the lenses you want.

 

[EricN]

what makes you think ethics is the most important criterion for people buying a camera, or anything else for that matter?

I think Canon's UK pricing is rather unethical.

Right on both points. In this situation, I know at least one UK person here who shows the ethics of Canon aren't always as important as lenses being better for him.

Personally, I tend to think capitalism is unethical and we should use the barter and trade system, but I'm a bit eccentric and this is not really our topic...

 

[jaygould]

This is a step in the right direction. But personally I'm not really a fan of 50mm. Give me 20, 24, 28, 35 and 85 please.

 

[jaygould]

I feel like canon needs to decide what the gold ring means for RF mount. Red ring means what it means, but the gold rings were always subpar. The 85 was quirky with terrible chromatic aberration. The 50 was too soft for modern sensors and the focus left a lot to be desired.

My take would be for canon to offer gold rings that have superb image quality, fast accurate autofocus and weather sealing. Make it small and light, and they can shop it as a travel lens - that matters more than ever now with weight restrictions tightening on flights as mentioned in the recent opinion piece on the forum.

Either way, I think that canon needs to focus on image quality and character to protect the brand and keep people “needing” more than just a smartphone for consistently great images.

No gold ring, please. It will just look tacky. Either a red (L) or a white ring, or I'm not buying.

 

[jaygould]

I think what would fit the current lineup nicely is this: a RF 50/1.4 with the same type of build and philosophy as the RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2.
This would be a lightweight lens with close focusing capability. Sharp center wide open, sharp corner-to-corner when stopped down.
I think it would be a mistake to try to compete with Sigma 50/1.4 art. The RF 50/1.2 already does that.

They need to compete with Sony 50mm f1.4 GM (at $1299), and to a lesser extent the Nikon Z 50mm f1.8S (for $529).

 

[mxwphoto]

For a 50mm 1.4 I just use my EF 1.2L at 1.4 aperture. It is very robust, small in size and weight, has option to blur out background, and costs around $800.
It doesn't have the sharpest corners wide open but I don't fret about that. If I want architecturally sharp corners I will shoot at F8.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Always loved my FD 50 f1.4 back in the film days. But there was a much larger gap between fixed and zoom lenses at the time. I’m not sure a RF 50 f1.4 would get much love these days or spend time in my bag.

It's kind of happening again in RF mount with the lower spec lenses. Most of the consumer grade zooms are f7.1 (with a few f11 and a few L's in the F7.1 too). so the disparity between a RF 50mm f1.4 and say a 50mm f5.6 value on say a RF 24-105 STM is massive.
The EF 50mm f1.4 lens was the lens used on most if not all of the EOS SLR / DSLR promo shots. It was the first of the Gold ring lenses which are absent from the current RF line up. It was a range of really nice pro-sumer / serious enthusiast lenses that were a lot better than the low tier gear and very affordable. I knew of a few wedding photographers who used the EF 28mm f1.8 and EF 85mm f1.8 lenses over ther L version becuase they were lighter and focussed better and were nearly as robustly built.
I've had a long and well documented history with Canon EF 50mm lenses. The EF 50mm f1.2 has a lot of issues (and a lot of great features too), the EF 50mm f1.4 USM is fragile in my opinion. Optically it's soft and low in contrast wide open. I prefer the original metal mount EF 50mm f1.8 (mine is from 1989) which can be used wide open and it's sharp and contrasty. However, it's AF is noisy and slow.
I just hope this new RF 50mm f1.4 is better built then the EF variant and way better optically wide open. AS i stated before, the EF version's optical formula dates back to the late 70's. Talk about archaic.

 

[koenkooi]

[…]
The EF 50mm f1.4 lens was the lens used on most if not all of the EOS SLR / DSLR promo shots. It was the first of the Gold ring lenses which are absent from the current RF line up. […]

For EF, the gold ring meant the lens had a USM motor, nothing more. In RF land, everything non-L is STM, except the 100-400 and 24-240.
At some point the gold ring design element was phased out and Canon started putting a white/silver ring on the USM lenses.

The gold ring was never a sign of excellence, just look at the EF28mm, huge distortion and after a few years the rings start weeping sticky plastic droplets. The EF85 had bad CA and needed to get stopped down to f/2.5 before being sharp. I did enjoy both of those for years, but an R5 and M6II really highlight their flaws.
On the other hand, the EF100 f/2.8 was near perfect, I used that for 13 years as my main lens.

I personally would very much like more nano USM non-L lenses, it’s quieter, faster and better suited to the AF algos in my R5.

And not USM like the EF180L has, that is slower than most STM lenses

 

[el peso]

C`mon Canon, please don`'t force me to give money to Bigma and spend a redundant extra amount for overkill for me RF 50/1.2.

 

[Walrus]

Depends what kind of build it is. If it is a lens to compete with the Sigma art, then $999 is not out of line.
However, if it is similar in build to the RF 85/2 (which sells for $599, currently on sale at $499) then @fasterquieter may be about right with their cost estimate.

There's already a RF 50mm similar in build to the RF 85/2, it's the RF 50 f1.8 if (IF) Canon releases another 50mm, and has a brighter aperture, would certainly be of a different build to the one they already have in the "85 f2 league".

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If they're doing it, I'm pretty sure it won't be L (otherwise they're going to totally kill the f1.2)

You are not the first person to say this but plenty of us would buy the f/1.2 anyway.
Besides, Canon replaced the EF 50 f/1.0 with the EF 50 f/1.2.
(I still bought the f/1.0)
Even if it does replace it that does not mean it would necessarily be bad for Canon.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If you make it an "L" lens with IS, it's going to cost well over $1000, which kind of defeats the purpose of its existence.

The cost difference between the EF 85 f/1.4 IS L and EF 85 f/1.2 L was not all that much.
They were different enough lenses for both to keep selling.
They did eventually kill off the EF 85 f/1.2 but there is still a demand for it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Personally, I tend to think capitalism is unethical and we should use the barter and trade system

Barter and trade systems do not seem very ethical either.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

At some point the gold ring design element was phased out and Canon started putting a white/silver ring on the USM lenses.

The green ring seems to be dead as well or the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 should have one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They need to compete with Sony 50mm f1.4 GM (at $1299), and to a lesser extent the Nikon Z 50mm f1.8S (for $529).

No, they really don’t.

 

[Kiton]

Maybe Canon is still embarrassed, 30 years later, at how bad that 50 1.4 was and are afraid to make another.

The QC on that lens was garbage. my 50 STM is better than both the 1.4 EF I had then sold after being disappointed.

Let Sigma make one if you can not step up to the plate and redesign that lens after 30 years!
They make a killer 50 1.2.....not rocket science.