value of the dollar too.......today's dollar is I think worth about 5 cents compared to the purchasing value of a $ in 1967......so that $80 lens cost new in 1967 would today be $1600 in today's dollars. If I am off by 100% it would still translate to at least $800 in today's dollars. So...actually they are better, AF, sharper....and possibly cheaper! In 1972 I could have purchased a house for 22k that today would cost me 500k. A new full size station wagon in 1967 was $3700. Today?? 40K? maybe more?? Whether a loaf of bread, gallon of milk, or gallon of gas.....all have increased by a large amount. Even the TV mentioned as being cheaper....if you compare apples to apples....the most expensive TV then and today...not the physical size.....I think you would find prices have gone up there too. Console 25 inch TV back then....$500-600, today 85 inch top line model?? $8000?? maybe more?? Gallon of gas in 1967? Around 14--17 cents per gallon.

Mid-end tv is $1000 now. Sure you can get cheaper, and you can buy cheap lenses too. TVs are getting expensive -QLED 65" Samsung have increased from around $1500 to $2k now.

From CPI inflation calculator:
Value of $1 from 1970 to 2017
$1 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $6.32 in 2017, an increase of $5.32 over 47 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 4.00% per year between 1970 and 2017, producing a cumulative price increase of 531.75%.

RickPick....nice to see it confirmed, though at present add 7 years to that estimate for 1967--2021, and it is even worse than that. I still think the dollar is worth no more than 10 cents compared to '67, and likely alot less. Different markets and specific products will of course reflect that differently. Some items may be at 10x the price, and others as bad as 20x the price today compared to 1967. Problem with getting old, is for every generation the prices of everything always seem too high. I well remember the indignation expressed by my elders....parents and grandparents .... at the current cost of just about everything. Carl's Jr started w/ 15 cent hamburgers need I say more? 20 years ago I was wondering when the $20/$50/$100 Big Mac was going to arrive. Our children will make 2x--10x what we aspired to make on graduating college even without that college degree. Govt will take lots more as everyone's income pushes everyone into higher tax brackets. Just goes on!

.... you're right, I was thinking of the 55/1.8 .

The EF 50/1.8 STM goes for around $125, and performs like a native lens on the Canon adapter.

The RF is a significantly more advanced design than the EF or the Sony.

":The RF is a significantly more advanced design than the EF or the Sony."

The RF 50mm F1.8 appears to be identical in performance to the EF 50mm F1.8. According to this reviewer the RF version is actually worse:

https://petapixel.com/2021/01/04/canon-nifty-fifty-battle-ef-50mm-f-1-8-stm-vs-rf-50mm-f-1-8-stm/

"Looking over all his results, Barrera says that the only differences he could discern were that the RF lens had slightly more vignetting and leaned a bit more magenta than the EF version. Canon stated in a presentation prior to the announcement of the lens that the RF version of the 50mm f/1.8 STM was redesigned slightly to better accommodate the mirrorless nature of the RF mount. Barrera expected to be able to see a difference between the two lenses and was disappointed with his findings. "

...in the meantime: got me a Nikkor Z 50/1.8 -- so far super impressed with IQ and also handling. Really curious if Canon will ever respond.

Yeah that Z 50mm F1.8 is exceptional for the price.

BrentSchumer, my mistake. I was thinking of the Nikon Z 50/1.8. That's a more sophisticated design at a higher price. The Canon RF is essentially the same as the EF, and not much more expensive.

@l92

> all Sony G Master lenses with 5x price are plastics

Where did that come from?!

Do yourself a favor and check GM spec pages:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_35_1p4_gm/specifications
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_50_1p2_gm/specifications
etc. etc. etc.

All are made of magnesium alloy.

Even the recent G lenses are metal (aluminum alloy, "metal housing"):
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_50_2p5_g/specifications
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_24_2p8_g/specifications
etc.

I understand your dislike of Sony, but please be more creative. Something alone the lines of metal bodies of Sony lenses freezing your fingers while shooting polar bears would do it, I guess...

My comment comes from the fact that I also have Sony and GM lenses. And that outer shell is 100% plastic. I don't dislike Sony, I love them.

That's most likely because it's not clear from any manufacturer what the lens is actually made of. And where the choice of the material would matter.

So what? I can’t use a g master on an l mount camera.

The days of mainly metal content in autofocus stills lenses are over. You have to go for Zeiss lenses or cine lenses, i.e. premium manual-focus glass, to get that nowadays. Even Canon’s L lenses are predominantly plastic, as Canon itself shows here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/rf-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-usm-lens-developers-interview/

Compare with the old Nikon 14–24 mm f/2.8 G here, which even had substantial brass use:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm/images/D3R_4636-cutaway-950.jpg

"they are all crap lenses for video, "

Well, theses lenses are not suited for continuous AF (video or not). But for all the rest they perform just very good. Even video is a joy on the XF 35mm.

@Strange "far cheaper" - how's that? Maybe if you buy all Sigma glass with its questionable AF compatibility. If you by Panasonic glass there isn't a whole lot of difference except for a bit less selection overall.

Sigma and Tamron glass are a great way to lower your lens cost on E Mount, and the mirrorless stuff doesn't have the AF compatibility issues that you're talking about. If RF and Z mounts get access to cheaper lenses, that's one more advantage for Fuji to surmount.

Thanks
F.

Yeah, I have as well but the product never looked like having come out a dust storm.

@J A C S, @SteveAnderson – in practical terms, I find a 1970s Olympus OM 50mm f/1.8 small and light, but not this new lens. (By the way, on a 24 MP mirrorless camera I don't find that OM lens lacking in image quality in any way, and I might rather go without AF than having to carry a big lens like that new Panasonic for a f/1.8 standard prime.)

Hubertus.....my 50mm 1.4 Sigma took 72mm filters.....had way more glass out on end than any 50mm 1.4 I had ever seen. Was reliable and fairly quiet and fast.

@Richard Katris: Yes, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is one of the more ugly examples of early lenses which also were extremely big for what they were – but sometimes there are no alternatives, and I used to have one myself, too, for the Four Thirds DSLRs I used to shoot some years ago, and it really was an excellent lens which I liked very much despite its bulk. I even carried it over when I moved to Micro Four Thirds – but at some point replaced it with the even better and also beautifully compact Sigma 56mm f/1.4...

More to the point, if you're trying to sell people on small gear while criticizing a $400 50/1.8 lens for being onerously bulky at 3.2" & 300g then suggesting a $700 50/2.8 (PL25) equivalent alternative that's 2.15" & 200g just comes off as splitting hairs... SPECIALLY when there's already $300 45/1.8 alternatives at 2.21" & 162g along with $600 50/2.5 at 1.8" & 170g.

Those make the M4/3 option seem, I dunno, not very light or compact? ;) I still shoot M4/3 FWIW, and FF.

I don't think M4/3 holds much of a size advantage anymore at UWA thru normal FLs (smallest GM/GX850-like bodies aside), even if you disregard aperture / equivalence (but particularly if you don't). I've found similarly sized FF alternatives (w/AF) to pretty much all my M4/3 lenses at or under 25mm (and I had a few, have kept several too), it's at the tele end where something even remotely comparable or equivalent doesn't often exist.

Now, those FF alternatives may not all be available on L mount, but a couple of them are. They're not as plentiful as I'd like either but manufacturers seem to be recognizing there's a market for them. Teles are another story, there seems to be a lot less interest in slower tele primes in the FF world, and the slower zooms are almost always 70-300 or longer so I still see a lot of value to smaller formats at that end.

Basically every other system can do that. Most FF systems can do much better.

You did not say "size and weight". Next, what is "that"? Your lens is 200mm max, not 400mm. So is any 70-200. The m43 cameras do not have impressive mp count while some FF cameras do and get close to the mp density of the m43 cameras.

" I think isn't and there never was a size/weight advantage for smaller sensors if you *don't* disregard aperture equivalence. Something that not all proponents of the smaller sensors have managed to acknowledge to this day. ... Like the beautifully compact (but boring) Olympus 25mm f/1.8, or the Olympus 12mm f/2. " -Hubertus

Okay forget aperture, there's still FF AF lenses faster than those by equivalence *and* smaller and/or cheaper at the same time, eg Sony 50/2.5 G, Samyang 45/1.8, Sony 24/2.8 G, Samyang 24/2.8 (tho that one's a bit of a dice roll)... Like I said, for primes UWA thru normal there really isn't an advantage at all even when you disregard equivalence. The smaller format's main advantage lies solely at the tele end.

" And then there are zooms like the ridiculously small Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6 or Panasonic G 7-14mm f/4 lenses (with the latter, different than the former, actually offering excellent image quality). " -Hubertus

Even the Pana 7-14/4 isn't that much smaller (tho a lil lighter) than say a Nikon 15-30/4. The Oly 9-18 is more unique but it's also making a pretty obvious sacrifice in range vs the typical UWA starting at 14-16mm. Now, the 35-100/2.8, PL50-200, 75/1.8, or 35-100 f4-5.6, those are a different story. It's the same story for UWA primes tho, Laowa 7.5/2 vs 14/2? A wash.

" @SteveAnderson: It is not *my* fault that current mirrorless FF systems manufacturers don't offer lenses as compact as they used to exist in the film era, so that people have to resort to smaller sensor systems to still get similarly compact lenses. " -Hubertus

For anything non-tele and particularly for primes the FF systems do offer that tho (at least some of them), it's when you go looking for something the size of a vintage 135/2.8 or something like that (such as the Oly 75/1.8) where slower & smaller options have faded away...

At the same time a faster FF tele zoom is operating within a different performance envelope than an f8 equivalent zoom, so it becomes apples and oranges at the tele end. You can make a case that cropping bridges much of that gap but if I want ~150mm I'd rather shoot that Oly than crop my Samyang 75/1.8, that's somewhat subjective tho.

Meant Nikon 14-30 not 15-30 btw...

A bunch of smaller/cheaper FF UWA zooms could cover the PL10-25's range with ease and/or minimal cropping at the long end... No FF tele zoom that goes to 400mm will approach the size of the PL50-200 tho. Even the lightest 70-300 ends up a little bigger and ends up making additional sacrifices like no OIS etc. 'Course you're disregarding aperture there but there's usage cases where that's valid. A 2x crop on an A7R IV still leaves you 15MP tho...

I probably shouldn't have neglected to mention the Sigma 24/3.5 & 45/2.8, since they're probably the smaller L mount options available... It's nice when a system can scale from something super compact like those to the still relatively compact S 50/1.8 to more exotic glass, any system can only stand to gain a broader audience the better it scales.

Hubertus, You keep changing the narrative. Somehow you have suckered people into moving to these new goal posts.

Now we are in an m4/3 conversation? How did that happen? This is a FF lens.

Answering your last post now: You dont put whitewall tires on a Ferrari. That is why. The lenses should match the bodies.
If you want 2-ply tires on your Ferrari, use an adaptor like I said at the top.

This high quality 50mm1.8 FF 300g lens is practical in every sense of the word. You can adapt a tiny, low quality, MF lens if its what you prefer.

They cant make a smaller 50mm1.8 which can resolve the newer bodies sensor efficiently(slightly smaller will be an exorbitant price increase).

@J A C S: "You did not say size and weight" – true, I forgot to add that. Perhaps I didn't bother because the whole thread was about size and weight, but I guess it would have been necessary to make it explicit.

@Impulses: "there's still FF AF lenses faster than those by equivalence *and* smaller and/or cheaper at the same time" I never claimed otherwise. I do still claim that there also *are* specific MFT lenses also at shorter focal lengths for which you don't get similarly compact FF lenses. And if we leave compactness aside, there even are MFT lenses for which there are no really equivalent options of any size available elsewehere. Overall, I think we're not too far apart in our positions, though.

@SteveAnderson: This is my thread and I set the subject, which was never limited to a specific sensor size. If you don't like it, don't post. And you're wrong; the better 1970s/1980s 50mm f/1.8 primes easily resolve 40+ MP and more, which has been proven many times, a long time ago.

@landscaper1: Thanks for the correction, I must have severely mixed something up there!

Still changing the narrative. I am trying not to be mean but it is a bit tedious chasing you around.

This is a FF lens article. It entirely matters. Because a 300g nicely corrected 50mm 1.8 with AF for FF is completely practical. It is not at all large or heavy in any possible scenario or context.

Those very old 50s will not resolve 45mp at f1.8. Not remotely. f5.6 is not how you test a fast lens. The reason this lens is larger is because of physics. This is not a religion or magic.

Admit you thought this article was an m4/3 lens maybe? It is your best option.

I repeat, "It is not *my* fault that current mirrorless FF systems manufacturers don't offer lenses as compact as they used to exist". There is no "narrative", let alone one you would be authorized to limit to something born of your private opinion. There are objectively measurable absolute sizes and weights. You also don't define how anyone "tests a fast lens". And we don't even know yet whether this new lens even holds up to your personal demands of perfect across-the-frame sharpness wide open, something many photographers don't care about. I also never suggested such lenses shouldn't be made. I just stated that lenses of much more compact sizes which used to be standard even for SLRs hardly exist for today's mirrorless FF cameras (while @Impulses correctly named a few mostly newer ones which came into existence exactly because what I write here is relevant), and that there are people who would prefer such smaller lenses even when they wouldn't be perfect wide open. [cont'd]

[cont'd]

Which, by the way, is not only a reason why people buy Micro Four Thirds, it is also a reason why people are buying modern manual lenses from Chinese brands like Mitakon, 7Artisans, TTArtisan. Many of which are good little lenses which nicely resolve any sensor resolution they can be mounted on – even if you have to stop down somewhat to improve the corners.

And this is my last word to you in this thread.