50mm 1.2 EF to RF or wait something like 50 1.4/1.8 with IS?

Steve W wrote:

The hard facts are that the RP needs lenses as well and it is likely would want the sub $600 lenses for those customers. So would we see three tiers of RF lenses? Maybe down the road in the future but I think they will have their hand full just with two tiers.

It took Sony a while but they now have three tiers for some with the GM, G, and regular. The example I see that they have is the FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA (ok no G or GM) that I think of as a GM, the 55 f/1.8 ZA (as a G), and the 50/1.8 or you can get that same when you add in the third party lens partners like Zeiss Batis, Tamron, and Sigma.

Funny. When I saw your sony comment I almost laughed out load. 
You can't place sony (back then) in the same group as canon. Canon is the lens king basically. Look at how fast they have come out with these L lenses. Its been just a year. And when it comes to the 2 FLs that are mainstream (35 and 50) I would say that it is relatively easy for them to do. Especially the 50. 
Yes the RP needs lenses too, so to speak, so what? Not everyone even RP users want a $90 nifty fifty. Find if canon produces it, but the choice between a 100 lens and 3000 lens is a little ridiculous. 
The current 50 stm is soft wide open, has no IS, experiences focus shift, and is noisy. That is not the kind of trend canon seems to be going for. I get that we don't need a 3 tier lens option for everything. But those those two FLs... why not???
Back to sony... remember the decentered, QC and sample variation issues? It was massive. It is the main reason why I never owned sony glass, only ZA and zeiss lenses, because I was allergic to the notion of returning lenses many times till I get a good copy, and those weren't even GM lenses. Those were expensive regular lenses or G lenses. It was ridiculous. Anyway. I want a good decent 50 that isn't dirt cheap, and is preferably weather sealed. It is arguably the main FL used by many. So why not? At the very lease we need a similar 50 to the RF 35. But since 50s tend to be easier to design and make, I would rather they keep the RF 35 price and put whatever "cost savings" to making the lens better. So whatever $500 will give me for a 50, rather than same quality (IQ as well) and build as the RF 35 for $200