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

I am satisfied with EF50L. I am not going to get RF50L.

I guess the RF35/1.8 is the first incarnation of very similar 24, 50, 85 RF lenses.

Great decision by Canon. The building quality is quite good and they look good (also when compared to the RF L lenses I have .. They will have a huge market.

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

I guess the RF35/1.8 is the first incarnation of very similar 24, 50, 85 RF lenses.

At least the incompatibility between R and M ( and EF-S) allows Canon to bring out a very good f/1.8 or f/1.4  50mm without offering a fantastic portrait option for aps-c cameras.  This option does exist anyway today with the sigma 56mm f/1.4.

On the other hand Canon might try to push you to buy an M camera if you want this focal length equivalent (32mm f/1.4) with not bringing out a 50mm for the RF mount being better than the EF 50mm f/1.4 and more affordable than the RF 50mm f/1.2.

After all a smaller 50mm (or 50mm equivalent) is a great walk around lens, and walking around in general is nicer with a more compact camera (M).

Why sell one (RF 50mm) lens if you can sell another (ef-m 32mm) AND a (M) camera?

Great decission by Canon. The buliding quality is quite good and they look good (also when compared to the RF L lenses I have .. They will have a huge market.

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

I guess the RF35/1.8 is the first incarnation of very similar 24, 50, 85 RF lenses.

would love to see this

Great decision by Canon. The building quality is quite good and they look good (also when compared to the RF L lenses I have .. They will have a huge market.

yep

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.

lawny13 wrote:

Steve W wrote:

Yana2 wrote:

Steve W wrote:

I had the EF 50/1.2L but finally let it go when I move to Sony. I am now also shooting an EOS R and would love a 50mm that is a little more reasonable in cost. I did get the F 35/1.8 IS but while it is fairly priced for what they offer I would really like to see the a 50mm that is of better quality and would be willing to pay more for it. The noise and behavior of the STM focus system I have seen on the RF 35 make me want a better quality implementation like I have seen in some of the Sony lenses. An example of that is a $1400 GM 24/1.4. I've got to believe Canon could make a very good 50mm for less than that. Sure its would not be a f/1.2 but I don't need that but don't want to by a 50 built like the 35/1.8.

I want a 50 like RF35 with IS, light weight, small.

Of course this just my opinion and only applies to me.

The size and weight of the RF 35 are nice, I agree, but willing to take on some added weight for improved build quality. That is always a trade-off. The Sony 35/1.8 is 20 grams lighter but there is no IS. The Fujifilm XF 23/1.4 is only 300 grams and is definitely built better but about twice as much. The Batis 40mm for FE mount is only 360 grams.

Cost for the RF 35 is great for what it is though.

Wonder if Canon will consider building a new RF f1.8 for 85mm?

Well... I would like canon to do one step up above the 35. Internally focusing, weather sealed 50 mm f1.8 or f1.4, with less focus shift. So basically a FE55ZA without the CA issues, and with IS. I would pay 600-800 for that thing easy.
The 35 is good for what it is, but it some of us are willing to pay a bit more for better build. I really really hope canon doesn't only produce 3k top of the line lenses and cheap $100-$400 lenses. Something in between would be nice.
For example, I live in the Netherlands. Rain is a fact of life here. So some form of weather sealing would be nice for a prime that I would use often as a walk around prime.

Yes, that is what I would like to see as well. If they come out with "pro" body that justifies purchasing the  very high end lenses then I might be willing to spend more. Sony did that with the A7III, A7RIV, A9 (or A9II) IMHO.

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

I guess the RF35/1.8 is the first incarnation of very similar 24, 50, 85 RF lenses.

Great decision by Canon. The building quality is quite good and they look good (also when compared to the RF L lenses I have .. They will have a huge market.

I love the extra thick red markers! What did you use?

Steve W wrote:

How were the prices so cheap for those lenses you bought?

Steve

Sorry for the inconvenience. That was trade-in price.
I sold 3 EF and got 2 RF:

RF 50 trade by EF 50 = 872
USD1615 - 743 = 872

RF 15-35 trade by EF16-35 & EF70-300DO
USD1852 - USD564 = 1288

RF50 : Gray Market
RF15-35 : Official Local warranty

RF50 with $260 different between Gray Market and official but RF15-35 Just $90.

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

I guess the RF35/1.8 is the first incarnation of very similar 24, 50, 85 RF lenses.

Great decision by Canon. The building quality is quite good and they look good (also when compared to the RF L lenses I have .. They will have a huge market.

I think so, the 1.8 Series like RF35 is coming!

And nice RED marking on lens cap!!!

My wifes nail polish ...  Very expensive add! 

lawny13 wrote:

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

I agree with your point of view on the 50. Nikon's approach to their Z-mount f/1.8 may not have been as sexy as L mount f/1.2 primes but for the average buyer.