And this makes the situation odder. None in EF-S and only 3 EF lenses: a 1400$ f/1.2, an ancient f/1.4 and a 100$ f/1.8.
And all this is where the most crowded focal length is this
fifty. For example Fuji has 4 OEM nifty fifties (35/1.4, 33/1.4, 35/2 and XC 35/2). Or for our EF-M (although is regarded with poor lens options) there is near 20 native mount nifty fifties! (3 with AF: Canon 32/1.4, Viltrox 33/1.4, Sigma 30/1.4 and
about 15 manual focus EF-M lenses)
Canon had only 3 50mms for all of its DSLRs. Unbelievable! If your conclusion is true then these codes of conduct are shame for Canon. And considering its position, for current civilization.
Small correction: they made four EF fifties. There was also the EF 50 mm f/1.0 L USM. Though, I guess it was discontinued before their first DSLR, so I could see it being excluded from this type of discussion.
Five, actually, and that's not counting the 3 versions of the f1.8 as different lenses:
50mm f1.0 L
50mm f1.2 L
50mm f1.4 USM
50mm f1.8, f1.8 II and f1.8 STM
50mm f2.5 Compact Macro
And that's without including the 40mm f2.8 pancake that I always preferred for personal use because of the slightly wider FOV.
So dolivaw is spot on that it's unbelievable that Canon only made 3 EF 50mm lenses - completely unbelievable, because it's simply not true. I've owned 4 of them myself (plus the 40), and still use the f1.2L and the Compact Macro - I do still own the 50mm f1.8 II, but it fell apart in 1997 and although I was able to shove it back together, AF hasn't worked since, and the 50mm f1.4, which suddenly decided not to AF any more a few years back, after nearly 20 years service (bought to replace the f1.8 II).
The f1.2 has wonderful character, and the Compact Macro was Canon's sharpest 50mm lens until the 50mm f1.2 RF. Wrong board, but it's this last lens that I wish Canon made an RF version of, especially if they could have got it to f2, but that genuinely might have compromised RF f1.2 L sales.
Oh, and also available for EF-M via adapter is the 60mm f2.8 EF-S, an excellent little lens that I used on my M cameras early on until the 55-200 was available.
So 7 lenses in the 40-60mm range from Canon - not that shabby really, is it? And that's ignoring the 2 TS-E lenses in this focal length range, and the slightly longer MP-E... 9 or 10 if you do. Very few manufacturers come close to that.
More to the point of the whole thread, I always assumed the “nifty” part of nifty fifty referred to the inexpensive examples (such as the EF 50 f/1.8’s). While giving a different field of view (and more expensive), I feel like the EF-M 22mm is thus the EF-M equivalent.
Indeed. Although I really love the Sigma 56, it's a super lens, the 22 is much more versatile IMHO for general photography.
I'm also left wondering exactly what we would have expected from Canon in terms of a 50mm for EF-M. It goes against the M design criteria to simply port a lens over, so if they had started from scratch, what would we have expected to have seen?
The reality is that this system was never designed by Canon to be a true enthusiast system (much less a pro one), and Canon's lens offerings have actually been more than adequate for what it was targeted at. The fact that the cameras have been vastly more capable, and a fair few of us have really appreciated the physical size of the system has left us wanting things Canon never intended to offer, nor can they see an overwhelming business case to offer. That 32mm really is an outlier in the system. I wish Canon had changed their minds about the system, but when I bought in to it, I was never really expecting there to be more than the 2 lenses that existed at the time, so I can't really complain.
