I think that you can add the Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM (small) or Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN Art Lens (large) and/or maybe the Sigma 15mm f/1.4 Fisheye DG DN Art to the Sigma 20mm.
It's incredible that Canon hasn't managed to make a decent 50 1.4 in nearly 40 yearsSpeaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).
So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the external wall of my condo, which is my testing ground for how a lens behave, without any scientific pretence of course, it's just let's see if the lens work properly, and if I have two identical lenses, or two or more identical (or so) focal lengths from different manufactures, let's see a quick and unscientific comparison.
So, the wall of shame saw a three lens competition, tested on the 30mpx Eos R on a tripod and remote release:
EF 50 f1.4
RF 50 f1.8
Sigma 40 f1.4 Art (reframed to match the two 50's)
Sigma vs Canon @ f1.4 100% centre frame
View attachment 215168
The two Canon at their widest common aperture @ f1.8 100% centre frame
View attachment 215169
...now I soon enough remebered why I always hated that terrible EF 50 f1.4
(In both comparisons, made in AV, the EF 50 f1.4 has 1/3 stop faster shutter, so it seems it has a slight better light transmission, at the same aperture, then both RF 50 1.8 and the 40 1.4 Art. At any narrower aperture, shutter was identical, so it seems this light transmission advantage kicks in only below f2)
Well, that RF 50 f1.8 is not that bad tbh in the wide centre, and even the borders are quite acceptable for what it cost; of course the corners are pretty blurry, but no one is going to look there in a real life scenario when shooting wide open, life is not a flat brick wall luckilyIt's incredible that Canon hasn't managed to make a decent 50 1.4 in nearly 40 years
I'd argue the 50 1.8s aren't much better. My best photo with one was stopped down and in black and white. The LoCA on the EF 50 STM was incredible.
wait . they made a decent one 40 years ago?It's incredible that Canon hasn't managed to make a decent 50 1.4 in nearly 40 years
I'd argue the 50 1.8s aren't much better. My best photo with one was stopped down and in black and white. The LoCA on the EF 50 STM was incredible.
Well, now you’ve gone and spoiled my fun.
I will say, as I consistently say, that Canon will make decisions based on what’s best for their business. That some people are clamoring for 3rd party RF lenses means nothing to Canon, unless and until it affects their bottom line. So far, the data suggest it hasn’t in this case.
I can certainly imagine scenarios in which allowing select 3rd party lenses benefits Canon, especially if they can restrict them to lenses that don’t directly compete with RF. Of course, from the 3rd party manufacturers’ viewpoint, it’s probably exactly those ‘bread-and-butter’ lenses where they want to undercut Canon’s prices and move lots of units. I can easily see that leading to an impasse.
Google needs to work on a CEO-to-English translator. Except that if it really worked, the English output would be equivalent to a toddler babbling.
Doesn’t chatgpt have that capability already? It can already both restyle and summarize already.
My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses in eg wide/fast or long/macro or 50/1.4
I still don’t get 3rd party lens not being released in Ef mount - even with manual focus
I guess the point of the negotiations is to have combined OIS/ibis af work well but probably not at full speed (similar to Sony).
It probably isn’t worth canon’s time/money to worry about the Chinese rf lenses
Speaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).
So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the external wall of my condo, which is my testing ground for how a lens behave, without any scientific pretence of course, it's just let's see if the lens work properly, and if I have two identical lenses, or two or more identical (or so) focal lengths from different manufactures, let's see a quick and unscientific comparison.
So, the wall of shame saw a three lens competition, tested on the 30mpx Eos R on a tripod and remote release:
EF 50 f1.4
RF 50 f1.8
Sigma 40 f1.4 Art (reframed to match the two 50's)
Sigma vs Canon @ f1.4 100% centre frame
View attachment 215168
The two Canon at their widest common aperture @ f1.8 100% centre frame
View attachment 215169
...now I soon enough remebered why I always hated that terrible EF 50 f1.4
(In both comparisons, made in AV, the EF 50 f1.4 has 1/3 stop faster shutter, so it seems it has a slight better light transmission, at the same aperture, then both RF 50 1.8 and the 40 1.4 Art. At any narrower aperture, shutter was identical, so it seems this light transmission advantage kicks in only below f2)
I very well did know; as I said, I had one in 2009 on my 5D classic. Didn't want to create new info, it was just a fun test to see "yes, it was bad...but HOW bad will it actually be today on a relatively recent 30mpx sensor, when compared to the sharpest std lens on the market, and to the newest cheapo f1.8 50mm from Canon?"
