The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L IS USM II has been officially discontinued

Czardoom said:

Well, I doubt people who actually are going to buy the lens are too annoyed right now since it is:

IN STOCK at the Canon store
IN STOCK at Adorama
IN STOCK at B&H
IN STOCK at Best Buy
IN STOCK at Amazon USA
IN STOCK at Samy's.
...etc, etc, etc.

Click to expand...

Not everyone lives in the USA.
It is impossible to get in the Canon Japan store.

neuroanatomist said:

Side note: would it be a good thing for a Canon rumors site if Canon were to tell the world exactly what lenses will be released and when?

Click to expand...

Lens roadmaps do not say exactly what or when.
The Nikon lens roadmap only has focal lengths and no dates whatsoever.

Canon has no public roadmaps whatsoever.

ashmadux said:

...both of thier current RF50 offering can go chuck themselves - one too cheap, one to massive + expensive.

Click to expand...

Interesting to see that back in 2017, even with all 3 EF variants, people complained about the same things.
If Canon does make an RF 1.4, it will surely be a compromise between the 1.8 and 1.2, and people will most likely complain about it.

danfaz said:

Interesting to see that back in 2017, even with all 3 EF variants, people complained about the same things.
If Canon does make an RF 1.4, it will surely be a compromise between the 1.8 and 1.2, and people will most likely complain about it.

View attachment 206337

Click to expand...

It was before my time, but I read that the EF mount originally launched with the EF 50 f/1.0 and the EF 50 f/1.8.
The price difference between them was astronomical.

It's probably going to remain in stock for a little while. Canon USA has it as well as B&H, the two places I checked.

EOS 4 Life said:

It was before my time, but I read that the EF mount originally launched with the EF 50 f/1.0 and the EF 50 f/1.8.
The price difference between them was astronomical.

Click to expand...

I think that the 50/1.8 is/was very similar to the FD mount 50/1.8. A very standard design, not too expensive, and pretty good.

Canon Rumors Guy said:

Even I can no longer make excuses for the missing wide-angle L primes for the RF mount. It's a bit silly at this point.

If it's related to world events, it's time to release a roadmap of some kind.

Click to expand...

A road map would be nice. I mean, we kind of know that they're working on a 24/1.4, a 35/1.2, and probably a 300 and 500 super telephotos as well. It would be nice if we knew when we might expect some of them, at least a ballpark.
On the other hand, they're pushing out new lenses fairly quickly.
And on the other, other hand, I have the original 24/1.4L and rarely use it. It isn't tremendously different from the II for that lens.

I don't need or want wide and fast lenses so I'm still okay with my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 for EF, but I can understand that people are getting impatient, I know a lot of people swear by the 35mm and 24mm f1.4.

ashmadux said:

PS- at least no one has it as bad as RF-S. What an epic disaster of lens choices. Even the EOS M has choices + 3rd party options.

Click to expand...

That whole statements about blocking 3rd parties is sending a wrong message among consumers.

ashmadux said:

Yet no one asks about the 50 1.4? Cmon guys....please?

I'll keep mentioning it until it manifests itself. It is utterly ridiculous how canon refuses to make this lens. AFAIC, both of thier current RF50 offering can go chuck themselves - one too cheap, one to massive + expensive. And no one seems to care about this crazy hole in canons lineup. And there is no data anywhere saying it might be addressed.

Maybe its PTSD from the junky RF 85 f2 with its embarrassing external focusing?. Or the misbegotten RF 35 macro. Or anything else non-L RF that is either optically lazy or are just plain boring.

PS- at least no one has it as bad as RF-S. What an epic disaster of lens choices. Even the EOS M has choices + 3rd party options.

Click to expand...

All I can say is I really love my RF 50 1.2. You don’t know what your missing. I would never settle for a 1.4 after using this lens.

Skux said:

I don't need or want wide and fast lenses so I'm still okay with my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 for EF, but I can understand that people are getting impatient, I know a lot of people swear by the 35mm and 24mm f1.4.

Click to expand...

I’ve been waiting forever for a 1.2 35. Have zero interest in a 1.4 compromise.

EOS 4 Life said:

It is fairly annoying that Canon discontinues EF lenses before introducing the RF counterparts.

Click to expand...

This continues weekly doesn't it?. Besides annoying, it isn't the best customer confidence experience announcing you are dumping older products before announcing replacements, it would nicer for some time to overlap. Funny to me personally, as a few weeks ago I was offered this exact lens used for $500. from my local distributor employee who is switching from Canon over to 24mm Sony G master. But I passed on it. He has years of collected Canon glass so uses Canon lenses on Sony with the MC-11 adapter. I guess he knew it? This must be to motivate getting rid of existing inventories so once they are depleted, the R will suddenly appear? All this discontinuation stuff is helping me to switch also. I wish they would have some fire sales though, I might buy then.

ashmadux said:

Yet no one asks about the 50 1.4? Cmon guys....please?

I'll keep mentioning it until it manifests itself. It is utterly ridiculous how canon refuses to make this lens. AFAIC, both of thier current RF50 offering can go chuck themselves - one too cheap, one to massive + expensive. And no one seems to care about this crazy hole in canons lineup. And there is no data anywhere saying it might be addressed.

Maybe its PTSD from the junky RF 85 f2 with its embarrassing external focusing?. Or the misbegotten RF 35 macro. Or anything else non-L RF that is either optically lazy or are just plain boring.

PS- at least no one has it as bad as RF-S. What an epic disaster of lens choices. Even the EOS M has choices + 3rd party options.

Click to expand...

I bought the E mount Sigma 56mm f 1.4, ~$500 for my new A6400. Also available for Nikon, Fuji, etc.. not available of course in the Canon legal dispute for R mount. I also use the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM, its cheap I know.

shadow said:

[...] not available of course in the Canon legal dispute for R mount. I also use the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM, its cheap I know.

Click to expand...

Did I miss Sigma getting sued by Canon for IP infringement?

Remember, that most EF glass can be purchased used in good condition for a fair price. Also cheap third party AF-Lenses for the EF-Mount can be used with adapter on the R-System. And Canon offers beautiful ultra-wide zoom-lenses, the EF 11-24 and the RF 14-35. So nearly everything is ok for most Canon-Shooters, imho.

ashmadux said:

Yet no one asks about the 50 1.4? Cmon guys....please?

I'll keep mentioning it until it manifests itself. It is utterly ridiculous how canon refuses to make this lens. AFAIC, both of thier current RF50 offering can go chuck themselves - one too cheap, one to massive + expensive. And no one seems to care about this crazy hole in canons lineup. And there is no data anywhere saying it might be addressed.

Maybe its PTSD from the junky RF 85 f2 with its embarrassing external focusing?. Or the misbegotten RF 35 macro. Or anything else non-L RF that is either optically lazy or are just plain boring.

PS- at least no one has it as bad as RF-S. What an epic disaster of lens choices. Even the EOS M has choices + 3rd party options.

Click to expand...

In which way is the RF 50 1.8 too cheap?
Use it, it is a nice lens!

Yes, the 1.2 is massive.

Juangrande said:

All I can say is I really love my RF 50 1.2. You don’t know what your missing. I would never settle for a 1.4 after using this lens.

Click to expand...

I had the EF 1.4, I was never convinced with this lens
Today I shoot RF 50 1.2, absolutely great!
And I shoot the RF 50 1.8 as well - I love this lens as I love the 1.2, just for very different reasons and applications.

We now have a 24/1.8, 35/1.8, and 85/2, all of which are semi macro (not 1:1 but close focusing). I wonder if Canon could produce a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 that is not the old-school double-Gauss design, but rather one that yields good wide-open performance and allows for close focus, perhaps at the cost of some barrel distortion. It would fit nicely in the current line-up.

ashmadux said:

Yet no one asks about the 50 1.4? Cmon guys....please?

Click to expand...

Wasn't there a guy on here years ago who would always talk about a 50 1.4? I forget what his name was.

koenkooi said:

Did I miss Sigma getting sued by Canon for IP infringement?

Click to expand...

I am sure you read this link below, thought it was posted here I didn't specifically state Sigma anything other than I bought the Sigma 56 in Sony E mount in same sentence, generally speaking all major manufacturers NOW licensed lens mounts except Canon, as noted at bottom of the article. Silence from Canon and 3rd parties is all we have. I was set to buy the R10 as stated, but thanks to this site I didn't and saved me $$$. Tried to buy a Samyang RF the week they pulled off AF lens from online resellers. Plenty of RF manual lens, my M50 purchase of more M lens still pondering as the prices are on sale for some.