Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L USM video features

[kafala]

I'm confused. You want to shoot environmental portraiture, but also want to blur the environment away?

I think he meant more light.

 

[Quack]

And your post isn't meaningless?

Hmmm...can't tell the difference between a post and a comment, I guess.

 

[miketcool]

If I can rotate the barrel, switch to linear manual focusing, or adjust the bokeh; I’ll be excited as a cinema shooter. Cine Primes are manual only, so the ability to take some features from them and put them into a lightweight AF design is exciting. AI focusing systems are coming and will help us creatives who don’t shoot with a dedicated focus puller and monitor. Run and gun baby. Bring cinema features to more people and give us a reason to keep buying ILC systems.

 

[Juangrande]

I'm confused. You want to shoot environmental portraiture, but also want to blur the environment away?

Yes that is correct. But a fast wide angle lens will never obliterate the background just separate it better. And the more I can squeeze out the better. Also in environmental/editorial portraits you don’t have to see crisp details just a sense of the subjects in their environments. Think of a cinematic look ( like a single still frame extracted from a movie.)

I'm confused. You want to shoot environmental portraiture, but also want to blur the environment away?

 

[David - Sydney]

The CN-E is based on the EF lens, so I assume the RF lens will be a different optical design. Still not convinced that there will be IS on this lens.

Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?

 

[David - Sydney]

Focus breathing benefits photography to as the magnification is not constantly changing.

Isn't that only relevant for macro with stepped/rail images? What are the other use cases?

 

[jeffa4444]

The fact that it’s not as buttery as a 50 or 85 is exactly why i want at least a 1.2 (I’d buy a 35mm f1.0 if it were available) I’ve been waiting to upgrade from my 35mm 1.4L II forever. I’m still holding out hope that it will be 1.2 since nothing is official yet.

Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.
In Lightroom at a 100% I had to check the side panel to check which lens it was because it was almost impossible to tell the difference at f1.2 or f1.4. Keep in mind we’re talking about a third of a stop.
For most people they would never know unless at 400%

 

[frankchn]

Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?

Likely also more precise mechanical focusing package. I've read somewhere (I think in a LensRentals blog post) that the focus marking on stills lenses are generally not very precise (can be many centimeters off sometimes), while Cine lens focus markings are usually spot on.

Otherwise they don't have to justify it. It is what the market will bear, and cinema lenses have traditionally between very expensive (see Zeiss Supreme and Leitz Cine primes) and Canon is an affordable option in that space.

 

[jeffa4444]

Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?

The CN glass is taken from the highest scoring examples. The mechanical design is to a much higher standard and is marked in T stops not F stops. This selection and manufacturing in much lower volumes creates the price difference.

 

[frankchn]

Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.
In Lightroom at a 100% I had to check the side panel to check which lens it was because it was almost impossible to tell the difference at f1.2 or f1.4. Keep in mind we’re talking about a third of a stop.
For most people they would never know unless at 400%

You can make the argument there for the existing lenses too. Why did Canon bother with making the RF 85mm L a f/1.2 when the EF f/1.4L gives you basically the same result? Sometimes it is just because Canon wants to create a halo product, and I personally don't think a 35 f/1.4L is quite "halo" enough.

Of course, maybe Canon decides that making a halo product at the 35mm focal length isn't a priority, and that's fine. That doesn't mean I don't look on enviously at the E and L mount folks with the Sigma ART primes though...

 

[Juangrande]

Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.
In Lightroom at a 100% I had to check the side panel to check which lens it was because it was almost impossible to tell the difference at f1.2 or f1.4. Keep in mind we’re talking about a third of a stop.
For most people they would never know unless at 400%

Spent fours days and thousands of shots shooting with the RF 85mm f1.2L and the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM on an R5 last week.
In Lightroom at a 100% I had to check the side panel to check which lens it was because it was almost impossible to tell the difference at f1.2 or f1.4. Keep in mind we’re talking about a third of a stop.
For most people they would never know unless at 400%

Thats misleading as it really matters how you shoot. There’s two factors, camera distance to subject and subject distance to background. I find the benefits more noticeable when shooting the subject full body in frame and space above and below (subject in the scene) then the extra separation helps. Up close (headshot) I could get separation at 2.8.

 

[AccidentalShawarma]

If it does have to be 1.4 maybe they can improve bokeh quality by a fair bit? I do think some of the wider standard prime lenses tend to have less emphasis on how smooth the OOF areas are, which in turn can look busy or nervous especially around areas with tree branches, grass, textured terrain etc..

 

[P-visie]

@CRGuy has posted on Twitter that then R1 (development announcement), R5 Mk II and the RF 35 f1.4 will be announced between may 21 and 23 ( link to google translate for Asobinet).

 

[mxwphoto]

Canon has had six years with the RF mount plus the several since the EF 35L 1.4II dropped to find a way to deliver a better lens than the one its replacing. I think they nailed the brief with the RF 50 and 85 1.2's- so it will be a bit of a downer if they essentially just release the same lens in the same aperture just with a new mount.

I bet Canon had a hard time making the RF 35mm better as I suspect the EF 35 1.4L II was the beginning of Canon's new generation of primes. Then while they were getting a new 50mm and 85mm 1.2 for EF word from up top came to make if for RF mount instead as their flagship products.

It is much easier to make a noticeable uprade to lenses that were more dated (50 in 2007 and 85 in 1989 optical designs) than to update a fairly new lens (35 ii). Sufficient new tech need to accumulate to make it be worth an update.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I hope it's a RF 35mm 1.4 instead of 1.2 I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and the RF 85mm 1.2 and although they are great, the weight on them sucks and makes it not fun to shoot with. Also, the 1.2 primes focus slower for video compared to my RF 24-70mm 2.8. The cheap 1.8 stm primes are a joke. They have slow auto focus for video and struggle in low light for both video and photos. I think Canon needs to come out with a set of 1.4 primes that lack focus breathing and are great for photos while being lighter than 1.2 primes. I would sell my 1.2 primes in a heart beat for 1.4 primes. I'm hoping the 35mm 1.4 similar in size to the Sony GM 35mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4 GM.

Soz to be piccy but a video usage is not a photo useage. The existing EF 35mm f1.4 II L and the RF 35mm f1.8 are already great for photos. Just no so useful for Video. Personally, I'm only interested in Photos (stils)...so I really don't want to pay extra thousands of research and dev £££/$$$ to give videographers what they want. For me, It's wasted money on features that I'm not interested in. I don't care for focus breathing, I certainly don't care for super silent AF.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I bet Canon had a hard time making the RF 35mm better as I suspect the EF 35 1.4L II was the beginning of Canon's new generation of primes. Then while they were getting a new 50mm and 85mm 1.2 for EF word from up top came to make if for RF mount instead as their flagship products.

It is much easier to make a noticeable uprade to lenses that were more dated (50 in 2007 and 85 in 1989 optical designs) than to update a fairly new lens (35 ii). Sufficient new tech need to accumulate to make it be worth an update.

I completely agree, unfortunatly there are also RF lens snobs out there who a very vocal about their wants for a RF 35L.
The EF 135mm f2.0 L had a few deficiencies that really needed a warm over. A 1/3 stop of light was always an easy option, adding IS was another. Making it a tad sharper across the aperture range was also required on cameras like the R5.
The EF 85mm f1.2 II L had more deficiencies to be had. It's a little softer than the ef 135L and had a really old fly bu wire AF system.
The EF 50mm f1.2 L was one of the worse Canon primes period. It has aperture retated focus shift issues that are well documented. It's AF was inaccurate and poor in low light (ironic!) and every copy I've owned was noticably soft. Compared to the EF 35L, 85IIL and 135L, the 50 was the weakest performer. However, it was beautifully built and had excellent colour and contrast. It was the best 50mm Canon had made, but it was the weakest of all the fast primes. I'm sure this lens was on Canon's top list to redesign.
All three of these lenses were easy targets for Canon to upgrade. Low hanging fruit and one could easily suggest that Canon held off on developing these lenses for the EF mount as mk II / III versions, but held off to add extra spice to the RF mount.

Of corse, the one lens every one skirts around is the EF 85mm f1.4 L IS, a stunning performer. Both optically, size. weight and AF is just amazing. But because it was an F1.4, it' often over looked by us bokeh junkies, I certainly am! Canon could have made this lens an f1.2 easily but synically chose not to. They knew the RF mount was coming.

The EF 35mm f1.4 II L is a very different beast to the otehr three primes. It is cut from the same cloth as the EF 24-70mm f2.8 ii L. It's a very tough act to follow. In 6 years, the only thing Canon can realistically get to improve upon is the renown wobbly/rattly focus ring on the EF 35mm f1.4 II L. That's about it folks. There's little benefit out side of that remit. It'll be the same size and weight as the EF mk II version, maybe even a bit bigger to make it fit on the RF mount.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Besides labelling and external packaging, how does Canon justify the huge cost difference if the optical design is the same?

The external packaging is completely different with smooth accurate manual focus and aperture.
Plus they will make and sell far fewer.
Also, Canon does not need to justify their pricing.
That is up to the market.
Things sell for the price people will buy them.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Of course, maybe Canon decides that making a halo product at the 35mm focal length isn't a priority, and that's fine. That doesn't mean I don't look on enviously at the E and L mount folks with the Sigma ART primes though

The T stops on the Sigma 35 f/1.2 and Sony 35 f/1.4 are basically the same.
I am not familiar with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 but I doubt it is any brighter than the RF 35 f/1.8 IS Macro.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

There’s two factors, camera distance to subject and subject distance to background.

True but the wider the focal length the less compression there will be.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I completely agree, unfortunatly there are also RF lens snobs out there who a very vocal about their wants for a RF 35L.

Not sure it’s snobbery. Most RF lenses have offered a meaningful improvement over their predecessor, even if that improvement is not optical. I do see the difficulties they might have an improving on the optics of 35L II. Making it f/1.2 would do the trick.

Native mounting is generally more convenient, unless you have all EF lenses (so the adapter just stays on the camera), or only one EF lens (so the adapter just stays on that lens). Personally, I’m down to four EF lenses, and while with the 600/4 II and MP-E 65 are generally one-lens outings, juggling two TS-E lenses with the adapter with native UWA/standard lenses is annoying. If I only take one TS-E, it’s fine.