Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM II on the Horizon?

[Richard CR]

At first, when I was reading this patent application (2025-118483), I was thinking that the Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM was pretty new and that its replacement was more than a few years away. I was just about to toss this patent application aside, and then I realized that the Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM came out in 2018. The Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM was Canon's first L-series prime for the RF mount.

Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM II on the Horizon? - Canon Rumors

At first, when I was reading this patent application (2025-118483), I was thinking that the Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM was pretty new and that its replacement was more than a few years away. I was just about to toss this patent application aside, and then I realized that the Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM […]

www.canonrumors.com

 

[David - Sydney]

Reducing coma is always good but I would suggest that 50mm isn’t a commonly used lens for Astro landscapes. Stitching multi row at 30-40mm is bad enough but 50mm is a lot of frames for a full arch.
I know someone that did stitch a 85mm set and swore never to attempt it again!

Deep space tends to use longer lenses but others may be better able to comment

 

[AccipiterQ]

I love my 50 1.2L.....It was the first native RF lens I bought...I still remember the first series of photos I took of my daughter with them...I had heard the image quality was better, but I had an audible "whoah" reaction when I pulled them up on my computer. I still have the same reaction whenever I pull up photos from this lens. I can't imagine how the image quality on a ii variant could be superior, but I've said that with other lenses and been pleasantly surprised.

My only quibble: I want to shoot video with it, but the motors in the lens are LOUD when it refocuses. I don't use remote mics, particularly if I'm shooting an "in the moment" video of my daughter, I just use a shotgun-mic mounted on the R5 and the refocus is EXTREMELY audible in the videos. The 15-35 2.8 has no such issue, I can't even hear it refocus. Combine that with the same IQ as the current 50 1.2L and it's a day 1 buy for me.

 

[RCH111]

After owning the RF 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.2, Canon needs improve these 3 things. Use whatever motors Sony GM lenses use. They’re totally silent. These RF lenses are noisy when auto focusing. It’s unacceptable for the price and time (2025). They also need to improve issues with flair and ghosting. Thirdly, lighter and smaller would be nice.

 

[RCH111]

I love my 50 1.2L.....It was the first native RF lens I bought...I still remember the first series of photos I took of my daughter with them...I had heard the image quality was better, but I had an audible "whoah" reaction when I pulled them up on my computer. I still have the same reaction whenever I pull up photos from this lens. I can't imagine how the image quality on a ii variant could be superior, but I've said that with other lenses and been pleasantly surprised.

My only quibble: I want to shoot video with it, but the motors in the lens are LOUD when it refocuses. I don't use remote mics, particularly if I'm shooting an "in the moment" video of my daughter, I just use a shotgun-mic mounted on the R5 and the refocus is EXTREMELY audible in the videos. The 15-35 2.8 has no such issue, I can't even hear it refocus. Combine that with the same IQ as the current 50 1.2L and it's a day 1 buy for me.

 

[RCH111]

Totally agree. Their lenses are unacceptably noisy. If Sony can make totally silent lenses so can Canon.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

I don't know for sure if they have been posted here before - maybe via a Japanese patent application(?).
But via https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/ I found a US patent US 12386161 B2 posted on Aug 12th. This one contains lens designs for:

85mm/1.4
85mm/1.2
100mm/1.4
200mm/2.0

All fullframe.

 

[john1970]

Perfectly content with my RF 50 mm f1.4 VCM lens. Prefer the lightweight and smaller size.

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

The last two elements in the rear group have some amazing aspherical shapes!

 

[roby17269]

They've recently released the 50 1.4 (which is much less noisy for video) so I am not sure that Canon's R&D bandwidth would be wisely spent on a 50 1.2 II... but what do I know?

I am in the camp of the current RF 50 1.2 is a great lens that delivers And I'd rather veer towards optical correction than software correction...

Oh I know what I know! I know I want the 35 1.2 well before a 50 1.2 II

 

[Exploreshootshare]

If Canon releases a Mkii of an already existing lens before they release a RF 35mm F1.2 it’ll give some people on this forum serious heartbreak here. That kind that makes worry about their health :/

 

[lbeck]

After owning the RF 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.2, Canon needs improve these 3 things. Use whatever motors Sony GM lenses use. They’re totally silent. These RF lenses are noisy when auto focusing. It’s unacceptable for the price and time (2025). They also need to improve issues with flair and ghosting. Thirdly, lighter and smaller would be nice.

My RF 24-70 is completely silent, as are the other trinity zooms. My RF 50 & 85 f1.2’s are not though, but that’s normal for that size/amount of glass.

 

[DhlcadR6]

After owning the RF 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.2, Canon needs improve these 3 things. Use whatever motors Sony GM lenses use. They’re totally silent. These RF lenses are noisy when auto focusing. It’s unacceptable for the price and time (2025). They also need to improve issues with flair and ghosting. Thirdly, lighter and smaller would be nice.

You should swap your 24-70L for 28-70 STM if you want silent motors, and all the nano USM lenses are also silent.

 

[Uneternal]

It seems Canon is planning to use those resin (aka plastic) seagull elements that they originally used in budget designs (like the RF 28mm pancake) and avoided in L-class lenses.
It's yet another cost-cutting measure that they're trying to sell as innovation. And it comes with several downsides like thermal drift and possible yellowing or haze after a decade.

 

[Jethro]

It seems Canon is planning to use those resin (aka plastic) seagull elements that they originally used in budget designs (like the RF 28mm pancake) and avoided in L-class lenses.
It's yet another cost-cutting measure that they're trying to sell as innovation. And it comes with several downsides like thermal drift and possible yellowing or haze after a decade.

Where does the Patent Application say anything about what the elements will be made of? If you read Richard's article a little more closely, he goes into some depth about what the potential innovations are (assuming any of the embodiments actually go into production) - and I don't recall him mentioning cost cutting as one of them.

Speaking personally, I prefer less expensive and lighter lenses - assuming the optics hold up - and don't spend too much time worrying about whether the elements might possibly 'yellow' in a decade's time.

 

[EricN]

 

[blackcoffee17]

Where does the Patent Application say anything about what the elements will be made of? If you read Richard's article a little more closely, he goes into some depth about what the potential innovations are (assuming any of the embodiments actually go into production) - and I don't recall him mentioning cost cutting as one of them.

Speaking personally, I prefer less expensive and lighter lenses - assuming the optics hold up - and don't spend too much time worrying about whether the elements might possibly 'yellow' in a decade's time.

Why does it matter what the lens is made of? To me, they can make it from cheese or banana leaves, I don't care, as long as optical performance is there. And Canon used PMO lenses for 15+ years now, in lenses like the EF-S 18-135 or EF-M 18-55. Not heard of any yellowing yet.

 

[mimbu]

Totally agree. Their lenses are unacceptably noisy. If Sony can make totally silent lenses so can Canon.

Sony, Sigma, and Tamron are all using magnetic linear drive motors now. Completely silent and ridiculously fast. Sony uses them in almost all their lenses, and certainly in all their new releases. Even in non-G and non-GM lenses. It's an impressive system.

 

[mimbu]

Why does it matter what the lens is made of? To me, they can make it from cheese or banana leaves, I don't care, as long as optical performance is there. And Canon used PMO lenses for 15+ years now, in lenses like the EF-S 18-135 or EF-M 18-55. Not heard of any yellowing yet.

In days gone by Canon made many L lenses with leaded glass elements. The 200/1.8L used them, as did the original EF 85/1.2L (not the second version.) The EF 50/1L too. Many of the early top end L lenses did. It's what gave them that magical look that many of them are famous for. Canon stopped using leaded glass when it was banned in the EU.

Unfortunately something about those leaded glass elements made them subject to haze. Sometimes it could be removed with a lens disassembly and careful cleaning but other times not. I cannot begin to count the number of lenses like this I sent to Canon Japan for cleaning when I was a dealer.

So yes, it does matter what lens elements are made of and decisions that seemed great at the time (and may have actually been great at the time!) can have bad consequences in the future.

 

[Zadak]

In days gone by Canon made many L lenses with leaded glass elements. The 200/1.8L used them, as did the original EF 85/1.2L (not the second version.) The EF 50/1L too. Many of the early top end L lenses did. It's what gave them that magical look that many of them are famous for. Canon stopped using leaded glass when it was banned in the EU.

Unfortunately something about those leaded glass elements made them subject to haze. Sometimes it could be removed with a lens disassembly and careful cleaning but other times not. I cannot begin to count the number of lenses like this I sent to Canon Japan for cleaning when I was a dealer.

So yes, it does matter what lens elements are made of and decisions that seemed great at the time (and may have actually been great at the time!) can have bad consequences in the future.

Sounds weird, it is banned for things that touch food and or possible contact with the skin... I think it's for environmental reasons since I think, at least theoretically, it should still be ok for things like camera lenses. Either that or cost/niche usecase, probably other alternatives to it these days