Canon RF 20-50mm F4 PZ & RF 45mm F1.2 STM Appear on Canon Survey Form

[Navism]

Jared Polin is going to Canon Factory.
I think it is the first time Canon shows their factory to oversea.
https:www.youtube.comwatch?v=wmrHSq5IpDI&t=275s

I hope I can go someday!!

I saw they blur something. I think it is secret from future product!!

 

[mimbu]

The 45/1.2 STM seems likely to be a placeholder that didn't get deleted. The combo makes zero sense. 1.2 but not L? 1.2 but STM? This makes no sense.

The 20-50/4 PZ is not completely absurd. It could be a budget power zoom lens. Maybe a kit lens Canon's compact cine bodies.

 

[bn5fg]

They also have STM full frame L lens.

Cine lenses are MF.

The 45/1.2 STM seems likely to be a placeholder that didn't get deleted. The combo makes zero sense. 1.2 but not L? 1.2 but STM? This makes no sense.

The 20-50/4 PZ is not completely absurd. It could be a budget power zoom lens. Maybe a kit lens Canon's compact cine bodies.

28-70f2.8 and 16-28f2.8 non-L also don't make much sense... until you check the competition.

The Viltrox 35 f/1.2 is a serious threat, and obviously more lenses like this will follow. A cheap, fast-aperture prime is a very logical move for Canon if they want to stay competitive.

You might say I’m just coping because I want cheap lenses—come on, I already own the RF 50 f/1.2 L, RF 50 f/1.4 L, and RF 35 f/1.4 L. I don’t really need the RF 45 f/1.2 that badly. But the reality is that Chinese manufacturers are extremely aggressive. Nikon has responded with cheap 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 options. Why are you so sure Canon won’t do something similar? They’ve already milked the customers willing to pay premium prices.

 

[Thane]

Cine lenses are MF.

28-70f2.8 and 16-28f2.8 non-L also don't make much sense... until you check the competition.

The Viltrox 35 f/1.2 is a serious threat, and obviously more lenses like this will follow. A cheap, fast-aperture prime is a very logical move for Canon if they want to stay competitive.

You might say I’m just coping because I want cheap lenses—come on, I already own the RF 50 f/1.2 L, RF 50 f/1.4 L, and RF 35 f/1.4 L. I don’t really need the RF 45 f/1.2 that badly. But the reality is that Chinese manufacturers are extremely aggressive. Nikon has responded with cheap 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 options. Why are you so sure Canon won’t do something similar? They’ve already milked the customers willing to pay premium prices.

You say cine lenses are MF (which typically they are) but there have been a range of anamorphics with AF released on E mount recently.

Also Viltrox and Tilta are developing PL adapters that autofocus non AF cinema lenses, and the industry has its ears pricked towards it. Viltrox have shown a working prototype, and it’s got people excited. Autofocus is becoming more widely used and accepted in cinema lately, especially with the use of lidar in recent years. There’s definitely a market for cinema lenses with autofocus, so why would it be impossible for Canon to give it a shot?

 

[blackcoffee17]

Cine lenses are MF.

Canon also has dual pixel AF in cinema cameras, so an AF cine lens is not impossible

 

[Exploreshootshare]

After one day of thinking about it, I´m suggesting something some people probably loathe to hear:
What if 45mm is a typo (or a cover) and it actually is the long-awaited unicorn lens that is the 35mm F1.2?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

After one day of thinking about it, I´m suggesting something some people probably loathe to hear:
What if 45mm is a typo (or a cover) and it actually is the long-awaited unicorn lens that is the 35mm F1.2?

No L and STM on such a high end lens, requiring a good amount of movement for fast autofocus... I don't think so.

 

[Cerulean42]

I believe 45mm F1.2 STM could be a modern take on the EF50L. Double Gauss variant design to keep the structure relativly simple and price low, and lean toward SA undercorrection for smooth OOF background, and can make compromises on stuff like coma and corner sharpness

 

[Nemorino]

After one day of thinking about it, I´m suggesting something some people probably loathe to hear:

It's just a fake.

 

[Walrus]

Let's see if the thing is as sharp as my Sigma 40 1.4 Art, while weighting less then a 70-200 2.8 as the Sigma does :-D half weight, half size and no adapter, if it's under 800€ could be interesting doing the swap. STM is fine, my 28-70 STM is as fast as my EF 24-70 2.8 L II USM was, if not faster.

 

[Skux]

A 45mm f/1.2 non-L is a crazy move from Canon, it sounds like something Nikon would make because one of their engineers really like that focal length.

 

[bn5fg]

I believe 45mm F1.2 STM could be a modern take on the EF50L. Double Gauss variant design to keep the structure relativly simple and price low, and lean toward SA undercorrection for smooth OOF background, and can make compromises on stuff like coma and corner sharpness

I highly doubt it. A classical double-Gauss design isn’t really sufficient for f/1.2 in the modern era. On mirrorless, to get 45–50 mm you usually need the optical center farther from the image plane, which already complicates things. So why stick with a simple double-Gauss when you can move closer to the image plane and gain sharpness essentially for free? On top of that, an f/1.2 design clearly needs more glass elements in general to handle aberrations. Just look at Nikon’s 50 mm f/1.4 as an example:

Let's see if the thing is as sharp as my Sigma 40 1.4 Art.

Not happening. That would cannibalize the RF 50 mm f/1.2L like crazy. And they also want to sell mark 2 at some point. Sigma 40 1.4 is a beast of a lens. Plus, the “STM” label usually means fewer and lighter glass groups to move, not the kind of complex optical design needed to match the Bigma.

A 45mm f/1.2 non-L is a crazy move from Canon, it sounds like something Nikon would make because one of their engineers really like that focal length.

Exactly — the whole idea feels very Nikon-inspired.

After one day of thinking about it, I´m suggesting something some people probably loathe to hear:
What if 45mm is a typo (or a cover) and it actually is the long-awaited unicorn lens that is the 35mm F1.2?

I doubt it. A 35 mm f/1.2 would definitely be the halo lens, but Canon would never slip it in as a typo. That would be an L-series with USM/VCM, not some mysterious “STM” entry.

You say cine lenses are MF (which typically they are) but there have been a range of anamorphics with AF released on E mount recently.

I still don't buy an idea of STM Cine lens.

 

[Steve_FR]

After one day of thinking about it, I´m suggesting something some people probably loathe to hear:
What if 45mm is a typo (or a cover) and it actually is the long-awaited unicorn lens that is the 35mm F1.2?

Plot twist …What if the typo was 45mm F/2.0?

 

[Cerulean42]

I highly doubt it. A classical double-Gauss design isn’t really sufficient for f/1.2 in the modern era. On mirrorless, to get 45–50 mm you usually need the optical center farther from the image plane, which already complicates things. So why stick with a simple double-Gauss when you can move closer to the image plane and gain sharpness essentially for free? On top of that, an f/1.2 design clearly needs more glass elements in general to handle aberrations. Just look at Nikon’s 50 mm f/1.4 as an example:

View attachment 226219View attachment 226218


Not happening. That would cannibalize the RF 50 mm f/1.2L like crazy. And they also want to sell mark 2 at some point. Sigma 40 1.4 is a beast of a lens. Plus, the “STM” label usually means fewer and lighter glass groups to move, not the kind of complex optical design needed to match the Bigma.

Exactly — the whole idea feels very Nikon-inspired.

I doubt it. A 35 mm f/1.2 would definitely be the halo lens, but Canon would never slip it in as a typo. That would be an L-series with USM/VCM, not some mysterious “STM” entry.

I still don't buy an idea of STM Cine lens.

The original EF 50 F1.2 L is also a double Gauss based design, with tweaked lens set up and ASPH lens added to improve control of field curvature and coma. A modernized version of the design could use Improved coating that would help with CA, and as I said SA is less of an issue and might even be utilized to create smoother oof background. and most importantly it would be much cheaper than the newer retrofocus based designs. It would be more likely to fit canon's view of a None L fast lens IMO.

 

[bn5fg]

The original EF 50 F1.2 L is also a double Gauss based design

The original EF 50mm f/1.2L is a garbage lens by today’s standards. They are not Voigtlander to release something this bad in 2025. Even if it's non-L.

 

[Nemorino]

I still don't buy an idea of STM Cine lens.

and cine lenses are named "CN R ..." with T-stops not F-stops.

 

[Cerulean42]

The original EF 50mm f/1.2L is a garbage lens by today’s standards. They are not Voigtlander to release something this bad in 2025. Even if it's non-L.

Well, they just re-released the RF75-300 which is literally a last century design.

 

[wizard8080]

Sign me up for the 45mm 1.2. Already ditched the 50mm 1.2 for the 50mm 1.4. Sure miss the 1.2 though I know it’s not a big difference. The heart wants what the heart wants I guess.

 

[bn5fg]

Well, they just re-released the RF75-300 which is literally a last century design.

Because it had literally zero R&D cost and was very cost-effective overall. Making a 45mm f/1.2 from the EF 50mm f/1.2 would still require some R&D, and the EF 50mm f/1.2 isn’t exactly cheap to manufacture. It’s just not optimal.

Sign me up for the 45mm 1.2. Already ditched the 50mm 1.2 for the 50mm 1.4. Sure miss the 1.2 though I know it’s not a big difference. The heart wants what the heart wants I guess.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to sell the RF 50mm f/1.2 after getting the f/1.4. My GAS tells me to catch ’em all.

The 40–50mm range is extremely useful—either paired with an 85mm, or even for shooting an entire portrait session with just one lens and cropping heavily in post. I assume the new lens might not be sharp enough for that second option, but it may be light enough to make a handy 45/85 combo. Time will tell.

 

[riker]

1.2 being small and lightweight?!?
Pleeeease just make a non-L but decent 50/1.4. Now that we are asking for 15y or so.
You know what, I'm fine with a 50/1.8 or 55/1.8 as well.

Current 50/1.8 is just crap despite 24/1.8, 35/1.8 and 85/2 being excellent. So sad
50mm is so important, I just don't get it why Canon is playing it like this.