Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM coming May 9, 2019

[PureClassA]

They are from 2012. Practically infants in terms of lens age.

Yes I was being a bit silly and sarcastic with that one because I selfishly would like to have some RF primes. I just acquired the 351.4 mk2 and 85 L 1.4 EF lenses in the last couple years.

That’s why I’d like to see some more like the RF 35 Macro. Basic non-L glass of great quality and lower tier pricing. Not to mention RP owners need some cheaper glass asap. The mount adapter works great, but adds a lot of extra length to my L glass on there.

 

[Michael Clark]

What I'd love is a slot to stick in your own filter, and have a suite of filters with transmissions of say T/2, T/2.8, T/4, etc. Even for a given T there are infinite different gradations you could use giving different highlight shapes. There's no one best answer.

You're a century or so late.

 

[Michael Clark]

Right.

One substantial difference is that they didn't bother with the EOS-1 until there were enough EF lenses that a pro would actually buy an EOS-1.

In contrast, since all EF lenses (and Leica M and many other!) lenses can be used on the RF, there are actually far more lenses for an RF camera than an EF camera at this point. I don't think it will be a 30 month wait. More likely by next Jan 2020 so pros can get used to them before the Olympics.

BTW the "pros" don't just include telephoto users at the events themselves but videographers doing interviews and so on.

Nowhere did I predict a 30 month span between the EOS R and the first "pro" RF body. I just made an observation about what happened 30 years ago.

Nowhere did I say pros "only" use telephoto lenses. But in the Canon system, only telephoto lenses accept Canon extenders. So in the context of Canon extenders, pros and amateurs alike may only use telephoto lenses with extenders.

 

[Michael Clark]

I remember when I started shooting (maybe a decade ago) that caring more about the body than the lenses was supposed to be the mark of a newbie. That caring more about bodies has become the norm is... interesting.

I see more impressive shots from old bodies with excellent lenses than vice versa, though of course skill is the biggest predictor of quality.

Most advanced shooters still understand that great lens plus mediocre camera will almost always get much better results than mediocre lens and great camera.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not exactly. The EOS-1 was introduced in 1989. Also introduced that year was its holy trinity of lenses: 28-80 f/2.8-4, 20-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8. The first four lenses introduced for the EOS system, in 1987, were the 50 f/1.8, 35-105 f/3.5-4.5, 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 and 100-300 f/5.6, definitely not high end. There were some very high end lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989 but in 1987, the Canon F1 using the FD lens mount was king and Canon was introducing lenses for both the FD and EOS mounts. There was even an 85 f/1.2 for the FD mount. The 50 f/1.0 was the first lens that Canon introduced for the EOS mount while stating that it could not be made for the FD mount. That was in 1989.

In 1987, I owned a serious FD system and was extremely annoyed that Canon didn't see fit to make an FD body that had an in-focus indicator in the viewfinder. It wouldn't have been difficult, although there was no way that an FD lens could have been controlled by an FD body. There simply wasn't room in the mount.

View by series - Canon Camera Museum

You can see Canon's cameras by product series.

global.canon

View by series - Canon Camera Museum

You can see Canon's cameras by product series.

global.canon

View by series - Canon Camera Museum

You can see Canon's cameras by product series.

global.canon

You're placing 21st century expectations on lenses created in the late 1980s to claim that lenses considered "premium" then weren't because they wouldn't be considered "premium" today.

Several 1987, 1988, and 1989 EF lenses released months before the EOS-1 in September of 1989 were considered higher end lenses.

EF 100-300mm f/5.6 L (1987)
EF 135mm f/2.8 SF (1987) was considered an "advanced" lens
EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM (1987)
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 L (1988)
EF 600mm f/4 L USM (1988)
EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM (1988)
EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4 L USM (April 1989) is the equivalent of today's 24-70/2.8. It was out half a year before the EOS-1. It was the 24th EF lens released.

The EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM and EF 85mm f/1.2 L USM were released at the same time as the EOS-1, as were the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L USM and EF 20-35mm f/2.8 L USM.

But at the time, a "Holy Trinity" was a set of fast (i.e. f/2.8 or wider) 24 or 28 or 35/50/85 primes. The EF 35mm f/2 didn't hit the market until 1990, but the EF 28mm f/2.8 had been out since 1987 and the EF 24mm f/2.8 came in 1988. The original EF 50mm f/1.8 (1987) was also a little better build quality than the cheaper "plastic fantastic" EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

Other than the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L, there was not a "premium" 24mm or 35mm "L" until 1997 and 1998, respectively. That ought to tell you all that you need to know about the acceptability of "non-L" primes for use by many pros back in the early EOS era.

 

[Michael Clark]

That was 30 years ago when cameras were released at a snails pace and Canon was first in everything. Its not 1989 any longer and its this type of thinking that has Canon trailing WAY behind Sony in everything.

Actually, Minolta was the first to introduce a new mount with all electronic lens communication and AF in 1985, two years before Canon finally got around to introducing the EOS system.

 

[Michael Clark]

Well, look at the resolution. Higher resolution would rule the a7iii out. Look at the noise. Low noise in dark shots, or high dynamic range would rule the EOS R out, as would a stabilized 24/1.4 shot. I agree it's not a Velvia vs. Kodachrome difference.

When did using an EF 24mm f/1.4 L on a solid tripod become no longer possible? That's as stabilized as it gets.

 

[Bob Howland]

You're placing 21st century expectations on lenses created in the late 1980s to claim that lenses considered "premium" then weren't because they wouldn't be considered "premium" today.

I am??? That was not my intention. I was trying to point out that Canon's rollout strategy for RF bodies and lenses is more than slightly weird. If you don't believe me, look at this:

New BCN Report: EOS RP struggling in Japan

A new BCN report has been released where they tabulate their data for March and April, showing while the EOS RP had a strong start in March, it tailed off in April a month after release. The BCN report goes on to suggest that the lens lineup and the fact that price is not the only consideration...

www.canonnews.com

I did lie about the FD lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989. There was only one, the 200 f/1.8 in 1989. Canon stopped FD lens development after 1985. Does that sound familiar?

 

[Loswr]

I did lie about the FD lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989. There was only one, the 200 f/1.8 in 1989. Canon stopped FD lens development after 1985. Does that sound familiar?

Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.

 

[Bob Howland]

Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.

Ask me again in 3 years. There was no easy upgrade path from FD to EF and there were enormous advantages of EF over FD. This is not true going from EF to RF. My guess is that the tilt shift lenses and big whites will be EF for 10 years or more.

 

[PureClassA]

Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.

Let’s also not forget Canon just re-upped a lot of the larger telephoto EF glass. They wont be rushing to make RF versions of these things either. Unlike my 35L EF, a mount adapters extra inch of length makes little to no appreciable difference on lenses like those. The EF library is also extremely diverse and broad. Not easily replaced. We are still at least several years away from any serious cessation of EF development.

 

[Michael Clark]

Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.

It probably is the case, though, that EF lens development has been placed on the back burner as Canon devotes a large portion of their lens development resources to filling out the RF line.

To mistake a hiatus from major EF lens announcements while the RF lens line is created as a permanent cessation of EF lens development seems to be the mistake many are making.

The fact that we haven't seen similar updates to the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and 500mm f/4L IS II close on the heels of the 400mmm f2.8L IS III and 600mm f/4L IS III updates the way we did with the introduction of the "II" Super Telephotos a few years ago does indicate that EF lens development is not getting the resources it was before RF became such a priority, at least for now.

 

[Loswr]

It probably is the case, though, that EF lens development has been placed on the back burner as Canon devotes a large portion of their lens development resources to filling out the RF line.

To mistake a hiatus from major EF lens announcements while the RF lens line is created as a permanent cessation of EF lens development seems to be the mistake many are making.

The fact that we haven't seen similar updates to the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and 500mm f/4L IS II close on the heels of the 400mmm f2.8L IS III and 600mm f/4L IS III updates the way we did with the introduction of the "II" Super Telephotos a few years ago does indicate that EF lens development is not getting the resources it was before RF became such a priority, at least for now.

Agreed and perfectly logical.

 

[ryebread]

if preorders are 5/9/19, when do you guess shipments will arrive to customers in the USA?

 

[Michael Clark]

if preorders are 5/9/19, when do you guess shipments will arrive to customers in the USA?

When the courier makes their delivery.

 

[ryebread]

When the courier makes their delivery.

lol

I'm actually looking for some insight.
traditionally, how far out after announcement date, does canon take?
3 weeks? 6?

 

[koenkooi]

lol

I'm actually looking for some insight.
traditionally, how far out after announcement date, does canon take?
3 weeks? 6?

The TS-E updates where announced August 2017 and from what I can google up started shipping in December, first online reviews in January.

From wikipedia:

The EF 35 mm f/1.4L II USM is a successor of the EF 35 mm f/1.4L USM. It was announced at the 27th of August 2015 and is available since October same year.

 

[Viggo]

Any news regarding price?

 

[dlmartin81]

The official U.S. price for this lens will be $2,699.00.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1477265-REG/canon_rf_85mm_f_1_2l_usm.html


Cheers!

 

[Ozarker]

I realized it would be too expensive for me now, unfortunately, so I bought a barley used 135 instead. And the day after this news comes along to rub it in, spiffing ...

Great lens you bought!