Bad news: The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM has been pushed into 2023

[Berowne]

If this list is correct then we can expect the RF 24 mm to be f/1.2 and the RF 135 mm to be f/1.4

Canon to announce RF mount cinema lenses alongside the Cinema EOS C300S and Cinema EOS C500S

Last month I reported that Canon would be bringing three new Cinema EOS cameras including the Cinema EOS C300S and Cinema EOS C500S that will shoot in 8K, as we

www.canonrumors.com

I can't see Canon developing two completely different sets of lenses for cinema and photo when they can make two versions of the same lens.

The list is not correct. In the CANON SUMIRE PRIME SERIES the 24 and 135 are 24mm T1.5 and 135mm T2.2.

 

[Chaitanya]

I'd say the chances of either are close to zero, sadly. Maybe in 3-4 years time, but I think these types of lenses sell in pretty low numbers, so they'll be right at the bottom of Canon's priority list. If you can live with manual focus and no electronic linkage, the Laowa macros have much to commend them. Other than that, I think you're stuck with the EF 60mm and 180mm until Tamron or Sigma get around to producing AF versions. Unfortunately it's not even possible to use an extender with the RF 100mm macro.

I already have Laowa 15 and 100 along with EF 100mm L so not getting RF 100mm Macro anytime soon, but would really like too get updated 180mm Macro for butterflying and venomous snakes for RF mount. For now I am borrowing Sigma 180mm f2.8 for odd times when I shoot butterflies but its seriously heavy to carry in field. Apparently Sony holds a stake in Tamron so they might not make lenses for either Z or RF and in case of Sigma they stated they wont make lenses for closed off systems so once again RF and Z users are out of luck.

 

[xow]

Very disappointing. 35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, and I've been eagerly waiting for this lens since I got the R5, nearly 2 years ago.

I enjoy the 35 f/2 and my RF L 28-70 covers that range too, but I'd have just bought the EF L 35 and adapter if I knew it would be this long.

 

[Skux]

No worries I'll be here chilling with my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM which I can use on my film bodies

 

[David - Sydney]

Nothing shocking.
The EF 35 1.4 does a great job so far.
Canon RF really needs a professional ultra wide (14mm???) and even more the RF 135mm.

TS-E 14mm with AF?

 

[LogicExtremist]

Not a surprise. These are vanity lenses. I doubt they contribute much to the bottom line. It seems like Canon is concentrating on filling out their range of bodies, while adding mid-range enthusiast and consumer lenses to the lineup. Makes sense. Canon is a business and their decisions are driven by what will increase profits, not what forum geeks want.

Personally, I've already got every lens I'm interested in, except for lenses that Canon will never make or lenses I will never be able to afford.

A midrange 85mm f/1.4 portrait lens is seriously missing. Right now there's the choice of either getting a budget part macro 85mm f/2 with messed up AF and sub-standard busy bokeh (that's not a true 85mm either), or paying through the nose for the super-expensive RF 85mm 1.2L lenses.

This is more of a key focal length than the odd focal lengths. It's not like portrait photography is a narrow niche genre!

 

[David - Sydney]

maybe Canon is changing the colour of the blue goo

 

[David - Sydney]

Cine lenses and photo lenses are very different. Whatever you read before, I urge you to learn more about the subject.

Here's a graphic from Adorama in an article last updated on 4/14/22:

******

View attachment 205184

Is par-focal listed? I would have thought that this was the main difference optically. Many of the other items are mostly physical issues.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Given that the excellent 35mm 1.4 ii has excellent sharpness and little to no color fringing through the use of BR optics, I think it would be a tough act to follow.

The bokeh is not going to be as big of a difference between a 1.2 and 1.4 on a 35mm as it is on a 85mm and BR is already used in the current version (no justification for charges of 'new' tech used over the previous version like the 85mm).

The marginal benefit of 1/3 of a stop and a native mount while being either roughly the same size or bigger than the current EF version would make it hard to justify a big price hike.

My guess is Canon would want to price it at $3k but finding market may have a hard time swallowing the price given the native brand alternative.

Canon simply made the EF version too good for the RF to differentiate from.

They can always add some silly gimmick that nobody asked for or wants, such as a spherical aberration control, and a add a thousand dollars to the price.

 

[navastronia]

Is par-focal listed? I would have thought that this was the main difference optically. Many of the other items are mostly physical issues.

Indeed, the physical issues are what affect the cinema usability so much. Things like the lens being reparable, the focus system, the focus throw, having consistent lengths and weights (this is incredibly important when swapping lenses in and out while shooting), consistent and calibrated T-stops . . . the list goes on.

I used to work for a gear house in Los Angeles, and the equipment has to be incredibly tough to hold up to the use it gets on film sets. It stings to hear it, but everyone who walked into the place used to make fun of L glass (like the EF 24-70 2.8 L II) because up and coming cinematographers would want it for their shoots, but all the actual professionals would take literally any cine glass over that.

 

[koenkooi]

Is par-focal listed? I would have thought that this was the main difference optically. Many of the other items are mostly physical issues.

That reminds me: with the (non-cine) RF system introduction Rudy said something like "With the faster communication speed we can adjust focus on-the-fly while zooming to make every zoom lens par-focal." I haven't actually noticed that working, did it ever get implemented?

 

[David - Sydney]

That reminds me: with the (non-cine) RF system introduction Rudy said something like "With the faster communication speed we can adjust focus on-the-fly while zooming to make every zoom lens par-focal." I haven't actually noticed that working, did it ever get implemented?

All the non-cine Canon lenses that I have read reviews on mention that they aren't par-focal but perhaps I missed some. It would be good for video and for macro if this was implemented though.

 

[jeffa4444]

A midrange 85mm f/1.4 portrait lens is seriously missing. Right now there's the choice of either getting a budget part macro 85mm f/2 with messed up AF and substandard busy bokeh (that's not a true 85mm either, or paying through the nose for the super-expensive RF 85mm 1.2L lenses.

This is more of a key focal length than the odd focal lengths. It's not like portrait photography is a narrow niche genre!

I’m also waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM to show up. The RF 85mm f1.2L is a. Too expensive for my budget and b. Way too heavy. The RF 85mm f2 is a non starter I tried it and the focus is too erratic and slow. I’m still using the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM with the adaptor (it’s the only non RF lens I have any longer) The quality of this lens, bokeh, coupled with size, weight and focusing speed is for me the perfect 85mm but the adaptor adds weight and makes the lens longer & heavier hence why I hope Canon adds this soon to the lens list. Along with the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and the RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM they are my go to portrait lens line up. The RF 135mm f1.4L is longer than I would normally consider for a fixed focal length lens for portraiture however I may well try it when it arrives.

 

[Juangrande]

I am happy with the EF 35/1.4L II. Beautiful lens, no upgrade necessary.

I have the EF 35/1.4L II and I’ve been anticipating the RF 1.2 since it was announced and will definitely trade up. I would like the extra low light and subject separation for my environmental and editorial portraits. But I am still quite satisfied with the adapted EF version, it’s a great lens.

 

[Del Paso]

I’d preorder those babies in a minute. And an updated MP-E.

Time passes by.
I had the choice between waiting for an improbable Rf 180mm macro in X years from now, and an EF 180 in mint condition for Euro700.
Guess what I did.
My sharpest Canon lens.
I cannot imagine the not yet (never?) produced RF 180 macro to become so much better than the EF version, not to mention how expensive it would be...

 

[Del Paso]

Indeed, the physical issues are what affect the cinema usability so much. Things like the lens being reparable, the focus system, the focus throw, having consistent lengths and weights (this is incredibly important when swapping lenses in and out while shooting), consistent and calibrated T-stops . . . the list goes on.

I used to work for a gear house in Los Angeles, and the equipment has to be incredibly tough to hold up to the use it gets on film sets. It stings to hear it, but everyone who walked into the place used to make fun of L glass (like the EF 24-70 2.8 L II) because up and coming cinematographers would want it for their shoots, but all the actual professionals would take literally any cine glass over that.

Just take a look at the usually very reliable Leica M camera lenses.
It can't be a coincidence that their specific Cine Division hat to reengineer the M photo lenses from scratch in order to satisfy the cinema professionals...

 

[koenkooi]

Time passes by.
I had the choice between waiting for an improbable Rf 180mm macro in X years from now, and an EF 180 in mint condition for Euro700.
Guess what I did.
My sharpest Canon lens.
I cannot imagine the not yet (never?) produced RF 180 macro to become so much better than the EF version, not to mention how expensive it would be...

I would assume it would have 100-500L class IS and much faster AF.

But I don’t know if I’d want to replace my EF180L with a €2500 RF180L, buying an R7 for that money would get me similar enough pixels per bug at a larger working distance with the RF100L.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I would assume it would have 100-500L class IS and much faster AF.

But I don’t know if I’d want to replace my EF180L with a €2500 RF180L, buying an R7 for that money would get me similar enough pixels per bug at a larger working distance with the RF100L.

Or you can put the EF 180mm macro on an existing EF crop body you may have (90D) and get even more focal length without buying a new body.

Not sure how much value a mirrorless R7 body adds in macro (focus bracketing maybe?) as a lot of macro is manual focus with mirror flipped up in Live View on the back LCD on DSLRs which is using it as a mirrorless anyway.

 

[InchMetric]

Beware! It's not a fact. It's a rumor!
We do not know if Canon ever planed to release a 35 1.2 this year or when ever.

Why do you have an account at a rumor site?

 

[LogicExtremist]

Why do you have an account at a rumor site?

Maybe Nemorino is here to see when rumours are confirmed as fact, as they do list real product release news here too!