Agreed but it is not yet here and I anticipate an avalanche of criticism about it being an extending design.
I do look forward to it however and will sell my trusty ca.2002 70-200 2.8L IS as soon as the new one appears.
Hyperfocal:
In photography, hyperfocal distance is a distance beyond which all objects can be brought into an "acceptable" focus. As the hyperfocal distance is the focus distance giving the maximum depth of field, it is the most desirable distance to set the focus of a fixed-focus camera.
Is that what you meant to say?
oh, ok. there are couple of points to consider:Not sure - by hyperfocal I mean "with just internally moving elements" when refocusing, simply not extending ....
Not hyperfocal.Why wouldn't it be hyperfocal?
Sorry for the delay (short trip to France).What vintage lenses?
Canon FD?
I really want to go with R so as to use my FD/FL and R vintage lenses and I was wondering if this worked with non-electric lenses. My delay at this point is I am greedy and want IBIS as well as I have been completely spoiled with IS in my current Canon lenses.
Thank you in advance for your response.
With so few RF lenses currently available it makes me wonder why Canon would develop a second 35 mm prime.
This is a CR1 rumor.
Actually, f/1.2 is what got me buying lenses again. It'll be what keeps me buying. But I am just 1 guy.Good to know. 135mm is my one lens combo for 90% of my pictures. I bought into the Canon EOS system because of the excellent lenses. This f1.2/ 35mm will be a gem, no doubt. But since Canon goes all f1.2 with their RL primes I am out. I expected something excellent but practical, maybe f1.4/35 L, a 2/28L or 2/40L. Such a unpractical, heavy and show off 1.2thing like the 1.2/50 will bring Canon laurels but not many customers. Sad. It looks like only Zeiss could keep me with Canon if they release something practical soon. I doubt it. Canon, please, kick McKinsey out and get advice from photographers.
A Canon 105 f/1.2L, no matter the size, would make me swoon. I'd be a buyer.105/1.2 would be a size if Sigma 105/1.4 Art and it is absolute huge. An Absurdity. Mine is for sale.
135/1.2 would be the size of 200/2 if not larger. Price? I guess one would have take out a second mortgage
would cost around US$4000 likely if not more.A Canon 105 f/1.2L, no matter the size, would make me swoon. I'd be a buyer.
A Canon 105 f/1.2L, no matter the size, would make me swoon. I'd be a buyer.
I am genuinely keen to understand the limitation. Any hints?I don't think physics would allow such a lens to be built (based on the current RF mount dimensions).
I am genuinely keen to understand the limitation. Any hints?
Speaking just for myself, f/1.2 anything at all has me excited to buy. So do f/2 zooms. Without those, I'd have stayed EF. But it will be hard to beat the EF 35mm f/1.4L II.I don't want to second guess Canon's business strategy, but I am more than a bit perplexed by the number of uber-costly lenses Canon is announcing. I'd love to see the studies that show they will receive sufficient return on investment in a shrinking camera market to warrant the heavy development and production costs these lenses must require.