Canon RF 24mm f/1.2L & RF 85mm f/1.2L in the works [CR1]

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,879
433
This can be found in aftermarket. I like the idea of having no aftermarket competition. How about 70 - 200 F2 IS ? Probably 15K :)
What do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.

Oh! And Canon should also bring back their 300 f1.8, I would love to have a go with one of those:cool:
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
5,950
745
Alberta, Canada
Sometimes I wonder if people expect/deliver in their work or occupation at the same level as they expect Canon to. I suspect it's always someone else who should be delivering the best and not them. It'd be nice if I were wrong, but reading CR leaves me shaking my head an awful lot.:)

I have not the slightest doubt that Canon is delivering the best they can given the various constraints be they physical or financial. They are not interested in messing up purposefully and put a lot of research into the decisions they make. Yes, poor decisions can happen but overall I don't see any reason for the constant negativity directed their way. I certainly have no plan to jump ship.

Jack
 
Reactions: jd7 and Viggo

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
What do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.

Oh! And Canon should also bring back their 300 f1.8, I would love to have a go with one of those:cool:
There was an old Canon very good EF 200 f/1.8L
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,384
222
UK
www.flickr.com
Strangest? I think it is a perfectly rational explanation for why I don't see the world like an f/1.2 lens wide open when in bright sunlight. There are of course other substances and occasions for dilating pupils artificially. I also don't go out taking pictures right after a visit to the eye doctor. In fact I try to do as little as possible outside in bright sunlight then, even in very dark sunglasses.
Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.
 
Reactions: stevelee

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,384
222
UK
www.flickr.com
No IBIS and no IS ? How is canon going to hold up to competition?

In the future I see only red color loving people buying canon...
Gosh, is everyone getting wobblier as time goes on? Somehow we've managed to take great photographs with non-IS non-IBIS setups for a long time!

I like IS, I'd like to try IBIS. But the idea that once a feature is introduced, any product without it is obsolete or unusable is one of the most ridiculous and pathetic tropes of our age (especially on these forums).
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
5,950
745
Alberta, Canada
Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.
I guess it depends on individual brains but I see humans as more like video recorders not cameras but maybe that's because I don't have anything close to a "photographic memory".;) In fact that's why I love photography - it serves as an external memory since what I see is so fleeting and inaccurate even just minutes after the fact.:(

Jack
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
988
143
Davidson, NC
Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.
Sure, looking at the real world and looking at a picture are going to be very different experiences for reasons you cited as well as others. When you look at something (and everything works right), you have two eyes focused on it and a considerable amount of peripheral vision. Not only is the peripheral vision out of focus to a greater or lesser degree, but you are seeing with the less sensitive parts of the retina. Focusing on a distant object not only makes something much closer out of focus, but also gives double images. With dilated pupils in bright light, of course you are more aware of the washed-out look than the blurriness, even with somewhat dark glasses.

Just as the brain develops way of seeing in real life, so we develop a language, so to speak, of seeing pictures. I'm saying for me, extremely shallow depth of field comes off as a special effect, often a distracting one, like extreme HDR for another example. Yes, all photography is an effect in that sense. Some effects are more effective and/or realistic than others.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
988
143
Davidson, NC
I guess it depends on individual brains but I see humans as more like video recorders not cameras but maybe that's because I don't have anything close to a "photographic memory".;) In fact that's why I love photography - it serves as an external memory since what I see is so fleeting and inaccurate even just minutes after the fact.:(
Jack
Perhaps video made with a fisheye lens approximates how we are experiencing the world as we move around as much as anything, if projected sufficiently large.

In response to the threat of television to their business, movie companies tried various ways to transcend what could be done on TV and perhaps give a more "realistic" appearance mimicking our vision: widescreen, Cinemascope, Cinerama, 3-D, and on up to the present Imax and Omnimax.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,879
433
Yeah, as stated before, I’m fully aware of that one, they also have a 300 f1.8 I bet most people don’t know...

That’s not the point, the point is RF lenses will be better than EF, and an RF lens made today will be EPICALLY better than an EF from the Stone Age.

Buying the EF 200 f1.8 today is expensive, and you have no way of knowing when it fails, and when it does you’re screwed, because it’s not serviced anymore, so it will be a paper weight... a very expensive one...
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,384
222
UK
www.flickr.com
Just as the brain develops way of seeing in real life, so we develop a language, so to speak, of seeing pictures. I'm saying for me, extremely shallow depth of field comes off as a special effect, often a distracting one, like extreme HDR for another example. Yes, all photography is an effect in that sense. Some effects are more effective and/or realistic than others.
Oh, I see what you mean. And I agree. Shallow DOF work is unlike what we see, and in that sense a 'special effect'.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,384
222
UK
www.flickr.com
Yeah, as stated before, I’m fully aware of that one, they also have a 300 f1.8 I bet most people don’t know...

That’s not the point, the point is RF lenses will be better than EF, and an RF lens made today will be EPICALLY better than an EF from the Stone Age.

Buying the EF 200 f1.8 today is expensive, and you have no way of knowing when it fails, and when it does you’re screwed, because it’s not serviced anymore, so it will be a paper weight... a very expensive one...
Well it won't be serviced by Canon, but there are surely third party repair shops that might have a go? As more lenses fail, more spare parts are liberated (this is off topic I know).

Not sure about 'epically better' though, especially *due to* the RF mount. Optically a new 200mm lens should be better due to the way lenses are designed and made now compared to 30 years ago, and they are building to finer tolerances as sensors resolve more. But those issues are independent of the mount.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,879
433
Well it won't be serviced by Canon, but there are surely third party repair shops that might have a go? As more lenses fail, more spare parts are liberated (this is off topic I know).

Not sure about 'epically better' though, especially *due to* the RF mount. Optically a new 200mm lens should be better due to the way lenses are designed and made now compared to 30 years ago, and they are building to finer tolerances as sensors resolve more. But those issues are independent of the mount.
Canon specifically has said that the RF mount lets them do lens designs that wasn’t possible with EF mount. 28-70 f2 sharper than the 24-70 both wide open, unprecedented lens, and I’m not even gonna mention the EF 50 L and the RF50 L, I did anyway:LOL:

24 f1.2? I think a new 200 f1.8 in RF mount would be an instant classic...
 
Reactions: FramerMCB

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
344
51
51
For astro there is a super lens: The Sigma 14mm 1.8 Art. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 (~1 stop) is covered by the fact that the wider Sigma can be used with almost twice the shutter time (It's a 14mm vs a 24mm) without startrails so you can use the same ISO. Assuming you need Ultra wide of course. I always do need it in landscape astrophotography photos.
And from everything I've read and actual samples I've seen, the Sigma 14mm may very well be the best Astro lens (at least in the UWA category) currently offered...
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
344
51
51
As an aside...I
They likely will make RF lenses smaller and lighter as well. But I see them showing the pros "Here is what can be done" and stick with us on this one. Remember the first EOS were the 650/620 cameras. Nothing great and mind blowing about the bodies except they took the revolutionary EF lenses that blew the competition away for literally decades before the others caught up. Now you have the revolutionary RF mount with the extra control ring and ability to program the lens including which way to turn the focus ring. Leaving all others in the technology dust again.
As an aside (Off topic), I owned an EOS 620 - loved that camera. Then it was stolen out of my truck...:cry: