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

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
366
65
52
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...
And instantly, insanely expensive too. However, after looking at a few different Leica lenses at B&H photo (online) recently, Canon lenses seem cheap - even the new 28-70mm RF f2.0L and the 50mm RF f1.2L.
 
Reactions: Viggo

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,957
470
And instantly, insanely expensive too. However, after looking at a few different Leica lenses at B&H photo (online) recently, Canon lenses seem cheap - even the new 28-70mm RF f2.0L and the 50mm RF f1.2L.
The thing is though, I took some shots with the RF50 and I simply thought, “well, it could’ve cost more for this performance”... I can’t really afford it now, but no wonder it has price tag on it:p
 
Reactions: FramerMCB

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
781
94
A fraction of a stop isn't important, but Canon lens advantage is the way its render. 85 1.2L is still beloved despite there are so many flaw compared to modern design lens such as Sigma 85 1.4Art. A new 85 1.2 RF with faster AF, better built, and corrections of CA will be appreciate for their new EOS Pro camera for those who want it.
The 85mm f/1.2 rending is tied with it's lack of correction of certain flaws, such as CA. It's lack of speed it tied to the elements' size. Compensating for it requires a higher voltage battery, which the current EOS R camera doesn't have.

I don't have the sale number from Canon for any particular lens, but they wouldn't be making it if it's not in their interest to do so.
Their interest could be as simple as 'the lens makes a small profit', or 'it paints Canon as making better lenses than Nikon'.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,336
123
Ottawa Ontario
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.
I'm glad these new high end lenses are available in case I need one some day. But right now I travel a lot and the weight is a big detractor. I need low light capability and some shallow DOF is nice, whereas ultimate sharpness is not that important. A good 50 f/1.4 and a couple of other f/2 primes would do the job nicely ... with IS please. f/2.8 for wide angle primes is fine. I'd love a 24 f/1.2 but it would probably stay home a lot because of it's huge weight and size.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
347
186
The 85mm f/1.2 rending is tied with it's lack of correction of certain flaws, such as CA. It's lack of speed it tied to the elements' size. Compensating for it requires a higher voltage battery, which the current EOS R camera doesn't have.



Their interest could be as simple as 'the lens makes a small profit', or 'it paints Canon as making better lenses than Nikon'.
That's why Canon making pro lens for future pro body. 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 28-70 F2 isn't for consumer EOS R.

Yes perception is very important. I'm actually more interest in Canon initial lens offering than Sony or Nikon initial FF mirrorless offering. Once they have these exotic lens released along with the trinity lens, there will be a worthy camera to use it. They might even have IBIS in their camera as well.
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,324
350
Southeastern USA
Why wouldn’t they want a fast lens? Maybe they want to do astrophotography as well.

Yeah, you’re right- why Canon would make a 24mm 1.4 or 1.2 lens at all. :rolleyes:
I see plenty of good uses for fast lenses, and I use fast primes for portraits and events. I've just never considered personally using wide open for landscape, as I usually go with more DoF. Isolating a foreground subject, yes, but for a vista with depth, I haven't yet tried it. I'm happy to admit I don't know everything, and I love learning new techniques.
Thanks, highdesertmesa for your insights in an earlier reply!
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,933
259
Why wouldn’t they want a fast lens? Maybe they want to do astrophotography as well.

Yeah, you’re right- why Canon would make a 24mm 1.4 or 1.2 lens at all. :rolleyes:
They (Canon) have a bad 24mm 1.4 lens (bad for coma not for sharpness) for astrophotography already and they can improve that too. But astrophotography is well served by Samyang and Sigma which can make very nice lenses for EF mount so Canon can do even better than them even for EF mount!
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,957
470
They (Canon) have a bad 24mm 1.4 lens (bad for coma not for sharpness) for astrophotography already and they can improve that too. But astrophotography is well served by Samyang and Sigma which can make very nice lenses for EF mount so Canon can do even better than them even for EF mount!
Actually, it’s bad for coma, horrible for CA, vignetting and sharpness. And highly inconsistent AF in most cases...
 
Reactions: tron

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,933
259
Actually, it’s bad for coma, horrible for CA, vignetting and sharpness. And highly inconsistent AF in most cases...
OK I didn't know all the other - actually I remembered the stories for AF. So in need for an update also in EF :)
 
Reactions: Viggo

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
723
74
I see plenty of good uses for fast lenses, and I use fast primes for portraits and events. I've just never considered personally using wide open for landscape, as I usually go with more DoF. Isolating a foreground subject, yes, but for a vista with depth, I haven't yet tried it. I'm happy to admit I don't know everything, and I love learning new techniques.
Thanks, highdesertmesa for your insights in an earlier reply!
It's understandable- my interest in fast wides was renewed when I recently picked up a Fuji 16mm 1.4 (24mm equivalent) for use on the X-T3. It's an amazing lens, so much so that It rarely leaves the camera. Not only is it a fast wide for street photography and any other application you may have, it has a less than 6" close working distance, enabling a macro ability that makes it incredibly versatile and fun to use.

Canon should really consider implementing this in whatever new wide angle they come up with as it increases the usefulness of a fast wide immensely.
 
Reactions: YuengLinger

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
723
74
They (Canon) have a bad 24mm 1.4 lens (bad for coma not for sharpness) for astrophotography already and they can improve that too. But astrophotography is well served by Samyang and Sigma which can make very nice lenses for EF mount so Canon can do even better than them even for EF mount!
Agreed. As per my other reply, Canon should really copy the Fuji 16mm 1.4 (24mm equivalent) if they really want to delight their customers.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,415
267
UK
www.flickr.com
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...
Sure, but just because the new mount allows some new designs compared to EF doesn't mean any and all imaginary lenses can be made, or can be made better due to being RF. People are hanging a lot of hopes on a few vague assertions by Canon. Nobody has explained how long lenses (such as a 200mm) would be improved by the new mount.
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,957
470
Sure, but just because the new mount allows some new designs compared to EF doesn't mean any and all imaginary lenses can be made, or can be made better due to being RF. People are hanging a lot of hopes on a few vague assertions by Canon. Nobody has explained how long lenses (such as a 200mm) would be improved by the new mount.
I hardly think it's imaginary when they already have made one... If I had said 200 f1.2, I'm with you...
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,415
267
UK
www.flickr.com
I hardly think it's imaginary when they already have made one... If I had said 200 f1.2, I'm with you...
I don't undestand what you're saying now. I thought you were claiming that an RF 200mm f/1.8 lens (or similar) would be superior to the EF one *because it is RF*. I'm saying that is unproven - do we know the new mount has advantages for longer lenses? If I've misunderstood, apologies.
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
956
68
Sure, but just because the new mount allows some new designs compared to EF doesn't mean any and all imaginary lenses can be made, or can be made better due to being RF. People are hanging a lot of hopes on a few vague assertions by Canon. Nobody has explained how long lenses (such as a 200mm) would be improved by the new mount.
And what's more, side by side, the differences between EF and RF 24-105 lenses are extremely subtle. I blew off version II of the EF because it wasn't any sharper, and even the "improved" RF version is full of compromises. Appears slightly better at the long end, but slightly worse(!) at the wide end...

I mean, not a bad lens, think it will be an adequate one-lens-fits-all travel kit, but it just simply isn't clearly superior to the EF version. Not in the way that the 50 1.2 is.
 
Reactions: tron

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,957
470
I don't undestand what you're saying now. I thought you were claiming that an RF 200mm f/1.8 lens (or similar) would be superior to the EF one *because it is RF*. I'm saying that is unproven - do we know the new mount has advantages for longer lenses? If I've misunderstood, apologies.
To me it’s pretty obvious that RF gives the opportunity for better lenses than EF... Clearly proved with the 50 f1.2 and 28-70 f2. What on earth would Canon create a new mount for otherwise?

It might not have been proven that longer lenses are also better with the RF mount, but I don’t see any reason they wouldn’t be better. The superteles for EF are already near perfect, but one of the the advantages of the RF mount is that it lets Canon reduce size or add quality. So a 200 f1.8 might easily be smaller and lighter than the EF f2.0, and at a larger aperture. How is this not obvious?
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,933
259
And what's more, side by side, the differences between EF and RF 24-105 lenses are extremely subtle. I blew off version II of the EF because it wasn't any sharper, and even the "improved" RF version is full of compromises. Appears slightly better at the long end, but slightly worse(!) at the wide end...

I mean, not a bad lens, think it will be an adequate one-lens-fits-all travel kit, but it just simply isn't clearly superior to the EF version. Not in the way that the 50 1.2 is.
Nice to remind of this because this is another thread full of BS from RF mount fans who don't even have EOS R yet!