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

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
701
80
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.
Hi Act444

I've been interested to hear more about the RF 24-105/4L. This review https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_rf_24_105mm_f4_l_is_review suggests the RF version is a step up from the EF versions, but I take it you disagree with that? I'm curious because for all the attention the RF 50/1.2L and 28-70/2L lenses are getting, I'll be struggling to see RF as being a significant improvement if it isn't delivering better performance than EF for things like the 24-105 and the 35/1.8 macro.

As for the RF 50/1.2L, it's a much newer, bigger and heavier lens than the the EF 50/1.2L. To me the more appropriate comparison is the RF 50/1.2L against things like the 50 Art and the Otus 55. From what I've seen so far, the RF 501.2L seems nice bearing in mind it has about a half-stop advantage in aperture, but subject to that it doesn't seem much better than, say, the 50 Art. For all the positive reviews I'm seeing about the RF 50/1.2L, the comparisons with the 50 Art don't blow me away, eg see https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/4/ and https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/09/25/review-canon-rf-50mm-f1-2-l-usm-canon-rf-mount/

Overall I'm more in interested in the EOS R than I expected to be (I really didn't expect to be interested at all), so I'm not trying to bash the R system. The thing which has got me most interested is what I've seen some people saying about the AF accuracy with wide apertures and in low light. However, I remain to be convinced about how much more the RF mount offers over EF. We shall see!
 
Last edited:

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,874
430
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!
I think the main reason the 24-105 isn’t any better in RF mount is because cost ... and cost.... it’s a kit-lens that they want to be cheap enough for enough people to buy into the system and realize, well, it isn’t fantastic, but it didn’t cost insane amounts of money either; time to upgrade to a 28-70 f2 or a RF 24-70 IS... same goes for every other kit lens. It’s not that they couldn’t make it better, but it would be 2500 usd and that’s not it’s place in the line up.
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

MayaTlab

EOS 80D
Oct 6, 2015
177
64
I think the main reason the 24-105 isn’t any better in RF mount is because cost.
I'm not sure about that. The Nikon 24-70mm f4 S is heaps and bounds better than previous 24-70mm lenses and doesn't cost and arm and leg.
Perhaps Canon's 24-105mm RF has been designed within a set of parameters and requirements (designed for Canon's automated manufacturing lines, or for very low samples variation, or with a specific AF drive with video in mind, for example) which prevented Canon from significantly improving the IQ.
One big advantage of the RF version, IMO, is that it allows the high speed function (p149 in the manual) to work, while I believe EF lenses don't.
 
Reactions: Viggo

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,874
430
I'm not sure about that. The Nikon 24-70mm f4 S is heaps and bounds better than previous 24-70mm lenses and doesn't cost and arm and leg.
Perhaps Canon's 24-105mm RF has been designed within a set of parameters and requirements (designed for Canon's automated manufacturing lines, or for very low samples variation, or with a specific AF drive with video in mind, for example) which prevented Canon from significantly improving the IQ.
One big advantage of the RF version, IMO, is that it allows the high speed function (p149 in the manual) to work, while I believe EF lenses don't.
Indeed, and I forgot to try that high speed viewing function when I tried the RF50 ... and I thought the AF was quite a bit better on the RF24-105?
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
I think the main reason the 24-105 isn’t any better in RF mount is because cost ... and cost.... it’s a kit-lens that they want to be cheap enough for enough people to buy into the system and realize, well, it isn’t fantastic, but it didn’t cost insane amounts of money either; time to upgrade to a 28-70 f2 or a RF 24-70 IS... same goes for every other kit lens. It’s not that they couldn’t make it better, but it would be 2500 usd and that’s not it’s place in the line up.
Maybe but then cost is the main reason for not making it better in EF mount too. But many posters were saying blindly about the RF mount lenses: better, cheaper, smaller...
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
527
178
Can’t wait for those two, even thought I prefer RF 20mm F1.2.

Sony releases a very competitive price, $1398, for Sony 24mm F1.4 GM:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1435887-REG/sony_fe_24mm_f_1_4_gm.html

Canon should consider it and price RF L lenses reasonably in order to compete.
Canon is not looking to compete with Sony at all. The RF 50/1.2 L is the indication on how big or expensive these are going to be (after the holy trinity of zooms will be released, that is at a higher priority) the 24/1.2 L might be a bit smaller and the 85/1.2 L might be even a good bit bigger, but neither of them is going to be cheaper.
These lenses will be well over 2000$ and the higher aperture with a new level of optical performance will allow that pricing. Still, they look a bit of a bargain compared to Leica SL lenses.
The EF lenses are still there for people who want f/1.2 (or f/1.4) for a cheaper price.
 
Reactions: FramerMCB

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
Canon is not looking to compete with Sony at all. The RF 50/1.2 L is the indication on how big or expensive these are going to be (after the holy trinity of zooms will be released, that is at a higher priority) the 24/1.2 L might be a bit smaller and the 85/1.2 L might be bigger, but neither of them is going to be cheaper.
These lenses will be comfortably over 2000$ and the higher aperture with a new level of optical performance will allow that pricing. Still, they look a bit of a bargain compared to Leica SL lenses.
Hmmm you must mean uncomfortably over 2000$ :D:D:D
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,874
430
Maybe but then cost is the main reason for not making it better in EF mount too. But many posters were saying blindly about the RF mount lenses: better, cheaper, smaller...
Better OR smaller, and not cheaper I think ...
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
Better OR smaller, and not cheaper I think ...
And in case of 24-105 all the above are questionable. The IQ of RF 24-105 is more or less the same with the IQ of EF24-105 II which is more or less the same with the IQ of EF 24-105 version I which - surpise - has the SAME size and weight with RF 24-105.

The only advantage is the IS improvement between all these 24-105 lenses.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,874
430
And in case of 24-105 all the above are questionable. The IQ of RF 24-105 is more or less the same with the IQ of EF24-105 II which is more or less the same with the IQ of EF 24-105 version I which - surpise - has the SAME size and weight with RF 24-105.

The only advantage is the IS improvement between all these 24-105 lenses.
Still, it’s a kit lens and is known to be the worst L :p
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
Still, it’s a kit lens and is known to be the worst L :p
So for now there is no comparison of equal lenses. The EF50 is super old and they could make a much better EF50 1.2 if they wanted to. If they made a new RF35mm 1.4L would it be better than EF35mm 1.4L II? Based on the fact that this EF lens is super good let me guess: NO! Would it be cheaper? Let me guess NO! Would it be smaller? I seriously doubt it but they are free to make one so as to be able to compare apples to apples...
 
Reactions: zim

fox40phil

EOS T7i
Apr 12, 2013
75
16
Germany
www.phileas-schoenberg.de
Now Canon is going to have a new premium system hum?! Als those new lenses are also needed for EF! Not only R -.-.... the new 50 1.2 is a stunna! Also the 24 1.2f will be... I would buy those, but not for 2500€ per lens -.-. And only for EF.

The are now splitting the Canon photographers into two systems!
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,874
430
Okay, Canon made a new mount because new and everything will stay the same, except the lenses are not interchangeable. Yesssshh, that seems logical ....
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
5,948
740
Alberta, Canada
Okay, Canon made a new mount because new and everything will stay the same, except the lenses are not interchangeable. Yesssshh, that seems logical ....
We, including Canon, know that this was a necessary unfortunate move that technology has demanded if Canon is to stay on top. These kind of moves always disadvantage customers in one way or another. My purchased Canon gear is still as good as it ever was and I now may have the option of dabbling in the R system (camera initially) with the benefit of a great solution to NDs for my 11-24. Then, it's my choice as to whether I fork out for some of these impressive new lenses. Should I gripe?

Jack
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
982
140
Davidson, NC
So for now there is no comparison of equal lenses. The EF50 is super old and they could make a much better EF50 1.2 if they wanted to. If they made a new RF35mm 1.4L would it be better than EF35mm 1.4L II? Based on the fact that this EF lens is super good let me guess: NO! Would it be cheaper? Let me guess NO! Would it be smaller? I seriously doubt it but they are free to make one so as to be able to compare apples to apples...
I would guess that 35mm would be in the range that could benefit from the new mount. Wouldn’t there be need for less strong retrofocus and then less correction to compensate, so maybe fewer elements to do the same thing and maybe more room to compensate for other things? Maybe less vignetting? There would seem to be options for some mix of smaller/cheaper/better.

I’m obviously guessing and may have the terminology garbled, but do I have at least sort of a point? If not, then I wonder why a new mount.
 
Reactions: Larsskv

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
897
124
I would guess that 35mm would be in the range that could benefit from the new mount. Wouldn’t there be need for less strong retrofocus and then less correction to compensate, so maybe fewer elements to do the same thing and maybe more room to compensate for other things? Maybe less vignetting? There would seem to be options for some mix of smaller/cheaper/better.

I’m obviously guessing and may have the terminology garbled, but do I have at least sort of a point? If not, then I wonder why a new mount.
At this point the discussion of potential quality of RF lens lenses is largely theoretical, speculative or anecdotal. There is the question of how much room for improvement there is beyond the quality of the best EF lenses in practical terms. A lot of EF lenses are pretty good, especially in the f4.0-f8.0 range, which is where I tend to be.
 
Reactions: tron

zim

EOR R
Oct 18, 2011
1,863
53
So for now there is no comparison of equal lenses. The EF50 is super old and they could make a much better EF50 1.2 if they wanted to. If they made a new RF35mm 1.4L would it be better than EF35mm 1.4L II? Based on the fact that this EF lens is super good let me guess: NO! Would it be cheaper? Let me guess NO! Would it be smaller? I seriously doubt it but they are free to make one so as to be able to compare apples to apples...

^^^ This ^^^
The Canon white paper was a joke in this respect. I'm surprised it wasn't more widely criticised.
Just realised I've been here before on this subject!