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

Timedog

EOS R
Aug 31, 2018
49
28
50 1.2 and 28-70 F2 definitely are stunner. They already patented 70-130 F2. I wouldn't be surprised they are working on 14-28 as well. I just hope they come out with 105 1.4 too.
If they release a 70-130 f/2 so many portrait photographers will either buy it or sales vate over it (if they're not Canon shooters, or don't have the budget). That will be an amazing lens.
 

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
763
183
^^^ 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!
What makes you say the Canon white paper was a joke? Even Roger Cicala seems to have fate in it:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/09/rogers-rants-my-canonnikon-mirrorless-camera-unfanboy-opinion/

I expect the R mount to have size, weight and quality advantages over the EF mount especially for wide angle lenses, but not for telephoto lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

zim

EOR R
Oct 18, 2011
1,863
53
What makes you say the Canon white paper was a joke? Even Roger Cicala seems to have fate in it:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/09/rogers-rants-my-canonnikon-mirrorless-camera-unfanboy-opinion/

I expect the R mount to have size, weight and quality advantages over the EF mount especially for wide angle lenses, but not for telephoto lenses.
you missed out 'in this respect' I'm only talking about the 50 comparison.
because I think it's nonsense to compare the sharpness of the 50l ef to the new 50r, how many years apart are those lenses, how different was the design criteria's, hardly apples with apples. and yet that is what they choose to show off how much better they can do with a new mount.

edit;
having said all that I'm pretty intrigued when I read articles like this
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2018/10/21/that-old-canon-50-f-1-2-ef-rocks-on-the-eos-r/
I'd love to hear if anyone on CR has tried this combo and what they think
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,092
1,031
Alberta, Canada
This topic has me thinking Canon senses that their strength in the market is largely due to lenses and that they now will be able to differentiate themselves more due to advantages relative to the choice they've just made. What would be better than to have a series of lenses that have been independently evaluated as being noticeably better than the opposition, even if they are more pricey.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larsskv

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
763
183
you missed out 'in this respect' I'm only talking about the 50 comparison.
because I think it's nonsense to compare the sharpness of the 50l ef to the new 50r, how many years apart are those lenses, how different was the design criteria's, hardly apples with apples. and yet that is what they choose to show off how much better they can do with a new mount.

edit;
having said all that I'm pretty intrigued when I read articles like this
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2018/10/21/that-old-canon-50-f-1-2-ef-rocks-on-the-eos-r/
I'd love to hear if anyone on CR has tried this combo and what they think

Well, the 35L was a big part of the discussion when you slammed the white paper, and we all know that the EF and RF 50L- lenses are designed wastly different, so you can not draw any conclusions on the white paper validity out of the 50mm lens offerings.

I am one of the most eager defenders of the EF 50L on this forums. It has given me a substantial amount of the pictures I love the most. It sure has it's flaws, but when you hit with the focus, it creates much of the same qualities that the 85LII is known for. It does offer a special quality, that does not show up in mtf charts and standardized testing. I am not a Steve Huff fan myself, but I very much agree on his opinion of the EF 50L.

I have used the EF 50L on the EOS R quite a bit. It focuses substantially more accurately on the EOS R, than on my DSLRs. However, for some reason I have way more problems with focus shift than I have with DSLRs. The EF50L will focus great on the EOS R between f1.2 and f2, but stop down to f3.5, and you will consequently get back focused images. I haven't noticed that problem with either my 1DXII or 5DIV. This is a disappointment, because the EF50L can still offer fantastic bokeh at f3.5.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,617
311
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO.
The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII.
Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,172
734
I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO.
The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII.
Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.
You speak like what you’re saying are facts ...
 
Last edited:

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
763
183
I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO.
The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII.
Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.
I agree with regards to the possibility of a development of an "EF II" variant with better communication. I am sure that could be done.

Other than that, I disagree with your statements.

Did you read Canons "white paper", or at least Roger Cicalas take on it? If not, you wont be able to convince anybody who did read it, that there aren't substantial upsides to the new RF-mount.
 

eyeheartny

EOS R | 50 1.2 RF
Sep 3, 2018
56
32
I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO.
The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII.
Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.
What are you basing your claims about the RF mount off of? Tell us your analysis based on optics, the physics of light, and how flange distance affects the lens performance.

Another important question: have you shot with the R and the RF lenses? If so, which ones? For how long in what conditions? Do you personally have a side by side comparing the lenses you claim are similar? What, specifically, did YOU (not a reviewer, but you personally) not like about the RF compared to the Sigma? How do you feel the adapter changed the feel of the combo? What features did you notice were missing when using an adapter lens? Point is, I don't believe you've had anywhere near the experience necessary to make these claims, and I'm curious if you can back up these wild assertions with anything resembling actual hands on time with these lenses.

Finally, on what do you base the claim that Canon could have made a similarly performing EF lens? What makes you so confident about that? In your estimation, why would Canon NOT have done that, if in your opinion they could? Please address from both an engineering and a business point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,092
1,031
Alberta, Canada
Wow, this is getting pretty scientific, and the data simply isn't there. In other words lets just say we all have opinions, not facts, and enjoy them as such.

I do have quite a bit of faith in Canon knowing what they are doing and fully expect the new mount will have significant benefits. Of course many think Canon is "stupid". We shall see.:)

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

eyeheartny

EOS R | 50 1.2 RF
Sep 3, 2018
56
32
Wow, this is getting pretty scientific, and the data simply isn't there. In other words lets just say we all have opinions, not facts, and enjoy them as such.

I do have quite a bit of faith in Canon knowing what they are doing and fully expect the new mount will have significant benefits. Of course many think Canon is "stupid". We shall see.:)

Jack
Seriously? Folks come in here making wild claims with no basis, and when I ask for specifics, that gets a negative comment? Lovely. This board is full of utterly incoherent posts from people with no real-world experience. If we want this forum to be anything other than a collection of baseless opinions, people need to be called out on their baseless statements and be asked to put up or shut up. Unreal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmatthes

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,092
1,031
Alberta, Canada
Seriously? Folks come in here making wild claims with no basis, and when I ask for specifics, that gets a negative comment? Lovely. This board is full of utterly incoherent posts from people with no real-world experience. If we want this forum to be anything other than a collection of baseless opinions, people need to be called out on their baseless statements and be asked to put up or shut up. Unreal.
Was my comment negative? I sure didn't intend it to be. As others have said, I also am OK with opinions but not when they are stated as fact. However, I don't want to try to dictate what anyone wishes to say, incoherent or otherwise. Not against the science either when in fact it is good science. Some of the comments are even good for a laugh and that's a plus.;)

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB
Aug 22, 2010
1,617
311
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
What are you basing your claims about the RF mount off of? Tell us your analysis based on optics, the physics of light, and how flange distance affects the lens performance.

Another important question: have you shot with the R and the RF lenses? If so, which ones? For how long in what conditions? Do you personally have a side by side comparing the lenses you claim are similar? What, specifically, did YOU (not a reviewer, but you personally) not like about the RF compared to the Sigma? How do you feel the adapter changed the feel of the combo? What features did you notice were missing when using an adapter lens? Point is, I don't believe you've had anywhere near the experience necessary to make these claims, and I'm curious if you can back up these wild assertions with anything resembling actual hands on time with these lenses.

Finally, on what do you base the claim that Canon could have made a similarly performing EF lens? What makes you so confident about that? In your estimation, why would Canon NOT have done that, if in your opinion they could? Please address from both an engineering and a business point of view.
I am allowed to hold any opinion I want based on my real world experiences. My opinions are not subject to you. It's a public forum.
The RF mount allows lenses to have a closer rear element to the senor...that's a fact. On DSLR lens design this only effects wide angle lenses that are generally wider than 45mm (due to the mirror box). Most wide lenses under 50mm are therefore retrofocus designs. See this blog here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/
Retrofocus designs are not required for lenses like the 85mm f1.2 because there is no requirement for the rear element to be close to the film plane. Ergo....Canon can easily make a 50mm f1.2 EF lens that is optically as good as the RF version. Sigma have managed it as have other lens marques. I'm sure the RF 24mm f1.4L will be superior but an 85mm design doesn't have any optical advantage in being an RF mount.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,785
870
119
.... an 85mm design doesn't have any optical advantage in being an RF mount.
I don't believe that is true, have you seen the rear element of an EF 85 f1.2L? Don't forget your point about retro focus lenses holds good for simple lenses but breaks down when you make complicated designs and doesn't allow for focal length breathing when focused closer than infinity. The EF 85mm f1.2 II L has the rear element back in the mount as far as possible and as large as possible. Indeed the 85 f1.2 MkI shares many parts with the 50 f1.0, which pushed lens aperture and design as far as it could go at the time for the EF mount.

Now I'd agree that the rear element placing presents no issues for a fast 100mm for either an EF or R lens mount.
 

Attachments

eyeheartny

EOS R | 50 1.2 RF
Sep 3, 2018
56
32
I am allowed to hold any opinion I want based on my real world experiences. My opinions are not subject to you. It's a public forum.
What are you talking about? I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinion. Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.

The RF mount allows lenses to have a closer rear element to the senor...that's a fact. On DSLR lens design this only effects wide angle lenses that are generally wider than 45mm (due to the mirror box). Most wide lenses under 50mm are therefore retrofocus designs.


This is not a dSLR. It's a mirrorless. And since you don't appear to be an engineer, why exactly should we take your claims about this "only affecting wide angle lenses" seriously?

Here's a question I doubt you'll be able to answer: If your claim is accurate that the new mount doesn't have any real advantages at 50mm, why is the RF 50mm so sharp in the corners, whereas other ultrafast 50s struggle there? Don't you think if Canon could update the optical formula of the EF 50 1.2 to improve corner performance they would have? The point is, the RF mount appears to allow engineers to make fewer compromises. The Sigma 50 1.4 Art is noticeably less sharp than the RF 50. Considering the only 50-ish lens that competes performance-wise with the RF 50 1.2 is the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 Otus (see side-by-side here), I don't think your claim really stands up.


I'm sure the RF 24mm f1.4L will be superior but an 85mm design doesn't have any optical advantage in being an RF mount.
On what do you base this claim?
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,092
1,031
Alberta, Canada
Here is what I see. Opinions are free and easy to voice and they need not have any merit at all, as mentioned, they could be just air. That's OK, PROVIDED, no action is taken,i.e a purchase based on the opinion. Most of us on CR would prefer information and informed opinions that we can use in making a purchase (unless we're just curious observers). That's why I (others disagree) always appreciated Neuro coming in with his challenges to various opinions that seemed to be stated as fact. Others would presumably prefer he be banned; shame on them (I admit he is occasionally a little caustic - it doesn't phase me because I don't make claims when I don't know what I'm talking about, usually).;)

Like it or not CR has anything and everything and we are left to sort it out, hopefully in a friendly manner.

My somewhat uninformed opinion is that the new mount is obviously most beneficial for wider lenses, beyond that I'll be pleasantly surprised. I hope I am surprised!!

Now where is the higher level R? I'm impatient.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

eyeheartny

EOS R | 50 1.2 RF
Sep 3, 2018
56
32
Here is what I see. Opinions are free and easy to voice and they need not have any merit at all, as mentioned, they could be just air. That's OK, PROVIDED, no action is taken,i.e a purchase based on the opinion. Most of us on CR would prefer information and informed opinions that we can use in making a purchase (unless we're just curious observers). That's why I (others disagree) always appreciated Neuro coming in with his challenges to various opinions that seemed to be stated as fact. Others would presumably prefer he be banned; shame on them (I admit he is occasionally a little caustic - it doesn't phase me because I don't make claims when I don't know what I'm talking about, usually).;)

Like it or not CR has anything and everything and we are left to sort it out, hopefully in a friendly manner.

My somewhat uninformed opinion is that the new mount is obviously most beneficial for wider lenses, beyond that I'll be pleasantly surprised. I hope I am surprised!!

Now where is the higher level R? I'm impatient.

Jack
I'm always looking for new forums to join that have informed, thoughtful commentary. That seems to be utterly absent on most threads on this place. Unfortunate. I'll stick to the main page for news but these forums are an absolute joke.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,092
1,031
Alberta, Canada
eyeheartny, it's clearly not an absolute joke. I've received lots of help in making purchases and in other cases just getting information. There are good informed people on CR (and the opposite too) but obviously you need to be elsewhere for your own needs to be met. When information is not yet fully out in the public domain, how can anyone be an expert on it? And, it is a rumours site, after all.

Short of restricting who can join there is no forum that will not be a time waster to some extent.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7 and FramerMCB
Aug 22, 2010
1,617
311
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I don't believe that is true, have you seen the rear element of an EF 85 f1.2L? Don't forget your point about retro focus lenses holds good for simple lenses but breaks down when you make complicated designs and doesn't allow for focal length breathing when focused closer than infinity. The EF 85mm f1.2 II L has the rear element back in the mount as far as possible and as large as possible. Indeed the 85 f1.2 MkI shares many parts with the 50 f1.0, which pushed lens aperture and design as far as it could go at the time for the EF mount.

Now I'd agree that the rear element placing presents no issues for a fast 100mm for either an EF or R lens mount.
Yes I've happen to have owned and regularly use one in a professional context since 2010. The rear element fills the throat of the rear mount and the contacts are placed on a floating plate that sits on the rear element. It's an amazing piece of engineering. The 50mm f1.0L is a similar design and certainly the two were designed together. There's not many common parts between the two lenses except the aesthetics and the ball baring in the AF mechanism. I have friend in Swindon who is a Canon lens collector. I've handled and used his 50mm F1.0 L several times. It's a nice lens, over sized, slow AF and hugely over priced on the S/H market. It makes some nice images...but it's a very flawed lens. in many ways.

I've never been too fussed in a little variation in sharpness between lenses. But I've found the Canon ef 50mm lenses somewhat disappointing. I've never found any of the ef 50mm f1.2 L lenses very sharp. Everything else about that lens is fantastic. Although I found the AF hunts a lot in low light. The Sigma lens (on 5DIII and mk4 bodies) to be lot sharper optically. But a lot more inconsistent with it's AF accuracy. A very hit and miss lens. I don't have much faith in Sigma as a brand and my experiences with Sigma are well documented here in these forums. I do believe that Canon can make an optically impressive 50mm, but they don't seem to be motivated to do so on the EF mount. If Canon can make an amazing 35mm f1.4 II L and an amazing 85mm f1.4....then how hard can a 50mm be?

I've been a long time frequenter of these forums. I post many of my images here in the various lens threads (unlike a lot of the so called experts here) and I like to consider myself as a contributor. There are guys in this forum that I don't often agree with, but I listen to their arguments or opinions because I respect them and we've all been here a long time. I also respect their opinion and contribution.

But I do get fed up with some of the idiots on here who pop up out of nowhere...post a few posts and then question every one they don't like and think that we are all required to justify everything we say or do...while offering no images or contribution in return. This forum is at it's best when people get off these threads and delve into the actual photography...