Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM coming in 2020 [CR1]

[6degrees]

Dream configuration:

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L
Canon RF 35mm F1.2 L
Canon RF 14-21mm F1.4 L (https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-r...one-of-the-crazy-lenses-coming-next-year-cr1/)

Different level of photography. Beyond the possibility of other mounts, DSLR/EF, Sony E mount, you name it. Nikon Z mount may be close. This will last for 30 years to come.

 

[canonical]

excellent news. those f/1.2 RF pickle jars will drive down prices for f/1.8 RF and 2nd hand EF L lenses.

Looking forward to get a mint condition EF 85/1.4 for close to nothing.

 

[SecureGSM]

excellent news. those f/1.2 RF pickle jars will drive down prices for f/1.8 RF and 2nd hand EF L lenses.

Looking forward to get a mint condition EF 85/1.4 for close to nothing.

Are you expecting that a $3000 lens affects street prices of $1000 lenses? As in Maserati prices affects heavily Ford because Ford customers will certainly are eager to trade their Ford vehicles in for a top of the range one? OK. Sold

 

[scyrene]

I tried the first one. It seems my 5 o'clock shadow and the fact that I look 9 months along in a tank top and hot pants doesn't give me a customer base, at all.

You'd be surprised

 

[melgross]

Absolutely. My problem is my old eyes. The focus peaking on the R has really helped with that as opposed to my 5D Mark III. Both are good cameras.

eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.

 

[melgross]

I think the conceit of smaller lenses for mirrorless has been dispensed with. I have seen almost no new lenses that are smaller than their predecessors. The RF 24-105 is slightly smaller and lighter but scarcely a revelation in packaging. In addition the IQ requirements of the newest sensors (not to mention the fanboy peepers) demand lens formulae that are much larger as first evidenced by the Zeiss Otus line.

The 70-200 f2.8 is pretty small. Heh, it’s not much bigger than some “normal” lenses these days.

 

[justaCanonuser]

or to start working in prostitution or rob a bank

Nah, better found a bank and start to rob people legally

 

[canonical]

Are you expecting that a $3000 lens affects street prices of $1000 lenses?

yes i do. in real life any prime lens north of 1k is in the same tiny niche universe, despite great differences in new price, use case, performance and features. all of them are bought new mainly by gear nuts and/or people with too much money who are going for "the latest and supposedly greatest". luckily those folks often dump their expensive toys as soon as new ones arrive. that behavioural pattern suits me very well. i often pick up their hardly used lenses for less money than they are functionally worth. "penny-pinching, starving me" gladly lets "premium suckers" absorb the price premiums and drive Canon's profits. meanwhile i take images with excellent yesteryear gear at very reasonable cost. i find this very fair and quite rewarding.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I am a huge fan of Canon's super fast lenses, but I never will understand why such a fast wide (!!) angle lens is needed. Of course, it can create nice artistic effects never seen before, but practically, I shoot even my 24-70mm f/2.8 mostly stopped down on its short end. And I am sure this applies to most users.

That said, such a lens would fit perfectly to Canon's tradition of boldly demonstrating what they can do. This tradition started back in the early 1960s with the famous 50mm f/0.95 rangefinder lens, the fastest commercially produced lens for many decades. They even needed to design a completely new rangefinder body for this fascinating monster, the Canon 7. But, shooting such a lens wide open on a manual only focusing analoge rangefinder (= no focus peaking!) in real life? A 98 % out-of-focus-nightmare. Here's a nice report about this experience:

Canon 50mm f0.95 and the Canon 50mm f1.2 (LTM)

This post looks at the Canon 50mm f0.95 and Canon 50mm f1.2 together. For a more recent post just looking at the Canon 50mm f0.95, take a look at this. As long as I can remember, I’ve always been a…

allmyfriendsarejpegs.com

So the bottom line is: Canon has sometimes a surprisingly crazy irrational side, but in fact I like that.

 

[justaCanonuser]

As an events photographer, i'd expect this to focus at f1.2 in difficult low light conditions then step down to say f4 for the actual shot.

Ah, that's the first argument for such a fast wide angle lens that sounds convincing to me...

 

[justaCanonuser]

Like the tiny M42 screw mount manual lenses. All my f/1.4s are tiny tiny. Even the 200mm (not f/1.4) is tiny compared to what there is now... but the IQ isn't as good, depending on personal taste.

Same applies to my collection of M39 screw mount lenses. My Canon RF 35mm f/2, a quite fast lens, is smaller than a tiny espresso cup... On the downside, most of these compact rangefinder lenses had about 1 meter closest distance only. So format filling head portraits were not possible.

 

[FramerMCB]

eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.

So sorry to hear your eye trouble Mel. I will be praying for a successful operation to fix that retina. No fun at all. Had a fellow church member that went through that very same thing a bout 1 year ago. See's doing great now. But it was very nerve-wracking for her for several weeks.

 

[Architect1776]

I really disliked focus peaking with my Leica M 240, poorly implemented with the accessory EVF.
So, I was quite skeptical when I bought my second EOS R , the first one having been replaced after a week with the 5 D IV, reason was the absence of dual SD slot (I stupidly panicked before an important trip!).
Conclusion: the R's focus peaking is absolutely great with vintage lenses, the magnifying feature perfect, and, last not least, the USABLE DOF preview with manual lenses. Fantastic for macro shots !

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.

 

[YuengLinger]

eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.

Sorry to hear, and hoping you get back your vision in the left eye.

 

[navastronia]

eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.

Hope your vision recovers (fellow left-eye shooter here) and that you're feeling like yourself again soon!

 

[slclick]

There are always many varieties of bodies and glass which folks yammer about endlessly here which never come to fruition. It's my hunch that one of these is a crop R camera. Give the M system some time and it will grow into something along the lines of what those people are wanting. If the M5/6 refreshes are even half of what the last rumor listed they will be leaps and bounds better than the current models and if coupled with the crop version sensor of the CR1 FF body due it should leave no one crying for an APS-C R body. (Who would want RF-S lenses anyway?)

 

[Dantana]

The 70-200 f2.8 is pretty small. Heh, it’s not much bigger than some “normal” lenses these days.

True, but I think that's due to the retracting design like the 70-300L, not the RF mount itself. I don't think it's really mirrorless making it smaller, but I could be wrong.

Sorry to hear about your eye. I hope your recovery gets you back to 100 percent.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Sounds good! My favourite FF people focal length!

 

[deleteme]

The 70-200 f2.8 is pretty small. Heh, it’s not much bigger than some “normal” lenses these days.

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.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think it's a great idea from Canon and it's a surprise to me that Canon didn't do this earlier. I guess they have been holding back on EF lens development for a while so they can buff and drop the dev on the new RF mount. I've been using the ef 85mm f1.2 II L and 35mm f1.4 L professionally for well over 15 years...it's always surprised me that Canon had the tech / lens advantage for so many years and then didn't jump on the opportunity to push ahead again once all the competition caught up with similar offerings. Sigma, nikon and Sony to name the main contenders.
A 24mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 obviously come to mind...and we all know of the ef 50mm f1.2 L disaster. I don't think f1.2 fives much of a brightness advantage over f1.4....but it's an OCD / portfolio thang. I could then say...all my primes are f1.2. It kind of feels complete.
So I hope Canon does make a range of sweet f1.2 primes beyond their existing 85 and 50 offerings.