Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L DS USM, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and other accessories will be announced soon

[Ozarker]

According to some rumors, we may actually get a 35/1.2

And I am not so sure about a 35mm being "the" lens. I had the superlative EF 35mm f/1.4L II, a really really great lens. But for portraits if is very specialized and takes some skill to use it correctly. However, An RF 35mm f/1.2L would be very tempting with BR.

 

[Ozarker]

TBH, the EF 35mm 1.4 mkii going to be hard to beat. It's cheaper and lighter to use that.

And a very excellent lens too. Miss mine.

 

[BillB]

And I am not so sure about a 35mm being "the" lens. I had the superlative EF 35mm f/1.4L II, a really really great lens. But for portraits if is very specialized and takes some skill to use it correctly. However, An RF 35mm f/1.2L would be very tempting with BR.

Well, you can always crop a 35 but you can't uncrop a 50

 

[SteveC]

I know at least 200 wedding photographers and recently I was in a meeting with almost 50. No one want to spend money in a camera with just 1 slot. It´s ridiculous. What bothers me and I don't understand is why Canon do that. It´s not something that they can´t do. Rome was not built in a day but I am sure that the Colosseum began by having good foundations. Basic should be first. And double slot is something basic for professionals who are being paid to get something that cannot be repeated.

Side note: The Colosseum (technically, the "Flavian Amphitheater") was built around 70AD. It's actually situated on an almost-solid 40 foot thick slab of concrete, so you're absolutely correct about the foundation.

 

[bhf3737]

When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.

Talking about taking risk, which seems to be your concern. Did you know that based on failure-mode-and-effect-analysis (FMEA) the probability that the camera fails is several times higher than the probability of the card failiure? And a way to mitigate the risk is to add redundancy by using two or more cameras to start with! Every risk mitigation solution has a cost associated with it. Two cameras mean hiring an assistant and more cost to your business, but two card slot means additional cost for the camera maker to be passed to all customers evenly. Perhaps canon has decided to pass the cost to a small population of users (e.g. wedding businesses of low budget) but offering cheaper option to the most of the intented users of the R camera. Looking at it from another perspective: Why should one expect everyone who buys the R camera pay extra to compensate and support your business?!

 

[YuengLinger]

When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.

Nobody, at least in my post, said you "have to buy." It's your decision to believe the minimal risks ( which I said could be restricted to nonessential--but story enhancing--shots) are worth keeping you and your clients from enjoying many, many beautiful moments shot with RF lenses.

Canon made a choice to put out what seems, to me, to be more of mid-level FF with a top-notch sensor, incredible AF, and an affordable price. I can't guess why they went initially with the single slot. It bugged me for a while after the R was released, but then I realized that anxiety is a sad reason to miss out on what has turned out to be an amazing portrait camera. And spite, or pique, or just being ticked off because it ain't perfect, is an even sadder reason.

It's not the explanation of why one slot is too scary that made me post my opinions. It's the relentless anger at a company that didn't cater first to the photographers who demand two slots, IBIS, better DR, uncropped 4k, blah, blah, blah, and decide to remind us about those two slots even in lens threads.

Plus I'm explaining why I chose to pair great lenses with a one-slot camera.

 

[flip314]

Well, you can always crop a 35 but you can't uncrop a 50

It's probably only a matter of time before Adobe releases content-aware uncrop.

 

[alejandrobox]

Talking about taking risk, which seems to be your concern. Did you know that based on failure-mode-and-effect-analysis (FMEA) the probability that the camera fails is several times higher than the probability of the card failiure? And a way to mitigate the risk is to add redundancy by using two or more cameras to start with! Every risk mitigation solution has a cost associated with it. Two cameras mean hiring an assistant and more cost to your business, but two card slot means additional cost for the camera maker to be passed to all customers evenly. Perhaps canon has decided to pass the cost to a small population of users (e.g. wedding businesses of low budget) but offering cheaper option to the most of the intented users of the R camera. Looking at it from another perspective: Why should one expect everyone who buys the R camera pay extra to compensate and support your business?!

It´s not only my business. It´s every one business. No one want to miss a shot. But professional photographers could have problems it something happens. Not only wedding photographers. Sports photographers. Event photographers. Photojournalist photographers... For amateurs or enthusiasts they have the M series. R is for professional, like RF lenses. Another reason to put it? Maybe because Sony have it? I am fan of Canon. Love Canon. But some decisions are difficut to understand.

 

[alejandrobox]

Talking about taking risk, which seems to be your concern. Did you know that based on failure-mode-and-effect-analysis (FMEA) the probability that the camera fails is several times higher than the probability of the card failiure? And a way to mitigate the risk is to add redundancy by using two or more cameras to start with! Every risk mitigation solution has a cost associated with it. Two cameras mean hiring an assistant and more cost to your business, but two card slot means additional cost for the camera maker to be passed to all customers evenly. Perhaps canon has decided to pass the cost to a small population of users (e.g. wedding businesses of low budget) but offering cheaper option to the most of the intented users of the R camera. Looking at it from another perspective: Why should one expect everyone who buys the R camera pay extra to compensate and support your business?!

By the way, I always work with 2 cameras and second photographer.

 

[Berowne]

EDIT Just read your question again: If you look at the sample images (link some posts above) you see that the DS lens makes smaller bokeh balls, but with a nicer (= missing) outline. /EDIT

The apodization filter works like an aperture but with a gradient - not a hard transition between 100% transmission and 0% transmission like a standard aperture. Usually bokeh balls are images from the aperture - at f/8 you can see very often the number of blades, wide open you see the aperture defined by the smallest "hole" in the light path. The apotization filter close to the aperture blades makes a soft transition of clear in the center to dark in the outside and the bokeh balls reflect (not optically) the softer transition from the bright center to the dimmed outer regions.

Another argument for "clear in the center" is the fact that stopped down the DS lens works like the non-DS lens. Here you use only the clear part of the "filter" hence there is no difference to other lenses.

If you want to experiment a little bit cut out a star shaped hole with the outer diameter of a bright short tele lens and put it on the lens front. Wide open you will see a star shaped bokeh, stopping down the effect is vanishing because the effective aperture is inside the star shaped hole. And if you do not like to bother with a star shape, use a flat rectangle to make rectangularish bokeh "balls" ...

Here an example (I am trying to avoid some work I do not like to much ...

The pattern to hold in front of a lens (in my case the EF-M 32, f2/100mm would be better, diameter of the hole (external) ca. 20mm)
View attachment 187013


Now @ MFD & f/1.4 - star shaped bokeh "balls" - if I had opened the lens and put the paper in the aperture plane the outer stars wouldn't be so crippled, but I like that lens and disassembling is much easier than assembling
The lowest "star-circle" bokeh structure ist partly limited by the star in front of the lens, partly by the builtin aperture)
View attachment 187014

And last image MFD and f/8 or f/11 (now DOF is so deep that you can see the pattern in front of the lens but the stars have vanished from the LEDs but you can see the 7-blade-heptagon (o.k. if you look with the knowledge that the EF-M has 7 pblades) on some "bokeh balls"
View attachment 187015

Great explanation, many thanks for your answer!

 

[Ozarker]

Well, you can always crop a 35 but you can't uncrop a 50

It is all about perspective. 35mm gives a completely different look to things. For long wide shots, not a problem. For portraits, if can be a big problem if not used properly. Even 50mm is not ideal for portraits, in my opinion, if there are vertical lines in the photo. However, distortion can ruin this in a close portrait. Below: 35mm done well x2 then 35mm not done well.

I don't know what is meant by not being able to uncrop a 50mm. One must be very careful of subject distortion with a 35mm. Same with a 50mm sometimes. Not so much st 85mm+.

Keep in mind I loved my EF 35mm f/1.4L II, but always had to be mindful of subject distortion when taking portraits with it.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is all about perspective. 35mm gives a completely different look to things. For long wide shots, not a problem. For portraits, if can be a big problem if not used properly. Even 50mm is not ideal for portraits, in my opinion, if there are vertical lines in the photo. However, distortion can ruin this in a close portrait. Below: 35mm done well x2 then 35mm not done well.

I don't know what is meant by not being able to uncrop a 50mm. One must be very careful of subject distortion with a 35mm. Same with a 50mm sometimes. Not so much st 85mm+.

Keep in mind I loved my EF 35mm f/1.4L II, but always had to be mindful of subject distortion when taking portraits with it.

The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough MP/detail to crop.

 

[BillB]

The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough money/detail to crop.

yep.

 

[Ozarker]

The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough MP/detail to crop.

As usual, the point is often lost on me. Then again "zooming with one's feet" comes to mind, as mentioned here in the forum, so many times in reference to primes... which I did with the first two and not the third. While I can see the perspective brought up in cramped indoor shots, I don't think is is an issue outdoors with more room to move. Hope that makes sense.

 

[YuengLinger]

It´s not only my business. It´s every one business. No one want to miss a shot. But professional photographers could have problems it something happens. Not only wedding photographers. Sports photographers. Event photographers. Photojournalist photographers... For amateurs or enthusiasts they have the M series. R is for professional, like RF lenses. Another reason to put it? Maybe because Sony have it? I am fan of Canon. Love Canon. But some decisions are difficut to understand.

Yes, Canon makes decisions customers don't understand. But you seem to be lumping their first production model of mirrorless with ultra mission-critical bodies such as the 1DX...Canon might well be releasing a nuclear-strike hardened body in 2020 (and I'm hoping a 5D type of mirrorless in 2021).

Since when did successful wedding photographers feel compelled to switch from 1DX bodies to mirrorless? And why does it frustrate you that Canon is not following your schedule? Is your business going to be threatened because you haven't switched to mirrorless? I'd sincerely care to hear your reasoning regarding this point.

Yes, a dual-slot pro body will be welcomed when it arrives, but why, in the meantime, are you seemingly continuing to be fascinated by the EOS R? Have you tried it?

And, please, tell us how many times you have had cards fail over how many years? And how many full and happy cards between failures?

Again, it comes down to the benefits of using the R and its lenses against the risk of a card failure at the worst possible moment. Your decision. Sorry I can't get too worked up about the issue at this point, though if it happened to me, I'd be right with you.

 

[lawny13]

And yet, I have not seen anywhere how you will zoom on this new 70-200. Perhaps you will do it by extending the lens, but I found it intriguing that people who were able to handle this new lens were not able to demonstrate this.

Patent shows it to be extending.

And a mock-up lens don’t necessarily have moving parts. In fact it is unlikely to. Probably why they couldn’t so anything with it.

We shouldn’t be too worried about it telescoping (assuming it does) cause the 100-400 does and there doesn’t seem to be any issues with it.

 

[YuengLinger]

The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough MP/detail to crop.

Would we be better off all shooting with 11-24mm? You can't uncrop 35mm either. (And maybe I should have bought a utility van instead of an SUV--there are times I'd like to bring home a dozen 15 gallon viburnum from the nursery! I can't uncrop the cargo space of my SUV!)

 

[Ozarker]

Again, it comes down to the benefits of using the R and its lenses against the risk of a card failure at the worst possible moment. Your decision. Sorry I can't get too worked up about the issue at this point, though if it happened to me, I'd be right with you.

Even when I shot with a 5D Mark III (dual slots) I carried and individual (Cheap at 5 for $5) low GB card for each model with her name on it. My CF card carried the whole day's shooting, then an SD card for each model with her name on it. Cheap insurance. It also helped me remember who was who at processing time. Probably overkill, bit it works. Every evening the cards would be loaded onto a WD Passport drive (Thanks for a wonderful idea PBD). The WD Passport keeps everything on itself and also uploads to the cloud.

For the single card slot R, I do the same. I just don't have the CF Card with everything on it from the day. Not a problem. A wedding photographer could divided the day the same way. Avery sells removable labels for SD cards.

That said, I have never had a card fail.

 

[6degrees]

I still prefer Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L.

I am waiting for:
- Sony a7rIV equivalent body
- Canon RF 35mm F1.2 L
- Canon RF 20mm F1.4 L or RF 14-21 F1.4 L or RF 16-28mm F2 L

 

[privatebydesign]

Would we be better off all shooting with 11-24mm? You can't uncrop 35mm either. (And maybe I should have bought a utility van instead of an SUV--there are times I'd like to bring home a dozen 15 gallon viburnum from the nursery! I can't uncrop the cargo space of my SUV!)

No because the 11-24 is a zoom!

I use a 35mm prime extensively and feel people that use a 35 and a 50 are being a little obtuse, with the MP we have few people couldn’t crop their 35mm shot to their desired 50mm shot just so long as they dont fall into the ‘fill the frame with the subject’ error that people make when conflating perspective and effective fov. Stand back and crop and the 35mm shot is identical to the 50mm image just fewer MP and fractionally different dof.

Anybody that says there is a massive difference between 35 and 50 just doesn’t get optics and perspective.