Are there two version of the RF 35mm f/1.2L USM coming? [CR1]

[addola]

How would you go about that?

If I were doing it, I would mask the subject out from the background and add a tasteful amount of gaussian blur.

It can also be done in Lightroom, an adjustment brush, for the background, then apply the "Clarity" slider to the left.

 

[amorse]

Where's the consumer glass?

I guess it depends on your definition of consumer glass, but among all the lenses they've released I'd call the below ones consumer lenses, which together account for 40% of the RF lineup released to date.

RF 24-240
RF 35 f/1.8
RF 800MM f/11
RF 600mm f/11
RF 85 f/2
RF 24-105 f/4-7.1

Obviously they're missing the f/4 trinity, but I'm not sure I'd suggest Canon is neglecting consumer glass, no more than big white super-tele's anyway.

 

[navastronia]

Don’t care about DS, only care that it has a short minimum focusing distance — and that they use the Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics element like the 85 1.2, which is missing from the 50 1.2.

I would be shocked if BSRO wasn't included in the RF 35/1.2 L, since it was innovated for the EF 35/1.4 L II.

Then again, like you say, it is missing from the RF 50/1.2 L. Hmm.

 

[zim]

I'm curious are these DS lens backgrounds any more 'dreamy' than the old EF equivalent? I guess there is only one direct comparison the 85 1.2 L But I'd bet the old EF 50 1.2 L would be hard to beat. How about instead of DS an updated double gauss 50L which would be nicely smaller too. Would that not have a wider appeal?

 

[xanbarksdale]

I'm hoping for a 24 1.2 or 1.4 sometime soon.

 

[brad-man]

I'm hoping for a 24 1.2 or 1.4 sometime soon.

Absofrickinglootly! A fast wide prime is the glaring omission of the current RF lineup...

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

I'm hanging out for this 35mm f1.2 so bad... can't wait! Hopefully it comes in 2021

 

[Ziz]

Just make it USM and small

 

[mclaren777]

It's hard to imagine it being better than the 35L II, but if they use BR optics, it just might.

 

[melgross]

I’m having a problem here, and I’m wondering if anyone else has experienced it. When trying to go to another page in the forum, I get the Wikipedia page on internet trolls instead. This has happened for several days.

it doesn’t happen when going to a story, just a new page in the forum. Only on this site.

 

[Giancarlo Cornoló]

[QUOTE = "addola, post: 866609, membro: 376788"]
Não acho "Defocus Smoothing" atraente. É muito melhor não perder 1,3 pontos de luz para um efeito que eu posso facilmente fazer no post se eu quiser.

Acho que a próxima linha de RF precisa é

1. Uma lente macro com 1: 1 ou até maior do que a ampliação em tamanho real com AF (para esse fator de surpresa)
2. Um substituto para o EF135 / 2L, já que não é atualizado há algum tempo.
3. 35mm rápido
4. Então, talvez, lentes brancas longas e rápidas para esportes profissionais e vida selvagem.

[/CITAR]
+
1 panqueca

 

[PhotoGenerous]

I'm keeping my EF primes for the time being so I can use the filter adapters with them on my R5. So if I did get an RF prime, it would be the DS version.

 

[6degrees]

Interested in RF 35mm f/1.2L USM , non DS version.

 

[Fotonocity]

Hoping it’s a RF 35 1.4 non DS, smaller size and priced similar to ef 35 1.4. But I know that won’t happen and it’ll be a 35 f1.2 and close to 2k Still don’t are about DS just want the normal version. Anyone heard anything from Sigma about development on the RF glass ?

 

[sanj]

35mm is too wide to have DS. For me.

 

[LeeBabySimms]

Ugh, a 1.2?! Who wants to carry these bricks? It's going to be 1,000 grams (face in palms, shaking back and forth)

 

[mb66energy]

The 35mm f/1.2 DS will have the light gathering of a f/2.0 lens if the tech hasn't changed from the 85.

That's the tradeoff of these apodization designs but it will have f/1.2 diffraction discs shaped to a gentle falloff - by the apodization design. And keeping T/2 at shutter speeds of 1/50 /180° needs those gray filters too in a lot of lighting conditions.

 

[SwissFrank]

It's hard to imagine it being better than the 35L II, but if they use BR optics, it just might.

Wide-angles are EXACTLY the type of lens the mirrorless cameras should be able to do far better than the SLRs, because the lens design needn't be compromised by the question of leaving room for the mirror.

I expect an RF 35/1.4 would leave the EF in the dust.

I'd say the RF 50/1.2 has literally 10x the resolution of the EF, and that's not even a wide-angle. (10x area means about 3x linear. And the resolution charts show the RF 50 has the contrast at 30lp/mm that the EF does at 10lp/mm. Ergo it's safe to say it's something like 10x sharper.)

 

[SwissFrank]

THE FULL PRIME LINEUP should be something like:

1) HALO LENSES with stupefying specs and prices so high they sell very few, like the EF 50/1.0 and 1200/5.6. Nobody will stock them, you'll never see them or even images by them. But in principle they exist.

35/1.0 50/0.7 135/1.0 1200/5.6

2) IMAGE QUALITY/SPEC OVER EVERYTHING: serious photographer's tools

14/1.4 20/1.4 35/1.2, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/1.4, 200/1.8

3) PORTABILITY OVER EVERYTHING: always have the camera in your backpack, or Leica M-style street photog. May actually be a little pricey if need be to improve image quality or reduce size. NO IS, NO macro.

20/2.8 24/2.4 28/2 35/2 50/1.8 85/2, 135/2

4) BUDGET OVER EVERYTHING. Mainly amateur use. Bigger size not so much a worry. Interesting specs like macro help.

35/1.8 IS Macro, 50/1.4 etc.


I'm leaving out pro macro, super-wide-angle, and most of the telephotos, obviously, mainly focusing on the up-to-135mm range.

Personally I'd buy pretty much every lens in category 2 and 3. I don't want 4. I'd actually kill for a 135/1DS if it could get perfectly round highlights in the corners when stopped down to f/1.4, and have the transmission and total bokeh "amount" of f/2.

 

[AlP]

Wide-angles are EXACTLY the type of lens the mirrorless cameras should be able to do far better than the SLRs, because the lens design needn't be compromised by the question of leaving room for the mirror.

I expect an RF 35/1.4 would leave the EF in the dust.

I'd say the RF 50/1.2 has literally 10x the resolution of the EF, and that's not even a wide-angle. (10x area means about 3x linear. And the resolution charts show the RF 50 has the contrast at 30lp/mm that the EF does at 10lp/mm. Ergo it's safe to say it's something like 10x sharper.)

The EF 50 1.2 is a rather old and relatively simple design (not bashing that lens, there were likely reasons why they did it like that). The EF 35 1.4 II is a newer, significantly more complex and also very well corrected design. There's no comparable 50 mm lens in the EF lineup as that generation has been skipped by Canon, maybe because the RF 50 was already in the pipeline.

Therefore I don't think that the EF <-> RF resolution comparison for the 50 mm lenses can simply be carried over to the 35 mm lenses. And while primes will likely leave more room for improvements than zooms, we've seen with the 2.8 RF zooms that while there were improvements in resolution and optical quality in general, those improvements weren't huge. The latest EF zoom designs were already very good in terms of technical qualities.