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

[GMCPhotographics]

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.)

Retro focus lens designs are generally used for SLR focal lengths less than 35mm. However, mirrorless designs still have a mount flange, so for ultra wides, a retro fcosu design may still be required. Canon could easily have created an ef 50mm f1.2 L that matched the RF 50mm f1.2 L optics but chose not too. The Zeiss Otus 50mm f1.4 and Sigma Art 50mm F1.4 are good examples of other brands fullfilling that particular brief. The EF 50mm f1.2 L isn't a retrofocus design, it's just one that was compromised for the need to be small, compact, bright and relatively cheap to build (Canon was going through a strange design phase at the time). It's easily the weakest L prime in the EF range.
An EF 35mm f1.4 doesn't need to have a retro focus design. So the assumption that a newer RF 35mm f1.4 would be optically superior could only point to a newer and superior design that has little to do with mount (EF vs RF). I think there would be more optical gains for an ultra wide zoom or a 24mm f1.4 on the RF mount. However, I've never found the ef 24mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4 lacking optically. Maybe in a 50+mp world results will be different. But for wide open lenses...bokeh and rendering is king and not absolute sharpness. Stop down a few stops and most of the EF lenses are sharper than most zooms.

 

[-pekr-]

Continue reading...

Wonder how much of a "Toneh" it is going to have

 

[blackcoffee17]

Maybe it's just me but i prefer the 1.4 version. Looks like we will have another 1kg lens to lug around.

 

[KirkD]

I very badly want a fast wide or ultra-wide for night landscapes/skyscapes. 35mm, however, is not wide enough for me. I did own the EF 35mm f1.4 II and it was a beautiful lens, giving superb results, but I always wanted wider. Currently I'm using the RF 15-35 f2.8L for nightscapes but I'm finding that 2.8 is just not quite fast enough. I can increase exposure time but then the stars start leaving noticeable streaks. I've attached a photo I took that is pretty much at the limits of what I can do with the EOS R - RF15-35 combination.

September Night on the Pickerel River.jpg

• KirkD
• Oct 7, 2020
• 1

Canon EOS R with RF15-35 f2.8L, 15 seconds, ISO 1600 at f2.8, edited in Lightroom

 

[privatebydesign]

You are into the realms of stacking to reduce noise and stitching to get the fov you want. That’s what happens as we grow as photographers, we start pushing against a limit but there are always ways around it.

 

[SwissFrank]

Retro focus lens designs are generally used for SLR focal lengths less than 35mm. However, mirrorless designs still have a mount flange, so for ultra wides, a retro fcosu design may still be required

Many many rangefinder lenses have stretched quite far into the camera. Just some examples I owned: Contax G2's 28/2.8. Mamiya 7 MF rangefinder's 43/4.5. I'm not sure what would keep an RF lens from getting within a couple mm of the shutter.

 

[tron]

There is always the Sigma Art 14mm 1.8 for landscape astrophotography...

 

[Jerryrigged]

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

Yeah... the 35L II is probably the LAST lens I'll be updating! Still one of the best Canon lenses made! I'm keeping my EF L glass but when adding new glass I'm getting the RF versions. So far only have the RF 50L (amazing glass). Would eventually probably upgrade my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II (mainly to get the IS in the RF version).

 

[Famateur]

Anyone else out there feel like the Defocus Smoothing produces backgrounds that look too much like computational background blurring from smart phones?

For every example photo I've seen, I much prefer the standard over the DS version for that very reason. Rather than looking "dreamy," it just looks kinda fake.* Maybe it's just 'cause I'm old and didn't grow up in the smart phone Instagram filter era...

* It's a real background that looks like a computational fake background. Would that be a fake fake background?

 

[APP]

As with many other commenters, a lighter, smaller, less expensive 1.4 would be my preference over a 1.2. I'm not really interested in a DS version either, as I would use a lens like this for landscape and astro in addition to portrait use.

 

[rightslot]

Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.

If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.

We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped.

Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post.

So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?

 

[Jstnelson]

Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.

If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.

We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped.

Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post.

So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?

Absolutely. I shoot at 1.2 on my RF85mm 99% of the time and I have never had an issue nailing the pupil with eye af. Will be even easier at 35mm

 

[APP]

Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.

If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.

We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped.

Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post.

So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?

I've only had my R5 for a short time, but my sense is that the eye AF makes it easy (basically automatic) to nail focus on portraits at shallow depth of field. With eye AF, I'm really interested in the 85/1.2 and would be confident in hitting focus pretty much all the time. (Shooting the 5D series, my AF was more "miss" than "hit" when inspecting eyelashes at 100%. Much better with the eye AF on the R and R5 in my experience. I've had great success with the sigma 35/1.4 art and would assume an RF 35 would be even better.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

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)

I’ll tak’em all day and everyday.

 

[Jstnelson]

I’ll tak’em all day and everyday.

Same! I love lugging around my massive rf85 1.2.

I have the battery grip on my R5 and it’s pretty well balanced. I never feel like the setup is that heavy. I was adapting a sigma 105 1.4 on my R and the new setup feels like a point and shoot in comparison lol

 

[Bdbtoys]

Hmm, with the 35mm f1.2 non-DS, I might just skip getting a 24-xx zoom lens and pack this and my 50 f1.2.... key word being might (dang GAS).

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Where's the consumer glass?

You mean the 600 f/11 isn't enough for the masses. People are so demanding.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

Same! I love lugging around my massive rf85 1.2.

I have the battery grip on my R5 and it’s pretty well balanced. I never feel like the setup is that heavy. I was adapting a sigma 105 1.4 on my R and the new setup feels like a point and shoot in comparison lol

The wider the focal length the wider I like the aperture.

 

[rightslot]

You mean the 600 f/11 isn't enough for the masses. People are so demanding.

Me Majestyk Just gave me my laugh for the evening! Thank you very funny!

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Me Majestyk Just gave me my laugh for the evening! Thank you very funny!

I try to lighten the mood. I must say I'm actually very depressed by the Canon RF lineup. Either super expensive or super slow. RF is about 30% dearer where I live than EF and as abirder wanting some decent fast long glass for birding if I get R5 the new long lenses are a massive disappointment.

I find Nikon's approach to Z mount lens releases much more sensible. Plenty of intermediate f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms and now padding out the line-up with the work horse f/2.8 zooms and a sprinkling of fast primes. Also on the road map we see 200-600, 100-400 f/5.6 and now 400 f/2.8. From Canon we now hear rumors of another glacially slow zoom, a 100-400 f/7.1.