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

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

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?

Yes! That is exactly my impression of the DS lenses as well. I much prefer the non-DS version because it still has the traditional characteristics of what we have become used to for blur created by a lens not a computer.

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 seem to have a different experience to others when it comes to Eye-AF on the R5. I get about 80% accuracy with Eye-AF regardless of aperture used. Sometimes it will decided to focus on an ear or a nose and miss the eye by quite a margin.

I prefer to use single shot 'spot AF' and place the AF point over the eye myself. I find with that mode my hit rate at wide apertures is 90-95%. And when it does miss it usually hits just slightly behind the eye, on one of the rear most eyelashes. It never misses so much as to hit an ear or a nose like the Eye-AF does.. but that's just my personal experience and the reason why I take care of the focus point manually

 

[edoorn]

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

short answer: yes

 

[RMac]

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

Generally agreed - not the greatest focal length for blurry backgrounds, although if you get the subject close enough you can get the background to melt away. But even then, seems like the situations where DS would offer a notable difference in the background blur at 35 would be pretty niche and not likely significant enough to justify losing a stop or more of light.

Honestly, I think Canon would be better off going after an RF 24mm f1.2L before the 35. The EF 35mm f1.4L is spectacularly sharp - I don't see an RF improving on it very much, whereas the EF 24mm f1.4L could do with a refresh.