Are two versions of the RF 35L coming? [CR1]

[Flamingtree]

I have been hanging out for this lens for so long now that since I started wanting it. I fear with inflation and canon’s ruthless commercial team the price has gone from one kidney to two.

 

[AJ]

Sigma does.
Sony does not.
BTW both lenses have about the same T stops wide open.

Ah yes you're right - It's Sony's 50 mm that's f/1.2

I had another thought - Could it be possible that Canon is working on third-party licensing of a 35 mm lens? Could this explain the delay and the two-versions rumor? Probably a low probability of that, but just maybe?

 

[SHAMwow]

I was desperate for this lens, but I've gotten so used to my 50 1.2 idk if I want to bother anymore. As much as I want to berate Canon for this size and price...it does produce some amazing images. It feels like the ship has sailed on more affordable and modest 1.4 but we'll see.

 

[danfaz]

I've gotten so used to my 50 1.2 idk if I want to bother anymore. As much as I want to berate Canon for this size and price...it does produce some amazing images.

It is a fantastic lens!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

With all this chatter about the potential RF 35 L, I'm still using the EF 35L mk1. It's AF is working better than it ever did on a DSLR. It's not the sharpest of lenses wide open, however, it renders beautifully. It's out of focus areas have a delightful charector. It seems tobe really sharp when I focus close up to things. I wonder if it's lens that gets softer as the focus point gets closer to infinity. I'm intending swapping it out for a mkII later this month. For no reason other than it's newer and a bit sharper.

 

[Walrus]

With all this chatter about the potential RF 35 L, I'm still using the EF 35L mk1. It's AF is working better than it ever did on a DSLR. It's not the sharpest of lenses wide open, however, it renders beautifully. It's out of focus areas have a delightful charector. It seems tobe really sharp when I focus close up to things. I wonder if it's lens that gets softer as the focus point gets closer to infinity. I'm intending swapping it out for a mkII later this month. For no reason other than it's newer and a bit sharper.

If you'll go with another DSLR lens, why don't you go for a 35 Art? That's even sharper then the 35 L II, and will cost you just between a third and half of it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

If you'll go with another DSLR lens, why don't you go for a 35 Art? That's even sharper then the 35 L II, and will cost you just between a third and half of it.

I know lots of people swear by Sigma lenes. But I've been really burnt with Sigma, I have a long history with the Brand and I've given up with the Brand. Generally, their AF isn't as accurate or consistant, their image Stabilisers are quite crude and their build quality and longevity isn't up to Canon's L grade. I bought my EF 35mm f1.4 L over 14 years ago and it's still fresh with hardly any wear. This lens has been heavily used, over 45 weddings, countless portraits and family groups, workshops etc.
Sigma lenses are optically great, but I find them fragile in comparison. I had to return my Sigma 12-24 to Sigma for repairs for no other reason then it sat in my camera bag and didn't like the bumps. I've never had that problem with any other lens. The biggest dissapointment was their 120-300mm f2.8 OS.....but that's a story for a different thread.

 

[Walrus]

I know lots of people swear by Sigma lenes. But I've been really burnt with Sigma, I have a long history with the Brand and I've given up with the Brand. Generally, their AF isn't as accurate or consistant, their image Stabilisers are quite crude and their build quality and longevity isn't up to Canon's L grade. I bought my EF 35mm f1.4 L over 14 years ago and it's still fresh with hardly any wear. This lens has been heavily used, over 45 weddings, countless portraits and family groups, workshops etc.
Sigma lenses are optically great, but I find them fragile in comparison. I had to return my Sigma 12-24 to Sigma for repairs for no other reason then it sat in my camera bag and didn't like the bumps. I've never had that problem with any other lens. The biggest dissapointment was their 120-300mm f2.8 OS.....but that's a story for a different thread.

If you tried "old" stuff, like EX series, I'm with you, things were pretty bad both with optical quality, QC and durability.

But if you never tried an Art series lens, give them a chance; those things are twice as robust as an L series lens, and the AF (which is, btw, spot on also on DSLR, worst case you small microadjust in camera or with the Sigma dock) is a non-issue with the mirrorless setup, as you certainly know the lens focuses on the image sensor rather then af sensor behind the mirror in the dslr.

The 35 tbh may be the least "refined" because it was the first art lens released, so AF is perfectly good but not uber fast; but, are you available to evaluate not a 35mm, but a 40mm? I recently swapped my 50 Art with the 40 Art, the thing is a brick, the AF is superb, and the sharpness is as good as the RF 50 L. Find yourself, if you may be interested, a couple of reviews, and see for yourself. It's heavy, REALLY heavy, but it's a beauty, and does fit nicely in place of the 35mm. Surely the best lens I've ever purchased.

 

[fox40phil]

Canon.... what are they doing?! what are they waiting for soo long?!

Just give it a f1.4 ...its not that much between f1.2 & 1.4. But the size and weight....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon.... what are they doing?! what are they waiting for soo long?!

The EF 35/1.4L II is relatively new compared to many other lenses in the lineup, so in all likelihood Canon is in no rush to bring out a replacement. It would not surprise me if we see a new 24mm L prime before the 35mm comes out.

Just give it a f1.4 ...it’s not that much between f1.2 & 1.4. But the size and weight....

Some people (I can think of at least one, he hasn’t been shy about it) feel the opposite.

Personally, I would predic we will see an RF 35/1.2. Given the relative newness of the EF version, they will want to give the RF version some thing that strongly differentiates it. Plus, there’s the symmetry of an /1.2 trinity.

Regarding the rumor of two 35L lenses, it seems very unlikely to me that they would release both an f/1.4 and an f/1.2 version, especially given that there’s already a consumer f/1.8 version.

I wonder if the other 35L could be a TS lens? There was one (not L) in the FD mount. That plus a 14mm TS would potentially attract those who already have the 17 and 24 focal lengths (although it’s easy enough to put the 1.4x behind the TS-E 24 to get 35mm, close enough).

Time will tell.

 

[EricN]

The EF 35/1.4L II is relatively new compared to many other lenses in the lineup, so in all likelihood Canon is in no rush to bring out a replacement. It would not surprise me if we see a new 24mm L prime before the 35mm comes out.


Some people (I can think of at least one, he hasn’t been shy about it) feel the opposite.

Personally, I would predic we will see an RF 35/1.2. Given the relative newness of the EF version, they will want to give the RF version some thing that strongly differentiates it. Plus, there’s the symmetry of an /1.2 trinity.

Regarding the rumor of two 35L lenses, it seems very unlikely to me that they would release both an f/1.4 and an f/1.2 version, especially given that there’s already a consumer f/1.8 version.

I wonder if the other 35L could be a TS lens? There was one (not L) in the FD mount. That plus a 14mm TS would potentially attract those who already have the 17 and 24 focal lengths (although it’s easy enough to put the 1.4x behind the TS-E 24 to get 35mm, close enough).

Time will tell.

What you say seems like a very reasonable possibility
but what about Viltrox and Fuji?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The EF 35/1.4L II is relatively new compared to many other lenses in the lineup, so in all likelihood Canon is in no rush to bring out a replacement. It would not surprise me if we see a new 24mm L prime before the 35mm comes out.


Some people (I can think of at least one, he hasn’t been shy about it) feel the opposite.

Personally, I would predic we will see an RF 35/1.2. Given the relative newness of the EF version, they will want to give the RF version some thing that strongly differentiates it. Plus, there’s the symmetry of an /1.2 trinity.

Regarding the rumor of two 35L lenses, it seems very unlikely to me that they would release both an f/1.4 and an f/1.2 version, especially given that there’s already a consumer f/1.8 version.

I wonder if the other 35L could be a TS lens? There was one (not L) in the FD mount. That plus a 14mm TS would potentially attract those who already have the 17 and 24 focal lengths (although it’s easy enough to put the 1.4x behind the TS-E 24 to get 35mm, close enough).

Time will tell.

I hear what you are saying about the RF 24mm L. We have seen historically that this lens generally comes first in the re-fresh cycle. The EF 24mm f1.4 mk 1 was a very old design and the mkII brought the 24mm's sharpness and rendering upto the EF 35mm f1.4 mkI's level. When the EF35mm f1.4 mkII was launched, we didn't see a EF 24mm f1.4 mkiii and the current 24L is optically inferior to the current EF 35L. So it would make sense for Canon to release a sharp and excellent RF 24L first. They have the stunning RF 50L and RF 100L macro already and it would make a great suite of primes. In theory a non retro focussed 24L and 35L should be physically smaller on a mirroless camera because of the lack of a mirror box betweent he lens and sensor. However, a 35mm lens is right on the boarder of this practicality. If the typical DSLR full frame mirror box is 38mm and the average 35L is actually slightly longer than 35mm then it stands to reason that an RF version is likely to be a similar size to the Ef version. The 24mm should be smaller and lighter unless it's pushed to f1.2 and the glass is upscaled accordingly. I think a 24mm f1.2 would be of interest to me, however it's not a focal length / brightness that I use often.

I'm one of the few here who's still really keen on the EF 35mm f1.4 II L. I'm not sure that a RF 35mm f.4 L can being much to the table compared to the already fantastic EF version. A little bit like the situation wiht the EF 135mm f2.0 vs the new RF 135mm f1.8 IS L. Even if Canon squeezes a tad more sharpness, create an AF system that's a fraction quicker...a build that's slightly heavier...I can't see it being a worth while £2K UKP side grade. Certainly nothing that will yield tangible differences in a final image. I'm really not interested in an image stabliser on a 35L (although very warrented on a 135L). similarly to the EF 135L to RF 135L, the only real tangible upgrade is to push it's optical formula by 1/3rd of a stop to F1.2, however...I'm not sure it'll be enough for me to side grade. it'll be bigger and heavier as a consequence. Sure, new users who don't currently have a 35mm L then I'm sure it's a good investment. I'm not so sure the rest of us who have a large working collection of great EF glass have a worth while reason to upgrade other than it's "new and shiny".

I'm sure that when ever this lens is finally launched, it will be a big seller for Canon and there will be hoards of newbies (to a 35L) passionately informing us that this lens is the best of it's type ever, get the RF...get the RF...get the RF. When we know that this group of newbies are actually just discovering the wonders of a "fast 35", while some of us have been using the older EF units in professional context for well over 20 years.

For me the 35L is a working lens that no customer ever swoons over the images. However, they make a nice addition to an image collection and narrative that would be missed if they weren't there. I like to use my 35L for close up detail shots, a bit like a semi macro lens. It's great for a single person portrait in an environment shot, so it's great for setting a context / establishing shot. It can do small group shots well too, 3-4 people in a shot works well. I tend to find that the customer is usually drawn to tight head and shoulders shots with a diffused background (aka 200mm f2.8 / 135mm f2.0 / 85mm f1.2), the 35L provides the viewer of the collection a wider narrative. The customer is (usually) already aware of this context because they live or work in this enviornment all of the time and it's very familiar to them...but this type of photo needs to be in there for every one else who views this collection of images. While this type of shot can functionally be achieved with a 24-70mm f2.8, it never quite had the same rendering and out of focus to in focus pop that the 35L offers.

 

[roby17269]

The EF 35/1.4L II is relatively new compared to many other lenses in the lineup, so in all likelihood Canon is in no rush to bring out a replacement. It would not surprise me if we see a new 24mm L prime before the 35mm comes out.

Oh gosh I hope you are wrong but you may be right

Some people (I can think of at least one, he hasn’t been shy about it) feel the opposite.

Is that me? My ears are ringing

Personally, I would predic we will see an RF 35/1.2. Given the relative newness of the EF version, they will want to give the RF version some thing that strongly differentiates it. Plus, there’s the symmetry of an /1.2 trinity.

That makes perfect sense to me

Regarding the rumor of two 35L lenses, it seems very unlikely to me that they would release both an f/1.4 and an f/1.2 version, especially given that there’s already a consumer f/1.8 version.

Agreed as well

I wonder if the other 35L could be a TS lens? There was one (not L) in the FD mount. That plus a 14mm TS would potentially attract those who already have the 17 and 24 focal lengths (although it’s easy enough to put the 1.4x behind the TS-E 24 to get 35mm, close enough).

Time will tell.

That would be interesting as second 35mm. I would still want a fast one and a TS one would probably be f/3.5 or somesuch

 

[roby17269]

I'm one of the few here who's still really keen on the EF 35mm f1.4 II L.

I do not think that anyone has ever said anything bad about that lens

I'm not sure that a RF 35mm f.4 L can being much to the table compared to the already fantastic EF version. A little bit like the situation wiht the EF 135mm f2.0 vs the new RF 135mm f1.8 IS L. Even if Canon squeezes a tad more sharpness, create an AF system that's a fraction quicker...a build that's slightly heavier...I can't see it being a worth while £2K UKP side grade. Certainly nothing that will yield tangible differences in a final image. I'm really not interested in an image stabliser on a 35L (although very warrented on a 135L). similarly to the EF 135L to RF 135L, the only real tangible upgrade is to push it's optical formula by 1/3rd of a stop to F1.2, however...I'm not sure it'll be enough for me to side grade. it'll be bigger and heavier as a consequence. Sure, new users who don't currently have a 35mm L then I'm sure it's a good investment. I'm not so sure the rest of us who have a large working collection of great EF glass have a worth while reason to upgrade other than it's "new and shiny".

The RF 50 and 85 1.2 are massive improvements over their EF predecessors (IMHO). Obviously those 2 EF lenses were much older than the EF 35 1.4 II, so it is reasonable to expect a smaller degree of improvement for a new RF 35 1.something... Whether that will be meaningful or not, we do not know yet. And different people will have different views on how meaningful those improvements (if any) will be.

I'm sure that when ever this lens is finally launched, it will be a big seller for Canon and there will be hoards of newbies (to a 35L) passionately informing us that this lens is the best of it's type ever, get the RF...get the RF...get the RF. When we know that this group of newbies are actually just discovering the wonders of a "fast 35", while some of us have been using the older EF units in professional context for well over 20 years.

It will be an expensive "pro" lens. I am not sure it will be a big seller, unless you mean relatively speaking? I am also not sure I'd characterize the majority of future RF 35 L buyers as "fast 35 newbies" (rich newbies at that, otherwise they'd be more likely to go for the RF 35 1.8).
I have no data about the composition of the target market for such lens. But I know that I am interested in this future lens and that I did have the 35 1.4L (mkI) for years and therefore do not consider myself as a "fast 35mm newbie"

 

[SHAMwow]

I know lots of people swear by Sigma lenes. But I've been really burnt with Sigma, I have a long history with the Brand and I've given up with the Brand. Generally, their AF isn't as accurate or consistant, their image Stabilisers are quite crude and their build quality and longevity isn't up to Canon's L grade. I bought my EF 35mm f1.4 L over 14 years ago and it's still fresh with hardly any wear. This lens has been heavily used, over 45 weddings, countless portraits and family groups, workshops etc.
Sigma lenses are optically great, but I find them fragile in comparison. I had to return my Sigma 12-24 to Sigma for repairs for no other reason then it sat in my camera bag and didn't like the bumps. I've never had that problem with any other lens. The biggest dissapointment was their 120-300mm f2.8 OS.....but that's a story for a different thread.

Same, I've had better luck with the current Tamron lineup. I've never quite vibes with Sigma. The build, feel, operation etc. The Tamron 35mm is awesome.

 

[Walrus]

Same, I've had better luck with the current Tamron lineup. I've never quite vibes with Sigma. The build, feel, operation etc. The Tamron 35mm is awesome.

The advantage of the most recent Sigma lenses for EF mount is the in-camera corrections are available, both on dslr and on R bodies; Tamron, Tokina and all the other third party gang doesn't benefit from it. No advantage for raw shooting, but nice advantage for jpeg if you shoot them, and enormous advantage on video. Only DLO is excluded, all the other stuff (vignette, distortion, etc) is going to be corrected with the Sigma's.

Actually I can say for certainty, as I experienced first hand, that with the 16-28 Tokina (and I heard with many other lenses) you have to actively disable in camera corrections on R series (even if they're not available), because otherwise you'll get strange bright "vignette correction" rings in the corners, and they'll be permanently baked in jpeg's and video, while in raw the camera display will show the defect (because it uses an embed jpeg for display raw pics), but when you transfer pics on C1/LR the raw will be unaltered and free of defects.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The advantage of the most recent Sigma lenses for EF mount is the in-camera corrections are available, both on dslr and on R bodies; Tamron, Tokina and all the other third party gang doesn't benefit from it.

I find that corrections work with my Tamron lenses with the Tap-in Console.
It is only for newer lenses and they do not work at all without it.

 

[Walrus]

I find that corrections work with my Tamron lenses with the Tap-in Console.
It is only for newer lenses and they do not work at all without it.

That's great news! I didn't know that also Tamron got the in camera corrections, I was avoiding the recent EF Tamron's for that; you opened me new possibilities and alternative to Canon glass, thanks. So the camera shows the correct Tamron naming, like it does for Sigma lenses?