Bad news: The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM has been pushed into 2023

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,115
16,148
It better be as good as Avatar 2...

In all seriousness, I am very disappointed as I'm tired of forgetting my EF/RF adapter and then not being able to use my 35mm f/1.4 II. Will continue to wait impatiently...
Leave it on the lens?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,902
4,953
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Respectfully disagree. 35mm is really a workhorse lens: journalism, events, street photography. Second only to 50mm, I personally would guess...
I should clarify. By "vanity lens" I mean lenses that Canon produces to, in effect, declare: "Look what we can do!" No reflection on the buyers. I think others might call them "halo" products. My point being that these high-end products are unlikely to sell in large numbers and thus may get delayed or pushed aside for lenses that have a broader appeal (16mm f2.8 and 24 mm f1.8, I'm looking at you.)

Shockingly, I actually agree with @LogicExtremist.

I think a more accurate way to phrase it is that a 35mm f/1.2 is more of a niche application lens. Yes, 35mm is a popular workhorse focal length, and 35mm f/1.4 is a real workhorse lens, but the faster f/1.2 is a bit more specialised, much larger in size/weight and I would hazard to say that it's a bit less common.
I would also add that the 35mm lens competes with the other popular wide-angle focal lengths (28mm and 24mm) for the wide "look." The 35mm focal length is the most "conservative" of the three and it seems to me, at least, that the trend over the last 40-50 years has been towards wider angles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Bonich

EOS 90D
Apr 29, 2019
116
117
I already have Laowa 15 and 100 along with EF 100mm L so not getting RF 100mm Macro anytime soon, but would really like too get updated 180mm Macro for butterflying and venomous snakes for RF mount. For now I am borrowing Sigma 180mm f2.8 for odd times when I shoot butterflies but its seriously heavy to carry in field. Apparently Sony holds a stake in Tamron so they might not make lenses for either Z or RF and in case of Sigma they stated they wont make lenses for closed off systems so once again RF and Z users are out of luck.
Shooting butterflies, venomous snakes, Dragonflies, ....?
Take the RF100-400 instead!
Seriously! I do own the EF180Macro and the RF100-500. For this purpose the 100-400 is the by far best choice!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

SNJ Ops

EOS 90D
Jul 27, 2021
117
110
I do a lot of butterfly photography (also other insects, reptiles, mammals, birds etc). Mostly I shoot butterflies with the 100mm macro. The EF version is better than the RF version, in terms of ability to instantly switch between MF and AF without having to fumble with buttons or switches when shooting in SERVO AF.

A 100mm macro can make it difficult to approach nervous butterflies, but is very manoeuvrable due to the light weight. I prefer longer focal lengths for cleaner backgrounds though. Previously, I used the Canon 180mm macro which has gorgeous bokeh, but I sold it recently because I just find an unstabilised lens too difficult to use handheld. In the tropics, I sometimes use the RF100-500mm, but it's too heavy to cart around all day long in tropical heat. AlanF reckons that the 100-400mm is excellent, much lighter and cheaper, and it focuses close enough for medium-sized butterflies, so that might be worth trying.

The Sigma 150mm and 180mm macros are beasts. Very heavy, clunky, very slow to focus and they have pretty ineffective stabilisation in my experience (compared to Canon 100mm and 180mm). I know some people who use the Tamron 180mm, which is lighter, so that could also be worth trying if you can find a secondhand one in good nick. Of course, you'd need to use the RF-EF adaptor with the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

I'd take what Sigma say about closed off systems with a pinch of salt. Sooner or later, both Sigma and Tamron will realise that they could shift a hell of a lot of lenses if they made them available in RF mount, it's just a matter of time IMO. Existing EF mount designs could easily be ported to RF, and the EF and RF protocols are near-identical, so compatibility issues would be minimal. Also, they have designs for Sony MILCs that could easily be put out in RF mount. I think it will take a lot longer for third parties to produce Z mount lenses though, simply because Nikon is sadly now a minor league brand.
Based on what I was told by a Sigma Rep recently and the the removal of RF lenses from Viltrox’ and Yongnuo’s websites 3rd party RF lenses with electronic contacts won’t come to market until en masse until 3rd party manufacturers can get a license from Canon.

As for Nikon, Viltrox and Voigtländer both make lenses for Z mount and in the case of Voigtländer those lenses are actually licensed by Nikon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,191
1,433
UK
Based on what I was told by a Sigma Rep recently and the the removal of RF lenses from Viltrox’ and Yongnuo’s websites 3rd party RF lenses with electronic contacts won’t come to market until en masse until 3rd party manufacturers can get a license from Canon.

As for Nikon, Viltrox and Voigtländer both make lenses for Z mount and in the case of Voigtländer those lenses are actually licensed by Nikon.
Interesting. I can understand that being applicable to RF mount lenses that have the full set of electrical contacts, but EF lenses with their more limited set of contacts work perfectly on RF bodies, so it's odd that third parties don't just manufacture RF mount lenses with only the EF contacts.

I guess they're just holding out hoping that once Canon has filled out their own lens range, that they'll licence Tamron, Sigma etc. Unfortunately for the third parties, and for photographers, there seems to be no sign of Canon licensing anyone for the foreseeable future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
347
I am happy with the EF version which is a pretty new lens.
IMHO Canon needs to address lenses without adequate EF alternatives first.
For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

chrisrmueller

EOS M50
CR Pro
Oct 23, 2018
47
35
35mm isn’t my preferred focal length - I like 28mm better. But Canon seems to have no interest in an L 28mm, so I can see myself buying this for the aperture. Especially if it has some of the rendering magic of the RF 50mm 1.2. That’d get my attention.

Any chance of a 1.4 105mm to take on the Sigma? I’d be all over that.
I'd be very excited to see a Canon 105/1.4, even though I just bought the Sigma after eyeing it for years. Part of the reason is that the Canon version, if it ever came about, would probably cost over $3k, and the other part is that the Sigma pairs perfectly with the Canon Variable ND filter adapter to use wireless strobes without having to use HSS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,794
2,093
For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.
The answer was easy for me, either non existent RF lenses, or "inexpensive" EF 135, 85 and 180, partly preowned, as car dealers would name them.
I "needed" these lenses, so, waiting wasn't an option at all. Besides, I certainly would have spent, in a few years (!), certainly up to twice as much on RF equivalents. Where RFs are available, I tend to buy the ones I need, since they are optically superb, like the WA zooms. Is the optical improvement worth the difference in price, depends on one's needs and means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

SNJ Ops

EOS 90D
Jul 27, 2021
117
110
Interesting. I can understand that being applicable to RF mount lenses that have the full set of electrical contacts, but EF lenses with their more limited set of contacts work perfectly on RF bodies, so it's odd that third parties don't just manufacture RF mount lenses with only the EF contacts.

I guess they're just holding out hoping that once Canon has filled out their own lens range, that they'll licence Tamron, Sigma etc. Unfortunately for the third parties, and for photographers, there seems to be no sign of Canon licensing anyone for the foreseeable future.
I’m guessing its not that simple at all.

In the case of Sigma they have specs for L, E and X mounts where their lenses work at near OEM or at OEM levels of performance. Even if they could it would an extremely bad idea to manufacture lenses that don’t use the full spec of the mount. No one can afford to have a situation where their lenses work well on some platforms but have potential issues on others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.
Even the RF lens roadmap in canonrumors is still a pipedream for new lenses :)
Even if one was announced, it would still be some time to be able to buy them.
Personally, I would buy either a new EF lens if it needed or second hand if it isn't essential. Buying second hand means that you aren't losing much money when selling again for a new RF lens if/when it arrives.
New RF lens will be definitely more expensive but generally adds more features over a somewhat EF equivalent. If you don't need the extra features (and some downsides) then save your money eg RF100mm vs EF100mm macro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,406
1,127
Unfortunately for the third parties, and for photographers, there seems to be no sign of Canon licensing anyone for the foreseeable future.
They seem to have with EF-M even though there are so few third party lenses.
There is no chance of Canon licensing anything until they have their lineup fully fleshed out.
That will not happen for at least three more years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,406
1,127
I’m guessing its not that simple at all.

In the case of Sigma they have specs for L, E and X mounts where their lenses work at near OEM or at OEM levels of performance. Even if they could it would an extremely bad idea to manufacture lenses that don’t use the full spec of the mount. No one can afford to have a situation where their lenses work well on some platforms but have potential issues on others.
Several Sigma and Tamron lenses have pulsing issues with autofocus tracking with DPAF II.
There would be no point in having RF versions.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,191
1,433
UK
For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.
I'd recommend reading reviews and comparison tests carefully, and talking to people who have used both versions, before parting with money for RF lenses.

Some of the RF lenses may have unique features that are desirable, but having used EF and RF versions of several focal lengths, I would generalise as follows:

EF can be had for almost half the cost of RF, and you'll probably have to be shooting 100MP cameras to notice any significant improvement in sharpness.

AF is a bit faster and quieter with RF, but no more precise. AF characteristics can be different with RF, so you may have to revise your AF settings for anything critical such as BIF, macro or sport/wildlife.

RF feels more modern, but ergonomics of EF are often better e.g. zoom and focus rings tend to be flush with barrel on RF, and little differentiation between rubber rings, so possibilty of grabbing wrong ring etc during learning phase.

Bokeh characteristics seem about the same - RF lenses still suffer from polygons, elliptical bokeh, onion-ring etc.

RF zooms are still mostly (all?) of the telescoping type, and many would argue that they suck in dust and are clumsier to use than internal zooming lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

SNJ Ops

EOS 90D
Jul 27, 2021
117
110
Several Sigma and Tamron lenses have pulsing issues with autofocus tracking with DPAF II.
There would be no point in having RF versions.
I assume you are referring to DSLR lenses and not ones Sigma and Tamron have developed for mirrorless systems which have been made with licenses from the OEM?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
I'd recommend reading reviews and comparison tests carefully, and talking to people who have used both versions, before parting with money for RF lenses.

Some of the RF lenses may have unique features that are desirable, but having used EF and RF versions of several focal lengths, I would generalise as follows:

EF can be had for almost half the cost of RF, and you'll probably have to be shooting 100MP cameras to notice any significant improvement in sharpness.

AF is a bit faster and quieter with RF, but no more precise. AF characteristics can be different with RF, so you may have to revise your AF settings for anything critical such as BIF, macro or sport/wildlife.

RF feels more modern, but ergonomics of EF are often better e.g. zoom and focus rings tend to be flush with barrel on RF, and little differentiation between rubber rings, so possibilty of grabbing wrong ring etc during learning phase.

Bokeh characteristics seem about the same - RF lenses still suffer from polygons, elliptical bokeh, onion-ring etc.
I'd agree with most of that. Personally, I believe that for most L-series lenses the benefits with RF versions are significant, but the cost difference is also substantial. I have not had any issues with the RF lens ergonomics, but I don't use MF that often anyway.

RF zooms are still mostly (all?) of the telescoping type, and many would argue that they suck in dust and are clumsier to use than internal zooming lenses.
This is a bit of a red herring. The only EF zoom lenses that are true internal zooms are the 70-200 zooms and the 200-400L. The UWA zooms have a moving inner barrel, and although the movement is behind the filter mount and a filter helps seal that they are still not internal zooms.

I also don't buy the clumsier to use argument, but maybe that's because I define 'use' more broadly than just the lens being on the camera. Years ago, one of the big advantages of the 100-400L over the 400/5.6 was the shorter collapsed length (although the pull-out hood of the 300/4 and 400/5.6 was pretty cool!). The RF 70-200 lenses are much shorter then their EF counterparts, and to me that's a big advantage because I find myself bringing the RF 70-200/2.8 in situations where I'd leave the EF 70-200/2.8 II at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,191
1,433
UK
I'd agree with most of that. Personally, I believe that for most L-series lenses the benefits with RF versions are significant, but the cost difference is also substantial. I have not had any issues with the RF lens ergonomics, but I don't use MF that often anyway.


This is a bit of a red herring. The only EF zoom lenses that are true internal zooms are the 70-200 zooms and the 200-400L. The UWA zooms have a moving inner barrel, and although the movement is behind the filter mount and a filter helps seal that they are still not internal zooms.

I also don't buy the clumsier to use argument, but maybe that's because I define 'use' more broadly than just the lens being on the camera. Years ago, one of the big advantages of the 100-400L over the 400/5.6 was the shorter collapsed length (although the pull-out hood of the 300/4 and 400/5.6 was pretty cool!). The RF 70-200 lenses are much shorter then their EF counterparts, and to me that's a big advantage because I find myself bringing the RF 70-200/2.8 in situations where I'd leave the EF 70-200/2.8 II at home.
Yes, telescoping zooms are easier to pack and that can be a worthwhile advantage. I've never had issues with dust getting sucked in with mine, just reporting an argument commonly quoted.

Now, if Canon *really* wanted to impress me, they could design lenses with true internal zooming and focusing, that were also compact and light! The advertising hype and interviews with techies from Canon etc rather misled us to believe that a short flange distance and wide throat would allow more compact and advanced designs, without compromises. Still waiting to see *significant* improvements over EF though.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
Still waiting to see *significant* improvements over EF though.
I guess 'significant' is in the eye of the user. A 14mm UWA zoom that takes front filters, and 77mm ones at that, is significant to me. The extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-500L is also significant for me. The mere existence of a full frame standard zoom (wide to short tele) with an f/2 aperture is significant. YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,794
2,093
Yes, telescoping zooms are easier to pack and that can be a worthwhile advantage. I've never had issues with dust getting sucked in with mine, just reporting an argument commonly quoted.

Now, if Canon *really* wanted to impress me, they could design lenses with true internal zooming and focusing, that were also compact and light! The advertising hype and interviews with techies from Canon etc rather misled us to believe that a short flange distance and wide throat would allow more compact and advanced designs, without compromises. Still waiting to see *significant* improvements over EF though.
According to LensRentals, they don't have more dust issues with pump-zooms than with the other type. It seems to be a psychological issue more than a real one. If I'm not mistaken, I must have read it in the comments following the teardown of the EF 100-400 L II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,191
1,433
UK
I guess 'significant' is in the eye of the user. A 14mm UWA zoom that takes front filters, and 77mm ones at that, is significant to me. The extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-500L is also significant for me. The mere existence of a full frame standard zoom (wide to short tele) with an f/2 aperture is significant. YMMV.
Yes, of course. I'm glad that the benefits have been significant for you.

For me there was no significant gain in going from the EF 24-105mm F4 to the RF version. Going from the EF100-400mm to the RF100-500mm gave me a worthwhile increase at the long end, but at the expense of not being able to use an extender below 300mm.

Going from the EF100mm macro to the RF 100mm macro brought little advantage - I didn't need the 1.4x magnification or the aspherical control, and was disappointed to find that I could no longer have instant MF override in SERVO AF without having to fumble with function buttons. The only reason I "upgraded" was because the AF of my EF version had become unreliable and erratic due to worn out focus motors, and I didn't want to be without a macro while it was being repaired.

I've found the RF800mm F11 to be extremely good for bird photography in good light. The only non-RF lens I've retained is my T/S-E 24mm.

But while "worthwhile", I wouldn't consider any of the RF lenses I now have to be *significantly* better than the EF counterparts. I just expected more.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user