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

I second the 24-105L. I'd like to see a 24-70/2.8 lens photo that wouldn't have been as salable taken with the 24-105/4 instead, and it's lighter and obviously longer, as well as cheaper. And both lenses have a 25mm aperture wide-open at the long end so you even have the same bokeh if you need to use it for a portrait.

I don't agree to the R/RP. The R5 is so much more capable and only a few grams more. R would be OK if you need CHEAP not LIGHT. I'm not at all sold on Canon's in-lens IS PLUS IBIS gambit. In part I never get within 2 stops of what they claim, and in part subject motion almost invariably becomes an issue anyway. But with the 24-105/4, IBIS is not a necessity, just another 1-2 stops I'd guess. On the other hand the R5 autofocus seems magic. So if you have to use an R, you're not losing much with IBIS (at least with an IS lens) but you are losing AF as well as resolution.
I def bought that RP because it was cheap and I didn’t want my kid trekking around Nepal with my 5 . I was pleasantly surprised with his images.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
494
332
I appreciate all the advice from both you Frank and the previous poster. I have been doing this a very long time and have traveled with a variety of gear from minimalism to the 1510 case, chock full.
I'm using a small kit these days mostly L f/4 zooms and have the desire for a pancake but with the RF flange I know that's not happening and even though rachskis801 (possibly from Utah?) kind of laughed at my X100v idea, it's just the focal length and I have long desired an X100 model.
I kept trying various smaller Canon bodies to use alongside my 5D3 or R6 and none did it for me except the M5 briefly. I also have stated I am done buying cameras which isn't quite true, done buying ILC's. A slim quality crop Point & shoot would be a great complement to a FF Canon with 700g + zooms. Plus, I just have to see what all the fuss is about.
Lastly, I have always been in the camp of waiting for the mid level primes which never seem to materialize, i.e. EF 50 1.4 ll, RF 35 1.4 L, you get the idea. I Had the RF 35 1.8 STM and I came away unimpressed. The color, contrast, vignette, barrel distortion etc had it striaght to MPB.com after a few months. So I desired that focal range 35-ish in an L lens but not a 1.2.

Another thing is something like an X100V would be shared by my spouse who has no desire to use my R6 & glass.

The End.

Hey, have I mentioned I lived by Schauspielhaus in Zurich six years. Due to family and age I will never get a chance again I guess.

When I lived there, 1998, 2000, around then, I always had a Contax G2 with 28/2.8, 45/2, and 90/2.8 in my backpack. Now, I have the R5 with 50/1.8 in my backpack alway, and the 16/2.8 in case I need something sider. With 45MP, I can crop the 16mm very small and still have a good photo, so I treat it kind of like a zoom.

I use the three f/4 zooms for most shooting as they are as sharp (or sharper!!) than the non-tele primes.

So that leaves the Sigma 28/1.4, 100/2.8 1.4x macro, and my 135/2 and since last week 135/1.8. These are honestly "special project" lenses that I don't usually take with me, except for special purposes. I'm actually pretty stupid not to use them more but as you say they are big and heavy. Also, I like shooting in the rain, but that means I'm holding an umbrella and don't want to try to change lenses much.

Here are some "blue Zurich" photos for you.

1675854347042.png1675854454955.png1675854329877.png

1675854369929.png
1675854412434.png
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Blue Zurich

Traditional Grip
Jan 22, 2022
243
364
Swingtown
I wasn’t laughing at all. Just trying to be nice and not come off rude. I guess this is just another place in the universe where people get to be know it alls and dicks instead of just saying “oh hey, not a reputable dealer.” So I apologize. I’ve never bought from Abes, it just popped up when I checked out the camera because I was interested in what you were interested in. I’ll keep my mouth shut from here on out.
You were not out of line at all, sorry if the context made my response come off that way, I understand how you were trying to help and yeah, those are two different camps of wishlist items. I wanted to address that in my longer followup, Take care
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,930
4,333
The Ozarks
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.
If it's rendering is identical to the most recent EF 35mm f/1.4L... I'd be real happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
If and when it comes out, it might be heavier than the 50. The EF 35 II is 760g and the EF 50 is 545g.

:cry: Hope it's comparable in weight to the RF50 then (950g). As good as the EF 35L2 is, eyeAF and focus tracking on it (even adapted) with my R5 isn't as good as with an RF lens, especially in low light.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
494
332
If and when it comes out, it might be heavier than the 50. The EF 35 II is 760g and the EF 50 is 545g.
Dan that may not be the case on RF for a couple reasons.

First, the natural way to design a lens tends to put the back elements closer and closer to the film/sensor as you get wider and wider. You can do that on RF but not on SLR's where you have to leave room for the mirror. So you have to compromise the wide-angle design on SLRs, making it far bigger and heavier (and typically not as sharp either). I still have the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH (selling if anyone wants it--pictures on Ebay) and it's tiny. f/1.2 would certainly be bigger but still could be tiny.

Second, there's two schools of design, I'd call old-school and new-school. Old-school is tried and true designs like the Canon EF 50mm's (all of them!) double-Gaussian design. It's not that sharp especially in the corners, but it's compact, light, cheap and easy. The RF50/1.2 is instead a new-school computer-designed formula that doesn't make sense just looking at it, but it's big complicated and seriously excellent performance. The RF35/1.2 will be very, very, very similar, excepting that 35/1.2 is only half the area of "entrance pupil" or "aperture" (not using "aperture" to mean "f/stop," which is really focal length divided by aperture). I'd expect the 35/1.2 to be up to 30% smaller than the 50/1.2 but will still be big.

In general, an RF 35/1.4 would either be substantially smaller than the EF, for the first reason, or, be a lot better optically (at which point who knows how big). But I can't imagine they'd make it better than the 50/1.2--there's just about no need. Even the 100-500 zoom is honestly sharper than most people really needs, at least at 100 and 135 (see my lens test threads on the lens subtopic on this forum).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
2,998
2,367
Dan that may not be the case on RF for a couple reasons.

First, the natural way to design a lens tends to put the back elements closer and closer to the film/sensor as you get wider and wider. You can do that on RF but not on SLR's where you have to leave room for the mirror. So you have to compromise the wide-angle design on SLRs, making it far bigger and heavier (and typically not as sharp either). I still have the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH (selling if anyone wants it--pictures on Ebay) and it's tiny. f/1.2 would certainly be bigger but still could be tiny.

Second, there's two schools of design, I'd call old-school and new-school. Old-school is tried and true designs like the Canon EF 50mm's (all of them!) double-Gaussian design. It's not that sharp especially in the corners, but it's compact, light, cheap and easy. The RF50/1.2 is instead a new-school computer-designed formula that doesn't make sense just looking at it, but it's big complicated and seriously excellent performance. The RF35/1.2 will be very, very, very similar, excepting that 35/1.2 is only half the area of "entrance pupil" or "aperture" (not using "aperture" to mean "f/stop," which is really focal length divided by aperture). I'd expect the 35/1.2 to be up to 30% smaller than the 50/1.2 but will still be big.

In general, an RF 35/1.4 would either be substantially smaller than the EF, for the first reason, or, be a lot better optically (at which point who knows how big). But I can't imagine they'd make it better than the 50/1.2--there's just about no need. Even the 100-500 zoom is honestly sharper than most people really needs, at least at 100 and 135 (see my lens test threads on the lens subtopic on this forum).
Well, the Sigma 35 f/1.2 weighs 1,090g / 38.4oz.
Maybe that can give us some guidance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
871
1,609
www.1fineklick.com
And that's another good point!
An interesting read is Lensrental's disassembly of the RF 50. There's a lot of "stuff" in these RF lenses ( I'm no engineer), that seems to require their larger size.


Well, the Sigma 35 f/1.2 weighs 1,090g / 38.4oz.
Maybe that can give us some guidance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0