Canon Announces First Lens in Series of Fixed Focal Length RF Hybrid Lenses – RF35mm F1.4L VCM

[mjg79]

I think this lens looks great. I understand why some are concerned that it being smaller and cheaper than the EF lens suggests it might not be a flagship of the same quality but I just don't think Canon would do that to themselves with an L series for such an important focal length. And the reports suggest it is considerably sharper and better corrected than the already very good EF 35/1.4L II - I hope it has also got the similar pleasant rendering. If you look at Sony's GM lenses, their 35/1.4GM is also relatively modestly priced and much smaller than the DSLR equivalents; it seems to be that 35mm is a focal length that benefits from the shorter flange distance in a substantial way.
The only thing I will be waiting to see is a teardown. The EF 35/1.4L II is perhaps the best built prime that Canon ever made. It's worth seeking out lensrentals teardown as they write about how over-engineered it was, right down to using thicker, longer screws at every stage. I have owned mine for years and it still feels rock solid and has never had any issue. I do hope the new RF version inherited the internal built quality.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I understand why some are concerned that it being smaller and cheaper than the EF lens suggests it might not be a flagship of the same quality but I just don't think Canon would do that to themselves with an L series for such an important focal length.

Compare the EF 11-24/4 with the RF 10-20/4.

 

[AJ]

I think this lens looks great. I understand why some are concerned that it being smaller and cheaper than the EF lens suggests it might not be a flagship of the same quality but I just don't think Canon would do that to themselves with an L series for such an important focal length.

It is possible that a mirrorless design (with elements closer to the sensor) resulted in a weight and cost savings, while still raising the bar in the IQ department.

 

[Benjamin_L]

The purple fringing and LoCAs don't look too nice to be honest

 

[brianb2011]

I like what they've done on paper for this lens, I'll rent it once they're available and check it out at least. This is a niche lens for me, so the only way I'd ever consider it was <600 g and <$1500. They'll probably sell a lot of these, hopefully they're easier to get a hand on one than the 200-800 has been.

 

[melgross]

For me, $600 more would be fine. And Canon would have made it the lightest it could and I would go with that.

The lightest they could would still be considerably heavier.

 

[Richard CN]

Sure, there is copy variations but I rather trust real life images than theoretical MTF charts.

they are usually pretty spot on.

The cinema bodies don't.

true, but do any real CINI primes have IS from any manufacturer? I can't recall one.

 

[Richard CN]

Everyone will get different results.
CIPA test results may not be typical but they are standard.
If you want both standard and typical then that is never going to happen.
A truly scientific way would be to measure a sample of test subjects and average out the results.
It is simply not important enough for that time and effort.

I can't recall who used to do them but I think the best ones were a portrayal of how many shots were in focus out of 100 at various ev's. so you could see the impact of IBIS / IS. but I'm not sure anyone's doing that kind of rigorous testing anymore. I usually use optical limits as my go-to and I know they don't even bother testing IS let alone IBIS.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

true, but do any real CINI primes have IS from any manufacturer? I can't recall one.

Canon has some zooms but no primes.
However, I would not call these cine primes.
They are photo lenses more than anything.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Compare the EF 11-24/4 with the RF 10-20/4.

A fine example of Canon putting a lot of design and engineering effort into making sure each new RF lens has some clear advantages to the previous EF version.
Where Nikon seem to be applying all of their lens r&d budget on yet another 600mm lens, Canon is applying theirs to every new lens in their line up.
Some of the new RF lenses don’t have much of a clear upgrade advantage. Take the RF 24-105 f4 LIS for example. The only real world advantage is that it is a native lens.
Where as this new RF 35mm f1.4 lens offers a lot of easily observable advantages over the current EF 35mm f1.4 II L.

 

[DJPatte]

$1499 for a 35 f1,4 L that is also a new hybrid, that scares me regarding IQ… Is a 1.2 coming?

I would say yes - this follows standard Canon sales procedures - release the crippled version first - “everyone” will buy it, then the REAL version and some of the customers who bought the cheaper one has recovered and will buy the newer as well.
This will give Canon extra time to develop a 1,2 with IS for twice the price.

 

[sanj]

I think if Canon wanted to release a f/1.2 in the near future, they would have released that one first.

They can then capture all the people who want a 35mm L prime to buy the f/1.2 for $2500 (or whatever) and then release this lower cost just-a-bit-slower lens a year or two in for more budget minded folks. That's what Sigma did with their 35 f/1.2 DG and f/1.4 DG release strategy (it was a little over 2 years apart, with the more expensive f/1.2 launching first).

Now if they release a f/1.2 next year or the following year, they will have a much harder time convincing everyone who was waiting for a RF 35L and bought this lens to upgrade a year or two in.

I think the opposite. Flood the market with the 1.4 and then tempt people with the 1.2 (maybe slightly sharper) lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some of the new RF lenses don’t have much of a clear upgrade advantage. Take the RF 24-105 f4 LIS for example. The only real world advantage is that it is a native lens.
Where as this new RF 35mm f1.4 lens offers a lot of easily observable advantages over the current EF 35mm f1.4 II L.

Yes, and I hope this is the start of a new trend. Until the RF 10-20, where an RF lens replaced an EF one it either offered improvements and was more expensive (most of them) or was basically the same and launched at the same price (24-105/4L, 400/2.8, 600/4).

But the 10-20 and now the 35/1.4 offer improvements over their predecessors, and they’re cheaper. So, I hope that trend continues!

 

[SHAMwow]

$1499 for a 35 f1,4 L that is also a new hybrid, that scares me regarding IQ… Is a 1.2 coming?

Have you ever heard the story of Peloton bikes?

 

[Mountain Dave]

A fine example of Canon putting a lot of design and engineering effort into making sure each new RF lens has some clear advantages to the previous EF version.
Where Nikon seem to be applying all of their lens r&d budget on yet another 600mm lens, Canon is applying theirs to every new lens in their line up.
Some of the new RF lenses don’t have much of a clear upgrade advantage. Take the RF 24-105 f4 LIS for example. The only real world advantage is that it is a native lens.

Re: 24-105. Years ago I had the EF II version but not for long. I thought it was subpar for a L lens. I replaced it with the 24-70 2.8L II which became my workhorse. Three years ago, after reading reviews, I took a chance on the RF 24-105 4L. I have found it to be a big improvement, especially the AF and color rendition. It still goes a little soft at 105 so I avoid going beyond 90-95mm. It's surprisingly good at the short end for this type of zoom. It's also lighter. I use it primarily with a RP on long hikes and climbs for the weight advantage. Having said that, both the EF and RF 24-70 2.8s are much better overall. You could argue the RF 24-70 is not much of an improvement. You get IS, shorter MFD and a little more magnification but no noticeable improvement in resolution plus it's a little heavier. I did buy one about a year ago on sale at 1799. Subjectively, I like the color a little better and images have more of a 3D look to my eye but that's hard to quantify. I do think the 24-105 4Ls are a weak point in Canon's lineup especially since the 70-200 4Ls are all pretty stellar.

I do hope the RF 35's light weight and (relatively) low price are a sign of things to come!

 

[frankchn]

I think the opposite. Flood the market with the 1.4 and then tempt people with the 1.2 (maybe slightly sharper) lens.

I think the strategy won't work as well as getting the faster and expensive lens out first:

1. It is a significant hurdle to convince people to spend ~$1500 upgrade (selling the 35L for $1000 and buying the hypothetical faster lens for $2500) for a third of a stop and a slightly sharper lens, when they can take the same money and add another lens instead (maybe the new 24L VCM will be out?). Might be neutral for Canon overall, but will impact a hypothetical 35 f/1.2L market.
   
   
2. It is also a mental hurdle for a lot of buyers even if they can afford it -- people will be naturally resistant to upgrading something they just bought even if the new one is that much better (sunk cost fallacy).
   
   
3. Even if you get past the first two, a flood of used 35L VCMs coming onto the market because of upgraders would also affect Canon's ability to hold margins on that lens and not offer discounts going forward. Canon is not just competing with other manufacturers or its own new lenses, but also used lenses on the market.

It would also make more sense to sell the higher margin lens first (which would be a f/1.2) before launching lower margin products, or at least launching them together. You want to capture all the margin you can from selling as much of the higher end product first. If you invert it, there will be inevitable lost sales from people deciding that the lower end product is good enough and not upgrading, no matter how much Canon tempts them. But if the higher end product is the only one that is available, some of them will bite the bullet and get one.

You see this behavior in everything from cars ("launch editions" and higher trim availability first) to consumer electronics (Apple launches mainline iPhones first before sticking existing tech in an iPhone SE some time later).

 

[zonoskar]

So what does VCM stand for?

Voice Coil Motor I think.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Yes, and I hope this is the start of a new trend. Until the RF 10-20, where an RF lens replaced an EF one it either offered improvements and was more expensive (most of them) or was basically the same and launched at the same price (24-105/4L, 400/2.8, 600/4).

But the 10-20 and now the 35/1.4 offer improvements over their predecessors, and they’re cheaper. So, I hope that trend continues!

I agree, I also thing this is a shift for us as photographers and certainly a mind set shift for Canon. Previously I felt that I was being asked to pay dearly for video features that I would never use as a sills photographer. I couldn't give a stuff about a silent AF, lens breathing, power zoom attachments or aperture ring. Where as a versatile hybrid lens should sell more and therefore have a lower RRP, making more profit on the volume sale.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: 24-105. Years ago I had the EF II version but not for long. I thought it was subpar for a L lens. I replaced it with the 24-70 2.8L II which became my workhorse. Three years ago, after reading reviews, I took a chance on the RF 24-105 4L. I have found it to be a big improvement, especially the AF and color rendition. It still goes a little soft at 105 so I avoid going beyond 90-95mm. It's surprisingly good at the short end for this type of zoom. It's also lighter. I use it primarily with a RP on long hikes and climbs for the weight advantage. Having said that, both the EF and RF 24-70 2.8s are much better overall. You could argue the RF 24-70 is not much of an improvement. You get IS, shorter MFD and a little more magnification but no noticeable improvement in resolution plus it's a little heavier. I did buy one about a year ago on sale at 1799. Subjectively, I like the color a little better and images have more of a 3D look to my eye but that's hard to quantify. I do think the 24-105 4Ls are a weak point in Canon's lineup especially since the 70-200 4Ls are all pretty stellar.

I do hope the RF 35's light weight and (relatively) low price are a sign of things to come!

I hear you. The EF and RF 24-105's seem to suffer a lot in copy variation. I've seen tack sharp ones right across the frame, I've seen iffy ones that are slightly soft at 105mm and one really ratty copy that was just shocking at 24mm. I think canon built them cheap and fast...and knicked em out of the factory as quick as they could make them with minimal QC.
The 24-70/2.8's seem to fare a lot better optically. Strong across the whole focal range and the copy variation / build consistency is top tier and excellent.

 

[YuengLinger]

Is there any difference IQ-wise or performance-wise associated with the 67mm rather than 72mm thread size (in general)?
Keep it simple for me. Thanks!