Canon, it's time for a Mark II of the RF 35 1.8 IS

[mangobutter]

I got the RF 35 on launch day, I love it, but I also hate it. It's buzzy, loud, kind of on the cheap feeling side, and i hate the extending barrel.

Honestly i wouldn't mind if Canon dropped the macro feature. Make it internally focusing. Make it nice and metal like, or at the very least, higher quality like, like the EF 35 F2 IS at least. But OK.. keep the macro feature and just make it a little bigger so the lens can focus internally. Yes, physics will dictate lens length, so if needed drop the macro feature.

While we're at it lets do the same with the RF 85 F2 and lets add a 100mm F2. Lets also get back to less reliance/no reliance on software to apply corrections. We don't mind if the lenses are bigger.

Long time digital canon shooter since original 5D launch day so i have some good experience w/ EF system. I feel like Canon is going kinda cheap feeling with its offerings and lacked the polish of the gear of the old days with silent focusing, internal focusing, etc. why are we going backwards with cheap loud buzzy lenses and cheap exteriors etc. my 17-40L feels way nicer than the RF 14-35 i owned.

 

[davidespinosa]

How about the f/1.4 VCM versions ?

 

[bn5fg]

Please, no.

 

[scyrene]

Not so much a mark 2 as a totally new lens, then. Personally, I wouldn't have bought this without the semi-macro feature.

 

[EricN]

Not so much a mark 2 as a totally new lens, then. Personally, I wouldn't have bought this without the semi-macro feature.

"Totally new," as in "35 1.2"?

 

[Snapster]

YES.

I think the RF 35mm 1.8 has decent IQ but I've been looking back at the EF 35mm f2 IS USM. I just can't stand the first gen RF STM motors, the grindy noise they make and the extending barrels. The older 35mm lens just looked and felt much better. What's up with the tiny front elements anyway?

All the older STM lenses should get new versions with smoother internal STM or USM motors. And weather sealing. I appreciate the small size but they don't need to be that small. Rf 50mm 1.8 is 160g and RF 35mm 1.8 is 300g. 400-600g is a good balanced lens weight for most mirrorless camera bodies.

 

[scyrene]

What's up with the tiny front elements anyway?

From what people have said on here, I believe it's to do with mirrorless lenses being able to use different designs - so the larger elements can be at the back. It's not inferior, if that's what's worrying you.

All the older STM lenses should get new versions with smoother internal STM or USM motors. And weather sealing. I appreciate the small size but they don't need to be that small. Rf 50mm 1.8 is 160g and RF 35mm 1.8 is 300g. 400-600g is a good balanced lens weight for most mirrorless camera bodies.

Seem what you really want is a new range of lenses. If they get upgrades in multiple aspects, they won't be the small budget option any more.

 

[Snapster]

Seem what you really want is a new range of lenses. If they get upgrades in multiple aspects, they won't be the small budget option any more.

Yeah I don't really care for small budget options but for several focal lengths I would gladly pay for a good midrange option.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I just can't stand the first gen RF STM motors

They’re not “first gen”, they’re gear type STM. Canon has both gear type and lead-screw STM, and they still use both motors.

The RF 85mm f/2 and the RF 24mm f/1.8, for instance, use lead-screw STM, as well as few higher end lenses.

 

[P-visie]

They’re not “first gen”, they’re gear type STM. Canon has both gear type and lead-screw STM, and they still use both motors.

The RF 85mm f/2 and the RF 24mm f/1.8, for instance, use lead-screw STM, as well as few higher end lenses.

Canon Europe have an article about the lens focusing motor technology.

See: https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/usm-stm-lens-technology/