Canon RF 24mm f/1.2L & RF 85mm f/1.2L in the works [CR1]

[GMCPhotographics]

What are you talking about? I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinion. Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.



This is not a dSLR. It's a mirrorless. And since you don't appear to be an engineer, why exactly should we take your claims about this "only affecting wide angle lenses" seriously?

Here's a question I doubt you'll be able to answer: If your claim is accurate that the new mount doesn't have any real advantages at 50mm, why is the RF 50mm so sharp in the corners, whereas other ultrafast 50s struggle there? Don't you think if Canon could update the optical formula of the EF 50 1.2 to improve corner performance they would have? The point is, the RF mount appears to allow engineers to make fewer compromises. The Sigma 50 1.4 Art is noticeably less sharp than the RF 50. Considering the only 50-ish lens that competes performance-wise with the RF 50 1.2 is the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 Otus (see side-by-side here), I don't think your claim really stands up.




On what do you base this claim?

So you come here...like a newbie....throwing your weight around and yet you contribute nothing in the way of your photographs or portfolio. I am not answerable to you and my opinions are forged from my real world professional experience. I've been here a long time and my voice carries weight because I have been known here. The only joke here is you. You are the one pointing the finger, taking offence where none was intended and the only bloating seems to come from your own over worded and rather personally directed posts. If you feel that this forum isn't worthy of you...it' probably isn't and I for one won't miss your attitude or your unspectacular 44 post. Got any good recent photos that might sway my opinion of you?

 

[Jack Douglas]

BTW, where's neuro? Oh me oh my, what we have to tolerate, but it's nothing compared to when the 6D came out. If I'd been on CR then I might not have bought that most capable little camera - they came out of the woodwork faulting it because it HAD WiFi. Believe me it's true.

Then there are the authorities that would have you believe that if you place an EF 2X III on a 300 2.8 II all your photos will be ... well, very poor. In fact, you should never place one of those gizmos on any respectable lens. OK. Glad I didn't know that.

I came to CR as a complete ignoramus posting incorrectly and asking "dumb" questions and I never once was attacked ... because ... I'm a sincere half decent person who tries to contribute in spite of not knowing much and try hard to stay away from personal attacks. And I've learned a lot being here.

Hmm, I think also of how we've had to endure DR, that dynamic without which it is not possible to take a decent photo if it's below 14. Everyone should know that, right.

Never the less, I'm glad CR isn't constantly being censored over opinions and I can always split from a thread when I've had enough. Long live CR!

Jack

 

[jd7]

BTW, where's neuro?

And where's ahsanford? They have both been conspicuous by their absence - I think ever since about the time the EOS R was announced?

 

[padam]

The Sigma lens (on 5DIII and mk4 bodies) to be lot sharper optically. But a lot more inconsistent with it's AF accuracy. A very hit and miss lens. I don't have much faith in Sigma as a brand and my experiences with Sigma are well documented here in these forums.

They might gain a new lease of life on the EOS R though, because I found the focusing to be consistently good in live-view (on a 6D Mark II), I just don't like using the rear screen at all times.
Looking at images, I do prefer the look of the RF 50/1.2 over the Sigma EF 50/1.4, I'm just not sure it worth 4 times the price. I wonder if they are going to bother with converting the mount to RF (or Z-mount) like with E-mount but with three different EF-RF adapters, there is probably no need for it.

 

[BillB]

What are you talking about? I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinion. Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.



This is not a dSLR. It's a mirrorless. And since you don't appear to be an engineer, why exactly should we take your claims about this "only affecting wide angle lenses" seriously?

Here's a question I doubt you'll be able to answer: If your claim is accurate that the new mount doesn't have any real advantages at 50mm, why is the RF 50mm so sharp in the corners, whereas other ultrafast 50s struggle there? Don't you think if Canon could update the optical formula of the EF 50 1.2 to improve corner performance they would have? The point is, the RF mount appears to allow engineers to make fewer compromises. The Sigma 50 1.4 Art is noticeably less sharp than the RF 50. Considering the only 50-ish lens that competes performance-wise with the RF 50 1.2 is the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 Otus (see side-by-side here), I don't think your claim really stands up.




On what do you base this claim?

And where's ahsanford? They have both been conspicuous by their absence - I think ever since about the time the EOS R was announced?

And where's ahsanford? They have both been conspicuous by their absence - I think ever since about the time the EOS R was announced?

Don't know about ahsanford, but neuro has been posting on some threads, such as the one on M cameras.

 

[privatebydesign]

But I do get fed up with some of the idiots on here who pop up out of nowhere...post a few posts and then question every one they don't like and think that we are all required to justify everything we say or do...while offering no images or contribution in return.

Could't agree more. I believe I am a reasonable contributor as well and whilst I don't post images to the lens threads I have posted hundreds of illustrative images in regular threads to illustrate or demonstrate something.

 

[privatebydesign]

Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.

As opposed to your bloviating, groundless, sweeping generalizations to which you offer dishonest support and call the poster who does supply illustrative images "stupid" and "idiotic"?

I supported my 'opinion' (which is basic photography 201) with actual images that destroyed your 'evidence', you replied with curtness and insults, just who is setting the tone here?

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...2-trying-to-be-too-many-things-at-once.36278/

 

[bokehmon22]

If they release a 70-130 f/2 so many portrait photographers will either buy it or sales vate over it (if they're not Canon shooters, or don't have the budget). That will be an amazing lens.

They will either complain about the size, weight, and cost just like the 28-70 F2 even though they secretly lust over it. People always find something to complain about it nowadays.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

At F1.2 you get -6 EV AF sensitivity in low light with an EOS R. I'm not sure if future RF bodies would get even better but right now this is a serious advantage in the Canon MILC line.

Yep and that's why f1.2 is so awesome. Hand held with a 1/25th shutter speed at f1.2...it can shoot in very very low light levels. The 85 f1.2's weakness in terms of low light shooting is the 1/85th sec shutter speed...although that's still quite fast for a telephoto. The 135L looses due to the dimmer f2 aperture and the need to shoot at 1/125th min shutter speed...although the results are very nice.

The 24L is usually the wide companion to the 50L in wedding photographer's bags. A 35L is usually the wide portrait lens of choice to mate with a 85L (certainly in my bag). So I wonder if Canon will release a Rf 135L and Rf 35L next. The slim 85 f1.2's DOF will certainly be a challenge for the Eos R's AF system.

There isn't any technical reason Canon hasn't gone down the f1.2 route for the ef wide lenses such as the ef 24L and ef 35L. If Canon can produce the sublime ef 85mm f1.2 L which carries a lot more glass and heavy mechanicals than a f1.2 24mm ever would. If often wondered why that ef 135 replacement hasn't pushed the aperture to f1.8...the front 72mm element will support that aperture....just and easily support it if the front element is pushed to 77mm. Anything faster would be a huge front element.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Same here!
Somehow I am quite lucky that I haven't invested much in EF L pimes yet . For sure this will be expensive, but...
Now I can start saving

Lol...I found a 35L and 85L to be a more useful combo for my shooting. I tend to use a 16-35 for anything wider. I find f2.8 to be fine for anything under 24mm for the light levels I'm shooting in. In fact a 3 camera set up with a 16-35L / 35L / 85L /135L lens options...I regularly shoot whole weddings with that kit. I swap out the 85L for the 135L if I need a longer tele.
I really like the ef 24IIL but sold it a few years ago as I wasn't using it as much as I thought I would. I think that the ef 50 f1.2 L is such a disappointing lens optically that the 24L was a bit orphaned in my bag and I found the 16-35L to be more versatile. The current ef primes (except the 50L) work very well on the Eos R....so these new dedicated R mount lenses have big shoes to fill.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

They will either complain about the size, weight, and cost just like the 28-70 F2 even though they secretly lust over it. People always find something to complain about it nowadays.

It's called Cognative Dissonance. I have a Supercharged V8 Jag convertible....most people's opening comment when they see it for the first time...is..."Wow I bet that drinks fuel". Same dissonance. If they can't have...they diss. It's natural and normal although sad and jarring.

 

[Viggo]

«The slim 85 f1.2's DOF will certainly be a challenge for the Eos R's AF system»

A much less challenge than any DSLR that’s for sure.

I just shot three soccer matches at f1.2 with the 50 last night and it was mind blowing. I’ve shot the same venue several times, include with 1dx2 plus 85 f1.4 L IS, and it was not a close call, even with nearly three times faster frame rate. So I have no doubt the RF85 will be much, much better than 85 L IS or the EF 85 f1.2 on a DSLR.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

«The slim 85 f1.2's DOF will certainly be a challenge for the Eos R's AF system»

A much less challenge than any DSLR that’s for sure.

I just shot three soccer matches at f1.2 with the 50 last night and it was mind blowing. I’ve shot the same venue several times, include with 1dx2 plus 85 f1.4 L IS, and it was not a close call, even with nearly three times faster frame rate. So I have no doubt the RF85 will be much, much better than 85 L IS or the EF 85 f1.2 on a DSLR.

I find with the 85L on a EOS DSLR, the single point fine focus (Single shot) mode works best for non moving targets. Very high keeper rate and accuracy, but not so good for moving targets. I have to expect a slightly lower AF accuracy with multi-point Servo mode. But that's because i'm an AF accuracy junky....I get peeved when I see a slightly off focus image from my 85L.
Back in the 5DII days, I used to use the center point only...focus and recompose method...I get real good at it and fast too. Even then, I used to use the fine focus VF screen to see the slim DOF through the view finder and I could easily adjust the full time manual focus if it was even slightly off. But the fine focus point AF on the MkIII/4 and Dx range of cameras pretty much nails it these days. Going over to a MkIII (when it was first launched) was an AF liberation/revelation.

 

[Del Paso]

Why is a RF 24mm f/1.2L so exciting - shallow DOF and a wider view.

If you ever happen to shoot with a Leica M 1,4/24 you'll certainly know why; a really exciting lens, and the Canon might be just as good!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

They might gain a new lease of life on the EOS R though, because I found the focusing to be consistently good in live-view (on a 6D Mark II), I just don't like using the rear screen at all times.
Looking at images, I do prefer the look of the RF 50/1.2 over the Sigma EF 50/1.4, I'm just not sure it worth 4 times the price. I wonder if they are going to bother with converting the mount to RF (or Z-mount) like with E-mount but with three different EF-RF adapters, there is probably no need for it.

True...but there is a colossal price difference between the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and the RF 50mm f1.2L...plus the cost of the camera body (assuming you already have an EOS full frame DSLR). That's a lot of cash just for a single lens upgrade. Naturally....a different prospect if you are thinking of going mirror-less anyhow.
For me...I'm very happy with the results and lenses I already have. I'm currently using a pair of 5DIII's and getting great results. When the 5DIII was launched, the extra price levy over the mkII caused me to move my camera body replacement to a 4 year cycle from a 2-3 year cycle. This year, I'll need to flip the oldest of my 5DIII's for a mk4. I see little incentive to make my primary camera an Eos R. But next year, when it's time to flip my other mkIII...I might be more interested. Also by then, the lens price will have dropped to more realistic price point.
I think all the big gains have been made in the full frame 35mm format. So there aren't the technical incentives to be an early adopter of gear any more. The previous generation of kit is still very very competent.
I'm still using an ef 400mm f2.8 LIS (mkI). It's an astonishing lens, AF and optically. Probably one of the finest Canon has ever made. It's been superseded twice now with a mkIII...which is eye wateringly expensive...and not much different optically. So all I gain is a weight reduction (which is a lot)...but optically and functionally...there is little difference between them. Certainly little in the end results.

 

[Viggo]

I find with the 85L on a EOS DSLR, the single point fine focus (Single shot) mode works best for non moving targets. Very high keeper rate and accuracy, but not so good for moving targets. I have to expect a slightly lower AF accuracy with multi-point Servo mode. But that's because i'm an AF accuracy junky....I get peeved when I see a slightly off focus image from my 85L.
Back in the 5DII days, I used to use the center point only...focus and recompose method...I get real good at it and fast too. Even then, I used to use the fine focus VF screen to see the slim DOF through the view finder and I could easily adjust the full time manual focus if it was even slightly off. But the fine focus point AF on the MkIII/4 and Dx range of cameras pretty much nails it these days. Going over to a MkIII (when it was first launched) was an AF liberation/revelation.

Yeah, I meant the RF85 or EF 85 f1.2 L on a DSLR, not an adapted EF lens on the R.

I found the 85 L IS adapted to the R better than on the 1dx2, but the RF50 is way better to use. But accuracy I did not check all that much for soccer with 85 L adapted to the R.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Just playing with some maths....an 82mm front element could produce a 98.4mm f1.2 Optic...Now THAT would be a really interesting lens. Slightly shorter than the Sigma 105mm f1.4 but slightly brighter.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The fly in the ointment regarding AF accuracy is that as we age our eyesight diminishes, sadly, I would not go for manual focus.

Jack

 

[Maximilian]

Lol...I found a 35L and 85L to be a more useful combo for my shooting. ...

As I am a 85 mm fan I was more referring to this FL. And from my perspective I can second your preferences at the wide end as well.

... The current ef primes (except the 50L) work very well on the Eos R....so these new dedicated R mount lenses have big shoes to fill.

True here as well. But when I look at the two RF primes already available, I am quite sure that Canon can deliver here, too - if they want to.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think it's safe to say as the R family grows and gains momentum that there could be some improvement/features that make the glass excel beyond L level, not necessarily optically but say with IS or in lens computing, so they will sell the glass. How wonderful that all the other glass is still available to use and for Canon. Stupid Canon.

Jack