Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM coming in 2020 [CR1]

Agreed but it is not yet here and I anticipate an avalanche of criticism about it being an extending design.
I do look forward to it however and will sell my trusty ca.2002 70-200 2.8L IS as soon as the new one appears.

Why wouldn't it be hyperfocal?
 
Upvote 0
Hyperfocal:

In photography, hyperfocal distance is a distance beyond which all objects can be brought into an "acceptable" focus. As the hyperfocal distance is the focus distance giving the maximum depth of field, it is the most desirable distance to set the focus of a fixed-focus camera.

Is that what you meant to say?

Not sure - by hyperfocal I mean "with just internally moving elements" when refocusing, simply not extending ....
 
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
Not sure - by hyperfocal I mean "with just internally moving elements" when refocusing, simply not extending ....
oh, ok. there are couple of points to consider:
extending zooms may be susceptible to zoom creeping issue.
Lens creep” is that really annoying thing in which your lens slips and zooms itself out of position. It happens on all sorts of zoom lenses that have an externally moving part rather than an internal one.

and so on and so forth.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 25, 2012
750
376
Why wouldn't it be hyperfocal?
Not hyperfocal.
It is an extending design as opposed to internal zoom.
The 24-70 and 24-105 designs are also extending designs. The current 70-200 zooms are internal zooms in that they do not change length as you zoom.
The prototype shown of the RF 70-200 was an extending type. The criticism of extending zooms is that air is pushed in and out of the lens permitting dust to accumulate.
While that is technically true I have never had an issue with dust despite long term usage of extending zooms.
Zoom creep does occur with the v1 and v2 RF 24-105 zooms I have owned but the RF does not creep. IMO it is a function of good design and construction that minimizes or eliminates zoom creep.
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,299
4,187
What vintage lenses?
Canon FD?
I really want to go with R so as to use my FD/FL and R vintage lenses and I was wondering if this worked with non-electric lenses. My delay at this point is I am greedy and want IBIS as well as I have been completely spoiled with IS in my current Canon lenses.
Thank you in advance for your response.
Sorry for the delay (short trip to France).
I meant the vintage lenses I personally own, Leica Apo Macro Elmarit 100 mm, Macro Elmarit 60 mm, Summilux 35 asph. & 75 mm M lenses, Apo Telyt 180 mm, Summicron R 90 mm, Summicron M 50 mm, M 28 mm asph. and many more M and R lenses...
PS: I have converted the Leica R lenses with a so called "Leitax" bayonet (replaced the leica bayonet with an EF Type), and use the Novoflex RF to M adapter for the Leica M lenses (NOT for ultrawides !!! due to color shift.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
With so few RF lenses currently available it makes me wonder why Canon would develop a second 35 mm prime.

This is a CR1 rumor.

Because a very fast 35mm lens on FF is one of a wedding photographer's staple lenses. This is the lens that was missing out of the fast RF 'trinity'.

I bet it will soon turn into a CR3
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Good to know. 135mm is my one lens combo for 90% of my pictures. I bought into the Canon EOS system because of the excellent lenses. This f1.2/ 35mm will be a gem, no doubt. But since Canon goes all f1.2 with their RL primes I am out. I expected something excellent but practical, maybe f1.4/35 L, a 2/28L or 2/40L. Such a unpractical, heavy and show off 1.2thing like the 1.2/50 will bring Canon laurels but not many customers. Sad. It looks like only Zeiss could keep me with Canon if they release something practical soon. I doubt it. Canon, please, kick McKinsey out and get advice from photographers.
Actually, f/1.2 is what got me buying lenses again. It'll be what keeps me buying. But I am just 1 guy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
105/1.2 would be a size if Sigma 105/1.4 Art and it is absolute huge. An Absurdity. Mine is for sale.

135/1.2 would be the size of 200/2 if not larger. Price? I guess one would have take out a second mortgage;)
A Canon 105 f/1.2L, no matter the size, would make me swoon. I'd be a buyer.
 
Upvote 0
I am genuinely keen to understand the limitation. Any hints?

I'm fairly sure there's a hard limit to what type of lens can be made. So for example, take the EF 50mm 1.0, there's not a massive amount of glass for light to pass through, so do-able.

But the longer the focal length the much more massive the lens and a lot more places are required for the light to pass through and bounce around before it hits the sensor. The closest we've got so far (in mean terms) is the massive 1.8 200mm prime but even then the next revision to that lens was F2.

Physics will also play a part in the resulting image quality so gets in the way of a lot of things. We didn't get a 50mm F1.0 mkii as another example.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
I don't want to second guess Canon's business strategy, but I am more than a bit perplexed by the number of uber-costly lenses Canon is announcing. I'd love to see the studies that show they will receive sufficient return on investment in a shrinking camera market to warrant the heavy development and production costs these lenses must require.
Speaking just for myself, f/1.2 anything at all has me excited to buy. So do f/2 zooms. ;) Without those, I'd have stayed EF. But it will be hard to beat the EF 35mm f/1.4L II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0