Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM Confirmed for 2024 [CR3]

[MegaFlash]

I think you will find that most high quality (Sony GM , Canon L, Nikon S lens) with a similar apertures tend to be similarly price.

For example, let's look at the 135 mm f1.8 lenses:

Nikon Nikkor Z 135 mm f1.8 S Plena $2496.95 (B&H)​

Sony FE 135 mm f1.8 GM Lens $2098 (B&H)​

Canon RF 135 mm f1.8 L IS USM Lens $2099 (B&H)​

Yes there are exceptions. For example, the recently announced Nikon 400 mm f4.5 VR S lens for <$3K is an exceptional value.

Yeah, I think you missed my point.

I was not so subtly complaining about the lack of "in-between" lenses.

With RF mount you either get OKish entry-level lenses or very expensive, large and excellent ones.

My Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 LM WR smokes the RF 35mm F1.8 in regards to optics and build quality for example (for the same price pretty much).

I've been looking at Z mount too, their F1.8 primes are large and kinda ugly but at least they're WR. If Nikon released primes that matched the Zf in style and build quality my path forward would be set, but there are no such lenses on the horizon afaik...

Sony has many nice lenses of all sizes but isn't an option currently because they have no bodies in the R6ii/Zf/S5ii price range I find very interesting. The only thing that the A7IV has going for it is AF, everything else in regards to usability is subpar.

Sticking with Fuji isn't an option either because I'm tired of how the smaller sensor(s) handle highlights and low light.

I think that the s5ii with the Sigma i Series primes are the closest to what I want out of a FF system currently in my price range.

 

[neuroanatomist]

With RF mount you either get OKish entry-level lenses or very expensive, large and excellent ones.

Mostly true. There are some non-L lenses that punch well above their price level, e.g., the 28/2.8 and 100-400. Also, lenses like the 15-30, 100-400 and 800/11 offer FF focal lengths at lower costs than anyone else.

My Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 LM WR smokes the RF 35mm F1.8 in regards to optics and build quality for example (for the same price pretty much).

Of course, those focal lengths do benefit from the smaller image circle. A FF 35/1.4 with similar optical quality as the Fuji would be much more expensive.

 

[Quack]

Yeah, I think you missed my point.

I was not so subtly complaining about the lack of "in-between" lenses.

With RF mount you either get OKish entry-level lenses or very expensive, large and excellent ones.

My Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 LM WR smokes the RF 35mm F1.8 in regards to optics and build quality for example (for the same price pretty much).

I've been looking at Z mount too, their F1.8 primes are large and kinda ugly but at least they're WR. If Nikon released primes that matched the Zf in style and build quality my path forward would be set, but there are no such lenses on the horizon afaik...

Sony has many nice lenses of all sizes but isn't an option currently because they have no bodies in the R6ii/Zf/S5ii price range I find very interesting. The only thing that the A7IV has going for it is AF, everything else in regards to usability is subpar.

Sticking with Fuji isn't an option either because I'm tired of how the smaller sensor(s) handle highlights and low light.

I think that the s5ii with the Sigma i Series primes are the closest to what I want out of a FF system currently in my price range.

Used EF L lenses are pretty much what you and many others are ignoring when it comes to high quality, mid price lenses for the R system cameras.

 

[EricN]

Used EF L lenses are pretty much what you and many others are ignoring when it comes to high quality, mid price lenses for the R system cameras.

There is always the excuse about not using an adapter....

 

[TulseLuper]

The length of this thing is surprising (longer than the EF L w/ adapter?!) but looks like it still fits vertically in the standard Pelican 1510 case and Domke bags. Until these lenses start taking extra slots in bags, I can’t complain too much even if the weight is a bit irritating.

 

[ugameus]

There is always the excuse about not using an adapter....

For some, my ef-rf adapter arrived today. My Milvus 35mm arrives tomorrow. My EF-180mm arrives next week. I would prefer not to use one. But, yeah, it's what gives me the options that work for me.

 

[sanj]

We can want all we like, but there's no indication Canon is going to change their current stratagy. If the L primes are too heavy maybe you can stop down the STM primes and feel happy.

It would be hardly heavier than the future possible 1.4.

 

[john1970]

Mostly true. There are some non-L lenses that punch well above their price level, e.g., the 28/2.8 and 100-400. Also, lenses like the 15-30, 100-400 and 800/11 offer FF focal lengths at lower costs than anyone else.


Of course, those focal lengths do benefit from the smaller image circle. A FF 35/1.4 with similar optical quality as the Fuji would be much more expensive.

+1 on the RF 28 mm f2.8 pancake lens. I keep that lens on the R8 for a compact and light combo for everyday photography. Total combo weighs less than 1.4 lbs.

 

[VicP83]

I will buy this ASAP. Needs to hurry

 

[EOS 4 Life]

ASAP

I wish Canon knew that acronym.

 

[Dragon]

I wish Canon knew that acronym.

The discrepancy lies in the interpretation of "possible".

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wish Canon knew that acronym.

They do: As Soon As Profitable.

 

[SwissFrank]

Reading your post, I'm actually glad your not in charge because I'd guess Canon might be bankrupt by now...
how do "by-invitation-only..." or rental only create enough revenue in a struggling market?

They're "halo" products, meant to increase the attraction of the product line as a whole. Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it. Ditto, Nikon's ultra-huge fisheye that could see wider than 180 degrees. Ditto the Zeiss (or was it Schneider) 50/0.7 lenses.

 

[Dragon]

They're "halo" products, meant to increase the attraction of the product line as a whole. Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it. Ditto, Nikon's ultra-huge fisheye that could see wider than 180 degrees. Ditto the Zeiss (or was it Schneider) 50/0.7 lenses.

Hard to know for sure, but with the amount of military activity going on around the world, I suspect the the RF 1200mm L was far more profitable than you might think. Spooks want all the reach they can get and are willing to pay dearly to get it. The EF 1200mm f/5.6 was made in a different era that bore little resemblance to today's market.

 

[Del Paso]

Hard to know for sure, but with the amount of military activity going on around the world, I suspect the the RF 1200mm L was far more profitable than you might think. Spooks want all the reach they can get and are willing to pay dearly to get it. The EF 1200mm f/5.6 was made in a different era that bore little resemblance to today's market.

And I guess the same can be said of the Zeiss F0,7 and Nikkor 220 degree fisheye. The were used for instance by the NASA and some other well paying military and scientific organisations. The 1600mm Leica R supertele was built on order for a sheikh who agreed to pay what it cost. Leica made 3 of them.
If I'm not mistaken, the NASA once paid about $10000 for a plasticky toilet seat, guess how much the were charged for the Zeiss F 0,7 . Peanuts for them.

 

[Del Paso]

They do: As Soon As Profitable.

You are sooo cynical!

 

[Dragon]

You are sooo cynical!

That is not cynicism, just a practical business observation. Soooo many folks have never had to make critical business decisions!

 

[EricN]

That is not cynicism, just a practical business observation. Soooo many folks have never had to make critical business decisions!

This has become extremely obvious with the popularity of social media.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it

I highly doubt that.
The lens was specifically made for TV networks to cover the Olympics.
Canon knew exactly how many they were going to make and sell.

 

[roby17269]

They're "halo" products, meant to increase the attraction of the product line as a whole. Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it. Ditto, Nikon's ultra-huge fisheye that could see wider than 180 degrees. Ditto the Zeiss (or was it Schneider) 50/0.7 lenses.

Canon has always made the 1200mm to order, so they do not have any unsold ones.
I do not think they have lost money on the 1200mm, but, since they made very few of those (I think I have read 20 somewhere) and since they do not make money on someone reselling them (and those have been resold), I think they've made relatively little money on it