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

[clearwaterphotog]

Yes, it’s almost as if someone doesn’t really understand what lenses would best serve the current market and yield the greatest profit. I wonder who that is? The company that has led the ILC market for 20 years…or you.

Hmmmm, that’s a real head-scratcher…

You just can't stop yourself from correcting everyone who thinks Canon is wrong by not offering a mid tier premium option, can you? lol...

 

[esglord]

You just can't stop yourself from correcting everyone who thinks Canon is wrong by not offering a mid tier premium option, can you? lol...

The day this is released, the EF 35mm f/1.4L ii with an adapter becomes the mid tier premium option.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You just can't stop yourself from correcting everyone who thinks Canon is wrong by not offering a mid tier premium option, can you? lol...

Yeah, it’s kinda like whack-a-mole. Foolish statements popping their heads up time and again from the same little holes.

“What is Canon thinking by not giving me the X or doing the Y that I personally want? It makes no sense!!”

Yes, it makes sense. Business sense. Your personal lack understanding or agreement are irrelevant to Canon’s strategy. If enough people share your point of view and buy other brands, Canon will pay attention to that.

People here have been predicting doom for Canon for a long time. Poor low ISO DR. Late to mirrorless. Blocking 3rd party RF lenses. No 'mid tier', only affordable lenses for many people and expensive lenses for a few (never mind that those 'mid tier' lenses still aren't cheap, e.g. the people complaining about no Canon 600/6.3 for around $5000 like that's mid-tier).

People will go on predicting doom for Canon for various flavor-of-the-month reasons. Maybe one day they'll be right. And maybe one day Charlie Brown will really kick that football.

 

[danfaz]

One of the best combos is 35 on one camera and 85 on the other camera. Canon has now made both of these 1.2 massive hulks, with no L version option that is lighter or smaller. I am not sure what they are thinking, or how they can't see that they would sell way more of these at ~$500 and 8oz lighter in a 1.4 version. At this point I would even take a decently made f1.8, but we only get either one extreme or the other. The clearest and best option for most will be to just hold on to the wonderful EF 35 II.

Get the 24-105 f/2.8 and call it a day!

 

[EricN]

Yeah, it’s kinda like whack-a-mole. Foolish statements popping their heads up time and again from the same little holes.

“What is Canon thinking by not giving me the X or doing the Y that I personally want? It makes no sense!!”

Yes, it makes sense. Business sense. Your personal lack understanding or agreement are irrelevant to Canon’s strategy. If enough people share your point of view and buy other brands, Canon will pay attention to that.

People here have been predicting doom for Canon for a long time. Poor low ISO DR. Late to mirrorless. Blocking 3rd party RF lenses. No 'mid tier', only affordable lenses for many people and expensive lenses for a few (never mind that those 'mid tier' lenses still aren't cheap, e.g. the people complaining about no Canon 600/6.3 for around $5000 like that's mid-tier).

People will go on predicting doom for Canon for various flavor-of-the-month reasons. Maybe one day they'll be right. And maybe one day Charlie Brown will really kick that football.

View attachment 213589

Well said

 

[nhandumuc]

Ah, with well corrected optics and BR elements also, would be the ultimate Meteor Shower and Landscape Milkyway lens for me! My wallet is ready CANON!

 

[Del Paso]

Get the 24-105 f/2.8 and call it a day!

Today is the day . I won't leave house for a minute, afraid of missing DHL delivery...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Today is the day . I won't leave house for a minute, afraid of missing DHL delivery...

It'll be an easy spot... your DHL delivery vehicle will be the one with the on board crane and stablisers to get this rocket launcher sized lens off the flat bed!

 

[EricN]

Today is the day . I won't leave house for a minute, afraid of missing DHL delivery...

Don't even use the bathroom!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

One of the best combos is 35 on one camera and 85 on the other camera. Canon has now made both of these 1.2 massive hulks, with no L version option that is lighter or smaller. I am not sure what they are thinking, or how they can't see that they would sell way more of these at ~$500 and 8oz lighter in a 1.4 version. At this point I would even take a decently made f1.8, but we only get either one extreme or the other. The clearest and best option for most will be to just hold on to the wonderful EF 35 II.

What made the EF mkI so adorable was that is was so small and neat. Unfortunalty it's just not quite wide open sharp enough for the current RF sensors. But it was a little sweet heart lens and fun to shoot with. It was the perfect reportage lens: a combination of size, focal length and brightness / aperture. I migrated to a mkII earlier in the year, my mkI had been with me for well over 15 years. The mkII is superior in every metric except that it's a lot more portly and curiously longer. It's less portable and lacks some of the joy the mkI had becuase of it's extra mass.

Using the mkII on my R6ii and R8 is an optical delight, however I'm less happy with the increased length needed with the EF ot RF adapter. Suddenly, this lens is quite large and I'm missing the older lens' subtlety. While I like this lenses results and imagery....I just don't enjoy this lens as much in use. Maybe I should pick up and RF 35mm f1.8 macro STM instead. When I see the new Cosina / Voigtlander 40mm f1.4, I can't help but think that Canon are missing a beat here...small and light is apart of the 35mm f1/4's magic. The RF patent shows a truely massive lens relatively to the native EF mkI. As an aside, I see the Sigma 40mm f1.4 art is an even more unweildy beast that is a similar weight to a 70-200mm/2.8?!?
I was hoping that the (often commentated) removal of the "essential to make a wider lens than 38mm on an SLR" retro focus design would allow for a far smaller lens. Maybe we'll see a more diminuative f1.4 L version later down the road, once everyone has got the big-normus F1.2 "statement" lens out of their system.

The RF camera sensors seem to prefer lenses that resolve higher than the 0.7 marker on the Canon MFT charts. Where as anything over 0.8 seems to be universally considered as "Sharp". Minor or major increases over this magic 0.8 point seem to relatively superfluous, so I'm wondering if that's the current physical resolution max of the current RF sensors. I guess that'll change once we get into the 60+MP sensors. I've been hovering around the 20-24mp for a long time. I find it a nice balance between file size and resolution. I'm finding my current R6ii & R8 are well out resolving my old 5DIII's files by quite a large margin. There's Canon DSLR mp and then there's Canon R series mp. Hence my recent lens upgrades from long term lenses to keep up with the newer sensors.
Most of the older EF primes are around the 0.5 point on the MFT charts, so they look a tad soft wide open on the newer sensors. The EF 35mm f1.4 II L is well above this resolution metric and I wonder if there is anything to gain in the newer RF version, resolution wise. I'm sure the new build will be a delight and the corners will be an improvement, although less of an issue with portraiture. It's just that at around 155mm long...it's hardly a reportage / street stealth lens any more...and as some one joked earlier...it looks like it's been engineered by Bigma...sorry I mean Sigma.

 

[Del Paso]

Don't even use the bathroom!

How can you know?
The postman or delivery guy ALWAYS rings when I am guess where...
Edit: delivery delayed (1 or 2 days)

 

[Walrus]

I see the Sigma 40mm f1.4 art is an even more unweildy beast that is a similar weight to a 70-200mm/2.8?!?

It is huge and uber long for being a 40mm; but quality is stellar, on par with the RF 50 L, and with the actual price (I paid 755€ few months ago for a brand new copy) makes it the absolute best standard lens to date for Canon AF mounts, if you can accept its huge mass and length (the latter is even a tad worse on ML due to the adapter).

Taken into account the prices of the RF 50 L and the coming RF 35 L, the Sigma 40 will remain the best choice overall, with the two old 35 Art and 50 Art still being "best bang for your bucks" standard choices, as they feature 90% of the performance of the before mentioned lenses, while costing a fraction of them (both can be bought, less or more, for the price of the RF 35 STM).
Undoubtedly Sigma EF Art lenses are, to date, the best lens choice for the R mount when you look for bright and sharp primes.

 

[photophil]

Using the mkII on my R6ii and R8 is an optical delight, however I'm less happy with the increased length needed with the EF ot RF adapter. Suddenly, this lens is quite large and I'm missing the older lens' subtlety. While I like this lenses results and imagery....I just don't enjoy this lens as much in use. Maybe I should pick up and RF 35mm f1.8 macro STM instead.

I have come to realize that the RF35 1.8 is my pragmatic dream lens for travel and documentary. Small, lightweight, 1/2 macro, stabilized, fast-ish, sharp enough. What's not to love other than the lacking AF and build.

 

[Walrus]

I have come to realize that the RF35 1.8 is my pragmatic dream lens for travel and documentary. Small, lightweight, 1/2 macro, stabilized, fast-ish, sharp enough. What's not to love other than the lacking AF and build.

It's a great lens, agreed, it always performed beautifully (and AF is actually good; it's the 85 STM's AF which is a disaster).
I sold it (along with the 50 Art) just to merge those two lenses in a single one that could cover both focals (the 40 Art), but I would (and surely will) re-buy it without doubt, it's one of the must-have lenses in the system, along with the RF 16.
I would say it's THE must have lens of the system, it's a no brainer.

 

[scyrene]

You just can't stop yourself from correcting everyone who thinks Canon is wrong by not offering a mid tier premium option, can you? lol...

You're fully entitled to believe they're wrong as in, they should (because it's what you want).

But not as in they must (in order to succeed/survive).

 

[Del Paso]

It is huge and uber long for being a 40mm; but quality is stellar, on par with the RF 50 L, and with the actual price (I paid 755€ few months ago for a brand new copy) makes it the absolute best standard lens to date for Canon AF mounts, if you can accept its huge mass and length (the latter is even a tad worse on ML due to the adapter).

Taken into account the prices of the RF 50 L and the coming RF 35 L, the Sigma 40 will remain the best choice overall, with the two old 35 Art and 50 Art still being "best bang for your bucks" standard choices, as they feature 90% of the performance of the before mentioned lenses, while costing a fraction of them (both can be bought, less or more, for the price of the RF 35 STM).
Undoubtedly Sigma EF Art lenses are, to date, the best lens choice for the R mount when you look for bright and sharp primes.

Yeah, it’s kinda like whack-a-mole. Foolish statements popping their heads up time and again from the same little holes.

“What is Canon thinking by not giving me the X or doing the Y that I personally want? It makes no sense!!”

Yes, it makes sense. Business sense. Your personal lack understanding or agreement are irrelevant to Canon’s strategy. If enough people share your point of view and buy other brands, Canon will pay attention to that.

People here have been predicting doom for Canon for a long time. Poor low ISO DR. Late to mirrorless. Blocking 3rd party RF lenses. No 'mid tier', only affordable lenses for many people and expensive lenses for a few (never mind that those 'mid tier' lenses still aren't cheap, e.g. the people complaining about no Canon 600/6.3 for around $5000 like that's mid-tier).

People will go on predicting doom for Canon for various flavor-of-the-month reasons. Maybe one day they'll be right. And maybe one day Charlie Brown will really kick that football.

View attachment 213589

It's about time to accept as an irrefutable, CR expert-confirmed fact, that the best lenses for Canon are the Tamrons or Sigmas. Better or, at least, as good as the best native RF lenses. Without 3rd. party lenses, Canon won't survive in a market asking for the best possible quality. The new RF lenses are too large, heavy, expensive and do not sell. Real pros want plasticky Tamrons or AF- unreliable Sigmas.
Period!!!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

You're fully entitled to believe they're wrong as in, they should (because it's what you want).

But not as in they must (in order to succeed/survive).

^^This.

Also, people aren’t entitled to opinions other than their own. “I don’t need f/1.2 and would far prefer a lighter, less expensive f/1.4 lens,” is a perfectly reasonable statement. “No one needs an f/1.2 lens and Canon is hurting themselves by not releasing a lighter, less expensive f/1.4 lens,” is an asinine statement, and I have no problem pointing out that someone posting a statement like that looks like an ass.

 

[EricN]

How can you know?
The postman or delivery guy ALWAYS rings when I am guess where...
Edit: delivery delayed (1 or 2 days)

Same with me!

Oh no!

 

[EricN]

It is huge and uber long for being a 40mm; but quality is stellar, on par with the RF 50 L, and with the actual price (I paid 755€ few months ago for a brand new copy) makes it the absolute best standard lens to date for Canon AF mounts, if you can accept its huge mass and length (the latter is even a tad worse on ML due to the adapter).

Taken into account the prices of the RF 50 L and the coming RF 35 L, the Sigma 40 will remain the best choice overall, with the two old 35 Art and 50 Art still being "best bang for your bucks" standard choices, as they feature 90% of the performance of the before mentioned lenses, while costing a fraction of them (both can be bought, less or more, for the price of the RF 35 STM).
Undoubtedly Sigma EF Art lenses are, to date, the best lens choice for the R mount when you look for bright and sharp primes.

How did you conclude 90% before the RF 35 f/1.2 has been announced?

 

[kafala]

So many Canon fanboys in the comments. Someone simply asks for a lens and they defend Canon like they work for them. Losers. The complaints are legit. Canon is making cheap crappy unsealed slow 1.8 primes and great expensive heavy 1.2 primes. There's no 1.4 primes that many people would like to purchase for the cost saving and the smaller size without sacrificing quality as much as the 1.8 primes do. Anyone defending Canon for not coming out 1.4 are fanboys. No point in arguing with them.