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

[mxwphoto]

Canon complainers: The lens I want is not native!!!
Nikon complainers: The autofocus is not good enough!!!
Sony complainers: The ergonomics suck!!!

Between these 3 "critical" flaws, I would have to choose Canon as it is the only one where you can actually do something about (ala adaptors) it as a consumer.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

So if everyone agreed with the people demanding Canon make the particular product they want or else, that wouldn’t be an echo chamber, right? No, I’m sure that would be perfectly fine. But providing a valid business reason that ‘demand’ (from n=1) isn’t likely to be met constitutes a forum dangerously full of mansplaining simping corporate soldiers. Sure, sure.


So you’d rather sell 500 widgets for $1 each than 50 widgets for $20 each? That a fancy-looking little business degree you found at the bottom of your box of Cracker Jacks.


I know, it’s hard to escape yourself. But try.

Echo chambers of any kind are counterproductive. N is certainly greater than 1 when it comes to people who want mid-tier primes, and you know it, so you should stop acting like you don't for the sake of a stronger argument. It's actually striking how balanced this forum in particular seems to be, with people who just want the best lens at any price, and people that want a better lens (good/better/best) at a price they can justify given all of the other expenses in their life/profession.

We're also not talking about a 2000% price delta between L lenses, the ones that would be getting replaced with a fast UWA-standard hybrid (i.e. 15-35/2.8 ($2100 right now) and 24-70/2.8 ($2100 right now)). If they made an 18-50/2 it probably would be around $3000 ($1200 less than if I bought both of the aforementioned lenses). Now, I know Canon will know better than me, I'm just some opinionated peon rambling here with you, but I have to think there are more potential buyers of $2100 lenses than potential buyers of $3000 lenses (the argument works better with the 14-35 at $1200 but I thought you'd pick on that as a lens no one would replace with an f/2). Ideally you should prefer to sell higher priced products even if it means lower volume - the problem could be forecasting your profit and ROI because the market for more expensive things has lower volume. If you can forecast the cost increases (in your supply chain, labor, etc.) over the period which you desire to get a return on your investment, then you can decide if that time period meets your risk goals or if you would prefer to make lenses that have faster ROI to reduce risk to your organization/shareholders/etc.

I know it's hard to let the obnoxious f/1.4 desirers go unchallenged. But try.

 

[Snapster]

This is over 50% longer than the EF 1.4L II, which already weighs 760g. So it will probably be over 1kg in weight and another absolute chunker of a lens.

Is there a Biggest Lens Awards I'm unaware of? Canon gonna scoop it up at the BLA's 2024.

Maybe the R5 ii should be doubled in size too so it doesn't snap like a twig under these new lenses.

 

[esglord]

Echo chambers of any kind are counterproductive. N is certainly greater than 1 when it comes to people who want mid-tier primes, and you know it, so you should stop acting like you don't for the sake of a stronger argument. It's actually striking how balanced this forum in particular seems to be, with people who just want the best lens at any price, and people that want a better lens (good/better/best) at a price they can justify given all of the other expenses in their life/profession.

We're also not talking about a 2000% price delta between L lenses, the ones that would be getting replaced with a fast UWA-standard hybrid (i.e. 15-35/2.8 ($2100 right now) and 24-70/2.8 ($2100 right now)). If they made an 18-50/2 it probably would be around $3000 ($1200 less than if I bought both of the aforementioned lenses). Now, I know Canon will know better than me, I'm just some opinionated peon rambling here with you, but I have to think there are more potential buyers of $2100 lenses than potential buyers of $3000 lenses (the argument works better with the 14-35 at $1200 but I thought you'd pick on that as a lens no one would replace with an f/2). Ideally you should prefer to sell higher priced products even if it means lower volume - the problem could be forecasting your profit and ROI because the market for more expensive things has lower volume. If you can forecast the cost increases (in your supply chain, labor, etc.) over the period which you desire to get a return on your investment, then you can decide if that time period meets your risk goals or if you would prefer to make lenses that have faster ROI to reduce risk to your organization/shareholders/etc.

I know it's hard to let the obnoxious f/1.4 desirers go unchallenged. But try.

You are assuming Canon has unlimited production capacity to meet all demand. They, like any successful business, will produce the products with the highest % profit margin first, presumably these 1.2L lens and the cheaper to produce non-L. It is likely that a 1.4L has very close to the same production cost as a 1.2L lens and a lower profit margin. I believe it’s likely that Canon will produce these lenses (or make agreements with third parties to produce them) as soon as they have met demand for the highest margin profit and have excess production capacity which clearly they do not have given frequent back orders on high end product. I sincerely hope they do and everyone gets the lenses they (and I) want, but these were never going to come out first.

 

[philHolland]

Just to maybe address "the size thing".

We don't know the weight of this lens, and though the length is there, we don't know fully if that's dead on. But the square metrics for a high performing wide angle that this lens optically competes with are:

- Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 - 1390g, 109x137mm
- Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 - 665g, 77x94 mm

Neither of those are native RF lenses and likely could be made differently if designed now for mirrorless mounts. But in terms of quality of optics that's sort of what we are expecting to compete with.

For references of the older EF design:
- Canon 35mm f/1.4L - 760g, 80.4x105.5mm

Key thing being the older 35mm f/1.4L is an older design and not in the same class as the newer and modern aspherical design, likely coatings, glass itself, and finishing methods. Not a bad lens by any means, but Canon has already put the stake in the ground on where L-Series optics should land and it should be "ideally" above the Zeiss and Sigma primes at this point.

Sony's GMaster 35mm f/1.4 - 524g, 76x96 mm. This lens is lighter and made for a native mirrorless mount, but also not necessarily "better optically" than Zeiss and Sigma in this case. Nikon doesn't have a f/1.4 or faster Z-mount lens yet, but their older G is 600g and in the realm of performance of OG EF 35mm f/1.4L.

If we're talking 154.96mm long and making a an educated guess the new 35mm will land in the 885-1200g range. But the RF shorter flange could save maybe 200 grams potentially, but I'm hoping certain sacrifices on image circle won't be made. Unless theirs a bold new optical design that incorporates molded plastic elements, which I don't think they will do with this particular lens. Also potential of shaving off weight with a very complicated aspherical design, but hoping they don't go too nuts on that front as it will hit price and likely rarity if it's too hard to physically make well and consistently.

Outside of all the specs speculation and mulling over if this or that, the lens itself must produce a pleasing image and in this case also be high resolving and what we would consider the best that Canon can currently produce, hopefully highly corrected optics. All of this for many of us is priority number one and the rest of those chips pertaining to weight and size fall where they fall for a lens like this within reason.

I should underline, if you have the former 35mm f/1.4L EF and test it against the newer 35mm f/1.8 Macro RF, this likely alludes to some of the reasons Canon might have taken their time to find where and how they can improve any design with a faster/wider aperture. And I think this will contribute to good things for those wanted wider fast primes as well.

 

[EricN]

You are assuming Canon has unlimited production capacity to meet all demand. They, like any successful business, will produce the products with the highest % profit margin first, presumably these 1.2L lens and the cheaper to produce non-L. It is likely that a 1.4L has very close to the same production cost as a 1.2L lens and a lower profit margin. I believe it’s likely that Canon will produce these lenses (or make agreements with third parties to produce them) as soon as they have met demand for the highest margin profit and have excess production capacity which clearly they do not have given frequent back orders on high end product. I sincerely hope they do and everyone gets the lenses they (and I) want, but these were never going to come out first.

Uh-oh prepare to be accused of of mansplaining

 

[esglord]

Uh-oh prepare to be accused of of mansplaining

Genuine question: is it even possible to mansplain something to a person who you never assumed to be a woman (or a man for that matter)?

 

[jd7]

Just to maybe address "the size thing".

We don't know the weight of this lens, and though the length is there, we don't know fully if that's dead on. But the square metrics for a high performing wide angle that this lens optically competes with are:

- Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 - 1390g, 109x137mm
- Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 - 665g, 77x94 mm

Neither of those are native RF lenses and likely could be made differently if designed now for mirrorless mounts. But in terms of quality of optics that's sort of what we are expecting to compete with.

For references of the older EF design:
- Canon 35mm f/1.4L - 760g, 80.4x105.5mm

Key thing being the older 35mm f/1.4L is an older design and not in the same class as the newer and modern aspherical design, likely coatings, glass itself, and finishing methods. Not a bad lens by any means, but Canon has already put the stake in the ground on where L-Series optics should land and it should be "ideally" above the Zeiss and Sigma primes at this point.

Sony's GMaster 35mm f/1.4 - 524g, 76x96 mm. This lens is lighter and made for a native mirrorless mount, but also not necessarily "better optically" than Zeiss and Sigma in this case. Nikon doesn't have a f/1.4 or faster Z-mount lens yet, but their older G is 600g and in the realm of performance of OG EF 35mm f/1.4L.

If we're talking 154.96mm long and making a an educated guess the new 35mm will land in the 885-1200g range. But the RF shorter flange could save maybe 200 grams potentially, but I'm hoping certain sacrifices on image circle won't be made. Unless theirs a bold new optical design that incorporates molded plastic elements, which I don't think they will do with this particular lens. Also potential of shaving off weight with a very complicated aspherical design, but hoping they don't go too nuts on that front as it will hit price and likely rarity if it's too hard to physically make well and consistently.

Outside of all the specs speculation and mulling over if this or that, the lens itself must produce a pleasing image and in this case also be high resolving and what we would consider the best that Canon can currently produce, hopefully highly corrected optics. All of this for many of us is priority number one and the rest of those chips pertaining to weight and size fall where they fall for a lens like this within reason.

I should underline, if you have the former 35mm f/1.4L EF and test it against the newer 35mm f/1.8 Macro RF, this likely alludes to some of the reasons Canon might have taken their time to find where and how they can improve any design with a faster/wider aperture. And I think this will contribute to good things for those wanted wider fast primes as wel

I think the most obvious comparitor is the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DN Art

35mm F1.2 DG DN | Art | Lenses | SIGMA Corporation

Basic information for 35mm F1.2 DG DN | Art.

www.sigma-global.com

That lens comes in at just under 1.1 kg.

Sony managed to make the 35mm GM (524g) a little smaller and lighter and a little better optically than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 DN Art (about 640g). So perhaps Canon will make 35mm f/1.2L which is a bit lighter than the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DN Art. I will be surprised if it's under 1kg though. Time will tell.

PS I have the 35 GM and I think it's fantastic. Combination of size, weight, optical performance and AF make it a winner in my book. That said though, and while I believe the GM is regarded as optically a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.2 in technical testing, to my eye the Sigma f/1.2 can produce even better images then the 35 GM. I just don't want a 35 which is that large and heavy when I can have something like the GM.

 

[EricN]

Genuine question: is it even possible to mansplain something to a person who you never assumed to be a woman (or a man for that matter)?

With the original meaning, it wouldn't be possible, but the meaning evolved to just show that @clearwaterphotog made a judgement about @neuroanatomist's posts. Unfortunately, I think you also noticed his/ her/ heir comments have a similar attitude and one of the senses of the word is "often inaccurate," and we both know who is more inaccurate...

 

[esglord]

With the original meaning, it wouldn't be possible, but the meaning evolved to just show that @clearwaterphotog made a judgement about @neuroanatomist's posts. Unfortunately, I think you also noticed his/ her/ heir comments have a similar attitude and one of the senses of the word is "often inaccurate," and we both know who is more inaccurate...

Thanks! I should probably also stop making feisty posts, but I need something to do now that the kids are napping and I’m done baking cookies.

 

[sanj]

I think if a photographer wants the best available quality with the widest possible f stop, he/she would be prepared for (and accept) a slightly heavier lens. Seriously!

 

[EricN]

Thanks! I should probably also stop making feisty posts, but I need something to do now that the kids are napping and I’m done baking cookies.

I think it's ok and normal about making feisty comments. I tend to think it's entertaining when people say something to essentially mean, "your response is bad, wrong. insulting and you should / need to stop, but it's ok for me to say something insulting, because I am confident I am so correct in my sense of morality." Then, serval people reply posting, "well, actually, you are wrong in your sense of reality..."
I've only been a member for two or three years, yet, it's fairly predictable that this repeatedly happens between once a month and once a week. Sometimes, it continues for over a week from one or two people insisting they have some kind of moral high ground over Canon's evil greed and they should be a virtuous company like Sony & Sigma or Fuji & Viltrox.

What kind of cookies did you bake?

 

[EricN]

I think if a photographer wants the best available quality with the widest possible f stop, he/she would be prepared for (and accept) a slightly heavier lens. Seriously!

very true!
I will also add there are no or not enough lenses a photographer wants to buy for a mount, s/he / they can expect to be disappointed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What kind of cookies did you bake?

I'm sure I speak for EVERYONE when I say that EVERYONE'S favorite cookies are Cranberry Pecan Lace Cookies, which are what I just made. Before baking, I formed the dough into f/1.2-inch balls, because NOBODY needs f/1.4.


EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 105mm, 1/50 s, f/2.8, ISO 800

 

[EricN]

Explain, please. I could not understand.

Sorry, I meant to say "if"
For example f/1.4 and third party AF.
What's wrong with a MFer?

 

[EricN]

I'm sure I speak for EVERYONE when I say that EVERYONE'S favorite cookies are Cranberry Pecan Lace Cookies, which are what I just made. Before baking, I formed the dough into f/1.2-inch balls, because NOBODY needs f/1.4.

View attachment 213640
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 105mm, 1/50 s, f/2.8, ISO 800

I heard there was a protest because in Canada, it's not possible to make recipes without strict tolerance for example anywhere from 35 to 150 tamarind cookies made from variable 2 to 2.8 inch balls. The protesters say that country is d()()med and they are all threating to goto some larger country that I can't remember the name, maybe "So..."

 

[esglord]

I'm sure I speak for EVERYONE when I say that EVERYONE'S favorite cookies are Cranberry Pecan Lace Cookies, which are what I just made. Before baking, I formed the dough into f/1.2-inch balls, because NOBODY needs f/1.4.

View attachment 213640
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 105mm, 1/50 s, f/2.8, ISO 800

Ah, such a pity. I heard on YouTube the cranberries overheat. My snowballs are really the only viable pecan-driven cookie. All eaten, in fact, before my shutter could fire. I’d better upgrade to Sony.

 

[esglord]

I'm sure I speak for EVERYONE when I say that EVERYONE'S favorite cookies are Cranberry Pecan Lace Cookies, which are what I just made. Before baking, I formed the dough into f/1.2-inch balls, because NOBODY needs f/1.4.

View attachment 213640
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 105mm, 1/50 s, f/2.8, ISO 800

How do you like the 24-105?

 

[neuroanatomist]

How do you like the 24-105?

It’s a great lens!

 

[Snapster]

Seriously about the sizes though. Camera bodies like R5 are getting smaller compared to 5DIV. But it seems the lenses are now getting bigger and bigger.

I can appreciate a lens that is perfectly balanced on a camera.

For the R5 the perfect balance for me is around 10cm long and 600g in weight. The 1.2 obsession is making setups really front heavy, your backpack very heavy when you carry 4-5 lenses with you, and the 1/3 of a stop makes no difference for me.