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

[scyrene]

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

Too soft in the centre ;p

 

[sanj]

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.

Seriously about the lenses though. The lenses are made to create images, not fit in a backpack. And, the 50/85 1.2 lenses feel perfectly fine on the R5. My question is: What prevents anyone from using the 35mm 1.8 lens if they want a lighter lens to carry in their backpacks?

 

[Snapster]

Seriously about the lenses though. The lenses are made to create images, not fit in a backpack. And, the 50/85 1.2 lenses feel perfectly fine on the R5. My question is: What prevents anyone from using the 35mm 1.8 lens if they want a lighter lens to carry in their backpacks?

The busy bokeh, crude external AF that sounds like a lawnmower, and the lack of weather sealing.

Yes, it still takes good pictures. Yes, this is a first world problem.

 

[EricN]

The busy bokeh, crude external AF that sounds like a lawnmower, and the lack of weather sealing.

Yes, it still takes good pictures. Yes, this is a first world problem.

Not all EF L lenses had weather sealing or a quiet motor. This was more common with the cheaper L lenses such as the 200 f/2.8 L. Of course, boke is subjective.
I'm glad you realize your problem is for more affluent societies. If you live in such a place, you could choose to be thankful and getting an extra part time job until you can afford the more expensive lenses.

 

[Snapster]

I'm glad you realize your problem is for more affluent societies. If you live in such a place, you could choose to be thankful and getting an extra part time job until you can afford the more expensive lenses.

Now there's a feeble and weird forum flex. Can you be a grown-up and stay on topic?

 

[EricN]

Now there's a feeble and weird forum flex. Can you be a grown-up and stay on topic?

How is that flex, childish or off topic?


Both points are direct responses to your previous comment. I'm going to assume you somehow couldn't comprehend that and did not purely reacting emotionally and deciding to make insults:

Currently what is available from Canon is going to ether be less expensive that you don't want or more expensive things that some people say, "I don't want because it is too expensive."
@sanj already responded to the other common complaints.


Now I will respond assuming what appears to be the case.

Did you ignore my first point because It's context is helpful for understanding the second point?
Are children or adults more likely to not understand they need to work extra and / or save to buy things that are expensive for them?
Is it grown up or childish to ignore context and resort to insults?

 

[YuengLinger]

As good GREAT as it ever was, and in stock.

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/ef-35mm-f-1-4l-ii-usm?color=Black&type=New

 

[sanj]

The busy bokeh, crude external AF that sounds like a lawnmower, and the lack of weather sealing.

Yes, it still takes good pictures. Yes, this is a first world problem.

It is not so loud AND fits in your backpack.

 

[EricN]

It is not so loud AND fits in your backpack.

Even if i is louder than a person wants to accept, almost everyone has a phone that can record audio away from the noisy lens. There is almost always a solution to any problem...

 

[jd7]

It is not so loud AND fits in your backpack.

I think it's perfectly understandable that some people would like something better than the RF 35mm F/1.8 but still would like something smaller than a 35mm f/1.2 seems likely to be. No doubt Canon has got commercial reasons for what it is doing - it is making products to get the best return it can from a market not making products for individuals - but that doesn't mean it is unreasonable for some people to want something else. In some situations carrying a heavier lens to get the best possible image quality makes sense but equally the lens with the best possible image quality doesn't necessarily take the best images, eg if you aren't going to carry it to where you need to be to take the photo or it's going to distract your subject.

 

[YuengLinger]

"Next Goldilocks went into the parlor where she found three chairs; a great big chair, a middle-sized chair, and a little chair. Goldilocks sat in the great big chair, but it was too hard. She then sat in the middle-sized chair, but it was too soft. Finally Goldilocks sat in the little chair, and it was just right! As she rocked in the little chair, it broke into pieces!"

Happy lens hunting in 2024!

 

[EricN]

I think it's perfectly understandable that some people would like something better than the RF 35mm F/1.8 but still would like something smaller than a 35mm f/1.2 seems likely to be. No doubt Canon has got commercial reasons for what it is doing - it is making products to get the best return it can from a market not making products for individuals - but that doesn't mean it is unreasonable for some people to want something else. In some situations carrying a heavier lens to get the best possible image quality makes sense but equally the lens with the best possible image quality doesn't necessarily take the best images, eg if you aren't going to carry it to where you need to be to take the photo or it's going to distract your subject.

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.

 

[john1970]

Yay, another $2k+ lens.

As someone who is looking to move away from Fuji and really likes the colours that I get out of Canon raws the choice between cheap-ish plastic, non WR lenses and large and expensive as hell L lenses isn't making the system very attractive...

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.

 

[YuengLinger]

Yay, another $2k+ lens.

As someone who is looking to move away from Fuji and really likes the colours that I get out of Canon raws the choice between cheap-ish plastic, non WR lenses and large and expensive as hell L lenses isn't making the system very attractive...

You are likely right, if by "+" you mean well over $2k. If it is an f/1.2 35mm lens with IS, I'd be surprised to see it below $2600USD when released. Without IS, not much less, maybe $2400.

The EF 35mm f/1.4L II is hanging in there at $2000USD, about 11% above its release price in 2015.

While I still love my EF version II, if it ever needed replacing, I'd like to see IS included. A little extra weight and girth wouldn't bother me at all. (On the lens, I mean--not my waistline.) On the other hand, I couldn't give a fig about 1.4 vs 1.2.

 

[danfaz]

The EF 35mm f/1.4L II is hanging in there at $2000USD, about 11% above its release price in 202015.

An important bit of information people seem to forget when complaining how outrageously expensive RF glass is (obvious exceptions aside).

 

[jd7]

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.

I would not have felt happy with the STM primes. I would not have felt happy with the L primes either. And you will see from my previous post that I assume Canon has good commercial reasons for its strategy. I don't see any indication that strategy will change any time soon either. Which is why I sold all my Canon gear last year and now use another brand.

 

[Xopher78]

I see the appeal of this lens, but would be even happier with a 35-50mm f/1.4L IS USM zoom… can’t be that hard and would save more space in the bag

 

[EricN]

I would not have felt happy with the STM primes. I would not have felt happy with the L primes either. And you will see from my previous post that I assume Canon has good commercial reasons for its strategy. I don't see any indication that strategy will change any time soon either. Which is why I sold all my Canon gear last year and now use another brand.

I support you decision, but why are you posting on Canonrumors now?

 

[jd7]

I support you decision, but why are you posting on Canonrumors now?

I have been a CR member for many years (at least 15 years I think) and I bought one of the lifetime memberships when they were first offered. Over the years I have learned a lot about photography gear and about photography more generally from CR, and I remain interested in photography gear generally, so I still keep an eye on CR. I like to have an idea about what gear is out there, whichever the brand.

 

[Del Paso]

"Next Goldilocks went into the parlor where she found three chairs; a great big chair, a middle-sized chair, and a little chair. Goldilocks sat in the great big chair, but it was too hard. She then sat in the middle-sized chair, but it was too soft. Finally Goldilocks sat in the little chair, and it was just right! As she rocked in the little chair, it broke into pieces!"

Happy lens hunting in 2024!

OK, I got it. I'll get the 1,2/35 and not the SigTam...
Even though I don't have a fat a.s!