Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L USM video features

[scyrene]

Isn't that only relevant for macro with stepped/rail images? What are the other use cases?

Surely it's the other way round - if you're stacking without a rail, by adjusting the plane of focus (eg with the built-in focus stack option in newer bodies), it can be affected by breathing. If you use a rail, the focus is fixed and the camera is physically moving.

 

[frankchn]

The T stops on the Sigma 35 f/1.2 and Sony 35 f/1.4 are basically the same.
I am not familiar with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 but I doubt it is any brighter than the RF 35 f/1.8 IS Macro.

Sigma sells their 35mm f/1.4 in a cinema housing as a T1.5 so I think it would be brighter than the Canon f/1.8: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1527875-REG/sigma_34m974_35mm_t1_5_ff_for.html

In any case, as a photographer, I am less concerned about light flux than the physical aperture opening since that affects rendering, etc. more, while I can always compensate for a brighter or darker lens by adjusting shutter speed or ISO up or down a third of a stop.

 

[jdavidse]

I am definitely on team f1.4 for this lens. However... did I miss something or was the prevailing rumor on this site that the forthcoming 35mm would be a f1.2?

 

[YuengLinger]

...

Of corse, the one lens every one skirts around is the EF 85mm f1.4 L IS, a stunning performer. Both optically, size. weight and AF is just amazing. But because it was an F1.4, it' often over looked by us bokeh junkies, I certainly am! Canon could have made this lens an f1.2 easily but synically chose not to. They knew the RF mount was coming.
...

Just speculation and personal experience here, but my brand new ef 85mm f.4 L IS was never very good. It focused adequately, and it had ok IQ, but other than being better with purple fringing, I didn't see it as any more pleasing than the ef 85mm f 1.8, and the bokeh on mine was jittery. I thought it was very much like older Sigmas.

The speculation part of my post is this: Maybe there was a wider range of manufacturing tolerance for it, and some copies, such as yours, were great, while a substantial number were underwhelming. Maybe it was a stepping-stone for Canon, or a lens that had been in the works for years and was put out just as the RF era was dawning within Canon.

I agree that there are lens snobs, but some lenses are more universally acclaimed and loved than others for genuine reasons.

 

[Juangrande]

True but the wider the focal length the less compression there will be.

Again more reason to prefer a larger aperture to eke out more separation. I would love an f1.0 35mm

 

[mxwphoto]

Of course, the one lens every one skirts around is the EF 85mm f1.4 L IS, a stunning performer. Both optically, size. weight and AF is just amazing. But because it was an F1.4, it' often over looked by us bokeh junkies, I certainly am! Canon could have made this lens an f1.2 easily but synically chose not to. They knew the RF mount was coming.

My speculation on the 2017 release of 85mm 1.4 L is that since the EF lens lineup was so well fleshed out, they were going to actually do a 1.4-1.8 series of L lenses that would be more video-centric and include IS on all of them as DSLR did not have IBIS. That would allow Canon to expand their market. They tried that in 2012 with the 24, 28 and 35mm IS prime set but it got panned due to not being L and initially charging exorbitant pricing for 2.8 and 2.0 prime lenses.

But since RF came up, those plans got shelved.

 

[frankchn]

My speculation on the 2017 release of 85mm 1.4 L is that since the EF lens lineup was so well fleshed out, they were going to actually do a 1.4-1.8 series of L lenses that would be more video-centric and include IS on all of them as DSLR did not have IBIS. That would allow Canon to expand their market. They tried that in 2012 with the 24, 28 and 35mm IS prime set but it got panned due to not being L and initially charging exorbitant pricing for 2.8 and 2.0 prime lenses.

But since RF came up, those plans got shelved.

I think it was more of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM was significantly sharper and better corrected than the 85 f/1.2L (which was a 1989 design to be fair), and Canon needed something to compete, but RF wasn't ready.

 

[EricN]

Thats misleading as it really matters how you shoot. There’s two factors, camera distance to subject and subject distance to background. I find the benefits more noticeable when shooting the subject full body in frame and space above and below (subject in the scene) then the extra separation helps. Up close (headshot) I could get separation at 2.8.

That's right... also, a little off topic, although you can remove it in post, the ef 1.4 has more purple fringing.

 

[xow]

I gave up on waiting for this lens years ago and have been happily shooting a Sony 35 1.4 GM since.

 

[Ozarker]

Wow, so I guess Canon lens designers have been "messed up" since 1976, when they introduced an 85/1.2 for the first time, joining the 55/1.2 they already had, and their fastest 35mm was only f/2. Or have they been "messed up" since 1998, when they finally introduced a 35/1.4 on the EF mount?

Or is the "mess up" here someone shooting their mouth off with no idea what they're talking about?

Somebody's got his rubber band wound to tight.

Did you not see the smiley? While your history lesson was impressive, it falls flat when designed to impress in such obnoxious fashion. So you know all that and can weaponize it too. Whataguy.

His point wasn't a history lesson. His point is that, for him and myself also, the bag just is more comforting when all the f numbers match. So for us, the f is a big deal. Isn't for you? Who cares?

 

[Ozarker]

Where are the oh so sophisticated pros threatening to denounce a brand because a 35mm lens is a tragic fail if it's 1.4 instead of 1.2? (Or any of 100 other tantrum triggers...) Cartman lurks...

I must admit I'd prefer f/1.2, but I'm sure f/1.4 will do. Makes virtually no difference in bokeh, but it would be so sweet to have a matched set.

 

[YuengLinger]

I gave up on waiting for this lens years ago and have been happily shooting a Sony 35 1.4 GM since.

Thank you for keeping us up to date. We are so happy that you have a hobby.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I must admit I'd prefer f/1.2, but I'm sure f/1.4 will do. Makes virtually no difference in bokeh, but it would be so sweet to have a matched set.

There can be a noticeable difference actually, Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art DG DN renders backgrounds even smoother than Sony’s 35mm f1.4 GM at the cost of being much larger, much heavier and not as sharp at the wider apertures. However the Sigma is still an excellent lens capable of producing wonderful images.

While a Canon RF 35mm f1.4 L would be “more practical” a 35mm f1.2 L would be more of a differentiator to the existing EF lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art DG DN renders backgrounds even smoother than Sony’s 35mm f1.4 GM

When compared side by side, the T stops seem about the same.
The smoother out-of-focus background is likely due to the APO like the RF 85 f/1.2 vs the RF 85 f/1.2 DS.
What I don't get is how the Sigma 14 f/1.4 is also an APO lens but it seems like it is T1.5.

 

[SNJ Ops]

When compared side by side, the T stops seem about the same.
The smoother out-of-focus background is likely due to the APO like the RF 85 f/1.2 vs the RF 85 f/1.2 DS.
What I don't get is how the Sigma 14 f/1.4 is also an APO lens but it seems like it is T1.5.

None of Sigma’s lenses are stated to be APO. The Sigma 35mm f1.2 having a smoother background than the GM is purely down to it having a wider maximum aperture. Just like the Canon RF 85mm f1.2 L renders an even smoother background than Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 Art DG DN.