Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Version 2 Coming?

[Del Paso]

35mm f/1,8 II?
Why no RF 35mm f/1,2 L I ?

 

[Rceres]

If I were deciding which of the original RF lenses to update, I’d use two criteria:

1. Which lens has the most room for improvement?
2. Which lens would sell the most copies?

The iconic RF 50mm f/1.2L immediately comes to mind. Not because the current lens isn’t excellent (I love mine and use it every day), but because it was designed very early in the RF era. Since then Canon has made tremendous progress in autofocus systems, focusing-group design, and lens packaging.

The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how much Canon’s engineering has evolved. What would a modern RF 50mm f/1.2L II look like if Canon prioritized improved handling and balance while maintaining the same flagship-level image quality.

A slimmer barrel, more modern focusing architecture, and improved packaging could potentially make the lens noticeably easier to handle without sacrificing what made the original iconic.

I suspect a lot of existing RF 50mm f/1.2L owners would upgrade.

Sign me up for the preorder!

 

[circleglider]

You have the RF 35 f1.4L, what do you mean?

“High optical performance” doesn’t mean just a half-stop brighter. Canon’s 35mm F/1.4 lens isn’t anywhere near the same optical quality as their 50mm and 85mm F/1.2 lenses. I own all three (four actually, including the little F/1.8) and I get noticeably better performance with their 28-70mm F/2 zoom at 35mm than either 35mm prime.

Canon’s hybrid VCM lenses are targeted at a different use case and are not optimized for maximal optical performance. How hard can it be to bring a 35mm prime to market with performance similar to their other two F/1.2 primes? Not everyone is a YouTube creator.

 

[noname]

I doubt they'll make a 28mm VCM. At this point, I'm just hoping for "f/2 or faster".

The EF mount had both f/1.8 and f/2.8 28mm lenses, so there's precedent.

As for ~40mm, in my opinion that is covered now by the RF 45, which gets us 1mm closer to 43 than a 40, so it's even better.

Canon have 50mm and 135mm f/1.8 primes (probably a 200mm to follow).
They also have two f/1.8 macros (24mm and 35mm) and nothing in-between is expected.
OTOH one more f/1.4 VCM is scheduled, which can be either 28mm (more probable) or 100mm (less probable).
The RF 45mm f/1.2 is a modified version of a 48.5mm f/1.2 patent, it is always compared with the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, respectively.

 

[HMC11]

If I were deciding which of the original RF lenses to update, I’d use two criteria:

1. Which lens has the most room for improvement?
2. Which lens would sell the most copies?

The iconic RF 50mm f/1.2L immediately comes to mind. Not because the current lens isn’t excellent (I love mine and use it every day), but because it was designed very early in the RF era. Since then Canon has made tremendous progress in autofocus systems, focusing-group design, and lens packaging.

The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how much Canon’s engineering has evolved. What would a modern RF 50mm f/1.2L II look like if Canon prioritized improved handling and balance while maintaining the same flagship-level image quality.

A slimmer barrel, more modern focusing architecture, and improved packaging could potentially make the lens noticeably easier to handle without sacrificing what made the original iconic.

I suspect a lot of existing RF 50mm f/1.2L owners would upgrade.

Sign me up for the preorder!

I am not sure if the RF50 f1.2 satisfy your second criteria, unless you meant 'which lens would sell the most copies within its price range'? Actually, even with the added qualification, I am still not sure as the RF24-70 f2.8L could well outsell it. Anyway, the first criteria would also need a qualification, e.g. 'which lens has the most room for improvement at its price point'. With these changes, the RF24-105 f4L could well be the lens due for a refresh.

 

[Gino_FOTO]

It's a good lens already, although I personally prefer its "unpopular" sibling, the 24mm. What more could you want from newer versions of lenses in this category? Address the coma smearing issue, add ultra-fast and silent AF, and internal focusing, and I'll be happy. I'd even be fine if they lost their pseudo-macro capability.

 

[Skyfall]

1. The latest rumor is a never-seen-before prime and zoom.
2. A rumor from.last November is about a 300-600mm supertele and a 20/24-70mm f/2.8L Z.
3. My logic would suggest a 70-180mm f/2.8 IS STM and a "cheap" 400mm prime.
4. In the macro department a 50mm 1:1 and 180mm 1:1 are still.missing.
5. Among the first RF lenses the one to be replaced asap (imho) is the 28-70mm f/2 (and a 70-150mm to add to this series).

So I do not see a new 35mm macro to come in the foreseeable future.

If they can make it 50-150 f2.8 it would be even better, the perfect compliment to a wide angle zoom. I dont necerarily know what something like a 400mm prime would actually give that the 100-500 does not have. Maby if they make it f4.5 and very light?

 

[roby17269]

If I were deciding which of the original RF lenses to update, I’d use two criteria:

1. Which lens has the most room for improvement?
2. Which lens would sell the most copies?

The iconic RF 50mm f/1.2L immediately comes to mind. Not because the current lens isn’t excellent (I love mine and use it every day), but because it was designed very early in the RF era. Since then Canon has made tremendous progress in autofocus systems, focusing-group design, and lens packaging.

The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how much Canon’s engineering has evolved. What would a modern RF 50mm f/1.2L II look like if Canon prioritized improved handling and balance while maintaining the same flagship-level image quality.

A slimmer barrel, more modern focusing architecture, and improved packaging could potentially make the lens noticeably easier to handle without sacrificing what made the original iconic.

I suspect a lot of existing RF 50mm f/1.2L owners would upgrade.

Sign me up for the preorder!

It seems to me that the 50 1.2 (I have one and love it) would fail both of your criteria... I am sure that there are other lenses that would fit those criteria better.
The 50 1.2 does not sell in a lot of copies and I couldn't see a new one having massively better IQ, which is its most important characteristic.

And I would not buy a new hypothetical 50 1.2 that would achieve smaller size / lighter weight by compromising with optical design with digital corrections.

Generally speaking, my humble opinion is that there are a number of gaps in the RF lineup to fill before Canon should start looking at mkII versions. Especially not for lenses without glaring issues.
So far they have updated only the 70-200 2.8, but even then the 2 lenses are sufficiently different that you wouldn't call the Z a mkII of the original.

 

[Del Paso]

It seems to me that the 50 1.2 (I have one and love it) would fail both of your criteria... I am sure that there are other lenses that would fit those criteria better.
The 50 1.2 does not sell in a lot of copies and I couldn't see a new one having massively better IQ, which is its most important characteristic.

And I would not buy a new hypothetical 50 1.2 that would achieve smaller size / lighter weight by compromising with optical design with digital corrections.

Generally speaking, my humble opinion is that there are a number of gaps in the RF lineup to fill before Canon should start looking at mkII versions. Especially not for lenses without glaring issues.
So far they have updated only the 70-200 2.8, but even then the 2 lenses are sufficiently different that you wouldn't call the Z a mkII of the original.

Both the 50mm and the 85mm f/1,2 are optically superb lenses. Neither I believe they could be dramatically "improved" to justify a version "II".
Lighter and smaller doesn't suffice, in my opinion.
There are indeed still too many gaps in the RF lineup that could/should be addressed first, like a longer macro, TS-Es, new big whites, 28mm f/1,4, 35mm f/1,2 or, why not, f/1,0 and so on.
Mk. IIs are nice, but filling holes is even nicer!
My 2 centimes d'Euro...

 

[noname]

If they can make it 50-150 f2.8 it would be even better, the perfect compliment to a wide angle zoom. I dont necerarily know what something like a 400mm prime would actually give that the 100-500 does not have. Maby if they make it f4.5 and very light?

A 400mm f/8 (or somewhat faster) IS STM could cost about half of the 100-500mm's price (600mm f/11 IS STM costs USD 830)

 

[Del Paso]

A 400mm f/8 (or somewhat faster) IS STM could cost about half of the 100-300mm's price (600mm f/11 IS STM costs USD 830)

All you have to do is buy the RF 100-400 zoom... Small, sharp, inexpensive!
There's, in my opinion, absolutely no need for an f/8 400mm lens.

 

[scyrene]

filling holes is even nicer!