Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM II on the Horizon?

[Del Paso]

In days gone by Canon made many L lenses with leaded glass elements. The 200/1.8L used them, as did the original EF 85/1.2L (not the second version.) The EF 50/1L too. Many of the early top end L lenses did. It's what gave them that magical look that many of them are famous for. Canon stopped using leaded glass when it was banned in the EU.

Unfortunately something about those leaded glass elements made them subject to haze. Sometimes it could be removed with a lens disassembly and careful cleaning but other times not. I cannot begin to count the number of lenses like this I sent to Canon Japan for cleaning when I was a dealer.

So yes, it does matter what lens elements are made of and decisions that seemed great at the time (and may have actually been great at the time!) can have bad consequences in the future.

Some manufacturers, like especially Asahi Pentax, were even known for using radioactive lens components like thorium.
So, it indeed matters what lenses are made of!
Edit: I think Canon's FL 1,2/58mm was also radioactive.

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

Some manufacturers, like especially Asahi Pentax, were even known for using radioactive lens components like thorium.
So, it indeed matters what lenses are made of!
Edit: I think Canon's FL 1,2/58mm was also radioactive.

One of the six "mark" versions of the Canon FD 35mm f/2 used radioactive glass.

Radioactive lenses - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

camera-wiki.org

Canon FD 35mm f/2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Canon FD 35mm F/2.0

Canon FD 35mm f2 S.S.C. Review - Lens Legend

Canon FD 35mm f2 is a highly rated medium-wide-angle lens for the Canon FD system, released in 1971 which offers excellent performance.

lenslegend.com

 

[Del Paso]

Aren't there more important lenses to develop than a 50 f/1,2 II?
What about a 35mm f/1,2, a 180 macro? a 200-500?, a 14 TSE, a 28mm f/1,4, a lighter 24/28-70 f/2, a 600mm f/4, a 300mm f/2,8, a 200mm f/2, a 70-150 f/2, a 14mm f/1,4 ???
I must confess, I fail to understand Canon's strategy - unless this is only an unfounded rumour.
Edit: I forgot the RF MP 65...

 

[frankchn]

Aren't there more important lenses to develop than a 50 f/1,2 II?
What about a 35mm f/1,2, a 180 macro? a 200-500?, a 14 TSE, a 28mm f/1,4, a lighter 24/28-70 f/2, a 600mm f/4, a 300mm f/2,8, a 200mm f/2, a 70-150 f/2, a 14mm f/1,4 ???
I must confess, I fail to understand Canon's strategy - unless this is only an unfounded rumour.
Edit: I forgot the RF MP 65...

35mm f/1.2 -- I think Canon thinks the 35L VCM is probably good enough for that market.
180 Macro -- I don't think the market for a long 1:1 macro is there. None of the third party manufacturers are making it and they are usually ones to make niche lenses.
200-500 -- This has been rumored for so long I wonder if it has been canned.
14 TS -- Would be nice, but I wonder if Canon thinks the 10-20L can fill the shift bit of that niche.
28-70L II -- I can see that happening in the next two years.
600 f/4 -- Probably an 2028 lens. They refresh superteles once a decade and the EF IIIs came out in 2018.
300 f/2.8 -- Porbably not happening. This is effectively replaced by the 100-300L in the Canon line up.
200 f/2 -- If the upcoming Sigma sells well, then maybe.
70-150 -- Would be nice, but I don't know if the Sony is selling that well.

 

[EricN]

Aren't there more important lenses to develop than a 50 f/1,2 II?
What about a 35mm f/1,2, a 180 macro? a 200-500?, a 14 TSE, a 28mm f/1,4, a lighter 24/28-70 f/2, a 600mm f/4, a 300mm f/2,8, a 200mm f/2, a 70-150 f/2, a 14mm f/1,4 ???
I must confess, I fail to understand Canon's strategy - unless this is only an unfounded rumour.
Edit: I forgot the RF MP 65...

I would as like an F/1 or faster lens.

 

[Del Paso]

35mm f/1.2 -- I think Canon thinks the 35L VCM is probably good enough for that market.
180 Macro -- I don't think the market for a long 1:1 macro is there. None of the third party manufacturers are making it and they are usually ones to make niche lenses.
200-500 -- This has been rumored for so long I wonder if it has been canned.
14 TS -- Would be nice, but I wonder if Canon thinks the 10-20L can fill the shift bit of that niche.
28-70L II -- I can see that happening in the next two years.
600 f/4 -- Probably an 2028 lens. They refresh superteles once a decade and the EF IIIs came out in 2018.
300 f/2.8 -- Porbably not happening. This is effectively replaced by the 100-300L in the Canon line up.
200 f/2 -- If the upcoming Sigma sells well, then maybe.
70-150 -- Would be nice, but I don't know if the Sony is selling that well.

I know at least a few who don't think the VCM 35 f/1,4 is a reason an optically corrected F/1,2 could be dispensed with.
As to the 180 macro, I don't know any real macro photographer who would'nt want one. The argument that Tamron, Sigma and co. don't make it is not at all valid. Does it only make sense to produce a lens if Sigma and Tamron also make one?
10-20: No, it doesn't at all fill the TS niche, being no TS lens. Don't you please tell me you can replace a TS by cropping. Unless you don'need or care about IQ.
And TS lens users usually do!
300 f/2,8, you're probably right, yet I guess some (many?) pros would appreciate a very lightweight lens.
And why would it only make sense to make a lens if similar ones by Sony, Sigma sell well? If crappy 18-300 zooms sell well, and they do, should Canon also produce them? Why should Canon base their strategy on usually inferior competitors?

 

[P-visie]

As to the 180 macro, I don't know any real macro photographer who would want one.

There is one essential word missing from your reply, it should read: As to the 180 macro, I don't know any real macro photographer who would NOT want one.

I do not know if I’m a “real” macro photographer, but I would like a long RF macro lens to replace my venerable EF 180mm macro lens.

Canon has a patent application for long RF macro lenses, including a 300mm f4 lens that would be ideal (for me) for photographing dragonflies and butterflies.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-telephoto-macro-lenses/

As I posted earlier: “A long macro lens is long overdue. The EF 180mm f3.5 is from 1996. Canon has extended the service life of this lens until November 2027, so we might have to wait another 2 years”.

 

[Del Paso]

There is one essential word missing from your reply, it should read: As to the 180 macro, I don't know any real macro photographer who would NOT want one.

I do not know if I’m a “real” macro photographer, but I would like a long RF macro lens to replace my venerable EF 180mm macro lens.

Canon has a patent application for long RF macro lenses, including a 300mm f4 lens that would be ideal (for me) for photographing dragonflies and butterflies.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-telephoto-macro-lenses/

As I posted earlier: “A long macro lens is long overdue. The EF 180mm f3.5 is from 1996. Canon has extended the service life of this lens until November 2027, so we might have to wait another 2 years”.

Thanks! I wanted to write "wouldn't want want one" but wrote "would". I quickly and shamefully corrected my post.
Only a non-macro photographer can believe no-one needs or wants this lens!
PS: 180 or 200 macro = instant buy for me! (Hopefully with OIS).

 

[P-visie]

Only a non-macro photographer can believe no-one needs or wants this lens!
PS: 180 or 200 macro = instant buy for me! (Hopefully with OIS).

I fully agree, I already wrote the specifications for Canon.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-in-the-first-half-of-2025.44062/post-1012661

 

[Del Paso]

I fully agree, I already wrote the specifications for Canon.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-in-the-first-half-of-2025.44062/post-1012661

And I fully agree with your specs.
Adding: Also extremely sharp at infinity. The EF wasn't fully convincing, my first sample had even mushy sides, not only corners.
Yet, this lens was built for one or two lifetimes, maybe even three...

 

[David - Sydney]

35mm f/1.2 -- I think Canon thinks the 35L VCM is probably good enough for that market.
180 Macro -- I don't think the market for a long 1:1 macro is there. None of the third party manufacturers are making it and they are usually ones to make niche lenses.
200-500 -- This has been rumored for so long I wonder if it has been canned.
14 TS -- Would be nice, but I wonder if Canon thinks the 10-20L can fill the shift bit of that niche.
28-70L II -- I can see that happening in the next two years.
600 f/4 -- Probably an 2028 lens. They refresh superteles once a decade and the EF IIIs came out in 2018.
300 f/2.8 -- Porbably not happening. This is effectively replaced by the 100-300L in the Canon line up.
200 f/2 -- If the upcoming Sigma sells well, then maybe.
70-150 -- Would be nice, but I don't know if the Sony is selling that well.

Canon was known to have some unique lenses in their EF range which have (unfortunately) not been replaced in the RF portfolio.

Niche lenses like a long macro, a fisheye zoom etc. A TS-R14mm has been rumoured for a long time - probably as long as the RF200-500. The RF10-20/4 is definitely better than the EF11-22/4 in so many ways. Keystone correction may cover some of TS's applications but you can't surpass the massive image circle that TS lenses use.

We might have liked that these lenses would be added especially after 7 years but perhaps covid delayed their release or other internal constraints.
That said, Canon have released a number of unique RF lenses compared to the EF range or other lens ecosystems.

 

[frankchn]

I know at least a few who don't think the VCM 35 f/1,4 is a reason an optically corrected F/1,2 could be dispensed with.
As to the 180 macro, I don't know any real macro photographer who would'nt want one. The argument that Tamron, Sigma and co. don't make it is not at all valid. Does it only make sense to produce a lens if Sigma and Tamron also make one?
10-20: No, it doesn't at all fill the TS niche, being no TS lens. Don't you please tell me you can replace a TS by cropping. Unless you don'need or care about IQ.
And TS lens users usually do!
300 f/2,8, you're probably right, yet I guess some (many?) pros would appreciate a very lightweight lens.
And why would it only make sense to make a lens if similar ones by Sony, Sigma sell well? If crappy 18-300 zooms sell well, and they do, should Canon also produce them? Why should Canon base their strategy on usually inferior competitors?

I don't think it matters what we think, but what Canon thinks.

Regarding the 35mm: I think if Canon wanted to release a 35mm f/1.2 any time soon, they would have released the 1.2 first before the 1.4. From a business strategy it makes more sense -- get the high margin lens out first and capture the people who can't wait, and then the cheaper lens out later.

Regarding a future TS-R lens: I also wonder if Canon is happy to just keep selling the TS-E lenses until they can come up with something truly innovative in this space, which might be a while.

Re: 18-300mm. I think Canon pays attention to what everyone else is selling and looks at the gaps in their own line-up. Canon does produce "crappy" superzooms -- one of the only RF-S lenses Canon makes as a first party is a 18-150mm, and Canon also makes a 24-240mm for FF.

 

[frankchn]

Canon was known to have some unique lenses in their EF range which have (unfortunately) not been replaced in the RF portfolio.

Niche lenses like a long macro, a fisheye zoom etc. A TS-R14mm has been rumoured for a long time - probably as long as the RF200-500. The RF10-20/4 is definitely better than the EF11-22/4 in so many ways. Keystone correction may cover some of TS's applications but you can't surpass the massive image circle that TS lenses use.

We might have liked that these lenses would be added especially after 7 years but perhaps covid delayed their release or other internal constraints.
That said, Canon have released a number of unique RF lenses compared to the EF range or other lens ecosystems.

I think the days of niche lenses might be over from first parties. That said, there are third party tilt-shift lenses for full frame RF on the market right now (AstrHori 18mm f/8, Venus Optics 15mm f/4.5 and 55 f/2.8 TS) so for TS lenses in particular we might not have to look to Canon to fill out this niche.

 

[Del Paso]

I don't think it matters what we think, but what Canon thinks.

Regarding the 35mm: I think if Canon wanted to release a 35mm f/1.2 any time soon, they would have released the 1.2 first before the 1.4. From a business strategy it makes more sense -- get the high margin lens out first and capture the people who can't wait, and then the cheaper lens out later.

Regarding a future TS-R lens: I also wonder if Canon is happy to just keep selling the TS-E lenses until they can come up with something truly innovative in this space, which might be a while.

Re: 18-300mm. I think Canon pays attention to what everyone else is selling and looks at the gaps in their own line-up. Canon does produce "crappy" superzooms -- one of the only RF-S lenses Canon makes as a first party is a 18-150mm, and Canon also makes a 24-240mm for FF.

And I believe Canon pay close attention to what their customers want to buy.
A serious TS user won't be satisfied with the AstrHori or similar alternatives, without metadata transfer or auto diaphragm.
Also, a 18-300 is no 24-240.
If you believe nobody needs a 180 macro or gets along with Chinese TS alternatives, and that Canon would certainly have released a 1,2 35mm before the f1,4, it is your opinion, which I respect, but only your very own opinion.
Let's just wait a few more months, and we'll see.

 

[Uneternal]

Where does the Patent Application say anything about what the elements will be made of? If you read Richard's article a little more closely, he goes into some depth about what the potential innovations are (assuming any of the embodiments actually go into production) - and I don't recall him mentioning cost cutting as one of them.

You can literally see the seagull elements in the application. Those shapes cannot be made with traditional glass molding, only with resin. And of course Canon would not mention anything about cost cutting, cause that's simply not how marketing works. But they've been cost-cutting or price-increasing everything since the last decade.
Including the all new crippled M50 hardware in the R100 housing - but that's going a bit off on a tangent.

 

[roby17269]

I don't think it matters what we think, but what Canon thinks.

Regarding the 35mm: I think if Canon wanted to release a 35mm f/1.2 any time soon, they would have released the 1.2 first before the 1.4. From a business strategy it makes more sense -- get the high margin lens out first and capture the people who can't wait, and then the cheaper lens out later.

I say this with deep sadness in my heart, but I do believe you do make a valid point about the 35 1.2
My hopes rest on the fact that the competitor mounts (Sony and Nikon) have one so I hope Canon will eventually make one.
On the flip side most rumors recently have been about low- to middle-level gear, so at this point I am not confident at all.

 

[photographer]

I say this with deep sadness in my heart, but I do believe you do make a valid point about the 35 1.2
My hopes rest on the fact that the competitor mounts (Sony and Nikon) have one so I hope Canon will eventually make one.
On the flip side most rumors recently have been about low- to middle-level gear, so at this point I am not confident at all.

What about the opposite view? I can't wait for the 35 1.2, so I'll buy the 35 1.4, then Canon releases the 1.2, I sell the 1.4 at a loss, buy the 1.2 and Canon makes double the profit. If he had released 1.2 first, I would only give him money once.

 

[roby17269]

What about the opposite view? I can't wait for the 35 1.2, so I'll buy the 35 1.4, then Canon releases the 1.2, I sell the 1.4 at a loss, buy the 1.2 and Canon makes double the profit. If he had released 1.2 first, I would only give him money once.

The scenario totally describes me I have bought the 35 1.4 since I wanted a 35 and I would trade it in in a heartbeat for a 1.2 whenever Canon will see fit to make one (if ever).
But Frank is correct that the usual strategy is to go after the high-end first

 

[photographer]

The scenario totally describes me I have bought the 35 1.4 since I wanted a 35 and I would trade it in in a heartbeat for a 1.2 whenever Canon will see fit to make one (if ever).
But Frank is correct that the usual strategy is to go after the high-end first

Perhaps he wanted to quickly appeal to videographers for whom the 1.4 VCM might be more suitable than the 1.2, if it were similar to the current 1.2 50 mm.

 

[roby17269]

Perhaps he wanted to quickly appeal to videographers for whom the 1.4 VCM might be more suitable than the 1.2, if it were similar to the current 1.2 50 mm.

Probably. But in any case Canon will do what they decide it's best in their views. I can only comment about what I want and what I perceive