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

[frankchn]

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.

In this case, I think Canon would not be able to capture the people who originally wanted a f1.2L, and settled for the f1.4L when it came out, and are now not willing to eat the loss to sell the old lens and buy the new one.

I don't think most people are willing to cycle through lenses and eat losses from selling 2 year old stuff as much as we are on this forum

 

[frankchn]

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.

That's fine, but I just wonder how big the "serious TS" userbase that also uses Canon equipment is nowadays. The most serious TS users would be using a PhaseOne XT or a view camera.

We all have our opinions, but it remains true that it has been 7 years since the RF mount launch and Canon doesn't have a RF 35mm f/1.2L or a RF 180mm-200mm macro or any TS-R lenses, and we really haven't heard rumors about these in a while either, and meanwhile we are hearing about 50mm f/1.2L updates.

Maybe Canon will surprise us, and I hope they do, but I am not optimistic right now.

 

[Del Paso]

That's fine, but I just wonder how big the "serious TS" userbase that also uses Canon equipment is nowadays. The most serious TS users would be using a PhaseOne XT or a view camera.

We all have our opinions, but it remains true that it has been 7 years since the RF mount launch and Canon doesn't have a RF 35mm f/1.2L or a RF 180mm-200mm macro or any TS-R lenses, and we really haven't heard rumors about these in a while either, and meanwhile we are hearing about 50mm f/1.2L updates.

Maybe Canon will surprise us, and I hope they do, but I am not optimistic right now.

They indeed let us wait a long time for anything really exciting ("halo lens") to be released.
I force myself to remain patient, not easy at all...
Trouble is/was covid, tariffs, IPhones and....pricing.

 

[roby17269]

They indeed let us wait a long time for anything really exciting ("halo lens") to be released.
I force myself to remain patient, not easy at all...
Trouble is/was covid, tariffs, IPhones and....pricing.

All of these issues haven't prevented Nikon from delivering a great 35 1.2....

 

[P-visie]

We all have our opinions, but it remains true that it has been 7 years since the RF mount launch and Canon doesn't have a RF 35mm f/1.2L or a RF 180mm-200mm macro or any TS-R lenses, and we really haven't heard rumors about these in a while either, and meanwhile we are hearing about 50mm f/1.2L updates.

The post about the patent application for long RF macro lenses is from August 2024, i.e. one year ago. Canon has announced it will end support for the EF 180mm macro in November 2027. To me that indicates that there will be a replacement within the next 2 years.

The TS-E lenses have ‘Undecided’ as end of support so that might take longer. There have been a lot of patent applications for automated tilt, in camera controls and using internal lenses for TS lenses, so it is likely that Canon will produce RF TS lenses.

 

[P-visie]

All of these issues haven't prevented Nikon from delivering a great 35 1.2....

And a new Sigma 35mm f1.2. Edit: that will be announced on August 19.

 

[frankchn]

The post about the patent application for long RF macro lenses is from August 2024, i.e. one year ago. Canon has announced it will end support for the EF 180mm macro in November 2027. To me that indicates that there will be a replacement within the next 2 years.

The TS-E lenses have ‘Undecided’ as end of support so that might take longer. There have been a lot of patent applications for automated tilt, in camera controls and using internal lenses for TS lenses, so it is likely that Canon will produce RF TS lenses.

I think I would caution against using the support end date as an indicator of Canon's future product plans.

The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro doesn't have a support end date, but we obviously have the RF 100L Macro already on the market. On the other hand, I don't think Canon is going to release another 200 f/2.8L even though support for that is ending next April.

 

[EricN]

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.

Don't believe this evil lie! 35 1.8 was released first, so 35 1.4 doesn't exist by their logic

 

[Del Paso]

Don't believe this evil lie! 35 1.8 was released first, so 35 1.4 doesn't exist by their logic

Agreed!
There could be many reasons for first making the f/1,4.
Availability of special glass, of machines, capacity, highly skilled workforce etc...Or maybe simply marketing.
If lenses were produced in a logical sequence, the f/1,4 would have come ahead of the f/1,8.
Speaking of EF TSE lenses, the 24mm is still very usable on the R5, the 17mm less so. It's about time for a replacement, with a better sharpness when shifted (look at TDP's optical quality results).
AND: I want my 14 mm TSE and 180 mm macro. Period!

 

[jeffa4444]

After owning the RF 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.2, Canon needs improve these 3 things. Use whatever motors Sony GM lenses use. They’re totally silent. These RF lenses are noisy when auto focusing. It’s unacceptable for the price and time (2025). They also need to improve issues with flair and ghosting. Thirdly, lighter and smaller would be nice.

Canon pretty much did everything you mention with the RF 50mm f1.4L VCM with the exception of green flares if a direct light source comes straight down the lens.
I’ve now sold my RF 50mm f1.2L USM because optically and mechanically the RF 50mm f1.4L VCM is better with marginal differences in bokeh.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think the days of niche lenses might be over from first parties. .

So canon’s 1st party niche lenses like these are unlikely in the future?
RF-s 3.9/3.5 dual fisheye
RF 5.2/2.8 dual fisheye
Rf28-70/2 (until recently)
Rf24-105/2.8 Z and rf70-200/2.8 Z
Rf100-300/2.8 (until recently)
RF10-20/4
RF200-800
RF600/11, 800/11

 

[David - Sydney]

That's fine, but I just wonder how big the "serious TS" userbase that also uses Canon equipment is nowadays. The most serious TS users would be using a PhaseOne XT or a view camera.

Wide angle TS lenses for architecture, landscapes and real estate are hard to beat but don’t need a medium format sensor. I was shooting the interior of my daughters apartment for rental purposes using my rf14-35/4 at 14mm and it wasn’t always wide enough and keystone correction in post lost width. The 10-20/4 would have been better though

Yes, the size of the market is small but not everyone wants to have their waterfalls and buildings leaning backwards.
That said, including AF doesn’t seem to be useful to me and if it adds a lot of cost then it would be unique but too costly for me

 

[David - Sydney]

The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro doesn't have a support end date, but we obviously have the RF 100L Macro already on the market.

For many ef lenses. Canon has added some extra to their closest ef lens. The addition of 1.4x magnification was the key reason to upgrade from my ef100/2.8
Similarly the extra 2mm wide for the rf14-35/4 vs ef16-35/4 was the deciding factor to upgrade.

I can’t comment for others but the AS control for the 100mm/2.8 doesn’t get used but definitely increased the manufacturing cost

 

[Del Paso]

For many ef lenses. Canon has added some extra to their closest ef lens. The addition of 1.4x magnification was the key reason to upgrade from my ef100/2.8
Similarly the extra 2mm wide for the rf14-35/4 vs ef16-35/4 was the deciding factor to upgrade.

I can’t comment for others but the AS control for the 100mm/2.8 doesn’t get used but definitely increased the manufacturing cost

I'm sometimes using AS control, but wouldn't say it is a vital feature. If the RF 180 doesn't have it, I'd buy it nevertheless, though AS can be nice also for some landscape pictures.

 

[Del Paso]

Wide angle TS lenses for architecture, landscapes and real estate are hard to beat but don’t need a medium format sensor. I was shooting the interior of my daughters apartment for rental purposes using my rf14-35/4 at 14mm and it wasn’t always wide enough and keystone correction in post lost width. The 10-20/4 would have been better though

Yes, the size of the market is small but not everyone wants to have their waterfalls and buildings leaning backwards.
That said, including AF doesn’t seem to be useful to me and if it adds a lot of cost then it would be unique but too costly for me

I can only guess the non-TSE users are the ones who question their utility...
What I can say is that, during my last vacation in Italy, I deeply regretted having forgotten the RF-EF adapter for mine. P.C. with Lightroom means huge losses, also in IQ.
And what you said about cascades is absolutely true, I simply hate seeing cascades looking like the Kheops pyramid.
Canon, please, gimme my 14mm TSE! (If not, I'll jump ship and you're doomed!)

 

[roby17269]

Don't believe this evil lie! 35 1.8 was released first, so 35 1.4 doesn't exist by their logic

I still hope, but the longer we wait, the less hopeful I am
I think the 1.4 was introduced because of Canon's push into video-friendly gear. Doesn't make it any better for me...

Also, I am in the camp that TS lenses are niche but needed. It has always been one of the USPs of Canon in the 35mm space. I had the 17 and 24 II and used them sparingly but always loved the results. And I totally agree that TS lenses, used properly, can achieve results that are much better than correcting ultra wides in post (and that is only for shifting, tilting is another matter altogether)

 

[frankchn]

So canon’s 1st party niche lenses like these are unlikely in the future?
RF-s 3.9/3.5 dual fisheye
RF 5.2/2.8 dual fisheye
Rf28-70/2 (until recently)
Rf24-105/2.8 Z and rf70-200/2.8 Z
Rf100-300/2.8 (until recently)
RF10-20/4
RF200-800
RF600/11, 800/11

I don't think we will see more dual fisheyes. It seems like Canon (along with Apple) made a bet that VR will take off and it really hasn't.

I don't think the next few lenses you listed are niche:

RF 28-70 f/2 -- Faster standard zoom
RF 24-105 f/2.8 -- Standard zoom with more range.
RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z -- What they should probably launched together with the extending zoom version honestly. I see this as correcting a mistake (long zoom throw, no TC support) of the collapsible version more than anything else, with some benefit to hybrid/video folks.
RF 100-300 -- Replacement for the EF 300 f/2.8L and more versatile.
RF 10-20/4 -- Replacement for the 11-24L on RF
RF 200-800 -- Mid-range long tele (honestly long overdue given the the popularity of third party 180-600 lenses on EF)

The RF 600/11 and 800/11 I am not sure we will see more of either. I think those have been effectively replaced by the RF 200-800.

 

[David - Sydney]

I don't think we will see more dual fisheyes. It seems like Canon (along with Apple) made a bet that VR will take off and it really hasn't.

I don't think the next few lenses you listed are niche:

RF 28-70 f/2 -- Faster standard zoom
RF 24-105 f/2.8 -- Standard zoom with more range.
RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z -- What they should probably launched together with the extending zoom version honestly. I see this as correcting a mistake (long zoom throw, no TC support) of the collapsible version more than anything else, with some benefit to hybrid/video folks.
RF 100-300 -- Replacement for the EF 300 f/2.8L and more versatile.
RF 10-20/4 -- Replacement for the 11-24L on RF
RF 200-800 -- Mid-range long tele (honestly long overdue given the the popularity of third party 180-600 lenses on EF)

The RF 600/11 and 800/11 I am not sure we will see more of either. I think those have been effectively replaced by the RF 200-800.

Good to hear your opinion on them. I would call a unique lens one that would tempt someone to buy a matching body just for that lens.

Note that I was responding to your claim by pointing out existing rf lenses that canon has released in 7 years that are either unique (dual fisheye/ massive wide angle rectilinear) or not available in other ecosystems. Yes, some are incremental but different enough to upgrade from EF.
I love my rf70-200/2.8 (non Z). First rf lens I bought and it was before I even got a R body as it was on special. Definitely not a mistake although the TC range is a limitation you can certainly use TCs on them.

A reasonably priced rf14/1.8 or f1.4 would be very tempting but my adapted samyang 14/2.8 and sigma 20/1.4 and 8-15/4 are sufficient for my current usage. The rf20/1.4 would probably b the next replacement as the coma performance seems really good and much lighter than the sigma for travel

 

[photographer]

In this case, I think Canon would not be able to capture the people who originally wanted a f1.2L, and settled for the f1.4L when it came out, and are now not willing to eat the loss to sell the old lens and buy the new one.

I don't think most people are willing to cycle through lenses and eat losses from selling 2 year old stuff as much as we are on this forum

The majority of the population won't buy a 1.4 or a 1.2, most people take photos with their mobile phones these days. And for us - fanatics
- the loss on selling a 1.4 is nothing we can't stand. :-D

 

[EricN]

The majority of the population won't buy a 1.4 or a 1.2, most people take photos with their mobile phones these days. And for us - fanatics
- the loss on selling a 1.4 is nothing we can't stand. :-D

Well said! I think the figure probably changed, but I remember something about even most ilc buyers get the kit lens and nothing else.