Which camera? I think that the R5 IBIS is rated for at least 5 stops (if you trust CIPA) and most modern Canon cameras are the same or better.
I often use my Leica M 90mm on the R5 II. IBIS works perfectly well, OIS wouldn't make an enormous difference in terms of stabilization.
I´d wait and see what the RF version has to offer. Maybe there are features you need or really like. The RF version will cost you more, of course.
Is that you, Harry?The 35mm F1.2 will come. It will be lighter, faster and designed by new formula and will be a "new F1.2" which will lead us to RF 50 & 85mm F1.2 mkii´s
Certainly not!Is that you, Harry?
I tend to hope for more realistic lenses. With the F1.2 line-up, I really think Canon should revisit the RF 50mm and RF 85mm in terms of size, weight and maybe even faster AF. Maybe they can even figure out a couple of features to differentiate them from the VCM line-up. Considering what I´ve read, maybe some video capabilities as well (focus breathing).Certainly not!
Harry would have mentioned an f/1,05 12-2500mm zoom made of bi-chromatic zenon coated hyper acrylo-zombium lenses.
He is far more creative, a lightweight 35mm f/1,2 would be too vulgar for our optical genius!
And I think that, before redesigning the 50 and 85 f/1,2, there are many more important lenses to be made. These lenses are optically almost perfect...
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 yearsAnd I think that, before redesigning the 50 and 85 f/1,2, there are many more important lenses to be made. These lenses are optically almost perfect...
What about a 200-500 zoom, a 14 TSE, a 24 TSE, a 50 macro, a 180 macro, a 70-150 zoom, a 14 f/1,4, a 35 f/1,2, a 24-70 f/2 and so on and so on...
Reducing the size could mean compromises. A smaller f(lighter) front lens most often induces stronger vignetting, thus the need for software correction. Are users in this high-end segment ready to accept it? I have some doubts...
There's a French proverb which I must already have quoted in a different context: You cannot have the butter and the money for the butter. Some would add: And the milkmaid...
. By that time my copy is nearing 25 years of service (fingers crossed).
I agree with you, there are lenses to be designed and made first. But I do believe the F1.2 should be at least a bit lighter. Sonys 50mm shove of nearly 200gr without the compromises you mentioned. Plus, the Canon EF 50mm F1.2 weighs only 580gr while the RF weighs 950gr. Although the RF performs better, I wonder why Canon had to raise its weight by nearly 40%...And I think that, before redesigning the 50 and 85 f/1,2, there are many more important lenses to be made. These lenses are optically almost perfect...
What about a 200-500 zoom, a 14 TSE, a 24 TSE, a 50 macro, a 180 macro, a 70-150 zoom, a 14 f/1,4, a 35 f/1,2, a 24-70 f/2 and so on and so on...
Reducing the size could mean compromises. A smaller f(lighter) front lens most often induces stronger vignetting, thus the need for software correction. Are users in this high-end segment ready to accept it? I have some doubts...
There's a French proverb which I must already have quoted in a different context: You cannot have the butter and the money for the butter. Some would add: And the milkmaid...
85mm 1.4 will be the same image quality in a compact, less expensive package. One fstop you can certainly live without.
Nope!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
You forgot the RF 600mm f4 with built in extender in your list.
For lens end of service dates see: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-service-life-for-cameras-lenses-update/#canon-ef-macro
Shame on you: The 600mm f4 L with a built in extender is to important to be in the “and so on, and so on” category.Nope!
It was included in "and so on, and so on"!
By the way,I also would like to see a 70-300mm L, semi-macro, but only if, with extenders, it suffers as little as the 70-200 VCM.
(I know I'm dreaming...)
The ridiculous American (or maybe English?) saying is "Why buy the cow when you can have the milk (and milkmaid [I'm adding]) for free?"And I think that, before redesigning the 50 and 85 f/1,2, there are many more important lenses to be made. These lenses are optically almost perfect...
What about a 200-500 zoom, a 14 TSE, a 24 TSE, a 50 macro, a 180 macro, a 70-150 zoom, a 14 f/1,4, a 35 f/1,2, a 24-70 f/2 and so on and so on...
Reducing the size could mean compromises. A smaller f(lighter) front lens most often induces stronger vignetting, thus the need for software correction. Are users in this high-end segment ready to accept it? I have some doubts...
There's a French proverb which I must already have quoted in a different context: You cannot have the butter and the money for the butter. Some would add: And the milkmaid...
