Canon Teases Us with a Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L

[Quantum Mechanic]

Thanks for your explanation. So the potential 'L' designation is simply your take and likely not a part of the patent itself. I did not know that before. I surely agree that a lens with such complex optics will bear the L mark, if it comes to life.

 

[Ozarker]

Not $500 like the RF 45mm???

 

[Dragon]

Not $500 like the RF 45mm???

$500 for a replacement of the bag that it comes with.

 

[davidespinosa]

The initial post talks about a 35, 50, 85 trio.

35 doesn't work well for that:
50/35 = 1.4
85/50 = 1.7

28 works much better:
50/28 = 1.8
85/50 = 1.7

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I'm already missing it!

I don´t Missing prove for either and I've already made up my mind what works in my favor

 

[Del Paso]

Not $500 like the RF 45mm???

No, far far less!

 

[EricN]

No, far far less!

$50 like a clear lens filter -

 

[Snapster]

With 35mm I'd actually prefer 1.2 over 1.4. And since it's such a great general purpose focal length you take everywhere, smaller please.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The initial post talks about a 35, 50, 85 trio.

35 doesn't work well for that:
50/35 = 1.4
85/50 = 1.7

28 works much better:
50/28 = 1.8
85/50 = 1.7

Typically a wedding photographer who majors on primes would use a 24/50/100 combo on two bodies. Or (my preferred option) a 35/85 combo on 2 bodies with a UWA zoom and 70-200 on hand for the reception.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

it's curious when Canon have formulated two 35mm f1.2 lenses whihc have the same size image circle and yet have a massive difference in physical length, one is literally half the other. The shorter of the two is interestingly shorter than the current RF 35mm f1.4 VCM and even the previous EF 35mm f1.4 II L (when on a EF camera). Assuming the optics are sufficient, this might be a VERY interesting lens. It would offer a lot of serious benefits over the EF lens and the current RF VCM lens.