Canon to finally announce a fast RF 35mm lens by Q3 of 2022

Exactly. All interchangeable lens cameras are a niche market today. Full frame bodies are a niche within a niche. People who buy fast lenses are a niche within a niche within a niche and people who shoot with more than one brand and buy these fast high-end lenses are a niche, within a niche, within a niche, within a niche. Are we talking about a few dozen people worldwide?
You forgot to mention niche ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
The fact that Sigma and Tamron haven’t supported the RF mount and the rumours heavily imply that this is Canon’s doing shows they care very much. I highly doubt Canon would be charging £2900 for the 100-500 if the below were available natively on RF with AF performance close to OEM glass.
Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 Sport - £1199
Tamron 100-500 f5-6.7 - £1199

By locking out Sigma and Tamron from the RF mount sure more profits for Canon but less money in Canon shooter’s pockets.
The RF 100-500 L does not cost much more than a new EF 100-400 L which directly competes with those lenses.
The Canon L lenses are on a different level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The fact that Sigma and Tamron haven’t supported the RF mount and the rumours heavily imply that this is Canon’s doing shows they care very much. I highly doubt Canon would be charging £2900 for the 100-500 if the below were available natively on RF with AF performance close to OEM glass.
Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 Sport - £1199
Tamron 100-500 f5-6.7 - £1199

By locking out Sigma and Tamron from the RF mount sure more profits for Canon but less money in Canon shooter’s pockets.
Performance close is not performance exactly the same. Also there is the issue of focus speed and compatibility which thanks to docks is being dealt with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The fact that Sigma and Tamron haven’t supported the RF mount and the rumours heavily imply that this is Canon’s doing shows they care very much. I highly doubt Canon would be charging £2900 for the 100-500 if the below were available natively on RF with AF performance close to OEM glass.
Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 Sport - £1199
Tamron 100-500 f5-6.7 - £1199

By locking out Sigma and Tamron from the RF mount sure more profits for Canon but less money in Canon shooter’s pockets.
Yup, and I bet they're even more fierce now because the biggest thing holding back 3rd party lenses on DSLR was AF accuracy. But with mirrorless that's a non issue.
 
Upvote 0
I'm glad those patiently waiting for a fast L series 35mm will have one soon. For me personally, I wonder if Canon will introduce anything I want to buy this year. We're a third of the way through the year and so far, not a single enticing product. Nikon on the other hand... (but I'm not going down that road... yet).
 
Upvote 0
I'm glad those patiently waiting for a fast L series 35mm will have one soon. For me personally, I wonder if Canon will introduce anything I want to buy this year. We're a third of the way through the year and so far, not a single enticing product. Nikon on the other hand... (but I'm not going down that road... yet).
I don't understand how anybody who has bought into RF lenses, or still has a good assortment of EF lenses, could feel so...disenchanted. I'm one of those who has some great RF glass, but decided to keep the EF 35mm f/1.4L II because it is one of the most pleasing, fun, and reliable lenses I've ever had.

Plus, with so many opportunities opening up as the pandemic (seemingly) eases, there is too much to photograph!
 
Upvote 0
Even so why do you believe Canon would care? Haven't you seen the prices of the other RF lenses? Much more expensive than their EF counterparts. Just compare the EF 70-200 and RF 70-200 lenses or the 85 1.2L ones. Add 1.2L instead of 1.4 L for the 35mm version and you have an even more expensive lens.
For the majority of RF lenses (eg except for RF big whites etc), they offer advantages (eg focus speed, optics, focal length, physical size/weight, magnification, etc) over their EF counterparts to justify their more expensive pricing.
Not all advantages in each lens of course but if the RF price is too much then Canon is still happy to sell you the EF version or get it second hand from those shooters who have upgraded to the RF version.
I am happy to keep a mix of EF/RF and will have for a very long time to come
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
One complaint keeps floating around, and I don't know how serious it is. It's this: Sigma lenses won't work with the RF system. I've only kept the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and the 180mm f/2.8 macro, but they work better on my R bodies than they did on my 5DIV.

These lenses of mine are not for action! If other Sigma lenses, such as the 35mm f/1.4 Art don't work on RF, could anybody explain why?

Hard to take anybody seriously when good news about a new Canon lens--on top of so many already for the RF--is met with moaning and groaning about how long it took, slowness to fill in the catalog, etc. They've had a great 35mm f/1.4 all along! And apparently some Sigma lenses work fine.
 
Upvote 0
For the majority of RF lenses (eg except for RF big whites etc), they offer advantages (eg focus speed, optics, focal length, physical size/weight, magnification, etc) over their EF counterparts to justify their more expensive pricing.
Not all advantages in each lens of course but if the RF price is too much then Canon is still happy to sell you the EF version or get it second hand from those shooters who have upgraded to the RF version.
I am happy to keep a mix of EF/RF and will have for a very long time to come
I agree! I have kept most of my EF lenses in addition to the new RF I bought. Some EF are redundant like (16-35 2.8L III and 4L IS, 24-70 2.8 II, 100-400 II) but some are staying period! Like 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, 300mm 2.8L IS II, 400mm 4DO IS II, 500mm 4L IS II. No reason for these to be replaced with future RF versions. They have superb IQ and their replacement would cost a fortune with diminishing returns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I don't understand how anybody who has bought into RF lenses, or still has a good assortment of EF lenses, could feel so...disenchanted. I'm one of those who has some great RF glass, but decided to keep the EF 35mm f/1.4L II because it is one of the most pleasing, fun, and reliable lenses I've ever had.

I have several RF lenses I'm happy with, so I'm not really disenchanted. I'd simply like to see more RF options.

Sorry, I have zero interest in any EF lens for my R series body. I have an adapter, but sold all my EF glass as I acquired suitable RF glass. For my casual use, there are no glaring holes in the RF line. I just find it interesting that Canon seemingly has nothing more to offer at this point that interests me enough to open the wallet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I have several RF lenses I'm happy with, so I'm not really disenchanted. I'd simply like to see more RF options.

Sorry, I have zero interest in any EF lens for my R series body. I have an adapter, but sold all my EF glass as I acquired suitable RF glass. For my casual use, there are no glaring holes in the RF line, I just find it interesting that Canon seemingly has nothing more to offer at this point that interests me enough to open the wallet.
It took many years to build the EF catalog. Are people just that much more impatient these days? Perhaps we need a refresher on just what it takes to R&D and Mfg these items, cheese and rice people.
 
Upvote 0
I agree! I have kept most of my EF lenses in addition to the new RF I bought. Some EF are redundant like (16-35 2.8L III and 4L IS, 24-70 2.8 II, 100-400 II) but some are staying period! Like 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, 300mm 2.8L IS II, 400mm 4DO IS II, 500mm 4L IS II. No reason for these to be replaced with future RF versions. They have superb IQ and their replacement would cost a fortune with diminishing returns.
I agree with you except the EF16-35mm/4 which is great optically and reasonably priced. Unless you need the extra 2mm on the wide side, I wouldn't consider the RF version to be a replacement.
I used to have 1.4x/2x EF TCs to use with my EF70-200/2.8 but that wasn't possible with the RF70-200/2.8 so I wanted a longer zoom. The EF100-400mm was/is still expensive and few second hand versions were available locally and even then they were not much of a discount. There was a sale on the RF100-500mm so I bit the bullet and have loved it ever since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
While I fully understand the need for any business to maximise profits there comes a point where a product/service is perceived to be overpriced by some. Especially when a competing product that many believe to be as good or better are much cheaper. In this case Tamron SP and Sigma Art on DSLR and across platforms again both DG DN Sigma Arts and Sony’s GM are all less expensive.
Well, I've had two of the Tamron SP lenses. I've also had 4 of the RF lenses (50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L, and the 28-70mm f/2, 24-105mm f/4). I've never owned Sigma or Sony lens. Tamron is not anywhere near the Canon RF lenses. Especially wide open. Especially when it comes to CR.

Yes, some will see them as overpriced.
I am FULLY in favor of corporations maximizing their profits! Just not at my expense.
Long live the Pokeyarchy!
 
Upvote 0
If the 35mm is 1.2 then I would assume a $2899 pricetag. Dual nano usm motors, BR optics, probably no IS. Whether I upgrade or not will really depend on how much (little) vignetting and how round corner bokeh balls are. In the meantime, my like new 35mm 1.4ii has been serving me well at 60% of msrp.
 
Upvote 0
One complaint keeps floating around, and I don't know how serious it is. It's this: Sigma lenses won't work with the RF system. I've only kept the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and the 180mm f/2.8 macro, but they work better on my R bodies than they did on my 5DIV.

These lenses of mine are not for action! If other Sigma lenses, such as the 35mm f/1.4 Art don't work on RF, could anybody explain why?

Hard to take anybody seriously when good news about a new Canon lens--on top of so many already for the RF--is met with moaning and groaning about how long it took, slowness to fill in the catalog, etc. They've had a great 35mm f/1.4 all along! And apparently some Sigma lenses work fine.

I've read your comment a couple times and don't quite understand it. What makes you think the Sigma 35/1.4 Art doesn't work on an RF system? Mine worked flawlessly attached to my EOS RP using the EF adapter just today -- on a paid job, no less.
 
Upvote 0
I own a C70 and my perspective is solely as a video shooter (I have a little take-everywhere CL for stills which works for me). But this RF 35mm L, when it arrives, will be really tempting as a 50mm equiv on the Super 35 sensor. The actual RF 50/1.2L is a bit long for me tastes for run & gun shooting.

I don’t see myself ever switching completely to RF glass simply because I like fast and wide lenses. My speed boosted EF 24/1.4L produces a look no future RF lens is likely to replicate on the C70.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Next to the 85mm EF L II, the EF 35mm 1.4 L II is the best prime lens Canon has ever made. I am excited for this new 35mm. I do hope the 24mm L is next, since the EF 24mm II is really starting to show its age. Ultimately, I'll be happy if by the end of next year we finally have a full set of RF superspeed primes (14, 24, 35, 50, 85).
I have both of these - and I will hold both of these.
The RF 50 1.2 is great in the middle.
My missing list:
- RF135L
- RF24L
- RF15L
 
Upvote 0
I've read your comment a couple times and don't quite understand it. What makes you think the Sigma 35/1.4 Art doesn't work on an RF system? Mine worked flawlessly attached to my EOS RP using the EF adapter just today -- on a paid job, no less.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm suggesting that Canon has an absolutely wonderful ef 35mm f/1.4L II that works even better on the R system than it did on the EF system, and that Sigma has a good 35mm Art also. (I can't tell if those who claim to have an adapter but disdain using it are being facetious. I'm losing my sarcasm detector, I guess.)

I stated that the Sigmas I've kept, the fisheye and the massive macro 180mm f/2.8, work beautifully on the R5, and then ask if the 35mm Art does too. If it doesn't work, why?

Thank you for reporting that yours, as I would expect, works!

And I did have a good laugh when one poster, who, again, might have been sarcastic, demanded that the new 35mm be 1.2...Or else! As if that 1/3 stop at 35mm would have enough real-world significance to theatrically ditch and switch an entire system?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I agree with you except the EF16-35mm/4 which is great optically and reasonably priced. Unless you need the extra 2mm on the wide side, I wouldn't consider the RF version to be a replacement.
I used to have 1.4x/2x EF TCs to use with my EF70-200/2.8 but that wasn't possible with the RF70-200/2.8 so I wanted a longer zoom. The EF100-400mm was/is still expensive and few second hand versions were available locally and even then they were not much of a discount. There was a sale on the RF100-500mm so I bit the bullet and have loved it ever since.
You have done well to get the RF100-500. Of course 16-35 4L IS is great! By saying redundant I meant I have RF15-35 2.8L. But since I still have 5DIV and 5DsR I do not want to part with my 16-35 lenses. I like them a lot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0