Here we go again, the Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L rumored to be announced next month

[Sporgon]

Just a thought, but given the headline name of a lens is usually a rounding of the actual aperture (T versus f), is the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 potentially even less than it seems?

Dxo seems to be the popular reference point for lens T stops, so I thought I’d try testing two lenses that they report has having very different transmission, the Canon EF 35/2, reportedly with a T stop of 2.0, and the Tamron 45/1.8 with a reportedly rather dismal T stop of 2.3. The Tamron has always delighted me with its openness and breio, so I was surprised that it’s actual transmission was not as efficient as the Canon.
I shot them for identical exposure in manual and raw, and at different apertures. The exposure appeared to be absolutely identical, which I found strange as according to Dxo the Tamron should have been a third of an EV darker, which would be most certainly noticeable.

 

[SwissFrank]

My idea of a lens lineup for RF was something like this:

HALO lenses: spec is most important. Price, image quality and durability is least important. In the EF this would be 1200/5.6, 50/1.0, the TS lenses, fisheye zoom, 1-5x macro. For RF I'd have suggested a 35/1.0, 50/0.7 (Kubrick had several from the space programs of the 70s), and 135/1.0DF (designed to make perfect sphere highlights even to the very corners, no football shapes).

PRO lenses: durability is critical, but also image quality and actually price. Size and weight aren't important. For RF I'd say 35/1.4. Of course the reportage trinity zooms of 2.8 and now 4.0/72mm aperture. Could be pro wedding/portrait usage with 135/1.8.

STREET lenses: to get Leica rangerfinder users into Canon. Image quality and portability most important, while price doesn't matter. This might be a high-quality 35/2.0, 135/4.0.

AMATEUR lenses: fun specs like 0.5x macro, IS and so on, that make the buyer feel they're getting a lot of options to explore. This is the existing 35/1.8, or something like a mirror telephoto.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Strange year. It's almost April and not a single announcement from Canon yet.

 

[EricN]

They could, but if most aberrations were to be corriged, the weight and the cost of such lenses would certainly be astronomical.
The Zeiss 0,7 was produced for photography, but its optical quality would no longer be considered acceptable, unless as a curiosity.

It must be heavy, but how heavy and how expensive?

 

[EricN]

Strange year. It's almost April and not a single announcement from Canon yet.

Maybe they are waiting for April first. Then we'll have to figure out if it was a joke or not...

 

[SNJ Ops]

My idea of a lens lineup for RF was something like this:

HALO lenses: spec is most important. Price, image quality and durability is least important. In the EF this would be 1200/5.6, 50/1.0, the TS lenses, fisheye zoom, 1-5x macro. For RF I'd have suggested a 35/1.0, 50/0.7 (Kubrick had several from the space programs of the 70s), and 135/1.0DF (designed to make perfect sphere highlights even to the very corners, no football shapes).

PRO lenses: durability is critical, but also image quality and actually price. Size and weight aren't important. For RF I'd say 35/1.4. Of course the reportage trinity zooms of 2.8 and now 4.0/72mm aperture. Could be pro wedding/portrait usage with 135/1.8.

STREET lenses: to get Leica rangerfinder users into Canon. Image quality and portability most important, while price doesn't matter. This might be a high-quality 35/2.0, 135/4.0.

AMATEUR lenses: fun specs like 0.5x macro, IS and so on, that make the buyer feel they're getting a lot of options to explore. This is the existing 35/1.8, or something like a mirror telephoto.

Specifically on the bit about getting Leica users (of which I am one) into Canon that isn’t going to happen at all because the rangefinder offers a different shooting experience to the SLR that mirrorless offers plus the lenses are much much smaller. As for offering a high quality 35mm f2 Canon don’t and probably won’t ever offer anything equivalent close the quality of Voigtländer’s 35mm f2 APO-Lanthar or Leica’s own 35mm f2 APO-Summicron.

 

[Del Paso]

It must be heavy, but how heavy and how expensive?

As heavy as a Hummer, as expensive as Bugatti Royale...

 

[EricN]

Specifically on the bit about getting Leica users (of which I am one) into Canon that isn’t going to happen at all because the rangefinder offers a different shooting experience to the SLR that mirrorless offers plus the lenses are much much smaller. As for offering a high quality 35mm f2 Canon don’t and probably won’t ever offer anything equivalent close the quality of Voigtländer’s 35mm f2 APO-Lanthar or Leica’s own 35mm f2 APO-Summicron.

I can image the troll like comments if Canon produced something with the very similar specs and price as 35mm f2 APO-Summicron

 

[Del Paso]

I can image the troll like comments if Canon produced something with the very similar specs and price as 35mm f2 APO-Summicron

Better not imagine the fury resulting from such product launch...

 

[EricN]

Better not imagine the fury resulting from such product launch...

I do think if they did try that price range for 35mm, it would be at least f/1.2 if not f/1.0. if f/0.70 is lunatic fringe

 

[Del Paso]

I do think if they did try that price range for 35mm, it would be at least f/1.2 if not f/1.0. if f/0.70 is lunatic fringe

Do not mention a 35mm f1,2, Roby17269 might be reading!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It’s possible to make an optically improved mirrorless 35mm f1.4 considerably smaller and lighter than a DSLR counterpart. Sony did just that with their 35mm f1.4 GM. Sigma also made a mirrorless version of their 35mm f1.4 Art which is lighter than the current Canon equivalent.

I think our views of "considerably" are somewhat different. Sure, both Sony GA the Sigma mirrorless 35mm f1.4 DN is a wee bit lighter and both are pretty much the same size as the Canon EF mkII version. 50-100g isn't going to make much of a difference, it's nice but not what I'd call considerable.
The Sigma 35mm f1.2 DN is a bit of monster, 20% longer and well over 1kg in weight. If you compare these two mirrorless models to the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L (the mk I version) then the older EF lens is "considerably" smaller and lighter. A lot more than the difference between the mk II and the mirrorless versions.

The only advantage I can see between the EF 35mm f1.4 II L and a potential RF version, is that the new lens is likely to be of a similar size and weight to the existing EF version. All we get is a lens that is the same but doesn't require an adapter on the RF mount. That's probably it...that's where your side-grade dollars will be going.

 

[EricN]

Do not mention a 35mm f1,2, Roby17269 might be reading!

I like the idea of a 35-50mm f/1.2-1.4 It would be the ultimate way for Canon to troll those of us who want those two focal length aperture combinations on April first.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

According to Bill Claff and the patent, the EF 35/2 IS is f/2.05. So do you think that DxO has got it wrong with it being T2?

f/2 is never T2

 

[mxwphoto]

It must be heavy, but how heavy and how expensive?

Heavy and big for sure. Canon X 60mm f0.7 comes in at 6lb, 6 inch long, 4 inch in diameter. The Zeiss Jena R-Biotar 100mm f0.73 comes in at 15lb, 10 inch long, 6 inch in diameter.

Shame that they are only tuned to focus x-rays and so visible light shows soft and blurry images.

 

[EricN]

Heavy and big for sure. Canon X 60mm f0.7 comes in at 6lb, 6 inch long, 4 inch in diameter. The Zeiss Jena R-Biotar 100mm f0.73 comes in at 15lb, 10 inch long, 6 inch in diameter.

Shame that they are only tuned to focus x-rays and so visible light shows soft and blurry images.

It's unfortunate for us, but considering there were various designs across a few companies, it seems to be somewhat successful at the time but I haven't been able to find enough information to say how successful or for how long. Maybe someone here knows

 

[Juangrande]

By "environmental", do you mean environmental objects in focus in the foreground along with your subjects?

Basically yes. People in their environment, usually their job. For instance I recently photographed a masseuse and also a team of hairstylists in their work places. I had the masseuse

If you're going to use the 35mm 1.2 as an environmental portrait, why would you need 1.2 which would obliterate the background. I thought the whole point of a 35mm was to show the background environment. Why not just use a 50mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 if you want the background gone.

well the wider you go in focal length the less shallow depth of field you have, hence the need for the widest aperture you can get. You will never obliterate the background with a 35mm even at 1.2 but you can gain some more separation of your subject and a little more control of the ambient light (I combine ambient and strobe) I also do creative portraits in a cinematic style where try to make them appear as a captured still from a movie scene and crop at 16:9 ratio. In that instance I really want the subject in the scene but with as much separation as possible. I do use an 85 and 50 as well but it all depends on my composition. A 35 at f2 and has to much depth of field unless your doing a headshot and I typically have the entire person in frame and space above and below which also increases the depth of field and therefore the need for a more shallow aperture. Make sense?

 

[Juangrande]

By "environmental", do you mean environmental objects in focus in the foreground along with your subjects?

More like portraits of people working in their environments for editorial context but the focus would be the portrait and the environment need not necessarily be in critical focus. It’s more of the stage of the portrait. Speaking of a stage a band would be a good example, you could isolate one player more which is hard on a 35 mm with say an f2 or f1.8 I realize some will say 1.4 isn’t that much difference but I say “I’ll take all I can get”

 

[Juangrande]

If you're going to use the 35mm 1.2 as an environmental portrait, why would you need 1.2 which would obliterate the background. I thought the whole point of a 35mm was to show the background environment. Why not just use a 50mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 if you want the background gone.

Because it shoot wide and then crop to a 16:9 aspect Fora cinematic look in my portraits and part of that look is subject separation, and I typically photograph the whole person with room above the head and below the feet (and even extra room because if the post 16:9 crop) so as you can see the widest possible aperture is what matter. I would love an f1 35 mm

 

[SNJ Ops]

I think our views of "considerably" are somewhat different. Sure, both Sony GA the Sigma mirrorless 35mm f1.4 DN is a wee bit lighter and both are pretty much the same size as the Canon EF mkII version. 50-100g isn't going to make much of a difference, it's nice but not what I'd call considerable.
The Sigma 35mm f1.2 DN is a bit of monster, 20% longer and well over 1kg in weight. If you compare these two mirrorless models to the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L (the mk I version) then the older EF lens is "considerably" smaller and lighter. A lot more than the difference between the mk II and the mirrorless versions.

The only advantage I can see between the EF 35mm f1.4 II L and a potential RF version, is that the new lens is likely to be of a similar size and weight to the existing EF version. All we get is a lens that is the same but doesn't require an adapter on the RF mount. That's probably it...that's where your side-grade dollars will be going.

The Sony 35mm GM is 236g lighter than the Canon 35mm L MK II, and is a little bit lighter than the MK I too. Add another 100g or so for the adapter if using an RF camera and that makes a set up more front heavy which is would be even more noticeable on the MK II.
For some they won’t mind at all and for others they are waiting for the native RF version.

Size wise the GM and EF II are similar, I had thought there was more of a difference.