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

[GMCPhotographics]

Standing back from keyboard and putting on my noise cancelling headphones.....let the bitching begin....
Meanwhile...I'm popping out with my delightful EF 35mm f1.4 II L and I'm going to take some photos.

 

[john1970]

Once owned the EF 35 mm f1.4, but rarely use it so while this is a great lens I don't think it is one I am personally interested in using. I actually own the 35 mm f1.8 STM lens for the 1:2 Macro feature which I do use for wide angle close up photography.

 

[koenkooi]

Why is that we have to accept F6.3 and F7.1 RF lenses (compared to F5.6) because of better high ISO performance of modern sensors but
35mm 1.4 is not enough and we want F1.2? This is not a portrait lens, i rather have something more portable.

In the case of the RF100-500L vs the EF100-400LII, the aperture didn't change, you'd still get the same amount of photons per duck and an extra 100mm at the long end.
As for the non-L zooms, yes, those are taking complete advantage of better high ISO performance, to say it with a positive spin

 

[hne]

Why is that we have to accept F6.3 and F7.1 RF lenses (compared to F5.6) because of better high ISO performance of modern sensors but
35mm 1.4 is not enough and we want F1.2? This is not a portrait lens, i rather have something more portable.

A 35mm lens might not be a portrait lens for you, but it is for me. I'd prefer a 35mm f/1.0 if I could have it, but I'm so far doing fine with an f/1.4. For really tricky situations, I can get twice the separation by stitching a panorama taken with my 85/1.4 from the same distance.

 

[Del Paso]

A worthy competitor to Sony 35mm GM, hopefully equally light and with less lens breathing. And has IS over the Sony. Probably cost sub-2kUSD is the only downside.

And once this is out. The community can start shifting to moan/bitxh about the lack to f1.2L....And a new cycle continues (sips coffee

Since the "old" and amortised EF 1,4/35 already costs $1999, I'd be surprised if the RF didn't cost a bit more than $2000 . $2400?
PS: sorry for you, Roby!

 

[blackcoffee17]

In the case of the RF100-500L vs the EF100-400LII, the aperture didn't change, you'd still get the same amount of photons per duck and an extra 100mm at the long end.
As for the non-L zooms, yes, those are taking complete advantage of better high ISO performance, to say it with a positive spin

To be absolute correct, it did change. The 100-500 is only F6.3 at 400mm. I still thing it was a good idea to make it 100-500. But we have lenses like the 15-30, RF-S 50-210, RF-S 10-18, etc.

 

[Paul D.]

even Sigma have 35 / 1.2 :-\
not so interesting...

 

[FabFR]

@Paul D.
Do many people really want a 1.1kg 35mm lens like the Sigma 35/f1.2 ?

 

[mawalker]

Personally, I don't care F1.2 or F1.4 I'd just like to see a native RF L 35mm released!

 

[Loswr]

Personally, I don't care F1.2 or F1.4 I'd just like to see a native RF L 35mm released!

Personally, if I want 35mm f/fast, the 28-70/2 does the job…and many other jobs. For those wanting a 35L, I hope Canon makes it a priority (finally).

 

[Del Paso]

@Paul D.
Do many people really want a 1.1kg 35mm lens like the Sigma 35/f1.2 ?

Weightlifters love Sigma!

 

[Mr.Click]

Not enough differentiation with the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro. Think about all of the "pairs". They really should go with f/1.2 to keep with their own pattern:
50mm f/1.8 STM - 50mm f/1.2L USM
85mm f/2 IS STM Macro - 85mm f/1.2L USM
600mm f/11 IS STM - 600mm f/4L IS USM
800mm f/11 IS STM - 800mm f/5.6L IS USM

=> 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro - 35mm f/1.2L USM

RF 35 1,8 IS is suffering from ugly Bokeh , CA's and noisy slow AF.
Nice Bokeh Rendering, USM and L build with Weather sealing would be enough differentiation in my opinion.

 

[bbasiaga]

I'll offer my condolences ahead of time to all of you sure to be disappointed again when it doesn't actually get announced. The struggle is real, I feel your pain. I do.


Seriously though its gotta be real one of these times...

 

[Paul D.]

@Paul D.
Do many people really want a 1.1kg 35mm lens like the Sigma 35/f1.2 ?

Do you know the weight of 35/1.4 ?

 

[danfaz]

Not enough differentiation with the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro.

But how many people complain about the "huge gap" between the 50 1.8 and 1.2, grumbling that there's no 1.4?

 

[Del Paso]

But how many people complain about the "huge gap" between the 50 1.8 and 1.2, grumbling that there's no 1.4?

And if a 1,4 becomes reality, some will complain about the monstrous gap between 1,4 and 1,8, and whine for an f1,6.

 

[roby17269]

Since the "old" and amortised EF 1,4/35 already costs $1999, I'd be surprised if the RF didn't cost a bit more than $2000 . $2400?
PS: sorry for you, Roby!

I am putting up a brave face while dying a little inside...
The party line is: "no comments till the official announcement"
I still hope for a 1.2... but I also hope Canon will put everyone out of misery and announce a RF 35L finally.
Given the rumored Nikon 35 1.2, I hope Canon will not let them have it with no competition (apart from the Siggy).
Oh well. Another day, another rumor.
Canon announce something already!

 

[simonella_virus]

if it were f1.2, people would say: it's too heavy/ expensive. why doesn't canon ever do f1.4 anymore?
if it's f1.4: why doesn't canon do f1.2 like the 50 and 85mm lenses? this is too pedestrian.

i realize it's different crowds that would say either of those, but there's definitely no one size fits all. i'm quite happy with the rf 35/1.8 and will continue to be, regardless of what comes out.

 

[chasingrealness]

With so long a wait for the 35mm f/1.2, I recently pulled the trigger on a discounted RF 50mm f/1.2. With this bit of news, I can say I made the right call. I already have the very capable Tamron SP EF 35mm f/1.4 and I guess I don’t need to think about replacing it after all.

 

[Del Paso]

And I'm happy with the EF 1,4/35 L II.
But should ever an optically better RF f 1,2/35 be introduced...I wonder how long I could resist (if not extremely heavy).
Edit: A few days, maximum.