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

[EricN]

I would buy that!
But I still think that the IBIS in the R5 is plenty for short-ish focal lengths

How about RF 35mm f/0.70 IS OMGWTFBBQ L ?

 

[Navism]

So you saw a CR3 on a R5s rumor in 2019, huh? You time traveler you!

I remember mention 5ds mark ii around 2018 and transfer to R mount in 2019. Some said 75 megapixels or 100 megapixels.
I can predict no R5s in 2025.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

But won't that landscape lens break if you use it for portraits?

Funnily enough, I was on a Photographic trip organised by Guy Edwardes in Slovenia during winter of 2010. I was on the end of my wedding season and didn't have many versatile landscape oriented zoom lenses at the time. At the time I was going through a "Primes are best" phase. So I took my wedding primes with me, which caused my bag to be very heavy and I did a lot of lens swapping. However, yes the EF 85mm f1.2 II L and EF 35mm f1.4 L (mk I) work very well as travel / landscape lenses. I took several portfolio worthy images of lake Bled, here's a very sweet image I took with the delightful (and light) EF 35mm f1.4 L. It's a fine lens for sure. nice and light and very nice results. On my current R6ii i found it a little soft wide open, but it was fine back on my old 5DII. Stopped down, I found my copy to be tac sharp.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This lens needs to be an f/1.2 or it will be panned

As a headline, a 35mm f1.2 L is easy on the eye. However, regardless of how this lens is percived or recived by the internet / influencers. It will sell in moderately high numbers over a long period of time. It's a key stalwart lens for many portait and wedding photographers and there will always be a need for one.
Canon is in a bit of a corner with this lens and I think this is why it's taken So long to come to market. Canon have stated that they will only bring out RF versions of EF lenses if there is a clear and obvious benefit. The EF mk1 was a legendary optic, but slightly soft wide open on the higher resolving mirrorless sensors. The EF mkII was an amazing upgrade in terms of sharpness but as the sacrifice of extra weight and it's a lot larger. The 35mm lens is a focal length that is right on the cusp of needing a retro focus design, which undermins the advantages of a mirrorless system. Effectively, you get a great 35mm lens on mirrorless, but they are a lot larger than the equivelent DSLR / EF mount.
I'm guessing that Canon are a little stumped as to what advantages they can effectively bring to the RF mount version when comparing the existing EF mk II version. If it's going to be more expensive, bigger and heavier than the existing EF version...then what's the advantage? A 35mm f1.4 really deosn't need an optical image stabiliser, that's mostly covered with the R series IBIS system. Sure the Af could be a tad faster....maybe the lens could be a tad sharper?
Canon also knows that this lens' desirability is also related to it's small size and weight. If a f1.2 RF version ends up being a 1.2kg collussus...they might find that it's missing it's true target audience.
It's a bit like the argument between the EF 135mm f2.0 L and the RF 135mm f1.8 LIS. The RF lens is superior (spec wise) but the EF version is so much smaller and easier to use unobtrusively. I find myself choosing the inferior EF version over the heavier and much larger RF version. Even though the RF version gains 1/3 stop brightness, it's Af is superior, it's sharper wide open and it's got that amazing optical IS unit.

 

[josephandrews222]

As a headline, a 35mm f1.2 L is easy on the eye. However, regardless of how this lens is percived or recived by the internet / influencers. It will sell in moderately high numbers over a long period of time. It's a key stalwart lens for many portait and wedding photographers and there will always be a need for one.
Canon is in a bit of a corner with this lens and I think this is why it's taken So long to come to market. Canon have stated that they will only bring out RF versions of EF lenses if there is a clear and obvious benefit. The EF mk1 was a legendary optic, but slightly soft wide open on the higher resolving mirrorless sensors. The EF mkII was an amazing upgrade in terms of sharpness but as the sacrifice of extra weight and it's a lot larger. The 35mm lens is a focal length that is right on the cusp of needing a retro focus design, which undermins the advantages of a mirrorless system. Effectively, you get a great 35mm lens on mirrorless, but they are a lot larger than the equivelent DSLR / EF mount.
I'm guessing that Canon are a little stumped as to what advantages they can effectively bring to the RF mount version when comparing the existing EF mk II version. If it's going to be more expensive, bigger and heavier than the existing EF version...then what's the advantage? A 35mm f1.4 really deosn't need an optical image stabiliser, that's mostly covered with the R series IBIS system. Sure the Af could be a tad faster....maybe the lens could be a tad sharper?
Canon also knows that this lens' desirability is also related to it's small size and weight. If a f1.2 RF version ends up being a 1.2kg collussus...they might find that it's missing it's true target audience.
It's a bit like the argument between the EF 135mm f2.0 L and the RF 135mm f1.8 LIS. The RF lens is superior (spec wise) but the EF version is so much smaller and easier to use unobtrusively. I find myself choosing the inferior EF version over the heavier and much larger RF version. Even though the RF version gains 1/3 stop brightness, it's Af is superior, it's sharper wide open and it's got that amazing optical IS unit.

...yet another thoughtful and informative post from GMC...keep them coming.

As for the peanut gallery? Just chuckle and move on--the internet is a wonderful thing, until it's not.

I for one always look forward to your comments here on CR...going back to your nuanced views of Fuji gear.

 

[roby17269]

How about RF 35mm f/0.70 IS OMGWTFBBQ L ?

Be still my heart
But all this talking about dream lenses will feel very sour to me if Canon does indeed release a 1.4

 

[roby17269]

As a headline, a 35mm f1.2 L is easy on the eye. However, regardless of how this lens is percived or recived by the internet / influencers. It will sell in moderately high numbers over a long period of time. It's a key stalwart lens for many portait and wedding photographers and there will always be a need for one.
Canon is in a bit of a corner with this lens and I think this is why it's taken So long to come to market. Canon have stated that they will only bring out RF versions of EF lenses if there is a clear and obvious benefit. The EF mk1 was a legendary optic, but slightly soft wide open on the higher resolving mirrorless sensors. The EF mkII was an amazing upgrade in terms of sharpness but as the sacrifice of extra weight and it's a lot larger. The 35mm lens is a focal length that is right on the cusp of needing a retro focus design, which undermins the advantages of a mirrorless system. Effectively, you get a great 35mm lens on mirrorless, but they are a lot larger than the equivelent DSLR / EF mount.
I'm guessing that Canon are a little stumped as to what advantages they can effectively bring to the RF mount version when comparing the existing EF mk II version. If it's going to be more expensive, bigger and heavier than the existing EF version...then what's the advantage? A 35mm f1.4 really deosn't need an optical image stabiliser, that's mostly covered with the R series IBIS system. Sure the Af could be a tad faster....maybe the lens could be a tad sharper?
Canon also knows that this lens' desirability is also related to it's small size and weight. If a f1.2 RF version ends up being a 1.2kg collussus...they might find that it's missing it's true target audience.
It's a bit like the argument between the EF 135mm f2.0 L and the RF 135mm f1.8 LIS. The RF lens is superior (spec wise) but the EF version is so much smaller and easier to use unobtrusively. I find myself choosing the inferior EF version over the heavier and much larger RF version. Even though the RF version gains 1/3 stop brightness, it's Af is superior, it's sharper wide open and it's got that amazing optical IS unit.

On the other side, Canon needs to sell new lenses. People preferring old EF lenses is great but it doesn't bring much profit in Canon's coffers.

I agree that the EF 35mm f/1.4L II is a great lens. That's why it being 1.2 would matter: to differentiate from the previous offering.

You seem to have very specific use cases for a 35mm - I am target audience too and I'd prefer it to be faster and higher IQ even if that sacrifices portability.

We'll have to wait and see what Canon will actually release.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Curious, would you buy both lenses?

It would depend on the tradeoffs but probably not, since I would keep my RF 35 f/1.8 IS Macro.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This lens needs to be an f/1.2 or it will be panned

It is Canon.
People will complain either way.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I’m an environmental portrait photographer and 35mm is perfect and I have the 1.4 and it’s not enough separation ( and yes it he extra 1/3 will
make a difference in the way that I shoot and position subject to camera and then subject to background distance).

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

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Whoopsie did not realize that.
Having said that, I have used EF fast L 35, 50, 85 and 135 primes with no IS on a 1D X with not many issues.

The EF 85 f/1.4 IS is nirvana for video.

 

[mxwphoto]

How about RF 35mm f/0.70 IS OMGWTFBBQ L ?

Two words: X-ray lens.

 

[roby17269]

The EF 85 f/1.4 IS is nirvana for video.

because of IS?

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm guessing that Canon are a little stumped as to what advantages they can effectively bring to the RF mount version when comparing the existing EF mk II version. If it's going to be more expensive, bigger and heavier than the existing EF version...then what's the advantage?

It didn't stop Canon releasing the RF400/2.8 - 600/4 vs the EF equivalents and similarly the RF800/5.6 - RF1200/8 (no EF equivalent) with built-in teleconvertors.
The RF400/2.8 is more expensive than the EF400/2.8 but the RF600/4 is the same. I am not sure if that was the case when released though.
They filled the RF big whites on the product list but optically the same.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It didn't stop Canon releasing the RF400/2.8 - 600/4 vs the EF equivalents and similarly the RF800/5.6 - RF1200/8 (no EF equivalent) with built-in teleconvertors.
The RF400/2.8 is more expensive than the EF400/2.8 but the RF600/4 is the same. I am not sure if that was the case when released though.
They filled the RF big whites on the product list but optically the same.

This is very true and the big RF whites aren't quate as good as the EF mk II versions. I suspect that the EF mk III's weren't selling so well and canon desperately needed a quick range fix. That is until Canon replace all of their super tele primes with zoom equivelents.

 

[David - Sydney]

That is until Canon replace all of their super tele primes with zoom equivelents.

The 100-300/2.8 is a great example if you can afford/justify the price. Would a cheaper RF300/2.8 (or retaining the EF300/2.8) prime be good market segmentation?
Drop-in filter is one issue of course and - so far - no appetite for switch in 1.4x TC.
A 400-560 f 2.8-4 and/or 600-800 f4-5.6 zoom would be interesting for some especially if it could also handle TCs if the sharpness is maintained.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is very true and the big RF whites aren't quate as good as the EF mk II versions.

The difference seems very minor, but certainly there was not a significant IQ improvement from EF MkII to MkIII. There was a nice weight reduction, but for me that wasn’t a compelling reason to upgrade from the 600/4 II.

That is until Canon replace all of their super tele primes with zoom equivelents.

I was initially disappointed when Canon announced the 100-300/2.8 instead of a 300/2.8. However, it turned out the flexibility of the 100-300 for indoor events, and as a 140-420/4 for outdoor events, more than compensates for the extra length of the lens.

 

[dirtyvu]

Canon also knows that this lens' desirability is also related to it's small size and weight. If a f1.2 RF version ends up being a 1.2kg collussus...they might find that it's missing it's true target audience.
It's a bit like the argument between the EF 135mm f2.0 L and the RF 135mm f1.8 LIS. The RF lens is superior (spec wise) but the EF version is so much smaller and easier to use unobtrusively. I find myself choosing the inferior EF version over the heavier and much larger RF version. Even though the RF version gains 1/3 stop brightness, it's Af is superior, it's sharper wide open and it's got that amazing optical IS unit.

Size may matter for many, but not for all. I would never trade my 28-70 f2 for a 24-70 f2.8. Being compact and light is not important to me. It's desirable but not important. The 28-70 f2 is beautiful. But not only that, the main point is it's twice the light of f2.8. and that comes in so handy in dark situations. I recently attended a convention where Emmitt Smith was the speaker. I handheld the 28-70, recording video for almost an hour straight. It almost killed me but I made it.

The worst scenario for me is if they come out with this 1.4... And then some time later they come out with the 1.2. There's no way I would own 3 35mm lenses. I love 35 mm but no way....

 

[SNJ Ops]

As a headline, a 35mm f1.2 L is easy on the eye. However, regardless of how this lens is percived or recived by the internet / influencers. It will sell in moderately high numbers over a long period of time. It's a key stalwart lens for many portait and wedding photographers and there will always be a need for one.
Canon is in a bit of a corner with this lens and I think this is why it's taken So long to come to market. Canon have stated that they will only bring out RF versions of EF lenses if there is a clear and obvious benefit. The EF mk1 was a legendary optic, but slightly soft wide open on the higher resolving mirrorless sensors. The EF mkII was an amazing upgrade in terms of sharpness but as the sacrifice of extra weight and it's a lot larger. The 35mm lens is a focal length that is right on the cusp of needing a retro focus design, which undermins the advantages of a mirrorless system. Effectively, you get a great 35mm lens on mirrorless, but they are a lot larger than the equivelent DSLR / EF mount.
I'm guessing that Canon are a little stumped as to what advantages they can effectively bring to the RF mount version when comparing the existing EF mk II version. If it's going to be more expensive, bigger and heavier than the existing EF version...then what's the advantage? A 35mm f1.4 really deosn't need an optical image stabiliser, that's mostly covered with the R series IBIS system. Sure the Af could be a tad faster....maybe the lens could be a tad sharper?
Canon also knows that this lens' desirability is also related to it's small size and weight. If a f1.2 RF version ends up being a 1.2kg collussus...they might find that it's missing it's true target audience.
It's a bit like the argument between the EF 135mm f2.0 L and the RF 135mm f1.8 LIS. The RF lens is superior (spec wise) but the EF version is so much smaller and easier to use unobtrusively. I find myself choosing the inferior EF version over the heavier and much larger RF version. Even though the RF version gains 1/3 stop brightness, it's Af is superior, it's sharper wide open and it's got that amazing optical IS unit.

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.

 

[scyrene]

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?