Is a Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM on the Horizon?

Sort by date Sort by votes
#23
I have the EF 35L first gen, II and the RF 35 1.4L VCM. I'd pre-order this as soon as I can if it come out. The optical distortion along with the optical shortcomings on the 35 VCM vs the EF II have kept the EF one around in my kit, but I do enjoy the compact nature of the 35 VCM as this is less imposing for subjects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#24
zardoz said:
I have the EF 35L first gen, II and the RF 35 1.4L VCM. I'd pre-order this as soon as I can if it come out. The optical distortion along with the optical shortcomings on the 35 VCM vs the EF II have kept the EF one around in my kit, but I do enjoy the compact nature of the 35 VCM as this is less imposing for subjects.
Click to expand...
With the EF ii weight, it was not as bad as rf 85 1.2.
 
Upvote 0
#25
riker said:
You think the 85/1.2 is so much better than the 85/1.4 VCM? I'd choose the later anytime.

I remember when EF 85/1.4 came out and absolutely destroyed the 85/1.2 II (have to admit it was considerably older).
I now see many ppl actually changing from 50/1.2 to 50/1.4.
I'm guessing same happening with 85/1.2 vs 1.4.

As long as you have a brilliant L lens with great IQ+AF, nobody cares for that tiny extra aperture and nobody wants the extra price and weight.
OK, not nobody, just very very few.
Click to expand...
How "many people" did you actually see replacing their RF 1,2/50 with a 1,4/50?
Sorry, but I cannot blindly trust such generalisations.
And, according to your statement, Sigma, Nikon, Viltrox , Voigtländer etc... would have fully misunderstood the demand for a 1,2/35mm.
It's ok if you don't want/need f/1,2, but saying that nobody (or just "very very few") wants such a lens is a subjective opinion, and not at all a fact!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#27
riker said:
You think the 85/1.2 is so much better than the 85/1.4 VCM? I'd choose the later anytime.

I remember when EF 85/1.4 came out and absolutely destroyed the 85/1.2 II (have to admit it was considerably older).
I now see many ppl actually changing from 50/1.2 to 50/1.4.
I'm guessing same happening with 85/1.2 vs 1.4.

As long as you have a brilliant L lens with great IQ+AF, nobody cares for that tiny extra aperture and nobody wants the extra price and weight.
OK, not nobody, just very very few.
Click to expand...
I don't know a single photographer who shoots portraits, nudes or weddings who has sold a 1.2 and bought a 1.4. It's logical that someone would prefer the 1.4 because of the price, or because the 1.2 is not the ideal weight for roaming the streets. Or because they shoot videos. I have a Sigma EF 35 1.4 with an adapter and a Canon RF 35 1.8 (good for travel + macro) and I'm waiting for the 1.2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#28
riker said:
You think the 85/1.2 is so much better than the 85/1.4 VCM? I'd choose the later anytime.

I remember when EF 85/1.4 came out and absolutely destroyed the 85/1.2 II (have to admit it was considerably older).
I now see many ppl actually changing from 50/1.2 to 50/1.4.
I'm guessing same happening with 85/1.2 vs 1.4.

As long as you have a brilliant L lens with great IQ+AF, nobody cares for that tiny extra aperture and nobody wants the extra price and weight.
OK, not nobody, just very very few.
Click to expand...
I care, but I'm a bokewhore
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#31
photographer said:
I don't know a single photographer who shoots portraits, nudes or weddings who has sold a 1.2 and bought a 1.4. It's logical that someone would prefer the 1.4 because of the price, or because the 1.2 is not the ideal weight for roaming the streets. Or because they shoot videos. I have a Sigma EF 35 1.4 with an adapter and a Canon RF 35 1.8 (good for travel + macro) and I'm waiting for the 1.2.
Click to expand...
I can think of someone who might make that claim and shoot the 1.2 at closer than minimum focus distance to prove it's inferior quality IF Canon made a 1.2 before Sigma.
 
Upvote 0
#33
Del Paso said:
How "many people" did you actually see replacing their RF 1,2/50 with a 1,4/50?
Sorry, but I cannot blindly trust such generalisations.
And, according to your statement, Sigma, Nikon, Viltrox , Voigtländer etc... would have fully misunderstood the demand for a 1,2/35mm.
It's ok if you don't want/need f/1,2, but saying that nobody (or just "very very few") wants such a lens is a subjective opinion, and not at all a fact!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I get you right. This was my comment on a forum. Do I need to explain, it represents my opinion?
If you said, you've seen several ppl choose 1.2 over 1.4 and you also own the 1.2 and not considering changing to 1.4, or anything similar, I'd get it and might even say it's a considerable comment and you have reflected to the subject. But like this, I feel you just basically said "meh, I don't like your comment".

I know of 3 people selling their 1.2 and buying the 1.4 instead. Which is 100% of the 1.2 owners I know.

And no, me saying that 1.2 has a very thin market (especially when a lens also has a 1.4 edition) and saying that there are many 1.2 owners out there who simply bought 1.2 because that was the only fast L available and things changed a lot with 1.4 vs vendors actually making 35/1.2 lenses - these do not contradict.
 
Upvote 0
#34
photographer said:
I don't know a single photographer who shoots portraits, nudes or weddings who has sold a 1.2 and bought a 1.4. It's logical that someone would prefer the 1.4 because of the price, or because the 1.2 is not the ideal weight for roaming the streets. Or because they shoot videos. I have a Sigma EF 35 1.4 with an adapter and a Canon RF 35 1.8 (good for travel + macro) and I'm waiting for the 1.2.
Click to expand...
Well, what can I say? You don't, I do. I know people who actually make a living of photography and changing their 1.2 to 1.4. Reason is not complicated at all.
- 1.2 over 1.4 does not really make a difference regarding the result, you very very rarely need (if ever) that tiny extra speed or -DOF.
- IQ is not better with 1.2 lens.
- Price difference is so big, even after selling a used 1.2 and buying a new 1.4, you gain money you can spend elsewhere
- Weight and size is also considerably worse for 1.2
On a bit different note, I know a photo/videographer who changed his ART series lenses to C series because of how much easier it is to shoot weddings with them, especially when on gimbal.

Enjoy your future 35/1.2!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#36
riker said:
I'm not sure if I get you right. This was my comment on a forum. Do I need to explain, it represents my opinion?
If you said, you've seen several ppl choose 1.2 over 1.4 and you also own the 1.2 and not considering changing to 1.4, or anything similar, I'd get it and might even say it's a considerable comment and you have reflected to the subject. But like this, I feel you just basically said "meh, I don't like your comment".

I know of 3 people selling their 1.2 and buying the 1.4 instead. Which is 100% of the 1.2 owners I know.

And no, me saying that 1.2 has a very thin market (especially when a lens also has a 1.4 edition) and saying that there are many 1.2 owners out there who simply bought 1.2 because that was the only fast L available and things changed a lot with 1.4 vs vendors actually making 35/1.2 lenses - these do not contradict.
Click to expand...
Then you shouldn't present your opinion as a fact!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM II on the Horizon?
Replies
94
Views
11K
Del Paso
D
Canon Rumors
There Are Two More VCM Prime Lenses Coming
Replies
82
Views
12K
LPSDOTCOM
L
Richard CR
Canon Patent: RF 20mm F1.4 VCM, 21mm F1.4 VCM, 28mm F1.4 VCM
Replies
16
Views
3K
EricN
EricN
Canon Rumors
A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Replies
133
Views
23K
AnthonyHayzen
A
Canon Rumors
A Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM makes an apperance
Replies
74
Views
11K
riker
R
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu