Is a Canon RF 60mm f/1.0L USM on the way? [CR1]

[Juangrande]

Yes, the eyes will be in focus.

The tip of the nose and the edges of the ear? Not so much.

Indeed, I wonder if the eyebrows will be in focus at F1.0

If you shoot environmental/editorial portraits with the subject set back in the scene rather than a tight headshot or waist up shot you’ll see the potential for separation.

 

[esglord]

Doubt I’d ever drop the money but I’d buy a 60mm f/1 DS lens over the 85mm version. Prefer the focal length and could pull in a touch more light lost from the DS coating

 

[pape2]

50mm IS f1,4 would be more exciting lense
Unless R3 got image stack stabilation over 1/30sec shots

 

[Antono Refa]

Nikon makes an AF-S 58mm f/1.4, and everyone considers it a normal lens. Sure, there's a small difference, but I don't see 60mm being distinct enough to stand next to the 50mm f/1.2, much the less between it and the 85mm f/1.2.

 

[fentiger]

Good for portrait photos of women wearing burkas

 

[sanj]

There are lots of uses for a .95 lens than a tight CU. It will, for example, work wonders on night city skyline shots on a stabilized R5.

 

[st jack photography]

I currently have the EF f/2.8-zooms, but when I shall switch over to R and RF I plan to go for slower f/4 zooms along with some fast primes, because the more I use them (on EF), the more I like them.

I am a narrow DoF addict, and a prime lens snob. I like fast prime lenses. For most of my life I have avoided zooms or slower lenses. For a job, I bought a EF 16-35 f4 L IS and I am in love with it. I can't wait for them to release some f4 L zooms in RF.

 

[mb66energy]

You don't need two kidneys, do you?

But it's sometimes good to have spare parts (or redundancy) on board

 

[mb66energy]

After learning that I could like the "standard focal length" with my EF-M 32 on my M50 I am really interested in such a lens. If it has a max. magnification of roughly 1:5 it might be worth some investment! Just for fun!
And what an interesting tool with a C70 (with its internal ND filters) ...

 

[addola]

At F1 how narrow would the depth of field be? I find f1.2 can be very narrow so how would one use an f1 lens?

Don't forget that DoF also depends on distance to the object. At a distance of 3 meters (about 10 feet) DoF would be 15cm (about 6 inches)

 

[Ozarker]

At F1 how narrow would the depth of field be? I find f1.2 can be very narrow so how would one use an f1 lens?

Step back until what you want in focus is in focus.

 

[Ozarker]

Yes, the eyes will be in focus.

The tip of the nose and the edges of the ear? Not so much.

Indeed, I wonder if the eyebrows will be in focus at F1.0

Why do people assume that all pics/portraits with fast lenses must be close up head shots? If that is the extent of our creativity, then maybe we should stick to f/4-5.6?

 

[stevelee]

Darn again! Right after I got the RF 50 1.2L you come out with this?!?

60mm is a fl I am not used to - ok scratch that, I have the HC 100mm which with my digital back translates to 62mm FOV... and I do like it. Yes it's not the same thing but hmmmm...

Oh well, I guess I shouldn't stress out too much

Let's see the cost (assuming it will ever come out) and the entity of my bonus

I've always salivated after the mythical EF 50mm 1.0 but was always put off by the risk of losing it due to the impossibility of repairs... this one might bring me to the bright side

The "normal" lens that came on my FT-QL was a 58mm f/1.2, as I recall. So 60mm would differ very little from that. I was used to a rangefinder camera with a 45mm fixed lens before that, so the 58mm seemed a little telescopic (which it is, in theory), and the background blur was nice wide open, and more than I was used to. As I accumulated more lenses (all of them primes in those days), I used the 58mm less and less. Eventually my go-to lenses were the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm. I could take about anything I wanted to with one of them. The other lenses were just for some special function.

 

[stevelee]

I am a narrow DoF addict, and a prime lens snob. I like fast prime lenses. For most of my life I have avoided zooms or slower lenses. For a job, I bought a EF 16-35 f4 L IS and I am in love with it. I can't wait for them to release some f4 L zooms in RF.

I guess I got most of the narrow DoF tendency out of my system with the 58mm lens. (See above.) And of course I was referring to an era when zoom lenses were large, heavy, expensive, and not very good. My first zoom lens was the kit lens with my first Rebel, so small, light, cheap, and at least decent. I love the EF 16–35 f/4 L IS. I can't foresee when or if I might buy an R-series camera, but if I did, I can't think of why I would want to replace that lens.

 

[cayenne]

Just gotta stand far enough away

Exactly.
And with a high MP sensor that is coming, you can crop in a good bit without losing much fidelity.

I've been experimenting with doing just this on the gfx100....I'm guessing the R3 or whichever high megapixel beast that is on the horizon will function quite well in much the same way.

c

 

[golubiewac1]

At F1 how narrow would the depth of field be? I find f1.2 can be very narrow so how would one use an f1 lens?

Good question. I ran my DoF model and here are some of the (shocking) results: using a circle of confusion of 0.017mm, focal length of 60mm and f/stop of 1.0
Focus distance ....DoF
20 ft. ........................13.42 in.
10 ft. .........................3.25 in.
6 ft..............................1.12 in.
4 ft...............................0.49 in.
3 ft...............................0.25 in.
This tells me that, for portraits, a very stable tripod is essential when using manual focus, in addition to very accurate focus, including placing the subject in a sturdy neck brace. No movement can be tolerated. For AF, speed and accuracy is required to keep up with normal human movement. One might consider relaxing the CoC but that will provide limited relief. The best use of f1.0 might be other than portraiture.

 

[Ozarker]

Good question. I ran my DoF model and here are some of the (shocking) results: using a circle of confusion of 0.017mm, focal length of 60mm and f/stop of 1.0
Focus distance ....DoF
20 ft. ........................13.42 in.
10 ft. .........................3.25 in.
6 ft..............................1.12 in.
4 ft...............................0.49 in.
3 ft...............................0.25 in.
This tells me that, for portraits, a very stable tripod is essential when using manual focus, in addition to very accurate focus, including placing the subject in a sturdy neck brace. No movement can be tolerated. For AF, speed and accuracy is required to keep up with normal human movement. One might consider relaxing the CoC but that will provide limited relief. The best use of f1.0 might be other than portraiture.

While I have never used f/1, I have used f/1.2 for portraits... and f/1.2 is not far off. F/1 will be fine and things properly in focus when used wisely.

 

[roby17269]

The "normal" lens that came on my FT-QL was a 58mm f/1.2, as I recall. So 60mm would differ very little from that. I was used to a rangefinder camera with a 45mm fixed lens before that, so the 58mm seemed a little telescopic (which it is, in theory), and the background blur was nice wide open, and more than I was used to. As I accumulated more lenses (all of them primes in those days), I used the 58mm less and less. Eventually my go-to lenses were the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm. I could take about anything I wanted to with one of them. The other lenses were just for some special function.

I much prefer "extreme" fls as well... wide (35 or less) or tele (85 or more). 85mm is my most used fl. I use a lot 300mm for fashion but on a MF camera so that's more or less 200mm equiv.
But when I am taking photos of kids at a bday party (being the "photographer dad" I am expected to bring my camera at such events) a 50ish lens affords me a decent level of versatility

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Hopefully it's not a priority and what's the point. Should have just made the 50 f/1.2 a 55 f/1.2.

This would be another $750 dearer at least and another 0.5kg most likely.

 

[Duckstalker]

I already have this lens, it's the Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 pair with the Canon 0.71x EF mount adapter. It was a pleasant surprise for me how the Sigma Art image circle could cover a full frame sensor even with the 0.71x adapter!