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

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
Darn again! Right after I got the RF 50 1.2L you come out with this?!? :mad:

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 :rolleyes:

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

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.
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
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.
 
Upvote 0

cayenne

CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,868
796
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

golubiewac1

front ranger
Sep 14, 2013
7
2
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
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.
 
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
442
546
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
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
 
Upvote 0