Canon made one 20mm lens for the EF mount. It wasn't an L, and never got a mkII. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an L class RF 20mm lens.
Upvote
0
Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L DS USM optical formula
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Canon made one 20mm lens for the EF mount. It wasn't an L, and never got a mkII. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an L class RF 20mm lens.
I really agree with this. but I'd like to see an RF 50-150 f/2-2.8. As long as Sony is Tamron's principal stockholder, I think it's going to be a while before we see Tamron making any RF glass especially as they have to keep Sony happy.
Upvote
0
No matter whether most of us do not need (or can afford) such a lens, I am convinced Canon have made the right decision.
To produce some exceptional lenses no one else has. Sigma, Zeiss, Samyang and Sony all have F 2-1,8/135mm teles. Why shouldn't Canon differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack?
There are certainly enough pros ready to invest $$$ in such an exceptional lens. I do not need it, but I am not the one this lens has been developed for.
To produce some exceptional lenses no one else has. Sigma, Zeiss, Samyang and Sony all have F 2-1,8/135mm teles. Why shouldn't Canon differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack?
There are certainly enough pros ready to invest $$$ in such an exceptional lens. I do not need it, but I am not the one this lens has been developed for.
Upvote
0
I am now using the EF 200/2.8L II USM for nearly ten years and since i have the new R6 it shines even more wih sharpness and contrast. So this is a beautiful well-priced lens , fast, sharp, robust - a nice peace of glass and heavy metal. But sometimes it produces a strange rendering, with unnatural dark or bright contrast-lines as one can see in this photo: R6 & EF 200/2.8L II, f.2.8, ISO 160 1/2000sec. ooc ca. 100% crop.
Upvote
0
I have a hard time thinking that something that does not have technology which did not exist at it's time of manufacturing is a shortcoming. Maybe I'm just older and used to having to shoot without a crutch or computer kicking in but if you like just adapt and then it's not shortcomed. Hell, it is f/2, not once did I think I needed stabilization for it in the past 20 odd years.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
The IBIS of the R3 made my decision to get the 28-70/2 over the 24-70/2.8 IS easier.
Upvote
0
My daughter is a professional wedding photographer and her top two lenses are the 35 and the 85. She has been using Nikon 750's for several years but they are beaten to crap now. She's decided to migrate to Canon mirrorless and a few days ago she purchased a Canon R5 but very much needs a pro-level RF 35 1.4 or 1.2. For the interim, she bought the RF 35mm f1.8 macro. Why in the name of tarnation is not Canon getting off its backside and releasing an RF35 1.2 or 1.4!!!!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I am very happy with EF85 1.4 IS adapted to the R5 for portraits, I tend to use EF 70-200 2.8 for group photos where I have to shoot F5 to get everybody in focus. I have some interest in the Nikon/Sigma 105 f1.4 for tighter framing. Maybe 135 would be good.
Upvote
0
The EF 35mm f/1.4L II works beautifully on the R5/R6. Ergonomics are very good. Unless there is some shortcoming with video, I can't imagine anybody not being 100% happy with it on mirrorless.
Note: B&H says more on the way, 2-4 weeks. They also have a used one rated 10, which is a rare rating for them.
Upvote
0
I don't know where this fascination with supremely big and heavy and very expensive prime lenses will end but...
The RF 50 f1.2 weighs over 2 lbs, is 3.5 inches fat and 4.5 inches long, and costs $2,300. It has a 77mm front filter element.
The RF 85 f1.2 weighs close to 3 lbs, is over 4 inches fat and close to 5 inches long. It takes an 82mm front filter. It has a theoretical entrance pupil diameter of 71mm.
An RF 135 f1.4 would need a theoretical entrance pupil of 96mm. That makes the front element nearly twice as massive as the 85mm f1.2. So you are probably looking at a lens that weighs 5 lbs, is 5.5 inches fat, 6.5 inches long, takes a 105mm front filter and costs $3,799.
The RF 50 f1.2 weighs over 2 lbs, is 3.5 inches fat and 4.5 inches long, and costs $2,300. It has a 77mm front filter element.
The RF 85 f1.2 weighs close to 3 lbs, is over 4 inches fat and close to 5 inches long. It takes an 82mm front filter. It has a theoretical entrance pupil diameter of 71mm.
An RF 135 f1.4 would need a theoretical entrance pupil of 96mm. That makes the front element nearly twice as massive as the 85mm f1.2. So you are probably looking at a lens that weighs 5 lbs, is 5.5 inches fat, 6.5 inches long, takes a 105mm front filter and costs $3,799.
Upvote
0
I was wondering how long it would take for you to chime in.
Upvote
0
Maybe Canon has decided the old 35 is not the new 35. We do cling to older ideas and formulas much more than other crafts.(Sunny 16 much?)
I personally am more comfortable at 40mm.
Where's my freaking RF pancake Canon?
Upvote
0
It's about profit. Period. It is not about keeping anyone happy except shareholders.
Upvote
0
But..but....but...do you mean they don't actually read our comments back at Canon? Because there's 3 or 4 people who want an RF7 or a non L 50.
Let's storm the Tokyo HQ, I'll wear the mankini with bison horns.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
