Patent: Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM as well as an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM and RF 28mm f/1.2L USM

[Random Orbits]

Mhh, there seem to be a market for a ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 (EF only). Why not for a 1.2/28 L? Own the EF1.4/24 and EF1.4/35 II (both lightweight); this new guy would perfectly fit into the middle as a good compromise of both

The Otus is also available in other mounts, which have a better history of offering fast primes at 28mm. I'm not expecting the RF versions of the 24 and 35mm primes to be as compact or light as the EF lenses, if the RF 50 and 85mm primes are any indication.

 

[Random Orbits]

I carry a 35 1.4 m, 50 1.2, (getting the 85 1.2 soon) and a 135 1.8 in my portrait bag. I could care less about convenience. I plan to replace then35 with the RF 1.2 version or maybe the RF 28 1.2 Pretty happy with the 135 1.8 and use it the least but I would rent the 135 1.4 to see what it like. Still have both kidneys. But I do spend all my profits on gear.

Yes, you are a portrait photographer, which I noted is a prime candidate for these lenses. Now, if you were going on a trip to a national park with a lot of walking, would you bring your 35, 50, 85 an 135 primes or would you opt for lighter zooms that gave you wider focal length coverage. When I travel, I grab the zooms and maybe bring a single prime.

 

[davidhfe]

Canon certainly remains fully committed to the "Big and Heavy" approach to photography. So much for the promise of mirrorless.

Yes, you are a portrait photographer, which I noted is a prime candidate for these lenses. Now, if you were going on a trip to a national park with a lot of walking, would you bring your 35, 50, 85 an 135 primes or would you opt for lighter zooms that gave you wider focal length coverage. When I travel, I grab the zooms and maybe bring a single prime.

For me the question is... what lens would you give up in Canon's lineup for the 1.4 version? The reality is, we're 2-3 years in to a new system and it isn't possible to design and manufacture everything at once. For a lot of focal lengths, you'll soon have the option of:

- 2-3+ options for a zoom: one lighter and less expensive, one more expensive - options for travel, cost, IQ, etc.
- An inexpensive 1.8 prime with ok IQ
- A "best quality possible" lens with the tradeoffs that entails: prime, large, heavy

That seems reasonable for right now. I think Orbits' is the most common approach among shooters—but it does leave a gap for folks who love primes.

Do I think there's room for a 35 1.4 that sits between $499 and $2699? Of course, and I bet Canon does too. Canon seems to be min/maxing here and it's a strategy that's working.

 

[Random Orbits]

For me the question is... what lens would you give up in Canon's lineup for the 1.4 version? The reality is, we're 2-3 years in to a new system and it isn't possible to design and manufacture everything at once. For a lot of focal lengths, you'll soon have the option of:

- 2-3+ options for a zoom: one lighter and less expensive, one more expensive - options for travel, cost, IQ, etc.
- An inexpensive 1.8 prime with ok IQ
- A "best quality possible" lens with the tradeoffs that entails: prime, large, heavy

That seems reasonable for right now. I think Orbits' is the most common approach among shooters—but it does leave a gap for folks who love primes.

Do I think there's room for a 35 1.4 that sits between $499 and $2699? Of course, and I bet Canon does too. Canon seems to be min/maxing here and it's a strategy that's working.

I'm hoping most of the inexpensive primes are at f/1.8 and with IS. I didn't really see the value of EF 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses. Their only advantage was IS relative to the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II. The EF 35mm f/2 IS had a better value proposition, and the RF 35 f/1.8 IS macro offers more with a slightly large max aperture and 0.5 max magnification ratio.

I think that Canon will have a line of f/1.2 primes from 24 to 85mm, and the 50 f/1.4 is the only non-L that I see with that fast an aperture, and that is due to the low price/complexity of the RF 50 f/1.8. There might also be a couple f/2.8 pancake lenses.

I like L primes, but I don't bring those unless I specifically know I'll use them just because they are large and heavy. The EF 40mm pancake was used when I was primarily using the 100-400 (i.e. at the zoo or shooting the kids soccer games). It's light, takes very little space, and gives me a different framing option.

 

[Juangrande]

Yes, you are a portrait photographer, which I noted is a prime candidate for these lenses. Now, if you were going on a trip to a national park with a lot of walking, would you bring your 35, 50, 85 an 135 primes or would you opt for lighter zooms that gave you wider focal length coverage. When I travel, I grab the zooms and maybe bring a single prime.

 

[Juangrande]

I would still want a prime for the great image quality by I would limit it to just one, my 35.