Patent: Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM

Juangrande

EOS 90D
Mar 6, 2017
182
236
Nah, there's an f/1.2, now, and it's not even enormously expensive (lower MSRP than the f/1.4 L II, in fact). It was released to almost no fanfare, which makes me wonder how much even photography enthusiasts care about the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 for a wide angle prime :unsure:

I care about the difference. I shoot 35mm for editorial/environmental portraits and I would like even more separation than I’m getting now with my 35 1.4. I can’t wait for this native lens and the rumored 135 1.4. Will be buying the RF 50 or 85 1.2 first though. As soon as I sell my 5Dmk4.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
OMGoodness! Another f/1.2!

Dream: RF 35mm f/1.2L, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L, RF 135mm f/1.8L, RF 600mm f/4L

Reality? Ugh!!!$$$

Throw in a RF 24mm f/1.2L and make it an epic nightmare of a dream. :cry:

Don't despair until you figure out how many kidneys your extended family have left. Only if that number is already close to zero do you have a problem.
 
Feb 15, 2020
546
379
Super excited for this lens! To be honest, the RF 35mm 1.8 would have been good enough image quality wise, but the focus shift on my copy was quite bad and made it too unreliable unfortunately
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
315
229
It’s safe to say I have over 500k shots on my 35mmf1.4lii it’s my workhorse and doesn’t skip a beat. I’m ready for the 1.2 rf ✨
Must-have-lens. Fast 35mm prime is amazingly versatile on a high MPIX body. F1./2 would let you crop even more and still maintain great bokeh. Used my 35mm L II on the 5DS/R this way. Could see it replacing my RF 28-70mm f/2.0 as my go-to lens for events when the high MPIX R comes out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
315
229
This is a darn big lens. It's 70-200/2,8 size. What a monster of a 35mm this will be.
Same length as the Canon EF 35mm L II on an R. Maybe the front element will be larger, but it should have more glass towards the camera body.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
315
229
According to Wikipedia, the EF 35mm f/1.4L mkII is 105.5mm long, while this patent gives the lens length as ~148mm, making it longer even if the 24mm flange distance difference is taken into account.
According to the lens in my hand and a school ruler Wikepedia does not have a clue...(about the EF plus RF adapter)...

150mm with lens cover ~148mm without. However, I do need to take away some for the back cap - maybe 10mm. So 140mm with and ~138mm without.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

quiquae

EOS M50
Jan 21, 2014
32
16
I agree with the 28mm. I have the Sigma art 28mm f/1.4 and it is my most used indoor lens. I would love a RF 28L in 1.2 or 1.4.
Canon seems to believe 28mm prime lenses aren't important, considering that they never did release an EF28L, or even renew the ancient and generally criticized EF28F1.8. No matter, if there's demand Sigma or Tamron will get around to it one of these days.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,742
2,145
Hamburg, Germany
According to Wikipedia, the EF 35mm f/1.4L mkII is 105.5mm long, while this patent gives the lens length as ~148mm, making it longer even if the 24mm flange distance difference is taken into account.
I wish CR guy would add some sort of hint in the posts about how patent lengths are to be compared the Canon numbers for already released EF lenses. It comes up every single time.

I understand the numbers on the German Canon website to measure the physical distance of the bounding box length. So a bit more than what eventually sticks out of the body, as it includes the flanges. But it doesn't account for the front or rear lens cap. For the EF 85 mm 1.8,for example, they list 75 mm and I measured the part that sticking out of the body to be 72 mm. So that checks out.

For the newly announced RF 100 mm 2.8 L macro, the list a length of 148 mm. The recent patent for this lens shows a total lens length of 162.3 and backfocus of 14.7.

162.3 - 14.7 = 147.6 should give the actual, physical length of the lens, including the bit sticking into the body. That matches up pretty well with the 148 mm from the German Canon website, so that checks out.

If you care about the part sticking out if the body, you have to subtract the 20 mm flange distance from the total lens length figure in a patent. So that gives 148 mm - 20 mm = 128 mm. If you want to compare that to an EF lens, you also have to add the 24 mm length of the EF adapter to the EF lens.

In other words, unless the total lens length figure in a patent is more than 44 mm greater than the EF lens length given by Canon on their website, the EF lens is shorter in practical terms. For RF lens lengths on the website, it becomes more difficult to compare, as RF lenses can stick into the body and Canon do not give that figure separately.