Report: Canon to launch 4 fast L prime lenses in the first half of 2024

[roby17269]

Can you imagine how the internet would break if Canon developed a RF 24-35mm f1.4 L zoom?

Now that one would get my interest
Better if 1.2 tho

 

[Fixxxer]

Can you imagine how the internet would break if Canon developed a RF 24-35mm f1.4 L zoom?

Somehow Canon sould countinue what started with the RF 28-70mm f/2L. Something like a 80-150mm f/2.

 

[EricN]

Now that one would get my interest
Better if 1.2 tho

RF 35-50mm F/1.2-1.4

 

[Walrus]

A tiny pancake prime 35mm f/5.6 for street photography would be awesome. I enjoy the RF 50mm f1.2, but not its size and weight.

There's the RF 28 pancake, or you can adapt the EF 40 which is a great lens; with adapter is not super tiny, but still pretty small, even if, for that size, the RF 50 STM will surely be an easier fit (but probably starts to be too long focal for your street tastes)

 

[stillviking]

Why not a new RF 40 mm 2.8 pancake like Nikon did now? It's just amazing.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Why not a new RF 40 mm 2.8 pancake like Nikon did now? It's just amazing.

Nikon's pancake is the 26 f/2.8 which is far more expensive than the Canon.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_RF+28mm+f_2.8+STM+Lens+Canon+RF_vs_Nikon_NIKKOR+Z+26mm+f_2.8+Lens+Nikon+Z/BHitems/1769100-REG_1744706-REG

Believe it or not, the Canon is superior.

I would not even recommend using the 26 f/2.8 without the lens hood and then it is not really pancake-sized any more.
If you do not need a pancake then the Nikon 28 f/2.8 and 40 f/2 are fine.

 

[Walrus]

Thanks for your advice. I am aware of the 28mm, it's perfect for what it is but I prefer the 35mm focal length for my work.

It's not pancake size, but the RF 35 is small, light, and has brilliant sharpness even wide open; it's 1 stop brighter then the usual pancake, and has IS. Bonus, half macro capabilities. Think about it, that may be the perfect lens for you.

 

[SwissFrank]

It's not pancake size, but the RF 35 is small, light, and has brilliant sharpness even wide open;

I was dismissive of the 35/1.8 from the start, but then I also was of the 50/1.8 but then it turned out actually to be VERY nice. I should revisit the 35/1.8 probably, as 50 has always seemed to be just a bit too narrow for me. 40-45 might have been a better standard lens for me but 35 can always be cropped and we have the megapix and low noise nowadays to crop very significantly and end up with a totally presentable photo.

 

[Del Paso]

I was dismissive of the 35/1.8 from the start, but then I also was of the 50/1.8 but then it turned out actually to be VERY nice. I should revisit the 35/1.8 probably, as 50 has always seemed to be just a bit too narrow for me. 40-45 might have been a better standard lens for me but 35 can always be cropped and we have the megapix and low noise nowadays to crop very significantly and end up with a totally presentable photo.

Why don't you use the excellent EF 2,8/40?

 

[Walrus]

I was dismissive of the 35/1.8 from the start, but then I also was of the 50/1.8 but then it turned out actually to be VERY nice. I should revisit the 35/1.8 probably, as 50 has always seemed to be just a bit too narrow for me. 40-45 might have been a better standard lens for me but 35 can always be cropped and we have the megapix and low noise nowadays to crop very significantly and end up with a totally presentable photo.

I had the 35, and have the 50 now; the 35 it's so much better from any point of view, and the slightly higher size and weight is a non issue, it's still small and light.

I sold the 35 not because I didn't like it, but just for rationalizing my kit: I had the RF 35 and the Sigma 50 Art, but they were too close focals, and I was always ending up using the 50, so the 35 was almost unused, but didn't want to sell it because sometime those extra wide mm were needed. When I discovered the existence of the Sigma 40 Art, which is an optical masterpiece (same level as the RF 50 1.2), and costed exactly what I could get from selling both RF 35 and the Sigma 50, I decided to buy it so it could serve as the perfect middle ground between the 35 and 50. I got the RF 50 f1.8 as cheap back up, I basically never use it, but it's always in the bag if the 40 Art would die during a wedding.

I'm super happy and never looked back. But I then felt the need of a stabilized WA prime for very occasional handheld video work, so I ended up buying a used EF 24 f2.8 IS when I saw one for super cheap on eBay.
But when (IF!) Canon would manufacture a RF 50 f1.4 and/or open to third parties, I'll most likely get back to a 50 as a std, and would likely buy again the RF 35, ditching the EF 24.

If you ask me, the RF 35 is still the best lens overall (all considered: performance, price, size, weight, etc) of the entire R system to date; if you gotta have one lens to rule it all, for me that's it.

 

[SwissFrank]

If you ask me, the RF 35 is still the best lens overall (all considered: performance, price, size, weight, etc) of the entire R system to date; if you gotta have one lens to rule it all, for me that's it.

Wow, that's really high praise and I can tell you've really put a lot of thought into it and that your thinking is close to mine too.

Everywhere I go I have the R5 and a 50mm/1.8 and a 16mm/2.8 in the backpack. I usually edit personal memory photos down to 1500x1000 which is just 1.5MP, so I can crop the 16mm down to 50mm if I really need to. In effect it's a zoom. And while I've shot a LOT of 14mm photos I'd also say that 16mm is as wide as I ever need to go. I don't recall ever finding that I can't get the shot I want by taking a step back or a couple times stitching a panorama.

I've thought about the 40/1.4 but I'm addicted to autofocus to be honest. In the EF days I always used manual, but the R cameras' focus is simply perfect for my humble needs. I really love the Sigma Art 28/1.4 and I'm no longer biased against third party manufacturers, as I was 30 years ago. Still, I'm not using it much despite really liking it.

So I guess the Sigmas aren't going to work for me as a main lens despite several of them being outstanding. I can keep working with the 50mm angle of view, or I may take your advice and look for a nice used 35/1.8.

 

[SwissFrank]

Why don't you use the excellent EF 2,8/40?

Interesting idea--to be honest I've never considered it. I may have assumed the DOF might be too similar to a smartphone, and the R body's so light and small I've never felt I needed something lighter than a 50/1.8. But both those might not be true. I do have the EF->RF adapter, from my original R body. Thanks for the idea and I'll consider it.

 

[Del Paso]

Interesting idea--to be honest I've never considered it. I may have assumed the DOF might be too similar to a smartphone, and the R body's so light and small I've never felt I needed something lighter than a 50/1.8. But both those might not be true. I do have the EF->RF adapter, from my original R body. Thanks for the idea and I'll consider it.

The EF 2,8/40 is, in my opinion, far better until f/5,6 than the 1,8/50. Then, the 1,8/50 comes close. It certainly isn't a mistake to give it a try!

 

[Walrus]

I've thought about the 40/1.4 but I'm addicted to autofocus to be honest.

The Sigma 40 f1.4 Art is OF COURSE autofocus; cost 750€ new (just bought one), and for its price, pretty much shames the three times costining RF 50 L
Only problem, it's HUGE and damn HEAVY...but who cares?!

 

[Del Paso]

The Sigma 40 f1.4 Art is OF COURSE autofocus; cost 750€ new (just bought one), and for its price, pretty much shames the three times costining RF 50 L
Only problem, it's HUGE and damn HEAVY...but who cares?!

Who cares?
I do. The Sigma weighs 1,2kg. For studio photography? Why not. Even though I'd far prefer a 50mm or a real 35mm, with reliable AF (on a DSLR).
Anyway, better than the Tamron 35-150...

 

[SwissFrank]

The Sigma 40 f1.4 Art is OF COURSE autofocus; cost 750€ new (just bought one), and for its price, pretty much shames the three times costining RF 50 L

Thanks for the idea. I see them about USD630/EUR575 here in Japan from a grey marketer. New price USD772/EUR705 if bought at Bic Camera and assuming the cash value of the resulting points. I buy all my photo gear used mint and attempt to sell it for the same price.

Some other people have commented how huge and heavy it is. It's a fair point, but!

Basically 50mm lenses fall into two categories. The ones descended from the traditional double Gauss design (including all the Canon EF 50mm's and the RF50/1.8) are compact and well understood but just not that sharp. Leica's $10k+ 50mm f/2 APO ASPH is the only exception, being at the top end of sharpness of any kind of lens (along with the RF50/1.2 and Zeiss Otus 55/1.4). It looks like a double Gauss but maybe it's not, somehow? Or maybe double Gauss can only be sharp AND compact if it's also f/2 or smaller?

The second type is new computer-designed lenses whose lens formulas don't look like anything we recognize. That's the Canon RF50/1.2, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, and this Sigma 40/1.4. These all almost tied for sharpest possible lens of any type ever made by anybody, and are all monsters. The Canon EF35/1.4 MkII might also be in this family--I had the MkI and never tried the MkII but I hear it was fantastically sharp too.

So anyway, yeah! We have a choice! Get the monster new-tech if you want the sharpness! Don't get it if you don't want the weight! And shoot Leica if you value sharpness and portability over aperture and your bank account! :-D There's no reason to argue or even discuss it much.

I had the EF 50/1.8 MkI (the pro-quality housing but same optics and 5-sided aperture of the later consumer model), as well as actually the 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4. They were all pretty bad. The RF50/1.8 I assumed would be pretty bad too but got one because you gotta have it, and I've been VERY VERY VERY surprised at how good it is in practice. (It is freakishly good hand-held: in testing 10 shots per aperture hand-held, the WORST photo from 1/2 to 1/15, of ten shots at each shutter speed, is better than the BEST at 1/30+. It sounds unbelievable but true.)

Still, I'd like the Sigma as a project lens I think.

My one huge complaint is the amount of mechanical vignetting causing cats-eye highlights as you get to the corners. If I'm going to spend serious money getting a monster lens purely for the image quality, I'd like some manufacture to issue one that doesn't have this issue (or doesn't have it as bad as they all do.)

 

[Del Paso]

Thanks for the idea. I see them about USD630/EUR575 here in Japan from a grey marketer. New price USD772/EUR705 if bought at Bic Camera and assuming the cash value of the resulting points. I buy all my photo gear used mint and attempt to sell it for the same price.

Some other people have commented how huge and heavy it is. It's a fair point, but!

Basically 50mm lenses fall into two categories. The ones descended from the traditional double Gauss design (including all the Canon EF 50mm's and the RF50/1.8) are compact and well understood but just not that sharp. Leica's $10k+ 50mm f/2 APO ASPH is the only exception, being at the top end of sharpness of any kind of lens (along with the RF50/1.2 and Zeiss Otus 55/1.4). It looks like a double Gauss but maybe it's not, somehow? Or maybe double Gauss can only be sharp AND compact if it's also f/2 or smaller?

The second type is new computer-designed lenses whose lens formulas don't look like anything we recognize. That's the Canon RF50/1.2, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, and this Sigma 40/1.4. These all almost tied for sharpest possible lens of any type ever made by anybody, and are all monsters. The Canon EF35/1.4 MkII might also be in this family--I had the MkI and never tried the MkII but I hear it was fantastically sharp too.

So anyway, yeah! We have a choice! Get the monster new-tech if you want the sharpness! Don't get it if you don't want the weight! And shoot Leica if you value sharpness and portability over aperture and your bank account! :-D There's no reason to argue or even discuss it much.

I had the EF 50/1.8 MkI (the pro-quality housing but same optics and 5-sided aperture of the later consumer model), as well as actually the 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4. They were all pretty bad. The RF50/1.8 I assumed would be pretty bad too but got one because you gotta have it, and I've been VERY VERY VERY surprised at how good it is in practice. (It is freakishly good hand-held: in testing 10 shots per aperture hand-held, the WORST photo from 1/2 to 1/15, of ten shots at each shutter speed, is better than the BEST at 1/30+. It sounds unbelievable but true.)

Still, I'd like the Sigma as a project lens I think.

My one huge complaint is the amount of mechanical vignetting causing cats-eye highlights as you get to the corners. If I'm going to spend serious money getting a monster lens purely for the image quality, I'd like some manufacture to issue one that doesn't have this issue (or doesn't have it as bad as they all do.)

If Leica M is an option, I wouldn't hesitate one second: Summilux 1,4/50. I love mine...

 

[SwissFrank]

If Leica M is an option, I wouldn't hesitate one second: Summilux 1,4/50. I love mine...

I shot my old 2000-era 35/1.4 ASPH and 75/1.4 on my R for a while. It worked OK but I didn't have the patience for manual focus any more, specifically nailing eye focus. I sold my actual Leica M6TTLs around 2005, since I hadn't touched film since unboxing my EOS-1Ds MkI. Later I sold the Leica glass to complete the outfit I wanted for RF. I didn't HAVE to sell them and kind of regret it. I had been thinking more to get a Leica digital body but I don't shoot enough to be totally familiar with two different bodies any more. In my 20s I had no problem owning 5-6 systems but now it wouldn't work.

 

[Juppeck]

I would like to seen more dedicated macro lenses like RF150L f/2.8 or RF180mmL F2.8 and a 50mm or 70mm Macro f/2.8 would be nice.

 

[koenkooi]

I would like to seen more dedicated macro lenses like RF150L f/2.8 or RF180mmL F2.8 and a 50mm or 70mm Macro f/2.8 would be nice.

From a weight and price perspective, I would be fine with a 180 f/4 as well.