The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM will be announced this year [CR2]

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,309
2,079
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
  • Like
Reactions: tigers media

RMac

5Diii 7D M5 C300
I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
 
Oct 29, 2020
3
23
I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.

Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,683
4,115
Irving, Texas
I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
I believe because far more people shoot at 35mm?.

I used to have the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Great lens! However, I have no 35mm presently. So someone like me will be very interested.

Some lenses from Canon are not for me. This one ain't for you. ;) Often, the world is far bigger than the world we've created in our minds.
 
Last edited:

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
536
346
I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
Sold all of my EF lenses except the 85s and dont want to use the older EF lenses. The top AF speeds and fps obtained with the new cameras will be with certain RF lenses. Thats what I paid for in the camera. The EF 35 wont be their best when the 35 1.2 is released.
 
Last edited:

roby17269

R5 + RF & EF L glass
Feb 26, 2014
49
25
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
Waiting and saving for this one! :rolleyes:

I had the EF 35mm f/1.4 mkI and I tried on the R5 and did not like it so ended up selling it.

I am not a huge fan of 35mm per se, but I wasn't of 50mm as well and the RF 50mm f/1.2L is changing my mind, so I hope this one will make me a believer too.

Reality is, though, if you are a prime shooter, 35mm is a useful fl to have and... me being a self-declared L prime snob means the 1.8 is a no go :ROFLMAO:
 

mb66energy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Dec 18, 2011
1,531
385
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.
Maybe - my reason for RF-system: Excellent AF free of restrictions to some AF points on the wrong place, better sensor (than EOS 5Di). EF lenses double for my M50 so there is some further advantage to keep EF lenses.
The RF 35 1.8 is an excellent lens because of good IQ, f/1.8 and image stabilization for low light applications. And with good closeup / macro capability it is very flexible - that was my choice of this RF lens.

The only reason I see to buy RF lenses is the sparse availability of the EF-EOS R adapter which avoids "converting" EF lenses to use them in a mixed environment - not meant too serious :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMac

xiaohuaa

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Dec 13, 2019
11
17
Waiting and saving for this one! :rolleyes:

I had the EF 35mm f/1.4 mkI and I tried on the R5 and did not like it so ended up selling it.

I am not a huge fan of 35mm per se, but I wasn't of 50mm as well and the RF 50mm f/1.2L is changing my mind, so I hope this one will make me a believer too.

Reality is, though, if you are a prime shooter, 35mm is a useful fl to have and... me being a self-declared L prime snob means the 1.8 is a no go :ROFLMAO:

Why didn’t you like the R5? Because You need to record long oversampled videos?
 

RMac

5Diii 7D M5 C300
I believe because far more people shoot at 35mm?.

I used to have the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Great lens! However, I have no 35mm presently. So someone like me will be very interested.

Some lenses from Canon are not for me. This one ain't for you. ;) Often, the world is far bigger than the world we've created in our minds.
I guess Canon would have a good idea whether there's a bigger market for a new 35mm L when they already have a stellar 35mm L than a 24mm L when their current 24mm L could really stand an update. Or maybe they have a design that would yield higher margins than the current 35mm.

Surely there are a lot of folks who would love to see updates to their longer-in-tooth L prime designs - 14mm, 24mm, and 135mm being the ones that stick out in my mind. But what do I know? I don't have a market analysis team.
 

Aaron D

Hey!
Jul 21, 2016
273
265
Kansas City
www.aarondougherty.com
I just bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/2 and I see clearly now the difference between L and non-L. These lenses are fine - sharp, light, well-built - but the focusing in and out - buzz, buzz, buzz - is annoying as hell. But I cannot justify a collection of f/1.2 primes and I don't want the giant size/weight. I will make do with these STM's until Canon makes a series of f/1.4's that'll be fast, quiet, small-ish, weather-sealed, with IS and relatively affordable.

I am Goldilcks, there's no denying it.
 

kafala

I'm New Here
Jul 8, 2020
13
14
It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,125
4,725
I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
You bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. I bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. If most buyers are like us (and Canon has those data), then they are likely to sell more RF 35mm lenses than RF 24mm lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bart and frjmacias

exige24

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 7, 2018
77
113
United States
It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.
Silence, Zoolander.

Size and weight is at the extreme bottom of priorities as far as lenses are concerned, unless you're dealing with super telephotos.

You expect me to carry 120 more grams around?!?!?! Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Haha Please.
Jeez.