The best lens of its class, but it's an extra 100g!!!!!!!!!!!! Noooooooooo!!!!
Talk about messed up priorities. Do you people even take pictures or just the weigh your lenses?
The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM will be announced this year [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The best lens of its class, but it's an extra 100g!!!!!!!!!!!! Noooooooooo!!!!
Talk about messed up priorities. Do you people even take pictures or just the weigh your lenses?
Your comment is spot on and am glad you are aware of it. I have been on B&H notification list since Jan, for both the RF28-70 F2L and the RF 100-500. In the case of the RF 28-70, you are talking about a lens that has been out for two yrs and you still can't find ample supplies, unless you are willing to pay MSRP ++ on Ebay and elsewhere. So, it's hard to develop any level of sustained enthusiasm for another new lens you won't be able to get for some time.
I own the 35mm f1.8 and I have had to slow down the autofocus in the camera settings to make it rack slower as it is extremely quick. I use for both photo and video several times per week and it never, ever occurred to me that the focus is slow in either photo or video. For comparison, I also own several L lenses in both RF and EF and the 35 1.8 is not a laggard and weighing in at just 300 grams with macro capability, is worth it for the loss of a small amount of bokeh versus a heavy 1.4 lens.
That comment is so 2014 and used very briefly when Sony were trying to sell us the "mirrorless dream" then quickly swept under the carpet two years later with the release of the G Masters when everyone complained there was no pro glass.
The optical quality of the non-L RF lenses is quite good. The one thing that really bugs me about Canon non-L lenses is the extra $35-50 they charge you for the lens hood. Probably cost them less than $1…
Reminds me of road bike fanatics that shave their legs so they'll be more "aerodynamic".
I'm sorry that is complete nonsense for many people. Size weight and cost are real issues with the new RF lenses, sure a couple of hundred grams might not make a big difference on one lens, when it all adds up and makes the difference between carrying three lenses instead of four lenses it has real impact.
Personally I love the EF 35 f2 IS and own it over the EF 35 f1.4 II L because of size, weight, and cost, oh, and the f2 has IS.... I could buy the L, easily, but then the EF 35 1.4 II L is 15oz more than the f2, that difference between the two lenses is three quarters the weight of my EF 100L Macro! Sure for a couple of hours it makes little difference but for long hikes, big trips, travels, or vacations it makes the difference between taking a lens with you or not.
Last edited:
Can't you instead pick on golfers who insist their 'game' is a sport? Correction to your post....It's for massage, ease of cleaning road rash and of course fashion, because we look so sexy.
Interesting. How many of us photographers are also really in to biking? I know several photographers in real life who are also in to biking. Maybe there is some causal link between the two hobbies.
Some of them have quirky genes and no hairs below knees at all... (And I am not a weight weenie either!
Nothing sexier in the world than tanned, smooth, shiny men's legs.
Hey, even curling is a "sport".
OK I know this is a ridiculous tangent but I couldn't help myself:
- I know a lot more cyclists who do it because "tradition". I do it because when I crashed in a race, road rash was bad, but when I was out of race season and had hairy legs, and got hit by a car, the extra grit that got caught in the leg hair was horrendous..
- The fact that someone has actually measured the aero affects of leg hair blows my mind, and if you have 4 minutes to spare, I recommend it:
Used to be heavily into mtb.... Then got kicked out for smelling seats. Just wanted to check how the leather was holding up, then everyone decided to freak out.
People said the same about the RF50/1.2. Then it turned out the RF was literally ten times sharper. (The 30lp/mm contrast is higher than the EF's 10lp/mm contrast, from center to corner, meaning it's over 3x sharper linearly or over 9x sharper per area. Call it ten times.)
Also my Leica 35/1.4ASPH is maybe 1/4 the volume of the EF35/1.4ii, so it's possible that the Canon RF may be a revolution in small size.
Finally, f/1.2.
You refer to the 24 and 35 as being in an "medium wide angle" segment, but I'd say 35-50 are the "normal angle" segment while 24 is definitely wide-angle, nothing "medium" about it to my eye.
I actually would like a big-aperture 28, btw, but I'm not holding my breath.
An outfit like RF probably should have 35/1.0, 35/1.2, 35/1.4 and 35/2 lenses. We need the 35/2 to be a "camera is always in the backpack" lens with size a priority. 35/1.4 will be something for light hobbyists, speccy but cheap. 35/1.2 is image quality uber alles. And 35/1.0 is a halo product that may only be produced in the dozens and cost north of $10k.
Personally I shoot a lot of editorial/environmental portraits and often use a 35mm perspective. Shallow depth of field on a wide angle lens is less pronounced so a faster 1.2 is greatly appreciated and 24mm is too distorted for most portrait applications depending on subject distance. So I would much prefer the address the 35 before the 24. I do I think I saw a reference to an RF 24 1.2 in CR if I’m not mistaken do you’ll see that lens eventually.
Similar threads
- Contains 4 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)