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

Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
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.
You could look through the bottom of a milk bottle and improve on the EF 50 f1.2, that wasn't a difficult bar to get over, the EF35 L isn't as low a starting point.

No other RF lenses have given the slightest hint of getting smaller, so I think that is a no go. F1.2? Yay, because the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is going to be very noticabe. Sharper? Double yay! Because nothing is sharp enough at the moment....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
You could look through the bottom of a milk bottle and improve on the EF 50 f1.2, that wasn't a difficult bar to get over, the EF35 L isn't as low a starting point.

No other RF lenses have given the slightest hint of getting smaller, so I think that is a no go. F1.2? Yay, because the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is going to be very noticabe. Sharper? Double yay! Because nothing is sharp enough at the moment....
Don't be a buzz killer. :ROFLMAO:
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
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.
They are both expensive, G.A.S. gets ahold of many, camera bags are like jerseys and bibs, you can never have too many & the adage, 'Light, Fast and Cheap...Pick Two' applies to both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
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.
I disagree. I think it should be f1.0 but I’ll settle for f1.2. And personally I don’t shoot mirrorless for a smaller kit, there are other benefits to system and personally smaller is not better ergonomically. If your shooting all day a smaller body hurts your hands because you have to cramp your fingers to work the controls. Which is why I personally do not prefer Sony cameras as they’re very uncomfortable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
442
546
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
He didn’t like the 35mm version 1 on the R5 so he sold it (lens) not the the camera body.
Thank you kind sir ;) - I feared I typed something wrong but happy to know someone got the gist of what I wrote right
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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 or 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.
You could probably fit an entire micro 4/3 camera kit with 3 lenses in a fanny pack and be all set. Especially since you don’t care about IQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Refraction

CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
46
39
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…
Agreed but as I use variable ND filters I would be taking it off anyway but it is still annoying.
 
Upvote 0

Ronny Wertelaers

Ronny Wertelaers Photography
Apr 21, 2020
19
16
Belgium
www.ronnywertelaers.com
As a wedding photographer i shoot about 80% of my images on 35mm prime. Can't wait to complete my RF50 mm F1.2 and RF RF 85 F1.2 with this one. With the 35mm you can tell a story because you include some background and it force you to go close without too much distortion and make images with impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Here on earth I, the 24-105/4 is substantially smaller than the EF version. How are things on earth II?
We are specifically talking about the RF 35 f1.2 L, here are the EF and RF 50 f1.2 and EF and RF85 f1.2 compared. Considering the RF 35 is going to be faster than the EF version I see no reason why the differences would be dissimilar to the current comparisons.

I'm sorry the facts don't align with your hopes and dreams, or reality. Here on Earth II I am in the ever smaller group of people who actually rely on them.


Screen Shot 2021-05-18 at 16.00.11.pngScreen Shot 2021-05-18 at 16.05.51.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
As a wedding photographer i shoot about 80% of my images on 35mm prime. Can't wait to complete my RF50 mm F1.2 and RF RF 85 F1.2 with this one. With the 35mm you can tell a story because you include some background and it force you to go close without too much distortion and make images with impact.
I'd agree the 35mm focal length, for me too, is a very pleasing focal length, however I don't see any real advantage in the f1.2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
You could probably fit an entire micro 4/3 camera kit with 3 lenses in a fanny pack and be all set. Especially since you don’t care about IQ.
Why would you make the assumption I don't care about image quality? But the EOS M range is, in my opinion, much better than M4/3 for IQ at a comparable size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
I'd agree the 35mm focal length, for me too, is a very pleasing focal length, however I don't see any real advantage in the f1.2.
The only advantage that I could see would be the ability to shoot full length group shots with a very shallow DOF, assuming that look is your thing, with the confidence that the mirrorless AF would provide. In fact it's interesting that in the press now I am seeing an ever growing number really really shallow DOF shots that with pre mirrorless accuracy would have been too chancy a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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?
I weigh my lenses with my shoulder. Maybe you've got an assistant to carry your camera bag?
 
Upvote 0