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

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
655
369
An outfit like RF probably should have 35/1.0, 35/1.2, 35/1.4 and 35/2 lenses.

35/2.0 is the "camera is always in the backpack" lens with size a priority, and sturdy, but then great image quality even if it costs more. (f/2 doesn't sound like much but with pro reportage moving from an f/2.8 trinity to an f/4 trinity, f/2 is enough stops faster to be of interest to have in addition to the trinity.)

35/1.4 will be something for light hobbyists, speccy but price priority. Size and sturdy doesn't actually matter. Sure get good IQ but not if it costs much more.

35/1.2 is a pro-build with image quality priority.

35/1.0 is a halo product that may only be produced in the dozens and cost north of $10k. It might not even have that great an image quality, as it's all about the raw spec.

I'd like pretty much the same breakdown at 50mm too. Both 35 and 50 are widely-enough used that the preeminent maker can afford to have four models. EF had 3x 50s since 1992, and 2x 35s since like '96. Leica's had 4x 50s for decades for the M models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gazwas

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
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: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,680
4,112
Irving, Texas
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:
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
655
369
Meh — another too heavy and wrong sized lens for mirrorless. The 35L II really works well on the R's. We'll see what Tamron and Sigma release for RF.
Why the heck do you think that? 35s for rangefinders/mirrorless cameras can be EXTREMELY small and light. My Leica 35/1.4ASPH is like 20% the volume of my old 35/1.4.... and that is Leica's big 35/1.4. It's predecessor was like 25%+ smaller yet.
 

Attachments

  • 35vs35top900.JPG
    35vs35top900.JPG
    55.7 KB · Views: 91
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,585
2,946
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: mpeeps and Daner

Juangrande

EOS 90D
Mar 6, 2017
182
236
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.
 

Juangrande

EOS 90D
Mar 6, 2017
182
236
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: exige24

Refraction

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
32
25
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.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,054
4,616
Here on earth I, the 24-105/4 is substantially smaller than the EF version. How are things on earth II?
You and I have very different definitions for the word, 'substantially'. I guess on your earth, something 11mm long is considered 'substantial'. :rolleyes:

Screen Shot 2021-05-18 at 3.14.45 PM.png

(L to R: EF Mk I, EF Mk II, RF)
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
759
177
The RF 70-200s are both substantially smaller than their EF counterparts.
The 600/11 and 800/11 are also small (no EF counterparts, though)