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

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,112
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.
A full length group shot at 35mm is going to be around 10 feet focus distance. At 10 feet the difference in dof between f1.2 and f1.4 is 4 inches.

Now I think we can be pretty sure the RF 35 L is going to be a stunningly good lens and people committed to the RF system are already there, but I’m really struggling with the increase in size weight and cost for this new system especially when the image quality and character from the two EF primes is so good, small and cheap!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,881
1,541
I heard some mumbling and swearing downstairs as I read this, turns out it was my wallet ‍..
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

exige24

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 7, 2018
77
115
United States
I weigh my lenses with my shoulder. Maybe you've got an assistant to carry your camera bag?
I am grown man that is neither 5 years old nor 90 years old. I care not about having an assistant to carry an extra 100 grams on my person. Lol As if
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

exige24

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 7, 2018
77
115
United States
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.


Imagine arranging your photographic priorities such that were the legendary EF 35 1.4 II and the comparatively pedestrian RF 35 f2 were placed in front of you to take either, you'd reach for the RF.
 

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,765
4,192
The Ozarks
I heard some mumbling and swearing downstairs as I read this, turns out it was my wallet ‍..
Don't listen to the downers. F/1.2 or bust. I keep reading how the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 is negligible. Kinda not the point, right buddy? :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
616
686
www.diossiphotography.com
It’s been long rumored and long anticipated, that’s for sure. I do find it interesting what makes them release lenses in the order and the apertures they do. Like…did they know that a 50mm f/1.2L was going to be more important to get out first than a 50mm f/1.8? And vice versa with the 35mm - was the 1.8 more important to get out first before the 1.2 or 1.4?

I just rented the 50mm f/1.2L for a wedding this weekend and I’m potentially going to sell all three of my Sigma Art primes to fund it if the lens lives up to the hype and I’m sure it will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
616
686
www.diossiphotography.com
You do not know this.
I can tell you that one of the major draws for me moving to the mirrorless system was that all of my lenses worked nearly perfect on the EOS R. But now that I sold all my mirrored cameras, I am eager to ditch the adapters on most lenses and go full RF. I can tell you that after that major commitment of the R5 and R6 purchase, I wouldn’t buy another EF lens TO adapt. That just seems counter intuitive to me. That said, there are some benefits to shooting with EF lenses - epically if you’re a video shooter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,112
Imagine arranging your photographic priorities such that were the legendary EF 35 1.4 II and the comparatively pedestrian RF 35 f2 were placed in front of you to take either, you'd reach for the RF.
Personally I haven’t used the RF 35 f1.8 so I couldn’t answer that. What I do know is lenses don’t take pictures, photographers using lenses do. I’d take a good photographers images with a bad lens over a bad photographers images with a good lens any day.

I did a photo review last night for 8 photographers. The images covered a wide range of subjects and disciplines and the gear used ranged from very modest to very expensive. The consensus amongst the group was that the most compelling images of the night were shot with the EF 50 f1.4.
 
Last edited:

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
791
1,039
But why F1.2? Why every lens needs to be 1kg? The EF 35 1.4 is just perfect size, no need for bigger...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
683
444
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 :)
When you read your manual are you getting the performance from the device that you purchased for those selected EF lenses paired with the R5? It may not matter in your application. Not everyone uses all capabilities of each camera. At some point it wont be cost effective for Canon to support legacy lenses. Everyone uses what is best for them. At some point one would want to put new tires on the new car. Even though the older ones still have tread.
 

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
683
444
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.
how much size do you lose when shooting sports and wildlife and using 300m and longer lenses? 50 grams?
 

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
683
444
how much size do you lose when shooting sports and wildlife and using 300mm and longer lenses? 50 grams? You've replaced mirror vibration. There is a limit to size reduction. Heat. Size reduction has reached its limit to performance without active cooling. The R5 set the bar. 8k 60 internal and the rest of true flagship hybrid criteria require heat dissipation less innovation stalls.

 
Last edited:

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,574
2,472
I can tell you that one of the major draws for me moving to the mirrorless system was that all of my lenses worked nearly perfect on the EOS R. But now that I sold all my mirrored cameras, I am eager to ditch the adapters on most lenses and go full RF. I can tell you that after that major commitment of the R5 and R6 purchase, I wouldn’t buy another EF lens TO adapt. That just seems counter intuitive to me. That said, there are some benefits to shooting with EF lenses - epically if you’re a video shooter.

Precisely. It's not meant to be a permanent thing, using EF lenses on RF, but rather to ease the transition. A guy who regularly uses 3 or 4 L lenses doesn't have to either replace them all (if even available yet) or wait for them to become available, before buying an RF body.

I guess I'm a bit odd that way; I have no intention of replacing my 100-400 II L, because it can also be used on my M cameras. For shorter focal lengths the M lenses suffice when I'm using the M camera, but as Canon isn't interested in breaking their 61mm rule on those cameras, you pretty much must adapt an EF lens for something long. So that's one EF lens I won't be getting rid of and would likely even replace with another if it broke irreparably.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Peter Bergh

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 16, 2020
31
18
... The consensus amongst the group was that the most compelling images of the night were shot with the EF 50 f1.4.
Your statement confuses me. I have always believed that what makes an image compelling is composition, composition, composition, and light. The specific lens used would normally have little influence on "compellingness".
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user

dominic_siu

R5, RF1435, RF2870, RF100500, RF100 Macro
Aug 31, 2018
98
83
I’m eager to see how this 35 1.2 performs when available for purchase, drawbacks are you need a deep pocket and the size won’t be small
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,112
Your statement confuses me. I have always believed that what makes an image compelling is composition, composition, composition, and light. The specific lens used would normally have little influence on "compellingness".
You aren’t confused. The lens has very little to do with the compelling nature of the resulting images, and that was entirely my point. We have a superb EF 35 f1.4 II L, yet there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for a bigger heavier faster and much more expensive RF f1.2 version.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,397
1,165
www.flickr.com
Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.
Everyone has a different migration path. From a pure cost perspective, the R5 alone improves the entire ecosystem of EF lenses. I have a migration project keeping track of the costs and initially only had the RF70-200/2.8 and happy to adapt the rest. Upgrading last year (including underwater housing) was the cost of a cancelled big holiday.
I sort of had to get the RF100-500mm as teleconvertors didn't work with the RF70-200/2.8 which was an expensive addition but worth it as I got 20% off the list price in AUD.
I might upgrade my EF24-105mm/4 next if there are discounts offered and lens availability but no rush.
I won't migrate my EF100mm macro for some time unless I get the RF version second hand - ie not for a long time.
There is no replacement for my EF16-35mm/4 which is probably my most-used lens above and below water. The f2.8 has different filter size and I don't need f2.8 for landscape
There is no replacement for my EF8-15mm but I got that second hand and use it rarely compared to the others
Can't imagine that Canon will release a 14mm/2.8 or faster than could be reasonable in price and with good coma vs the Samyang.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

HMC11

Travel
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
97
105
Can't imagine that Canon will release a 14mm/2.8 or faster than could be reasonable in price and with good coma vs the Samyang.
Samyang has an AF 14mm/2.8 for RF which, from reviews I have come across, seems to be quite good and definitely priced reasonably.