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
10,487
5,705
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.png
Screen Shot 2021-05-18 at 16.05.51.png
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
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: Larsskv and RMac

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
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: CanonFanBoy

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
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!
 

exige24

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 7, 2018
77
113
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.
 

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
527
540
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: fastprime

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
527
540
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: vjlex

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
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:

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
508
334
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
508
334
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
508
334
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
2,430
2,296
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: LSXPhotog and vjlex