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

Peter Bergh

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 16, 2020
28
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: sanj

dominic_siu

EOS R5, RF2870, RF70200, RF50 1.8
Aug 31, 2018
75
67
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
10,012
4,803
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 RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
692
567
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: HMC11

HMC11

Travel
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
30
14
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.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
382
231
Australia
Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.
Sorry do you have the world wide survey results from all Canon owners to verify this. I know I will hardly be buying any current RF glass when I get the R3 until they release a 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. Maybe the new macro as well but that's about it.
 

RMac

5Diii 7D M5 C300
You bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. I bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. If most buyers are like us (and Canon has those data), then they are likely to sell more RF 35mm lenses than RF 24mm lenses.
In my case, a major reason I bought the EF 35mm f1.4L ii over the 24mm is because it's a much newer design with incredible IQ while the 24mm f1.4L ii, while not bad, is showing its age a bit by comparison.
 

RMac

5Diii 7D M5 C300
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.
As someone who once hiked to the summit of a 14,000 ft mountain with an EF 70-200 f2.8L IS ii, I can attest to the occasional reasonableness of such priorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
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!
Well 4 inches mean a lot to some people.
Seriously though, I think we are seeing a major move away from what is required in photography, to what is desired.
If you go back to the day, people really needed an f2.8 over a 4 to focus effectively, they needed the size, weight and had to put up with the resulting inflexibility of MF to get improved quality, needed 6 FPS to capture the right moment, needed leaf shutter for high speed sync etc etc. I could go on and on. Now it’s a very different situation, and some of these RF lenses shout this from the roof tops.
As you have said time and time again, it really is content that counts, and the only person who might think a crap picture at 1.2 is better than a compelling one at 1.8 is going to be the photographer who used the 1.2.
People could argue that they need any little thing to give them an edge in today’s shrinking and crowded market, and there’s some truth in that, but I can see that just as smooth, grainless, noiseless images that were what everyone desired in film days has become ubiquitous now, so ultra shallow DOF will become the norm, driven by both precise mirrorless AF and 1.2 lenses and smartphone software.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
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".
He’s saying that the best images just happened to be taken on a cheap lens.
Here in the UK we have a prestigious Landscape Photographer of the Year annual competition which attracts over 40,000 entries and has a £10,000 first prize, and is exhibited all around the country. In 2020 it was won by a beautiful image of wild garlic in a misty forest taken on a Nikon D3200 and a Sigma 10-22 lens. You could buy the whole same kit off of eBay for under £300.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,605
1,459
Personally I haven’t used the RF 35 f2 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.
I didn't know ahsanford lived near you :)
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
381
320
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".

Composition, lighting, skill, equipment, opportunity and post-production all play roles in the final image. Exactly what proportion varies by the moment.

Composition and lighting can sometimes be fixed in post. Missed opportunities can't...
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2020
506
348
Anyone want to take a guess on price? I’m hoping it is less expensive than the RF85mm 1.2

My main concern is how well this new lens will deal with vignetting. The 50mm 1.2 is already not so great wide open and I really hope the 35mm 1.2 won’t be significantly worse. If it is, perhaps the adapted 35mm 1.4L ii will have an advantage in that area..
 

Bahrd

Red herrings...
Jun 30, 2013
139
92
I shave my arms so moving my camera will be more aerodynamic.
I fully appreciate your dedication, however, a solid amount of fur would increase both your hands inertia and aero drag and thus help with stabilization, I suppose (unless your job conditions are extremely windy! ;).
 

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
687
575
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
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.

There is a well-established link between these interests that involve gullible people willing to mortgage their life savings to eke out minor benefits for non-vocational enterprises. Fishermen, golfers, bikers, photographers, amateur pilots are all the same people when viewed from that part of the brain where the common deficiency resides.
 

snapshot

5d2,5d4,r5
CR Pro
Jul 24, 2020
42
25
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.
I am not sure I would categorize my investment in the R5 as a migration. I have an adapter mounted to the camera and I mount the EF lens that suites my purpose. The R5 is bringing new capability to my existing lens collection. I am happy with the performance of my EF collection, and unless something breaks, have no intention of upgrading any of it to RF. As far as I am concerned, the new mount is whatever, and I would have been happy with an EF mount mirrorless camera system (well the vnd mount adapter is really cool).
 

Ruined

EOS R
Aug 22, 2013
915
53
I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
I agree I tried the 24L f/1.4 and found it's autofocus to be a mess. Not great to double as a landscape lens either due to even aperture blade count
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMac
<-- start Taboola -->