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

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
301
216
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.
Been there, did that, but hired someone to carry my photo gear. Worth every penny imho. YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMac

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
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).
For me it is definitely a migration project from EF to R mount. It may not seem that way to you.
I wanted to sell my existing EF lenses and 5Div where there was a overlap (EF70-200, TCs, 5Div housing, etc) and purchase RF mount body, cards, housing etc all within a budget. I (and everyone) had options whether to migrate everything to RF, nothing besides the body/cards/adapter or a hybrid approach and I considered the 3 options before pulling out my wallet.
If the R mount wasn't backward compatible with adapter to EF mount then it would be a new standalone system and the option of Nikon/Sony would be also on the table. Migrating lenses over time where it made sense kept me within Canon's ecosystem.
 

exige24

EOS M6 Mark II
Jun 7, 2018
77
113
United States
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.


Why change the subject to talent of individual photographers when we're talking purely about hardware here? An amazing photographer took a beautiful picture with a low tier Powershot. Great. What does that have to do with the fact that an R5 is a far more technologically capable camera than that low-level Powershot? Lol Seriously, what is wrong with people?
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,737
Why change the subject to talent of individual photographers when we're talking purely about hardware here? An amazing photographer took a beautiful picture with a low tier Powershot. Great. What does that have to do with the fact that an R5 is a far more technologically capable camera than that low-level Powershot? Lol Seriously, what is wrong with people?
I wasn't changing the subject, you were too obtuse to see the point. I'll spell it out for you better.

Most of us, myself included, would be far better spending our money on opportunities, education, trips, courses, workshops etc than a lens that costs twice as much and resolves 50lppmm more, focuses 1/1000 second faster, or is 1/3rd stop faster. This week I have spent $300 on education and passes/opportunities and not a cent on gear, I am a better photographer today than I was last week.

I get the RF 50 1.2 trounces the EF 50 f1.2 everywhere, indeed if you are heavy 50mm f1.2 user that one lens alone is worth moving to R bodies. I get the frustrations of dealing with the slow focus on the EF 85 f1.2 as well, though I know people who used it successfully for indoor sports, but again the AF speed and accuracy alone is worth the upgrade if you are a heavy user of that specific lens.

But the EF 35 f1.4 II is not slow to focus has beautiful rendering and is a fraction the size weight and cost the new RF version will be. Am I wrong to question the value of that as a purchase for many people?

What is wrong with people? Quite a lot, sadly, especially if they think buying all this new gear is going to make them a better photographer.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
736
1,438
But the EF 35 f1.4 II is not slow to focus has beautiful rendering and is a fraction the size weight and cost the new RF version will be. Am I wrong to question the value of that as a purchase for many people?

What is wrong with people? Quite a lot, sadly, especially if they think buying all this new gear is going to make them a better photographer.

Agree completely with this. I think Canon is smart to give incentive to the RF lenses with special tricks, but at the end of the day EF lenses remain an excellent option for the vast majority of uses.

I held off on buying the EF 85mm F/1.4L IS for a while by telling myself that the future of all my lenses are in RF lenses, not EF lenses.

But then with the RF 85mm F/1.2L being literally double the price of the EF 85mm F/1.4L IS, I had to take a long, hard look at what I would get out of the price difference. I evaluated both lenses from Canon Pro Services, and as nice as the RF 85 1.2 was, I could not justify why I'd spend another $1400 over the $1400 I could get the EF 85mm F/1.4L IS for, and realized that, even if Canon released an RF 85 1.4, it would be quite a bit more expensive than the EF version.

So I got the EF version and haven't looked back. It's an excellent lens that does exactly what I need it to do for my portraits.

And then I spent the $1400 difference that I would have spent on the RF 85mm F/1.2L on a new hand-customized leather fire helmet, which was a purchase that made me far, far happier than if I would have bought the RF 85. :ROFLMAO:
 

Darecinema

Addicted to lenses.
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2018
53
67
You do not know this.
Welllllll I just bought the R5 and some of the RF Zooms and am definitely not buying any further EF glass and I'd love to have the 35mm RF 1.2 ANNNNNDDDD the 24mm that you are talking about. lol. I love my EF glass and have zero plans to sell it. Still works great. But moving forward as I add lenses, I'm thinking more of the convenience of keeping native mounts together and long term investment in glass and honestly for a lot of the shooting I do, I really appreciate that control ring on the RF glass. But hey, I also really thought the Macbook touchbar was the dumbest thing ever and then I used it and with all the little programmable shortcuts I can get for it wouldn't want a macbook without it. So maybe I just have bad taste, but I'm happy with my choices and my workflow and ultimately usually any gear I buy pays for itself rapidly.
 
Last edited:

PerKr

EOS 90D
Jul 11, 2018
135
135
Sverige
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.

The market has clearly shown that size is not that important. If it was, olympus would be king of the hill and Sony wouldn't be struggling to match Canon on fast high-quality glass.

If size really mattered, more people would still be shooting old film cameras from before the AF era.

Now, go back to admiring your Sony 35/2.8 for being almost as compact as a mid-80´s 50/1.4 or 24/2.8
 

Coffy83

I'm New Here
Jul 10, 2020
19
9
Germany
I don’t know why everyone is complaining about desperately needing a new 24mm. I use mine adapted to the R6 alongside lenses like my RF 50 1.2 and my 135mm Milvus 2.0 which both have an excellent reputation and I am very happy with the results I get when I switch to the 24 1.4 ii. The autofocus is also really quick! I have a very active one year old toddler and I use the 24 to take pictures of him at home while he is turning over the whole house :) it nails the eye every time even at 1.4. So don’t really feel a need to upgrade this one especially as it is relatively compact and light compared to the RF L primes or my Zeiss lenses.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,737
The market has clearly shown that size is not that important. If it was, olympus would be king of the hill and Sony wouldn't be struggling to match Canon on fast high-quality glass.

If size really mattered, more people would still be shooting old film cameras from before the AF era.

Now, go back to admiring your Sony 35/2.8 for being almost as compact as a mid-80´s 50/1.4 or 24/2.8
And yet Canon sell many more M series cameras and lenses than EF or R...
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,436
2,305
And yet Canon sell many more M series cameras and lenses than EF or R...
Canon does, but does it do so because small size is inherently important, or just because they are "beginner" or "casual" cameras that are economical and will therefore appeal to more people?

One way to control for this is to discover whether people like us buy more M-series cameras than full frame or physically large EF-S cameras. If *we* do so then we value small size a lot. But somehow I doubt most of us buy more M gear (even counting units sold, not money spent) than EF/RF gear. I might be close to being an exception.