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

[Skux]

The poor RF 35mm f1.8 is crying in a corner at being called an f/2 lens.

 

[snapshot]

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.

Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.

 

[stevelee]

Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.

And they can take great pictures. I took several 13" x 19' prints to an art show on Sunday. Most were taken with G-series cameras.

 

[SteveC]

Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.

I'm sure we all have many situations where we'll take a small camera over a large one. (I took my M6-II on a recent trip, left the R5 at home, just for instance); but is that what we do when unconstrained? If so, we value the small size over other considerations. Otherwise, we don't.

I maintain that most of us don't buy our "big" gear, or even "most of our gear" with size at the forefront.

 

[LeeBabySimms]

I just bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/2 and I see clearly now the difference between L and non-L. These lenses are fine - sharp, light, well-built - but the focusing in and out - buzz, buzz, buzz - is annoying as hell. But I cannot justify a collection of f/1.2 primes and I don't want the giant size/weight. I will make do with these STM's until Canon makes a series of f/1.4's that'll be fast, quiet, small-ish, weather-sealed, with IS and relatively affordable.

I am Goldilcks, there's no denying it.

12 months from now, Sigma and Tamron will be ready to take yours (and mine) RF mount money

 

[Mr Majestyk]

No doubt 50% dearer at least than the stunning Sony 35 f/1.4 GM and a few hundred grams heavier. No matter how good, I would much prefer a range of f/1.4 primes 24/35/50/85 that are lighter and cheaper. Heck they don't even need to be L, just no STM please.

 

[mpmark]

That’s nice, the EF version adapted is just so good I could care less.

 

[Sporgon]

Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.

I bet you’d appreciate a G1XIII even more

 

[snapshot]

I bet you’d appreciate a G1XIII even more

Havent really seen a G1xiii vs M6ii comparison. Wonder if there will be a g1xiv?

 

[sanj]

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".

Yes, but most important is story/emotion.

 

[Sporgon]

Havent really seen a G1xiii vs M6ii comparison. Wonder if there will be a g1xiv?

Some people report preferring the M5 (and so G1XIII) sensor to the 32mp MII. Of course resolutionphiles will always prefer the latter. The G1XII's ace card is in being genuinely small and pocketable, and this has led to compromises in the lens, which is tiny really, but even so it's resolution is similar to that of a 5DII with the 24-105L lens. Vey underrated camera, not helped by the photog press continually comparing it to a 1" sensor camera and the speed of those camera's lenses. When looking at enlargements the APS-c is far superior to the 1" IMHO.

I think that putting the 32mp sensor in a tiny body with lens to suit would be a bridge too far, without the whole thing getting considerably larger and heavier. And honestly, who really wants more than 24mp in a pocket camera ? ( OK, 90% of people on CR, I concede ! )

 

[Peter Bergh]

Yes, but most important is story/emotion.

In my view, story/emotion is an aspect of composition.

 

[stevelee]

In my view, story/emotion is an aspect of composition.

Or vice versa.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.

Just check the size and quality of a M6 mark II + 32mm 1.4 combo. People would buy more M stuff if they would see some kind of future proofing and decent upgrades / lenses.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Another 1kg $3000 lens, nice! Sensors are getting better and better in high ISO performance but we still creating 1.2 lenses weighting a ton.
So Canon will again have 35mm 1.2 for $3000 and a cheap plastic STM 35mm 1.8 for $500. Nothing in between.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sensors are getting better and better in high ISO performance but we still creating 1.2 lenses weighting a ton.

Because DoF / subject isolation with good bokeh.

 

[Viggo]

Another 1kg $3000 lens, nice! Sensors are getting better and better in high ISO performance but we still creating 1.2 lenses weighting a ton.
So Canon will again have 35mm 1.2 for $3000 and a cheap plastic STM 35mm 1.8 for $500. Nothing in between.

Which also means the new sensors are MUCH more demanding of lenses…

 

[CanonGrunt]

Looks like a perfect fit for the R3. Can’t wait for that combo.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

That’s nice, the EF version adapted is just so good I could care less.

You could?

 

[sanj]

In my view, story/emotion is an aspect of composition.

No no. I am talking about what the photo says. For example, the photo of the washed-up Syrian kid said a huge story and created emotion at the same time. It was not the 'best' photo as such but will be remembered for long for things other than composition. There are many such examples.