You could look through the bottom of a milk bottle and improve on the EF 50 f1.2, that wasn't a difficult bar to get over, the EF35 L isn't as low a starting point.People said the same about the RF50/1.2. Then it turned out the RF was literally ten times sharper. (The 30lp/mm contrast is higher than the EF's 10lp/mm contrast, from center to corner, meaning it's over 3x sharper linearly or over 9x sharper per area. Call it ten times.)
Also my Leica 35/1.4ASPH is maybe 1/4 the volume of the EF35/1.4ii, so it's possible that the Canon RF may be a revolution in small size.
Finally, f/1.2.
You refer to the 24 and 35 as being in an "medium wide angle" segment, but I'd say 35-50 are the "normal angle" segment while 24 is definitely wide-angle, nothing "medium" about it to my eye.
I actually would like a big-aperture 28, btw, but I'm not holding my breath.
An outfit like RF probably should have 35/1.0, 35/1.2, 35/1.4 and 35/2 lenses. We need the 35/2 to be a "camera is always in the backpack" lens with size a priority. 35/1.4 will be something for light hobbyists, speccy but cheap. 35/1.2 is image quality uber alles. And 35/1.0 is a halo product that may only be produced in the dozens and cost north of $10k.
No other RF lenses have given the slightest hint of getting smaller, so I think that is a no go. F1.2? Yay, because the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is going to be very noticabe. Sharper? Double yay! Because nothing is sharp enough at the moment....
Upvote
0