Where the heck is the RF 35mm f/1.2L?

I don't feel drawn to RF lenses at all. There are so many more EF options that apparently just seem to get cheaper and cheaper, and the drop in filter adapter is game changing!
Yep, most of the more recent EF lenses were stunning, and they are flawlessly compatible with RF mount, so it can make a great deal of sense to stick with them.

But, although the RF lenses are a great deal more expensive than their nearest equivalent EF lens, they do offer very useful "extras" that for many people can be worth paying for.

The RF 100mm macro e.g. focuses a lot closer (1:1.4 vs 1:1) and focuses noticeably faster and quieter than the EF version. It also offers a spherical aberration control, which although completely useless to me, might be handy for wedding photographers who might want to give close-ups of wedding rings a "soft glow".

The RF 100-500mm is a big improvement on the EF 100-400mm Mkii, being sharper, closer-focussing, more compact and faster focusing, as well as having more "reach"

The RF 100-400mm, although a "budget" lens, is also extremely good, very sharp even at the 1:2 closest focus setting. It has mind-bogglingly good stabilisation too - another advantage of RF lenses in general.

I've gradually transitioned to RF, and now only have one EF lens - the T/S-E 24mm F3.5L. In most cases I've been very pleased with the RF lenses and haven't regretted purchasing them. The only exception is the RF 24-105mm F4L, which seems to have the same optical formula as the most recent EF version, and suffers from the same problem i.e. noticeable "play" in the barrel when the zoom is fully extended. It's no sharper than the old lens, and IMO doesn't handle as nicely either, due to the similar textures of the focus and zoom rings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I thought about the drop in filter adapter but ended up deciding against it. for one thing, it forces you to use EF lenses which is a nonstarter once you start using the high quality RF lenses. it also has color shift which is a no-no.

Canon started it but there are a bunch of third-party drop-in filters even from Kolari.
I am in no way forced to use EF lenses.
It just makes me prefer them.
I use some RF lenses as well.
BTW the EF 85 f/1.4 IS is pretty much perfect.
Sure the EF 85 f/1.2 is not even close to the RF 85 f/1.2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
More important, where is my RF 11-24 f4 and the RF120-700 f5.6-8 which will complete my trio which miss the RF 24-105 f4 at the moment?
What would be the advantage of a RF11-24/4 over the EF11-24/4? The ability for filter use in the R mount adapter is a key advantage over a potential RF version.

I recall a patent for an ultra wide zoom going to 10mm which would be breaking new ground for rectilinear lenses but I believe the use cases for 10mm vs 11m of the EF version would be small.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The EF 85 f/1.4 IS, RF 85 f/1.2, RF 85 f/1.2 DS, and RF 85 f/2 IS all get the same 8 stops of stabilization on cameras with IBIS.
No, so far only RF lenses can get 8 stops according to Canon. Maybe TS-E with their over large image circle can get 8 stops as well, but Canon hasn't said so. And especially EF lenses with IS will never get 8 stops, IBIS runs in a very degraded mode with EF IS lenses.

Looking at the EF-RF adapter, the square baffle will restrict the image circle, which further restricts how much IBIS can do :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Canon started it but there are a bunch of third-party drop-in filters even from Kolari.
I am in no way forced to use EF lenses.
It just makes me prefer them.
I use some RF lenses as well.
BTW the EF 85 f/1.4 IS is pretty much perfect.
Sure the EF 85 f/1.2 is not even close to the RF 85 f/1.2.
No, neither the Ef 85 1.4 or 1.2 is close to the rf 1.2 in real world usage. You guys can point to canon's marketing all you like. But in real world usage the rf 85 1.2 can handle many situations much better than either the Ef models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Canon started it but there are a bunch of third-party drop-in filters even from Kolari.
I am in no way forced to use EF lenses.
It just makes me prefer them.
I use some RF lenses as well.
BTW the EF 85 f/1.4 IS is pretty much perfect.
Sure the EF 85 f/1.2 is not even close to the RF 85 f/1.2.
No, if you use the drop in filter system you are forced to use Ef. Rf glass doesn't work with the drop in system. The only way to use nd filters with both ef and rf is to either carry different filters for different thread sizes or to put the ND filter inside the camera
 
Upvote 0
No, if you use the drop in filter system you are forced to use Ef
To clarify, I am not forced to use the adapter.
Yes, to use the adapter I must use EF lenses.
That does limit the adapter but that does not tie me to not using RF lenses without the adapter.
It definitely makes me prefer EF lenses but that has not been a bad thing.
I still have and use some RF lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Canon started it but there are a bunch of third-party drop-in filters even from Kolari.
I am in no way forced to use EF lenses.
It just makes me prefer them.
I use some RF lenses as well.
BTW the EF 85 f/1.4 IS is pretty much perfect.
Sure the EF 85 f/1.2 is not even close to the RF 85 f/1.2.
Once people get over the clinical perfection and sharpness craze, they will turn to looking for lenses that have "character". Just look at the cinema scene. On that front EF primes tend to lend themselves better than the RF counterparts.

I think for commercial, wildlife, and sports RF is hands down better as you need that edge to edge sharpness, perfect abberation control, and speed.

On the other hand, portraits benefit from not everything being razor sharp and having a bit of the lens' quirks in the image. Sure the EF 85 1.2 (ver ii even) has a LOT of purple fringing in shiny high contrast areas wide open and is slow to focus, but the resulting images are quite magical. Everyone gushes over the "look", and not oh maybe if the microcontrast was just a bit higher...

Also extreme uwa landscape photography, primarily directed at EF 11-24 and the TSE 17, which are quite sharp and benefit from the RF adapter's drop in filters. If only Canon would build the next generation uwa and TS-RF lenses with drop in filters...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Looking at all the RF L primes, this thing will probably also be enormous. Canon are trying to prove some point of making the "best" lenses regardless of bulk. And that's ok but I'd like to see some sensible options as well. The advantage of mirrorless was supposed to be smaller lenses. Looking at the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM at 524g, it makes much more sense as a carry around lens that's more than good enough. I need a Canon version of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Once people get over the clinical perfection and sharpness craze, they will turn to looking for lenses that have "character". Just look at the cinema scene. On that front EF primes tend to lend themselves better than the RF counterparts.

I think for commercial, wildlife, and sports RF is hands down better as you need that edge to edge sharpness, perfect abberation control, and speed.

On the other hand, portraits benefit from not everything being razor sharp and having a bit of the lens' quirks in the image. Sure the EF 85 1.2 (ver ii even) has a LOT of purple fringing in shiny high contrast areas wide open and is slow to focus, but the resulting images are quite magical. Everyone gushes over the "look", and not oh maybe if the microcontrast was just a bit higher...

Also extreme uwa landscape photography, primarily directed at EF 11-24 and the TSE 17, which are quite sharp and benefit from the RF adapter's drop in filters. If only Canon would build the next generation uwa and TS-RF lenses with drop in filters...
I believe that getting sharpness up front is the way to go now - even if it means more cost and physical size.

It is easy now to add "character" in the post processing stage eg flare, softness and aberration etc. swirly bokeh may be harder though. Film simulations seem to be popular as well.

I think that cinema is different purely from the post processing stage. Stills will edit a raw single image but video post processing is harder with less bits to play with. Getting 'character' upfront and white balance etc would be more important there.
 
Upvote 0
To clarify, I am not forced to use the adapter.
Yes, to use the adapter I must use EF lenses.
That does limit the adapter but that does not tie me to not using RF lenses without the adapter.
It definitely makes me prefer EF lenses but that has not been a bad thing.
I still have and use some RF lenses.

so what do you do when you need to use ND filters and you want to use an RF lens? do you have a separate set of ND filters that you screw on?
 
Upvote 0
What would be the advantage of a RF11-24/4 over the EF11-24/4? The ability for filter use in the R mount adapter is a key advantage over a potential RF version.

I recall a patent for an ultra wide zoom going to 10mm which would be breaking new ground for rectilinear lenses but I believe the use cases for 10mm vs 11m of the EF version would be small.
I think that since the distance from the back element of the lens to the sensor is decreased in the RF mount, it will be possible to generate a much bettter optical design for wide lenses and wide zoom lenses. I will be happy for RF 8-24mm L lens. :cool:
 
Upvote 0
I still can't believe how sharp the 50 1.2 is....by far the best lens I've ever shot with. I can't tell you how many times I wish I had a 35 to go with it as well. I'm taking a ton of baby pictures of my daughter, and if it's in an indoor situation a lot of times the 50 is just too long and I have to back up or shoot awkwardly to get the shot I wanted. The 35 and that sweet sweet 100-300 posted yesterday are at the top of my lens-wanted list.
Try the 35 f1.8 STM. I do the most of my child and family pictures with it. Its perfect for indoor. And you can also do sweet macros with it =)! If the boy/girl stands still :'D. And selfies :D

Since I have the RF 35mm f1.8 I love the angle. But I won't update. Because the one here is: small, lightweigt, f1.8 -> great!, macro & has IS)
A L variante would be: > 2.000€, heavy, no macro?!, no IS?!, etc... but only a little bit more brighter and sharper for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
True story, I don't.
My RF lenses are either primes where I have EF zoom lenses in the same focal range at lower apertures or fixed f/11 where I would not want to stop down even if I could.
so why do you use a filter adapter if your EF lenses are all small aperture? Also, it also means you don't care for the control ring as the filter adapters don't have a control ring.
 
Upvote 0