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

Honestly I can\'t understand the fuss of RF anything.

The lenses are all *enormous,* fly-by wire, lack a focus window, and wickedly expensive. Worse, they\'re incompatible with EF cameras.

I just bought a used EF 85mm f/1.4L for $800. Probably one of the most incredible lenses ever made. The RF equivalent is $2599, weighs 20% more and has fewer features. It\'s insanity.

But I\'m glad you rich dentists are dumping your awesome gear for super cheap for no reason. Keep it up!!
Amen! Two of my all time favorite lenses are the 35mm f/1.4L II and 85mm 1.4L IS. The fact that I can use on my 5DSR, Fuji GFX 50s II, or R5, for paid portrait work, landscapes, or video work is a remarkable value. I can't imagine dropping $2k+ on a new RF 85mm that would only work on the R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
For now I take the 14-35L with me and leave behind many mid range zooms to save space.
In the mid-90s I read on one of the first photography chat groups someone say "Just get a 17-35, 50/1.4, and 70-200. That's all you need." Even a quarter century later, it's a good concept I think. (I already had the 14 24TS 50/1.0 100Mac and 200/1.8 at that point so the advice was coming too late to save me.)

The army used to give photogs a standard kit of a Canon F1, 35, 50, and 135. There's a logic there too.

I've traveled with just the 24-105/4 and it worked fine,

I've traveled with the Leica M6, 35/1.4, and 75/1.4, and ended up just using the 35.

I've traveled with just the EF24-70/2.8 and EF135/2 (on an EF body) and I felt I was missing out a bit. That was film days or DsMkI though so I couldn't crop much. And it's weird, I have no problem "zooming with my feet" when I have a prime, but I hate doing it when I have a zoom that doesn't zoom enough!

My backpack now always has the 16/2.8 and 50/1.4+R5, on the grounds I can 1/3 crop and still have a 5MP photo, so the 16 is kind of like a 16-49mm zoom and the 50 is a 50-150mm zoom.

I think if I were taking a good vacation now I'd take the 16/2.8, 24-105, 135/1.8, and the 50/1.8. The "mothership" idea is that you might leave 2-3 of those in the hotel or car for any given walk. Somehow I like shooting with a 50/1.8 more than a 24-105/4 though I'm not sure why.
 
Upvote 0
I'd be super happy if Canon made a 24/2.x in the same size as the 16 and 50.
Me too. I prefer 28mm but why not both? 24/2, 28/2 would hit the spot. Somehow 35 strikes me as "too normal to be considered wide" but 24mm is "wow, too wide." I love the Sigma 28/1.4 look but it's not super sharp, and of course adapter; mirrorless should allow a better/sharper/cheaper/smaller lens design too as it doesn't have to allow space for the flipping mirror. I'll probably get the 35/1.2 and not use it. I'd totally get a 35/1.0 though and force myself to shoot it!
 
Upvote 0
Wow, didn't realize it was coming! "RF16 STMやRF50 STMと同じ系譜" = "same genealogy as the 16 and 50"

I also somehow completely missed that a RF 24mm f/1.8 went on sale a year ago?!?? I assume you knew that and just wanted something yet more compact? Which I totally understand.

BTW everyone else is braying for the 50/1.4, but what's weird is that I had the EF 50/1.0, 1.2, 1.4, and the MkI 1.8 with a professional build quality. I actually used the 1.8 an awful lot. It had bad pentagonal bokeh but I just used it wide open or stopped down so small the aperture shape didn't matter. And on modern bodies 50/1.8 actually looks a lot like 1.4 used to. ***



*** long explanation but we used to have less-sharp lenses, subject NEVER in great focus, lots of grain, too-slow shutters so subject movement and camera movement. So you just never viewed photos at 18" as a rule, like you do with digital. Even the subject was already so blurry from all those factors that you needed yet more blur from the rest of the scene to make the subject pop. In contrast, today we have better lenses, utterly perfect focus, no grain, ISD 2500, IS and so on, so the subject is super-sharp, and can easily be viewed as a rule full-screen. And at that point, f/1.8 gives lots of subject pop. And the alternative is a smart phone, with everything in focus, so people are actually pleasantly surprised by f/1.8. I had the 1.2 for a summer and never got a shot that really benefitted from f/1.2-1.6, neither for bokeh nor for low-light situations. It was a little sharper on a resolution chart but I'm really happy with the 50/1.8.
 
Upvote 0