Is a Canon RF 60mm f/1.0L USM on the way? [CR1]

59 comments

1. yeeea, like! For portraits I would even slightly prefer 60 over 50mm.
   
   (But any lens really works well for portraits)
   
   (Oh my gosh, Canon, this RF-thing is starting to get a bit expensive, slowly but surely: 35 1.2, 50 1.2, 60 1.0, 85 1.2, R3 ...)

   • Reply

   • 0
2. I currently have the EF f/2.8-zooms, but when I shall switch over to R and RF I plan to go for slower f/4 zooms along with some fast primes, because the more I use them (on EF), the more I like them.

   • Reply

   • 0
3. Would be like 2kg or so?

   • Reply

   • 0

4. Would be like 2kg or so?

   the RF 85 1.2 is about 1,2 kg. I would assume a 60 1.0 would be about the same size and weight.

   • Reply

   • 0

5. Continue reading...

   Darn again! Right after I got the RF 50 1.2L you come out with this?!? :mad:
   
   60mm is a fl I am not used to - ok scratch that, I have the HC 100mm which with my digital back translates to 62mm FOV... and I do like it. Yes it's not the same thing but hmmmm...
   
   Oh well, I guess I shouldn't stress out too much :rolleyes:
   
   Let's see the cost (assuming it will ever come out) and the entity of my bonus :ROFLMAO:
   
   I've always salivated after the mythical EF 50mm 1.0 but was always put off by the risk of losing it due to the impossibility of repairs... this one might bring me to the bright side

   • Reply

   • 0
6. At F1 how narrow would the depth of field be? I find f1.2 can be very narrow so how would one use an f1 lens?

   • Reply

   • 0

7. At F1 how narrow would the depth of field be? I find f1.2 can be very narrow so how would one use an f1 lens?

   Eye detection and tracking autofocus has made ensuring your subject's eyes are in focus an absoljte breeze, makes it far easier to use lenses like this.

   • Reply

   • 0

8. Eye detection and tracking autofocus has made ensuring your subject's eyes are in focus an absoljte breeze, makes it far easier to use lenses like this.

   
   Yes, the eyes will be in focus.
   
   The tip of the nose and the edges of the ear? Not so much.
   
   Indeed, I wonder if the eyebrows will be in focus at F1.0

   • Reply

   • 0

9. Yes, the eyes will be in focus.
   
   The tip of the nose and the edges of the ear? Not so much.
   
   Indeed, I wonder if the eyebrows will be in focus at F1.0

   It is always a matter of crop. At full-body you see pretty much everything, at a head-shot, you see exactly as you described it.

   • Reply

   • 0

10. Yes, the eyes will be in focus.
    
    The tip of the nose and the edges of the ear? Not so much.
    
    Indeed, I wonder if the eyebrows will be in focus at F1.0

    Just gotta stand far enough away ;)

    • Reply

    • 0
11. If this lens were to have autofocus (unlike the Nikon f/0.95), I'd definitely want one.

    • Reply

    • 0

12. yeeea, like! For portraits I would even slightly prefer 60 over 50mm.
    
    (But any lens really works well for portraits)
    
    (Oh my gosh, Canon, this RF-thing is starting to get a bit expensive, slowly but surely: 35 1.2, 50 1.2, 60 1.0, 85 1.2, R3 ...)

    You don't need two kidneys, do you?

    • Reply

    • 0

13. Would be like 2kg or so?

    
    The Nikon is: Approx. 2000 g (4 lb 6.6 oz). And has no IS and no AF.

    • Reply

    • 0

14. the RF 85 1.2 is about 1,2 kg. I would assume a 60 1.0 would be about the same size and weight.

    
    2 Kg seems way more correct than 1.2Kg. We have modern examples like the Nikon 58 f/0.95 which are 2 Kg.

    • Reply

    • 0
15. $4K price tag seems likely. Not sure I'd buy it even if it would be something very special to shoot with. 85mm f/1.2 probably gives more or less the same look and feel - except at close distances.

    • Reply

    • 0

16. $4K price tag seems likely. Not sure I'd buy it even if it would be something very special to shoot with. 85mm f/1.2 probably gives more or less the same look and feel - except at close distances.

    
    We have a Nikon for $8k, why would Canon's equivalent be half the price?

    • Reply

    • 0
17. First we need that RF 70-135mm f/2 L USM.

    • Reply

    • 0

18. We have a Nikon for $8k, why would Canon's equivalent be half the price?

    Canon's is f/1.0 - but more importantly manufacturing such a lens today is easier than previously. In 2000 you could buy the 50 f/1.0 new for around2.500$ street. They could roll it out for $8-10-12K whatever - but it would have extremely few buyers and be more a collectors item at such prices. As I wrote, you will not be able to see any difference to the 85mm f/1.2 except at very short distances - so no real photographic reason to get it imho. So given the RF 50mm and 85mm f/1.2's prices its my guess.

    • Reply

    • 0
19. 60mm sounds fun - f1.0 sounds expensive, heavy and huge ... I like it :sneaky:

    • Reply

    • 0