svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM will be announced this year [CR2]

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

    By 149 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors
    Share.

    Related Posts

    149 comments

    1. I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

      The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
    2. I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

      The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.

      Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.
    4. I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

      The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
      I believe because far more people shoot at 35mm?.

      I used to have the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Great lens! However, I have no 35mm presently. So someone like me will be very interested.

      Some lenses from Canon are not for me. This one ain't for you. ;) Often, the world is far bigger than the world we've created in our minds.
    5. I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

      The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
      Sold all of my EF lenses except the 85s and dont want to use the older EF lenses. The top AF speeds and fps obtained with the new cameras will be with certain RF lenses. Thats what I paid for in the camera. The EF 35 wont be their best when the 35 1.2 is released.
    6. Waiting and saving for this one! :rolleyes:

      I had the EF 35mm f/1.4 mkI and I tried on the R5 and did not like it so ended up selling it.

      I am not a huge fan of 35mm per se, but I wasn't of 50mm as well and the RF 50mm f/1.2L is changing my mind, so I hope this one will make me a believer too.

      Reality is, though, if you are a prime shooter, 35mm is a useful fl to have and... me being a self-declared L prime snob means the 1.8 is a no go :ROFLMAO:
    7. I know three things for certain about this lens:

      1. I want it
      2. It will be hideously expensive
      3. Production will be so slow that I won’t be able to buy it until late 2022 at the earliest.
    8. Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.
      Maybe - my reason for RF-system: Excellent AF free of restrictions to some AF points on the wrong place, better sensor (than EOS 5Di). EF lenses double for my M50 so there is some further advantage to keep EF lenses.
      The RF 35 1.8 is an excellent lens because of good IQ, f/1.8 and image stabilization for low light applications. And with good closeup / macro capability it is very flexible - that was my choice of this RF lens.

      The only reason I see to buy RF lenses is the sparse availability of the EF-EOS R adapter which avoids "converting" EF lenses to use them in a mixed environment - not meant too serious :)
    9. Waiting and saving for this one! :rolleyes:

      I had the EF 35mm f/1.4 mkI and I tried on the R5 and did not like it so ended up selling it.

      I am not a huge fan of 35mm per se, but I wasn't of 50mm as well and the RF 50mm f/1.2L is changing my mind, so I hope this one will make me a believer too.

      Reality is, though, if you are a prime shooter, 35mm is a useful fl to have and... me being a self-declared L prime snob means the 1.8 is a no go :ROFLMAO:

      Why didn’t you like the R5? Because You need to record long oversampled videos?
    10. I believe because far more people shoot at 35mm?.

      I used to have the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Great lens! However, I have no 35mm presently. So someone like me will be very interested.

      Some lenses from Canon are not for me. This one ain't for you. ;) Often, the world is far bigger than the world we've created in our minds.
      I guess Canon would have a good idea whether there's a bigger market for a new 35mm L when they already have a stellar 35mm L than a 24mm L when their current 24mm L could really stand an update. Or maybe they have a design that would yield higher margins than the current 35mm.

      Surely there are a lot of folks who would love to see updates to their longer-in-tooth L prime designs - 14mm, 24mm, and 135mm being the ones that stick out in my mind. But what do I know? I don't have a market analysis team.
    11. 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.
    15. It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.
    16. I still don't get why they're targeting this focal length first when the current EF 35mm f1.4L ii is already their best moderate-wide-angle prime. Why not go for a stellar 24 mm? If I owned an RF body, I wouldn't feel much need to get this as I already have the EF 35mm f1.4Lii and it has worked great adapted the times I've rented equipment.

      The only situation where I'd feel a significant benefit is if they somehow managed to make a lens that greatly improves on flaring, as shooting backlit with the EF 35mm often times leaves little ghosts in the image that are a pain.
      You bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. I bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. If most buyers are like us (and Canon has those data), then they are likely to sell more RF 35mm lenses than RF 24mm lenses.
    17. Sony comes out with a half way decent 35 1.4 for the first time in their ecosystem's history.

      Canon: Hold my beer.

      Haha Love the scrambling they've got Sony in.
    18. You bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. I bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. If most buyers are like us (and Canon has those data), then they are likely to sell more RF 35mm lenses than RF 24mm lenses.
      Exactly. 35mm is a way more popular focal length than 24mm.
    19. It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.
      Silence, Zoolander.

      Size and weight is at the extreme bottom of priorities as far as lenses are concerned, unless you're dealing with super telephotos.

      You expect me to carry 120 more grams around?!?!?! Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

      Haha Please.
      Jeez.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment