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



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 3, 2021)

> Canon Watch is reporting that a Canon RF 60mm f/1.0L USM is possibly on the way. This lens does not appear on my RF lens roadmap, nor have we seen any patents for such an optical formula yet.
> Is it possible? Sure, why not? If you believe your mount is the best, you need to flex those muscles every now and then.
> While it is close to the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM in speed and focal length, I imagine an RF 60mm f/1.0L USM would provide a very unique look to photos. Throw in defocus smoothing and you could have something special.
> For now, this is a [CR1] rating, but I will do some digging to figure out the validity of this rumor.



Continue reading...


----------



## sulla (May 3, 2021)

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 ...)


----------



## sulla (May 3, 2021)

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.


----------



## STARS84 (May 3, 2021)

Would be like 2kg or so?


----------



## sulla (May 3, 2021)

STARS84 said:


> 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.


----------



## roby17269 (May 3, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Darn again! Right after I got the RF 50 1.2L you come out with this?!? 

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 

Let's see the cost (assuming it will ever come out) and the entity of my bonus 

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


----------



## neurorx (May 3, 2021)

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?


----------



## H. Jones (May 3, 2021)

neurorx said:


> 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.


----------



## TAF (May 3, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> 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


----------



## Besisika (May 3, 2021)

TAF said:


> 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.


----------



## pzyber (May 3, 2021)

TAF said:


> 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


----------



## StandardLumen (May 3, 2021)

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


----------



## SteveC (May 3, 2021)

sulla said:


> 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?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 3, 2021)

STARS84 said:


> Would be like 2kg or so?



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


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 3, 2021)

sulla said:


> 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.


----------



## Fischer (May 3, 2021)

$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.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 3, 2021)

Fischer said:


> $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?


----------



## ildyria (May 3, 2021)

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


----------



## Fischer (May 3, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> 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.


----------



## Groundhog (May 3, 2021)

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


----------



## Juangrande (May 3, 2021)

TAF said:


> 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


If you shoot environmental/editorial portraits with the subject set back in the scene rather than a tight headshot or waist up shot you’ll see the potential for separation.


----------



## esglord (May 4, 2021)

Doubt I’d ever drop the money but I’d buy a 60mm f/1 DS lens over the 85mm version. Prefer the focal length and could pull in a touch more light lost from the DS coating


----------



## pape2 (May 4, 2021)

50mm IS f1,4 would be more exciting lense 
Unless R3 got image stack stabilation over 1/30sec shots


----------



## Antono Refa (May 4, 2021)

Nikon makes an AF-S 58mm f/1.4, and everyone considers it a normal lens. Sure, there's a small difference, but I don't see 60mm being distinct enough to stand next to the 50mm f/1.2, much the less between it and the 85mm f/1.2.


----------



## fentiger (May 4, 2021)

Good for portrait photos of women wearing burkas


----------



## sanj (May 4, 2021)

There are lots of uses for a .95 lens than a tight CU. It will, for example, work wonders on night city skyline shots on a stabilized R5.


----------



## st jack photography (May 4, 2021)

sulla said:


> 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.


I am a narrow DoF addict, and a prime lens snob. I like fast prime lenses. For most of my life I have avoided zooms or slower lenses. For a job, I bought a EF 16-35 f4 L IS and I am in love with it. I can't wait for them to release some f4 L zooms in RF.


----------



## mb66energy (May 4, 2021)

SteveC said:


> You don't need _two_ kidneys, do you?


But it's sometimes good to have spare parts (or redundancy) on board


----------



## mb66energy (May 4, 2021)

After learning that I could like the "standard focal length" with my EF-M 32 on my M50 I am really interested in such a lens. If it has a max. magnification of roughly 1:5 it might be worth some investment! Just for fun!
And what an interesting tool with a C70 (with its internal ND filters) ...


----------



## addola (May 4, 2021)

neurorx said:


> 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?


Don't forget that DoF also depends on distance to the object. At a distance of 3 meters (about 10 feet) DoF would be 15cm (about 6 inches)


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2021)

neurorx said:


> 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?


Step back until what you want in focus is in focus.


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2021)

TAF said:


> 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


Why do people assume that all pics/portraits with fast lenses must be close up head shots? If that is the extent of our creativity, then maybe we should stick to f/4-5.6?


----------



## stevelee (May 5, 2021)

roby17269 said:


> Darn again! Right after I got the RF 50 1.2L you come out with this?!?
> 
> 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...
> 
> ...


The "normal" lens that came on my FT-QL was a 58mm f/1.2, as I recall. So 60mm would differ very little from that. I was used to a rangefinder camera with a 45mm fixed lens before that, so the 58mm seemed a little telescopic (which it is, in theory), and the background blur was nice wide open, and more than I was used to. As I accumulated more lenses (all of them primes in those days), I used the 58mm less and less. Eventually my go-to lenses were the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm. I could take about anything I wanted to with one of them. The other lenses were just for some special function.


----------



## stevelee (May 5, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> I am a narrow DoF addict, and a prime lens snob. I like fast prime lenses. For most of my life I have avoided zooms or slower lenses. For a job, I bought a EF 16-35 f4 L IS and I am in love with it. I can't wait for them to release some f4 L zooms in RF.


I guess I got most of the narrow DoF tendency out of my system with the 58mm lens. (See above.) And of course I was referring to an era when zoom lenses were large, heavy, expensive, and not very good. My first zoom lens was the kit lens with my first Rebel, so small, light, cheap, and at least decent. I love the EF 16–35 f/4 L IS. I can't foresee when or if I might buy an R-series camera, but if I did, I can't think of why I would want to replace that lens.


----------



## cayenne (May 5, 2021)

pzyber said:


> Just gotta stand far enough away


Exactly.
And with a high MP sensor that is coming, you can crop in a good bit without losing much fidelity.

I've been experimenting with doing just this on the gfx100....I'm guessing the R3 or whichever high megapixel beast that is on the horizon will function quite well in much the same way.

c


----------



## golubiewac1 (May 5, 2021)

neurorx said:


> 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?


Good question. I ran my DoF model and here are some of the (shocking) results: using a circle of confusion of 0.017mm, focal length of 60mm and f/stop of 1.0
Focus distance ....DoF
20 ft. ........................13.42 in.
10 ft. .........................3.25 in.
6 ft..............................1.12 in.
4 ft...............................0.49 in.
3 ft...............................0.25 in.
This tells me that, for portraits, a very stable tripod is essential when using manual focus, in addition to very accurate focus, including placing the subject in a sturdy neck brace. No movement can be tolerated. For AF, speed and accuracy is required to keep up with normal human movement. One might consider relaxing the CoC but that will provide limited relief. The best use of f1.0 might be other than portraiture.


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2021)

golubiewac1 said:


> Good question. I ran my DoF model and here are some of the (shocking) results: using a circle of confusion of 0.017mm, focal length of 60mm and f/stop of 1.0
> Focus distance ....DoF
> 20 ft. ........................13.42 in.
> 10 ft. .........................3.25 in.
> ...


While I have never used f/1, I have used f/1.2 for portraits... and f/1.2 is not far off. F/1 will be fine and things properly in focus when used wisely.


----------



## roby17269 (May 5, 2021)

stevelee said:


> The "normal" lens that came on my FT-QL was a 58mm f/1.2, as I recall. So 60mm would differ very little from that. I was used to a rangefinder camera with a 45mm fixed lens before that, so the 58mm seemed a little telescopic (which it is, in theory), and the background blur was nice wide open, and more than I was used to. As I accumulated more lenses (all of them primes in those days), I used the 58mm less and less. Eventually my go-to lenses were the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm. I could take about anything I wanted to with one of them. The other lenses were just for some special function.


I much prefer "extreme" fls as well... wide (35 or less) or tele (85 or more). 85mm is my most used fl. I use a lot 300mm for fashion but on a MF camera so that's more or less 200mm equiv.
But when I am taking photos of kids at a bday party (being the "photographer dad" I am expected to bring my camera at such events) a 50ish lens affords me a decent level of versatility


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 6, 2021)

Hopefully it's not a priority and what's the point. Should have just made the 50 f/1.2 a 55 f/1.2.

This would be another $750 dearer at least and another 0.5kg most likely.


----------



## Duckstalker (May 6, 2021)

I already have this lens, it's the Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 pair with the Canon 0.71x EF mount adapter. It was a pleasant surprise for me how the Sigma Art image circle could cover a full frame sensor even with the 0.71x adapter!


----------



## RF-Specialist (May 6, 2021)

I have the original Canon EF 50mm F1.0L USM and I hope the RF version will have a lot more contrast & sharpness. At F1.0 the background is dreamy, yes, but the subject is not exactly sharp... Tested on my Canon EOS R6. With the EOS R5 there is absolutely no gain in sharpness.
If this moster (size is exactly equal to the Canon EF 85mm F1.2 USM) would be sharp and contrasty, than this would be a real winner!
With the lens beeing 60mm it would result in a even bigger and heaviery housing than the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 USM...


----------



## Fischer (May 6, 2021)

Duckstalker said:


> I already have this lens, it's the Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 pair with the Canon 0.71x EF mount adapter. It was a pleasant surprise for me how the Sigma Art image circle could cover a full frame sensor even with the 0.71x adapter!


Sounds interesting. Still AF? And do you have samples to show?


----------



## dwarven (May 7, 2021)

neurorx said:


> 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?



Back up.


----------



## Czardoom (May 7, 2021)

roby17269 said:


> Darn again! Right after I got the RF 50 1.2L you come out with this?!?
> 
> 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...
> 
> ...



Yes, you shouldn't stress out because it's only a CR1 rumor, not on the roadmap, and no known patents. The rumor appeared in Canon Watch's inbox and apparently is spreading across the internet with absolutely no reason to think it is real.


----------



## Perio (May 7, 2021)

An old Nikon 58mm f1.2 was a remarkable lens with a beautiful rendering.


----------



## Chig (May 8, 2021)

Codebunny said:


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


The legendary EF 50mm f1.0 only weighs 985gm and has full autofocus so 1 - 1.2 kg seems reasonable to me


----------



## Chig (May 8, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Why do people assume that all pics/portraits with fast lenses must be close up head shots? If that is the extent of our creativity, then maybe we should stick to f/4-5.6?


Close up head shots distort facial features making people look weird , a lens like this would be great for full body or nearly full body at about 4-5m away .
A longer lens like a 200mm f/2 or similar is better for headshots


----------



## Chig (May 8, 2021)

RF-Specialist said:


> I have the original Canon EF 50mm F1.0L USM and I hope the RF version will have a lot more contrast & sharpness. At F1.0 the background is dreamy, yes, but the subject is not exactly sharp... Tested on my Canon EOS R6. With the EOS R5 there is absolutely no gain in sharpness.
> If this moster (size is exactly equal to the Canon EF 85mm F1.2 USM) would be sharp and contrasty, than this would be a real winner!
> With the lens beeing 60mm it would result in a even bigger and heaviery housing than the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 USM...


According to Ken Rockwell the EF 50mm f/1.0 is very sharp and contrasty but it has to be perfectly in focus https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm


----------



## Sludz (May 8, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> After learning that I could like the "standard focal length" with my EF-M 32 on my M50 I am really interested in such a lens. If it has a max. magnification of roughly 1:5 it might be worth some investment! Just for fun!
> And what an interesting tool with a C70 (with its internal ND filters) ...


Right when I saw this rumor I got extremely excited for the possibility of this on the c70. I'd finally get a nice prime closer to an 85 fl equivalent!


----------



## roby17269 (May 8, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Yes, you shouldn't stress out because it's only a CR1 rumor, not on the roadmap, and no known patents. The rumor appeared in Canon Watch's inbox and apparently is spreading across the internet with absolutely no reason to think it is real.


I was just kidding about stressing and considering selling body parts 

The 135mm f/2L have will keep working perfectly... but I do expect sooner or later that Canon will fill up the RF system almost to EF levels.

And I hope it will be with a mix of affordable and "crazy" lenses like this one.

It's all good


----------



## Ph0t0 (May 8, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Why do people assume that all pics/portraits with fast lenses must be close up head shots? If that is the extent of our creativity, then maybe we should stick to f/4-5.6?


I have no idea. But every time there is talk about a new fast lens, I see people complaining that noses and ears will be too blurry because of shallow DOF (and how not having everything sharp is a user error).
I shoot with fast lenses all the time, and vast majority of pictures I take have nothing to do with close up headshots.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> Close up head shots distort facial features making people look weird , a lens like this would be great for full body or nearly full body at about 4-5m away .
> A longer lens like a 200mm f/2 or similar is better for headshots


I agree that 50-60mm is generally too wide for a very close head shot, but that sort of focal length can work quite well at half body lengths too at 2m or sometimes even closer. People are so used to seeing images taken with the wide angle lens of a phone these days that a certain amount of perspective distortion can actually appear more 'natural' or 'real' to many people. At least in my field (fashion photography), this seems to be the case and sometimes even a 35mm lens will be used at closer proximity for an even greater perspective distortion. Trends are always changing 

Personally I also prefer an 85mm for tight beauty shots for similar reasons. But this is all very subjective obviously....


----------



## drhuffman87 (May 12, 2021)

Chig said:


> According to Ken Rockwell the EF 50mm f/1.0 is very sharp and contrasty but it has to be perfectly in focus https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm


According to Ken Rockwell, all lenses manufactured in the last 50 years are so sharp you can shave with them lol.


----------



## Skux (May 14, 2021)

Biotar/Helios 58mm gang reporting in and I am so ready for someone to make 60-70mm lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (May 16, 2021)

I had the RF 50mm f/1.2L for a time. Depending on how it all pans out (rendering, auto-focus, etc... I might just get this instead, when the time comes.


----------



## mb66energy (May 18, 2021)

Sludz said:


> Right when I saw this rumor I got extremely excited for the possibility of this on the c70. I'd finally get a nice prime closer to an 85 fl equivalent!


Yes, 85mm is a little bit "denser" but isn't the 50mm on super 35 similar to 85mm FL (while both aspect ratios aren't directly comparable)?
Just checked it: it's roughly 1.5 so a 50mm is similar to 75mm and 85mm will give us ~130mm. But maybe you are after ~130mm?! - it is another great focal length!


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> Yes, 85mm is a little bit "denser" but isn't the 50mm on super 35 similar to 85mm FL (while both aspect ratios aren't directly comparable)?
> Just checked it: it's roughly 1.5 so a 50mm is similar to 75mm and 85mm will give us ~130mm. But maybe you are after ~130mm?! - it is another great focal length!


60 x1.5=90mm. I think he meant equivalent to 85mm... So very close.


----------



## mb66energy (May 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 60 x1.5=90mm. I think he meant equivalent to 85mm... So very close.


You are right, thanks for the correction, I remembered 50mm f/1.0 but the new one is 60mm - to many options, too small brains


----------



## RF-Specialist (May 20, 2021)

Chig said:


> According to Ken Rockwell the EF 50mm f/1.0 is very sharp and contrasty but it has to be perfectly in focus https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm


Well first of all it is very difficult to get perfect focus, and if you have seen the sample fotos of Ken, then you can see that the sharp contures always have kind of ghosting around it. This reduces the contrast. Adobe PS can enhance the contrast, but it is not comparable to the contrast of a RF 85mm F1.2 ... But the lens is 32 Years old, I know...


----------



## Ruined (May 26, 2021)

This sounds like a very cool lens.

Likely will be super expensive tho and may be hard to financially justify if you already have a 50 1.2 and 85 1.2.

IMO, one way CANON could add value to this lens is to lay off on the SA correction a bit so that the overall bokeh style is more in line with the old EF 50 1.2/85 1.2 than the new RF 50 1.2/85 1.2; that would give buyers of those new RF lenses a big reason to get this one. People would be buying this for the bokeh and no other reason, anyway.


----------

