# Canon RF 24mm f/1.2L & RF 85mm f/1.2L in the works [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 22, 2018)

> We’re told that beyond new f/2.8 RF zoom lenses, that Canon is working on two new L prime lenses, an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM and an RF 85mm f/1.2L for release in late 2019 or early 2020.
> The Canon EOS R system launched with two primes, the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro and the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM.
> We find the RF 24mm f/1.2L an interesting choice for the lineup, especially with the speed of the lens. We wonder if a fast 35mm f/1.2L would be more popular. The 85mm f/1.2L for the RF mount would be a no-brainer.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 22, 2018)

Canon's strength has always been lenses and they know this going forward.

Jack


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 22, 2018)

RF 24mm f/1.2L really got my attention!


----------



## razorzec (Oct 22, 2018)

Despite all the flak that their bodies have been receiving over the past few years, They're killing it with the lenses, and have been making other brand shooters salivate in envy. 

Seems to me that the first main focus of the RF system would be fast lenses that cannot be seen off brand. It makes me wonder whether another F2 zoom would be in the works as well (i.e. 14-22 F2 or a 70-150 F2)


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 22, 2018)

Would love to see a macro going beyond 1x for this system just because they already offer something similar for M system.


----------



## 6degrees (Oct 22, 2018)

Can’t wait for those two, even thought I prefer RF 20mm F1.2.

My ideal setup would be:
- RF 85mm F1.2
- RF 35mm F1.2
- RF 20mm F1.2

But I can live, and be happy, with
- RF 85mm F1.2
- RF 24mm F1.2

I think Canon RF is just simply exciting.

One thing Canon should consider is to offer de-click option for the front Aperture ring.

Sony releases a very competitive price, $1398, for Sony 24mm F1.4 GM:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1435887-REG/sony_fe_24mm_f_1_4_gm.html

Canon should consider it and price RF L lenses reasonably in order to compete.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 22, 2018)

razorzec said:


> Despite all the flak that their bodies have been receiving over the past few years, They're killing it with the lenses, and have been making other brand shooters salivate in envy.
> 
> Seems to me that the first main focus of the RF system would be fast lenses that cannot be seen off brand. It makes me wonder whether another F2 zoom would be in the works as well (i.e. 14-22 F2 or a 70-150 F2)


I agree about the quality of Canon lenses, but what do you mean by "lenses that cannot be seen off brand?" Canon claims EF lenses work fine with the RF mount, and there are plenty of fast lenses from Sigma. Are you saying that Canon is going to lock out third party lenses?


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 22, 2018)

These killer lenses are exciting to see and I'm glad they're working on them, but I hope they do some more pedestrian lenses, too…. I really like what Lieca did with a couple of their zooms, backing off from the constant-max-aperture taboo. This one http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/SL-Lenses/Vario-Lenses/VARIO-ELMARIT-SL-24-90 is a solid, usable lens I think. And if they relax the range a little it could be even more compact. In my mind a f24-75 f2.8-f4 would be a dream lens for travel especially. How 'bout it, Canon?


----------



## Stuart (Oct 22, 2018)

Why is a RF 24mm f/1.2L so exciting - shallow DOF and a wider view.


----------



## razorzec (Oct 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I agree about the quality of Canon lenses, but what do you mean by "lenses that cannot be seen off brand?" Canon claims EF lenses work fine with the RF mount, and there are plenty of fast lenses from Sigma. Are you saying that Canon is going to lock out third party lenses?



My apologies for not being clear there. What I mean is that Canon is producing "killer" lenses that may never be found on Sony's or Nikon's mirrorless systems. As much as the Sony fanboys outside this forum would deny, We all know Sony couldn't come up with their own AF F1.2 primes due to the size constraints of their small throat diameter let alone an F2 zoom, Nikon perhaps could build it but it may take a while as the 0.95 lens isn't that interesting for its lack of AF. I'm sure Sigma and Tamron could come up with F1.2 lenses for the RF and Z mount but I don't see them using the same optical formula for the E-mount..


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 22, 2018)

razorzec said:


> My apologies for not being clear there. What I mean is that Canon is producing "killer" lenses that may never be found on Sony's or Nikon's mirrorless systems. As much as the Sony fanboys outside this forum would deny, We all know Sony couldn't come up with their own AF F1.2 primes due to the size constraints of their small throat diameter let alone an F2 zoom, Nikon perhaps could build it but it may take a while as the 0.95 lens isn't that interesting for its lack of AF. I'm sure Sigma and Tamron could come up with F1.2 lenses for the RF and Z mount but I don't see them using the same optical formula for the E-mount..


Got it!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 22, 2018)

Stuart said:


> Why is a RF 24mm f/1.2L so exciting - shallow DOF and a wider view.



For me, astro.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 22, 2018)

Stuart said:


> Why is a RF 24mm f/1.2L so exciting - shallow DOF and a wider view.


If Coma is well controlled, this could be an amazing lens for Astrophotography - for example, with that f1.2 max aperture.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 22, 2018)

1.4/1.8/2.8 lens will come but exotic lens like this is why some people will stay with Canon. 

I'm excited about the lens but it's so expensive at MSRP.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 22, 2018)

I'm in the minority. I want them to make slower, read "smaller and lighter," primes. These f/1.2 primes will all be 1Kg or heavier bricks on a small light body. Frustrating. It means that a lightweight FF mirrorless system is still many years away, until Canon gets around to making f/1.4 or f/1.8 lenses for this system.

You really NEED the patience of Job to stay with Canon.


----------



## razorzec (Oct 22, 2018)

Stuart said:


> Why is a RF 24mm f/1.2L so exciting - shallow DOF and a wider view.



At F1.2 you get -6 EV AF sensitivity in low light with an EOS R. I'm not sure if future RF bodies would get even better but right now this is a serious advantage in the Canon MILC line.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 22, 2018)

razorzec said:


> Despite all the flak that their bodies have been receiving over the past few years, They're killing it with the lenses, and have been making other brand shooters salivate in envy.
> 
> Seems to me that the first main focus of the RF system would be fast lenses that cannot be seen off brand. It makes me wonder whether another F2 zoom would be in the works as well (i.e. 14-22 F2 or a 70-150 F2)



50 1.2 and 28-70 F2 definitely are stunner. They already patented 70-130 F2. I wouldn't be surprised they are working on 14-28 as well. I just hope they come out with 105 1.4 too.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 22, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> RF 24mm f/1.2L really got my attention!


Same here! 
Somehow I am quite lucky that I haven't invested much in EF L pimes yet  . For sure this will be expensive, but...
Now I can start saving


----------



## TTran (Oct 22, 2018)

Would love high quality 1.8 lenses like what Nikon is doing with the Z. I have the EOS R and 85mm 1.4 IS. Love the output but it's heavy and unbalance.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 22, 2018)

2019 will be a very expensive year, and I fear, it's only the beginning of my Canon - induced ruin...


----------



## knight427 (Oct 22, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> RF 24mm f/1.2L really got my attention!



Me too, for scenic astrophotography (milky way + landscape). But I'm guessing it will be 3-4x the price for the Rokinon 24 f/1.4. At that price differential, I'd have to have some other things in mind for it.


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 22, 2018)

razorzec said:


> Nikon perhaps could build it



I'm not particularly attracted to very fast lenses anyway, but I certainly hope that they won't try to copy the 50mm f1.2 L RF. I'll be the only here but I don't think that it's a great lens. It's amazingly sharp, incredible, even, but I think that it's got very poor rendition in depth, and that bokeh quality degrades excessively with image height.

I like to use that image from Opticallimits to show what I mean :




What I find very seductive with this photo is that there is a clear hierarchy of different planes according to distance, even within the blur, and that it remains readable. The tree behind the road sign is actually blurred, but not as much as the distant background. Besides, there is no trace whatsoever of double edges.

The 50mm RF, on the other hand, seems to flatten anything in the background and doesn't hierarchies well the different planes. In the following photo from Dpreview (shot at f4), I found it particularly hard to know if the objects on the beach were trunks on a distant beach or branches on a closer beach, the rendering is quite nervous and edgy, and there seems to be no gradual progression of the blur between the twigs in the centre near the path and the beach behind :




I'm not exactly sure but I have read that the cause for that could be that some aberrations, particularly spherical aberration, are controlled in an excessively ideal way. It's great for resolution in the focal plane and for reducing focus shift, but apparently leaving a carefully tuned degree of aberrations here and there may actually benefit rendering in depth and bokeh quality in the background.

The lens also exhibits a lot of mechanical vignetting and bokeh quality degrades rapidly with image height.

It's probably an engineering tour de force, a superbly built lens (I'm expecting Lensrentals' measurements to show low sample variation, just like with most of Canon's newest designs, and their teardown clever mechanical design inside, as always), but I don't think it's a superbly well rounded photographic tool and I think that good rendering has been excessively compromised in the pursuit of other goals.

I have the same criticism against the 35 L II, and to a lesser degree the 85mm f1.4 IS USM. The trend that Canon follows with their recent lenses may actually be enough for me to abandon the system. I don't think that I've been particulalry attracted to a Canon lens since the 40mm STM (a very average, but IMO pretty well balanced lens, and very well priced).

I have the opposite opinion of Nikon's 58mm f1.4G prime : here I think that some aspects of rendering have been excessively prioritised at the cost of some other basic performance figures.

It's probably a very fine line to carefully thread between these two extremes but I think that this is were my ideal lens would be right now, and I hope that this is where Nikon's S primes, including the 50mm f1.2, and Canon's future primes, will be.


----------



## eyeheartny (Oct 22, 2018)

Ugh, just when I was thinking I was going to pull the trigger on a new 85mm 1.4 IS to use on my new EOS R...


----------



## xps (Oct 22, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> 2019 will be a very expensive year, and I fear, it's only the beginning of my Canon - induced ruin...


Yesssssss, Sir!
24mm RF.... 2500€?
85mm..... 3000€?


----------



## tron (Oct 22, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> If Coma is well controlled, this could be an amazing lens for Astrophotography - for example, with that f1.2 max aperture.


For astro there is a super lens: The Sigma 14mm 1.8 Art. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 (~1 stop) is covered by the fact that the wider Sigma can be used with almost twice the shutter time (It's a 14mm vs a 24mm) without startrails so you can use the same ISO. Assuming you need Ultra wide of course. I always do need it in landscape astrophotography photos.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 22, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I'm in the minority. I want them to make slower, read "smaller and lighter," primes. These f/1.2 primes will all be 1Kg or heavier bricks on a small light body. Frustrating. It means that a lightweight FF mirrorless system is still many years away, until Canon gets around to making f/1.4 or f/1.8 lenses for this system.
> 
> You really NEED the patience of Job to stay with Canon.



The slower lenses won't be L lenses. They will come but what Canon needs first is to get enough exciting lenses into the ecosystem to sell the system.

If the rumor here is true that there is a mirrorless that is slated to be placed below the existing R, then it will make sense that buyers of that body will not be looking into $2000+ primes and zooms. It would make sense to launch consumer zooms/small primes when that body launches.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 22, 2018)

If this rumor has any basis, I take it neither lens will be stabilized? Probably not critical for a 24mm lens but I absolutely LOVE having IS on the 85 1.4. Especially when using it with the 5DSR...

Here’s to future Canon mirrorless bodies having IBIS...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 22, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I have the same criticism against the 35 L II, and to a lesser degree the 85mm f1.4 IS USM. The trend that Canon follows with their recent lenses may actually be enough for me to abandon the system. I don't think that I've been particulalry attracted to a Canon lens since the 40mm STM (a very average, but IMO pretty well balanced lens, and very well priced).
> 
> I have the opposite opinion of Nikon's 58mm f1.4G prime : here I think that some aspects of rendering have been excessively prioritised at the cost of some other basic performance figures.
> 
> It's probably a very fine line to carefully thread between these two extremes but I think that this is were my ideal lens would be right now, and I hope that this is where Nikon's S primes, including the 50mm f1.2, and Canon's future primes, will be.



You seem to be jumping to conclusions based on a few sample shots. Solid reviews and images from a variety of photographers are what we need.

And you lost me completely lumping in the ef 35mm f/1.2L II. It does gradations of distance very well for a 35mm, better than its predecessor, and the 85mm 1.4L IS does it as well as the 85mm 1.2L II, in my opinion.

Are you shooting with prints in mind?


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 22, 2018)

Fine, I guess, but I will always want a fast, pro-quality 28mm and 100/105mm more. Canon bleedin' well filed the patents for a 28mm f/1.4L years ago and never pulled the trigger on it, and they had a 100mm f/1.2 design patented in the 90s which never got beyond the paperwork, either. Nikon and Sigma both have made or are making high-quality, fast lenses like this; come on, Canon, catch up already.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 22, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I'm not particularly attracted to very fast lenses anyway, but I certainly hope that they won't try to copy the 50mm f1.2 L RF. I'll be the only here but I don't think that it's a great lens. It's amazingly sharp, incredible, even, but I think that it's got very poor rendition in depth, and that bokeh quality degrades excessively with image height.
> 
> I like to use that image from Opticallimits to show what I mean :
> 
> ...



I am an advocate for the qualities in a lens you are striving for. I favor the images I get from the 85LII over the 85L f1.4, and I think the 35L has a quality that makes it look better than the 35II, in some types if images. I really do like the 35LII, though. 

I don’t think we have seen enough samples of RF50 f1.2 to judge it. (I havent) That fall off from sharp to defocused area/depth rendering is very hard to measure and compare. I see the difference in the lenses I use because I shot my family a lot, and that makes it easier to notice subtle differences in how images look. 

Kudos to you, for trying to illustrate with pictures, but I believe they are too different to prove your point. Fingers crossed for you being wrong on the RF 50L.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 22, 2018)

Stuart said:


> Why is a RF 24mm f/1.2L so exciting - shallow DOF and a wider view.



Creative possibilities unavailable until this lens comes. That's why. Imagination is cut loose for ways to make photos.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 22, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Looks like Canon is making the R series seriously professional.
With a diameter opening of 54mm vs the Sony limited opening of only 46.1mm (Even the Canon M mount is bigger at 47mm for a comparison) it gives Canon (And Nikon) a real leg up going forward with large aperture professional lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 22, 2018)

What's exciting about the R system so far? The RF lenses.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 22, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I'm in the minority. I want them to make slower, read "smaller and lighter," primes. These f/1.2 primes will all be 1Kg or heavier bricks on a small light body. Frustrating. It means that a lightweight FF mirrorless system is still many years away, until Canon gets around to making f/1.4 or f/1.8 lenses for this system.
> 
> You really NEED the patience of Job to stay with Canon.



They likely will make RF lenses smaller and lighter as well. But I see them showing the pros "Here is what can be done" and stick with us on this one. Remember the first EOS were the 650/620 cameras. Nothing great and mind blowing about the bodies except they took the revolutionary EF lenses that blew the competition away for literally decades before the others caught up. Now you have the revolutionary RF mount with the extra control ring and ability to program the lens including which way to turn the focus ring. Leaving all others in the technology dust again.


----------



## eyeheartny (Oct 22, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> Looks like Canon is making the R series seriously professional.
> With a diameter opening of 54mm vs the Sony limited opening of only 46.1mm (Even the Canon M mount is bigger at 47mm for a comparison) it gives Canon (And Nikon) a real leg up going forward with large aperture professional lenses.



Yes, and the technical advantages of a bigger mount seem clear. The edge to edge performance on the RF lenses is excellent and better than other lenses. I think the wider mount diameter contributes to this, as the light rays at the edges have to bend less to reach the sensor.


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> You seem to be jumping to conclusions based on a few sample shots. Solid reviews and images from a variety of photographers are what we need.
> 
> And you lost me completely lumping in the ef 35mm f/1.2L II. It does gradations of distance very well for a 35mm, better than its predecessor, and the 85mm 1.4L IS does it as well as the 85mm 1.2L II, in my opinion.
> 
> Are you shooting with prints in mind?



You don't need to look at a ton of samples to already guesstimate to a certain degree what will come out of these tests. We already know, for example, that the 50 RF is unarguably incredibly sharp for an f1.2 lens, or that it will be quite significantly affected by cat's eyes. Some aspects of how a lens is biased or designed in terms of blur can be guessed from a few samples.

Solid reviews in general don't give a particularly comprehensive review of blur behaviour. They're still extremely useful and the 50mm RF should look like a brillant lens in most of them. Deservedly so. I'm sure it's taken a lot of hard work for Canon engineers.

The 35mm II is limited in its expression of distance within the blur because of how perfect a lens it is. Its blur characteristic between rear and front blur is as neutral as it gets, as Lenstip's focussing scale shots show.

This is the 35mm II :




Here I've allowed myself to switch the 35mm II for the 55 Otus (a lens with similar blur characteristics as the 35mm II) as the way the focusing scale is shot makes it more comparable to another standard lens, specifically designed to under-correct some aberrations :




As you can see the "LensAlign" word blurs in the exact same way whether it's in front or behind the focal plane with the Otus (or the 35mm II). On the contrary on the lens with poor spherical aberration correction, it blurs in a strong double edged fashion in front, but in a very smooth, readable way behind.

And here's the big deal : with the Otus (and the 35mm II), as soon as you're past a certain number, you can no longer read the word, and there's practically no difference in the look of the "LensAlign" word : it's as if the LensAlign word is repeated in the exact same fashion afterwards, with lots of well defined edges which start to intertwine with each others to the point that the word becomes undistinguishable and that everything becomes flat.

A practical illustration of the problem :


https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/Y1C6A7739-35LMarkII.HTM
In that shot the two blurred men are at a distance from each others. What I'd like to see from my ideal lens is the traduction of that fact into how the blur behaves. Yet what do we see ? The blurred edges of the objects are similar regardless of the distance (see for example how the neck strap of the guy behind is just as sharply defined as the one from the guy in front). Maybe my brain is stupid, but to me this is difficult to process : I know that these guys are at a distance from each others (the size of their respective heads should be enough to know it, unless something quite bad was unraveling to their physical integrity), and yet they look like they're painted on a 2D canvas.

On the other hand, on the lens with strong spherical aberration, the "LensAlign" word remains readable far into the blurred area behind, and there's a strong difference in how that word looks between the numbers 5 and 10, for example. I think that this is a more elegant way to fade into the blur, but, much more importantly : it preserves distance information better since you can still see what the object is !

The same thing may apply at longer focusing distances, or even when closed down (depending on lens design).

The EF 50mm f1.2 behaves to some degree like the under-corrected lens, at least around f2-F4 in the centre. It's got a lot of other aberrations that make its overall bokeh performance questionable, particularly wide open and off-centre, though.

Another illustration of the difference between these two lenses, from a pdf from Zeiss :


https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Bokeh-2010-EN.pdf

That said, I've left the photos in color, because credit where credit is due, the 35mm L II controls longitudinal chromatic aberrations exceedingly well. Hat's off to Canon's engineers for that. It's also much, much sharper than the poorly corrected lens, which some may call "hazy".

IMO in 2018 a more balanced lens would try to straddle the fine line between these two extremes.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 22, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> Looks like Canon is making the R series seriously professional.
> With a diameter opening of 54mm vs the Sony limited opening of only 46.1mm (Even the Canon M mount is bigger at 47mm for a comparison) it gives Canon (And Nikon) a real leg up going forward with large aperture professional lenses.


Yes - there really has to be a 'pro' high MP body coming to use these properly. If these lenses are scheduled for late 2019, it might give a clue about that body's release date as well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 23, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> A practical illustration of the problem :
> View attachment 181150
> 
> https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/Y1C6A7739-35LMarkII.HTM
> In that shot the two blurred men are at a distance from each others. What I'd like to see from my ideal lens is the traduction of that fact into how the blur behaves. Yet what do we see ? The blurred edges of the objects are similar regardless of the distance (see for example how the neck strap of the guy behind is just as sharply defined as the one from the guy in front). Maybe my brain is stupid, but to me this is difficult to process : I know that these guys are at a distance from each others (the size of their respective heads should be enough to know it, unless something quite bad was unraveling to their physical integrity), and yet they look like they're painted on a 2D canvas.



In the photo in question, we have a black shirt against a black shirt. Of course this reduces the illusion of depth in a 2D image. But the farther face is blurred quite a bit more than the closer, and pleasingly, I might add. Considering the focal length is only 35mm, Canon did a great job producing convincing and pleasing sharpness fall-off, or whatever the technical term is. They might not have achieved perfection, but if one is to speak of balance, they did very well with considering price, size, AF performance, weight, and, in the case of the 85mm 1.4L, the important addition of IS.

As for the 50mm f/1.2L, we agree, MayaTlab. One reason I chose not to buy it is because of how many images I've seen where the background blur is not pleasing at all. Handled correctly, the lens's bokeh is beautiful, but, in my opinion, overall it is simply too finicky of a lens to count on in a range of situations. I see some photographers, even wedding photographers, who build an entire portfolio with the same hazy, backlit, glowing style. Too formulaic, too specialized. 

I have high hopes for the rf 50mm f/1.2L, and slim hopes for a new version to come to EF bodies.


----------



## dominic_siu (Oct 23, 2018)

TTran said:


> Would love high quality 1.8 lenses like what Nikon is doing with the Z. I have the EOS R and 85mm 1.4 IS. Love the output but it's heavy and unbalance.


Have you also use the battery grip? I also using 85 1.4L on my EOS R together with the grip, although much heavier just like 5D4 by this setup makes it more balance.


----------



## hmatthes (Oct 23, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Same here!
> Somehow I am quite lucky that I haven't invested much in EF L pimes yet  . For sure this will be expensive, but...
> Now I can start saving


I'm happy that I invested in the EF "Holy Trinity" f/2.8 Zooms 20 years ago in the film days -- 2 are still in service, only the 24~70 is newer replacing the 28~70 f2.8.
I shall replace them when the RF replacements come out. Long term investments.


----------



## hmatthes (Oct 23, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> Remember the first EOS were the 650/620 cameras. Nothing great and mind blowing about the bodies except they took the revolutionary EF lenses that blew the competition away


Yep... still have my 650 shooting infrared film when I can find it...
my R will be with me 30 years also (if the circuit boards last that long)


----------



## Besisika (Oct 23, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I'm in the minority. I want them to make slower, read "smaller and lighter," primes. These f/1.2 primes will all be 1Kg or heavier bricks on a small light body. Frustrating. It means that a lightweight FF mirrorless system is still many years away, until Canon gets around to making f/1.4 or f/1.8 lenses for this system.
> 
> You really NEED the patience of Job to stay with Canon.


You can always grab an EF lens. If I understood what they said, they are after lenses that otherwise a lot more difficult to achieve. Besides, if their autofocus are faster at 1.2 then it makes sense to me to get both low light and AF better.
The one I am interested the most is a zoom 70-135 F2.0. It would be a huge lens but I wouldn't mind, if it is not as heavy as the 100-400 II.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 23, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> Yep... still have my 650 shooting infrared film when I can find it...
> my R will be with me 30 years also (if the circuit boards last that long)



Wow, wish I had life "assurance" like that. What company guarantees you 30 years? Let's see, that'd put me at just about 100.

Jack


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I agree about the quality of Canon lenses, but what do you mean by "lenses that cannot be seen off brand?" Canon claims EF lenses work fine with the RF mount, and there are plenty of fast lenses from Sigma. Are you saying that Canon is going to lock out third party lenses?




I think they are referring to the 24mm f/1.2. Is there another 24 that fast out there somewhere for a current mount?


----------



## RGF (Oct 23, 2018)

Not surprised by these lenses. Like Nikon (0.95), Canon's wide lens mount will allow fast glass. Now is bragging time


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 23, 2018)

TTran said:


> Would love high quality 1.8 lenses like what Nikon is doing with the Z. I have the EOS R and 85mm 1.4 IS. Love the output but it's heavy and unbalance.



For me as someone searching for a good "balance of specs" the RF f/1.8 35 IS is the real star and surprise: f/1.8 AND 1:2 macro in a - as far as I see from the images - very compact and lightweight package. The sheer existence of that lens makes me hope that a compact low cost series is still in the pipeline.
I think there is a good chance that you will see these lenses ... and me too!

But marketing-wise f/1.8 lenses aren't that interesting compared to those presumably excellent f/1.2 lenses which have their own range of applications.


----------



## Mbell75 (Oct 23, 2018)

Thats nice and all but both are sure to be near $3k each, no thanks. Pricing on these RF lenses so far is absurd.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 23, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> You don't need to look at a ton of samples to already guesstimate to a certain degree what will come out of these tests. We already know, for example, that the 50 RF is unarguably incredibly sharp for an f1.2 lens, or that it will be quite significantly affected by cat's eyes. Some aspects of how a lens is biased or designed in terms of blur can be guessed from a few samples.
> 
> Solid reviews in general don't give a particularly comprehensive review of blur behaviour. They're still extremely useful and the 50mm RF should look like a brillant lens in most of them. Deservedly so. I'm sure it's taken a lot of hard work for Canon engineers.
> 
> ...



Interesting analysis, MayaTlab. Thanks!


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 23, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> Interesting analysis, MayaTlab. Thanks!



You may be interested in this interview of Nikon engineers about the 105mm f1.4 :
part 1 : https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1017554.html
part 2 : https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1018916.html

Google's translation is reasonably understandable. Some bits are quite interesting : "It has been known for many years that such blur characteristics depend on how to retain residual aberrations, but until now we have not found the optimal balance. Although I know qualitatively, it was reality that quantitatively it was quite difficult"

I'm pretty sure that Canon's engineers are well aware of that as well (I don't think that you can do such an amazing job in various areas of performance without knowing your stuff inside and out). The 85mm IS isn't quite as extreme as the 35mm II and leaves some aberrations uncontrolled wide open (I'm expecting the 50mm RF to slot kind of in between in terms of blur behaviour). But I don't think that as far as focusing scales go it's anywhere near quite as successful a balance as the 105mm :



It should be obvious which is which .

What I like here is that unlike their 58mm or 85mm, we get reasonable sharpness, not too much haze within the focal plane, and decent control of CA. But they've nonetheless been able to retain a good deal of the 58mm's asymmetrical and biased blur characteristics, _even when you close the lens' aperture (big deal IMO, particularly for a 105mm lens). _I think that this lens is closer to the fine line I was talking about .

This thread from Dpreview is interesting as well, particularly since it analyses how a lens' blur characteristics evolve as you close the aperture down : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031515
This should also tell you why with only a few samples you can already start to make a reasonably educated guess about what the designers' intent was in terms of blur characteristics.

This is all about what happens in the centre of the frame, though. Personally I'd like to see such evaluations done for the remaining of the frame. My 50mm STM's blur behaviour, for example, varies considerably at various apertures depending on image height.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 23, 2018)

I hope that these lenses will incorporate IS given that the EOS R does not have IBIS. but then again, maybe and hopefully the future bodies will?


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 23, 2018)

tron said:


> For astro there is a super lens: The Sigma 14mm 1.8 Art. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 (~1 stop) is covered by the fact that the wider Sigma can be used with almost twice the shutter time (It's a 14mm vs a 24mm) without startrails so you can use the same ISO. Assuming you need Ultra wide of course. I always do need it in landscape astrophotography photos.



For 14mm, that is the lens for astro! But I purchased a Samyang 14mm 2.4 before the Sigma was even rumored and could not rationalize buying another 14mm. But I can rationalize a 28mm, since I don't have a good prime near that length. 28mm frames the core better for me than 14mm.


----------



## Adrianf (Oct 23, 2018)

These are seriously pro lenses. It sounds like there will be another shower of lower-spec/price lenses when they start talking about APS-C cameras with the R mount. Or, they could even switch to only producing full-frame lenses, even for a crop sensor. Go Canon! This looks like it will be an exciting (and expensive) ride..


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 23, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> You may be interested in this interview of Nikon engineers about the 105mm f1.4 :
> part 1 : https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1017554.html
> part 2 : https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1018916.html
> 
> ...



You obviously have studied this in detail. Your last two posts are the most interesting I’ve read online for a long time!

My takeaway is that for having a three dimensional look in an image, the transition between the in and out of focus area should be gradual. If the softness kicks in too early/too close to the area in focus, the image will appear flat. I have seen this effect in Zeiss Otus lenses and Sigma ART lenses, and to some degree in the 35LII. 

Personally I find the 24 LII, the 28 f2.8 IS, the 35L, 50L, 85LII, 100L and 135L to be very pleasing in terms of creating a 3D effect, less so the 35LII and 85 L IS.


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 23, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> You obviously have studied this in detail.



I haven't studied anything, I'm just quoting, and I'm no optician. I've probably already said a truckload of erroneous things. I guess that there are a lot of variables to factor in when it comes to bokeh, even only on axis. What I mentioned probably is only one partial aspect of it.

But it took me less than a minute (seconds, actually) of scrolling through the 50mm RF samples to see yet again what I've come to start to strongly dislike with Canon's latest batch of L primes (and some other lenses as well), so I tried to put some degree of understanding on what I was seeing. It's my feeling that Canon's optical engineers and me aren't quite on the same page regarding what makes a truly great lens. I have a lot of admiration for what they're doing (particularly on the manufacturing front), but in the end I have zero desire to use any of their new lenses. No, really. If I were given a 50mm RF, I'd instantly put it on sale. 

I wish lens reviews put more emphasis on describing and evaluating blur qualities in a more comprehensive way, but it must be very difficult to do well, in a way that the average joe (me) can start to understand. 

In some capacity I actually think that some reviews are actively degrading our understanding of lenses by focusing on some aspects of a lens' performance (for example, criticising the Nikon's 58mm focus shift) while not helping users understand that it might be there for a good reason (in the case of that lens, as a by-product of its copious aberrations, to improve some aspects of background blur behaviour). I was the first in line to criticise that lens, but over the year I've started to like what it stands for. A good review would have saved me a few years to get to that point .


----------



## rubensu03 (Oct 23, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> You obviously have studied this in detail. Your last two posts are the most interesting I’ve read online for a long time!
> 
> My takeaway is that for having a three dimensional look in an image, the transition between the in and out of focus area should be gradual. If the softness kicks in too early/too close to the area in focus, the image will appear flat. I have seen this effect in Zeiss Otus lenses and Sigma ART lenses, and to some degree in the 35LII.
> 
> Personally I find the 24 LII, the 28 f2.8 IS, the 35L, 50L, 85LII, 100L and 135L to be very pleasing in terms of creating a 3D effect, less so the 35LII and 85 L IS.



I'm not an optician, neither, so I can't really contribute much to the debate myself, buy remembered I read this some time ago:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

Basically, the author states that those modern lenses with plenty of glass elements to attain highly corrected, crispy sharp lenses fail to produce that 3D "pop" effect.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 23, 2018)

rubensu03 said:


> I'm not an optician, neither, so I can't really contribute much to the debate myself, buy remembered I read this some time ago:
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/
> 
> Basically, the author states that those modern lenses with plenty of glass elements to attain highly corrected, crispy sharp lenses fail to produce that 3D "pop" effect.



I’ve read and quoted that article before. I am not sure if it’s theory about why the 3D effect varies, but it is describing differences in depth rendering that is rarely spoke about. 

I agree with MayaTlab, that reviewers are way to obsessed with sharpness and aberration controls, and overlook qualities such as depth rendering. The obvious reason is the challenge in comparing depth rendering in an objective and measurable way.

Real world reports from thrustworty and experienced users can be of more value than the many review sites out there.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 23, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> You obviously have studied this in detail. Your last two posts are the most interesting I’ve read online for a long time!
> 
> My takeaway is that for having a three dimensional look in an image, the transition between the in and out of focus area should be gradual. If the softness kicks in too early/too close to the area in focus, the image will appear flat. I have seen this effect in Zeiss Otus lenses and Sigma ART lenses, and to some degree in the 35LII.
> 
> Personally I find the 24 LII, the 28 f2.8 IS, the 35L, 50L, 85LII, 100L and 135L to be very pleasing in terms of creating a 3D effect, less so the 35LII and 85 L IS.



"3D effect" is just fine on my EF 35mm f/1.4L II. I'm very impressed with it for a wide angle lens. Sharp as heck too.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 23, 2018)

rubensu03 said:


> I'm not an optician, neither, so I can't really contribute much to the debate myself, buy remembered I read this some time ago:
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/
> 
> Basically, the author states that those modern lenses with plenty of glass elements to attain highly corrected, crispy sharp lenses fail to produce that 3D "pop" effect.



To each his own, but I have little to no issue getting “3D” pop images with the 35, 85 or 100 macro lenses. It’s the zoom lenses that tend to fall short in this regard, at least in my experience, although I have gotten close with the 24-70 2.8 II in certain conditions.


----------



## knight427 (Oct 23, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> You don't need to look at a ton of samples to already guesstimate to a certain degree what will come out of these tests. We already know, for example, that the 50 RF is unarguably incredibly sharp for an f1.2 lens, or that it will be quite significantly affected by cat's eyes. Some aspects of how a lens is biased or designed in terms of blur can be guessed from a few samples.
> 
> Solid reviews in general don't give a particularly comprehensive review of blur behaviour. They're still extremely useful and the 50mm RF should look like a brillant lens in most of them. Deservedly so. I'm sure it's taken a lot of hard work for Canon engineers.
> 
> ...



Forgive me for picking nits, but I do not think the picture supports your opinion in regards to the blurring effects visible between the two people. In the near neck strap, I can see there are white words or graphics repeated in a pattern which are completely lost in the far strap. Additionally, the far strap is blurred to the point of being semi-transparent as is clearly visible with the red shirt logo and more subtly visible as part of the strap almost disappears into the black shirt.




In regards to their faces, the near face includes just enough detail to see some skin folds around the mouth, eyes and interior shaping of the pinna (ear). Note that I shrunk the near face to better match the size of the far face.



Certainly I am zooming into small details here, but these were things that were evident to me from your thumbnail image. OTOH, we are discussing opinions around subjective impressions, so all I can really say is that my opinion on this matter does not match yours.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 23, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "3D effect" is just fine on my EF 35mm f/1.4L II. I'm very impressed with it for a wide angle lens. Sharp as heck too.



I own the 35LII, and I do like it. I have many pictures taken with this lens that I think are wonderful. At the same time, for some reason, I often prefer the look I get from the 35L, which I also own. Technically speaking, the 35LII is much better than the 35L. Sharper, less aberrations, smoother bokeh, better AF, weather sealing etc. But the most true to life images I get, are taken with the 35L. 

I don’t think the 35LII produces flat looking images, but the 35L is better in that regard.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 23, 2018)

_“We find the RF 24mm f/1.2L an interesting choice for the lineup, especially with the speed of the lens.”_

24mm *is* an interesting choice but makes perfect sense given the 1.8x crop in 4K on the EOS-R. With that crop it will end up somewhere between a 40 and a 50mm, something a 35mm 1.2 could not do in video mode. 

Plus, they need a fast wide for landscape photographers.


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 23, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "3D effect" is just fine on my EF 35mm f/1.4L II. I'm very impressed with it for a wide angle lens. Sharp as heck too.



I'll try not to bring up the term "3D" in this exchange. It's a word that I feel is over-used. To be frank I think that I nearly hate myself from expressing my feelings in this thread. Sometimes I feel like I see things that just aren't there. But then I can't also deny, as Lenstip's focusing scale tends to show, and other examples here and there, such as Marianne Oelund's thread on DPreview, that lenses do indeed vary quite considerably in the way they render transitions from sharp to blur. And I can't deny that I find shots like these, well, let's say, aesthetically challenged in the blur department :
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/4037492029/4652016161.jpg
https://www.magezinepublishing.com/...hres/a-50mm-lens-bike-4P2A0426_1536166554.jpg
I mean, those double images as soon as one leaves the centre, or the nervous rendering of the bicycle's front wheel and handlebar are plain evil to my eyes. I believe that most lenses would struggle here, but that exactly where I'm expecting Canon engineers to work their magic for a 50mm f1.2 €2500 lens.

If I may do so, this is what I see in this picture :


What I feel is that, to some extent, the subject is in front of a painted canvas. I'm lacking here a certain transitional quality, which some lenses are able to better convey (although at this aperture it's normal that the background becomes unreadable at some point).
It's as if this photo has three very defined, different stages : sharp as f!ck, then a very short, slightly nervous transition zone, then blur with sharply defined edges to the blurred areas.

It's difficult to criticise the 35mm II, because, in a way, it's a "perfect" lens. I guess that this is exactly how a lens is supposed to behave. And in many ways it's a lot better looking than a lens with over-corrected spherical aberration and onion rings, or double lines bokeh.

Years ago I was after "perfect" lenses like this (or at least as good as I could get them then), because relatively speaking, they behaved better wide open than other lenses that were just sub-par, with onion ring bokeh, etc. I used to use a 50mm Makro Planar instead of Nikon's cheap AF-D 50mm lenses because it had a more neutral and controlled bokeh at f2 than the Nikons, throughout the frame. But these days, I feel that lens designers seem better equipped to fine tune the aberrations of a lens to purposefully bias the bokeh rendering towards the rear without excessively affecting other areas of performance, and I think that I'm after those lenses right now .



knight427 said:


> Forgive me for picking nits, but I do not think the picture supports your opinion in regards to the blurring effects visible between the two people. In the near neck strap, I can see there are white words or graphics repeated in a pattern which are completely lost in the far strap. Additionally, the far strap is blurred to the point of being semi-transparent as is clearly visible with the red shirt logo and more subtly visible as part of the strap almost disappears into the black shirt.
> View attachment 181171
> 
> 
> ...



I think you're right to nitpick . Your observations are valid and I agree with you. It's difficult for me to exactly nail what I see in these pictures that I find objectionable. Perhaps it's less the amount of blur than the sharp edges around the blur that troubles my mind. In the first crop you're right to highlight that the strap on the guy in the background is blurrier and more transparent indeed. But the edge of the strap fades into the black shirt just as rapidly as the strap in front. Perhaps it's that.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 23, 2018)

Just as with color balance and dynamic range, what I am usually striving to do with background blur is to suggest, and maybe approximate, how the scene looked to me in person. When my eyes focus on something, there is a certain amount of blur in the appearance of things different distances away. In real life I can refocus my eyes between various things, so the photograph is not ever going to be a simulation. 

I don't drink heavily, and usually will not have had anything alcoholic to drink at all when I am making pictures. So in bright sunlight, my pupils are never fully dilated. Fast lenses wide open don't give a natural look on sunny days.

I do like the effect you can get with a telephoto lens. There is no pretense of a normal viewing angle, so a fairly shallow depth of field can look right, I guess because we are used to seeing pictures made that way.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Oct 23, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Canon's strength has always been lenses and they know this going forward.
> 
> Jack



What do you think so? Nope, I know Canon very well for over 50 years. We all of our concern about Canon's behavior from 1989 incident by abandoned world best lenses, FD and FDn without warning. Canon forced everyone to use the EOS system with EF lenses. We, professional photographers, do not support R camera and any RF lenses at all.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 23, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I'll try not to bring up the term "3D" in this exchange. It's a word that I feel is over-used. To be frank I think that I nearly hate myself from expressing my feelings in this thread. Sometimes I feel like I see things that just aren't there. But then I can't also deny, as Lenstip's focusing scale tends to show, and other examples here and there, such as Marianne Oelund's thread on DPreview, that lenses do indeed vary quite considerably in the way they render transitions from sharp to blur. And I can't deny that I find shots like these, well, let's say, aesthetically challenged in the blur department :
> https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/4037492029/4652016161.jpg
> https://www.magezinepublishing.com/...hres/a-50mm-lens-bike-4P2A0426_1536166554.jpg
> I mean, those double images as soon as one leaves the centre, or the nervous rendering of the bicycle's front wheel and handlebar are plain evil to my eyes. I believe that most lenses would struggle here, but that exactly where I'm expecting Canon engineers to work their magic for a 50mm f1.2 €2500 lens.
> ...



I don't think I dispute your observations much, but the fact is that it is a wide angle lens. I believe that has some to do with not getting the bokeh you might be looking for. In my experience, the shorter the focal length the more harsh the bokeh. So for me, the 35L II is just fine. I haven't owned any other Canon 35mm lenses. Maybe I should compare it with my 24-70 with both lenses @ f/2.8.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 23, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> Thats nice and all but both are sure to be near $3k each, no thanks. Pricing on these RF lenses so far is absurd.



Well, not everyone can afford Porsches either.....for some, they will have to settle for Hondas, Chevies or Kia's......

Like with Apple products, not everyone is in their target market, but there seems to be PLENTY that are.

Me? I just wait and save my nickels, save and sacrifice to get what I perceive to be the best in most all things I buy. I'd rather cook at home (better food anyway), and not buy little piddly sh*t all the time, and save my money for really nice things a couple times a year.

I'll buy these lenses and bodies...it just won't be all at once, and I will give up buying other things less of worth to me to get them.

Just my $0.02.....

cayenne


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Well, not everyone can afford Porsches either.....for some, they will have to settle for Hondas, Chevies or Kia's......
> 
> Like with Apple products, not everyone is in their target market, but there seems to be PLENTY that are.
> 
> ...


Prices will drop, and drop a lot. Those who wait will get much lower prices.

It is puzzling as to why Canon released a middle of the road camera along with some pretty high end lenses. Except for the 35mm and the 24-105, there is a mismatch. It sounds to me like there was initially a plan to bring both middle and high end cameras to the market, and lenses were developed for both. Something may have delayed the high end camera, but since the lenses were ready, and lenses were needed for the "R", they pushed them out. If we are seeing even more very wide aperture expensive lenses in the near future, that pro level camera can't be far away. The EOS R is a camera destined to end up in big box stores, and those expensive lenses will not be there with it.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Oct 24, 2018)

Camera bag gets heavier as the wallet gets lighter.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 24, 2018)

While I am confident that lenses have character in my experience the light has a dramatic ence to the 3Dish effects of flat images. In macro I move the camera some degree around a subject and only ONE angle gives the depth I want.

To compare lenses we would need (1) the same subject / surroundings, (2) same light, (3) same sensor and (4) same processing chain and then a lot of different types of images like portrait, landscape with different distance settings ...

About character of lenses: I have often thought about selling my FD lenses but I am glad that I still have them. With the M50 they are usable - in terms of handling - because of the cameras EVF and the good focus highlighting.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 24, 2018)

About the new EF-M 32 1.4 which is definitely a new lens design: While having 14 lens elements it has only 8 lens groups. My first thought was that Canon kept the group count on a reasonably low number to reduce ghosts / flares and contrast degeneration.
But maybe they tried to make lens groups for correction purposes of CA but these groups act as "single lenses" for the rest of aberrations?

In my view this lens creates a lot of depth with its sharpness transitions while being very sharp in the focal plane without being too sharp / unnaturally sharp. The bokeh is nearly free of artifacts, just the cat eye shape is visible if you have highlights in the background (you can find some images I made with this lens including 3 100% "stripes" to take a look at the lens' quality at http://michaelbockhorst.de/2018/10/canon-ef-m-32-1-4-stm-sample-photos/ ).
But - I said it in my previous post - it would be great to see a side by side comparison e.g. between this lens and the RF 50 1.2, their lens compositions are close at first glance but the EF-M sports a concave front lens. The RF lens has two plane surfaces beneath the diaphragm while the EF-M has two concave surfaces more like classical double gauss lenses.

@MayaTlab: Interesting standpoints about these subtle image properties beyond these "measurable" parameters!

Maybe a lot of RF lenses go this route?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> What do you think so? Nope, I know Canon very well for over 50 years. We all of our concern about Canon's behavior from 1989 incident by abandoned world best lenses, FD and FDn without warning. Canon forced everyone to use the EOS system with EF lenses. We, professional photographers, do not support R camera and any RF lenses at all.



And in my state of ignorance I just kept on using my FD lenses with my F1; a lot was going on in my life at that time so I felt no photographic pain, but I can sympathize. Getting into digital with Nikon, it took very little nudging to move back to Canon and I don't feel shortchanged. The equipment is far better than the photographer in my case (IOW I'm not a pro)!

Jack


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 24, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> @MayaTlab: Interesting standpoints about these subtle image properties beyond these "measurable" parameters!



I hope that what I'm trying to express in my uneducated, unsophisticated way is completely measurable by optical engineers. I don't want to be the apostle of "3D pop" fluff or whatever and write articles like the one on Petapixel. The good news is that I'm pretty sure they are able to do so, now more than ever (I don't subscribe to the notion that "old" lenses are systematically better than "new" ones, far from it).
I found it interesting that, in the DC Watch interview, Nikon engineers said that while the theory behind leaving residual aberrations to enhance / bias bokeh was well understood decades ago, they struggled with the quantitative aspect. Years ago Nikon announced that they had developed what I believe is a measurement and software system to improve their understanding of a lens' aberration. Perhaps this was to them just another step forward in their capacity to quantify some aspects of bokeh behaviour. I have very little doubt that Canon engineers are trying to do so as well.

But in my opinion, looking at what the 50mm L RF is producing in OOF areas, I don't think that bokeh was that high on Canon's list of priorities with this lens (let's say a lot lower than MTF figures). Beyond what could be a personal preference for lenses biasing the bokeh towards rear smoothness (something the RF may actually do to some limited extent in the dead centre at f1.2 ?), I don't think that anyone with a pair of reasonably functioning eyes can miss the very strong and defined double images that start to appear half-way through the frame or how the bokeh suddenly changes character. For a €2500 lens which main claim to fame is its f1.2 aperture, I'm expecting better.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Oct 24, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It is puzzling as to why Canon released a middle of the road camera along with some pretty high end lenses. Except for the 35mm and the 24-105, there is a mismatch. It sounds to me like there was initially a plan to bring both middle and high end cameras to the market, and lenses were developed for both. Something may have delayed the high end camera, but since the lenses were ready, and lenses were needed for the "R", they pushed them out. If we are seeing even more very wide aperture expensive lenses in the near future, that pro level camera can't be far away. The EOS R is a camera destined to end up in big box stores, and those expensive lenses will not be there with it.



Pretty sure they indeed wanted to release 2 R camera's like Nikon did, but delayed the 'Pro' one for some unknown reason. 
Maybe it has to do with the (firmware) performance not being adequate. Just look like how they released the R with a promised feature firmware update.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 24, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I hope that what I'm trying to express in my uneducated, unsophisticated way is completely measurable by optical engineers. I don't want to be the apostle of "3D pop" fluff or whatever and write articles like the one on Petapixel. The good news is that I'm pretty sure they are able to do so, now more than ever (I don't subscribe to the notion that "old" lenses are systematically better than "new" ones, far from it).
> I found it interesting that, in the DC Watch interview, Nikon engineers said that while the theory behind leaving residual aberrations to enhance / bias bokeh was well understood decades ago, they struggled with the quantitative aspect. Years ago Nikon announced that they had developed what I believe is a measurement and software system to improve their understanding of a lens' aberration. Perhaps this was to them just another step forward in their capacity to quantify some aspects of bokeh behaviour. I have very little doubt that Canon engineers are trying to do so as well.
> 
> But in my opinion, looking at what the 50mm L RF is producing in OOF areas, I don't think that bokeh was that high on Canon's list of priorities with this lens (let's say a lot lower than MTF figures). Beyond what could be a personal preference for lenses biasing the bokeh towards rear smoothness (something the RF may actually do to some limited extent in the dead centre at f1.2 ?), I don't think that anyone with a pair of reasonably functioning eyes can miss the very strong and defined double images that start to appear half-way through the frame or how the bokeh suddenly changes character. For a €2500 lens which main claim to fame is its f1.2 aperture, I'm expecting better.



The RF 50 1.2 is in my opinion a very capable lens to make news photos or maybe landscape it needs to have great contrast and resolution over the whole frame. Very good technical IQ at f/1.2 is the reason to buy this one. Transitions in out of focus zones maybe isn't first concern in that case.
The EF 50 1.2 is the more artistic lens - if I speak with artists they usually have very simple equipment but do much more work "in front of the camera" by chasing light, subjects and different views. Here the overall look of the image is more important than having pixel related sharpness.
Maybe Nikon combines both in one lens (that is what I read in your comments)?!

About quantifying bokeh, just my ideas:
Usually you track points for the subject and try to find out how precise the images are on the focal plane of a sensor.
(1) With newer computing capabilities maybe Nikon (and the rest of the gang) look how non-focused areas are reproduced by a lens. Nothing less or more than tracking thousands of points forming the shape of the subject of interest. Now you have the image of an unsharp subject and you can do some evaluations of its shape on the focal plane. Computational methods can easily decide between a simple gaussian blurr or another blurr pattern.
(2) You simulate different designs and look which is perceived best by a group of photographers (customers, etc.) OR you use the "unsharpness patterns" of existing lenses after putting their output into a mathematical model.
(3) You decide which perceived "unsharpness patterns" are the most welcomed and use the corresponding lens design for production.


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 24, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> Maybe Nikon combines both in one lens (that is what I read in your comments)?!



I'm not sure that it's actually possible to have both one's cake and eating it, but I think that they're _trying_ to find a pleasing compromise between two extremes that could be more or less adequately represented on one end, by this new 50mm RF, or perhaps the Zeiss Otus, and on the other, by the Nikon 58mm f1.4. Perhaps this is this search for a well-received compromise that made it difficult for Nikon engineers to find the right quantification for what they were trying to achieve. They knew very well the qualities that they were looking for, but less the quantities that would create a "just right" compromise for users to enjoy.

The important word here is "trying". I don't think that we'll all agree on what an ideal compromise would be, and IMO it can change depending on focal length, max aperture, focusing distance, type of lens, etc. That said, I'm pretty certain that the lukewarm reception the 28mm f1.8G and 58mm f1.8G received, and the very positive reception the 105mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.8G received, are guiding their hands. Which is why I think that it's very important that reviews provide a much more comprehensive assessment of lenses, particularly in the OOF areas. The interest of the Nikon 58mm was lost on me for years until I gradually built a newfound appreciation for what it was trying to achieve. 

I'm sure that Canon understands what Nikon is trying to achieve, and even that they're doing the same thing to some degree, but maybe this is where each lens engineer's personal sensibilities come into play, and they collectively don't feel quite as strongly as Nikon that this is a worthy endeavour to pursue ?


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 24, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Prices will drop, and drop a lot. Those who wait will get much lower prices.
> 
> It is puzzling as to why Canon released a middle of the road camera along with some pretty high end lenses. Except for the 35mm and the 24-105, there is a mismatch. It sounds to me like there was initially a plan to bring both middle and high end cameras to the market, and lenses were developed for both. Something may have delayed the high end camera, but since the lenses were ready, and lenses were needed for the "R", they pushed them out. If we are seeing even more very wide aperture expensive lenses in the near future, that pro level camera can't be far away. The EOS R is a camera destined to end up in big box stores, and those expensive lenses will not be there with it.


I don't think that puzzling is the correct word. The two high end lenses almost certainly are just to get press space. However, replacing them with a 16-35 f/4 L, 70-200 f/4 L and 28-300 f/4-5.6 would have been much more consistent.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 24, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> What do you think so? Nope, I know Canon very well for over 50 years. We all of our concern about Canon's behavior from 1989 incident by abandoned world best lenses, FD and FDn without warning. Canon forced everyone to use the EOS system with EF lenses. We, professional photographers, do not support R camera and any RF lenses at all.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 24, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I don't drink heavily, and usually will not have had anything alcoholic to drink at all when I am making pictures. So in bright sunlight, my pupils are never fully dilated.



You win the 'strangest comment in the thread' award.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 24, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I'm not sure that it's actually possible to have both one's cake and eating it, but I think that they're _trying_ to find a pleasing compromise between two extremes that could be more or less adequately represented on one end, by this new 50mm RF, or perhaps the Zeiss Otus, and on the other, by the Nikon 58mm f1.4. Perhaps this is this search for a well-received compromise that made it difficult for Nikon engineers to find the right quantification for what they were trying to achieve. They knew very well the qualities that they were looking for, but less the quantities that would create a "just right" compromise for users to enjoy.
> 
> The important word here is "trying". I don't think that we'll all agree on what an ideal compromise would be, and IMO it can change depending on focal length, max aperture, focusing distance, type of lens, etc. That said, I'm pretty certain that the lukewarm reception the 28mm f1.8G and 58mm f1.8G received, and the very positive reception the 105mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.8G received, are guiding their hands. Which is why I think that it's very important that reviews provide a much more comprehensive assessment of lenses, particularly in the OOF areas. The interest of the Nikon 58mm was lost on me for years until I gradually built a newfound appreciation for what it was trying to achieve.
> 
> I'm sure that Canon understands what Nikon is trying to achieve, and even that they're doing the same thing to some degree, but maybe this is where each lens engineer's personal sensibilities come into play, and they collectively don't feel quite as strongly as Nikon that this is a worthy endeavour to pursue ?



This has been an interesting discussion. You're spot on talking about compromise, and design aims. Wasn't the old story about the 85L f/1.2 that it was designed in close collaboration with (a?) fashion/portrait photographer(s?), and so it produced the type of image they wanted, giving all sorts of other compromises? Nowadays the prime concerns (of reviewers especially) seem to be sharpness (esp wide open and off centre) and AF performance, so those tend to be prioritised? Just a thought.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 24, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> 1.4/1.8/2.8 lens will come but exotic lens like this is why some people will stay with Canon.



I'm sure some will, but not many. A fraction of a stop is not, IMHO, such a big deal.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 24, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm sure some will, but not many. A fraction of a stop is not, IMHO, such a big deal.



A fraction of a stop isn't important, but Canon lens advantage is the way its render. 85 1.2L is still beloved despite there are so many flaw compared to modern design lens such as Sigma 85 1.4Art. A new 85 1.2 RF with faster AF, better built, and corrections of CA will be appreciate for their new EOS Pro camera for those who want it. 

I don't have the sale number from Canon for any particular lens, but they wouldn't be making it if it's not in their interest to do so.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2018)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Pretty sure they indeed wanted to release 2 R camera's like Nikon did, but delayed the 'Pro' one for some unknown reason.
> Maybe it has to do with the (firmware) performance not being adequate. Just look like how they released the R with a promised feature firmware update.


I think its hardware based, dual Digic 8 processors might have not been adequate, so newer ones (hinted at in Canon interviews), or they just decided to wait and see what was learned from the "R".


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 24, 2018)

With the mirrorless I'd expect every lens +1 stop. 1.4 EF lens should go R 1.0 ....

Fuji is going to release 35 mm 1.0 lens in 2019.


----------



## tron (Oct 24, 2018)

Franklyok said:


> With the mirrorless I'd expect every lens +1 stop. 1.4 EF lens should go R 1.0 ....
> 
> Fuji is going to release 35 mm 1.0 lens in 2019.


There is an existing EF85mm 1.2L so you have to expect an RF 85mm f/0.9 or so...

Oh and there is EF50 1.2 already but they made just a RF50mm 1.2L 

Not to mention an old EF50mm f/1.0 which would mean a new RF50mm f/0.7 ... 

It's interesting how people tend to generalize from a single case...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 24, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> _“We find the RF 24mm f/1.2L an interesting choice for the lineup, especially with the speed of the lens.”_
> 
> 24mm *is* an interesting choice but makes perfect sense given the 1.8x crop in 4K on the EOS-R. With that crop it will end up somewhere between a 40 and a 50mm, something a 35mm 1.2 could not do in video mode.
> 
> Plus, they need a fast wide for landscape photographers.


Could you please explain why landscape photographers need 1.4?


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 24, 2018)

tron said:


> There is an existing EF85mm 1.2L so you have to expect an RF 85mm f/0.9 or so...
> 
> Oh and there is EF50 1.2 already but they made just a RF50mm 1.2L
> 
> ...




Thats what i assume the R mount is able to do ... but cannon probably not gona do those - too heavy and expensive for poor people...
Canon enginers want to surprise us ... no surprise in this rumor...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2018)

I'm expecting a wider lens, for real estate, and photographing automobile interiors or similar cramped spaces, wider than 24mm is better. However, super wide apertures versus depth of field is a trade off, a f/1.2 would nor find much interest for auto interiors, but might be fine for real estate interiors. Something like 15mm f/1.4 would be interesting.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 24, 2018)

200 f1.8 next please


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 24, 2018)

tron said:


> There is an existing EF85mm 1.2L so you have to expect an RF 85mm f/0.9 or so...
> 
> Oh and there is EF50 1.2 already but they made just a RF50mm 1.2L
> 
> ...


Getting down to paper thin DOF. How useful is that?


----------



## Viggo (Oct 24, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Getting down to paper thin DOF. How useful is that?


All about the distance to subject


----------



## highdesertmesa (Oct 24, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Could you please explain why landscape photographers need 1.4?



Not all landscape shooters compose with the classic (overused, even) "object of interest" in the foreground leading back to mountains on the horizon. Most of what I shoot is at infinity focus, and wide aperture lenses allow me to shoot without a tripod well into twilight. They also double as "portrait" lenses of plants, rocks, and other features.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 24, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Getting down to paper thin DOF. How useful is that?



There is also something called the hyperfocal distance that comes in to play with wider lenses like this. It is the distance at which you can focus something, and based on your aperture and focal length everything beyond that will be in focus. I hope I am explaining that correctly as it has been a while since I used this phenomenon to take a photo. Essentially, you get a depth of field cheat doing this. So you can get wide aperture and some DOF at the same time. In my recollection, it is much more pronounced and usable in wide angle lenses than normal or telephoto lenses.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 24, 2018)

scyrene said:


> You win the 'strangest comment in the thread' award.



When shooting astro, I take substantial amounts of scopolamine. My eyes are fully dilated, and then some. And colors are nicely accentuated.

Umm...this is the strangest comment contest, right?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 24, 2018)

highdesertmesa said:


> Not all landscape shooters compose with the classic (overused, even) "object of interest" in the foreground leading back to mountains on the horizon. Most of what I shoot is at infinity focus, and wide aperture lenses allow me to shoot without a tripod well into twilight. They also double as "portrait" lenses of plants, rocks, and other features.


I'd like to try this. Thanks!


----------



## tron (Oct 24, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Getting down to paper thin DOF. How useful is that?


Maybe no useful at all. I was just replying to a
Franklyok '*s *post who made an unfounded generalizaton.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 24, 2018)

scyrene said:


> You win the 'strangest comment in the thread' award.



Strangest? I think it is a perfectly rational explanation for why I don't see the world like an f/1.2 lens wide open when in bright sunlight. There are of course other substances and occasions for dilating pupils artificially. I also don't go out taking pictures right after a visit to the eye doctor. In fact I try to do as little as possible outside in bright sunlight then, even in very dark sunglasses.


----------



## miggyt (Oct 25, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



fantastic news. canon's strength is in their ability to produce amazing lenses. focusing on f1.2 mirrorless lenses sounds like a very good strategy to me. sure its more expensive than a f1.4 but its still within the reach of professionals. its also definitely a bit heavier and bulkier but nothing too crazy like nikon's manual focus noct. just wish canon included IBIS.


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 25, 2018)

No IBIS and no IS ? How is canon going to hold up to competition? 

In the future I see only red color loving people buying canon...


----------



## Besisika (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> All about the distance to subject


As well as how fast it tracks the subject in video mode. The current 85 1.2 is very good with 1.4 crop factor and for full body; however it can't track fast enough even with a 1DX II.


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 25, 2018)

Besisika said:


> As well as how fast it tracks the subject in video mode. The current 85 1.2 is very good with 1.4 crop factor and for full body; however it can't track fast enough even with a 1DX II.



Canon would get lighting fast AF, if they'd put "5" AF motors in lens.


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> 200 f1.8 next please



This can be found in aftermarket. I like the idea of having no aftermarket competition. How about 70 - 200 F2 IS ? Probably 15K


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

Franklyok said:


> This can be found in aftermarket. I like the idea of having no aftermarket competition. How about 70 - 200 F2 IS ? Probably 15K


What do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.

Oh! And Canon should also bring back their 300 f1.8, I would love to have a go with one of those


----------



## Talys (Oct 25, 2018)

Franklyok said:


> This can be found in aftermarket. I like the idea of having no aftermarket competition. How about 70 - 200 F2 IS ? Probably 15K



Unfortunately, it would be massive


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 25, 2018)

Sometimes I wonder if people expect/deliver in their work or occupation at the same level as they expect Canon to. I suspect it's always someone else who should be delivering the best and not them. It'd be nice if I were wrong, but reading CR leaves me shaking my head an awful lot.

I have not the slightest doubt that Canon is delivering the best they can given the various constraints be they physical or financial. They are not interested in messing up purposefully and put a lot of research into the decisions they make. Yes, poor decisions can happen but overall I don't see any reason for the constant negativity directed their way. I certainly have no plan to jump ship.

Jack


----------



## tron (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> What do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.
> 
> Oh! And Canon should also bring back their 300 f1.8, I would love to have a go with one of those


There was an old Canon very good EF 200 f/1.8L


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

tron said:


> There was an old Canon very good EF 200 f/1.8L


Fully aware! But it’s not serviced anymore and it’s veeery old...


----------



## tron (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Fully aware! But it’s not serviced anymore and it’s veeery old...


Yes I know too. But this means they are perfectly capable of doing it again as an EF model too.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 25, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Strangest? I think it is a perfectly rational explanation for why I don't see the world like an f/1.2 lens wide open when in bright sunlight. There are of course other substances and occasions for dilating pupils artificially. I also don't go out taking pictures right after a visit to the eye doctor. In fact I try to do as little as possible outside in bright sunlight then, even in very dark sunglasses.



Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 25, 2018)

Franklyok said:


> No IBIS and no IS ? How is canon going to hold up to competition?
> 
> In the future I see only red color loving people buying canon...



Gosh, is everyone getting wobblier as time goes on? Somehow we've managed to take great photographs with non-IS non-IBIS setups for a long time!

I like IS, I'd like to try IBIS. But the idea that once a feature is introduced, any product without it is obsolete or unusable is one of the most ridiculous and pathetic tropes of our age (especially on these forums).


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

tron said:


> Yes I know too. But this means they are perfectly capable of doing it again as an EF model too.


You mean RF


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 25, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.



I guess it depends on individual brains but I see humans as more like video recorders not cameras but maybe that's because I don't have anything close to a "photographic memory". In fact that's why I love photography - it serves as an external memory since what I see is so fleeting and inaccurate even just minutes after the fact.

Jack


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> What do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.
> 
> Oh! And Canon should also bring back their 300 f1.8, I would love to have a go with one of those




Canon has done EF 200 F1.8 , https://petapixel.com/2017/05/20/canon-200mm-f1-8-legendary-lens-known-eye-sauron/


----------



## stevelee (Oct 25, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.



Sure, looking at the real world and looking at a picture are going to be very different experiences for reasons you cited as well as others. When you look at something (and everything works right), you have two eyes focused on it and a considerable amount of peripheral vision. Not only is the peripheral vision out of focus to a greater or lesser degree, but you are seeing with the less sensitive parts of the retina. Focusing on a distant object not only makes something much closer out of focus, but also gives double images. With dilated pupils in bright light, of course you are more aware of the washed-out look than the blurriness, even with somewhat dark glasses.

Just as the brain develops way of seeing in real life, so we develop a language, so to speak, of seeing pictures. I'm saying for me, extremely shallow depth of field comes off as a special effect, often a distracting one, like extreme HDR for another example. Yes, all photography is an effect in that sense. Some effects are more effective and/or realistic than others.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 25, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> I guess it depends on individual brains but I see humans as more like video recorders not cameras but maybe that's because I don't have anything close to a "photographic memory". In fact that's why I love photography - it serves as an external memory since what I see is so fleeting and inaccurate even just minutes after the fact.
> Jack



Perhaps video made with a fisheye lens approximates how we are experiencing the world as we move around as much as anything, if projected sufficiently large.

In response to the threat of television to their business, movie companies tried various ways to transcend what could be done on TV and perhaps give a more "realistic" appearance mimicking our vision: widescreen, Cinemascope, Cinerama, 3-D, and on up to the present Imax and Omnimax.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

Franklyok said:


> Canon has done EF 200 F1.8 , https://petapixel.com/2017/05/20/canon-200mm-f1-8-legendary-lens-known-eye-sauron/


Yeah, as stated before, I’m fully aware of that one, they also have a 300 f1.8 I bet most people don’t know...

That’s not the point, the point is RF lenses will be better than EF, and an RF lens made today will be EPICALLY better than an EF from the Stone Age.

Buying the EF 200 f1.8 today is expensive, and you have no way of knowing when it fails, and when it does you’re screwed, because it’s not serviced anymore, so it will be a paper weight... a very expensive one...


----------



## scyrene (Oct 25, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Just as the brain develops way of seeing in real life, so we develop a language, so to speak, of seeing pictures. I'm saying for me, extremely shallow depth of field comes off as a special effect, often a distracting one, like extreme HDR for another example. Yes, all photography is an effect in that sense. Some effects are more effective and/or realistic than others.



Oh, I see what you mean. And I agree. Shallow DOF work is unlike what we see, and in that sense a 'special effect'.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, as stated before, I’m fully aware of that one, they also have a 300 f1.8 I bet most people don’t know...
> 
> That’s not the point, the point is RF lenses will be better than EF, and an RF lens made today will be EPICALLY better than an EF from the Stone Age.
> 
> Buying the EF 200 f1.8 today is expensive, and you have no way of knowing when it fails, and when it does you’re screwed, because it’s not serviced anymore, so it will be a paper weight... a very expensive one...



Well it won't be serviced by Canon, but there are surely third party repair shops that might have a go? As more lenses fail, more spare parts are liberated (this is off topic I know).

Not sure about 'epically better' though, especially *due to* the RF mount. Optically a new 200mm lens should be better due to the way lenses are designed and made now compared to 30 years ago, and they are building to finer tolerances as sensors resolve more. But those issues are independent of the mount.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 25, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Well it won't be serviced by Canon, but there are surely third party repair shops that might have a go? As more lenses fail, more spare parts are liberated (this is off topic I know).
> 
> Not sure about 'epically better' though, especially *due to* the RF mount. Optically a new 200mm lens should be better due to the way lenses are designed and made now compared to 30 years ago, and they are building to finer tolerances as sensors resolve more. But those issues are independent of the mount.


Canon specifically has said that the RF mount lets them do lens designs that wasn’t possible with EF mount. 28-70 f2 sharper than the 24-70 both wide open, unprecedented lens, and I’m not even gonna mention the EF 50 L and the RF50 L, I did anyway

24 f1.2? I think a new 200 f1.8 in RF mount would be an instant classic...


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 25, 2018)

tron said:


> For astro there is a super lens: The Sigma 14mm 1.8 Art. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 (~1 stop) is covered by the fact that the wider Sigma can be used with almost twice the shutter time (It's a 14mm vs a 24mm) without startrails so you can use the same ISO. Assuming you need Ultra wide of course. I always do need it in landscape astrophotography photos.


And from everything I've read and actual samples I've seen, the Sigma 14mm may very well be the best Astro lens (at least in the UWA category) currently offered...


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 25, 2018)

As an aside...I


Architect1776 said:


> They likely will make RF lenses smaller and lighter as well. But I see them showing the pros "Here is what can be done" and stick with us on this one. Remember the first EOS were the 650/620 cameras. Nothing great and mind blowing about the bodies except they took the revolutionary EF lenses that blew the competition away for literally decades before the others caught up. Now you have the revolutionary RF mount with the extra control ring and ability to program the lens including which way to turn the focus ring. Leaving all others in the technology dust again.



As an aside (Off topic), I owned an EOS 620 - loved that camera. Then it was stolen out of my truck...


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Canon specifically has said that the RF mount lets them do lens designs that wasn’t possible with EF mount. 28-70 f2 sharper than the 24-70 both wide open, unprecedented lens, and I’m not even gonna mention the EF 50 L and the RF50 L, I did anyway
> 
> 24 f1.2? I think a new 200 f1.8 in RF mount would be an instant classic...


And instantly, insanely expensive too. However, after looking at a few different Leica lenses at B&H photo (online) recently, Canon lenses seem cheap - even the new 28-70mm RF f2.0L and the 50mm RF f1.2L.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 26, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> And instantly, insanely expensive too. However, after looking at a few different Leica lenses at B&H photo (online) recently, Canon lenses seem cheap - even the new 28-70mm RF f2.0L and the 50mm RF f1.2L.


The thing is though, I took some shots with the RF50 and I simply thought, “well, it could’ve cost more for this performance”... I can’t really afford it now, but no wonder it has price tag on it


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 26, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> A fraction of a stop isn't important, but Canon lens advantage is the way its render. 85 1.2L is still beloved despite there are so many flaw compared to modern design lens such as Sigma 85 1.4Art. A new 85 1.2 RF with faster AF, better built, and corrections of CA will be appreciate for their new EOS Pro camera for those who want it.



The 85mm f/1.2 rending is tied with it's lack of correction of certain flaws, such as CA. It's lack of speed it tied to the elements' size. Compensating for it requires a higher voltage battery, which the current EOS R camera doesn't have.



bokehmon22 said:


> I don't have the sale number from Canon for any particular lens, but they wouldn't be making it if it's not in their interest to do so.



Their interest could be as simple as 'the lens makes a small profit', or 'it paints Canon as making better lenses than Nikon'.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 26, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> They likely will make RF lenses smaller and lighter as well. But I see them showing the pros "Here is what can be done" and stick with us on this one. Remember the first EOS were the 650/620 cameras. Nothing great and mind blowing about the bodies except they took the revolutionary EF lenses that blew the competition away for literally decades before the others caught up. Now you have the revolutionary RF mount with the extra control ring and ability to program the lens including which way to turn the focus ring. Leaving all others in the technology dust again.



I'm glad these new high end lenses are available in case I need one some day. But right now I travel a lot and the weight is a big detractor. I need low light capability and some shallow DOF is nice, whereas ultimate sharpness is not that important. A good 50 f/1.4 and a couple of other f/2 primes would do the job nicely ... with IS please. f/2.8 for wide angle primes is fine. I'd love a 24 f/1.2 but it would probably stay home a lot because of it's huge weight and size.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 26, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> As an aside...I
> 
> 
> As an aside (Off topic), I owned an EOS 620 - loved that camera. Then it was stolen out of my truck...



I have the 650.
Too bad about your 620.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 26, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> The 85mm f/1.2 rending is tied with it's lack of correction of certain flaws, such as CA. It's lack of speed it tied to the elements' size. Compensating for it requires a higher voltage battery, which the current EOS R camera doesn't have.
> 
> 
> 
> Their interest could be as simple as 'the lens makes a small profit', or 'it paints Canon as making better lenses than Nikon'.



That's why Canon making pro lens for future pro body. 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 28-70 F2 isn't for consumer EOS R. 

Yes perception is very important. I'm actually more interest in Canon initial lens offering than Sony or Nikon initial FF mirrorless offering. Once they have these exotic lens released along with the trinity lens, there will be a worthy camera to use it. They might even have IBIS in their camera as well.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Could you please explain why landscape photographers need 1.4?



Why *wouldn’t* they want a fast lens? Maybe they want to do astrophotography as well. 

Yeah, you’re right- why Canon would make a 24mm 1.4 or 1.2 lens at all.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 26, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Why *wouldn’t* they want a fast lens? Maybe they want to do astrophotography as well.
> 
> Yeah, you’re right- why Canon would make a 24mm 1.4 or 1.2 lens at all.


I see plenty of good uses for fast lenses, and I use fast primes for portraits and events. I've just never considered personally using wide open for landscape, as I usually go with more DoF. Isolating a foreground subject, yes, but for a vista with depth, I haven't yet tried it. I'm happy to admit I don't know everything, and I love learning new techniques.
Thanks, highdesertmesa for your insights in an earlier reply!


----------



## tron (Oct 26, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Why *wouldn’t* they want a fast lens? Maybe they want to do astrophotography as well.
> 
> Yeah, you’re right- why Canon would make a 24mm 1.4 or 1.2 lens at all.


They (Canon) have a bad 24mm 1.4 lens (bad for coma not for sharpness) for astrophotography already and they can improve that too. But astrophotography is well served by Samyang and Sigma which can make very nice lenses for EF mount so Canon can do even better than them even for EF mount!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 26, 2018)

tron said:


> They (Canon) have a bad 24mm 1.4 lens (bad for coma not for sharpness) for astrophotography already and they can improve that too. But astrophotography is well served by Samyang and Sigma which can make very nice lenses for EF mount so Canon can do even better than them even for EF mount!


Actually, it’s bad for coma, horrible for CA, vignetting and sharpness. And highly inconsistent AF in most cases...


----------



## tron (Oct 27, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Actually, it’s bad for coma, horrible for CA, vignetting and sharpness. And highly inconsistent AF in most cases...


OK I didn't know all the other - actually I remembered the stories for AF. So in need for an update also in EF


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I see plenty of good uses for fast lenses, and I use fast primes for portraits and events. I've just never considered personally using wide open for landscape, as I usually go with more DoF. Isolating a foreground subject, yes, but for a vista with depth, I haven't yet tried it. I'm happy to admit I don't know everything, and I love learning new techniques.
> Thanks, highdesertmesa for your insights in an earlier reply!



It's understandable- my interest in fast wides was renewed when I recently picked up a Fuji 16mm 1.4 (24mm equivalent) for use on the X-T3. It's an amazing lens, so much so that It rarely leaves the camera. Not only is it a fast wide for street photography and any other application you may have, it has a less than 6" close working distance, enabling a macro ability that makes it incredibly versatile and fun to use.

Canon should really consider implementing this in whatever new wide angle they come up with as it increases the usefulness of a fast wide immensely.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 27, 2018)

tron said:


> They (Canon) have a bad 24mm 1.4 lens (bad for coma not for sharpness) for astrophotography already and they can improve that too. But astrophotography is well served by Samyang and Sigma which can make very nice lenses for EF mount so Canon can do even better than them even for EF mount!



Agreed. As per my other reply, Canon should really copy the Fuji 16mm 1.4 (24mm equivalent) if they really want to delight their customers.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 28, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Canon specifically has said that the RF mount lets them do lens designs that wasn’t possible with EF mount. 28-70 f2 sharper than the 24-70 both wide open, unprecedented lens, and I’m not even gonna mention the EF 50 L and the RF50 L, I did anyway
> 
> 24 f1.2? I think a new 200 f1.8 in RF mount would be an instant classic...



Sure, but just because the new mount allows some new designs compared to EF doesn't mean any and all imaginary lenses can be made, or can be made better due to being RF. People are hanging a lot of hopes on a few vague assertions by Canon. Nobody has explained how long lenses (such as a 200mm) would be improved by the new mount.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 28, 2018)

Yay! Now we will see if mirrorless f1.2 lenses will defy physics for FF and be smaller than an f1.8. 
I await the complaints.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 28, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Sure, but just because the new mount allows some new designs compared to EF doesn't mean any and all imaginary lenses can be made, or can be made better due to being RF. People are hanging a lot of hopes on a few vague assertions by Canon. Nobody has explained how long lenses (such as a 200mm) would be improved by the new mount.


I hardly think it's imaginary when they already have made one... If I had said 200 f1.2, I'm with you...


----------



## scyrene (Oct 28, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I hardly think it's imaginary when they already have made one... If I had said 200 f1.2, I'm with you...



I don't undestand what you're saying now. I thought you were claiming that an RF 200mm f/1.8 lens (or similar) would be superior to the EF one *because it is RF*. I'm saying that is unproven - do we know the new mount has advantages for longer lenses? If I've misunderstood, apologies.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 28, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Sure, but just because the new mount allows some new designs compared to EF doesn't mean any and all imaginary lenses can be made, or can be made better due to being RF. People are hanging a lot of hopes on a few vague assertions by Canon. Nobody has explained how long lenses (such as a 200mm) would be improved by the new mount.



And what's more, side by side, the differences between EF and RF 24-105 lenses are extremely subtle. I blew off version II of the EF because it wasn't any sharper, and even the "improved" RF version is full of compromises. Appears slightly better at the long end, but slightly worse(!) at the wide end...

I mean, not a bad lens, think it will be an adequate one-lens-fits-all travel kit, but it just simply isn't clearly superior to the EF version. Not in the way that the 50 1.2 is.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 28, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I don't undestand what you're saying now. I thought you were claiming that an RF 200mm f/1.8 lens (or similar) would be superior to the EF one *because it is RF*. I'm saying that is unproven - do we know the new mount has advantages for longer lenses? If I've misunderstood, apologies.


To me it’s pretty obvious that RF gives the opportunity for better lenses than EF... Clearly proved with the 50 f1.2 and 28-70 f2. What on earth would Canon create a new mount for otherwise?

It might not have been proven that longer lenses are also better with the RF mount, but I don’t see any reason they wouldn’t be better. The superteles for EF are already near perfect, but one of the the advantages of the RF mount is that it lets Canon reduce size or add quality. So a 200 f1.8 might easily be smaller and lighter than the EF f2.0, and at a larger aperture. How is this not obvious?


----------



## tron (Oct 28, 2018)

Act444 said:


> And what's more, side by side, the differences between EF and RF 24-105 lenses are extremely subtle. I blew off version II of the EF because it wasn't any sharper, and even the "improved" RF version is full of compromises. Appears slightly better at the long end, but slightly worse(!) at the wide end...
> 
> I mean, not a bad lens, think it will be an adequate one-lens-fits-all travel kit, but it just simply isn't clearly superior to the EF version. Not in the way that the 50 1.2 is.


Nice to remind of this because this is another thread full of BS from RF mount fans who don't even have EOS R yet!


----------



## jd7 (Oct 29, 2018)

Act444 said:


> And what's more, side by side, the differences between EF and RF 24-105 lenses are extremely subtle. I blew off version II of the EF because it wasn't any sharper, and even the "improved" RF version is full of compromises. Appears slightly better at the long end, but slightly worse(!) at the wide end...
> 
> I mean, not a bad lens, think it will be an adequate one-lens-fits-all travel kit, but it just simply isn't clearly superior to the EF version. Not in the way that the 50 1.2 is.


Hi Act444

I've been interested to hear more about the RF 24-105/4L. This review https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_rf_24_105mm_f4_l_is_review suggests the RF version is a step up from the EF versions, but I take it you disagree with that? I'm curious because for all the attention the RF 50/1.2L and 28-70/2L lenses are getting, I'll be struggling to see RF as being a significant improvement if it isn't delivering better performance than EF for things like the 24-105 and the 35/1.8 macro.

As for the RF 50/1.2L, it's a much newer, bigger and heavier lens than the the EF 50/1.2L. To me the more appropriate comparison is the RF 50/1.2L against things like the 50 Art and the Otus 55. From what I've seen so far, the RF 501.2L seems nice bearing in mind it has about a half-stop advantage in aperture, but subject to that it doesn't seem much better than, say, the 50 Art. For all the positive reviews I'm seeing about the RF 50/1.2L, the comparisons with the 50 Art don't blow me away, eg see https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/4/ and https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/09/25/review-canon-rf-50mm-f1-2-l-usm-canon-rf-mount/

Overall I'm more in interested in the EOS R than I expected to be (I really didn't expect to be interested at all), so I'm not trying to bash the R system. The thing which has got me most interested is what I've seen some people saying about the AF accuracy with wide apertures and in low light. However, I remain to be convinced about how much more the RF mount offers over EF. We shall see!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2018)

What I think is being voiced by a few and I have the same question, it's what advantage does the wider mount give in long lens development , like 300+ mm? So far I don't think Canon has made bold claims in that realm.

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Oct 29, 2018)

tron said:


> Nice to remind of this because this is another thread full of BS from RF mount fans who don't even have EOS R yet!


I think the main reason the 24-105 isn’t any better in RF mount is because cost ... and cost.... it’s a kit-lens that they want to be cheap enough for enough people to buy into the system and realize, well, it isn’t fantastic, but it didn’t cost insane amounts of money either; time to upgrade to a 28-70 f2 or a RF 24-70 IS... same goes for every other kit lens. It’s not that they couldn’t make it better, but it would be 2500 usd and that’s not it’s place in the line up.


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 29, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I think the main reason the 24-105 isn’t any better in RF mount is because cost.


I'm not sure about that. The Nikon 24-70mm f4 S is heaps and bounds better than previous 24-70mm lenses and doesn't cost and arm and leg. 
Perhaps Canon's 24-105mm RF has been designed within a set of parameters and requirements (designed for Canon's automated manufacturing lines, or for very low samples variation, or with a specific AF drive with video in mind, for example) which prevented Canon from significantly improving the IQ. 
One big advantage of the RF version, IMO, is that it allows the high speed function (p149 in the manual) to work, while I believe EF lenses don't.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 29, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I'm not sure about that. The Nikon 24-70mm f4 S is heaps and bounds better than previous 24-70mm lenses and doesn't cost and arm and leg.
> Perhaps Canon's 24-105mm RF has been designed within a set of parameters and requirements (designed for Canon's automated manufacturing lines, or for very low samples variation, or with a specific AF drive with video in mind, for example) which prevented Canon from significantly improving the IQ.
> One big advantage of the RF version, IMO, is that it allows the high speed function (p149 in the manual) to work, while I believe EF lenses don't.


Indeed, and I forgot to try that high speed viewing function when I tried the RF50 ... and I thought the AF was quite a bit better on the RF24-105?


----------



## tron (Oct 29, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I think the main reason the 24-105 isn’t any better in RF mount is because cost ... and cost.... it’s a kit-lens that they want to be cheap enough for enough people to buy into the system and realize, well, it isn’t fantastic, but it didn’t cost insane amounts of money either; time to upgrade to a 28-70 f2 or a RF 24-70 IS... same goes for every other kit lens. It’s not that they couldn’t make it better, but it would be 2500 usd and that’s not it’s place in the line up.


Maybe but then cost is the main reason for not making it better in EF mount too. But many posters were saying blindly about the RF mount lenses: better, cheaper, smaller...


----------



## padam (Oct 29, 2018)

6degrees said:


> Can’t wait for those two, even thought I prefer RF 20mm F1.2.
> 
> Sony releases a very competitive price, $1398, for Sony 24mm F1.4 GM:
> 
> ...



Canon is not looking to compete with Sony at all. The RF 50/1.2 L is the indication on how big or expensive these are going to be (after the holy trinity of zooms will be released, that is at a higher priority) the 24/1.2 L might be a bit smaller and the 85/1.2 L might be even a good bit bigger, but neither of them is going to be cheaper.
These lenses will be well over 2000$ and the higher aperture with a new level of optical performance will allow that pricing. Still, they look a bit of a bargain compared to Leica SL lenses.
The EF lenses are still there for people who want f/1.2 (or f/1.4) for a cheaper price.


----------



## tron (Oct 29, 2018)

padam said:


> Canon is not looking to compete with Sony at all. The RF 50/1.2 L is the indication on how big or expensive these are going to be (after the holy trinity of zooms will be released, that is at a higher priority) the 24/1.2 L might be a bit smaller and the 85/1.2 L might be bigger, but neither of them is going to be cheaper.
> These lenses will be comfortably over 2000$ and the higher aperture with a new level of optical performance will allow that pricing. Still, they look a bit of a bargain compared to Leica SL lenses.


Hmmm you must mean uncomfortably over 2000$


----------



## padam (Oct 29, 2018)

tron said:


> Hmmm you must mean uncomfortably over 2000$


I guess they will be a little bit less than the 28-70mm f/2, but not comfortably


----------



## Viggo (Oct 29, 2018)

tron said:


> Maybe but then cost is the main reason for not making it better in EF mount too. But many posters were saying blindly about the RF mount lenses: better, cheaper, smaller...


Better OR smaller, and not cheaper I think ...


----------



## tron (Oct 29, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Better OR smaller, and not cheaper I think ...


And in case of 24-105 all the above are questionable. The IQ of RF 24-105 is more or less the same with the IQ of EF24-105 II which is more or less the same with the IQ of EF 24-105 version I which - surpise - has the SAME size and weight with RF 24-105.

The only advantage is the IS improvement between all these 24-105 lenses.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 29, 2018)

tron said:


> And in case of 24-105 all the above are questionable. The IQ of RF 24-105 is more or less the same with the IQ of EF24-105 II which is more or less the same with the IQ of EF 24-105 version I which - surpise - has the SAME size and weight with RF 24-105.
> 
> The only advantage is the IS improvement between all these 24-105 lenses.


Still, it’s a kit lens and is known to be the worst L


----------



## tron (Oct 29, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Still, it’s a kit lens and is known to be the worst L


So for now there is no comparison of equal lenses. The EF50 is super old and they could make a much better EF50 1.2 if they wanted to. If they made a new RF35mm 1.4L would it be better than EF35mm 1.4L II? Based on the fact that this EF lens is super good let me guess: NO! Would it be cheaper? Let me guess NO! Would it be smaller? I seriously doubt it but they are free to make one so as to be able to compare apples to apples...


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 29, 2018)

Now Canon is going to have a new premium system hum?! Als those new lenses are also needed for EF! Not only R -.-.... the new 50 1.2 is a stunna! Also the 24 1.2f will be... I would buy those, but not for 2500€ per lens -.-. And only for EF. 

The are now splitting the Canon photographers into two systems!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 29, 2018)

Okay, Canon made a new mount because new and everything will stay the same, except the lenses are not interchangeable. Yesssshh, that seems logical ....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 29, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Okay, Canon made a new mount because new and everything will stay the same, except the lenses are not interchangeable. Yesssshh, that seems logical ....



We, including Canon, know that this was a necessary unfortunate move that technology has demanded if Canon is to stay on top. These kind of moves always disadvantage customers in one way or another. My purchased Canon gear is still as good as it ever was and I now may have the option of dabbling in the R system (camera initially) with the benefit of a great solution to NDs for my 11-24. Then, it's my choice as to whether I fork out for some of these impressive new lenses. Should I gripe?

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Oct 30, 2018)

tron said:


> So for now there is no comparison of equal lenses. The EF50 is super old and they could make a much better EF50 1.2 if they wanted to. If they made a new RF35mm 1.4L would it be better than EF35mm 1.4L II? Based on the fact that this EF lens is super good let me guess: NO! Would it be cheaper? Let me guess NO! Would it be smaller? I seriously doubt it but they are free to make one so as to be able to compare apples to apples...


I would guess that 35mm would be in the range that could benefit from the new mount. Wouldn’t there be need for less strong retrofocus and then less correction to compensate, so maybe fewer elements to do the same thing and maybe more room to compensate for other things? Maybe less vignetting? There would seem to be options for some mix of smaller/cheaper/better.

I’m obviously guessing and may have the terminology garbled, but do I have at least sort of a point? If not, then I wonder why a new mount.


----------



## BillB (Oct 30, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I would guess that 35mm would be in the range that could benefit from the new mount. Wouldn’t there be need for less strong retrofocus and then less correction to compensate, so maybe fewer elements to do the same thing and maybe more room to compensate for other things? Maybe less vignetting? There would seem to be options for some mix of smaller/cheaper/better.
> 
> I’m obviously guessing and may have the terminology garbled, but do I have at least sort of a point? If not, then I wonder why a new mount.


At this point the discussion of potential quality of RF lens lenses is largely theoretical, speculative or anecdotal. There is the question of how much room for improvement there is beyond the quality of the best EF lenses in practical terms. A lot of EF lenses are pretty good, especially in the f4.0-f8.0 range, which is where I tend to be.


----------



## Dim (Nov 7, 2018)

I need 35 1.2 and 135 1.2. I've already have EF 35 1.4 II - it's perfect lens!


----------



## zim (Nov 7, 2018)

tron said:


> So for now there is no comparison of equal lenses. The EF50 is super old and they could make a much better EF50 1.2 if they wanted to. If they made a new RF35mm 1.4L would it be better than EF35mm 1.4L II? Based on the fact that this EF lens is super good let me guess: NO! Would it be cheaper? Let me guess NO! Would it be smaller? I seriously doubt it but they are free to make one so as to be able to compare apples to apples...




^^^ This ^^^
The Canon white paper was a joke in this respect. I'm surprised it wasn't more widely criticised.
Just realised I've been here before on this subject!


----------



## Timedog (Nov 12, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> 50 1.2 and 28-70 F2 definitely are stunner. They already patented 70-130 F2. I wouldn't be surprised they are working on 14-28 as well. I just hope they come out with 105 1.4 too.


If they release a 70-130 f/2 so many portrait photographers will either buy it or sales vate over it (if they're not Canon shooters, or don't have the budget). That will be an amazing lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 12, 2018)

zim said:


> ^^^ This ^^^
> The Canon white paper was a joke in this respect. I'm surprised it wasn't more widely criticised.
> Just realised I've been here before on this subject!



What makes you say the Canon white paper was a joke? Even Roger Cicala seems to have fate in it: 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anonnikon-mirrorless-camera-unfanboy-opinion/ 

I expect the R mount to have size, weight and quality advantages over the EF mount especially for wide angle lenses, but not for telephoto lenses.


----------



## zim (Nov 12, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> What makes you say the Canon white paper was a joke? Even Roger Cicala seems to have fate in it:
> 
> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anonnikon-mirrorless-camera-unfanboy-opinion/
> 
> I expect the R mount to have size, weight and quality advantages over the EF mount especially for wide angle lenses, but not for telephoto lenses.



you missed out 'in this respect' I'm only talking about the 50 comparison.
because I think it's nonsense to compare the sharpness of the 50l ef to the new 50r, how many years apart are those lenses, how different was the design criteria's, hardly apples with apples. and yet that is what they choose to show off how much better they can do with a new mount.

edit;
having said all that I'm pretty intrigued when I read articles like this
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2018/10/21/that-old-canon-50-f-1-2-ef-rocks-on-the-eos-r/
I'd love to hear if anyone on CR has tried this combo and what they think


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 13, 2018)

This topic has me thinking Canon senses that their strength in the market is largely due to lenses and that they now will be able to differentiate themselves more due to advantages relative to the choice they've just made. What would be better than to have a series of lenses that have been independently evaluated as being noticeably better than the opposition, even if they are more pricey.

Jack


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 13, 2018)

zim said:


> you missed out 'in this respect' I'm only talking about the 50 comparison.
> because I think it's nonsense to compare the sharpness of the 50l ef to the new 50r, how many years apart are those lenses, how different was the design criteria's, hardly apples with apples. and yet that is what they choose to show off how much better they can do with a new mount.
> 
> edit;
> ...




Well, the 35L was a big part of the discussion when you slammed the white paper, and we all know that the EF and RF 50L- lenses are designed wastly different, so you can not draw any conclusions on the white paper validity out of the 50mm lens offerings.

I am one of the most eager defenders of the EF 50L on this forums. It has given me a substantial amount of the pictures I love the most. It sure has it's flaws, but when you hit with the focus, it creates much of the same qualities that the 85LII is known for. It does offer a special quality, that does not show up in mtf charts and standardized testing. I am not a Steve Huff fan myself, but I very much agree on his opinion of the EF 50L.

I have used the EF 50L on the EOS R quite a bit. It focuses substantially more accurately on the EOS R, than on my DSLRs. However, for some reason I have way more problems with focus shift than I have with DSLRs. The EF50L will focus great on the EOS R between f1.2 and f2, but stop down to f3.5, and you will consequently get back focused images. I haven't noticed that problem with either my 1DXII or 5DIV. This is a disappointment, because the EF50L can still offer fantastic bokeh at f3.5.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 13, 2018)

I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO. 
The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII. 
Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 13, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO.
> The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
> Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII.
> Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.


You speak like what you’re saying are facts ...


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 13, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO.
> The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
> Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII.
> Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.



I agree with regards to the possibility of a development of an "EF II" variant with better communication. I am sure that could be done. 

Other than that, I disagree with your statements.

Did you read Canons "white paper", or at least Roger Cicalas take on it? If not, you wont be able to convince anybody who did read it, that there aren't substantial upsides to the new RF-mount.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 13, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm not buying the RF mount is way more better than the EF. I hear the discussion about the faster bus / communication speed. But those benefits could easily be integrated to the DSLR range with an EF II warm over. it could easily be backwards compatible with existng EF comms. Some of the RF's contacts handle the new control ring...which is rather superflous on a lens IMHO.
> The RF 50mm f1.2 is a beautiful lens. But it's not much better optically than Sigma's f1.4 variant. Canon could easily have made a similar performing 50mm f1.2 / 1.4 EF lens. So I can't help wonder if the RF mount hype is just a bit of smoke and mirrors to sell the new camera and give the impression that the RF mount has more magic sauce. The truth is that the current 85L (1.4 and 1.2 versions) would benefit very little from the RF mount. Except to add a control ring...and charge an extra £1K for it...
> Lets face it....all of the RF lenses are massively over priced for what they are and the Eos R is also overpriced for what is essentially a mirrorless 6DmkII.
> Sure, it's a new market and new mount and format. But for me, it's an overpriced and over hyped toy. Call me when there's a serious camera body that's realistically priced.



What are you basing your claims about the RF mount off of? Tell us your analysis based on optics, the physics of light, and how flange distance affects the lens performance.

Another important question: have you shot with the R and the RF lenses? If so, which ones? For how long in what conditions? Do you personally have a side by side comparing the lenses you claim are similar? What, specifically, did YOU (not a reviewer, but you personally) not like about the RF compared to the Sigma? How do you feel the adapter changed the feel of the combo? What features did you notice were missing when using an adapter lens? _Point is, I don't believe you've had anywhere near the experience necessary to make these claims, and I'm curious if you can back up these wild assertions with anything resembling actual hands on time with these lenses. _

Finally, on what do you base the claim that Canon could have made a similarly performing EF lens? What makes you so confident about that? In your estimation, why would Canon NOT have done that, if in your opinion they could? Please address from both an engineering and a business point of view.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 13, 2018)

Wow, this is getting pretty scientific, and the data simply isn't there. In other words lets just say we all have opinions, not facts, and enjoy them as such.

I do have quite a bit of faith in Canon knowing what they are doing and fully expect the new mount will have significant benefits. Of course many think Canon is "stupid". We shall see.

Jack


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 13, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Wow, this is getting pretty scientific, and the data simply isn't there. In other words lets just say we all have opinions, not facts, and enjoy them as such.
> 
> I do have quite a bit of faith in Canon knowing what they are doing and fully expect the new mount will have significant benefits. Of course many think Canon is "stupid". We shall see.
> 
> Jack



Seriously? Folks come in here making wild claims with no basis, and when I ask for specifics, that gets a negative comment? Lovely. This board is full of utterly incoherent posts from people with no real-world experience. If we want this forum to be anything other than a collection of baseless opinions, people need to be called out on their baseless statements and be asked to put up or shut up. Unreal.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 13, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Seriously? Folks come in here making wild claims with no basis, and when I ask for specifics, that gets a negative comment? Lovely. This board is full of utterly incoherent posts from people with no real-world experience. If we want this forum to be anything other than a collection of baseless opinions, people need to be called out on their baseless statements and be asked to put up or shut up. Unreal.



Was my comment negative? I sure didn't intend it to be. As others have said, I also am OK with opinions but not when they are stated as fact. However, I don't want to try to dictate what anyone wishes to say, incoherent or otherwise. Not against the science either when in fact it is good science. Some of the comments are even good for a laugh and that's a plus.

Jack


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> What are you basing your claims about the RF mount off of? Tell us your analysis based on optics, the physics of light, and how flange distance affects the lens performance.
> 
> Another important question: have you shot with the R and the RF lenses? If so, which ones? For how long in what conditions? Do you personally have a side by side comparing the lenses you claim are similar? What, specifically, did YOU (not a reviewer, but you personally) not like about the RF compared to the Sigma? How do you feel the adapter changed the feel of the combo? What features did you notice were missing when using an adapter lens? _Point is, I don't believe you've had anywhere near the experience necessary to make these claims, and I'm curious if you can back up these wild assertions with anything resembling actual hands on time with these lenses. _
> 
> Finally, on what do you base the claim that Canon could have made a similarly performing EF lens? What makes you so confident about that? In your estimation, why would Canon NOT have done that, if in your opinion they could? Please address from both an engineering and a business point of view.



I am allowed to hold any opinion I want based on my real world experiences. My opinions are not subject to you. It's a public forum. 
The RF mount allows lenses to have a closer rear element to the senor...that's a fact. On DSLR lens design this only effects wide angle lenses that are generally wider than 45mm (due to the mirror box). Most wide lenses under 50mm are therefore retrofocus designs. See this blog here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/
Retrofocus designs are not required for lenses like the 85mm f1.2 because there is no requirement for the rear element to be close to the film plane. Ergo....Canon can easily make a 50mm f1.2 EF lens that is optically as good as the RF version. Sigma have managed it as have other lens marques. I'm sure the RF 24mm f1.4L will be superior but an 85mm design doesn't have any optical advantage in being an RF mount.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 14, 2018)

Thanks for that link - good for novices like me. 

"I have no opinion about this. I have no opinion about that. I don't want no part of your crazy love"  I'd rather keep CR "light", after all, I read it for the humour.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> .... an 85mm design doesn't have any optical advantage in being an RF mount.



I don't believe that is true, have you seen the rear element of an EF 85 f1.2L? Don't forget your point about retro focus lenses holds good for simple lenses but breaks down when you make complicated designs and doesn't allow for focal length breathing when focused closer than infinity. The EF 85mm f1.2 II L has the rear element back in the mount as far as possible and as large as possible. Indeed the 85 f1.2 MkI shares many parts with the 50 f1.0, which pushed lens aperture and design as far as it could go at the time for the EF mount.

Now I'd agree that the rear element placing presents no issues for a fast 100mm for either an EF or R lens mount.


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 14, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I am allowed to hold any opinion I want based on my real world experiences. My opinions are not subject to you. It's a public forum.



What are you talking about? I didn't say you weren't _allowed_ to have an opinion. Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do. 



GMCPhotographics said:


> The RF mount allows lenses to have a closer rear element to the senor...that's a fact. On DSLR lens design this only effects wide angle lenses that are generally wider than 45mm (due to the mirror box). Most wide lenses under 50mm are therefore retrofocus designs.




This is not a dSLR. It's a mirrorless. And since you don't appear to be an engineer, why exactly should we take your claims about this "only affecting wide angle lenses" seriously? 

Here's a question I doubt you'll be able to answer: If your claim is accurate that the new mount doesn't have any real advantages at 50mm, why is the RF 50mm so sharp in the corners, whereas other ultrafast 50s struggle there? Don't you think if Canon could update the optical formula of the EF 50 1.2 to improve corner performance they would have? The point is, the RF mount appears to allow engineers to make fewer compromises. The Sigma 50 1.4 Art is noticeably less sharp than the RF 50. Considering the only 50-ish lens that competes performance-wise with the RF 50 1.2 is the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 Otus (see side-by-side here), I don't think your claim really stands up. 




GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm sure the RF 24mm f1.4L will be superior but an 85mm design doesn't have any optical advantage in being an RF mount.



On what do you base this claim?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 14, 2018)

Here is what I see. Opinions are free and easy to voice and they need not have any merit at all, as mentioned, they could be just air. That's OK, PROVIDED, no action is taken,i.e a purchase based on the opinion. Most of us on CR would prefer information and informed opinions that we can use in making a purchase (unless we're just curious observers). That's why I (others disagree) always appreciated Neuro coming in with his challenges to various opinions that seemed to be stated as fact. Others would presumably prefer he be banned; shame on them (I admit he is occasionally a little caustic - it doesn't phase me because I don't make claims when I don't know what I'm talking about, usually).

Like it or not CR has anything and everything and we are left to sort it out, hopefully in a friendly manner.

My somewhat uninformed opinion is that the new mount is obviously most beneficial for wider lenses, beyond that I'll be pleasantly surprised. I hope I am surprised!!

Now where is the higher level R? I'm impatient.

Jack


----------



## eyeheartny (Nov 14, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Here is what I see. Opinions are free and easy to voice and they need not have any merit at all, as mentioned, they could be just air. That's OK, PROVIDED, no action is taken,i.e a purchase based on the opinion. Most of us on CR would prefer information and informed opinions that we can use in making a purchase (unless we're just curious observers). That's why I (others disagree) always appreciated Neuro coming in with his challenges to various opinions that seemed to be stated as fact. Others would presumably prefer he be banned; shame on them (I admit he is occasionally a little caustic - it doesn't phase me because I don't make claims when I don't know what I'm talking about, usually).
> 
> Like it or not CR has anything and everything and we are left to sort it out, hopefully in a friendly manner.
> 
> ...



I'm always looking for new forums to join that have informed, thoughtful commentary. That seems to be utterly absent on most threads on this place. Unfortunate. I'll stick to the main page for news but these forums are an absolute joke.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 14, 2018)

eyeheartny, it's clearly not an absolute joke. I've received lots of help in making purchases and in other cases just getting information. There are good informed people on CR (and the opposite too) but obviously you need to be elsewhere for your own needs to be met. When information is not yet fully out in the public domain, how can anyone be an expert on it? And, it is a rumours site, after all.

Short of restricting who can join there is no forum that will not be a time waster to some extent.

Jack


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't believe that is true, have you seen the rear element of an EF 85 f1.2L? Don't forget your point about retro focus lenses holds good for simple lenses but breaks down when you make complicated designs and doesn't allow for focal length breathing when focused closer than infinity. The EF 85mm f1.2 II L has the rear element back in the mount as far as possible and as large as possible. Indeed the 85 f1.2 MkI shares many parts with the 50 f1.0, which pushed lens aperture and design as far as it could go at the time for the EF mount.
> 
> Now I'd agree that the rear element placing presents no issues for a fast 100mm for either an EF or R lens mount.



Yes I've happen to have owned and regularly use one in a professional context since 2010. The rear element fills the throat of the rear mount and the contacts are placed on a floating plate that sits on the rear element. It's an amazing piece of engineering. The 50mm f1.0L is a similar design and certainly the two were designed together. There's not many common parts between the two lenses except the aesthetics and the ball baring in the AF mechanism. I have friend in Swindon who is a Canon lens collector. I've handled and used his 50mm F1.0 L several times. It's a nice lens, over sized, slow AF and hugely over priced on the S/H market. It makes some nice images...but it's a very flawed lens. in many ways. 

I've never been too fussed in a little variation in sharpness between lenses. But I've found the Canon ef 50mm lenses somewhat disappointing. I've never found any of the ef 50mm f1.2 L lenses very sharp. Everything else about that lens is fantastic. Although I found the AF hunts a lot in low light. The Sigma lens (on 5DIII and mk4 bodies) to be lot sharper optically. But a lot more inconsistent with it's AF accuracy. A very hit and miss lens. I don't have much faith in Sigma as a brand and my experiences with Sigma are well documented here in these forums. I do believe that Canon can make an optically impressive 50mm, but they don't seem to be motivated to do so on the EF mount. If Canon can make an amazing 35mm f1.4 II L and an amazing 85mm f1.4....then how hard can a 50mm be? 

I've been a long time frequenter of these forums. I post many of my images here in the various lens threads (unlike a lot of the so called experts here) and I like to consider myself as a contributor. There are guys in this forum that I don't often agree with, but I listen to their arguments or opinions because I respect them and we've all been here a long time. I also respect their opinion and contribution. 

But I do get fed up with some of the idiots on here who pop up out of nowhere...post a few posts and then question every one they don't like and think that we are all required to justify everything we say or do...while offering no images or contribution in return. This forum is at it's best when people get off these threads and delve into the actual photography...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 15, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> What are you talking about? I didn't say you weren't _allowed_ to have an opinion. Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you come here...like a newbie....throwing your weight around and yet you contribute nothing in the way of your photographs or portfolio. I am not answerable to you and my opinions are forged from my real world professional experience. I've been here a long time and my voice carries weight because I have been known here. The only joke here is you. You are the one pointing the finger, taking offence where none was intended and the only bloating seems to come from your own over worded and rather personally directed posts. If you feel that this forum isn't worthy of you...it' probably isn't and I for one won't miss your attitude or your unspectacular 44 post. Got any good recent photos that might sway my opinion of you?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 15, 2018)

BTW, where's neuro? Oh me oh my, what we have to tolerate, but it's nothing compared to when the 6D came out. If I'd been on CR then I might not have bought that most capable little camera - they came out of the woodwork faulting it because it HAD WiFi. Believe me it's true.

Then there are the authorities that would have you believe that if you place an EF 2X III on a 300 2.8 II all your photos will be ... well, very poor. In fact, you should never place one of those gizmos on any respectable lens. OK. Glad I didn't know that. 

I came to CR as a complete ignoramus posting incorrectly and asking "dumb" questions and I never once was attacked ... because ... I'm a sincere half decent person who tries to contribute in spite of not knowing much and try hard to stay away from personal attacks. And I've learned a lot being here.

Hmm, I think also of how we've had to endure DR, that dynamic without which it is not possible to take a decent photo if it's below 14. Everyone should know that, right. 

Never the less, I'm glad CR isn't constantly being censored over opinions and I can always split from a thread when I've had enough. Long live CR!

Jack


----------



## jd7 (Nov 15, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> BTW, where's neuro?



And where's ahsanford? They have both been conspicuous by their absence - I think ever since about the time the EOS R was announced?


----------



## padam (Nov 15, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The Sigma lens (on 5DIII and mk4 bodies) to be lot sharper optically. But a lot more inconsistent with it's AF accuracy. A very hit and miss lens. I don't have much faith in Sigma as a brand and my experiences with Sigma are well documented here in these forums.


They might gain a new lease of life on the EOS R though, because I found the focusing to be consistently good in live-view (on a 6D Mark II), I just don't like using the rear screen at all times.
Looking at images, I do prefer the look of the RF 50/1.2 over the Sigma EF 50/1.4, I'm just not sure it worth 4 times the price. I wonder if they are going to bother with converting the mount to RF (or Z-mount) like with E-mount but with three different EF-RF adapters, there is probably no need for it.


----------



## BillB (Nov 15, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> What are you talking about? I didn't say you weren't _allowed_ to have an opinion. Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





jd7 said:


> And where's ahsanford? They have both been conspicuous by their absence - I think ever since about the time the EOS R was announced?





jd7 said:


> And where's ahsanford? They have both been conspicuous by their absence - I think ever since about the time the EOS R was announced?


Don't know about ahsanford, but neuro has been posting on some threads, such as the one on M cameras.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 15, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> But I do get fed up with some of the idiots on here who pop up out of nowhere...post a few posts and then question every one they don't like and think that we are all required to justify everything we say or do...while offering no images or contribution in return.



Could't agree more. I believe I am a reasonable contributor as well and whilst I don't post images to the lens threads I have posted hundreds of illustrative images in regular threads to illustrate or demonstrate something.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 15, 2018)

eyeheartny said:


> Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.



As opposed to your bloviating, groundless, sweeping generalizations to which you offer dishonest support and call the poster who does supply illustrative images _"stupid"_ and _"idiotic"?_

I supported my 'opinion' (which is basic photography 201) with actual images that destroyed your 'evidence', you replied with curtness and insults, just who is setting the tone here?

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...2-trying-to-be-too-many-things-at-once.36278/


----------



## bokehmon22 (Nov 18, 2018)

Timedog said:


> If they release a 70-130 f/2 so many portrait photographers will either buy it or sales vate over it (if they're not Canon shooters, or don't have the budget). That will be an amazing lens.



They will either complain about the size, weight, and cost just like the 28-70 F2 even though they secretly lust over it. People always find something to complain about it nowadays.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2019)

razorzec said:


> At F1.2 you get -6 EV AF sensitivity in low light with an EOS R. I'm not sure if future RF bodies would get even better but right now this is a serious advantage in the Canon MILC line.


Yep and that's why f1.2 is so awesome. Hand held with a 1/25th shutter speed at f1.2...it can shoot in very very low light levels. The 85 f1.2's weakness in terms of low light shooting is the 1/85th sec shutter speed...although that's still quite fast for a telephoto. The 135L looses due to the dimmer f2 aperture and the need to shoot at 1/125th min shutter speed...although the results are very nice. 

The 24L is usually the wide companion to the 50L in wedding photographer's bags. A 35L is usually the wide portrait lens of choice to mate with a 85L (certainly in my bag). So I wonder if Canon will release a Rf 135L and Rf 35L next. The slim 85 f1.2's DOF will certainly be a challenge for the Eos R's AF system. 

There isn't any technical reason Canon hasn't gone down the f1.2 route for the ef wide lenses such as the ef 24L and ef 35L. If Canon can produce the sublime ef 85mm f1.2 L which carries a lot more glass and heavy mechanicals than a f1.2 24mm ever would. If often wondered why that ef 135 replacement hasn't pushed the aperture to f1.8...the front 72mm element will support that aperture....just and easily support it if the front element is pushed to 77mm. Anything faster would be a huge front element.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Same here!
> Somehow I am quite lucky that I haven't invested much in EF L pimes yet  . For sure this will be expensive, but...
> Now I can start saving



Lol...I found a 35L and 85L to be a more useful combo for my shooting. I tend to use a 16-35 for anything wider. I find f2.8 to be fine for anything under 24mm for the light levels I'm shooting in. In fact a 3 camera set up with a 16-35L / 35L / 85L /135L lens options...I regularly shoot whole weddings with that kit. I swap out the 85L for the 135L if I need a longer tele. 
I really like the ef 24IIL but sold it a few years ago as I wasn't using it as much as I thought I would. I think that the ef 50 f1.2 L is such a disappointing lens optically that the 24L was a bit orphaned in my bag and I found the 16-35L to be more versatile. The current ef primes (except the 50L) work very well on the Eos R....so these new dedicated R mount lenses have big shoes to fill.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2019)

bokehmon22 said:


> They will either complain about the size, weight, and cost just like the 28-70 F2 even though they secretly lust over it. People always find something to complain about it nowadays.


It's called Cognative Dissonance. I have a Supercharged V8 Jag convertible....most people's opening comment when they see it for the first time...is..."Wow I bet that drinks fuel". Same dissonance. If they can't have...they diss. It's natural and normal although sad and jarring.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 11, 2019)

«The slim 85 f1.2's DOF will certainly be a challenge for the Eos R's AF system»

A much less challenge than any DSLR that’s for sure.

I just shot three soccer matches at f1.2 with the 50 last night and it was mind blowing. I’ve shot the same venue several times, include with 1dx2 plus 85 f1.4 L IS, and it was not a close call, even with nearly three times faster frame rate. So I have no doubt the RF85 will be much, much better than 85 L IS or the EF 85 f1.2 on a DSLR.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2019)

Viggo said:


> «The slim 85 f1.2's DOF will certainly be a challenge for the Eos R's AF system»
> 
> A much less challenge than any DSLR that’s for sure.
> 
> I just shot three soccer matches at f1.2 with the 50 last night and it was mind blowing. I’ve shot the same venue several times, include with 1dx2 plus 85 f1.4 L IS, and it was not a close call, even with nearly three times faster frame rate. So I have no doubt the RF85 will be much, much better than 85 L IS or the EF 85 f1.2 on a DSLR.



I find with the 85L on a EOS DSLR, the single point fine focus (Single shot) mode works best for non moving targets. Very high keeper rate and accuracy, but not so good for moving targets. I have to expect a slightly lower AF accuracy with multi-point Servo mode. But that's because i'm an AF accuracy junky....I get peeved when I see a slightly off focus image from my 85L. 
Back in the 5DII days, I used to use the center point only...focus and recompose method...I get real good at it and fast too. Even then, I used to use the fine focus VF screen to see the slim DOF through the view finder and I could easily adjust the full time manual focus if it was even slightly off. But the fine focus point AF on the MkIII/4 and Dx range of cameras pretty much nails it these days. Going over to a MkIII (when it was first launched) was an AF liberation/revelation.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 11, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Why is a RF 24mm f/1.2L so exciting - shallow DOF and a wider view.



If you ever happen to shoot with a Leica M 1,4/24 you'll certainly know why; a really exciting lens, and the Canon might be just as good!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2019)

padam said:


> They might gain a new lease of life on the EOS R though, because I found the focusing to be consistently good in live-view (on a 6D Mark II), I just don't like using the rear screen at all times.
> Looking at images, I do prefer the look of the RF 50/1.2 over the Sigma EF 50/1.4, I'm just not sure it worth 4 times the price. I wonder if they are going to bother with converting the mount to RF (or Z-mount) like with E-mount but with three different EF-RF adapters, there is probably no need for it.


True...but there is a colossal price difference between the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and the RF 50mm f1.2L...plus the cost of the camera body (assuming you already have an EOS full frame DSLR). That's a lot of cash just for a single lens upgrade. Naturally....a different prospect if you are thinking of going mirror-less anyhow.
For me...I'm very happy with the results and lenses I already have. I'm currently using a pair of 5DIII's and getting great results. When the 5DIII was launched, the extra price levy over the mkII caused me to move my camera body replacement to a 4 year cycle from a 2-3 year cycle. This year, I'll need to flip the oldest of my 5DIII's for a mk4. I see little incentive to make my primary camera an Eos R. But next year, when it's time to flip my other mkIII...I might be more interested. Also by then, the lens price will have dropped to more realistic price point.
I think all the big gains have been made in the full frame 35mm format. So there aren't the technical incentives to be an early adopter of gear any more. The previous generation of kit is still very very competent.
I'm still using an ef 400mm f2.8 LIS (mkI). It's an astonishing lens, AF and optically. Probably one of the finest Canon has ever made. It's been superseded twice now with a mkIII...which is eye wateringly expensive...and not much different optically. So all I gain is a weight reduction (which is a lot)...but optically and functionally...there is little difference between them. Certainly little in the end results.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 11, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I find with the 85L on a EOS DSLR, the single point fine focus (Single shot) mode works best for non moving targets. Very high keeper rate and accuracy, but not so good for moving targets. I have to expect a slightly lower AF accuracy with multi-point Servo mode. But that's because i'm an AF accuracy junky....I get peeved when I see a slightly off focus image from my 85L.
> Back in the 5DII days, I used to use the center point only...focus and recompose method...I get real good at it and fast too. Even then, I used to use the fine focus VF screen to see the slim DOF through the view finder and I could easily adjust the full time manual focus if it was even slightly off. But the fine focus point AF on the MkIII/4 and Dx range of cameras pretty much nails it these days. Going over to a MkIII (when it was first launched) was an AF liberation/revelation.


Yeah, I meant the RF85 or EF 85 f1.2 L on a DSLR, not an adapted EF lens on the R.

I found the 85 L IS adapted to the R better than on the 1dx2, but the RF50 is way better to use. But accuracy I did not check all that much for soccer with 85 L adapted to the R.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2019)

Just playing with some maths....an 82mm front element could produce a 98.4mm f1.2 Optic...Now THAT would be a really interesting lens. Slightly shorter than the Sigma 105mm f1.4 but slightly brighter.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 11, 2019)

The fly in the ointment regarding AF accuracy is that as we age our eyesight diminishes, sadly, I would not go for manual focus.

Jack


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Lol...I found a 35L and 85L to be a more useful combo for my shooting. ...


As I am a 85 mm fan I was more referring to this FL. And from my perspective I can second your preferences at the wide end as well.



> ... The current ef primes (except the 50L) work very well on the Eos R....so these new dedicated R mount lenses have big shoes to fill.


True here as well. But when I look at the two RF primes already available, I am quite sure that Canon can deliver here, too - if they want to.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2019)

I think it's safe to say as the R family grows and gains momentum that there could be some improvement/features that make the glass excel beyond L level, not necessarily optically but say with IS or in lens computing, so they will sell the glass. How wonderful that all the other glass is still available to use and  for Canon. Stupid Canon.

Jack


----------



## hmatthes (Feb 13, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> The fly in the ointment regarding AF accuracy is that as we age our eyesight diminishes, sadly, I would not go for manual focus.
> 
> Jack


Another reason that the R is perfect for our old eyes... I use AF but touch up focus sometimes. The R rewards me with manual focus "assist" with focus highlighting or the focus arrows. If the R picks the wrong eye (in my mind) I instantly make minor adjustment and fire. My actual success rate is higher than I had with the EOS DSLRs.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2019)

Regarding mirrorless, perhaps a dumb question but I'm wondering if the AF point sensitivity varies in the same way that it does with a DSLR - the centre is most sensitive and then it falls off depending on the particular lens used. I seem to recall this is a function of the lens and peripheral light transmission. For example if you are shooting with a X2 and at F8 or beyond are the outer points essentially useless ?

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Feb 13, 2019)

I still don't follow all the discussion about having one eye in focus and one eye out of focus. I've seen only a handful of pictures that work in my opinion with composition like that, certainly not enough for that to be someone's prime camera criterion.

If someone has a link to a Great One-Eyed Portraits site or know of a good photographer who does neat things with that style, please post.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 6, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's called Cognative Dissonance. I have a Supercharged V8 Jag convertible....most people's opening comment when they see it for the first time...is..."Wow I bet that drinks fuel". Same dissonance. If they can't have...they diss. It's natural and normal although sad and jarring.


Next time, just tell these people a V8 Jaguar deserves every gallon of fuel it quenches its thirst with.
I love this car !


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Next time, just tell these people a V8 Jaguar deserves every gallon of fuel it quenches its durst with.
> I love this car !


What a way to dig up a 1.5 year old thread 

Also, is 'durst' (German for thirst) actually a word you can use in English?


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> What a way to dig up a 1.5 year old thread
> 
> Also, is 'durst' (German for thirst) actually a word you can use in English?



No, but just change that "d" to a theta sound, and it's so close no one will notice. (No meaningful difference between the almost-nonexistent vowels in "thurst" [hypothetical but rhymes with "worst"] and "thirst" by the time we get done mangling them.)


----------



## stevelee (Oct 7, 2020)

“Eat my durst!”


----------



## stevelee (Oct 7, 2020)

Come to think of it, I used to have Durst darkroom equipment.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> No, but just change that "d" to a theta sound, and it's so close no one will notice. (No meaningful difference between the almost-nonexistent vowels in "thurst" [hypothetical but rhymes with "worst"] and "thirst" by the time we get done mangling them.)


Sorry for the "durst".
I was just translating a letter from a Swiss friend at that time, and, as the French saying goes, "mixing up my pedals"...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Come to think of it, I used to have Durst darkroom equipment.


I used to have a Durst M605 Color, I still have the negative carrier and a couple of lenses off it. Wow that is a memory from the past!


----------



## stevelee (Oct 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I used to have a Durst M605 Color, I still have the negative carrier and a couple of lenses off it. Wow that is a memory from the past!


I can't remember specifics, but I know my last one had a head that could dial in colors for variable contrast paper, maybe balance for color prints. I'm not sure now. Many years ago, I used it to make Cibachrome prints, starting in my dorm room in grad school.

About 15 years ago I lived in a house that had an extensive guest bathroom that had the laundry area in the back. The room had no windows, a good bit of counter space, and of course running water. I realized that I had not ever used the darkroom equipment since I had lived there, even though I had the perfect space. About that time my secretary was taking art courses at the community college. She was in a photography class and was having a hard time getting on the schedule to use the darkroom. So I asked her how she would like to have her own darkroom equipment and not have to worry about the schedule. So that is where the enlarger and its associated equipment wound up.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 7, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Sorry for the "durst".
> I was just translating a letter from a Swiss friend at that time, and, as the French saying goes, "mixing up my pedals"...



Linguists call it code switching. You're speaking in one language and without realize it start talking in the other in the middle of a sentence.


----------

