# Bad news: The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM has been pushed into 2023



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 15, 2022)

> It seems that we have been talking about the Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM forever. This lens has been on our pretty accurate RF lens roadmap since the beginning.
> We have reported that it would be announced in 2021, and then in 2022, and now we are told that the lens has been pushed back to 2023. We’re not exactly sure why the lens has been pushed back, but I think that we can assume as to why, and we’re tired of typing the reasons!
> We have been told that Canon would like to announce it alongside two other RF L prime lenses to round out the lineup. With the Canon RF 135mm  f/1.8L USM expected to be announced, I think it’s likely that we will see an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM, RF 35mm f/1.2L USM and another wide angle L lens announced if things go to plan for Canon.
> At least one dealer has confirmed this information to us.



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2022)

I had the EF 35/1.4L, but didn't really use it much so I ended up selling it. I do not plan to get the RF version. I do plan to get the RF 300/2.8 if/when it arrives.


----------



## ozwineguy (Aug 15, 2022)

35mm isn’t my preferred focal length - I like 28mm better. But Canon seems to have no interest in an L 28mm, so I can see myself buying this for the aperture. Especially if it has some of the rendering magic of the RF 50mm 1.2. That’d get my attention.

Any chance of a 1.4 105mm to take on the Sigma? I’d be all over that.


----------



## 2Cents (Aug 15, 2022)

This is the confirmation that the lenses are actually real that I needed. See you in 2023


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 15, 2022)

Any rumours of either EF-S 60mm replacement for RF or 180mm Macro?


----------



## Bonich (Aug 15, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Nothing shocking.
The EF 35 1.4 does a great job so far.
Canon RF really needs a professional ultra wide (14mm???) and even more the RF 135mm.


----------



## neurorx (Aug 15, 2022)

I wonder when the 135mm is going to be announced. A rumor said Q4...any more updates on specs or release date?


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 15, 2022)

Ready to trade my RF50 1.2 for the 35 when it comes. I'd rather crop than step back.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 15, 2022)

I suspect that many lens / cameras are going to be pushed to the first half of 2023. Fine with me because it gives me more time to save up for a couple of lenses.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Aug 15, 2022)

Bonich said:


> Canon RF really needs a professional ultra wide (14mm???) and even more the RF 135mm.


14mm F1.8 please
or 12mm f2


----------



## Blue Zurich (Aug 15, 2022)

While we are chiming in on our preferred alternative focal lengths to 35...I'll take a 40 please Canon. Pancake or otherwise, just love that perspective.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 15, 2022)

This is very unlike Canon.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2022)

Not a surprise. These are vanity lenses. I doubt they contribute much to the bottom line. It seems like Canon is concentrating on filling out their range of bodies, while adding mid-range enthusiast and consumer lenses to the lineup. Makes sense. Canon is a business and their decisions are driven by what will increase profits, not what forum geeks want. 

Personally, I've already got every lens I'm interested in, except for lenses that Canon will never make or lenses I will never be able to afford.


----------



## EOS (Aug 15, 2022)

Fast wide primes will have to wait while C pumps out cheap variable aperture zooms for APS-C and f/11 primes.

“Canon: Putting the ‘sumer in prosumer.”


----------



## navastronia (Aug 15, 2022)

It's just fun to know it's real.


----------



## Tom W (Aug 15, 2022)

It'd be nice to see them filling out the "L" fast-prime lineup, but we do have a pretty doggone good 35/1.8 (and the EF 35/2.0) available in the meantime. Not to mention the EF 35/1.4L.
I'm thinking that there are other, more critical gaps that need filling first. Of course my preferences are at the telephoto end rather than the wide end of the spectrum.
With the popularity of the R7 and R10, there is probably a more pressing need to have another couple of RF-S lenses out there (not that they can't do more than one lens at a time, of course). Canon does have to respond to the market needs first and foremost.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 15, 2022)

I am happy with the EF 35/1.4L II. Beautiful lens, no upgrade necessary.


----------



## Sorosuub (Aug 15, 2022)

I also have the EF 35/1.4L II and love it, but it's not as sharp wide open as my RF 1.2 lenses.


----------



## toodamnice (Aug 15, 2022)

Berowne said:


> I am happy with the EF 35/1.4L II. Beautiful lens, no upgrade necessary.


How is the coma? I have not used one so I am curious.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 15, 2022)

35mm is about the only focal length (besides 800mm/1200 - never will at this stage) that I've never owned. 
For some reason 28mm is focal length I never liked. When I had the 28mm prime it was neither wide enough or long enough.
35mm strikes me as a good focal length.
Howeer Zooms like the 24-70mm are so good I'm not sure I'd ever use a 28mm or 35mm. 
I rarely use my 50mm 1.2 even though its an excellent lens.
I'd say Canon knows it doesn't sell that many 35mm lens and its more to cover the whole lens range.
With all the supply chain issues, they've probably prioritised. There are more commerical lens to made


----------



## t.linn (Aug 15, 2022)

The thought that a fast 35mm prime is a vanity lens is interesting to me. I would have guessed that it would be quite popular, but the fact that Canon keeps pushing it back suggests that either it would be so popular that they don't have the capacity to produce sufficient numbers or that it is a halo product. Either way, the f/1.8 is good enough for me. I'd really like to see a similar 20 or 21mm prime produced.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 15, 2022)

toodamnice said:


> How is the coma? I have not used one so I am curious.


Until now i did no astrophotos with the 35L. But i can show you some beautiful flares.


----------



## Nemorino (Aug 15, 2022)

t.linn said:


> but the fact that Canon keeps pushing it back


Beware! It's not a fact. It's a rumor!
We do not know if Canon ever planed to release a 35 1.2 this year or when ever.


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Any rumours of either EF-S 60mm replacement for RF or 180mm Macro?


I'd say the chances of either are close to zero, sadly. Maybe in 3-4 years time, but I think these types of lenses sell in pretty low numbers, so they'll be right at the bottom of Canon's priority list. If you can live with manual focus and no electronic linkage, the Laowa macros have much to commend them. Other than that, I think you're stuck with the EF 60mm and 180mm until Tamron or Sigma get around to producing AF versions. Unfortunately it's not even possible to use an extender with the RF 100mm macro.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2022)

t.linn said:


> ...but the fact that Canon keeps pushing it back...





Nemorino said:


> Beware! It's not a fact. It's a rumor!
> We do not know if Canon ever planed to release a 35 1.2 this year or when ever.


True. But, regardless of whether or not Canon ever *planned* to release such a lens this year or not, it is unlikely that it will be released this year. So, the end result is the same -- no lens in 2022. It is reasonable to assume that Canon does not see any urgency in releasing the lens. Did they change their plans? Or, did they never intend to release it in 2022? Does it matter? I don't think so. The bottom line is Canon has other priorities.


----------



## codym90 (Aug 15, 2022)

Thank goodness I got the 28-70 2.0 lol.

-Cody M.
Johnson City Wedding Photographer


----------



## entoman (Aug 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Not a surprise. These are vanity lenses. I doubt they contribute much to the bottom line. It seems like Canon is concentrating on filling out their range of bodies, while adding mid-range enthusiast and consumer lenses to the lineup. Makes sense. Canon is a business and their decisions are driven by what will increase profits, not what forum geeks want.
> 
> Personally, I've already got every lens I'm interested in, except for lenses that Canon will never make or lenses I will never be able to afford.


Haha, you're too easily satisfied my friend!

I've "only" got 2 bodies (5DMkiv and R5) and 6 lenses, but I lust after almost every lens or body that Canon produces!


----------



## EOS (Aug 15, 2022)

codym90 said:


> Thank goodness I got the 28-70 2.0 lol.


It wasn’t that long ago when the EF 24-70 2.8 L II used to be called “The Brick”.


----------



## roby17269 (Aug 15, 2022)

What's the CR rating for this rumor?
I admit I'd be disappointed since I have been wanting a fast L 35mm (and a fast L 135mm) for quite some time now.
I am not going to spend money on the RF 1.8 or on the EF 1.4 L II... so Canon will have to wait for more of my money. I may get a new Broncolor instead. Oh well. I do understand that Canon will survive without me. 
So I will be hoping that this rumor will end up being wrong.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 15, 2022)

If this list is correct then we can expect the RF 24 mm to be f/1.2 and the RF 135 mm to be f/1.4








Canon to announce RF mount cinema lenses alongside the Cinema EOS C300S and Cinema EOS C500S


Last month I reported that Canon would be bringing three new Cinema EOS cameras including the Cinema EOS C300S and Cinema EOS C500S that will shoot in 8K, as we



www.canonrumors.com




I can't see Canon developing two completely different sets of lenses for cinema and photo when they can make two versions of the same lens.


----------



## EOS (Aug 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> If this list is correct then we can expect the RF 24 mm to be f/1.2 and the RF 135 mm to be f/1.4
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The CR Guy says in that thread the RF Cinema lenses will be a different beast: 


Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's a different design team and cinema lenses are designed very differently. There are prime lenses coming that will interest you.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 15, 2022)

EOS said:


> The CR Guy says in that thread the RF Cinema lenses will be a different beast:


Thanks.
I am going to have to disagree with that.
Canon specifically stated that they would prioritize EF and PL mounts for cinema lenses because that is where the market is.
I do not expect any RF cinema lenses that do not have photo versions.
Canon may as well make cine versions of their L lenses.
There is not much reason not to.
Making brand new lenses is a different story.
Plus, every lens in that list either corresponds to an existing RF L Prime or would make an excellent one.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Thanks.
> I am going to have to disagree with that.
> Canon specifically stated that they would prioritize EF and PL mounts for cinema lenses because that is where the market is.
> I do not expect any RF cinema lenses that do not have photo versions.
> ...


Cine lenses and photo lenses are very different. Whatever you read before, I urge you to learn more about the subject.

Here's a graphic from Adorama in an article last updated on 4/14/22:

******


----------



## mxwphoto (Aug 15, 2022)

Given that the excellent 35mm 1.4 ii has excellent sharpness and little to no color fringing through the use of BR optics, I think it would be a tough act to follow.

The bokeh is not going to be as big of a difference between a 1.2 and 1.4 on a 35mm as it is on a 85mm and BR is already used in the current version (no justification for charges of 'new' tech used over the previous version like the 85mm).

The marginal benefit of 1/3 of a stop and a native mount while being either roughly the same size or bigger than the current EF version would make it hard to justify a big price hike.

My guess is Canon would want to price it at $3k but finding market may have a hard time swallowing the price given the native brand alternative.

Canon simply made the EF version too good for the RF to differentiate from.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 15, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> The marginal benefit of 1/3 of a stop and a native mount while being either roughly the same size or bigger than the current EF version would make it hard to justify a big price hike.


More money will probably be enough justification


----------



## CanonGrunt (Aug 15, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Any rumours of either EF-S 60mm replacement for RF or 180mm Macro?


I’d preorder those babies in a minute. And an updated MP-E.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Aug 15, 2022)

New fisheye zoom, but make it f/2.8 this time.


----------



## Aaron D (Aug 15, 2022)

Yeah, put me down for a 28mm f/1.4. I've never been comfortable with 35mm. I've had three over the years and sold two of them for lack of use. Hanging on to the RF f/1.8 only for lack of a 28. I've never much liked 24 for a walking around lens, either—too wide.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 15, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Given that the excellent 35mm 1.4 ii has excellent sharpness and little to no color fringing through the use of BR optics, I think it would be a tough act to follow.
> 
> The bokeh is not going to be as big of a difference between a 1.2 and 1.4 on a 35mm as it is on a 85mm and BR is already used in the current version (no justification for charges of 'new' tech used over the previous version like the 85mm).
> 
> ...



I agree with this entire argument except for the last sentence. Many people really are interested only in native glass, and the new one being RF will be a key reason those folks upgrade.


----------



## dolina (Aug 16, 2022)

Given a choice between a 35/1.4 and 40/2.8 pancake I'd prefer the pancake.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 16, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> If this list is correct then we can expect the RF 24 mm to be f/1.2 and the RF 135 mm to be f/1.4
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The list is not correct. In the CANON SUMIRE PRIME SERIES the 24 and 135 are 24mm T1.5 and 135mm T2.2.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'd say the chances of either are close to zero, sadly. Maybe in 3-4 years time, but I think these types of lenses sell in pretty low numbers, so they'll be right at the bottom of Canon's priority list. If you can live with manual focus and no electronic linkage, the Laowa macros have much to commend them. Other than that, I think you're stuck with the EF 60mm and 180mm until Tamron or Sigma get around to producing AF versions. Unfortunately it's not even possible to use an extender with the RF 100mm macro.


I already have Laowa 15 and 100 along with EF 100mm L so not getting RF 100mm Macro anytime soon, but would really like too get updated 180mm Macro for butterflying and venomous snakes for RF mount. For now I am borrowing Sigma 180mm f2.8 for odd times when I shoot butterflies but its seriously heavy to carry in field. Apparently Sony holds a stake in Tamron so they might not make lenses for either Z or RF and in case of Sigma they stated they wont make lenses for closed off systems so once again RF and Z users are out of luck.


----------



## xow (Aug 16, 2022)

Very disappointing. 35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, and I've been eagerly waiting for this lens since I got the R5, nearly 2 years ago.

I enjoy the 35 f/2 and my RF L 28-70 covers that range too, but I'd have just bought the EF L 35 and adapter if I knew it would be this long.


----------



## Skux (Aug 16, 2022)

No worries I'll be here chilling with my EF 35mm f/2 IS USM which I can use on my film bodies


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 16, 2022)

Bonich said:


> Nothing shocking.
> The EF 35 1.4 does a great job so far.
> Canon RF really needs a professional ultra wide (14mm???) and even more the RF 135mm.


TS-E 14mm with AF?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Not a surprise. These are vanity lenses. I doubt they contribute much to the bottom line. It seems like Canon is concentrating on filling out their range of bodies, while adding mid-range enthusiast and consumer lenses to the lineup. Makes sense. Canon is a business and their decisions are driven by what will increase profits, not what forum geeks want.
> 
> Personally, I've already got every lens I'm interested in, except for lenses that Canon will never make or lenses I will never be able to afford.


A midrange 85mm f/1.4 portrait lens is seriously missing. Right now there's the choice of either getting a budget part macro 85mm f/2 with messed up AF and sub-standard busy bokeh (that's not a true 85mm either), or paying through the nose for the super-expensive RF 85mm 1.2L lenses.

This is more of a key focal length than the odd focal lengths. It's not like portrait photography is a narrow niche genre!


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 16, 2022)

maybe Canon is changing the colour of the blue goo


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 16, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Cine lenses and photo lenses are very different. Whatever you read before, I urge you to learn more about the subject.
> 
> Here's a graphic from Adorama in an article last updated on 4/14/22:
> 
> ...


Is par-focal listed? I would have thought that this was the main difference optically. Many of the other items are mostly physical issues.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Given that the excellent 35mm 1.4 ii has excellent sharpness and little to no color fringing through the use of BR optics, I think it would be a tough act to follow.
> 
> The bokeh is not going to be as big of a difference between a 1.2 and 1.4 on a 35mm as it is on a 85mm and BR is already used in the current version (no justification for charges of 'new' tech used over the previous version like the 85mm).
> 
> ...


They can always add some silly gimmick that nobody asked for or wants, such as a spherical aberration control, and a add a thousand dollars to the price.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 16, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Is par-focal listed? I would have thought that this was the main difference optically. Many of the other items are mostly physical issues.



Indeed, the physical issues are what affect the cinema usability so much. Things like the lens being reparable, the focus system, the focus throw, having consistent lengths and weights (this is incredibly important when swapping lenses in and out while shooting), consistent and calibrated T-stops . . . the list goes on.

I used to work for a gear house in Los Angeles, and the equipment has to be incredibly tough to hold up to the use it gets on film sets. It stings to hear it, but everyone who walked into the place used to make fun of L glass (like the EF 24-70 2.8 L II) because up and coming cinematographers would want it for their shoots, but all the actual professionals would take literally any cine glass over that.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 16, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Is par-focal listed? I would have thought that this was the main difference optically. Many of the other items are mostly physical issues.


That reminds me: with the (non-cine) RF system introduction Rudy said something like "With the faster communication speed we can adjust focus on-the-fly while zooming to make every zoom lens par-focal." I haven't actually noticed that working, did it ever get implemented?


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> That reminds me: with the (non-cine) RF system introduction Rudy said something like "With the faster communication speed we can adjust focus on-the-fly while zooming to make every zoom lens par-focal." I haven't actually noticed that working, did it ever get implemented?


All the non-cine Canon lenses that I have read reviews on mention that they aren't par-focal but perhaps I missed some. It would be good for video and for macro if this was implemented though.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> A midrange 85mm f/1.4 portrait lens is seriously missing. Right now there's the choice of either getting a budget part macro 85mm f/2 with messed up AF and substandard busy bokeh (that's not a true 85mm either, or paying through the nose for the super-expensive RF 85mm 1.2L lenses.
> 
> This is more of a key focal length than the odd focal lengths. It's not like portrait photography is a narrow niche genre!


I’m also waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM to show up. The RF 85mm f1.2L is a. Too expensive for my budget and b. Way too heavy. The RF 85mm f2 is a non starter I tried it and the focus is too erratic and slow. I’m still using the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM with the adaptor (it’s the only non RF lens I have any longer) The quality of this lens, bokeh, coupled with size, weight and focusing speed is for me the perfect 85mm but the adaptor adds weight and makes the lens longer & heavier hence why I hope Canon adds this soon to the lens list. Along with the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and the RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM they are my go to portrait lens line up. The RF 135mm f1.4L is longer than I would normally consider for a fixed focal length lens for portraiture however I may well try it when it arrives.


----------



## Juangrande (Aug 16, 2022)

Berowne said:


> I am happy with the EF 35/1.4L II. Beautiful lens, no upgrade necessary.


I have the EF 35/1.4L II and I’ve been anticipating the RF 1.2 since it was announced and will definitely trade up. I would like the extra low light and subject separation for my environmental and editorial portraits. But I am still quite satisfied with the adapted EF version, it’s a great lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 16, 2022)

CanonGrunt said:


> I’d preorder those babies in a minute. And an updated MP-E.


Time passes by.
I had the choice between waiting for an improbable Rf 180mm macro in X years from now, and an EF 180 in mint condition for Euro700.
Guess what I did.
My sharpest Canon lens.
I cannot imagine the not yet (never?) produced RF 180 macro to become so much better than the EF version, not to mention how expensive it would be...


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 16, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Indeed, the physical issues are what affect the cinema usability so much. Things like the lens being reparable, the focus system, the focus throw, having consistent lengths and weights (this is incredibly important when swapping lenses in and out while shooting), consistent and calibrated T-stops . . . the list goes on.
> 
> I used to work for a gear house in Los Angeles, and the equipment has to be incredibly tough to hold up to the use it gets on film sets. It stings to hear it, but everyone who walked into the place used to make fun of L glass (like the EF 24-70 2.8 L II) because up and coming cinematographers would want it for their shoots, but all the actual professionals would take literally any cine glass over that.


Just take a look at the usually very reliable Leica M camera lenses.
It can't be a coincidence that their specific Cine Division hat to reengineer the M photo lenses from scratch in order to satisfy the cinema professionals...


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 16, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Time passes by.
> I had the choice between waiting for an improbable Rf 180mm macro in X years from now, and an EF 180 in mint condition for Euro700.
> Guess what I did.
> My sharpest Canon lens.
> I cannot imagine the not yet (never?) produced RF 180 macro to become so much better than the EF version, not to mention how expensive it would be...


I would assume it would have 100-500L class IS and much faster AF. 

But I don’t know if I’d want to replace my EF180L with a €2500 RF180L, buying an R7 for that money would get me similar enough pixels per bug at a larger working distance with the RF100L.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I would assume it would have 100-500L class IS and much faster AF.
> 
> But I don’t know if I’d want to replace my EF180L with a €2500 RF180L, buying an R7 for that money would get me similar enough pixels per bug at a larger working distance with the RF100L.


Or you can put the EF 180mm macro on an existing EF crop body you may have (90D) and get even more focal length without buying a new body. 

Not sure how much value a mirrorless R7 body adds in macro (focus bracketing maybe?) as a lot of macro is manual focus with mirror flipped up in Live View on the back LCD on DSLRs which is using it as a mirrorless anyway.


----------



## InchMetric (Aug 16, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> Beware! It's not a fact. It's a rumor!
> We do not know if Canon ever planed to release a 35 1.2 this year or when ever.


Why do you have an account at a rumor site?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> Why do you have an account at a rumor site?


Maybe Nemorino is here to see when rumours are confirmed as fact, as they do list real product release news here too!


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I would assume it would have 100-500L class IS and much faster AF.
> 
> But I don’t know if I’d want to replace my EF180L with a €2500 RF180L, buying an R7 for that money would get me similar enough pixels per bug at a larger working distance with the RF100L.


I don't know if I would trust the RF 100 macro, focus shift is a defect I can't accept in a $1500 macro lens.
Yet, some forum members said they didn't experience such a thing..
Who is right?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 16, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I don't know if I would trust the RF 100 macro, focus shift is a defect I can't accept in a $1500 macro lens.
> Yet, some forum members said they didn't experience such a thing..
> Who is right?


I haven't noticed it so far, but I don't do a lot of tripod work. For natural light macro I snap a lot of pictures and then pick the best in post. That tends to hide the focus shift defects. When using a flash, I'm at f/11. The tripod work I did do recently was focus stacking, which also isn't affected by focal shift.

Regardless, I completely agree, focus shift isn't acceptable, especially considering that it's wholly fixable in firmware.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I don't know if I would trust the RF 100 macro, focus shift is a defect I can't accept in a $1500 macro lens.
> Yet, some forum members said they didn't experience such a thing..
> Who is right?


The logical answer is that if examples of the defect have been observed independently by many people, then the focus shift problem exists. If people haven't experienced it (yet), it may be just a matter of time or they have some unique set of use conditions, settings and other factors which is they're not seeing it, or the other possibility is that they're not looking carefully enough due to their compositions or subject matter! All of the thorough and technical review sites have observed it in testing and consistently reproduced it. None have stated that it's an intermittent problem. I'll stick with my EF 100mm L macro, it's got a whole extra stop of stabilisation more than the RF lens.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Or you can put the EF 180mm macro on an existing EF crop body you may have (90D) and get even more focal length without buying a new body.
> [..]


That would be a 7D, with its strong AA filter and poor ISO performance will be worse than the R5 in crop mode. The other option is the M6II, but the ergonomics don't work for me, with or without a cage to improve the grip. It would be using the same sensor as the R7  It does work well on a tripod.

But my point was that for the expected €2500 price of an RF180L, you have a lot of options to get similar results, for less money spent.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> That would be a 7D, with its strong AA filter and poor ISO performance will be worse than the R5 in crop mode. The other option is the M6II, but the ergonomics don't work for me, with or without a cage to improve the grip. It would be using the same sensor as the R7  It does work well on a tripod.
> 
> But my point was that for the expected €2500 price of an RF180L, you have a lot of options to get similar results, for less money spent.


Totally agree with what you said "_for the expected €2500 price of an RF180L, you have a lot of options to get similar results, for less money spent_".
I was trying to say the same thing, just came out much less clearly, that a used EF 180mm L macro would be a good buy if anyone has a decent crop body already. It even takes teleconverters!


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I haven't noticed it so far, but I don't do a lot of tripod work. For natural light macro I snap a lot of pictures and then pick the best in post. That tends to hide the focus shift defects. When using a flash, I'm at f/11. The tripod work I did do recently was focus stacking, which also isn't affected by focal shift.
> 
> Regardless, I completely agree, focus shift isn't acceptable, especially considering that it's wholly fixable in firmware.


I never use a tripod, despite owning 5...and also take my macros "on the run". Yet, if the aim of a journey is a specific plant, usually orchids, I do use a macro flash for maximum dof, and F11.
And I too am hoping for a firmware...and an R3 with the R5's sensor.


----------



## Aaron D (Aug 16, 2022)

unfocused said:


> "Not a surprise. These are vanity lenses."


Respectfully disagree. 35mm is really a workhorse lens: journalism, events, street photography. Second only to 50mm, _I personally_ would guess...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I don't know if I would trust the RF 100 macro, focus shift is a defect I can't accept in a $1500 macro lens.
> Yet, some forum members said they didn't experience such a thing..
> Who is right?


Canon acknowledged that focus shift results from the design of the RF 100L Macro. So I'd say anyone who says they don't see it is not using the lens in conditions which result in the issue (i.e. magnifications >1x and intermediate f/stops).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

Aaron D said:


> Respectfully disagree. 35mm is really a workhorse lens: journalism, events, street photography. Second only to 50mm, _I personally_ would guess...


I think a more accurate way to phrase it is that a 35mm f/1.2 is more of a_ niche application lens_. Yes, 35mm is a popular workhorse focal length, and 35mm f/1.4 is a real workhorse lens, but the faster f/1.2 is a bit more specialised, much larger in size/weight and I would hazard to say that it's a bit less common.

Not sure why canon seems to have developed an allergy to f/1.4 lenses of any focal length these days...


----------



## robotfist (Aug 16, 2022)

The Canon 35mm 1.4 L II is one of the best pieces of glass Canon has ever made. On DXO Mark it is the second highest rated Canon lens behind the 85. They have a tall order to fill with this new 35. For those of us who shoot video, the 35 is a crucial focal length. The 35 L II looks magical when you shoot wide open and get close to your subject. It's a stellar lens. While I'm looking forward to the RF version, it's hard to imagine it being astronomically better than the 35 L II considering that lens was released in 2015. Now the 24... that's a different story. The 24mm 1.4 L II has been out since 2008 and after the 35mm II came out, it became obvious how much the 24 1.4 needed to be updated when the two were compared side to side. I imagine the RF version of the 24 will blow the past versions of the 24 L out of the water. I'm very much looking forward to the 24.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2022)

It will be nice when the supply chain problems resolve. With all the instability in the world right now, it's a worry that things could get much worse. I really wish the war in Europe would end, and that we'll see no conflict for Taiwan. I wish this not because of materialism, but for humanitarian reasons. I fear a war with China would plunge most of us into very dire times. So, I'll not complain about delays.

My desire: To one day have all the f/1.2 Canon lenses. Desire must take a back seat to larger, much larger, issues right now. I'm sure Canon is doing best they can. Car dealerships in my town still have no new cars to sell thanks to chip shortages. I don't need a car, just pointing out that things are still very disrupted.


----------



## john1970 (Aug 16, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> It will be nice when the supply chain problems resolve. With all the instability in the world right now, it's a worry that things could get much worse. I really wish the war in Europe would end, and that we'll see no conflict for Taiwan. I wish this not because of materialism, but for humanitarian reasons. I fear a war with China would plunge most of us into very dire times. So, I'll not complain about delays.
> 
> My desire: To one day have all the f/1.2 Canon lenses. Desire must take a back seat to larger, much larger, issues right now. I'm sure Canon is doing best they can. Car dealerships in my town still have no new cars to sell thanks to chip shortages. I don't need a car, just pointing out that things are still very disrupted.


Agree with your comments.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> It will be nice when the supply chain problems resolve. With all the instability in the world right now, it's a worry that things could get much worse. I really wish the war in Europe would end, and that we'll see no conflict for Taiwan. I wish this not because of materialism, but for humanitarian reasons. I fear a war with China would plunge most of us into very dire times. So, I'll not complain about delays.
> 
> My desire: To one day have all the f/1.2 Canon lenses. Desire must take a back seat to larger, much larger, issues right now. I'm sure Canon is doing best they can. Car dealerships in my town still have no new cars to sell thanks to chip shortages. I don't need a car, just pointing out that things are still very disrupted.


So true, photography is a nice distraction, and a healthy hobby that gets people out into the world to notice what beauty exists, to appreciate it, and to try capture the experience in an image. We are in unstable and unpredictable times, there is so much going on globally it's like the world is in a state of flux, and the dust hasn't settled yet. With an almost 90% reduction in the digital camera market compared to its peak however many years ago that was, companies are feeling the squeeze, and trying to adapt to the changes. We're fortunate not to have been too badly impacted so far. Let's hope we all get through this well, as does the world with all the challenges before it!


----------



## mxwphoto (Aug 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> They can always add some silly gimmick that nobody asked for or wants, such as a spherical aberration control, and a add a thousand dollars to the price.


Canon RF TS 35mm f/1.0 L DO Macro IS USM with SA Control. (Say that all in one breath)

It would have AF, drop in filter, be parfocal, weigh about 20lb and cost 3 1/2 of your kidneys.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 16, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon RF TS 35mm f/1.0 L DO Macro IS USM with SA Control. (Say that all in one breath)
> 
> It would have AF, drop in filter, be parfocal, weigh about 20lb and cost 3 1/2 of your kidneys.


But it won't be able to take a teleconverter, and it wont have internal focussing either, so the front element will protrude back and forth when focus hunting, and the replacement lens hood will cost a few hundred dollars!


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 16, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Canon RF TS 35mm f/1.0 L DO Macro IS USM with SA Control. (Say that all in one breath)
> 
> It would have AF, drop in filter, be parfocal, weigh about 20lb and cost 3 1/2 of your kidneys.


Sounds like one of Tamron's lens names.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> But it won't be able to take a teleconverter, and it wont have internal focussing either, so the front element will protrude back and forth when focus hunting, and the replacement lens hood will cost a few hundred dollars!


A typical Canon cripplehammered lens!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> A midrange 85mm f/1.4 portrait lens is seriously missing.


I am happy with the EF version which is a pretty new lens.
IMHO Canon needs to address lenses without adequate EF alternatives first.


----------



## entoman (Aug 16, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I already have Laowa 15 and 100 along with EF 100mm L so not getting RF 100mm Macro anytime soon, but would really like too get updated 180mm Macro for butterflying and venomous snakes for RF mount. For now I am borrowing Sigma 180mm f2.8 for odd times when I shoot butterflies but its seriously heavy to carry in field. Apparently Sony holds a stake in Tamron so they might not make lenses for either Z or RF and in case of Sigma they stated they wont make lenses for closed off systems so once again RF and Z users are out of luck.


I do a lot of butterfly photography (also other insects, reptiles, mammals, birds etc). Mostly I shoot butterflies with the 100mm macro. The EF version is better than the RF version, in terms of ability to instantly switch between MF and AF without having to fumble with buttons or switches when shooting in SERVO AF.

A 100mm macro can make it difficult to approach nervous butterflies, but is very manoeuvrable due to the light weight. I prefer longer focal lengths for cleaner backgrounds though. Previously, I used the Canon 180mm macro which has gorgeous bokeh, but I sold it recently because I just find an unstabilised lens too difficult to use handheld. In the tropics, I sometimes use the RF100-500mm, but it's too heavy to cart around all day long in tropical heat. AlanF reckons that the 100-400mm is excellent, much lighter and cheaper, and it focuses close enough for medium-sized butterflies, so that might be worth trying.

The Sigma 150mm and 180mm macros are beasts. Very heavy, clunky, very slow to focus and they have pretty ineffective stabilisation in my experience (compared to Canon 100mm and 180mm). I know some people who use the Tamron 180mm, which is lighter, so that could also be worth trying if you can find a secondhand one in good nick. Of course, you'd need to use the RF-EF adaptor with the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

I'd take what Sigma say about closed off systems with a pinch of salt. Sooner or later, both Sigma and Tamron will realise that they could shift a hell of a lot of lenses if they made them available in RF mount, it's just a matter of time IMO. Existing EF mount designs could easily be ported to RF, and the EF and RF protocols are near-identical, so compatibility issues would be minimal. Also, they have designs for Sony MILCs that could easily be put out in RF mount. I think it will take a lot longer for third parties to produce Z mount lenses though, simply because Nikon is sadly now a minor league brand.


----------



## nwardrip (Aug 16, 2022)

It better be as good as Avatar 2...

In all seriousness, I am very disappointed as I'm tired of forgetting my EF/RF adapter and then not being able to use my 35mm f/1.4 II. Will continue to wait impatiently...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 16, 2022)

nwardrip said:


> It better be as good as Avatar 2...
> 
> In all seriousness, I am very disappointed as I'm tired of forgetting my EF/RF adapter and then not being able to use my 35mm f/1.4 II. Will continue to wait impatiently...


Leave it on the lens?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2022)

Aaron D said:


> Respectfully disagree. 35mm is really a workhorse lens: journalism, events, street photography. Second only to 50mm, _I personally_ would guess...


I should clarify. By "vanity lens" I mean lenses that Canon produces to, in effect, declare: "Look what we can do!" No reflection on the buyers. I think others might call them "halo" products. My point being that these high-end products are unlikely to sell in large numbers and thus may get delayed or pushed aside for lenses that have a broader appeal (16mm f2.8 and 24 mm f1.8, I'm looking at you.)

Shockingly, I actually agree with @LogicExtremist.



LogicExtremist said:


> I think a more accurate way to phrase it is that a 35mm f/1.2 is more of a_ niche application lens_. Yes, 35mm is a popular workhorse focal length, and 35mm f/1.4 is a real workhorse lens, but the faster f/1.2 is a bit more specialised, much larger in size/weight and I would hazard to say that it's a bit less common.


I would also add that the 35mm lens competes with the other popular wide-angle focal lengths (28mm and 24mm) for the wide "look." The 35mm focal length is the most "conservative" of the three and it seems to me, at least, that the trend over the last 40-50 years has been towards wider angles.


----------



## Bonich (Aug 16, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> I already have Laowa 15 and 100 along with EF 100mm L so not getting RF 100mm Macro anytime soon, but would really like too get updated 180mm Macro for butterflying and venomous snakes for RF mount. For now I am borrowing Sigma 180mm f2.8 for odd times when I shoot butterflies but its seriously heavy to carry in field. Apparently Sony holds a stake in Tamron so they might not make lenses for either Z or RF and in case of Sigma they stated they wont make lenses for closed off systems so once again RF and Z users are out of luck.


Shooting butterflies, venomous snakes, Dragonflies, ....?
Take the RF100-400 instead!
Seriously! I do own the EF180Macro and the RF100-500. For this purpose the 100-400 is the by far best choice!


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> I do a lot of butterfly photography (also other insects, reptiles, mammals, birds etc). Mostly I shoot butterflies with the 100mm macro. The EF version is better than the RF version, in terms of ability to instantly switch between MF and AF without having to fumble with buttons or switches when shooting in SERVO AF.
> 
> A 100mm macro can make it difficult to approach nervous butterflies, but is very manoeuvrable due to the light weight. I prefer longer focal lengths for cleaner backgrounds though. Previously, I used the Canon 180mm macro which has gorgeous bokeh, but I sold it recently because I just find an unstabilised lens too difficult to use handheld. In the tropics, I sometimes use the RF100-500mm, but it's too heavy to cart around all day long in tropical heat. AlanF reckons that the 100-400mm is excellent, much lighter and cheaper, and it focuses close enough for medium-sized butterflies, so that might be worth trying.
> 
> ...


Based on what I was told by a Sigma Rep recently and the the removal of RF lenses from Viltrox’ and Yongnuo’s websites 3rd party RF lenses with electronic contacts won’t come to market until en masse until 3rd party manufacturers can get a license from Canon.

As for Nikon, Viltrox and Voigtländer both make lenses for Z mount and in the case of Voigtländer those lenses are actually licensed by Nikon.


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> Based on what I was told by a Sigma Rep recently and the the removal of RF lenses from Viltrox’ and Yongnuo’s websites 3rd party RF lenses with electronic contacts won’t come to market until en masse until 3rd party manufacturers can get a license from Canon.
> 
> As for Nikon, Viltrox and Voigtländer both make lenses for Z mount and in the case of Voigtländer those lenses are actually licensed by Nikon.


Interesting. I can understand that being applicable to RF mount lenses that have the full set of electrical contacts, but EF lenses with their more limited set of contacts work perfectly on RF bodies, so it's odd that third parties don't just manufacture RF mount lenses with only the EF contacts.

I guess they're just holding out hoping that once Canon has filled out their own lens range, that they'll licence Tamron, Sigma etc. Unfortunately for the third parties, and for photographers, there seems to be no sign of Canon licensing anyone for the foreseeable future.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 17, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am happy with the EF version which is a pretty new lens.
> IMHO Canon needs to address lenses without adequate EF alternatives first.


For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.


----------



## chrisrmueller (Aug 17, 2022)

ozwineguy said:


> 35mm isn’t my preferred focal length - I like 28mm better. But Canon seems to have no interest in an L 28mm, so I can see myself buying this for the aperture. Especially if it has some of the rendering magic of the RF 50mm 1.2. That’d get my attention.
> 
> Any chance of a 1.4 105mm to take on the Sigma? I’d be all over that.


I'd be very excited to see a Canon 105/1.4, even though I just bought the Sigma after eyeing it for years. Part of the reason is that the Canon version, if it ever came about, would probably cost over $3k, and the other part is that the Sigma pairs perfectly with the Canon Variable ND filter adapter to use wireless strobes without having to use HSS.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 17, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.


The answer was easy for me, either non existent RF lenses, or "inexpensive" EF 135, 85 and 180, partly preowned, as car dealers would name them.
I "needed" these lenses, so, waiting wasn't an option at all. Besides, I certainly would have spent, in a few years (!), certainly up to twice as much on RF equivalents. Where RFs are available, I tend to buy the ones I need, since they are optically superb, like the WA zooms. Is the optical improvement worth the difference in price, depends on one's needs and means.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> Interesting. I can understand that being applicable to RF mount lenses that have the full set of electrical contacts, but EF lenses with their more limited set of contacts work perfectly on RF bodies, so it's odd that third parties don't just manufacture RF mount lenses with only the EF contacts.
> 
> I guess they're just holding out hoping that once Canon has filled out their own lens range, that they'll licence Tamron, Sigma etc. Unfortunately for the third parties, and for photographers, there seems to be no sign of Canon licensing anyone for the foreseeable future.


I’m guessing its not that simple at all. 

In the case of Sigma they have specs for L, E and X mounts where their lenses work at near OEM or at OEM levels of performance. Even if they could it would an extremely bad idea to manufacture lenses that don’t use the full spec of the mount. No one can afford to have a situation where their lenses work well on some platforms but have potential issues on others.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 17, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.


Even the RF lens roadmap in canonrumors is still a pipedream for new lenses  
Even if one was announced, it would still be some time to be able to buy them. 
Personally, I would buy either a new EF lens if it needed or second hand if it isn't essential. Buying second hand means that you aren't losing much money when selling again for a new RF lens if/when it arrives.
New RF lens will be definitely more expensive but generally adds more features over a somewhat EF equivalent. If you don't need the extra features (and some downsides) then save your money eg RF100mm vs EF100mm macro.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> Unfortunately for the third parties, and for photographers, there seems to be no sign of Canon licensing anyone for the foreseeable future.


They seem to have with EF-M even though there are so few third party lenses.
There is no chance of Canon licensing anything until they have their lineup fully fleshed out.
That will not happen for at least three more years.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 17, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I’m guessing its not that simple at all.
> 
> In the case of Sigma they have specs for L, E and X mounts where their lenses work at near OEM or at OEM levels of performance. Even if they could it would an extremely bad idea to manufacture lenses that don’t use the full spec of the mount. No one can afford to have a situation where their lenses work well on some platforms but have potential issues on others.


Several Sigma and Tamron lenses have pulsing issues with autofocus tracking with DPAF II.
There would be no point in having RF versions.


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> For new buyers, we're in a bit of a dilemma, do I just buy the EF version, or wait for an RF version, which may be perhaps a bit better but likely much more expensive.


I'd recommend reading reviews and comparison tests carefully, and talking to people who have used both versions, before parting with money for RF lenses.

Some of the RF lenses may have unique features that are desirable, but having used EF and RF versions of several focal lengths, I would generalise as follows:

EF can be had for almost half the cost of RF, and you'll probably have to be shooting 100MP cameras to notice any significant improvement in sharpness.

AF is a bit faster and quieter with RF, but no more precise. AF characteristics can be different with RF, so you may have to revise your AF settings for anything critical such as BIF, macro or sport/wildlife.

RF feels more modern, but ergonomics of EF are often better e.g. zoom and focus rings tend to be flush with barrel on RF, and little differentiation between rubber rings, so possibilty of grabbing wrong ring etc during learning phase.

Bokeh characteristics seem about the same - RF lenses still suffer from polygons, elliptical bokeh, onion-ring etc.

RF zooms are still mostly (all?) of the telescoping type, and many would argue that they suck in dust and are clumsier to use than internal zooming lenses.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 17, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Several Sigma and Tamron lenses have pulsing issues with autofocus tracking with DPAF II.
> There would be no point in having RF versions.


I assume you are referring to DSLR lenses and not ones Sigma and Tamron have developed for mirrorless systems which have been made with licenses from the OEM?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'd recommend reading reviews and comparison tests carefully, and talking to people who have used both versions, before parting with money for RF lenses.
> 
> Some of the RF lenses may have unique features that are desirable, but having used EF and RF versions of several focal lengths, I would generalise as follows:
> 
> ...


I'd agree with most of that. Personally, I believe that for most L-series lenses the benefits with RF versions are significant, but the cost difference is also substantial. I have not had any issues with the RF lens ergonomics, but I don't use MF that often anyway.



entoman said:


> RF zooms are still mostly (all?) of the telescoping type, and many would argue that they suck in dust and are clumsier to use than internal zooming lenses.


This is a bit of a red herring. The only EF zoom lenses that are true internal zooms are the 70-200 zooms and the 200-400L. The UWA zooms have a moving inner barrel, and although the movement is behind the filter mount and a filter helps seal that they are still not internal zooms. 

I also don't buy the clumsier to use argument, but maybe that's because I define 'use' more broadly than just the lens being on the camera. Years ago, one of the big advantages of the 100-400L over the 400/5.6 was the shorter collapsed length (although the pull-out hood of the 300/4 and 400/5.6 was pretty cool!). The RF 70-200 lenses are much shorter then their EF counterparts, and to me that's a big advantage because I find myself bringing the RF 70-200/2.8 in situations where I'd leave the EF 70-200/2.8 II at home.


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd agree with most of that. Personally, I believe that for most L-series lenses the benefits with RF versions are significant, but the cost difference is also substantial. I have not had any issues with the RF lens ergonomics, but I don't use MF that often anyway.
> 
> 
> This is a bit of a red herring. The only EF zoom lenses that are true internal zooms are the 70-200 zooms and the 200-400L. The UWA zooms have a moving inner barrel, and although the movement is behind the filter mount and a filter helps seal that they are still not internal zooms.
> ...


Yes, telescoping zooms are easier to pack and that can be a worthwhile advantage. I've never had issues with dust getting sucked in with mine, just reporting an argument commonly quoted.

Now, if Canon *really* wanted to impress me, they could design lenses with true internal zooming and focusing, that were also compact and light! The advertising hype and interviews with techies from Canon etc rather misled us to believe that a short flange distance and wide throat would allow more compact and advanced designs, without compromises. Still waiting to see *significant* improvements over EF though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> Still waiting to see *significant* improvements over EF though.


I guess 'significant' is in the eye of the user. A 14mm UWA zoom that takes front filters, and 77mm ones at that, is significant to me. The extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-500L is also significant for me. The mere existence of a full frame standard zoom (wide to short tele) with an f/2 aperture is significant. YMMV.


----------



## Nemorino (Aug 17, 2022)

The higher magnification of the RF100L is IMO significant.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, telescoping zooms are easier to pack and that can be a worthwhile advantage. I've never had issues with dust getting sucked in with mine, just reporting an argument commonly quoted.
> 
> Now, if Canon *really* wanted to impress me, they could design lenses with true internal zooming and focusing, that were also compact and light! The advertising hype and interviews with techies from Canon etc rather misled us to believe that a short flange distance and wide throat would allow more compact and advanced designs, without compromises. Still waiting to see *significant* improvements over EF though.


According to LensRentals, they don't have more dust issues with pump-zooms than with the other type. It seems to be a psychological issue more than a real one. If I'm not mistaken, I must have read it in the comments following the teardown of the EF 100-400 L II.


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess 'significant' is in the eye of the user. A 14mm UWA zoom that takes front filters, and 77mm ones at that, is significant to me. The extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-500L is also significant for me. The mere existence of a full frame standard zoom (wide to short tele) with an f/2 aperture is significant. YMMV.


Yes, of course. I'm glad that the benefits have been significant for you.

For me there was no significant gain in going from the EF 24-105mm F4 to the RF version. Going from the EF100-400mm to the RF100-500mm gave me a worthwhile increase at the long end, but at the expense of not being able to use an extender below 300mm.

Going from the EF100mm macro to the RF 100mm macro brought little advantage - I didn't need the 1.4x magnification or the aspherical control, and was disappointed to find that I could no longer have instant MF override in SERVO AF without having to fumble with function buttons. The only reason I "upgraded" was because the AF of my EF version had become unreliable and erratic due to worn out focus motors, and I didn't want to be without a macro while it was being repaired.

I've found the RF800mm F11 to be extremely good for bird photography in good light. The only non-RF lens I've retained is my T/S-E 24mm.

But while "worthwhile", I wouldn't consider any of the RF lenses I now have to be *significantly* better than the EF counterparts. I just expected more.


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> According to LensRentals, they don't have more dust issues with pump-zooms than with the other type. It seems to be a psychological issue more than a real one.


Yes, I read the LensRentals analysis some time ago, and I haven't had dust issues myself. I'm sure that there are some who exaggerate the issue, and probably a few malicious individuals searching for a reason to denigrate Canon glass for whatever reason. Also, there will be natural worriers who may be influenced by internet talk. Personally, if Canon gave me the choice between a telescopic zoom and an internal zoom, for comparable size and cost, and with the same MFD, I'd go for the internal one though - I just think it's a better design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, of course. I'm glad that the benefits have been significant for you.
> 
> For me there was no significant gain in going from the EF 24-105mm F4 to the RF version.


The RF version of the 24-105/4L launched at the same price as the EF 24-105/4L II. Canon charges heavily for the RF improvements, but for the lens that didn't improve, they kept the price the same. Pretty fair, no?


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 17, 2022)

Looking for a significant RF lens advantage? I'd even call it a huge one:
RF 1,2/50mm and RF 1,2/85mm !


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, I read the LensRentals analysis some time ago, and I haven't had dust issues myself. I'm sure that there are some who exaggerate the issue, and probably a few malicious individuals searching for a reason to denigrate Canon glass for whatever reason. Also, there will be natural worriers who may be influenced by internet talk. Personally, if Canon gave me the choice between a telescopic zoom and an internal zoom, for comparable size and cost, and with the same MFD, I'd go for the internal one though - I just think it's a better design.


Me too...


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The RF version of the 24-105/4L launched at the same price as the EF 24-105/4L II. Canon charges heavily for the RF improvements, but for the lens that didn't improve, they kept the price the same. Pretty fair, no?


The price was fair, yes. My old EF 24-105mm F4 ii had gone back to Canon twice under warranty, both times with the same issue, that required the middle group of elements containing the iris mechanism to be completely replaced. I no longer trusted it, hence the "upgrade".


----------



## entoman (Aug 17, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> The higher magnification of the RF100L is IMO significant.


For some it will be - e.g. for wedding photographers who use the lens to shoot portraits and close-ups of rings etc, it adds significant and worthwhile functionality, saving them from having to swap lenses.

I use the lens primarily for handheld AF photography of living insects and other invertebrates, so it offers me no real advantages (and a couple of downsides previously mentioned) compared to the EF version.

When I need higher magnification than 1:1, I'd be using the MF Laowa 25mm 2.5-5x on a focus rail and tripod.

We all have different needs, some of us will be pleased, others will be disappointed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Me too...


Me three…


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 17, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I assume you are referring to DSLR lenses and not ones Sigma and Tamron have developed for mirrorless systems which have been made with licenses from the OEM?


No, I am referring to the Sigma and Tamron mirrorless EF-M mount lenses.
The Sigma primes are pretty popular


----------



## EOS (Aug 17, 2022)

entoman said:


> The only non-RF lens I've retained is my T/S-E 24mm.


What a magical, persnickety lens. One of my favorite Canon lenses of all time. I’m sure this would be the very last EF mount lens to get an RF replacement. 

OK, carry on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2022)

EOS said:


> What a magical, persnickety lens. One of my favorite Canon lenses of all time. I’m sure this would be the very last EF mount lens to get an RF replacement.
> 
> OK, carry on.


Rumors of updated TS-E lenses include possible AF, and also movement encoding. The former I could not care less about, the latter would be great if used, for example, to permit movement-specific corrections by RAW conversion software like DxO PhotoLab.

I have both the 17 and 24 II lenses, for the former an RF version would need to be something really special to outweigh the advantage of being able to use the drop-in filter adapter instead of the 145mm 'salad plate' front filters that I have but don't like carrying/using. Same applies to the EF 11-24/4 (I don't even have the 'dinner plate' filters for that (I do have a 10-stop piece of gelatin filter cut for it, but you can't rear-mount a CPL which is useful to control reflections).


----------



## ozwineguy (Aug 31, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I got the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art at Adorama on a $539 sale not announced on this site (though several such sales have been). I had the first EF 35/1.4 and the 24/1.4 and the first was too normalish (and coma-prone) while the second not bokeh-y enough for me. The 28/1.4 is nice though it's the only lens I own that isn't for a specific shot.


I wish I could buy at Adorama! They don’t ship to Australia. I’d be all over the Sigma 28mm at those prices.


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2022)

What makes this 35/1.2 rumor fishy is the fact that the RF 50 & RF 85 are not faster than f/1.2 like say a f/1.0L or f/0.95


----------

