# Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM coming in 2020 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 1, 2019)

> Could Canon be building an f/1.2 set of prime lenses for the RF mount? So far we have the stellar duo of the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM. According to the latest information we have received, more f/1.2L prime lenses are coming.
> First up will be an RF 35mm f/1.2L USM, and we’re told that it is scheduled for release in 2020, though an announcement date isn’t known at this time.
> The same source says an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM is also possible, but it isn’t currently on the product roadmap for 2020.
> The image for this article is the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro.



Continue reading...


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 1, 2019)

Time to start saving hard.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 1, 2019)

Convenient timing that this rumor drops just when Sigma is gathering buzz with their own 35/1.2. As someone who recently picked up a 35/1.4 after lusting after it for months, I now have a hard time envisioning exactly what a 35/1.2 would do for me that my current lens doesn't. That being said, my OCD loves the idea that every L prime in the RF ecosystem, from 24 all the way to 85, might be 1.2


----------



## zonoskar (Aug 1, 2019)

I hope they make a 16mm f1.2 as well.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 1, 2019)

Since I get the same feeling as being in love using the two released RF 1.2’s I feel very bad for my wallet reading this... this is not good, except it is


----------



## Etienne (Aug 1, 2019)

Kudos to Canon for pushing lens design to dizzying heights, but I just want an excellent set of small modest primes for the RF: f/1.4 to f/1.8 is fine, and a 20mm f/2.8. The f/1.2s are special but these giant lenses are too big and heavy to carry around on a regular basis. Having said that, the RF 50 f/1.2 tempts me the most.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 1, 2019)

RF 24mm f/1.2L USM ?! I would enjoy this for astro, if the coma, etc. are very good. Unfortunately, coma control has not been a priority for Canon. But if it is, this might get me into the R system.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 1, 2019)

Will it have BR optical element?
Also compared to Nikons Vaporware 58mm Noct these Canon 1.2 lenses look more practical.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 1, 2019)

Will It be as tiny as in this picture?  (I know it's the f/1.8)

But *wow*  to see that Canon is building up a full f/1.2 prime lineup.

I wasn't expecting this for 35 mm. I would have set my bets on the classical f/1.4 type.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 1, 2019)

navastronia said:


> ... As someone who recently picked up a 35/1.4 after lusting after it for months, I now have a hard time envisioning exactly what a 35/1.2 would do for me that my current lens doesn't. ...


I wouldn't bother much now, but enjoy your current gear.
When that lens is released, when the first reviews are there, that'll be the time to start thinking about it IMO.
As I was never willing to pay premium to be a first adopter, that would be the earliest time to start saving, too.


----------



## Ale_F (Aug 1, 2019)

Some mention of Human-price not-PRO lenses for RF.
Actually the solution is the EF adapter


----------



## David (Aug 1, 2019)

Good to know. 35mm is my one lens combo for 90% of my pictures. I bought into the Canon EOS system because of the excellent lenses. This f1.2/ 35mm will be a gem, no doubt. But since Canon goes all f1.2 with their RL primes I am out. I expected something excellent but practical, maybe f1.4/35 L, a 2/28L or 2/40L. Such a unpractical, heavy and show off 1.2thing like the 1.2/50 will bring Canon laurels but not many customers. Sad. It looks like only Zeiss could keep me with Canon if they release something practical soon. I doubt it. Canon, please, kick McKinsey out and get advice from photographers.


----------



## Serenesunrise (Aug 1, 2019)

David said:


> Good to know. 35mm is my one lens combo for 90% of my pictures. I bought into the Canon EOS system because of the excellent lenses. This f1.2/ 35mm will be a gem, no doubt. But since Canon goes all f1.2 with their RL primes I am out. I expected something excellent but practical, maybe f1.4/35 L, a 2/28L or 2/40L. Such a unpractical, heavy and show off 1.2thing like the 1.2/50 will bring Canon laurels but not many customers. Sad. It looks like only Zeiss could keep me with Canon if they release something practical soon. I doubt it. Canon, please, kick McKinsey out and get advice from photographers.


If you don’t want...need...afford the 35/1.2 don’t forget that there is an excellent 35/1.8 RF lens already on sale.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Aug 1, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Time to start saving hard.


or to start working in prostitution or rob a bank


----------



## David (Aug 1, 2019)

Serenesunrise said:


> If you don’t want...need...afford the 35/1.2 don’t forget that there is an excellent 35/1.8 RF lens already on sale.



I know. This 1.8/35 macro is nothing special optically and it is no L lens. The Canon RL primes strategy is wrong, just wrong: 35mm is no studio FL, it is the most used FL when it comes to primes. Will we take a set of 1.2 primes with a trolley around the house? Hiking with f1.2? These extrafast primes feed pride of ownership and are fascinating techwise, but be honest, the majority of excellent pictures are shot at around f5.6-f8. Excellent small primes for 'small mirroless' is a lost chance by Canon. I really am disappointed. Sorry.


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 1, 2019)

David said:


> I know. This 1.8/35 macro is nothing special optically and it is no L lens. The Canon RL primes strategy is wrong, just wrong: 35mm is no studio FL, it is the most used FL when it comes to primes. Will we take a set of 1.2 primes with a trolley around the house? Hiking with f1.2? These extrafast primes feed pride of ownership and are fascinating techwise, but be honest, the majority of excellent pictures are shot at around *f5.6-f8.* Excellent small primes for 'small mirroless' is a lost chance by Canon. I really am disappointed. Sorry.


At those apertures no amount of L is going to make a lens sharper than what the 35mm/1.8 already is, so what is it you really want?

Sure some f/2 or f/2.8 L primes could be nice for the best build quality in small package (1.2vs1.4 size difference wouldn't really matter), but the sad thing is that such lenses probably wouldn't sell.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 1, 2019)

David said:


> I know. This 1.8/35 macro is nothing special optically and it is no L lens. The Canon RL primes strategy is wrong, just wrong: 35mm is no studio FL, it is the most used FL when it comes to primes. Will we take a set of 1.2 primes with a trolley around the house? Hiking with f1.2? These extrafast primes feed pride of ownership and are fascinating techwise, but be honest, the majority of excellent pictures are shot at around f5.6-f8. Excellent small primes for 'small mirroless' is a lost chance by Canon. I really am disappointed. Sorry.


Sorry, but the 1,8/35 is an "excellent small prime", so, which 35 mm are you missing?
For studio photography: 1,2/50, 1,2/85, 28-70 f 2.....and all the EF lenses.
And: there are also excellent and affordable RF zooms...and more to come.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2019)

I don't want to second guess Canon's business strategy, but I am more than a bit perplexed by the number of uber-costly lenses Canon is announcing. I'd love to see the studies that show they will receive sufficient return on investment in a shrinking camera market to warrant the heavy development and production costs these lenses must require.


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 1, 2019)

If it uses the BR optics tech, I could see myself getting one.


----------



## KirkD (Aug 1, 2019)

David said:


> Good to know. 35mm is my one lens combo for 90% of my pictures. I bought into the Canon EOS system because of the excellent lenses. This f1.2/ 35mm will be a gem, no doubt. But since Canon goes all f1.2 with their RL primes I am out. I expected something excellent but practical, maybe f1.4/35 L, a 2/28L or 2/40L. Such a unpractical, heavy and show off 1.2thing like the 1.2/50 will bring Canon laurels but not many customers. Sad. It looks like only Zeiss could keep me with Canon if they release something practical soon. I doubt it. Canon, please, kick McKinsey out and get advice from photographers.


You make a good point regarding the expense and weight of a set of 1.2 primes. However, I'm glad they are there if I think I want/need one. I am also confident that Canon will release some excellent 1.4 primes for the average serious/professional photog who doesn't have a forklift available for a 1.2. I suspect their strategy with releasing the 1.2's and the f2 zooms is to make a big attention-getter for their mirrorless R series (but they really need to let us get our hands on the pro-level IBIS R with which to mate these lenses). For myself, I just want/need one 1.2 lens when I want all the bokeh I can possibly get, and for astrophotography. Unfortunately for me, that requires two different lenses ... a wide angle (35 f1.2 would be nice, provided coma was non-existent) for night sky photography, and an 85 or 100 mm f1.2 for a bokeh blow-out. For now, I'm using the EF 35mm f1.4L II for both purposes, with an adapter on my EOS R. My particular lens has no detectable coma even for stars in the corners enlarged. Maybe I just got lucky, but it will take a pretty good 35 R-series lens to pry this EF 35 1.4L II out of my hands.


----------



## Stichus III (Aug 1, 2019)

With so few RF lenses currently available it makes me wonder why Canon would develop a second 35 mm prime.

This is a CR1 rumor.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 1, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



These fast primes are great and glad to see Canon crushing the competition with them.
The incredible zooms are also leading the way.
The problem is it would be nice to see more 24-240 category lenses for us mere mortals to use as others stated very good quality zooms but make the build less robust to save rather than optics. A few primes for those who really want them like a 50mm f1.4 that is sharp but again the build does not require to be tank like.
Perhaps as the line grows this will happen. I do understand Canon flexing their optical muscles at first. Independents are producing extremely good and rugged lenses themselves and Canon needs to answer the challenge.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 1, 2019)

Ale_F said:


> Some mention of Human-price not-PRO lenses for RF.
> Actually the solution is the EF adapter



Yes it is. Remember though as time passes there will be those purchasing their first camera as an R and will not likely be enamored with the idea of having to use adapted lenses rather than native lenses. Yes the EF work just fine or better but I would be turned off by that and get the impression that the RF is not being seriously developed by lack of a broad range of lenses. That said I hope Canon does not recycle old formulas for RF lenses but goes to cutting edge designs addressing previous optical flaws they are accused of not being able to address.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 1, 2019)

The only f1.2 holding my interest is the 85/1.2L - most portraits demand such a lens!
35mm is the choice for outdoor shooting where my RF35/1.8 really is perfect -- better than my EF35/1.4L in actual use.

My RF35/1.8 is always with me. I'm selling my EF35/1.4L due to lack of use. It was great on the EF cameras but now I'm used to the smaller, more agile, R system.

Using manual lenses is far better on the R than the EF - so why not go manual with a really fast, totally affordable 35mm like the Voigtlander 35/1.2 ???








Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical II Lens


Buy Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 Aspherical II Lens featuring Leica M-Mount Lens, Aperture Range: f/1.2 to f/22, Two Aspherical Elements, High Refractive Index Glass, Manual Focus Design, Minimum Focus Distance: 1.6', Filter Thread: 52mm, 12-Blade Diaphragm. Review Voigtlander null




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## djack41 (Aug 1, 2019)

Wonder if Canon's strategy of the new, fast lenses is to take advantage of the higher megapixel sensors that are coming?


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Aug 1, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> I hope they make a 16mm f1.2 as well.



Even a 1mm f/0.95 would be awesome .... 300 degree field of view with great light gathering !!

But on a more serious note, I would enjoy a 35mm 1.2 because the depth of field would be easier to work with than the usual 1.2 primes


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Aug 1, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I don't want to second guess Canon's business strategy, but I am more than a bit perplexed by the number of uber-costly lenses Canon is announcing. I'd love to see the studies that show they will receive sufficient return on investment in a shrinking camera market to warrant the heavy development and production costs these lenses must require.



Did you run a study on Zeiss after they released the *$4500 Otus lenses* .. the manual focus ones?

Canon's new lenses are not uber expensive. And I doubt they need to make low price budget lenses right now. The starving penny pinchers can merely adapt the nifty fifty to an RF body, and that's likely what the bargain basement lens buyers will do.

Personally, I like great glass, so I enjoy what they are making. And it's nice being able to select from EF or RF glass.


----------



## melgross (Aug 1, 2019)

Let’s not forget that lenses have been getting bigger for years. How many people here remember whn 50mm f1.8-2.0 lenses had 6 elements, and f1.4 had 7? These days are long gone. now a 1.4 is as large as a 135 f2.8 used to be, and often, heavier. Mirrorless supposedly gets these lenses slightly smaller and lighter. So I imagine Canon is thinking that they can make f1.2 that’s not that much bigger than DSLR f1.4 lenses.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 1, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Convenient timing that this rumor drops just when Sigma is gathering buzz with their own 35/1.2. As someone who recently picked up a 35/1.4 after lusting after it for months, I now have a hard time envisioning exactly what a 35/1.2 would do for me that my current lens doesn't. That being said, my OCD loves the idea that every L prime in the RF ecosystem, from 24 all the way to 85, might be 1.2


As an events photographer, i'd expect this to focus at f1.2 in difficult low light conditions then step down to say f4 for the actual shot.


----------



## Ale_F (Aug 1, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Here's a patent for an RF 35mm f/1.2L USM optical formula: https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/c...E18400E5EF31F7AF368E2C5353AC512BB49C88A/11/en


All designs have a BF >35mm...


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 1, 2019)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> or to start working in prostitution or rob a bank


I tried the first one. It seems my 5 o'clock shadow and the fact that I look 9 months along in a tank top and hot pants doesn't give me a customer base, at all.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 1, 2019)

Stuart said:


> As an events photographer, i'd expect this to focus at f1.2 in difficult low light conditions then step down to say f4 for the actual shot.


Ah.... a preset lens.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 1, 2019)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> or to start working in prostitution or rob a bank


Why not both?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 1, 2019)

melgross said:


> Let’s not forget that lenses have been getting bigger for years. How many people here remember whn 50mm f1.8-2.0 lenses had 6 elements, and f1.4 had 7? These days are long gone. now a 1.4 is as large as a 135 f2.8 used to be, and often, heavier. Mirrorless supposedly gets these lenses slightly smaller and lighter. So I imagine Canon is thinking that they can make f1.2 that’s not that much bigger than DSLR f1.4 lenses.


Like the tiny M42 screw mount manual lenses. All my f/1.4s are tiny tiny. Even the 200mm (not f/1.4) is tiny compared to what there is now... but the IQ isn't as good, depending on personal taste.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 1, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Did you run a study on Zeiss after they released the *$4500 Otus lenses* .. the manual focus ones?
> 
> Canon's new lenses are not uber expensive. And I doubt they need to make low price budget lenses right now. The starving penny pinchers can merely adapt the nifty fifty to an RF body, and that's likely what the bargain basement lens buyers will do.
> 
> Personally, I like great glass, so I enjoy what they are making. And it's nice being able to select from EF or RF glass.


The big question is: are these new lenses worth the money?
The answer is: absolutely, (just take a look at the 85 mm test on TDP).
And, as you suggested,, there are other options (Sigma, Tamron, the enormous choice of EF lenses, and, last no least, the used ones).
Canon wants to grab a huge share of the pro market, and pros need and buy these extra-terrestrial lenses.
Well done, Canon!


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 1, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Convenient timing that this rumor drops just when Sigma is gathering buzz with their own 35/1.2. As someone who recently picked up a 35/1.4 after lusting after it for months, I now have a hard time envisioning exactly what a 35/1.2 would do for me that my current lens doesn't. That being said, my OCD loves the idea that every L prime in the RF ecosystem, from 24 all the way to 85, might be 1.2


And how about a pair of telephotos: RF 100mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/1.4?


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 1, 2019)

David said:


> I know. This 1.8/35 macro is nothing special optically and it is no L lens. The Canon RL primes strategy is wrong, just wrong: 35mm is no studio FL, it is the most used FL when it comes to primes. Will we take a set of 1.2 primes with a trolley around the house? Hiking with f1.2? These extrafast primes feed pride of ownership and are fascinating techwise, but be honest, the majority of excellent pictures are shot at around f5.6-f8. Excellent small primes for 'small mirroless' is a lost chance by Canon. I really am disappointed. Sorry.



You need a M5 or M6 with the EF-M 22mm f2.8. That is your light-weight, hiking/all-day use kit that still provides excellent IQ in a very compact but still 35mm FOV equivalency (on these APS-C bodies).


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 1, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I don't want to second guess Canon's business strategy, but I am more than a bit perplexed by the number of uber-costly lenses Canon is announcing. I'd love to see the studies that show they will receive sufficient return on investment in a shrinking camera market to warrant the heavy development and production costs these lenses must require.


You need to understand the market segment that is shrinking. The shrinking segment by far is the consumer market. The Pro market is actually growing (or at the very least, flat). So who is Canon targeting with the early RF lens line-up? Pro's and well-heeled advanced amateurs/hobbyists. People denigrate the 2 early bodies that Canon released for this reason or that but most that do so, have not actually used either body and played around with the files, etc. 

By also implementing 2 different types of adapters for EF/EF-S to RF they've actually managed to improve performance and functionality of the older lenses when one chooses the adapter that has the control ring on it...


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 1, 2019)

Stichus III said:


> With so few RF lenses currently available it makes me wonder why Canon would develop a second 35 mm prime.
> 
> This is a CR1 rumor.


Remember this is a maybe for 2020.


----------



## LensFungus (Aug 1, 2019)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> or to start working in prostitution or rob a bank


I recruited a gang of prostitutes to rob banks. Best of both worlds. Their gang name is "Capture One".


----------



## Stichus III (Aug 1, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> Remember this is a maybe for 2020.



Yep.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 1, 2019)

LensFungus said:


> I recruited a gang of prostitutes to rob banks. Best of both worlds. Their gang name is "Capture One".


"The Walking Freds"?


----------



## melgross (Aug 1, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Why not both?


Well, a prostitution wants to be caught, and a bank robber doesn’t. Part of the job description.


----------



## melgross (Aug 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Like the tiny M42 screw mount manual lenses. All my f/1.4s are tiny tiny. Even the 200mm (not f/1.4) is tiny compared to what there is now... but the IQ isn't as good, depending on personal taste.


And it’s all about IQ. Even Kodachrome 25 was, according to Kodak, no more than about 18MP in resolution. I agree. Even a 24MP camera NEEDS a better lens than film. Move to over 30Mp and the requirements are much stricter.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 1, 2019)

A 35mm f/1.2 has me very excited.. Makes my favorite lens even better.

Just another example of how Canon is slowly convincing me that I'll sell all of my personal EF gear for RF gear when the pro mirrorless comes around. Not surprised if most of the future work lens purchases will all be RF mounts too...


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 1, 2019)

melgross said:


> And it’s all about IQ. Even Kodachrome 25 was, according to Kodak, no more than about 18MP in resolution. I agree. Even a 24MP camera NEEDS a better lens than film. Move to over 30Mp and the requirements are much stricter.


Absolutely. My problem is my old eyes. The focus peaking on the R has really helped with that as opposed to my 5D Mark III. Both are good cameras.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 1, 2019)

David said:


> I know. This 1.8/35 macro is nothing special optically and it is no L lens. The Canon RL primes strategy is wrong, just wrong: 35mm is no studio FL, it is the most used FL when it comes to primes. Will we take a set of 1.2 primes with a trolley around the house? Hiking with f1.2? These extrafast primes feed pride of ownership and are fascinating techwise, but be honest, the majority of excellent pictures are shot at around f5.6-f8. Excellent small primes for 'small mirroless' is a lost chance by Canon. I really am disappointed. Sorry.


35mm is a studio lens for a number applications being: boudoir, large studio editorials, commercial being some amongst others. the utility of F1.2 for such applications and in a controlled light settings is questionable in my opinion. 
However, again, weddings and events photogs may appreciate an opportunity to shoot at a 1/2 stop wider in dimly lit venues with no flash allowed. 
That said, I trust that F2.0 will be sufficiently enough for majority of run and gun situations.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 2, 2019)

Stuart said:


> As an events photographer, i'd expect this to focus at f1.2 in difficult low light conditions then step down to say f4 for the actual shot.



.... or, when in very low light situation, because DoF even At F1.2 will be quite deep, you can set distance to subject manually and switch to manual focusing. Takes care of the focusing delay, happy days. 
I shoot prefocused in low light with a 35/1.4 prime all the time.


----------



## slclick (Aug 2, 2019)

I'm so happy to be content with 1.8.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> Let’s not forget that lenses have been getting bigger for years. How many people here remember whn 50mm f1.8-2.0 lenses had 6 elements, and f1.4 had 7? These days are long gone. now a 1.4 is as large as a 135 f2.8 used to be, and often, heavier. Mirrorless supposedly gets these lenses slightly smaller and lighter. So I imagine Canon is thinking that they can make f1.2 that’s not that much bigger than DSLR f1.4 lenses.


I think the conceit of smaller lenses for mirrorless has been dispensed with. I have seen almost no new lenses that are smaller than their predecessors. The RF 24-105 is slightly smaller and lighter but scarcely a revelation in packaging. In addition the IQ requirements of the newest sensors (not to mention the fanboy peepers) demand lens formulae that are much larger as first evidenced by the Zeiss Otus line.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 2, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Did you run a study on Zeiss after they released the *$4500 Otus lenses* .. the manual focus ones?
> 
> Canon's new lenses are not uber expensive. And I doubt they need to make low price budget lenses right now. The starving penny pinchers can merely adapt the nifty fifty to an RF body, and that's likely what the bargain basement lens buyers will do.
> 
> Personally, I like great glass, so I enjoy what they are making. And it's nice being able to select from EF or RF glass.


My...aren't we delightful. Welcome to the forum. We are so lucky to have someone of your caliber here to enlighten all the starving penny pinchers and bargain basement lens buyers.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 2, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> You need to understand the market segment that is shrinking. The shrinking segment by far is the consumer market. The Pro market is actually growing (or at the very least, flat). So who is Canon targeting with the early RF lens line-up? Pro's and well-heeled advanced amateurs/hobbyists. People denigrate the 2 early bodies that Canon released for this reason or that but most that do so, have not actually used either body and played around with the files, etc.
> 
> By also implementing 2 different types of adapters for EF/EF-S to RF they've actually managed to improve performance and functionality of the older lenses when one chooses the adapter that has the control ring on it...


I've certainly been around enough to understand the shrinking market. And, no, the professional market is not growing.

The enthusiast market is the segment that is seeing growth. Much of that is being driven by higher per capita spending within that market, not necessarily greater numbers of buyers. Yes, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, etc., are all going after that market, which has more disposable income and is less sensitive to the economy.

I simply made the suggestion that I'd like to know more about Canon's strategy with these high-end lenses, which seem to be targeted to quite a small subset within the enthusiast market -- those that need, or at least think they need, very fast prime lenses. It has been my sense that the growth in the enthusiast market has been more heavily weighted toward wildlife and bird photographers. These are not lenses for that market.

There must be a market for these lenses, or Canon would not be making them. I simply stated I'd like to know more about what the market is.


----------



## home_slice (Aug 2, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> I hope they make a 16mm f1.2 as well.


That would be great. The Sigma 20mm 1.4 is the only non L lens in my Canon kit. It misses focus a bunch and takes a bit of post-work to color match but until Canon makes something like that, it's the only fast superwide prime option I know of.


----------



## IsaacImage (Aug 2, 2019)

can't wait


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 2, 2019)

These incredible new fast RF lenses do excite me... I love the look that fast, sharp, amazingly engineered lenses/quality glass gives. Naturally that type of glass is usually expensive... but as with most things in life, "you get what you pay for".

At the same time, I think it's a positive that Canon (and other manufacturers) have shown - that they are pushing new boundaries with respect to lenses for mirrorless cameras and applying various new technologies. The advantages already do (and will continue to) shine through in both the 'elite' glass, as well as more standard lenses that fall more into the 'consumer and prosumer class' of lenses. 

There are generally the pro-quality lenses that are specifically designed for specific tasks, and the smaller / lighter / less expensive counterparts that are more 'flexible'. Canon is already showing this with mirrorless, as are others. So the rumour of a RF 35mm f/1.2 means, while I probably won't buy a 35mm f/1.2, I might still 'benefit' from its existence - e.g. a RF 35mm f/2 might suit me well enough. 



FramerMCB said:


> You need a M5 or M6 with the EF-M 22mm f2.8. That is your light-weight, hiking/all-day use kit that still provides excellent IQ in a very compact but still 35mm FOV equivalency (on these APS-C bodies).



Yes, agreed! I own the M5 and also have previously had the M10. The EF-M 22mm (actually an f/2, not a f/2.8 as written above) - is a great lens on both cameras. It's so small and light, a handy focal length, and yet has great image quality. It would also shine even more on a Canon mirrorless with in-body-image-stabilisation (IBIS) if Canon would come produce camera bodies with that technology. I love my EF-M 22mm f/2, great as a casual street lens, and lens to capture 'people within their environment'.

PJ


----------



## Berowne (Aug 2, 2019)

I was an early adopter of the EF 85/1.4 IS and did never regret. It is a heavy and bulky lens, but i dont care. So if I could afford the new fast RF-lenses, I would not hesitate a moment.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 2, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Why not both?


A much better idea: what about joining efforts (with the strongest Forum members) and attack the Canon lens plant?
Think of all the 400 f 2,8, 600 f 4, 85-50-35 f 1,2 etc...waiting for us.
We could disguise with masks and Sony- troll t-shirts.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Absolutely. My problem is my old eyes. The focus peaking on the R has really helped with that as opposed to my 5D Mark III. Both are good cameras.


I really disliked focus peaking with my Leica M 240, poorly implemented with the accessory EVF.
So, I was quite skeptical when I bought my second EOS R , the first one having been replaced after a week with the 5 D IV, reason was the absence of dual SD slot (I stupidly panicked before an important trip!).
Conclusion: the R's focus peaking is absolutely great with vintage lenses, the magnifying feature perfect, and, last not least, the USABLE DOF preview with manual lenses. Fantastic for macro shots !


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 2, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I really disliked focus peaking with my Leica M 240, poorly implemented with the accessory EVF.
> So, I was quite skeptical when I bought my second EOS R , the first one having been replaced after a week with the 5 D IV, reason was the absence of dual SD slot (I stupidly panicked before an important trip!).
> Conclusion: the R's focus peaking is absolutely great with vintage lenses, the magnifying feature perfect, and, last not least, the USABLE DOF preview with manual lenses. Fantastic for macro shots !



I'd like Canon to tweak the DoF preview a bit, it needs a noticable bit of time to ramp up the exposure. I don't know if it's just sloppy coding, since the the scene has been metered already and the camera knows it's going from f/2.8 to f/11 or if it's the amplifier hardware being to slow.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 2, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I really disliked focus peaking with my Leica M 240, poorly implemented with the accessory EVF.
> So, I was quite skeptical when I bought my second EOS R , the first one having been replaced after a week with the 5 D IV, reason was the absence of dual SD slot (I stupidly panicked before an important trip!).
> Conclusion: the R's focus peaking is absolutely great with vintage lenses, the magnifying feature perfect, and, last not least, the USABLE DOF preview with manual lenses. Fantastic for macro shots !


My first experience with peaking was on my little Olympus. It works very well. The problem I ran into was the 2X crop really sucks. My widest vintage is 24mm X2 = 48mm equivalent FOV.So a 135mm= 270mm FOV. 150mm = 300mm FOV. etc. Terrible.

Very happy with the R and my tiny wife loves the Olympus. The eye AF on the R works great for me too. I have read some bad reports here, but they must not be from actual owners or prior to the firmware update, so I don't know where they get their information. YouTube? Blogs? Who knows. There are a lot of bashers here who have never touched the R, yet they try to speak as though they know more about it than actual users. I base that on the fact that they say this or that isn't a feature on the R, but it is, or they flat out say the R is a terrible camera so will not buy one... the competition is better, they say. It isn't. Coming from a 5D mark III, I feel like the R is a fantastic bargain and definite upgrade except for the missing card slot. The AF on the R line is the best I have ever used too. My keeper rate has gone sky high. Finally, I have the articulating screen back that I really missed after selling my 70D. The R is a darn nice camera for my use case. I almost got the 5D Mark IV instead. Then I chose the R. Absolutely no regrets. In fact, I am selling my 5D Mark III and EF lenses to help finance a backup R and my next RF lens.


----------



## 6degrees (Aug 2, 2019)

Dream configuration:

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L
Canon RF 35mm F1.2 L
Canon RF 14-21mm F1.4 L (https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-r...one-of-the-crazy-lenses-coming-next-year-cr1/)

Different level of photography. Beyond the possibility of other mounts, DSLR/EF, Sony E mount, you name it. Nikon Z mount may be close. This will last for 30 years to come.


----------



## canonical (Aug 2, 2019)

excellent news. those f/1.2 RF pickle jars will drive down prices for f/1.8 RF and 2nd hand EF L lenses. 

Looking forward to get a mint condition EF 85/1.4 for close to nothing.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 2, 2019)

canonical said:


> excellent news. those f/1.2 RF pickle jars will drive down prices for f/1.8 RF and 2nd hand EF L lenses.
> 
> Looking forward to get a mint condition EF 85/1.4 for close to nothing.



Are you expecting that a $3000 lens affects street prices of $1000 lenses? As in Maserati prices affects heavily Ford because Ford customers will certainly are eager to trade their Ford vehicles in for a top of the range one? OK. Sold


----------



## scyrene (Aug 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I tried the first one. It seems my 5 o'clock shadow and the fact that I look 9 months along in a tank top and hot pants doesn't give me a customer base, at all.



You'd be surprised


----------



## melgross (Aug 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Absolutely. My problem is my old eyes. The focus peaking on the R has really helped with that as opposed to my 5D Mark III. Both are good cameras.



eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.


----------



## melgross (Aug 2, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I think the conceit of smaller lenses for mirrorless has been dispensed with. I have seen almost no new lenses that are smaller than their predecessors. The RF 24-105 is slightly smaller and lighter but scarcely a revelation in packaging. In addition the IQ requirements of the newest sensors (not to mention the fanboy peepers) demand lens formulae that are much larger as first evidenced by the Zeiss Otus line.


The 70-200 f2.8 is pretty small. Heh, it’s not much bigger than some “normal” lenses these days.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 2, 2019)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> or to start working in prostitution or rob a bank


Nah, better found a bank and start to rob people legally


----------



## canonical (Aug 2, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Are you expecting that a $3000 lens affects street prices of $1000 lenses?



yes i do. in real life any prime lens north of 1k is in the same tiny niche universe, despite great differences in new price, use case, performance and features. all of them are bought new mainly by gear nuts and/or people with too much money who are going for "the latest and supposedly greatest". luckily those folks often dump their expensive toys as soon as new ones arrive. that behavioural pattern suits me very well. i often pick up their hardly used lenses for less money than they are functionally worth. "penny-pinching, starving me" gladly lets "premium suckers" absorb the price premiums and drive Canon's profits. meanwhile i take images with excellent yesteryear gear at very reasonable cost. i find this very fair and quite rewarding.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 2, 2019)

I am a huge fan of Canon's super fast lenses, but I never will understand why such a fast wide (!!) angle lens is needed. Of course, it can create nice artistic effects never seen before, but practically, I shoot even my 24-70mm f/2.8 mostly stopped down on its short end. And I am sure this applies to most users.

That said, such a lens would fit perfectly to Canon's tradition of boldly demonstrating what they can do. This tradition started back in the early 1960s with the famous 50mm f/0.95 rangefinder lens, the fastest commercially produced lens for many decades. They even needed to design a completely new rangefinder body for this fascinating monster, the Canon 7. But, shooting such a lens wide open on a manual only focusing analoge rangefinder (= no focus peaking!) in real life? A 98 % out-of-focus-nightmare. Here's a nice report about this experience:









Canon 50mm f0.95 and the Canon 50mm f1.2 (LTM)


This post looks at the Canon 50mm f0.95 and Canon 50mm f1.2 together. For a more recent post just looking at the Canon 50mm f0.95, take a look at this. As long as I can remember, I’ve always been a…




allmyfriendsarejpegs.com





So the bottom line is: Canon has sometimes a surprisingly crazy irrational side, but in fact I like that.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 2, 2019)

Stuart said:


> As an events photographer, i'd expect this to focus at f1.2 in difficult low light conditions then step down to say f4 for the actual shot.


Ah, that's the first argument for such a fast wide angle lens that sounds convincing to me...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Like the tiny M42 screw mount manual lenses. All my f/1.4s are tiny tiny. Even the 200mm (not f/1.4) is tiny compared to what there is now... but the IQ isn't as good, depending on personal taste.


Same applies to my collection of M39 screw mount lenses. My Canon RF 35mm f/2, a quite fast lens, is smaller than a tiny espresso cup... On the downside, most of these compact rangefinder lenses had about 1 meter closest distance only. So format filling head portraits were not possible.


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.


So sorry to hear your eye trouble Mel. I will be praying for a successful operation to fix that retina. No fun at all. Had a fellow church member that went through that very same thing a bout 1 year ago. See's doing great now. But it was very nerve-wracking for her for several weeks.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 2, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I really disliked focus peaking with my Leica M 240, poorly implemented with the accessory EVF.
> So, I was quite skeptical when I bought my second EOS R , the first one having been replaced after a week with the 5 D IV, reason was the absence of dual SD slot (I stupidly panicked before an important trip!).
> Conclusion: the R's focus peaking is absolutely great with vintage lenses, the magnifying feature perfect, and, last not least, the USABLE DOF preview with manual lenses. Fantastic for macro shots !



What vintage lenses?
Canon FD?
I really want to go with R so as to use my FD/FL and R vintage lenses and I was wondering if this worked with non-electric lenses. My delay at this point is I am greedy and want IBIS as well as I have been completely spoiled with IS in my current Canon lenses.
Thank you in advance for your response.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.


Sorry to hear, and hoping you get back your vision in the left eye.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> eh, old eyes. I’m almost 70,, and now, my left eye, and, of course, I’m left eyed, is unusable. I just got a partially detached retina, for which I have to have an operation this coming Tuesday. I should get, hopefully, 85% of my vision back, maybe worse, maybe better. It’s all very frustrating.



Hope your vision recovers (fellow left-eye shooter here) and that you're feeling like yourself again soon!


----------



## slclick (Aug 2, 2019)

There are always many varieties of bodies and glass which folks yammer about endlessly here which never come to fruition. It's my hunch that one of these is a crop R camera. Give the M system some time and it will grow into something along the lines of what those people are wanting. If the M5/6 refreshes are even half of what the last rumor listed they will be leaps and bounds better than the current models and if coupled with the crop version sensor of the CR1 FF body due it should leave no one crying for an APS-C R body. (Who would want RF-S lenses anyway?)


----------



## Dantana (Aug 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> The 70-200 f2.8 is pretty small. Heh, it’s not much bigger than some “normal” lenses these days.


True, but I think that's due to the retracting design like the 70-300L, not the RF mount itself. I don't think it's really mirrorless making it smaller, but I could be wrong.

Sorry to hear about your eye. I hope your recovery gets you back to 100 percent.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 2, 2019)

Sounds good! My favourite FF people focal length!


----------



## deleteme (Aug 3, 2019)

melgross said:


> The 70-200 f2.8 is pretty small. Heh, it’s not much bigger than some “normal” lenses these days.


Agreed but it is not yet here and I anticipate an avalanche of criticism about it being an extending design.
I do look forward to it however and will sell my trusty ca.2002 70-200 2.8L IS as soon as the new one appears.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 3, 2019)

I think it's a great idea from Canon and it's a surprise to me that Canon didn't do this earlier. I guess they have been holding back on EF lens development for a while so they can buff and drop the dev on the new RF mount. I've been using the ef 85mm f1.2 II L and 35mm f1.4 L professionally for well over 15 years...it's always surprised me that Canon had the tech / lens advantage for so many years and then didn't jump on the opportunity to push ahead again once all the competition caught up with similar offerings. Sigma, nikon and Sony to name the main contenders. 
A 24mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 obviously come to mind...and we all know of the ef 50mm f1.2 L disaster. I don't think f1.2 fives much of a brightness advantage over f1.4....but it's an OCD / portfolio thang. I could then say...all my primes are f1.2. It kind of feels complete.
So I hope Canon does make a range of sweet f1.2 primes beyond their existing 85 and 50 offerings.


----------



## Daan Stam (Aug 4, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


So 135mm f1.2? Hahaha That would be incredible


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 4, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Agreed but it is not yet here and I anticipate an avalanche of criticism about it being an extending design.
> I do look forward to it however and will sell my trusty ca.2002 70-200 2.8L IS as soon as the new one appears.



Why wouldn't it be hyperfocal?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2019)

Hyperfocal:

In photography, hyperfocal distance is a distance beyond which all objects can be brought into an "acceptable" focus. As the hyperfocal distance is the focus distance giving the maximum depth of field, it is the most desirable distance to set the focus of a fixed-focus camera. 

Is that what you meant to say?


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Hyperfocal:
> 
> In photography, hyperfocal distance is a distance beyond which all objects can be brought into an "acceptable" focus. As the hyperfocal distance is the focus distance giving the maximum depth of field, it is the most desirable distance to set the focus of a fixed-focus camera.
> 
> Is that what you meant to say?



Not sure - by hyperfocal I mean "with just internally moving elements" when refocusing, simply not extending ....


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 4, 2019)

Just can't get excited over a new 35 because the current 35 is so great.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Not sure - by hyperfocal I mean "with just internally moving elements" when refocusing, simply not extending ....


oh, ok. there are couple of points to consider:
extending zooms may be susceptible to zoom creeping issue.
_Lens creep_” is that really annoying thing in which your _lens_ slips and zooms itself out of position. It happens on all sorts of zoom lenses that have an externally moving part rather than an internal one. 

and so on and so forth.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 4, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Why wouldn't it be hyperfocal?


Not hyperfocal.
It is an extending design as opposed to internal zoom.
The 24-70 and 24-105 designs are also extending designs. The current 70-200 zooms are internal zooms in that they do not change length as you zoom.
The prototype shown of the RF 70-200 was an extending type. The criticism of extending zooms is that air is pushed in and out of the lens permitting dust to accumulate. 
While that is technically true I have never had an issue with dust despite long term usage of extending zooms.
Zoom creep does occur with the v1 and v2 RF 24-105 zooms I have owned but the RF does not creep. IMO it is a function of good design and construction that minimizes or eliminates zoom creep.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 5, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> What vintage lenses?
> Canon FD?
> I really want to go with R so as to use my FD/FL and R vintage lenses and I was wondering if this worked with non-electric lenses. My delay at this point is I am greedy and want IBIS as well as I have been completely spoiled with IS in my current Canon lenses.
> Thank you in advance for your response.


Sorry for the delay (short trip to France).
I meant the vintage lenses I personally own, Leica Apo Macro Elmarit 100 mm, Macro Elmarit 60 mm, Summilux 35 asph. & 75 mm M lenses, Apo Telyt 180 mm, Summicron R 90 mm, Summicron M 50 mm, M 28 mm asph. and many more M and R lenses...
PS: I have converted the Leica R lenses with a so called "Leitax" bayonet (replaced the leica bayonet with an EF Type), and use the Novoflex RF to M adapter for the Leica M lenses (NOT for ultrawides !!! due to color shift.)


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2019)

Thanks for your well wishes guys.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 8, 2019)

slclick said:


> I'm so happy to be content with 1.8.


I am also very happy with the RF35 1.8 -- I also shoot a EF35 1.4L on the R with control ring adapter but rarely now that I have the RF35 1.8 -- the EF35 1.4L is for sale...


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 14, 2019)

An RF 105mm f/1.2L prime would suit me fine. Would a RF 135mm f/1.2L prime be too huge?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 15, 2019)

105/1.2 would be a size if Sigma 105/1.4 Art and it is absolute huge. An Absurdity. Mine is for sale. 

135/1.2 would be the size of 200/2 if not larger. Price? I guess one would have take out a second mortgage


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2019)

Stichus III said:


> With so few RF lenses currently available it makes me wonder why Canon would develop a second 35 mm prime.
> 
> This is a CR1 rumor.



Because a very fast 35mm lens on FF is one of a wedding photographer's staple lenses. This is the lens that was missing out of the fast RF 'trinity'.

I bet it will soon turn into a CR3


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2019)

David said:


> Good to know. 135mm is my one lens combo for 90% of my pictures. I bought into the Canon EOS system because of the excellent lenses. This f1.2/ 35mm will be a gem, no doubt. But since Canon goes all f1.2 with their RL primes I am out. I expected something excellent but practical, maybe f1.4/35 L, a 2/28L or 2/40L. Such a unpractical, heavy and show off 1.2thing like the 1.2/50 will bring Canon laurels but not many customers. Sad. It looks like only Zeiss could keep me with Canon if they release something practical soon. I doubt it. Canon, please, kick McKinsey out and get advice from photographers.


Actually, f/1.2 is what got me buying lenses again. It'll be what keeps me buying. But I am just 1 guy.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> 105/1.2 would be a size if Sigma 105/1.4 Art and it is absolute huge. An Absurdity. Mine is for sale.
> 
> 135/1.2 would be the size of 200/2 if not larger. Price? I guess one would have take out a second mortgage


A Canon 105 f/1.2L, no matter the size, would make me swoon. I'd be a buyer.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A Canon 105 f/1.2L, no matter the size, would make me swoon. I'd be a buyer.


would cost around US$4000 likely if not more.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A Canon 105 f/1.2L, no matter the size, would make me swoon. I'd be a buyer.



I don't think physics would allow such a lens to be built (based on the current RF mount dimensions).


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 22, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> I don't think physics would allow such a lens to be built (based on the current RF mount dimensions).


I am genuinely keen to understand the limitation. Any hints?


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 22, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I am genuinely keen to understand the limitation. Any hints?



I'm fairly sure there's a hard limit to what type of lens can be made. So for example, take the EF 50mm 1.0, there's not a massive amount of glass for light to pass through, so do-able.

But the longer the focal length the much more massive the lens and a lot more places are required for the light to pass through and bounce around before it hits the sensor. The closest we've got so far (in mean terms) is the massive 1.8 200mm prime but even then the next revision to that lens was F2.

Physics will also play a part in the resulting image quality so gets in the way of a lot of things. We didn't get a 50mm F1.0 mkii as another example.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I don't want to second guess Canon's business strategy, but I am more than a bit perplexed by the number of uber-costly lenses Canon is announcing. I'd love to see the studies that show they will receive sufficient return on investment in a shrinking camera market to warrant the heavy development and production costs these lenses must require.


Speaking just for myself, f/1.2 anything at all has me excited to buy. So do f/2 zooms.  Without those, I'd have stayed EF. But it will be hard to beat the EF 35mm f/1.4L II.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think it's a great idea from Canon and it's a surprise to me that Canon didn't do this earlier. I guess they have been holding back on EF lens development for a while so they can buff and drop the dev on the new RF mount. I've been using the ef 85mm f1.2 II L and 35mm f1.4 L professionally for well over 15 years...it's always surprised me that Canon had the tech / lens advantage for so many years and then didn't jump on the opportunity to push ahead again once all the competition caught up with similar offerings. Sigma, nikon and Sony to name the main contenders.
> A 24mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 obviously come to mind...and we all know of the ef 50mm f1.2 L disaster. I don't think f1.2 fives much of a brightness advantage over f1.4....but it's an OCD / portfolio thang. I could then say...all my primes are f1.2. It kind of feels complete.
> So I hope Canon does make a range of sweet f1.2 primes beyond their existing 85 and 50 offerings.


Same here, along with two f/2 zooms.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 10, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Same here, along with two f/2 zooms.


Yes, I agree. Although I can't see myself using a pair of large f2 zooms, but their place in the market. For me, I'm better suited to three bodies, a pair of f1.2 primes and f2.8 ultrawide and that's my 98% wedding gear sorted. 
At the f2.0 lens category, my mind always goes to the 135mm f2.0 L (a beautiful lens) and the 200mm f2.0 LIS (another stunning lens).


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 21, 2019)

I just ordered the RF35mm 1.8, but now I'm drooling after another 1.2 prime! damn canon for knowing my weakness


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 21, 2019)

These lenses are coming too quickly to keep up! Damn you Canon! And shame on the complainers. When the pro bodies are released, there will be plenty of pro lenses. Everything is being done in proper order. Now, bring on that RF 70-135mm f/2L portrait zoom! I want every f/1.2 they issue also. 10 y
ear plan.  Poor Sony.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 21, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> I just ordered the RF35mm 1.8, but now I'm drooling after another 1.2 prime! damn canon for knowing my weakness


I almost ordered the f/1.8 this past weekend... then thought hmmmmm... f/1.2. Didn't order. haha


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 21, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> *I'm fairly sure there's a hard limit to what type of lens can be made*. So for example, take the EF 50mm 1.0, there's not a massive amount of glass for light to pass through, so do-able.
> 
> But the longer the focal length the much more massive the lens and a lot more places are required for the light to pass through and bounce around before it hits the sensor. The closest we've got so far (in mean terms) is the massive 1.8 200mm prime but even then the next revision to that lens was F2.
> 
> Physics will also play a part in the resulting image quality so gets in the way of a lot of things. We didn't get a 50mm F1.0 mkii as another example.


There is. If you have air between your elements (and last element and sensor), the limit is about f/0.5, and RF mount could handle such lenses, they would vignette quite a bit in the corners though (due to the angles at which the light hits the sensor, probably not so much because the mount is in the way). But such designs would not be in any sense practical or make economical sense, see Nikon's 58mm f/0.95 for some measure of what is required.

Btw Canon has made a 300mm/1.8: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 21, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I almost ordered the f/1.8 this past weekend... then thought hmmmmm... f/1.2. Didn't order. haha


Yeah I might sell And trade up it when the 1.2 comes. No telling when 2020 the 1.2 will arrive. Plus I know I need to save for the 70-200


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 21, 2019)

Oh give me a home
Where the 1.2's roam
Where the Nikon's and Sony's can't play
Where never is heard
A soft corner word
And the bokeh is buttery all day.


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 21, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Oh give me a home
> Where the 1.2's roam
> Where the Nikon's and Sony's can't play
> Where never is heard
> ...


If the RF85’s bokeh is butter, does that make the DS’s margarine?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 22, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> If the RF85’s bokeh is butter, does that make the DS’s margarine?


Cotton candy.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 22, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> Yeah I might sell And trade up it when the 1.2 comes. No telling when 2020 the 1.2 will arrive. Plus I know I need to save for the 70-200


If it is anything like what my EF 35mm f/1.4 II was... it will be awesome. You'll save for the 70-200 f/2.8. As a portrait guy, I'm gonna want the RF 70-135 f/2L.


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 22, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If it is anything like what my EF 35mm f/1.4 II was... it will be awesome. You'll save for the 70-200 f/2.8. As a portrait guy, I'm gonna want the RF 70-135 f/2L.


I want all the lenses. Is there a projected release window for the 70-135?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 22, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> I want all the lenses. Is there a projected release window for the 70-135?


Unfortunately not. But I can wait. I want that one more than anything else.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Oct 22, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> Btw Canon has made a 300mm/1.8: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/


Thanks for posting that Proscribo- it is one I've never heard about or come across - looks like a monster. Interesting serial number though for something that there may only have been 4 made of.
Cheers


----------



## navastronia (Oct 22, 2019)

When I saw this thread was bumped, I got excited, thinking we had more information, but noooooooooo, it's just a bunch of you (also, me) drooling over something that hasn't even been announced, yet


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 22, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Thanks for posting that Proscribo- it is one I've never heard about or come across - looks like a monster. Interesting serial number though for something that there may only have been 4 made of.
> Cheers


I would love to see something like this with an RF mount


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 30, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Kudos to Canon for pushing lens design to dizzying heights, but I just want an excellent set of small modest primes for the RF: f/1.4 to f/1.8 is fine, and a 20mm f/2.8. The f/1.2s are special but these giant lenses are too big and heavy to carry around on a regular basis. Having said that, the RF 50 f/1.2 tempts me the most.


Ahhhh... I long for the old days when f/1.4 wasn't considered modest.


----------



## derpderp (Feb 25, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't want to second guess Canon's business strategy, but I am more than a bit perplexed by the number of uber-costly lenses Canon is announcing. I'd love to see the studies that show they will receive sufficient return on investment in a shrinking camera market to warrant the heavy development and production costs these lenses must require.



Frankly, I want the RF L lenses to remain exclusive, uber-expensive, ultra-fast and mechanically supreme. I don't want to see every canon photographer out there toting L lenses. The high end premium market is the only growing market out there, where profit margins are still good for manufacturers. Consumer lenses are a thing of the past.


----------



## Jstnelson (Aug 10, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Any updates on this lens? I feel like it fell off the radar for 2020


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 11, 2020)

Jstnelson said:


> Any updates on this lens? I feel like it fell off the radar for 2020


It's the lens I'm waiting for... a shame it has gone quiet!


----------



## B.Harris (Sep 24, 2020)

Yep any update on this?


----------

