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



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 18, 2021)

> A 35mm L lens for the RF mount has been rumoured for what seems to be an eternity. We have seen a patent for such a lens and it has been on our RF lens roadmap for such a lens.
> I have been told that the lens has been delayed due to the COVID-19 challenges still plaguing lens manufacturing.
> We should expect to see this lens announced in Q4 of 2021, possibly alongside the Canon EOS R3.



Continue reading...


----------



## RMac (May 18, 2021)

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

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


----------



## sigrblot (May 18, 2021)

RMac said:


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



Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.


----------



## vangelismm (May 18, 2021)

sigrblot said:


> Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.


You do not know this.


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2021)

RMac said:


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


I believe because far more people shoot at 35mm?.

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

Some lenses from Canon are not for me. This one ain't for you.  Often, the world is far bigger than the world we've created in our minds.


----------



## jam05 (May 18, 2021)

RMac said:


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


Sold all of my EF lenses except the 85s and dont want to use the older EF lenses. The top AF speeds and fps obtained with the new cameras will be with certain RF lenses. Thats what I paid for in the camera. The EF 35 wont be their best when the 35 1.2 is released.


----------



## roby17269 (May 18, 2021)

Waiting and saving for this one!  

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

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

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


----------



## Flamingtree (May 18, 2021)

I know three things for certain about this lens:

1. I want it
2. It will be hideously expensive
3. Production will be so slow that I won’t be able to buy it until late 2022 at the earliest.


----------



## mb66energy (May 18, 2021)

sigrblot said:


> Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.


Maybe - my reason for RF-system: Excellent AF free of restrictions to some AF points on the wrong place, better sensor (than EOS 5Di). EF lenses double for my M50 so there is some further advantage to keep EF lenses.
The RF 35 1.8 is an excellent lens because of good IQ, f/1.8 and image stabilization for low light applications. And with good closeup / macro capability it is very flexible - that was my choice of this RF lens.

The only reason I see to buy RF lenses is the sparse availability of the EF-EOS R adapter which avoids "converting" EF lenses to use them in a mixed environment - not meant too serious


----------



## xiaohuaa (May 18, 2021)

roby17269 said:


> Waiting and saving for this one!
> 
> I had the EF 35mm f/1.4 mkI and I tried on the R5 and did not like it so ended up selling it.
> 
> ...



Why didn’t you like the R5? Because You need to record long oversampled videos?


----------



## RMac (May 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I believe because far more people shoot at 35mm?.
> 
> I used to have the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Great lens! However, I have no 35mm presently. So someone like me will be very interested.
> 
> Some lenses from Canon are not for me. This one ain't for you.  Often, the world is far bigger than the world we've created in our minds.


I guess Canon would have a good idea whether there's a bigger market for a new 35mm L when they already have a stellar 35mm L than a 24mm L when their current 24mm L could really stand an update. Or maybe they have a design that would yield higher margins than the current 35mm.

Surely there are a lot of folks who would love to see updates to their longer-in-tooth L prime designs - 14mm, 24mm, and 135mm being the ones that stick out in my mind. But what do I know? I don't have a market analysis team.


----------



## Aaron D (May 18, 2021)

I just bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/2 and I see clearly now the difference between L and non-L. These lenses are fine - sharp, light, well-built - but the focusing in and out - buzz, buzz, buzz - is annoying as hell. But I cannot justify a collection of f/1.2 primes and I don't want the giant size/weight. I will make do with these STM's until Canon makes a series of f/1.4's that'll be fast, quiet, small-ish, weather-sealed, with IS and _relatively_ affordable.

I _am_ Goldilcks, there's no denying it.


----------



## LeeBabySimms (May 18, 2021)

Meh — another too heavy and wrong sized lens for mirrorless. The 35L II really works well on the R's. We'll see what Tamron and Sigma release for RF.


----------



## Sorosuub (May 18, 2021)

About time, can't wait! Love my 35LII but I want to see what the RF version offers.


----------



## slclick (May 18, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> You do not know this.


As a new convert to the R system, I think the best of both worlds is using a combination...that is, unless you have no EF already.


----------



## kafala (May 18, 2021)

It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2021)

RMac said:


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


You bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. I bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. If most buyers are like us (and Canon has those data), then they are likely to sell more RF 35mm lenses than RF 24mm lenses.


----------



## exige24 (May 18, 2021)

Sony comes out with a half way decent 35 1.4 for the first time in their ecosystem's history.

Canon: Hold my beer.

Haha Love the scrambling they've got Sony in.


----------



## exige24 (May 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. I bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. If most buyers are like us (and Canon has those data), then they are likely to sell more RF 35mm lenses than RF 24mm lenses.


Exactly. 35mm is a way more popular focal length than 24mm.


----------



## exige24 (May 18, 2021)

kafala said:


> It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.


Silence, Zoolander.

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

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

Haha Please. 
Jeez.


----------



## exige24 (May 18, 2021)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Meh — another too heavy and wrong sized lens for mirrorless. The 35L II really works well on the R's. We'll see what Tamron and Sigma release for RF.



The best lens of its class, but it's an extra 100g!!!!!!!!!!!! Noooooooooo!!!!

Talk about messed up priorities. Do you people even take pictures or just the weigh your lenses?


----------



## canonmike (May 18, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know three things for certain about this lens:
> 
> 1. I want it
> 2. It will be hideously expensive
> 3. Production will be so slow that I won’t be able to buy it until late 2022 at the earliest.


Your comment is spot on and am glad you are aware of it. I have been on B&H notification list since Jan, for both the RF28-70 F2L and the RF 100-500. In the case of the RF 28-70, you are talking about a lens that has been out for two yrs and you still can't find ample supplies, unless you are willing to pay MSRP ++ on Ebay and elsewhere. So, it's hard to develop any level of sustained enthusiasm for another new lens you won't be able to get for some time.


----------



## Soren Hakanlind (May 18, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Strange. Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM *– Who is it for? It will be to heavy and to expensive. And why the *​*f/1.2? A 35mm f/2,0L USM lens will cover 99,999% of my work using a 35mm.*​Continue reading...


----------



## Refraction (May 18, 2021)

kafala said:


> It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.


I own the 35mm f1.8 and I have had to slow down the autofocus in the camera settings to make it rack slower as it is extremely quick. I use for both photo and video several times per week and it never, ever occurred to me that the focus is slow in either photo or video. For comparison, I also own several L lenses in both RF and EF and the 35 1.8 is not a laggard and weighing in at just 300 grams with macro capability, is worth it for the loss of a small amount of bokeh versus a heavy 1.4 lens.


----------



## Gazwas (May 18, 2021)

This will the first RF lens!

Flying this on a gimbal in low light will be amazing and opening a 35mm lens up to f1.2 will allow for some stunning dreamy effects.


----------



## Gazwas (May 18, 2021)

kafala said:


> It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs.


That comment is so 2014 and used very briefly when Sony were trying to sell us the "mirrorless dream" then quickly swept under the carpet two years later with the release of the G Masters when everyone complained there was no pro glass.


----------



## JoeDavid (May 18, 2021)

Refraction said:


> I own the 35mm f1.8 and I have had to slow down the autofocus in the camera settings to make it rack slower as it is extremely quick. I use for both photo and video several times per week and it never, ever occurred to me that the focus is slow in either photo or video. For comparison, I also own several L lenses in both RF and EF and the 35 1.8 is not a laggard and weighing in at just 300 grams with macro capability, is worth it for the loss of a small amount of bokeh versus a heavy 1.4 lens.


The optical quality of the non-L RF lenses is quite good. The one thing that really bugs me about Canon non-L lenses is the extra $35-50 they charge you for the lens hood. Probably cost them less than $1…


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The best lens of its class, but it's an extra 100g!!!!!!!!!!!! Noooooooooo!!!!
> 
> Talk about messed up priorities. Do you people even take pictures or just the weigh your lenses?


Reminds me of road bike fanatics that shave their legs so they'll be more "aerodynamic".


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

exige24 said:


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


I'm sorry that is complete nonsense for many people. Size weight and cost are real issues with the new RF lenses, sure a couple of hundred grams might not make a big difference on one lens, when it all adds up and makes the difference between carrying three lenses instead of four lenses it has real impact. 

Personally I love the EF 35 f2 IS and own it over the EF 35 f1.4 II L because of size, weight, and cost, oh, and the f2 has IS.... I could buy the L, easily, but then the EF 35 1.4 II L is 15oz more than the f2, that difference between the two lenses is three quarters the weight of my EF 100L Macro! Sure for a couple of hours it makes little difference but for long hikes, big trips, travels, or vacations it makes the difference between taking a lens with you or not.


----------



## ethanz (May 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Reminds me of road bike fanatics that shave their legs so they'll be more "aerodynamic".


Aero is everything!


----------



## slclick (May 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Reminds me of road bike fanatics that shave their legs so they'll be more "aerodynamic".


Can't you instead pick on golfers who insist their 'game' is a sport? Correction to your post....It's for massage, ease of cleaning road rash and of course fashion, because we look so sexy.


----------



## ethanz (May 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> Can't you instead pick on golfers who insist their 'game' is a sport? Correction to your post....It's for massage, ease of cleaning road rash and of course fashion, because we look so sexy.


Interesting. How many of us photographers are also really in to biking? I know several photographers in real life who are also in to biking. Maybe there is some causal link between the two hobbies.


----------



## Bahrd (May 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Reminds me of road bike fanatics that shave their legs so they'll be more "aerodynamic".


Some of them have quirky genes and no hairs below knees at all... (And I am not a weight weenie either!


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> Can't you instead pick on golfers who insist their 'game' is a sport? Correction to your post....It's for massage, ease of cleaning road rash and of course fashion, because we look so sexy.


Nothing sexier in the world than tanned, smooth, shiny men's legs.  

Hey, even curling is a "sport".


----------



## bseitz234 (May 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Reminds me of road bike fanatics that shave their legs so they'll be more "aerodynamic".


OK I know this is a ridiculous tangent but I couldn't help myself: 
- I know a lot more cyclists who do it because "tradition". I do it because when I crashed in a race, road rash was bad, but when I was out of race season and had hairy legs, and got hit by a car, the extra grit that got caught in the leg hair was horrendous..
- The fact that someone has actually measured the aero affects of leg hair blows my mind, and if you have 4 minutes to spare, I recommend it:


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2021)

ethanz said:


> Interesting. How many of us photographers are also really in to biking? I know several photographers in real life who are also in to biking. Maybe there is some causal link between the two hobbies.


Used to be heavily into mtb.... Then got kicked out for smelling seats. Just wanted to check how the leather was holding up, then everyone decided to freak out.


----------



## bseitz234 (May 18, 2021)

ethanz said:


> Interesting. How many of us photographers are also really in to biking? I know several photographers in real life who are also in to biking. Maybe there is some causal link between the two hobbies.


One link occur$ to me...


----------



## Bahrd (May 18, 2021)

bseitz234 said:


> One link occur$ to me...


Count me in!


----------



## Juangrande (May 18, 2021)

RMac said:


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


Personally I shoot a lot of editorial/environmental portraits and often use a 35mm perspective. Shallow depth of field on a wide angle lens is less pronounced so a faster 1.2 is greatly appreciated and 24mm is too distorted for most portrait applications depending on subject distance. So I would much prefer the address the 35 before the 24. I do I think I saw a reference to an RF 24 1.2 in CR if I’m not mistaken do you’ll see that lens eventually.


----------



## roby17269 (May 18, 2021)

xiaohuaa said:


> Why didn’t you like the R5? Because You need to record long oversampled videos?


Hmmmm? Where did I say that? I love my R5! Which I use with a number of lenses...

I wrote that I did not like the EF 35mm f/1.4L mkI on the R5.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> People said the same about the RF50/1.2. Then it turned out the RF was literally ten times sharper. (The 30lp/mm contrast is higher than the EF's 10lp/mm contrast, from center to corner, meaning it's over 3x sharper linearly or over 9x sharper per area. Call it ten times.)
> 
> Also my Leica 35/1.4ASPH is maybe 1/4 the volume of the EF35/1.4ii, so it's possible that the Canon RF may be a revolution in small size.
> 
> ...


You could look through the bottom of a milk bottle and improve on the EF 50 f1.2, that wasn't a difficult bar to get over, the EF35 L isn't as low a starting point. 

No other RF lenses have given the slightest hint of getting smaller, so I think that is a no go. F1.2? Yay, because the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is going to be very noticabe. Sharper? Double yay! Because nothing is sharp enough at the moment....


----------



## Juangrande (May 18, 2021)

xiaohuaa said:


> Why didn’t you like the R5? Because You need to record long oversampled videos?


He didn’t like the 35mm version 1 on the R5 so he sold it (lens) not the the camera body.


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> You could look through the bottom of a milk bottle and improve on the EF 50 f1.2, that wasn't a difficult bar to get over, the EF35 L isn't as low a starting point.
> 
> No other RF lenses have given the slightest hint of getting smaller, so I think that is a no go. F1.2? Yay, because the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is going to be very noticabe. Sharper? Double yay! Because nothing is sharp enough at the moment....


Don't be a buzz killer.


----------



## slclick (May 18, 2021)

ethanz said:


> Interesting. How many of us photographers are also really in to biking? I know several photographers in real life who are also in to biking. Maybe there is some causal link between the two hobbies.


They are both expensive, G.A.S. gets ahold of many, camera bags are like jerseys and bibs, you can never have too many & the adage, 'Light, Fast and Cheap...Pick Two' applies to both.


----------



## slclick (May 18, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> Some of them have quirky genes and no hairs below knees at all... (And I am not a weight weenie either!


That's just jeans in the winter rubbing it all off after 50 years old.


----------



## Juangrande (May 18, 2021)

kafala said:


> It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.


I disagree. I think it should be f1.0 but I’ll settle for f1.2. And personally I don’t shoot mirrorless for a smaller kit, there are other benefits to system and personally smaller is not better ergonomically. If your shooting all day a smaller body hurts your hands because you have to cramp your fingers to work the controls. Which is why I personally do not prefer Sony cameras as they’re very uncomfortable.


----------



## roby17269 (May 18, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> He didn’t like the 35mm version 1 on the R5 so he sold it (lens) not the the camera body.


Thank you kind sir  - I feared I typed something wrong but happy to know someone got the gist of what I wrote right


----------



## Juangrande (May 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm sorry that is complete nonsense for many people. Size weight and cost are real issues with the new RF lenses, sure a couple of hundred grams might not make a big difference on one lens, when it all adds up and makes the difference between carrying three lenses or four lenses it has real impact.
> 
> Personally I love the EF 35 f2 IS and own it over the EF 35 f1.4 II L because of size, weight, and cost, oh, and the f2 has IS.... I could buy the L, easily, but then the EF 35 1.4 II L is 15oz more than the f2, that difference between the two lenses is three quarters the weight of my EF 100L Macro! Sure for a couple of hours it makes little difference but for long hikes, big trips, travels, or vacations it makes the difference between taking a lens with you or not.


You could probably fit an entire micro 4/3 camera kit with 3 lenses in a fanny pack and be all set. Especially since you don’t care about IQ.


----------



## Refraction (May 18, 2021)

JoeDavid said:


> The optical quality of the non-L RF lenses is quite good. The one thing that really bugs me about Canon non-L lenses is the extra $35-50 they charge you for the lens hood. Probably cost them less than $1…


Agreed but as I use variable ND filters I would be taking it off anyway but it is still annoying.


----------



## chasingrealness (May 18, 2021)

To replace my Tamron 35mm 1.4, I feel like the value proposition would have to be pretty high for me, but I can see the appeal for wedding shooters and people buying their first pro-grade fast prime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Here on earth I, the 24-105/4 is substantially smaller than the EF version. How are things on earth II?


You and I have _very_ different definitions for the word, 'substantially'. I guess on your earth, something 11mm long is considered 'substantial'. 



(L to R: EF Mk I, EF Mk II, RF)


----------



## Bahrd (May 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> That's just jeans in the winter rubbing it all off after 50 years old.


Could be the case. But I ride a bike during winters too...


----------



## LensFungus (May 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Reminds me of road bike fanatics that shave their legs so they'll be more "aerodynamic".


I shave my arms so moving my camera will be more aerodynamic.


----------



## AJ (May 18, 2021)

The RF 70-200s are both substantially smaller than their EF counterparts.
The 600/11 and 800/11 are also small (no EF counterparts, though)


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (May 18, 2021)

As a wedding photographer i shoot about 80% of my images on 35mm prime. Can't wait to complete my RF50 mm F1.2 and RF RF 85 F1.2 with this one. With the 35mm you can tell a story because you include some background and it force you to go close without too much distortion and make images with impact.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Here on earth I, the 24-105/4 is substantially smaller than the EF version. How are things on earth II?


We are specifically talking about the RF 35 f1.2 L, here are the EF and RF 50 f1.2 and EF and RF85 f1.2 compared. Considering the RF 35 is going to be faster than the EF version I see no reason why the differences would be dissimilar to the current comparisons.

I'm sorry the facts don't align with your hopes and dreams, or reality. Here on Earth II I am in the ever smaller group of people who actually rely on them.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

Ronny Wertelaers said:


> As a wedding photographer i shoot about 80% of my images on 35mm prime. Can't wait to complete my RF50 mm F1.2 and RF RF 85 F1.2 with this one. With the 35mm you can tell a story because you include some background and it force you to go close without too much distortion and make images with impact.


I'd agree the 35mm focal length, for me too, is a very pleasing focal length, however I don't see any real advantage in the f1.2.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> You could probably fit an entire micro 4/3 camera kit with 3 lenses in a fanny pack and be all set. Especially since you don’t care about IQ.


Why would you make the assumption I don't care about image quality? But the EOS M range is, in my opinion, much better than M4/3 for IQ at a comparable size.


----------



## Sporgon (May 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd agree the 35mm focal length, for me too, is a very pleasing focal length, however I don't see any real advantage in the f1.2.


The only advantage that I could see would be the ability to shoot full length group shots with a very shallow DOF, assuming that look is your thing, with the confidence that the mirrorless AF would provide. In fact it's interesting that in the press now I am seeing an ever growing number really really shallow DOF shots that with pre mirrorless accuracy would have been too chancy a shot.


----------



## Aaron D (May 18, 2021)

exige24 said:


> The best lens of its class, but it's an extra 100g!!!!!!!!!!!! Noooooooooo!!!!
> 
> Talk about messed up priorities. Do you people even take pictures or just the weigh your lenses?


I weigh my lenses with my shoulder. Maybe you've got an assistant to carry your camera bag?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> The only advantage that I could see would be the ability to shoot full length group shots with a very shallow DOF, assuming that look is your thing, with the confidence that the mirrorless AF would provide. In fact it's interesting that in the press now I am seeing an ever growing number really really shallow DOF shots that with pre mirrorless accuracy would have been too chancy a shot.


A full length group shot at 35mm is going to be around 10 feet focus distance. At 10 feet the difference in dof between f1.2 and f1.4 is 4 inches.

Now I think we can be pretty sure the RF 35 L is going to be a stunningly good lens and people committed to the RF system are already there, but I’m really struggling with the increase in size weight and cost for this new system especially when the image quality and character from the two EF primes is so good, small and cheap!


----------



## Viggo (May 18, 2021)

I heard some mumbling and swearing downstairs as I read this, turns out it was my wallet ‍..


----------



## exige24 (May 18, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> I weigh my lenses with my shoulder. Maybe you've got an assistant to carry your camera bag?


I am grown man that is neither 5 years old nor 90 years old. I care not about having an assistant to carry an extra 100 grams on my person. Lol As if


----------



## exige24 (May 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm sorry that is complete nonsense for many people. Size weight and cost are real issues with the new RF lenses, sure a couple of hundred grams might not make a big difference on one lens, when it all adds up and makes the difference between carrying three lenses or four lenses it has real impact.
> 
> Personally I love the EF 35 f2 IS and own it over the EF 35 f1.4 II L because of size, weight, and cost, oh, and the f2 has IS.... I could buy the L, easily, but then the EF 35 1.4 II L is 15oz more than the f2, that difference between the two lenses is three quarters the weight of my EF 100L Macro! Sure for a couple of hours it makes little difference but for long hikes, big trips, travels, or vacations it makes the difference between taking a lens with you or not.




Imagine arranging your photographic priorities such that were the legendary EF 35 1.4 II and the comparatively pedestrian RF 35 f2 were placed in front of you to take either, you'd reach for the RF.


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2021)

Viggo said:


> I heard some mumbling and swearing downstairs as I read this, turns out it was my wallet ‍..


Don't listen to the downers. F/1.2 or bust. I keep reading how the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 is negligible. Kinda not the point, right buddy?


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 18, 2021)

It’s been long rumored and long anticipated, that’s for sure. I do find it interesting what makes them release lenses in the order and the apertures they do. Like…did they know that a 50mm f/1.2L was going to be more important to get out first than a 50mm f/1.8? And vice versa with the 35mm - was the 1.8 more important to get out first before the 1.2 or 1.4?

I just rented the 50mm f/1.2L for a wedding this weekend and I’m potentially going to sell all three of my Sigma Art primes to fund it if the lens lives up to the hype and I’m sure it will.


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 18, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> You do not know this.


I can tell you that one of the major draws for me moving to the mirrorless system was that all of my lenses worked nearly perfect on the EOS R. But now that I sold all my mirrored cameras, I am eager to ditch the adapters on most lenses and go full RF. I can tell you that after that major commitment of the R5 and R6 purchase, I wouldn’t buy another EF lens TO adapt. That just seems counter intuitive to me. That said, there are some benefits to shooting with EF lenses - epically if you’re a video shooter.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2021)

exige24 said:


> Imagine arranging your photographic priorities such that were the legendary EF 35 1.4 II and the comparatively pedestrian RF 35 f2 were placed in front of you to take either, you'd reach for the RF.


Personally I haven’t used the RF 35 f1.8 so I couldn’t answer that. What I do know is lenses don’t take pictures, photographers using lenses do. I’d take a good photographers images with a bad lens over a bad photographers images with a good lens any day.

I did a photo review last night for 8 photographers. The images covered a wide range of subjects and disciplines and the gear used ranged from very modest to very expensive. The consensus amongst the group was that the most compelling images of the night were shot with the EF 50 f1.4.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 18, 2021)

But why F1.2? Why every lens needs to be 1kg? The EF 35 1.4 is just perfect size, no need for bigger...


----------



## dwarven (May 18, 2021)

35mm is definitely my favorite focal length. It's too bad this is going to cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## tigers media (May 18, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Sounds like NAB show is going to be a monster with all these releases , be bigger then apples sept show !


----------



## jam05 (May 19, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> Maybe - my reason for RF-system: Excellent AF free of restrictions to some AF points on the wrong place, better sensor (than EOS 5Di). EF lenses double for my M50 so there is some further advantage to keep EF lenses.
> The RF 35 1.8 is an excellent lens because of good IQ, f/1.8 and image stabilization for low light applications. And with good closeup / macro capability it is very flexible - that was my choice of this RF lens.
> 
> The only reason I see to buy RF lenses is the sparse availability of the EF-EOS R adapter which avoids "converting" EF lenses to use them in a mixed environment - not meant too serious


When you read your manual are you getting the performance from the device that you purchased for those selected EF lenses paired with the R5? It may not matter in your application. Not everyone uses all capabilities of each camera. At some point it wont be cost effective for Canon to support legacy lenses. Everyone uses what is best for them. At some point one would want to put new tires on the new car. Even though the older ones still have tread.


----------



## jam05 (May 19, 2021)

kafala said:


> It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.


how much size do you lose when shooting sports and wildlife and using 300m and longer lenses? 50 grams?


----------



## jam05 (May 19, 2021)

jam05 said:


> how much size do you lose when shooting sports and wildlife and using 300mm and longer lenses? 50 grams? You've replaced mirror vibration. There is a limit to size reduction. Heat. Size reduction has reached its limit to performance without active cooling. The R5 set the bar. 8k 60 internal and the rest of true flagship hybrid criteria require heat dissipation less innovation stalls.


----------



## SteveC (May 19, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I can tell you that one of the major draws for me moving to the mirrorless system was that all of my lenses worked nearly perfect on the EOS R. But now that I sold all my mirrored cameras, I am eager to ditch the adapters on most lenses and go full RF. I can tell you that after that major commitment of the R5 and R6 purchase, I wouldn’t buy another EF lens TO adapt. That just seems counter intuitive to me. That said, there are some benefits to shooting with EF lenses - epically if you’re a video shooter.



Precisely. It's not meant to be a permanent thing, using EF lenses on RF, but rather to ease the transition. A guy who regularly uses 3 or 4 L lenses doesn't have to either replace them all (if even available yet) or wait for them to become available, before buying an RF body.

I guess I'm a bit odd that way; I have no intention of replacing my 100-400 II L, because it can also be used on my M cameras. For shorter focal lengths the M lenses suffice when I'm using the M camera, but as Canon isn't interested in breaking their 61mm rule on those cameras, you pretty much _must _adapt an EF lens for something long. So that's one EF lens I won't be getting rid of and would likely even replace with another if it broke irreparably.


----------



## Peter Bergh (May 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> ... The consensus amongst the group was that the most compelling images of the night were shot with the EF 50 f1.4.


Your statement confuses me. I have always believed that what makes an image compelling is composition, composition, composition, and light. The specific lens used would normally have little influence on "compellingness".


----------



## dominic_siu (May 19, 2021)

I’m eager to see how this 35 1.2 performs when available for purchase, drawbacks are you need a deep pocket and the size won’t be small


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Your statement confuses me. I have always believed that what makes an image compelling is composition, composition, composition, and light. The specific lens used would normally have little influence on "compellingness".


You aren’t confused. The lens has very little to do with the compelling nature of the resulting images, and that was entirely my point. We have a superb EF 35 f1.4 II L, yet there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for a bigger heavier faster and much more expensive RF f1.2 version.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 19, 2021)

sigrblot said:


> Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.


Everyone has a different migration path. From a pure cost perspective, the R5 alone improves the entire ecosystem of EF lenses. I have a migration project keeping track of the costs and initially only had the RF70-200/2.8 and happy to adapt the rest. Upgrading last year (including underwater housing) was the cost of a cancelled big holiday.
I sort of had to get the RF100-500mm as teleconvertors didn't work with the RF70-200/2.8 which was an expensive addition but worth it as I got 20% off the list price in AUD. 
I might upgrade my EF24-105mm/4 next if there are discounts offered and lens availability but no rush.
I won't migrate my EF100mm macro for some time unless I get the RF version second hand - ie not for a long time.
There is no replacement for my EF16-35mm/4 which is probably my most-used lens above and below water. The f2.8 has different filter size and I don't need f2.8 for landscape
There is no replacement for my EF8-15mm but I got that second hand and use it rarely compared to the others
Can't imagine that Canon will release a 14mm/2.8 or faster than could be reasonable in price and with good coma vs the Samyang.


----------



## HMC11 (May 19, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Can't imagine that Canon will release a 14mm/2.8 or faster than could be reasonable in price and with good coma vs the Samyang.


Samyang has an AF 14mm/2.8 for RF which, from reviews I have come across, seems to be quite good and definitely priced reasonably.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 19, 2021)

sigrblot said:


> Because most people buying into the RF system aren't doing it to adapt DSLR lenses.


Sorry do you have the world wide survey results from all Canon owners to verify this. I know I will hardly be buying any current RF glass when I get the R3 until they release a 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. Maybe the new macro as well but that's about it.


----------



## RMac (May 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. I bought the EF 35L instead of the EF 24L. If most buyers are like us (and Canon has those data), then they are likely to sell more RF 35mm lenses than RF 24mm lenses.


In my case, a _major_ reason I bought the EF 35mm f1.4L ii over the 24mm is because it's a much newer design with incredible IQ while the 24mm f1.4L ii, while not _bad_, is showing its age a bit by comparison.


----------



## RMac (May 19, 2021)

exige24 said:


> Imagine arranging your photographic priorities such that were the legendary EF 35 1.4 II and the comparatively pedestrian RF 35 f2 were placed in front of you to take either, you'd reach for the RF.


As someone who once hiked to the summit of a 14,000 ft mountain with an EF 70-200 f2.8L IS ii, I can attest to the occasional reasonableness of such priorities.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 19, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> Samyang has an AF 14mm/2.8 for RF which, from reviews I have come across, seems to be quite good and definitely priced reasonably.


True but I don't need AF for astro


----------



## Sporgon (May 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> A full length group shot at 35mm is going to be around 10 feet focus distance. At 10 feet the difference in dof between f1.2 and f1.4 is 4 inches.
> 
> Now I think we can be pretty sure the RF 35 L is going to be a stunningly good lens and people committed to the RF system are already there, but I’m really struggling with the increase in size weight and cost for this new system especially when the image quality and character from the two EF primes is so good, small and cheap!


Well 4 inches mean a lot to some people.
Seriously though, I think we are seeing a major move away from what is _required _in photography, to what is _desired. _
If you go back to the day, people really needed an f2.8 over a 4 to focus effectively, they needed the size, weight and had to put up with the resulting inflexibility of MF to get improved quality, needed 6 FPS to capture the right moment, needed leaf shutter for high speed sync etc etc. I could go on and on. Now it’s a very different situation, and some of these RF lenses shout this from the roof tops. 
As you have said time and time again, it really is content that counts, and the only person who might think a crap picture at 1.2 is better than a compelling one at 1.8 is going to be the photographer who used the 1.2.
People could argue that they need any little thing to give them an edge in today’s shrinking and crowded market, and there’s some truth in that, but I can see that just as smooth, grainless, noiseless images that were what everyone desired in film days has become ubiquitous now, so ultra shallow DOF will become the norm, driven by both precise mirrorless AF and 1.2 lenses and smartphone software.


----------



## Sporgon (May 19, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Your statement confuses me. I have always believed that what makes an image compelling is composition, composition, composition, and light. The specific lens used would normally have little influence on "compellingness".


He’s saying that the best images just happened to be taken on a cheap lens. 
Here in the UK we have a prestigious Landscape Photographer of the Year annual competition which attracts over 40,000 entries and has a £10,000 first prize, and is exhibited all around the country. In 2020 it was won by a beautiful image of wild garlic in a misty forest taken on a Nikon D3200 and a Sigma 10-22 lens. You could buy the whole same kit off of eBay for under £300.


----------



## koenkooi (May 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Personally I haven’t used the RF 35 f2 so I couldn’t answer that. What I do know is lenses don’t take pictures, photographers using lenses do. I’d take a good photographers images with a bad lens over a bad photographers images with a good lens any day.
> 
> I did a photo review last night for 8 photographers. The images covered a wide range of subjects and disciplines and the gear used ranged from very modest to very expensive. The consensus amongst the group was that the most compelling images of the night were shot with the EF 50 f1.4.


I didn't know ahsanford lived near you


----------



## degos (May 19, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Your statement confuses me. I have always believed that what makes an image compelling is composition, composition, composition, and light. The specific lens used would normally have little influence on "compellingness".



Composition, lighting, skill, equipment, opportunity and post-production all play roles in the final image. Exactly what proportion varies by the moment.

Composition and lighting can sometimes be fixed in post. Missed opportunities can't...


----------



## Viggo (May 19, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't listen to the downers. F/1.2 or bust. I keep reading how the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 is negligible. Kinda not the point, right buddy?


Precisely


----------



## alexvaltchev (May 19, 2021)

Trust him, he is right. If I go RF route I dont want to adopt lenses!!! I want only RF glass!


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 19, 2021)

Anyone want to take a guess on price? I’m hoping it is less expensive than the RF85mm 1.2

My main concern is how well this new lens will deal with vignetting. The 50mm 1.2 is already not so great wide open and I really hope the 35mm 1.2 won’t be significantly worse. If it is, perhaps the adapted 35mm 1.4L ii will have an advantage in that area..


----------



## Bahrd (May 19, 2021)

LensFungus said:


> I shave my arms so moving my camera will be more aerodynamic.


I fully appreciate your dedication, however, a solid amount of fur would increase both your hands inertia and aero drag and thus help with stabilization, I suppose (unless your job conditions are extremely windy! .


----------



## [email protected] (May 19, 2021)

ethanz said:


> Interesting. How many of us photographers are also really in to biking? I know several photographers in real life who are also in to biking. Maybe there is some causal link between the two hobbies.



There is a well-established link between these interests that involve gullible people willing to mortgage their life savings to eke out minor benefits for non-vocational enterprises. Fishermen, golfers, bikers, photographers, amateur pilots are all the same people when viewed from that part of the brain where the common deficiency resides.


----------



## snapshot (May 19, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Everyone has a different migration path. From a pure cost perspective, the R5 alone improves the entire ecosystem of EF lenses. I have a migration project keeping track of the costs and initially only had the RF70-200/2.8 and happy to adapt the rest. Upgrading last year (including underwater housing) was the cost of a cancelled big holiday.
> I sort of had to get the RF100-500mm as teleconvertors didn't work with the RF70-200/2.8 which was an expensive addition but worth it as I got 20% off the list price in AUD.
> I might upgrade my EF24-105mm/4 next if there are discounts offered and lens availability but no rush.
> I won't migrate my EF100mm macro for some time unless I get the RF version second hand - ie not for a long time.
> ...


I am not sure I would categorize my investment in the R5 as a migration. I have an adapter mounted to the camera and I mount the EF lens that suites my purpose. The R5 is bringing new capability to my existing lens collection. I am happy with the performance of my EF collection, and unless something breaks, have no intention of upgrading any of it to RF. As far as I am concerned, the new mount is whatever, and I would have been happy with an EF mount mirrorless camera system (well the vnd mount adapter is really cool).


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

RMac said:


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


I agree I tried the 24L f/1.4 and found it's autofocus to be a mess. Not great to double as a landscape lens either due to even aperture blade count


----------



## stevelee (May 19, 2021)

ethanz said:


> Interesting. How many of us photographers are also really in to biking? I know several photographers in real life who are also in to biking. Maybe there is some causal link between the two hobbies.


Shaving your legs saves enough weight so you can carry around a slightly heavier lens.


----------



## SteveC (May 19, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Shaving your legs saves enough weight so you can carry around a slightly heavier lens.



That verges on TMI (Too Much Information).


----------



## Fischer (May 19, 2021)

RMac said:


> As someone who once hiked to the summit of a 14,000 ft mountain with an EF 70-200 f2.8L IS ii, I can attest to the occasional reasonableness of such priorities.


Been there, did that, but hired someone to carry my photo gear. Worth every penny imho. YMMV.


----------



## Sporgon (May 19, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Been there, did that, but hired someone to carry my photo gear. Worth every penny imho. YMMV.


How wonderfully decadent! Do we get to see any of the images ?


----------



## SteveC (May 19, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> How wonderfully decadent! Do we get to see any of the images ?


Perhaps he hired someone else to take the pictures, too?


----------



## sanj (May 19, 2021)

Will buy


----------



## David - Sydney (May 19, 2021)

snapshot said:


> I am not sure I would categorize my investment in the R5 as a migration. I have an adapter mounted to the camera and I mount the EF lens that suites my purpose. The R5 is bringing new capability to my existing lens collection. I am happy with the performance of my EF collection, and unless something breaks, have no intention of upgrading any of it to RF. As far as I am concerned, the new mount is whatever, and I would have been happy with an EF mount mirrorless camera system (well the vnd mount adapter is really cool).


For me it is definitely a migration project from EF to R mount. It may not seem that way to you.
I wanted to sell my existing EF lenses and 5Div where there was a overlap (EF70-200, TCs, 5Div housing, etc) and purchase RF mount body, cards, housing etc all within a budget. I (and everyone) had options whether to migrate everything to RF, nothing besides the body/cards/adapter or a hybrid approach and I considered the 3 options before pulling out my wallet.
If the R mount wasn't backward compatible with adapter to EF mount then it would be a new standalone system and the option of Nikon/Sony would be also on the table. Migrating lenses over time where it made sense kept me within Canon's ecosystem.


----------



## exige24 (May 20, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Personally I haven’t used the RF 35 f2 so I couldn’t answer that. What I do know is lenses don’t take pictures, photographers using lenses do. I’d take a good photographers images with a bad lens over a bad photographers images with a good lens any day.
> 
> I did a photo review last night for 8 photographers. The images covered a wide range of subjects and disciplines and the gear used ranged from very modest to very expensive. The consensus amongst the group was that the most compelling images of the night were shot with the EF 50 f1.4.




Why change the subject to talent of individual photographers when we're talking purely about hardware here? An amazing photographer took a beautiful picture with a low tier Powershot. Great. What does that have to do with the fact that an R5 is a far more technologically capable camera than that low-level Powershot? Lol Seriously, what is wrong with people?


----------



## drhuffman87 (May 20, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Shaving your legs saves enough weight so you can carry around a slightly heavier lens.


Don't forget the aerodynamic aerographene camera bag zipper pull upgrades so you don't lose all the momentum you've gained with your leg shaving strategy when experiencing a strong side-wind.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2021)

exige24 said:


> Why change the subject to talent of individual photographers when we're talking purely about hardware here? An amazing photographer took a beautiful picture with a low tier Powershot. Great. What does that have to do with the fact that an R5 is a far more technologically capable camera than that low-level Powershot? Lol Seriously, what is wrong with people?


I wasn't changing the subject, you were too obtuse to see the point. I'll spell it out for you better.

Most of us, myself included, would be far better spending our money on opportunities, education, trips, courses, workshops etc than a lens that costs twice as much and resolves 50lppmm more, focuses 1/1000 second faster, or is 1/3rd stop faster. This week I have spent $300 on education and passes/opportunities and not a cent on gear, I am a better photographer today than I was last week.

I get the RF 50 1.2 trounces the EF 50 f1.2 everywhere, indeed if you are heavy 50mm f1.2 user that one lens alone is worth moving to R bodies. I get the frustrations of dealing with the slow focus on the EF 85 f1.2 as well, though I know people who used it successfully for indoor sports, but again the AF speed and accuracy alone is worth the upgrade if you are a heavy user of that specific lens.

But the EF 35 f1.4 II is not slow to focus has beautiful rendering and is a fraction the size weight and cost the new RF version will be. Am I wrong to question the value of that as a purchase for many people?

What is wrong with people? Quite a lot, sadly, especially if they think buying all this new gear is going to make them a better photographer.


----------



## H. Jones (May 20, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But the EF 35 f1.4 II is not slow to focus has beautiful rendering and is a fraction the size weight and cost the new RF version will be. Am I wrong to question the value of that as a purchase for many people?
> 
> What is wrong with people? Quite a lot, sadly, especially if they think buying all this new gear is going to make them a better photographer.



Agree completely with this. I think Canon is smart to give incentive to the RF lenses with special tricks, but at the end of the day EF lenses remain an excellent option for the vast majority of uses.

I held off on buying the EF 85mm F/1.4L IS for a while by telling myself that the future of all my lenses are in RF lenses, not EF lenses. 

But then with the RF 85mm F/1.2L being literally double the price of the EF 85mm F/1.4L IS, I had to take a long, hard look at what I would get out of the price difference. I evaluated both lenses from Canon Pro Services, and as nice as the RF 85 1.2 was, I could not justify why I'd spend another $1400 over the $1400 I could get the EF 85mm F/1.4L IS for, and realized that, even if Canon released an RF 85 1.4, it would be quite a bit more expensive than the EF version.

So I got the EF version and haven't looked back. It's an excellent lens that does exactly what I need it to do for my portraits.

And then I spent the $1400 difference that I would have spent on the RF 85mm F/1.2L on a new hand-customized leather fire helmet, which was a purchase that made me far, far happier than if I would have bought the RF 85.


----------



## Darecinema (May 20, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> You do not know this.


Welllllll I just bought the R5 and some of the RF Zooms and am definitely not buying any further EF glass and I'd love to have the 35mm RF 1.2 ANNNNNDDDD the 24mm that you are talking about. lol. I love my EF glass and have zero plans to sell it. Still works great. But moving forward as I add lenses, I'm thinking more of the convenience of keeping native mounts together and long term investment in glass and honestly for a lot of the shooting I do, I really appreciate that control ring on the RF glass. But hey, I also really thought the Macbook touchbar was the dumbest thing ever and then I used it and with all the little programmable shortcuts I can get for it wouldn't want a macbook without it. So maybe I just have bad taste, but I'm happy with my choices and my workflow and ultimately usually any gear I buy pays for itself rapidly.


----------



## Fischer (May 20, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> How wonderfully decadent!


Had my 9 year old with me, so not sure I'd call it "decadent" - more an investment in having a more enjoyable hike together. But as I said worth every penny. And I'd certainly do it again regardless of the company.


----------



## PerKr (May 20, 2021)

kafala said:


> It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.



The market has clearly shown that size is not that important. If it was, olympus would be king of the hill and Sony wouldn't be struggling to match Canon on fast high-quality glass.

If size really mattered, more people would still be shooting old film cameras from before the AF era.

Now, go back to admiring your Sony 35/2.8 for being almost as compact as a mid-80´s 50/1.4 or 24/2.8


----------



## AJ (May 20, 2021)

This whole business of f/1.4 versus f/1.2 reminds me of a famous scene in Spinal Tap.


----------



## Viggo (May 20, 2021)

AJ said:


> This whole business of f/1.4 versus f/1.2 reminds me of a famous scene in Spinal Tap.


One of my all time favorite movies


----------



## Stone (May 20, 2021)

the 35 1.2 will get me to finally upgrade to the EOS R5, I've already sold off all my Fuji gear but the 35 is a must have in my kit. I'm excited for this rumor.


----------



## Coffy83 (May 20, 2021)

I don’t know why everyone is complaining about desperately needing a new 24mm. I use mine adapted to the R6 alongside lenses like my RF 50 1.2 and my 135mm Milvus 2.0 which both have an excellent reputation and I am very happy with the results I get when I switch to the 24 1.4 ii. The autofocus is also really quick! I have a very active one year old toddler and I use the 24 to take pictures of him at home while he is turning over the whole house  it nails the eye every time even at 1.4. So don’t really feel a need to upgrade this one especially as it is relatively compact and light compared to the RF L primes or my Zeiss lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2021)

PerKr said:


> The market has clearly shown that size is not that important. If it was, olympus would be king of the hill and Sony wouldn't be struggling to match Canon on fast high-quality glass.
> 
> If size really mattered, more people would still be shooting old film cameras from before the AF era.
> 
> Now, go back to admiring your Sony 35/2.8 for being almost as compact as a mid-80´s 50/1.4 or 24/2.8


And yet Canon sell many more M series cameras and lenses than EF or R...


----------



## SteveC (May 20, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And yet Canon sell many more M series cameras and lenses than EF or R...


Canon does, but does it do so because small size is inherently important, or just because they are "beginner" or "casual" cameras that are economical and will therefore appeal to more people?

One way to control for this is to discover whether people like us buy more M-series cameras than full frame or physically large EF-S cameras. If *we* do so then we value small size a lot. But somehow I doubt most of us buy more M gear (even counting units sold, not money spent) than EF/RF gear. I might be close to being an exception.


----------



## Skux (May 21, 2021)

The poor RF 35mm f1.8 is crying in a corner at being called an f/2 lens.


----------



## snapshot (May 21, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Canon does, but does it do so because small size is inherently important, or just because they are "beginner" or "casual" cameras that are economical and will therefore appeal to more people?
> 
> One way to control for this is to discover whether people like us buy more M-series cameras than full frame or physically large EF-S cameras. If *we* do so then we value small size a lot. But somehow I doubt most of us buy more M gear (even counting units sold, not money spent) than EF/RF gear. I might be close to being an exception.


Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.


----------



## stevelee (May 21, 2021)

snapshot said:


> Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.


And they can take great pictures. I took several 13" x 19' prints to an art show on Sunday. Most were taken with G-series cameras.


----------



## SteveC (May 21, 2021)

snapshot said:


> Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.



I'm sure we all have many situations where we'll take a small camera over a large one. (I took my M6-II on a recent trip, left the R5 at home, just for instance); but is that what we do when unconstrained? If so, we value the small size over other considerations. Otherwise, we don't.

I maintain that most of us don't buy our "big" gear, or even "most of our gear" with size at the forefront.


----------



## LeeBabySimms (May 21, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> I just bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/2 and I see clearly now the difference between L and non-L. These lenses are fine - sharp, light, well-built - but the focusing in and out - buzz, buzz, buzz - is annoying as hell. But I cannot justify a collection of f/1.2 primes and I don't want the giant size/weight. I will make do with these STM's until Canon makes a series of f/1.4's that'll be fast, quiet, small-ish, weather-sealed, with IS and _relatively_ affordable.
> 
> I _am_ Goldilcks, there's no denying it.


12 months from now, Sigma and Tamron will be ready to take yours (and mine) RF mount money


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 21, 2021)

No doubt 50% dearer at least than the stunning Sony 35 f/1.4 GM and a few hundred grams heavier. No matter how good, I would much prefer a range of f/1.4 primes 24/35/50/85 that are lighter and cheaper. Heck they don't even need to be L, just no STM please.


----------



## mpmark (May 21, 2021)

That’s nice, the EF version adapted is just so good I could care less.


----------



## Sporgon (May 21, 2021)

snapshot said:


> Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.


I bet you’d appreciate a G1XIII even more


----------



## snapshot (May 21, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I bet you’d appreciate a G1XIII even more


Havent really seen a G1xiii vs M6ii comparison. Wonder if there will be a g1xiv?


----------



## sanj (May 22, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Your statement confuses me. I have always believed that what makes an image compelling is composition, composition, composition, and light. The specific lens used would normally have little influence on "compellingness".


Yes, but most important is story/emotion.


----------



## Sporgon (May 22, 2021)

snapshot said:


> Havent really seen a G1xiii vs M6ii comparison. Wonder if there will be a g1xiv?


Some people report preferring the M5 (and so G1XIII) sensor to the 32mp MII. Of course resolutionphiles will always prefer the latter. The G1XII's ace card is in being genuinely small and pocketable, and this has led to compromises in the lens, which is tiny really, but even so it's resolution is similar to that of a 5DII with the 24-105L lens. Vey underrated camera, not helped by the photog press continually comparing it to a 1" sensor camera and the speed of those camera's lenses. When looking at enlargements the APS-c is far superior to the 1" IMHO.

I think that putting the 32mp sensor in a tiny body with lens to suit would be a bridge too far, without the whole thing getting considerably larger and heavier. And honestly, who really wants more than 24mp in a pocket camera ? ( OK, 90% of people on CR, I concede !  )


----------



## Peter Bergh (May 22, 2021)

sanj said:


> Yes, but most important is story/emotion.


In my view, story/emotion is an aspect of composition.


----------



## stevelee (May 22, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> In my view, story/emotion is an aspect of composition.


Or vice versa.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 22, 2021)

snapshot said:


> Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.



Just check the size and quality of a M6 mark II + 32mm 1.4 combo. People would buy more M stuff if they would see some kind of future proofing and decent upgrades / lenses.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 22, 2021)

Another 1kg $3000 lens, nice! Sensors are getting better and better in high ISO performance but we still creating 1.2 lenses weighting a ton. 
So Canon will again have 35mm 1.2 for $3000 and a cheap plastic STM 35mm 1.8 for $500. Nothing in between.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Sensors are getting better and better in high ISO performance but we still creating 1.2 lenses weighting a ton.


Because DoF / subject isolation with good bokeh.


----------



## Viggo (May 22, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Another 1kg $3000 lens, nice! Sensors are getting better and better in high ISO performance but we still creating 1.2 lenses weighting a ton.
> So Canon will again have 35mm 1.2 for $3000 and a cheap plastic STM 35mm 1.8 for $500. Nothing in between.


Which also means the new sensors are MUCH more demanding of lenses…


----------



## CanonGrunt (May 23, 2021)

Looks like a perfect fit for the R3. Can’t wait for that combo.


----------



## Ozarker (May 23, 2021)

mpmark said:


> That’s nice, the EF version adapted is just so good I could care less.


You could?


----------



## sanj (May 24, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> In my view, story/emotion is an aspect of composition.


No no. I am talking about what the photo says. For example, the photo of the washed-up Syrian kid said a huge story and created emotion at the same time. It was not the 'best' photo as such but will be remembered for long for things other than composition. There are many such examples.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

I don’t think story/emotion and composition have any relationship at all. You can have compelling images with ‘bad’ composition (or at least little thought to it) and you can have great composition with zero emotion.

Compelling images often benefit from ‘good’ composition, conversely some great images deliberately ignore any compositional ‘rules’.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 24, 2021)

I can appreciate points being made in this thread about story/emotion... but in my humble opinion composition and probably to a larger degree, perspective, have at least SOME relationship with the story and emotion in a photo. Would a portrait of an emotionally charged face convey that emotion more strongly if framed tighter with features and expression clearly visible or would a full length portrait with other distracting elements competing with the primary subject do a better job?

It is also common to use a low perspective shooting upwards at a subject to convey power amd confidence... or a high down viewpoint looking down at a subject to help convey vulnerability. 

Obviously I’m highlighting perspective/ subject distance but those two things are also directly tied to composition in my eyes. I’m sure there are many more examples...


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> I can appreciate points being made in this thread about story/emotion... but in my humble opinion composition and probably to a larger degree, perspective, have at least SOME relationship with the story and emotion in a photo. Would a portrait of an emotionally charged face convey that emotion more strongly if framed tighter with features and expression clearly visible or would a full length portrait with other distracting elements competing with the primary subject do a better job?
> 
> It is also common to use a low perspective shooting upwards at a subject to convey power amd confidence... or a high down viewpoint looking down at a subject to help convey vulnerability.
> 
> Obviously I’m highlighting perspective/ subject distance but those two things are also directly tied to composition in my eyes. I’m sure there are many more examples...


Perspective is a foundational element to composition, focal length comes second to perspective. Focal length dictates the relative size of the subject within the frame, but the perspective dictates the relative size of the subject in relation to the other elements within (or not) that frame.

So I try to explain zoom lens use like this, walk around the scene to get your perspective, the relationship of the subject to other elements. Once you have the perspective you want use the zoom (or focal length) to frame those elements as desired.

Over time a lot of people end up finding specific focal lengths more pleasing, or they get their most compelling shots within a small focal length range, so gravitate from zooms to primes (specific genres excepted).


----------



## H. Jones (May 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Perspective is a foundational element to composition, focal length comes second to perspective. Focal length dictates the relative size of the subject within the frame, but the perspective dictates the relative size of the subject in relation to the other elements within (or not) that frame.
> 
> So I try to explain zoom lens use like this, walk around the scene to get your perspective, the relationship of the subject to other elements. Once you have the perspective you want use the zoom (or focal length) to frame those elements as desired.
> 
> Over time a lot of people end up finding specific focal lengths more pleasing, or they get their most compelling shots within a small focal length range, so gravitate from zooms to primes (specific genres excepted).



Very true. I always find it kinda funny when people say their photos and compositions are worse when they use a zoom lens.

I think one of the best lessons I ever learned was to look at a zoom lens as if it was a set of prime lenses, and choose my focal length based off the look I'm going for, vs zooming aimlessly to fit subjects in the frame. I think a lot of people can't fight the temptation of standing in one place with a zoom lens, and that's why they struggle to use them well. 

If you look at the focal lengths I use my 24-70 and 70-200 at in Lightroom, you'll see the absolute biggest groups around 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, and 200, since I'm mainly using the zooms to accomplish a specific look. That said, I love my primes for commercial marketing work, since the wide apertures give great bokeh and subject isolation. But my zooms are a must on breaking news and sports when I can't switch from a 24mm to a 50mm in a split second and need to zoom.


----------



## Ruined (May 25, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> If you look at the focal lengths I use my 24-70 and 70-200 at in Lightroom, you'll see the absolute biggest groups around 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, and 200, since I'm mainly using the zooms to accomplish a specific look. That said, I love my primes for commercial marketing work, since the wide apertures give great bokeh and subject isolation. But my zooms are a must on breaking news and sports when I can't switch from a 24mm to a 50mm in a split second and need to zoom.


I continue to struggle with the usefulness of a super fast 35mm prime, at least to the extent where it makes the lens substantially larger/ heavier/more expensive. f/1.8-f/2.0 is ok as can still be done in a relatively compact size, low weight, low price. But comparatively f/1.2-f/1.4 are much larger and heavier, at higher price with limited use cases for me at least.

I tend to use 35mm as a group portrait, street photog, or environmental lens. In none of those cases would f/1.4 or below be useful frequently as I'd want more DOF, not less, for those use cases. If I want individual portrait I'll use 50mm or higher. Yeah, you can find a specialty use for every lens and justify having it by a shot here or there. Like 24mm, I just don't find 35mm conducive to frequent f/1.4 and below usage; I'd rather have a smaller, less obtrusive prime that's slightly slower.


----------



## Viggo (May 25, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I continue to struggle with the usefulness of a super fast 35mm prime, at least to the extent where it makes the lens substantially larger/ heavier/more expensive. f/1.8-f/2.0 is ok as can still be done in a relatively compact size, low weight, low price. But comparatively f/1.2-f/1.4 are much larger and heavier, at higher price with limited use cases for me at least.
> 
> I tend to use 35mm as a group portrait, street photog, or environmental lens. In none of those cases would f/1.4 or below be useful frequently as I'd want more DOF, not less, for those use cases. Yeah, you can find a specialty use for every lens and justify having it by a shot here or there. Like 24mm, I just don't find 35mm to frequent f/1.4 usage.


Mine spent it’s entire life between f1.4 and f2.0. Only for studio work did it maybe occasionally see f5,6.


----------



## H. Jones (May 26, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Mine spent it’s entire life between f1.4 and f2.0. Only for studio work did it maybe occasionally see f5,6.



Same here. For portraits and weddings, I like the 35mm focal length to get physically closer to my subjects, or giver a little wider angle of view in certain situations, and while it's not the most bokeh you'll ever see, I'd rather have F/1.4 bokeh than have F/2.8 bokeh at that focal length. F/1.4 definitely makes images look a bit more special and magical.

F/1.4 is also a must when I'm shooting in extremely low light. I've definitely had assignments with my 35 and 85mm where they came out of the bag solely due to the light levels, since F/2.8 zooms would have me at ISO 12,800 or higher in some places.


----------



## Ozarker (May 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Same here. For portraits and weddings, I like the 35mm focal length to get physically closer to my subjects, or giver a little wider angle of view in certain situations, and while it's not the most bokeh you'll ever see, I'd rather have F/1.4 bokeh than have F/2.8 bokeh at that focal length. F/1.4 definitely makes images look a bit more special and magical.
> 
> F/1.4 is also a must when I'm shooting in extremely low light. I've definitely had assignments with my 35 and 85mm where they came out of the bag solely due to the light levels, since F/2.8 zooms would have me at ISO 12,800 or higher in some places.


One might or might not call this a specialty use. I bought the EF 35mm f/1.4L II for a specific purpose: Photographing my then just born grandson in a small and dark apartment. I didn't want flash to startle or distract him. At the time, I was using a 5D Mark III, so cranking up ISO wasn't a good option. The lens was fast, and allowed me to fill the frame with him a lot better than a 50 or 85 at close range at f/1.4 would have. Literally 20,000+ shots the first two weeks.

Could I have used an f/1.8? Probably. But Canon don't make no f/1.8 "L" in 35mm. Had f/1.2 been available, I'd have got it.

Better to have something and not need it, than to need it and not have it.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 26, 2021)

I have RF 1.2L lenses and rarely shoot them at 1.2. Around 1.6 is as low as I usually need to go. Shooting wide open is not the only reason to consider these premium lenses... Canon puts the most effort into these fast prime L lenses, you get things like blue spectrum refractive optics for less CA, more aperture blades, no focus shift issues (talking RF L lenses here, some EF L lenses weren’t great for this), better internal build quality and weather sealing and amazing sharpness at any aperture you choose to use.

I had an EF 85mm 1.4L IS with my 5D IV and also tested it with adapter on my R5 - the RF 85mm 1.2L was noticeably better at 1.2 than the EF lens at 1.4. Also a very noticeable improvement in CA control with the RF lens.

These premium 1.2 lenses aren’t often needed in a strict sense, but if you have the money to spare and want the best optics (and don’t care about size or weight). They are the ones to go for in my opinion.

I will either buy an EF 35mm 1.4L ii or RF 35mm 1.2L to round out my kit for more reasons than just the wide aperture. I already had an RF 35mm 1.8 and was very impressed for the price of that lens but sold it because the focus shift on my copy was not acceptable for my usage.


----------



## Ozarker (May 26, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> I have RF 1.2L lenses and rarely shoot them at 1.2. Around 1.6 is as low as I usually need to go. Shooting wide open is not the only reason to consider these premium lenses... Canon puts the most effort into these fast prime L lenses, you get things like blue spectrum refractive optics for less CA, more aperture blades, no focus shift issues (talking RF L lenses here, some EF L lenses weren’t great for this), better internal build quality and weather sealing and amazing sharpness at any aperture you choose to use.
> 
> I had an EF 85mm 1.4L IS with my 5D IV and also tested it with adapter on my R5 - the RF 85mm 1.2L was noticeably better at 1.2 than the EF lens at 1.4. Also a very noticeable improvement in CA control with the RF lens.
> 
> ...


As far as I know, Canon has only made two lenses with the blue goo: EF 35mm f/1.4L II and the RF 85mm f/1.2L. I never understood why it is not used in the RF 50mm f/1.2L. Maybe in the next version?


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 26, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As far as I know, Canon has only made two lenses with the blue goo: EF 35mm f/1.4L II and the RF 85mm f/1.2L. I never understood why it is not used in the RF 50mm f/1.2L. Maybe in the next version?


You’re right! I just have a strong suspicion they will use it again in the RF 35mm 1.2L... it would be odd if the EF 35 1.4 had it but the RF 35 1.2 didn’t. But hey, who knows?

As for the RF 50mm 1.2L perhaps they felt it wasn’t needed? I only ever notice very faint CA at very wide apertures with that lens (backlit situations with black and white outlines - a true torture test)


----------



## Ruined (May 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Same here. For portraits and weddings, I like the 35mm focal length to get physically closer to my subjects, or giver a little wider angle of view in certain situations, and while it's not the most bokeh you'll ever see, I'd rather have F/1.4 bokeh than have F/2.8 bokeh at that focal length. F/1.4 definitely makes images look a bit more special and magical.
> 
> F/1.4 is also a must when I'm shooting in extremely low light. I've definitely had assignments with my 35 and 85mm where they came out of the bag solely due to the light levels, since F/2.8 zooms would have me at ISO 12,800 or higher in some places.



Keep in mind though Canon also makes f/1.8 and f/2.0 primes at the 35mm focal length that are excellent, so f/2.8 zoom isn't the only other option.



CanonFanBoy said:


> One might or might not call this a specialty use. I bought the EF 35mm f/1.4L II for a specific purpose: Photographing my then just born grandson in a small and dark apartment. I didn't want flash to startle or distract him. At the time, I was using a 5D Mark III, so cranking up ISO wasn't a good option. The lens was fast, and allowed me to fill the frame with him a lot better than a 50 or 85 at close range at f/1.4 would have. Literally 20,000+ shots the first two weeks.
> 
> Could I have used an f/1.8? Probably. But Canon don't make no f/1.8 "L" in 35mm. Had f/1.2 been available, I'd have got it.
> 
> Better to have something and not need it, than to need it and not have it.





Chris.Chapterten said:


> I have RF 1.2L lenses and rarely shoot them at 1.2. Around 1.6 is as low as I usually need to go. Shooting wide open is not the only reason to consider these premium lenses... Canon puts the most effort into these fast prime L lenses, you get things like blue spectrum refractive optics for less CA, more aperture blades, no focus shift issues (talking RF L lenses here, some EF L lenses weren’t great for this), better internal build quality and weather sealing and amazing sharpness at any aperture you choose to use.
> 
> I had an EF 85mm 1.4L IS with my 5D IV and also tested it with adapter on my R5 - the RF 85mm 1.2L was noticeably better at 1.2 than the EF lens at 1.4. Also a very noticeable improvement in CA control with the RF lens.
> 
> ...



The thing is with me, I really try to weigh the PROs and CONs of lenses available and doubling up on primes of the same focal length is not something I like to do because it ends up just costing too much money and seems wasteful to me.

With that in mind, in my particular case I purchased both the EF 35mm f/2 IS and the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Of the two, the one I went with long term was the f/2 IS. While it may be true the 35mm f/1.4L II can do 1.4 and has a bit better optics, it also is larger, heavier, and more obtrusive. I was not particularly impressed by the bokeh afforded by 1.4 vs 2.0 @ 35mm, and I did not find myself using either one wide open that frequently anyway. What really struck me, is that for my purposes the 35mm f/2 IS was actually *better* than the f/1.4L II. For street photography where I would mainly use this, sticking out in the crowd with a huge $2000 lens is not always the best approach and having less weight and size is definitely better. If you are just going to use the JPGs out of camera, sure the f/1.4L II has better micro contrast, less corner shading, etc, but that sort of thing can be easily rectified in post with RAWs from the f/2 IS lens. Although I haven't done extensive testing on the image stabilizer vs without, theoretically the IS in the f/2 lens should also help my motion shots of traffic come out sharper than if I didn't have IS. Yeah the L lens might have weather sealing, but I use filters to seal the front element & I am gonna do my best not to let any water touch my camera in the first place regardless, so that is of middling value to me.

When it comes to low light portrait photography at wider angles, with the desire to blow out the background, I generally use my 50mm f/1.2L . I feel this lens gives a lot more flexibility in framing people than the 35mm due to the 50mm focal length having far less perspective distortion than 35mm focal length (leading to less inadvertently awkward-looking photos), and also it does a better job of obliterating the background due to the longer focal length - and I've never found a situation indoors where 50mm was truly too long for a single person or small group. If I were to want a environmental or large group portrait, sure maybe then I'd use the 35mm- but I'd also likely be in f/8-f/11 for the environmental and f/3.5-f/4 for the group to keep things in focus. Yeah the L offers some nice specs that make it technically optically superior, but I don't find any of that as compelling as the small weight/size advantage of the 35 f/2 IS. The faster speed seems to be the true major advantage of the 35L lenses, and I just can't find a real use case for needing that speed in my photography for any focal length under 50mm.

On a similar note, after owning both the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 24mm f/1.4L II, I also chose the f/2.8 IS as the better long term solution of those two as well for my uses at 24mm - landscape/environmental. While the L had better optics, it had worse sunbursts, unreliable autofocus, and again was much larger and heavier (important when taking landscape pics hiking) for little benefit - as again I'd be f/8+ most of the time at this focal length. So in my experience just because something is an L with technically better glass, doesn't always make it the best gear selection for everyone's use case.

Just something to keep in mind for those reading along to choose carefully as I know the L lenses can be very alluring, but very expensive!


----------



## Darecinema (Oct 9, 2021)

The thrill of the hunt!!! Finally got my hands on the RF 100-500. Way more excited about getting it than if on the first day I wanted it had been in stock. Hahahaha. I never had many Xmases growing up so didn’t get to experience that “kid at Xmas feeling” thank goodness as an adult I can finally relate to my kids. Joking aside, if the lenses you need aren’t in stock and you aren’t attracted to the notable sensor technology improvements then definitely no need. But since my bread and butter comes from my cameras, anything that gives me an edge over the competition and makes my job easier is absolutely worth it. Do I absolutely have to have the latest tech? No. And I still have 6-8 year old cameras that work fine and do a lot of the jobs my company gets hired to do, but occasionaly I get jobs where the margin of error is so small that having whatever small edge I can get is worth the extra $ I have to spend.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 19, 2021)

I bought the EF 50mm f/1.4 as a portrait lens for my Rebel. After I got the 6D2, I never used it again until late this spring.

My 93-year-old neighbor still teaches piano. Before she and the pupils were fully vaccinated, she continued to teach a small number of students via FaceTime. She held an in-person recital in her home at the end of the school year. I was invited and asked to take a group picture. I decided that the 50mm was the perfect tool for the job: a small group photo in available light. I also did a shot of her and a student playing a piano duet, recreated rather than distracting during the performance. The pictures were great. I could have used a fraction more depth of field on the group shot, but the slight bluriness of one guy’s ear, or whatever it was, was likely noticeable only to me. (I did carry along the kit lens in case we did some sort of photo I had not anticipated.)

I can’t think of any use of a fast 35mm lens for me. I have never owned or missed having a 35mm prime. I doubt my zooms are used in the 30–40mm range often at all. But for an infant in dim light, that would be a different story. Babies have cute little noses and so don’t suffer from the distortions of being photographed at close distances that affect adult portraits.


----------



## fastprime (Nov 26, 2021)

Was just doing some budgeting and setting some money aside for this lens. Hope we see an announcement soon!


----------

