# Are there two version of the RF 35mm f/1.2L USM coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 6, 2020)

> The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM has been rumored for quite some time, I have been told multiple times that Canon would like a line of f/1.2L prime lenses for the RF mount.
> Now I have been told that Canon may also be working on a DS (defocus smoothing) version of the RF 35mm f/1.2L USM to be announced sometime in the first half of 2021.
> We haven’t seen a patent for such an optical formula yet, but there are a lot of optical formula patents for an RF 35mm f/1.4L USM, including one with a soft-focus setting. It’s quite possible that there are a lot of prototypes of these lenses.
> This information comes from an unknown source, so treat it accordingly.



Continue reading...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2020)

So the question is: where is the 50mm f/1.2 DS?


----------



## BroderLund (Oct 6, 2020)

If so. Will there be a DS of every 1.2L prime then? 24 DS, 50 DS?


----------



## Andy Westwood (Oct 6, 2020)

New RF Glass coming think and fast


----------



## Jstnelson (Oct 6, 2020)

I hope a 35mm f1.2L with No DS comes soon. I am using the rf35 1.8 and it’s an awesome little lens but every time I see the images I shoot with the RF 85 1.2 I want that performance on my 35!


----------



## BakaBokeh (Oct 6, 2020)

I can see my bag getting heavier and my wallet lighter.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Oct 6, 2020)

Where's the consumer glass?


----------



## jdavidse (Oct 6, 2020)

I’d prefer a 1.4. If it came in smaller and lighter than the EF that would be a killer lens


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

HaroldC3 said:


> Where's the consumer glass?


In the pipeline? 85 mm 2.0 is almost here, the 50 mm 1.8 is very close too. We also are almost certain some zooms are coming too. Was it the 18-45? I think so. Same for the 100-400 mm 5.0-7.1. The 24-105 4.0-7.1, 35 mm 1.8, 600 mm 11 and 800 mm 11 are already here. A 70-200 mm 4.0 L is also close, although less consumer maybe.

No need to worry just because there are some high end lenses being in the works as well.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 6, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> So the question is: where is the 50mm f/1.2 DS?


Maybe they will create the 35mm versions first to satisfy C70 users? I am no experienced film maker
but I think 35mm is very common for Super35 because it is the standard focal length (or close to it)?!
A DS might be a great tool for film makers due to the softer dreamier backgrounds it provides - and the
10 stop gray filter set in the C70 body will support the use of f/1.2 with great ease!


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 6, 2020)

HaroldC3 said:


> Where's the consumer glass?


Like Joule said; there is some and I own the RF 35 f/1.8 IS MACRO which is of moderate price
and is a unique combination of well done features.
High aperture, effective IS and Macro make it really versatile (I think I have written it lots of
times) ...


----------



## AccipiterQ (Oct 6, 2020)

35mm f/0.8. I only need the tip of someone's nose in focus.


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Oct 6, 2020)

Finally some rumors about a pro 35 RF prime, can't wait. i also prefer a good not too heavy F1.4. DS is not an option for me.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Maybe they will create the 35mm versions first to satisfy C70 users? I am no experienced film maker
> but I think 35mm is very common for Super35 because it is the standard focal length (or close to it)?!
> A DS might be a great tool for film makers due to the softer dreamier backgrounds it provides - and the
> 10 stop gray filter set in the C70 body will support the use of f/1.2 with great ease!



The 35mm f/1.2 DS will have the light gathering of a f/2.0 lens if the tech hasn't changed from the 85.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Oct 6, 2020)

Don’t care about DS, only care that it has a short minimum focusing distance — and that they use the Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics element like the 85 1.2, which is missing from the 50 1.2.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> I can see my bag getting heavier and my wallet lighter.



I just had to look at buying a whole new damned bag.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 6, 2020)

I'm drooling. The RF 85/1.2 and RF 35/1.2 would make a perfect wedding kit.


----------



## addola (Oct 6, 2020)

I don't find "Defocus Smoothing" appealing. It' much rather not lose 1.3 stops of light for an effect that I can easily do in post if I wanted. 

I think what the RF lineup needs next is 

A macro lens with 1:1 or even larger than life size magnification with AF (for that wow factor)
A replacement for the EF135/2L, since it hasn't been updated in a while.
A fast 35mm
Then maybe long fast white lenses for professional sport & wildlife.


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

addola said:


> I don't find "Defocus Smoothing" appealing. It' much rather not lose 1.3 stops of light for an effect that I can easily do in post if I wanted.


How would you go about that?


----------



## navastronia (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> How would you go about that?



If I were doing it, I would mask the subject out from the background and add a tasteful amount of gaussian blur.


----------



## addola (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> How would you go about that?





navastronia said:


> If I were doing it, I would mask the subject out from the background and add a tasteful amount of gaussian blur.



It can also be done in Lightroom, an adjustment brush, for the background, then apply the "Clarity" slider to the left.


----------



## amorse (Oct 6, 2020)

HaroldC3 said:


> Where's the consumer glass?


I guess it depends on your definition of consumer glass, but among all the lenses they've released I'd call the below ones consumer lenses, which together account for 40% of the RF lineup released to date. 

RF 24-240
RF 35 f/1.8
RF 800MM f/11
RF 600mm f/11
RF 85 f/2
RF 24-105 f/4-7.1

Obviously they're missing the f/4 trinity, but I'm not sure I'd suggest Canon is neglecting consumer glass, no more than big white super-tele's anyway.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 6, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Don’t care about DS, only care that it has a short minimum focusing distance — and that they use the Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics element like the 85 1.2, which is missing from the 50 1.2.



I would be shocked if BSRO wasn't included in the RF 35/1.2 L, since it was innovated for the EF 35/1.4 L II.

Then again, like you say, it _is_ missing from the RF 50/1.2 L. Hmm.


----------



## zim (Oct 6, 2020)

I'm curious are these DS lens backgrounds any more 'dreamy' than the old EF equivalent? I guess there is only one direct comparison the 85 1.2 L But I'd bet the old EF 50 1.2 L would be hard to beat. How about instead of DS an updated double gauss 50L which would be nicely smaller too. Would that not have a wider appeal?


----------



## xanbarksdale (Oct 7, 2020)

I'm hoping for a 24 1.2 or 1.4 sometime soon.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 7, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> I'm hoping for a 24 1.2 or 1.4 sometime soon.


Absofrickinglootly! A fast wide prime is the glaring omission of the current RF lineup...


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Oct 7, 2020)

I'm hanging out for this 35mm f1.2 so bad... can't wait! Hopefully it comes in 2021


----------



## Ziz (Oct 7, 2020)

Just make it USM and small


----------



## mclaren777 (Oct 7, 2020)

It's hard to imagine it being better than the 35L II, but if they use BR optics, it just might.


----------



## melgross (Oct 7, 2020)

I’m having a problem here, and I’m wondering if anyone else has experienced it. When trying to go to another page in the forum, I get the Wikipedia page on internet trolls instead. This has happened for several days.

it doesn’t happen when going to a story, just a new page in the forum. Only on this site.


----------



## Giancarlo Cornoló (Oct 7, 2020)

[QUOTE = "addola, post: 866609, membro: 376788"]
Não acho "Defocus Smoothing" atraente. É muito melhor não perder 1,3 pontos de luz para um efeito que eu posso facilmente fazer no post se eu quiser.

Acho que a próxima linha de RF precisa é

Uma lente macro com 1: 1 ou até maior do que a ampliação em tamanho real com AF (para esse fator de surpresa)
Um substituto para o EF135 / 2L, já que não é atualizado há algum tempo.
35mm rápido
Então, talvez, lentes brancas longas e rápidas para esportes profissionais e vida selvagem.
[/CITAR]
+
1 panqueca


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Oct 7, 2020)

I'm keeping my EF primes for the time being so I can use the filter adapters with them on my R5. So if I did get an RF prime, it would be the DS version.


----------



## 6degrees (Oct 7, 2020)

Interested in RF 35mm f/1.2L USM , non DS version.


----------



## Fotonocity (Oct 7, 2020)

Hoping it’s a RF 35 1.4 non DS, smaller size and priced similar to ef 35 1.4. But I know that won’t happen and it’ll be a 35 f1.2 and close to 2k  Still don’t are about DS just want the normal version. Anyone heard anything from Sigma about development on the RF glass ?


----------



## sanj (Oct 7, 2020)

35mm is too wide to have DS. For me.


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Oct 7, 2020)

Ugh, a 1.2?! Who wants to carry these bricks? It's going to be 1,000 grams (face in palms, shaking back and forth)


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 7, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The 35mm f/1.2 DS will have the light gathering of a f/2.0 lens if the tech hasn't changed from the 85.


That's the tradeoff of these apodization designs but it will have f/1.2 diffraction discs shaped to a gentle falloff - by the apodization design. And keeping T/2 at shutter speeds of 1/50 /180° needs those gray filters too in a lot of lighting conditions.


----------



## AlP (Oct 7, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Wide-angles are EXACTLY the type of lens the mirrorless cameras should be able to do far better than the SLRs, because the lens design needn't be compromised by the question of leaving room for the mirror.
> 
> I expect an RF 35/1.4 would leave the EF in the dust.
> 
> I'd say the RF 50/1.2 has literally 10x the resolution of the EF, and that's not even a wide-angle. (10x area means about 3x linear. And the resolution charts show the RF 50 has the contrast at 30lp/mm that the EF does at 10lp/mm. Ergo it's safe to say it's something like 10x sharper.)



The EF 50 1.2 is a rather old and relatively simple design (not bashing that lens, there were likely reasons why they did it like that). The EF 35 1.4 II is a newer, significantly more complex and also very well corrected design. There's no comparable 50 mm lens in the EF lineup as that generation has been skipped by Canon, maybe because the RF 50 was already in the pipeline.

Therefore I don't think that the EF <-> RF resolution comparison for the 50 mm lenses can simply be carried over to the 35 mm lenses. And while primes will likely leave more room for improvements than zooms, we've seen with the 2.8 RF zooms that while there were improvements in resolution and optical quality in general, those improvements weren't huge. The latest EF zoom designs were already very good in terms of technical qualities.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 7, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Wide-angles are EXACTLY the type of lens the mirrorless cameras should be able to do far better than the SLRs, because the lens design needn't be compromised by the question of leaving room for the mirror.
> 
> I expect an RF 35/1.4 would leave the EF in the dust.
> 
> I'd say the RF 50/1.2 has literally 10x the resolution of the EF, and that's not even a wide-angle. (10x area means about 3x linear. And the resolution charts show the RF 50 has the contrast at 30lp/mm that the EF does at 10lp/mm. Ergo it's safe to say it's something like 10x sharper.)



Retro focus lens designs are generally used for SLR focal lengths less than 35mm. However, mirrorless designs still have a mount flange, so for ultra wides, a retro fcosu design may still be required. Canon could easily have created an ef 50mm f1.2 L that matched the RF 50mm f1.2 L optics but chose not too. The Zeiss Otus 50mm f1.4 and Sigma Art 50mm F1.4 are good examples of other brands fullfilling that particular brief. The EF 50mm f1.2 L isn't a retrofocus design, it's just one that was compromised for the need to be small, compact, bright and relatively cheap to build (Canon was going through a strange design phase at the time). It's easily the weakest L prime in the EF range. 
An EF 35mm f1.4 doesn't need to have a retro focus design. So the assumption that a newer RF 35mm f1.4 would be optically superior could only point to a newer and superior design that has little to do with mount (EF vs RF). I think there would be more optical gains for an ultra wide zoom or a 24mm f1.4 on the RF mount. However, I've never found the ef 24mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4 lacking optically. Maybe in a 50+mp world results will be different. But for wide open lenses...bokeh and rendering is king and not absolute sharpness. Stop down a few stops and most of the EF lenses are sharper than most zooms.


----------



## -pekr- (Oct 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Wonder how much of a "Toneh" it is going to have


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 7, 2020)

Maybe it's just me but i prefer the 1.4 version. Looks like we will have another 1kg lens to lug around.


----------



## KirkD (Oct 7, 2020)

I very badly want a fast wide or ultra-wide for night landscapes/skyscapes. 35mm, however, is not wide enough for me. I did own the EF 35mm f1.4 II and it was a beautiful lens, giving superb results, but I always wanted wider. Currently I'm using the RF 15-35 f2.8L for nightscapes but I'm finding that 2.8 is just not quite fast enough. I can increase exposure time but then the stars start leaving noticeable streaks. I've attached a photo I took that is pretty much at the limits of what I can do with the EOS R - RF15-35 combination.












September Night on the Pickerel River.jpg



__ KirkD
__ Oct 7, 2020
__ 1



Canon EOS R with RF15-35 f2.8L, 15 seconds, ISO 1600 at f2.8, edited in Lightroom


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2020)

You are into the realms of stacking to reduce noise and stitching to get the fov you want. That’s what happens as we grow as photographers, we start pushing against a limit but there are always ways around it.


----------



## tron (Oct 7, 2020)

There is always the Sigma Art 14mm 1.8 for landscape astrophotography...


----------



## Jerryrigged (Oct 7, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> It's hard to imagine it being better than the 35L II, but if they use BR optics, it just might.


Yeah... the 35L II is probably the LAST lens I'll be updating! Still one of the best Canon lenses made! I'm keeping my EF L glass but when adding new glass I'm getting the RF versions. So far only have the RF 50L (amazing glass). Would eventually probably upgrade my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II (mainly to get the IS in the RF version).


----------



## Famateur (Oct 7, 2020)

Anyone else out there feel like the Defocus Smoothing produces backgrounds that look too much like computational background blurring from smart phones? 

For every example photo I've seen, I much prefer the standard over the DS version for that very reason. Rather than looking "dreamy," it just looks kinda fake.* Maybe it's just 'cause I'm old and didn't grow up in the smart phone Instagram filter era... 

* It's a real background that looks like a computational fake background. Would that be a fake _fake _background?


----------



## APP (Oct 7, 2020)

As with many other commenters, a lighter, smaller, less expensive 1.4 would be my preference over a 1.2. I'm not really interested in a DS version either, as I would use a lens like this for landscape and astro in addition to portrait use.


----------



## rightslot (Oct 7, 2020)

Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5. 

If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT. 

We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped. 

Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post. 

So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?


----------



## Jstnelson (Oct 7, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.
> 
> If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.
> 
> ...


Absolutely. I shoot at 1.2 on my RF85mm 99% of the time and I have never had an issue nailing the pupil with eye af. Will be even easier at 35mm


----------



## APP (Oct 7, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.
> 
> If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.
> 
> ...



I've only had my R5 for a short time, but my sense is that the eye AF makes it easy (basically automatic) to nail focus on portraits at shallow depth of field. With eye AF, I'm really interested in the 85/1.2 and would be confident in hitting focus pretty much all the time. (Shooting the 5D series, my AF was more "miss" than "hit" when inspecting eyelashes at 100%. Much better with the eye AF on the R and R5 in my experience. I've had great success with the sigma 35/1.4 art and would assume an RF 35 would be even better.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 7, 2020)

LeeBabySimms said:


> Ugh, a 1.2?! Who wants to carry these bricks? It's going to be 1,000 grams (face in palms, shaking back and forth)


I’ll tak’em all day and everyday.


----------



## Jstnelson (Oct 7, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I’ll tak’em all day and everyday.


Same! I love lugging around my massive rf85 1.2.

I have the battery grip on my R5 and it’s pretty well balanced. I never feel like the setup is that heavy. I was adapting a sigma 105 1.4 on my R and the new setup feels like a point and shoot in comparison lol


----------



## Bdbtoys (Oct 8, 2020)

Hmm, with the 35mm f1.2 non-DS, I might just skip getting a 24-xx zoom lens and pack this and my 50 f1.2.... key word being might (dang GAS).


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 8, 2020)

HaroldC3 said:


> Where's the consumer glass?


You mean the 600 f/11 isn't enough for the masses. People are so demanding.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2020)

Jstnelson said:


> Same! I love lugging around my massive rf85 1.2.
> 
> I have the battery grip on my R5 and it’s pretty well balanced. I never feel like the setup is that heavy. I was adapting a sigma 105 1.4 on my R and the new setup feels like a point and shoot in comparison lol


The wider the focal length the wider I like the aperture.


----------



## rightslot (Oct 8, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> You mean the 600 f/11 isn't enough for the masses. People are so demanding.


Me Majestyk Just gave me my laugh for the evening! Thank you very funny!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 8, 2020)

rightslot said:


> Me Majestyk Just gave me my laugh for the evening! Thank you very funny!


 
I try to lighten the mood. I must say I'm actually very depressed by the Canon RF lineup. Either super expensive or super slow. RF is about 30% dearer where I live than EF and as abirder wanting some decent fast long glass for birding if I get R5 the new long lenses are a massive disappointment.

I find Nikon's approach to Z mount lens releases much more sensible. Plenty of intermediate f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms and now padding out the line-up with the work horse f/2.8 zooms and a sprinkling of fast primes. Also on the road map we see 200-600, 100-400 f/5.6 and now 400 f/2.8. From Canon we now hear rumors of another glacially slow zoom, a 100-400 f/7.1.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Oct 8, 2020)

Famateur said:


> Anyone else out there feel like the Defocus Smoothing produces backgrounds that look too much like computational background blurring from smart phones?
> 
> For every example photo I've seen, I much prefer the standard over the DS version for that very reason. Rather than looking "dreamy," it just looks kinda fake.* Maybe it's just 'cause I'm old and didn't grow up in the smart phone Instagram filter era...
> 
> * It's a real background that looks like a computational fake background. Would that be a fake _fake _background?


Yes! That is exactly my impression of the DS lenses as well. I much prefer the non-DS version because it still has the traditional characteristics of what we have become used to for blur created by a lens not a computer.


rightslot said:


> Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.
> 
> If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.
> 
> ...


I seem to have a different experience to others when it comes to Eye-AF on the R5. I get about 80% accuracy with Eye-AF regardless of aperture used. Sometimes it will decided to focus on an ear or a nose and miss the eye by quite a margin.

I prefer to use single shot 'spot AF' and place the AF point over the eye myself. I find with that mode my hit rate at wide apertures is 90-95%. And when it does miss it usually hits just slightly behind the eye, on one of the rear most eyelashes. It never misses so much as to hit an ear or a nose like the Eye-AF does.. but that's just my personal experience and the reason why I take care of the focus point manually


----------



## edoorn (Oct 8, 2020)

rightslot said:


> So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?



short answer: yes


----------



## RMac (Oct 9, 2020)

sanj said:


> 35mm is too wide to have DS. For me.


Generally agreed - not the greatest focal length for blurry backgrounds, although if you get the subject close enough you can get the background to melt away. But even then, seems like the situations where DS would offer a notable difference in the background blur at 35 would be pretty niche and not likely significant enough to justify losing a stop or more of light.

Honestly, I think Canon would be better off going after an RF 24mm f1.2L before the 35. The EF 35mm f1.4L is spectacularly sharp - I don't see an RF improving on it very much, whereas the EF 24mm f1.4L could do with a refresh.


----------



## Johnw (Oct 19, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Like Joule said; there is some and I own the RF 35 f/1.8 IS MACRO which is of moderate price
> and is a unique combination of well done features.
> High aperture, effective IS and Macro make it really versatile (I think I have written it lots of
> times) ...


Also the extremely close focusing distance (around 6", that's the main reason I got it), that lens does so much.


----------



## rightslot (Oct 19, 2020)

Whoa, whoa.! I am just now seeing that there was a typo in my original post.

I did not mean to talk about the 35 mm. I was actually talking about the 85 mm 1.2. And I was speaking of the narrow plane of focus in perspective to the very high cost of the lens. I would usually only shoot 35mm for landscape or people + landscape, but not as portrait specific. Sorry to take us down the wrong trail. 

However, the thought remains the same: On the very $$$$ 85mm 1.2 —if the focus is as superb as advertised, then the narrow focus plane will not be a problem. We shall see.

Still waiting on my R5!


----------



## Sorosuub (Oct 24, 2020)

Don't care for a DS version, but could sure use an RF 35 1.2 with macro capability.


----------



## rightslot (Oct 24, 2020)

85mm w/autofocus from Samyang. In RF mount. Anyone have this lens?


----------



## brad-man (Oct 24, 2020)

rightslot said:


> 85mm w/autofocus from Samyang. In RF mount. Anyone have this lens?


Try this thread:
Samyang 85


----------

