# Patent: Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 15, 2021)

> I have been reporting for a long while that an RF 35mm f/1.2L USM was coming for the RF mount. Here we have a very detailed patent showing four different optical formulas for such a lens.
> The RF 35mm f/1.2L USM is on the known RF lens roadmap, so I think we may see this lens sometime in 2021.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Apr 15, 2021)

How 'bout a 28mm f/1.2 or f/1.4?


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 15, 2021)

Some similarity with the EF-S 32: The light travels mostly through glass! Lots of thick lenses and a large number of elements - T1.8?


----------



## Fischer (Apr 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Sweeeeeet.  RF 35mm, 300mm and high MPIX camera will be next year's financial setback. At least better than the stock market crash last year.


----------



## yankiefrankie (Apr 15, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> How 'bout a 28mm f/1.2 or f/1.4?


I agree with the 28mm. I have the Sigma art 28mm f/1.4 and it is my most used indoor lens. I would love a RF 28L in 1.2 or 1.4.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 15, 2021)

OMGoodness! Another f/1.2!

Dream: RF 35mm f/1.2L, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L, RF 135mm f/1.8L, RF 600mm f/4L

Reality? Ugh!!!$$$

Throw in a RF 24mm f/1.2L and make it an epic nightmare of a dream.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 15, 2021)

It certainly completes a new f1.2 trinity of 85mm / 50mm / 35mm


----------



## ToddK (Apr 15, 2021)

The long awaited 35 will potentially and finally step up to the ultimate f1.2L trio. Now we need a kick [email protected]@ name for that Trinity


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 15, 2021)

ToddK said:


> The long awaited 35 will potentially and finally step up to the ultimate f1.2L trio. Now we need a kick [email protected]@ name for that Trinity


"The One"


----------



## ToddK (Apr 15, 2021)

So much yes haha


----------



## navastronia (Apr 15, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "The One"



Nah, that's the f/1.0 trilogy coming in 2028. Save your pennies


----------



## navastronia (Apr 15, 2021)

I'm excited for this lens despite now having no plans to buy it. I'm covered for glass unless the work I do changes.

What I really can't wait to see is a comparison between this lens (should Canon release it) and Sigma's $1500 version, since that's the only autofocus lens on the market that can compete with it, despite Sigma not offering it in an RF mount, yet.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 15, 2021)

navastronia said:


> Nah, that's the f/1.0 trilogy coming in 2028. Save your pennies



Indeed. Or maybe "The Ones" when that group comes out.

I thought about "The Clean Dozens" as a play on 1.2 and "The Dirty Dozen" but...sigh...it's a bit of a reach.


----------



## Nemorino (Apr 15, 2021)

ToddK said:


> Now we need a kick [email protected]@ name for that Trinity


Fast & Furious? We don't know if it's a Trinity or even more.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 15, 2021)

navastronia said:


> I'm excited for this lens despite now having no plans to buy it. I'm covered for glass unless the work I do changes.
> 
> What I really can't wait to see is a comparison between this lens (should Canon release it) and Sigma's $1500 version, since that's the only autofocus lens on the market that can compete with it, despite Sigma not offering it in an RF mount, yet.


We'll, isn't the Sigma f/1.4? Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4L II was a fantastic lens I owned. Sony just released a 50mm f/1.2. Canon setting a new standard, I guess.


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 15, 2021)

It's an interesting conundrum, I'm tempted by this lens, but I actually love the RF 35mm f1.8 so much as a travel/macro/lightweight lens that I haven't used my 35mm f/1.4L II in over a year and will probably sell it to put towards an R3. I'm not sure if I see a future where I have both the F/1.2 and the F/1.8, but perhaps Canon will find a way to change my mind.

Probably safe to assume this will probably end up around $2000-2200, like the RF 50 did.


----------



## navastronia (Apr 15, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> We'll, isn't the Sigma f/1.4? Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4L II was a fantastic lens I owned. Sony just released a 50mm f/1.2. Canon setting a new standard, I guess.



Nah, there's an f/1.2, now, and it's not even enormously expensive (lower MSRP than the f/1.4 L II, in fact). It was released to almost no fanfare, which makes me wonder how much even photography enthusiasts care about the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 for a wide angle prime  









Sigma 35mm F1.2 DN ART Review - DustinAbbott.net


Sigma 35mm F1.2 DN ART (Sony FE) Review | Photographer Dustin Abbott reviews the new premium prime lens from Sigma - the 35DN with an F1.2 aperture!



dustinabbott.net


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 15, 2021)

navastronia said:


> Nah, there's an f/1.2, now, and it's not even enormously expensive (lower MSRP than the f/1.4 L II, in fact). It was released to almost no fanfare, which makes me wonder how much even photography enthusiasts care about the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 for a wide angle prime
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We'll, I care... just because.


----------



## navastronia (Apr 15, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> We'll, I care... just because.



Same. It's absolutely a luxury lens more than something I personally need.

If I had been able to shoot weddings in 2020, I would have enjoyed having it because the bokeh is much smoother than Sigma's 35/1.4, which often makes harsh patterns of grass/trees in outdoor portraits, wide-open.


----------



## ToddK (Apr 15, 2021)

It’s safe to say I have over 500k shots on my 35mmf1.4lii it’s my workhorse and doesn’t skip a beat. I’m ready for the 1.2 rf


----------



## Juangrande (Apr 15, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> OMGoodness! Another f/1.2!
> 
> Dream: RF 35mm f/1.2L, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L, RF 135mm f/1.8L, RF 600mm f/4L
> 
> ...


RF 135 f1.4 is supposedly coming.


----------



## Juangrande (Apr 15, 2021)

navastronia said:


> Nah, there's an f/1.2, now, and it's not even enormously expensive (lower MSRP than the f/1.4 L II, in fact). It was released to almost no fanfare, which makes me wonder how much even photography enthusiasts care about the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 for a wide angle prime
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I care about the difference. I shoot 35mm for editorial/environmental portraits and I would like even more separation than I’m getting now with my 35 1.4. I can’t wait for this native lens and the rumored 135 1.4. Will be buying the RF 50 or 85 1.2 first though. As soon as I sell my 5Dmk4.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 15, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> OMGoodness! Another f/1.2!
> 
> Dream: RF 35mm f/1.2L, RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 28-70mm f/2L, RF 70-135mm f/2L, RF 135mm f/1.8L, RF 600mm f/4L
> 
> ...



Don't despair until you figure out how many kidneys your extended family have left. Only if that number is already close to zero do you have a problem.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Apr 16, 2021)

Super excited for this lens! To be honest, the RF 35mm 1.8 would have been good enough image quality wise, but the focus shift on my copy was quite bad and made it too unreliable unfortunately


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2021)

Waiting!!!!


----------



## Sorosuub (Apr 16, 2021)

Will we get a decrease in minimum focusing distance?


----------



## pzyber (Apr 16, 2021)

This is a darn big lens. It's 70-200/2,8 size. What a monster of a 35mm this will be.


----------



## alexvaltchev (Apr 16, 2021)

I agree with the rest of the people. 35mm is nice but i WOULD LOVE RF 28mm L f/1.2


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 16, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Super excited for this lens! To be honest, the RF 35mm 1.8 would have been good enough image quality wise, but the focus shift on my copy was quite bad and made it too unreliable unfortunately


Unfortunately???
See it as a chance or justification to spend the next $2500 on an RF 1,2/35


----------



## Fischer (Apr 16, 2021)

ToddK said:


> It’s safe to say I have over 500k shots on my 35mmf1.4lii it’s my workhorse and doesn’t skip a beat. I’m ready for the 1.2 rf


Must-have-lens. Fast 35mm prime is _amazingly _versatile on a high MPIX body. F1./2 would let you crop even more and still maintain great bokeh. Used my 35mm L II on the 5DS/R this way. Could see it replacing my RF 28-70mm f/2.0 as my go-to lens for events when the high MPIX R comes out.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 16, 2021)

pzyber said:


> This is a darn big lens. It's 70-200/2,8 size. What a monster of a 35mm this will be.


Same length as the Canon EF 35mm L II on an R. Maybe the front element will be larger, but it should have more glass towards the camera body.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 16, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Same length as the Canon EF 35mm L II on an R. Maybe the front element will be larger, but it should have more glass towards the camera body.


According to Wikipedia, the EF 35mm f/1.4L mkII is 105.5mm long, while this patent gives the lens length as ~148mm, making it longer even if the 24mm flange distance difference is taken into account.


----------



## Finn (Apr 16, 2021)

More affordable f1.8 primes, please. A 20mm, 24mm and 40mm.


----------



## KirkD (Apr 16, 2021)

I hope that coma is very well controlled for astrophotography and nightscapes


----------



## Fischer (Apr 16, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> According to Wikipedia, the EF 35mm f/1.4L mkII is 105.5mm long, while this patent gives the lens length as ~148mm, making it longer even if the 24mm flange distance difference is taken into account.


According to the lens in my hand and a school ruler Wikepedia does not have a clue...(about the EF plus RF adapter)...

150mm with lens cover ~148mm without. However, I do need to take away some for the back cap - maybe 10mm. So 140mm with and ~138mm without.


----------



## pzyber (Apr 16, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Same length as the Canon EF 35mm L II on an R. Maybe the front element will be larger, but it should have more glass towards the camera body.


It will still be a massive and impressive lens. Even longer than the 70-200/2,8 non the less.


----------



## quiquae (Apr 17, 2021)

yankiefrankie said:


> I agree with the 28mm. I have the Sigma art 28mm f/1.4 and it is my most used indoor lens. I would love a RF 28L in 1.2 or 1.4.


Canon seems to believe 28mm prime lenses aren't important, considering that they never did release an EF28L, or even renew the ancient and generally criticized EF28F1.8. No matter, if there's demand Sigma or Tamron will get around to it one of these days.


----------



## Joules (Apr 17, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> According to Wikipedia, the EF 35mm f/1.4L mkII is 105.5mm long, while this patent gives the lens length as ~148mm, making it longer even if the 24mm flange distance difference is taken into account.


I wish CR guy would add some sort of hint in the posts about how patent lengths are to be compared the Canon numbers for already released EF lenses. It comes up every single time.

I understand the numbers on the German Canon website to measure the physical distance of the bounding box length. So a bit more than what eventually sticks out of the body, as it includes the flanges. But it doesn't account for the front or rear lens cap. For the EF 85 mm 1.8,for example, they list 75 mm and I measured the part that sticking out of the body to be 72 mm. So that checks out.

For the newly announced RF 100 mm 2.8 L macro, the list a length of 148 mm. The recent patent for this lens shows a total lens length of 162.3 and backfocus of 14.7.

162.3 - 14.7 = 147.6 should give the actual, physical length of the lens, including the bit sticking into the body. That matches up pretty well with the 148 mm from the German Canon website, so that checks out.

If you care about the part sticking out if the body, you have to subtract the 20 mm flange distance from the total lens length figure in a patent. So that gives 148 mm - 20 mm = 128 mm. If you want to compare that to an EF lens, you also have to add the 24 mm length of the EF adapter to the EF lens.

In other words, unless the total lens length figure in a patent is more than 44 mm greater than the EF lens length given by Canon on their website, the EF lens is shorter in practical terms. For RF lens lengths on the website, it becomes more difficult to compare, as RF lenses can stick into the body and Canon do not give that figure separately.


----------



## roby17269 (Apr 17, 2021)

Can't wait! I need a 35mm but I sold my 1.4L (mkI) since I did not like it on my R5. 
I hope we get this before end of 2021


----------



## sanj (Apr 18, 2021)

roby17269 said:


> Can't wait! I need a 35mm but I sold my 1.4L (mkI) since I did not like it on my R5.
> I hope we get this before end of 2021


Yeah. The sooner the better.


----------



## wanderer23 (Apr 19, 2021)

Can't wait! have the 50L and can only afford one more prime at the moment after so many unwarranted purchases this year (haha) - so been waiting for this one over getting the 85L


----------



## Aaron D (Apr 19, 2021)

Or even a f/2 28mm. A sort of melding of the old EF f/1.8 + 2.8 versions would be ideal. Compact is the main thing for my travel/street photo use. 

I've had two different 35's over the years but ended up selling both for lack of use. I want to like that focal length but just don't see things that way.


----------



## 2Cents (Apr 20, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "The One"


The Prime Trinity


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 20, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> Some similarity with the EF-S 32: The light travels mostly through glass! Lots of thick lenses and a large number of elements - T1.8?


I keep wondering too.
Leica's 0,95 Noctilux has only 8 lenses, Canon's 1,2/35, if I'm not mistaken, 18 !
18 lenses will certainly absorb some light...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 20, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> Some similarity with the EF-S 32: The light travels mostly through glass! Lots of thick lenses and a large number of elements - T1.8?





Del Paso said:


> I keep wondering too.
> Leica's 0,95 Noctilux has only 8 lenses, Canon's 1,2/35, if I'm not mistaken, 18 !
> 18 lenses will certainly absorb some light...


What relevance does the T stop have for photography?


----------



## Joules (Apr 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What relevance does the T stop have for photography?


More light = less noise


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 21, 2021)

Joules said:


> More light = less noise


Really? You are suggesting the difference between 1/3 stop and 1/2 a stop is relevant to anything?


----------



## Joules (Apr 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Really? You are suggesting the difference between 1/3 stop and 1/2 a stop is relevant to anything?


Not to me, but maybe to some others. I was just answering your question tongue in cheek, without considering the prior context.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What relevance does the T stop have for photography?


F stop is purely math, based on 2 parameters :focal length and diameter of front lens.
2 lenses with the same f stop can have a different luminosity.
T stop takes into account the real light transmission of a lens, which depends on the number and transparency of a lens' elements.
So, with less serious lens makers, an f1,4 could easily be a real 1,8 lens.
Almost all cine versions of photo lenses (Canon's) have a higher T stop, which, unlike the f stop, is used for exposure measuring.
Fact is, more elements absorb more light .
Yet, regardless of the light transmission, an f 1,2 will have the depth of field of an f 1,2, even if it were a T 1,8...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 21, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> F stop is purely math, based on 2 parameters :focal length and diameter of front lens.
> 2 lenses with the same f stop can have a different luminosity.
> T stop takes into account the real light transmission of a lens, which depends on the number and transparency of a lens' elements.
> So, with less serious lens makers, an f1,4 could easily be a real 1,8 lens.
> ...


I know what T stops are, I am asking specifically why you think they are relevant in stills photography. It doesn’t matter if the lens loses something in transmission (they all do) what matters in stills photography is the depth of field and that is dictated by the aperture not the transmission characteristics. TTL metering rendered t-stops irrelevant for stills shooting decades ago.

The differences of fractions of a stop in transmission characteristics of lenses have absolutely zero relevance that I can see in stills photography.

P.S. Aperture, or f stop, isn’t based on “the diameter of the front lens”, it is the actual focal length divided by the apparent diameter of the entrance pupil.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 21, 2021)

Sorosuub said:


> Will we get a decrease in minimum focusing distance?


You'll for certain get a decrease in your wallet's "reach".


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 22, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I know what T stops are, I am asking specifically why you think they are relevant in stills photography. It doesn’t matter if the lens loses something in transmission (they all do) what matters in stills photography is the depth of field and that is dictated by the aperture not the transmission characteristics. TTL metering rendered t-stops irrelevant for stills shooting decades ago.
> 
> The differences of fractions of a stop in transmission characteristics of lenses have absolutely zero relevance that I can see in stills photography.
> 
> P.S. Aperture, or f stop, isn’t based on “the diameter of the front lens”, it is the actual focal length divided by the apparent diameter of the entrance pupil.


What I actually meant is: are so many lenses really needed, since Leica, for instance, succeed in making brilliant luminous wide angles and other lenses, using a maximum of 10 elements.
Fact remains, that any difference between T and F stops results in a reduced low-light ability .Whether this matters, is up to the user.
But there are some specific situations where a half or a third of a diaphragm can actually make a difference.
PS: thanks for the correction ("diameter of the front lens")
PPS: I was aware of your knowing what a T stop is, but some forum members reading this post might not. No "offense" intended !


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 22, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> What I actually meant is: are so many lenses really needed, since Leica, for instance, succeed in making brilliant luminous wide angles and other lenses, using a maximum of 10 elements.
> Fact remains, that any difference between T and F stops results in a reduced low-light ability .Whether this matters, is up to the user.
> But there are some specific situations where a half or a third of a diaphragm can actually make a difference.
> PS: thanks for the correction ("diameter of the front lens")
> PPS: I was aware of your knowing what a T stop is, but some forum members reading this post might not. No "offense" intended !


If a lens is f2.0 and has good transmission it will be around T1.9, a ‘bad’ lens will be around T1.7, my point is that difference between 1.9 and 1.7 is not significant enough to be of any concern to anybody in a photography context.

Just bringing t stops into the conversation will confuse people who don’t know what they are and cause them to worry about something that firstly, won’t make any difference to their photography and secondly, they can’t do anything about anyway.

Absolutely no offense taken by me or implied by me either.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 23, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What relevance does the T stop have for photography?


If I buy an f/1.4 lens with T 2.0 I will definitely get the bokeh but i have to increase ISO or exp time by one stop - so you do not get the benefits from higher stops.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> If I buy an f/1.4 lens with T 2.0 I will definitely get the bokeh but i have to increase ISO or exp time by one stop - so you do not get the benefits from higher stops.


But that isn’t very realistic, as I already said all lenses lose something and the differences between a good lens and a ‘bad’ lens for transmission are not that much.

On the other hand something like vignetting has a far greater real world impact for photographers, especially on fast glass. Sony might be winning a lot of hearts and minds for their new small fast glass but who is also pointing out that to do that without severe vignetting they have to be cooking the RAW files and applying exposure corrections?

Now that is a real world compromise that photographers should be talking about.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 23, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But that isn’t very realistic, as I already said all lenses lose something and the differences between a good lens and a ‘bad’ lens for transmission are not that much.
> 
> On the other hand something like vignetting has a far greater real world impact for photographers, especially on fast glass. Sony might be winning a lot of hearts and minds for their new small fast glass but who is also pointing out that to do that without severe vignetting they have to be cooking the RAW files and applying exposure corrections?
> 
> Now that is a real world compromise that photographers should be talking about.


 
Yes, it is a world of compromises.

And it would be great to see more data - compared to the RF 1.8 35mm lens F 1.2 scheme has nearly twice the glass-air surfaces and 2 ... 3x the path through glass so I expect a clearly measurable/relevant difference in transmission.

I agree that each photographer has to choose the "balance of compromises" according to the application!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 23, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> Yes, it is a world of compromises.
> 
> And it would be great to see more data - compared to the RF 1.8 35mm lens F 1.2 scheme has nearly twice the glass-air surfaces and 2 ... 3x the path through glass so I expect a clearly measurable/relevant difference in transmission.
> 
> I agree that each photographer has to choose the "balance of compromises" according to the application!


But the problem becomes one of getting what we ask for without realizing the costs.

I love that Canon still essentially give us access to relatively uncooked RAW files, I hate that Sony don’t and that they use up a portion of their editability by covering up the lensEs shortcomings. But you know what will happen next if we keep drinking that cool aid? Canon will be forced to doctor their RAW files even more to ‘keep up’, which isn’t keeping up at all it is dumbing down.

In the scheme of things T stops are an irrelevant distraction from the much bigger issue of cooking RAW files.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But the problem becomes one of getting what we ask for without realizing the costs.
> 
> I love that Canon still essentially give us access to relatively uncooked RAW files, I hate that Sony don’t and that they use up a portion of their editability by covering up the lensEs shortcomings. But you know what will happen next if we keep drinking that cool aid? Canon will be forced to doctor their RAW files even more to ‘keep up’, which isn’t keeping up at all it is dumbing down.
> 
> In the scheme of things T stops are an irrelevant distraction from the much bigger issue of cooking RAW files.


Cooking RAWs is a different thing and has nothing to do with T-stops IMO.

But as physicist I agree 100% with your opinion about cooking RAWs: It is a no go. I want the real original really raw data - processing should be a separated step done independently and without any loss of the original data. That was always the reason to use RAW - exploit more and more information with increased knowledge and processing power about/of computers.


----------

