# Patent: Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM as well as an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM and RF 28mm f/1.2L USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 17, 2021)

> Is Canon planning to make f/1.2 the new standard for all of their L prime lenses up to the focal length of the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM?
> The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L has been rumored for quite some time and has appeared on our RF lens roadmap since the beginning. There have also been previous patents for an RF 35mm f/1.2L USM.
> Canon News has uncovered another patent for an RF 35mm f/1.2L USM optical formula, along with two other f/1.2L prime lenses that would be highly desired, an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM and (oh joy!) an RF 28mm f/1.2L USM.
> If all of this comes to fruition, this will be a very hard set of prime lenses to beat.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 17, 2021)

Will the price for them all be one kidney or two?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 17, 2021)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Will the price for them all be one kidney or two?


Canon will also be releasing a 3D printer for kidneys.


----------



## danfaz (Jun 17, 2021)

"I don't need an oversized 1.2 lens, just give me 1.4" in 3...2...1...

In all seriousness, though, it would make sense. 1.8/2.0 consumer-grade lenses and 1.2 pro-grade lenses. That's plenty.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 17, 2021)

As none of those lenses are stabilized, does that mean that all future mirrorless cameras will have IBIS or does Caon think that somebody who buys those expensive lenses will also buy a high end mirrorless camera?


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 17, 2021)

One 28mm f/1.2 L and one R3 please! 

I love the 28mm focal length. Really hoping this pans out.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 17, 2021)

Hard to beat, but also heavy! I wonder how large of a market there is for a fast L prime at 28mm. Other systems have more options/history at that focal length than Canon does. EF 28mm f/2.8 IS was solid but was overpriced for years, and there's the even older EF 28mm f/1.8...


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 17, 2021)

It will be harder and harder in future for a pro to justify having chosen Nikon or Sony. The RF system presents an astonishing choice of outstanding lenses and cameras ! I don't have a single doubt that these new lenses will be of an extremely high quality.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As none of those lenses are stabilized, does that mean that all future mirrorless cameras will have IBIS or does Caon think that somebody who buys those expensive lenses will also buy a high end mirrorless camera?


I think the typical user of these lenses are those that demand the highest IQ over stabilization. And if a large part of that is portraiture/controlled lighting scenarios, IS is not a big advantage at shorter focal lengths. These f/1.2 lenses will not be small nor light. I can't see many people carrying a bagful of f/1.2 lenses over a single f/2.8 zoom. I can see people carrying smaller f/2 primes for that purpose, so those would probably be better candidates for IS.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As none of those lenses are stabilized, does that mean that all future mirrorless cameras will have IBIS or does Caon think that somebody who buys those expensive lenses will also buy a high end mirrorless camera?


All future Canon cameras that carry the same price tag as the F1.2 line of primes. I expect the entry level full frame cameras to be released without IBIS. But I don't think that anybody would buy an RP to put a 85mm F1.2. on it.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 17, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon will also be releasing a 3D printer for kidneys.


Which will be fantastic ... for the two people who can afford the printer!


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 17, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> Hard to beat, but also heavy! I wonder how large of a market there is for a fast L prime at 28mm. Other systems have more options/history at that focal length than Canon does. EF 28mm f/2.8 IS was solid but was overpriced for years, and there's the even older EF 28mm f/1.8...


Maybe for those who fell in love with the 28mm focal length using the RF 28-70 and are interested in brighter aperture at less weight?


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As none of those lenses are stabilized, does that mean that all future mirrorless cameras will have IBIS or does Caon think that somebody who buys those expensive lenses will also buy a high end mirrorless camera?


I think that all cameras will have IBIS in the near future (maybe not the next round of lower end cameras) because most other camera manufacturers have it.
But ... the implementations will differ in my opinion: Maybe 2-3 stops with the lower end cameras and close to 5 stops for the high end systems with camera IBIS alone.
Or they reduce the number of axes for the lower end cameras, e.g. they do a rotation only IBIS while the lens does the rest - would be great for video too.

I decided to take the RF 35 1.8 and maybe I would prefer to have this one if I had to choose only one 35mm because it gives me roughly 4 stops advantage over the RF 1.2 (1 stop less aperture, 5 stops stabilization), at least for photographing static subjects. RF 35 1.8 has further advantages in terms of usability: 1:2 macro, small, light ...


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 17, 2021)

I like the "silver class" (not a red ring) lenses too!
With R5 and 35 IS i can handheld about 1 seconds, and it is crisp sharp. If I reduce the resolution to half (so 11 Megapixel) size, 2 seconds is ok too.
On the 85 IS i can handheld 0,5 seconds... this is just crazy.
And I love it on my 17 TSE too. I don't need 1/30 or 1/15s anymore (like on my 5D3), it can be 1/4 for sure, 1/2 often. So it is a huge difference to get the church ceiling with ISO 400 or ISO 6400. This you can see in the details for sure...
These L lenses can be all 1.2 - which would be unique in the market today.

So I hope there will be also another silver class lenses. Maybe I am interested in a very small 24mm 2.0 IS too.
I use the 135/2.0 to my life end I think, I would never upgrade to a 135 1.4. Yesyes much more bokeh, ok. But maybe a silver class 135 2.0, which is shorter and has adapter included? If not, than I stay with the EF... ;-)
And not a 3000€ 100-500 please...


----------



## jvillain (Jun 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As none of those lenses are stabilized, does that mean that all future mirrorless cameras will have IBIS or does Caon think that somebody who buys those expensive lenses will also buy a high end mirrorless camera?


If your shooting wide open on a 1.2 any where other than a cave then you will probably have the shutter speed cranked up as far as you can get it and still be eyeing your ND filters. No need for IBIS if your shooting stills. We would have to wait and see if the video guys would be interested. 1.2 does have it's uses but if you can afford these lenses then you can probably afford proper cine lenses.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 17, 2021)

I said this in the RF 35mm rumor before, but I'll remind people again that Canon explained that larger aperture primes give IBIS more room to work, which allows the RF 85mm F/1.2 to have 8 stops of IBIS without having IS in the lens.

So I wouldn't expect any fast primes with IS, considering Canon can save money, make lenses more durable without IS, and reduce optical complexity by relying on the large apertures to boost IBIS. 8 stops is far better than what the EF lens IS systems could get.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 17, 2021)

jvillain said:


> If your shooting wide open on a 1.2 any where other than a cave then you will probably have the shutter speed cranked up as far as you can get it and still be eyeing your ND filters. No need for IBIS if your shooting stills. We would have to wait and see if the video guys would be interested. 1.2 does have it's uses but if you can afford these lenses then you can probably afford proper cine lenses.


At night you have much less light. It can be 1/10,000 of the light you get during sunshine or even less. So the main reason for me to buy a wide open lens would be getting more light into the camera. IBIS would help further. I own an EF 35mm f/2 IS and it is very nice for hand held night shots, but even more light would really be appreciated. Night shots are the reason why I might buy the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS.


----------



## frjmacias (Jun 17, 2021)

I have been wanting a 28mm f/1.2 for quite some time for some music video work. It would be for very particular shots, but it would have its use for the looks I want to implement. I hope it comes to fruition. Would love to pair it with the R5.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 17, 2021)

I feel like pairing a native wide f/1.2 with a 70-135 f/2 would be really compelling. I’d certainly buy into that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 17, 2021)

danfaz said:


> "I don't need an oversized 1.2 lens, just give me 1.4" in 3...2...1...
> 
> In all seriousness, though, it would make sense. 1.8/2.0 consumer-grade lenses and 1.2 pro-grade lenses. That's plenty.


By the looks of it...all the consumer grade stuff is going f11 for some reason.


----------



## Berowne (Jun 17, 2021)

I am happy with my affordable 35mm & 85mm f/1.4 - dont need more speed.


----------



## snapshot (Jun 17, 2021)

i wonder if 28-70 f/2 is putting pressure on the primes to be faster?


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 17, 2021)

These lenses will be 4cm longer than the already large RF50L. I don’t like it at all. I would much rather have a smaller 500grams f1.4 lens with “normal” L quality, than a big 1kg f1.2 lens with RF 50L quality. Some will think otherwise but for me, the difference in IQ is most apparent for pixel peeping, not for real world significance.

I find the RF50L to be so large that I often leave it at home.

edit: I do want L level quality. The RF 35 f1.8 for instance, is a really good lens, but it lacks the clarity, color, contrast and bokeh that I would expect from a L lens.


----------



## yankiefrankie (Jun 17, 2021)

As much as I love this (especially the 28mm f/1.2), aren't they a little on the long side? 
24mm (143.97mm)
28mm (146.96mm)
35mm (154.96mm) 

Compare this to the RF 50L and 85L:
50mm (108mm)
85mm (117mm)

Just saying...


----------



## yankiefrankie (Jun 17, 2021)

Larsskv said:


> These lenses will be 4cm longer than the already large RF50L. I don’t like it at all. I would much rather have a smaller 500grams f1.4 lens with “normal” L quality, than a big 1kg f1.2 lens with RF 50L quality. Some will think otherwise but for me, the difference in IQ is most apparent for pixel peeping, not for real world significance.
> 
> I find the RF50L to be so large that I often leave it at home.
> 
> edit: I do want L level quality. The RF 35 f1.8 for instance, is a really good lens, but it lacks the clarity, color, contrast and bokeh that I would expect from a L lens.


Ha, you wrote this in the time in the time it took me to write mine about the lengths. Great minds think alike, no?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As none of those lenses are stabilized, does that mean that all future mirrorless cameras will have IBIS or does Caon think that somebody who buys those expensive lenses will also buy a high end mirrorless camera?


isnt ibis easier in small sensors. seems like they had it before the bigger sensors.


----------



## slclick (Jun 17, 2021)

1.2 rumors and patents always bring out the cries for 1.4 and 1.8 primes missing from the lineup (which in the big scheme of things is still in it's infancy) What with the lower end R bodies supposedly coming, there is no cause for concern that they won't be making more consumer primes. Those of us that love our RF 35 1.8 just need to be patient....the 24/28/40 etc should be around the corner. Good thing we can shoot adapted, imagine being in the Nikon camp.


----------



## kafala (Jun 17, 2021)

I would have preferred a light 35mm 1.4 like Sony in 400 - 500 grams range. I don't want a tank. 1.2 vs 1.4 in wide lenses is overrated.


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 17, 2021)

> "I don't need an oversized 1.2 lens, just give me 1.4" in 3...2...1...



Hilarious! Clever!

I've never seen a "Que the [predictable comment] in 3...2...1..." comment before!

Too subtle? I was meaning to sound sarcastic...


----------



## navastronia (Jun 17, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> Hilarious! Clever!
> 
> I've never seen a "Que the [predictable comment] in 3...2...1..." comment before!
> 
> Too subtle? I was meaning to sound sarcastic...



I mean, he can't help being right.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2021)

slclick said:


> 1.2 rumors and patents always bring out the cries for 1.4 and 1.8 primes missing from the lineup (which in the big scheme of things is still in it's infancy) What with the lower end R bodies supposedly coming, there is no cause for concern that they won't be making more consumer primes. Those of us that love our RF 35 1.8 just need to be patient....the 24/28/40 etc should be around the corner. Good thing we can shoot adapted, imagine being in the Nikon camp.


I’m not sure I agree. Back in the FD days the 50mm focal length, for instance, was available in f1.8, f1.4, f1.2, and f1.2 L and that is ignoring the specialist 50mm macro. In EF we had the 85 f1.8, f1.4 L IS, and f1.2 L. It’s not about ‘consumer primes’ it’s about a range of primes with a broad appeal.

I love the 35mm focal length and am fortunate enough to be in the position to buy an RF 35 1.2L, but the idea of traveling with a 2lb, $2,000+ prime is simply not appealing. I don‘t want a consumer prime or a huge heavy and overly valuable prime, I want the equivalent of the EF 85f1.4 L IS.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 17, 2021)

Not at all interested in these. Too heavy and too expensive.
Give me quality silver class lenses at f/1.8 or 1.4.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 17, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> isnt ibis easier in small sensors. seems like they had it before the bigger sensors.


Would be cool to get an APS-C camera with IBIS for less than $1000 or so. Then I would ad the 800mm f/11 and effectively have a 1280mm lens that is stabilized in the lens AND in the body.


----------



## exkeks (Jun 17, 2021)

yankiefrankie said:


> As much as I love this (especially the 28mm f/1.2), aren't they a little on the long side?
> 24mm (143.97mm)
> 28mm (146.96mm)
> 35mm (154.96mm)
> ...


If I remember correctly, these patent lengths measure from front lens to image plane, so you can easily shove off 20mm flange distance.


----------



## masterpix (Jun 17, 2021)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Will the price for them all be one kidney or two?


135mm f:1.2? 200mm f:1.2? 400mm f:1.2? 800mm f:1.2? I need to get myself a money printing machine.


----------



## slclick (Jun 17, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’m not sure I agree. Back in the FD days the 50mm focal length, for instance, was available in f1.8, f1.4, f1.2, and f1.2 L and that is ignoring the specialist 50mm macro. In EF we had the 85 f1.8, f1.4 L IS, and f1.2 L. It’s not about ‘consumer primes’ it’s about a range of primes with a broad appeal.
> 
> I love the 35mm focal length and am fortunate enough to be in the position to buy an RF 35 1.2L, but the idea of traveling with a 2lb, $2,000+ prime is simply not appealing. I don‘t want a consumer prime or a huge heavy and overly valuable prime, I want the equivalent of the EF 85f1.4 L IS.


I'm not sure you are actually disagreeing with me but instead making other points. Maybe your disagreeing is nitpicking my usage of the word 'consumer'. Whatever....MOST folx will buy the 1.4 and up varieties, not the 1.2 glass. These lenses are trickling in, lower cost bodies coming out will facilitate that. THAT was my point. Do you disagree with that?


----------



## DrToast (Jun 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As none of those lenses are stabilized, does that mean that all future mirrorless cameras will have IBIS or does Caon think that somebody who buys those expensive lenses will also buy a high end mirrorless camera?


It probably just means that ultra wide aperture lenses are not easy to have lens stabilization. When the 85mm f/1.4 IS came out, Canon made a big deal about how challenging it was to design.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 17, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I said this in the RF 35mm rumor before, but I'll remind people again that Canon explained that larger aperture primes give IBIS more room to work, which allows the RF 85mm F/1.2 to have 8 stops of IBIS without having IS in the lens.
> 
> So I wouldn't expect any fast primes with IS, considering Canon can save money, make lenses more durable without IS, and reduce optical complexity by relying on the large apertures to boost IBIS. 8 stops is far better than what the EF lens IS systems could get.


Are you sure about that? I believe Canon has said RF lens can have a relatively large image circle (linked to the fact that the EF and RF lens mounts have the same diameter but RF has a shorter flange distance), and a larger image circle allows the IBIS to be more effective because the sensor can be allowed to move further. I don't believe it has anything to do with the maximum aperture of the lens though. (Well, wide aperture lenses tend to be relatively large and expensive anyway so it may be that from a practical perspective Canon is generally willing to go to more trouble and expense to design a lens with a larger image circle for those sorts of lenses, but that is a separate issue.)






8-stops Image Stabilization - Canon Europe


With a market-leading 8-stops of Image Stabilization, Canon's EOS R5 and EOS R6 rewrite the photographic rulebook. Find out how it's possible, and what it means for you.




www.canon-europe.com


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 17, 2021)

Larsskv said:


> I do want L level quality. The RF 35 f1.8 for instance, is a really good lens, but it lacks the clarity, color, contrast and bokeh that I would expect from a L lens.


And the 1.8 buzzes in and out while trying to focus constantly--hanging from your shoulder. An internal focus will keep focusing too, but without all the drama.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2021)

slclick said:


> I'm not sure you are actually disagreeing with me but instead making other points. Maybe your disagreeing is nitpicking my usage of the word 'consumer'. Whatever....MOST folx will buy the 1.4 and up varieties, not the 1.2 glass. These lenses are trickling in, lower cost bodies coming out will facilitate that. THAT was my point. Do you disagree with that?


Well yes, I think I do. I don't see how bargain priced R bodies, crop R bodies, or 'consumer' f1.8 lenses (or even crazy sized and priced f1.2 primes) increases the likelihood or speed of release of more 'modest' and practical f1.4 L's.

As far as I can see everything else is a distraction from the lenses many of us here actually want to buy. And whilst I know we are not particularly representative of the market in general I believe we are representative of the R5/6 market, which seems to be where Canon is making their money in the MILC space.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 18, 2021)

My gut instinct is that Canon will eventually release 1.4 versions as well, but time will tell. Definitely looking forward to a 24mm and 35 mm f1.2 L lenses.


----------



## sanj (Jun 18, 2021)

Will pre-order 24 1.2


----------



## sanj (Jun 18, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> I think the typical user of these lenses are those that demand the highest IQ over stabilization. And if a large part of that is portraiture/controlled lighting scenarios, IS is not a big advantage at shorter focal lengths. These f/1.2 lenses will not be small nor light. I can't see many people carrying a bagful of f/1.2 lenses over a single f/2.8 zoom. I can see people carrying smaller f/2 primes for that purpose, so those would probably be better candidates for IS.


What is the connection between IQ and Stabilization? IS is a huge advantage even at shorter focal lengths.


----------



## lexptr (Jun 18, 2021)

"Is Canon planning to make f/1.2 the new standard for all of their L prime lenses up to the focal length of the RF 85mm f/1.2L USM?"
I hope not. I mean, no problem if they produce such line. That would be great. I just hope they will introduce f1.4L versions too and that will be a standard too. Such lenses would be the balanced line in terms of speed/weight/features/price. EF 85mm f1.4L IS is a great example, I would like to see coming to RF mount.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 18, 2021)

john1970 said:


> My gut instinct is that Canon will eventually release 1.4 versions as well, but time will tell. Definitely looking forward to a 24mm and 35 mm f1.2 L lenses.



Well, I suspect that them coming out with the 85 f/2 macro means they won't be coming out with an f/1.8 (like the old EF lens) anytime soon. So similar considerations probably apply to f/1.4 in the shorter focal lengths.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 18, 2021)

sanj said:


> Will pre-order 24 1.2


Even if it is 6” long weights 2lb 4oz and costs $2,699?


----------



## DJPatte (Jun 18, 2021)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Will the price for them all be one kidney or two?


1,2 to be precise


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well yes, I think I do. I don't see how bargain priced R bodies, crop R bodies, or 'consumer' f1.8 lenses (or even crazy sized and priced f1.2 primes) increases the likelihood or speed of release of more 'modest' and practical f1.4 L's.
> 
> As far as I can see everything else is a distraction from the lenses many of us here actually want to buy. And whilst I know we are not particularly representative of the market in general I believe we are representative of the R5/6 market, which seems to be where Canon is making their money in the MILC space.


Well, yes we want to buy them but finding stock is hard for love nor money! Trying to find a RF24-105mm/4 in Australia is basically impossible the moment. Anecdotal evidence from the R5 Shooters FB page shows that this is a common problem in multiple countries.
Canon can't make money if they can't provide them.
If Canon had a range of lower end lenses that perhaps aren't dependent on the current supply chain issues (capacity or chip supply) then money would still flow to Canon's top line.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 18, 2021)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Will the price for them all be one kidney or two?


two each, from both you and your children. Canon Australia pricing themselves out of the market already. I can often get Sony lenses half the price of RF glass since they have lower RRP and much better sales. If I get the R3 I will still stick to mostly EF glass. Only lenses that I might consider are the new 100mm macro and a 500 f/4.


----------



## sanj (Jun 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Even if it is 6” long weights 2lb 4oz and costs $2,699?


I am certain it will be close to the 50mm 1.2 and I am ok with that. Canon will do the most practical thing and I trust them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 18, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> two each, from both you and your children. Canon Australia pricing themselves out of the market already. I can often get Sony lenses half the price of RF glass since they have lower RRP and much better sales. If I get the R3 I will still stick to mostly EF glass. Only lenses that I might consider are the new 100mm macro and a 500 f/4.


we do get 5 year canon australia warranty though


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 18, 2021)

danfaz said:


> "I don't need an oversized 1.2 lens, just give me 1.4" in 3...2...1...
> 
> In all seriousness, though, it would make sense. 1.8/2.0 consumer-grade lenses and 1.2 pro-grade lenses. That's plenty.


I don't know, I don't like that we always have to choose between 1kg 3000$ lenses or plastic non weather sealed and slow AF F1.8-2 lenses.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 18, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> And the 1.8 buzzes in and out while trying to focus constantly--hanging from your shoulder. An internal focus will keep focusing too, but without all the drama.


Yes, I don't like this too. That was my main reason to struggle first. I like the compact and "stable" form of the EF 35 IS.

Then I heard about another lens hood. ES-62. You have to sand the hood internally about 1mm (with a dremel), but then you can set it also on the RF 35. (without the metal ring for another lens). So now I have a complete cylinder hood (instead of tulip shape as EF 35) and it works great. The focus now is "intern" the hood, so no danger to hazzle around. The original hood for RF is a joke.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 18, 2021)

I have to say Sony did a better job with their new 50mm 1.2. Its smaller and lighter than Canon's, just as good optically and with fast and internal AF. And they did this on a much smaller mount.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 18, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> And the 1.8 buzzes in and out while trying to focus constantly--hanging from your shoulder. An internal focus will keep focusing too, but without all the drama.


Disable "Continuous AF" to make it stop doing that.


----------



## Bahrd (Jun 18, 2021)

snapshot said:


> i wonder if 28-70 f/2 is putting pressure on the primes to be faster?


Together with its own f/1.2 primes Canon is putting even higher pressure on competition.


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 18, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Disable "Continuous AF" to make it stop doing that.


But I NEED continuous..........


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 18, 2021)

I just realized, the RF 70-200 f2.8L IS is 146mm long, which is about on par with the 24 and 28 patents, and 9mm smaller than the 35 f1.2 patent. If the final releases lenses are that big, it will most likely be a deal breaker on my part.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 18, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Are you sure about that? I believe Canon has said RF lens can have a relatively large image circle (linked to the fact that the EF and RF lens mounts have the same diameter but RF has a shorter flange distance), and a larger image circle allows the IBIS to be more effective because the sensor can be allowed to move further. I don't believe it has anything to do with the maximum aperture of the lens though. (Well, wide aperture lenses tend to be relatively large and expensive anyway so it may be that from a practical perspective Canon is generally willing to go to more trouble and expense to design a lens with a larger image circle for those sorts of lenses, but that is a separate issue.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm 100% sure. Canon spoke about this extensively when the R5 got announced. They explained both the rf 85mm 1.2 and 28-70 were capable of 8 stops of IBIS without IS due to their wide apertures projecting a bigger image circle to stabilize from on the sensor. They were speaking specifically about fast lenses, not the mount. That's why the 85mm 1.2 has better IBIS than some of the IS lenses for the RF mount.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 18, 2021)

Aaron D said:


> But I NEED continuous..........


Continuous or servo? Those are different things, it took me a while to figure out and for what I'm shooting, continuous is actively detrimental, while servo does what I need.


----------



## GMAX (Jun 18, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> Hard to beat, but also heavy! I wonder how large of a market there is for a fast L prime at 28mm. Other systems have more options/history at that focal length than Canon does. EF 28mm f/2.8 IS was solid but was overpriced for years, and there's the even older EF 28mm f/1.8...


Mhh, there seem to be a market for a ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 (EF only). Why not for a 1.2/28 L? Own the EF1.4/24 and EF1.4/35 II (both lightweight); this new guy would perfectly fit into the middle as a good compromise of both


----------



## Peter Bergh (Jun 18, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> we do get 5 year canon australia warranty though


Two thoughts:

1) you stated in an earlier post that Canon Australia cannot provide product. What good is a warranty on a product that cannot be obtained and thus, for practical purposes, does not exist?

2) A warranty, or any insurance, always costs more than the expected costs of covering claims. Thus, if you can afford the maximum loss, any insurance will, statistically speaking, cost you more than you can expect to get back. In fact, modern cameras and lenses are reliable enough that they are very likely not to fail at all during the time of warranty coverage. IMHO, this is a strong argument for buying grey-market merchandise.


----------



## canonmike (Jun 18, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Would be cool to get an APS-C camera with IBIS for less than $1000 or so. Then I would ad the 800mm f/11 and effectively have a 1280mm lens that is stabilized in the lens AND in the body.


I do hope those of you rooting for an APS-C R body get your wish. Always nice to have more choices.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 18, 2021)

Of course I would prefer a full frame body, but they might not offer a real cheap full frame body in the future. However a really cheap APS-C body could be used just for a single long lens for situations where my DSLR reaches its limits. Unfortunately there is no cheap 800mm lens for DSLRs :-(


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 18, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I said this in the RF 35mm rumor before, but I'll remind people again that Canon explained that larger aperture primes give IBIS more room to work, which allows the RF 85mm F/1.2 to have 8 stops of IBIS without having IS in the lens.
> 
> So I wouldn't expect any fast primes with IS, considering Canon can save money, make lenses more durable without IS, and reduce optical complexity by relying on the large apertures to boost IBIS. 8 stops is far better than what the EF lens IS systems could get.


But that is self defeating, if the lens is >2lbs to get that aperture it takes more energy to keep it steady over long periods versus a lighter lens that is easier to handhold for hour after hour. 

Personally, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I don't need 8 stops of IBIS because subject movement comes into play long before I run out of ISO performance. When you are light limited IBIS only lengthens shutter speed, it doesn't gain you aperture or ISO.


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 18, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Continuous or servo? Those are different things, it took me a while to figure out and for what I'm shooting, continuous is actively detrimental, while servo does what I need.


Good question--both, I think. I was going to check but I've changed all my 'C' setings away from 'people' for an architectural shoot I had this week, all manual focusing. The 'save settings to card' is a fantastic feature, btw.

I've never felt confident with my understanding of auto-focus and need to study/practice more. Though this R5 is a dream compared to older technology, I'm actually nailing most shots even without know what I'm doing!

Thanks!


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 19, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> I think the typical user of these lenses are those that demand the highest IQ over stabilization. And if a large part of that is portraiture/controlled lighting scenarios, IS is not a big advantage at shorter focal lengths. These f/1.2 lenses will not be small nor light. I can't see many people carrying a bagful of f/1.2 lenses over a single f/2.8 zoom. I can see people carrying smaller f/2 primes for that purpose, so those would probably be better candidates for IS.


I carry a 35 1.4 m, 50 1.2, (getting the 85 1.2 soon) and a 135 1.8 in my portrait bag. I could care less about convenience. I plan to replace then35 with the RF 1.2 version or maybe the RF 28 1.2 Pretty happy with the 135 1.8 and use it the least but I would rent the 135 1.4 to see what it like. Still have both kidneys. But I do spend all my profits on gear.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 19, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Which will be fantastic ... for the two people who can afford the printer!


The solution is use someone else’s kidney.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 19, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1) you stated in an earlier post that Canon Australia cannot provide product. What good is a warranty on a product that cannot be obtained and thus, for practical purposes, does not exist?
> 
> 2) A warranty, or any insurance, always costs more than the expected costs of covering claims. Thus, if you can afford the maximum loss, any insurance will, statistically speaking, cost you more than you can expect to get back. In fact, modern cameras and lenses are reliable enough that they are very likely not to fail at all during the time of warranty coverage. IMHO, this is a strong argument for buying grey-market merchandise.


I bought the 4 year extended protection coverage for my RF 50 1.2 and it covers accidents like dropping it down a flight of stairs or in a tide pool/surf. Full lens replacement for 4 years is worth $189 to me.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 19, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I'm 100% sure. Canon spoke about this extensively when the R5 got announced. They explained both the rf 85mm 1.2 and 28-70 were capable of 8 stops of IBIS without IS due to their wide apertures projecting a bigger image circle to stabilize from on the sensor. They were speaking specifically about fast lenses, not the mount. That's why the 85mm 1.2 has better IBIS than some of the IS lenses for the RF mount.


I don't suppose you recall where Canon has said that wider apertures are _required _to get a larger image circle? I know Canon said that they could get 8 stops out of IBIS with lenses like the RF 85L because it has a relatively large image circle, and I agree with you that Canon may go with that approach for its wide aperture lenses in future (those lenses tend to be relatively large IS units so putting IS in them doesn't seem easy). However, what isn't obvious to me is why Canon couldn't go with the same approach even with narrower aperture lenses, if they wanted to. I'd be interested to read what Canon has said about it.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 19, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Canon


----------



## Etienne (Jun 19, 2021)

Canon certainly remains fully committed to the "Big and Heavy" approach to photography. So much for the promise of mirrorless.


----------



## Peter Bergh (Jun 19, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> I bought the 4 year extended protection coverage for my RF 50 1.2 and it covers accidents like dropping it down a flight of stairs or in a tide pool/surf. Full lens replacement for 4 years is worth $189 to me.


The peace of mind certainly is worth something. However, adding the lens as an item on your homeowner's insurance might have been much cheaper and would insure the lens for, typically, much longer than four years. It was cheaper for me.

BTW, I remember reading an article in Consumer Reports some years ago. The article said that extended warranties, in general, are not a good deal.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 19, 2021)

Etienne said:


> Canon certainly remains fully committed to the "Big and Heavy" approach to photography. So much for the promise of mirrorless.


It's almost as though Canon is artificially creating a need for APS-C lenses by making the full frame RF lenses so big and heavy!
Nikon and Sony have recently been releasing excellent quality lenses that are fairly small and light. I hope that Canon follows suit at some point so I can buy more lenses. Hiring a sherpa is out of my budget.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 19, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> It's almost as though Canon is artificially creating a need for APS-C lenses by making the full frame RF lenses so big and heavy!
> Nikon and Sony have recently been releasing excellent quality lenses that are fairly small and light. I hope that Canon follows suit at some point so I can buy more lenses. Hiring a sherpa is out of my budget.


If you can afford Canon's RF lenses, you can afford a Sherpa


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 20, 2021)

jd7 said:


> I don't suppose you recall where Canon has said that wider apertures are _required _to get a larger image circle? I know Canon said that they could get 8 stops out of IBIS with lenses like the RF 85L because it has a relatively large image circle, and I agree with you that Canon may go with that approach for its wide aperture lenses in future (those lenses tend to be relatively large IS units so putting IS in them doesn't seem easy). However, what isn't obvious to me is why Canon couldn't go with the same approach even with narrower aperture lenses, if they wanted to. I'd be interested to read what Canon has said about it.


If wide aperture lenses really had a large image circle, they would waste quite a lot of light, because it does not hit the sensor. Even on a wide sparture lens most of the light is direted to the sensor. The difference is just that it comes from a wider range of different angles. If one point of your subject is in focus, all light from that point will meet at a single point on the sensor. And that is independent of the aparture. Only light from out of focus areas will spread to a larger area and create the bokeh. I don't know how that could help to achieve a better IBIS though.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 20, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Would be cool to get an APS-C camera with IBIS for less than $1000 or so. Then I would ad the 800mm f/11 and effectively have a 1280mm lens that is stabilized in the lens AND in the body.



I believe Canon said there was no extra gain in stabilisation with IBIS for the 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses, sadly. Perhaps an APS-C sensor could be stabilised more as it's smaller, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 20, 2021)

scyrene said:


> I believe Canon said there was no extra gain in stabilisation with IBIS for the 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses, sadly. [..]


The wording used by Rudy leaves things muddy, is was consistently along the lines of "Not as much as an improvement as with other RF lenses", which I take the same as you did, no extra gain, but it does leave wiggle room for e.g. roll correction being active.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 20, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1) you stated in an earlier post that Canon Australia cannot provide product. What good is a warranty on a product that cannot be obtained and thus, for practical purposes, does not exist?
> 
> 2) A warranty, or any insurance, always costs more than the expected costs of covering claims. Thus, if you can afford the maximum loss, any insurance will, statistically speaking, cost you more than you can expect to get back. In fact, modern cameras and lenses are reliable enough that they are very likely not to fail at all during the time of warranty coverage. IMHO, this is a strong argument for buying grey-market merchandise.


I managed to find a RF24-105mm in one reseller on the weekend! Only one I could find in Australia though and got a 15% discount. With the 10% GST refund because I am (hopefully) traveling to New Zealand this week, it is roughly 25% off including the 5 year warranty. Grey market don't seem to be similarly priced yet and warranty is limited to 1 year and it needs to be returned to the country where the grey market reseller sourced it.

The 5 year warranty is a Canon ie OEM warranty. I agree that buying 3rd party extended warranties are generally not worthwhile.

Yes, the lenses are reliable. Yes, the cost of Canon warranty is built into the local recommended retail price. Yes, I could afford the maximum loss on an individual lens basis but the replacement cost of what I normally travel/use would be very painful. I still insure my kit at about 4% of total replacement cost/year. Peace of mind especially when I am shooting underwater with normal kit about USD8k.

The warranty starts from whenever you buy it so it is still a benefit to the buyer and still a point of difference to buying in other countries. From the R5 Shooters facebook group, there have been questions on issues with the R5 that point to warranty repairs already. Thankfully my R5 has performed to specifications for the last 12 months now and has 4 years of warranty to go


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 21, 2021)

sanj said:


> What is the connection between IQ and Stabilization? IS is a huge advantage even at shorter focal lengths.


Stabilization imposes additional design constraints. Canon claimed that the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS had one of the larger IS units (similar in size to a supertele), but the IS element is not the largest in the optical formula. The character/sharpness of the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS is also different from the EF 85mm f/1.2 II. Some would say that the RF 85mm f/1.2L is the true successor of the EF 85mm f/1.2 II, not the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS.

For portraits, IS is not a big advantage at shorter focal length because higher shutter speeds are required to freeze subject motion. If you're using shutter speeds from 1/60 to 1/250s or faster with strobes, IS is not a factor. The RF f/2.8 zooms all have IS and better suited for general purpose work. Sometimes I can get something close to 1/2s with IS, but it's far from 100%.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 21, 2021)

GMAX said:


> Mhh, there seem to be a market for a ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 (EF only). Why not for a 1.2/28 L? Own the EF1.4/24 and EF1.4/35 II (both lightweight); this new guy would perfectly fit into the middle as a good compromise of both


The Otus is also available in other mounts, which have a better history of offering fast primes at 28mm. I'm not expecting the RF versions of the 24 and 35mm primes to be as compact or light as the EF lenses, if the RF 50 and 85mm primes are any indication.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 21, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> I carry a 35 1.4 m, 50 1.2, (getting the 85 1.2 soon) and a 135 1.8 in my portrait bag. I could care less about convenience. I plan to replace then35 with the RF 1.2 version or maybe the RF 28 1.2 Pretty happy with the 135 1.8 and use it the least but I would rent the 135 1.4 to see what it like. Still have both kidneys. But I do spend all my profits on gear.


Yes, you are a portrait photographer, which I noted is a prime candidate for these lenses. Now, if you were going on a trip to a national park with a lot of walking, would you bring your 35, 50, 85 an 135 primes or would you opt for lighter zooms that gave you wider focal length coverage. When I travel, I grab the zooms and maybe bring a single prime.


----------



## davidhfe (Jun 22, 2021)

Etienne said:


> Canon certainly remains fully committed to the "Big and Heavy" approach to photography. So much for the promise of mirrorless.





Random Orbits said:


> Yes, you are a portrait photographer, which I noted is a prime candidate for these lenses. Now, if you were going on a trip to a national park with a lot of walking, would you bring your 35, 50, 85 an 135 primes or would you opt for lighter zooms that gave you wider focal length coverage. When I travel, I grab the zooms and maybe bring a single prime.



For me the question is... what lens would you give up in Canon's lineup for the 1.4 version? The reality is, we're 2-3 years in to a new system and it isn't possible to design and manufacture everything at once. For a lot of focal lengths, you'll soon have the option of:

- 2-3+ options for a zoom: one lighter and less expensive, one more expensive - options for travel, cost, IQ, etc.
- An inexpensive 1.8 prime with ok IQ
- A "best quality possible" lens with the tradeoffs that entails: prime, large, heavy

That seems reasonable for right now. I think Orbits' is the most common approach among shooters—but it does leave a gap for folks who love primes.

Do I think there's room for a 35 1.4 that sits between $499 and $2699? Of course, and I bet Canon does too. Canon seems to be min/maxing here and it's a strategy that's working.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 22, 2021)

davidhfe said:


> For me the question is... what lens would you give up in Canon's lineup for the 1.4 version? The reality is, we're 2-3 years in to a new system and it isn't possible to design and manufacture everything at once. For a lot of focal lengths, you'll soon have the option of:
> 
> - 2-3+ options for a zoom: one lighter and less expensive, one more expensive - options for travel, cost, IQ, etc.
> - An inexpensive 1.8 prime with ok IQ
> ...


I'm hoping most of the inexpensive primes are at f/1.8 and with IS. I didn't really see the value of EF 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses. Their only advantage was IS relative to the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II. The EF 35mm f/2 IS had a better value proposition, and the RF 35 f/1.8 IS macro offers more with a slightly large max aperture and 0.5 max magnification ratio. 

I think that Canon will have a line of f/1.2 primes from 24 to 85mm, and the 50 f/1.4 is the only non-L that I see with that fast an aperture, and that is due to the low price/complexity of the RF 50 f/1.8. There might also be a couple f/2.8 pancake lenses.

I like L primes, but I don't bring those unless I specifically know I'll use them just because they are large and heavy. The EF 40mm pancake was used when I was primarily using the 100-400 (i.e. at the zoo or shooting the kids soccer games). It's light, takes very little space, and gives me a different framing option.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 23, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, you are a portrait photographer, which I noted is a prime candidate for these lenses. Now, if you were going on a trip to a national park with a lot of walking, would you bring your 35, 50, 85 an 135 primes or would you opt for lighter zooms that gave you wider focal length coverage. When I travel, I grab the zooms and maybe bring a single prime.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 23, 2021)

I would still want a prime for the great image quality by I would limit it to just one, my 35.


----------

