# Could a 35mm f/1.2 L be in testing? (pic)



## Z (Jun 20, 2012)

This is just a bit of fun, because this is certainly a typo but it's fun to speculate. I was browsing Jeff Ascough's Canon profile and came across this shot.







EF35mm f/1.2L huh?


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 20, 2012)

Typo, typo, typo.


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 20, 2012)

Well, people seem to love the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 and I have always felt that Canon could use such a lens in its lineup (esp since so much of its sales come from crop cameras), so it is quite plausible that they have been playing with one.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Typo, typo, typo.



I think so, too - at ~50mm it's easiest to design fast lenses, but if the focal length gets smaller it'll be quite a hassle to release a f1.2 35mm that's sharp wide open as a L lens should be. Much more likely they'll just add weather sealing to a 35/1.4L, reduce the vignetting and double the price.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Typo, typo, typo.
> ...



If they'd made a 35mm L II at F1.2 that isnt garbage but usable. Expect A Wicked price tag, and a Very Hefty lens.

I'd buy that for a dollar. ;D


----------



## Viggo (Jun 21, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Typo, typo, typo.
> ...



I always heare that, yet no 50 lens comes even kind of close to the 35 or 85 IQ.....

The current 35 L compared to the current 50 L, I can see way better colors and contrast from the 50, but sharpness is way better on the 35 at all distances, the AF is faster on the 35 and in some cases more accurate.

But given a updated 35 or even if it was made the same year, the 35 would most certainly be better at pretty much everything. And the 50 L is okay sharp wide open, at the perfect distance, but the 35 kills it when both at 1,4.

And the 85 with it's old design is waay better than the 50 in every aspect except size weight and AF, although the 85 is extremely accurate.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 21, 2012)

Viggo said:


> And the 85 with it's old design is waay better than the 50 in every aspect except size weight and AF



*Except* size, weight and AF  ? You could add price to the list, leaving "only" iq in favor of the 85L - but all others are all important factors, too for various applications. If you ignore size, weight, price and af you could also buy the Hubble Space Telescope (well, after it was fixed)!


----------



## birdman (Jun 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Axilrod said:
> ...



My thoughts exactly. All of their newer fast glass is going upwards in price dramatically. They caught wind of Nikon's pricing and decided to match Nikon on price with bodies AND glass. Nikon was always more expensive for their glass. Or was it their bodies? I don't know, but they are beating Canon like Drago was beating Rocky in the early rounds. "C'mon Rock (Canon), get up you son-of-a-b!tch because Mickey loves you"


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 21, 2012)

birdman said:


> All of their newer fast glass is going upwards in price dramatically.



But on the other hand, the sharpness of these new lenses will be usable with newer high-mp Canon sensors, so it's an investment in future usability. But of course Canon wouldn't say that right now, or a part of their sales of their 22mp sensor bodies would stall.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 21, 2012)

Your point was about wide open sharpness of a 35 f1,2... that's why i mentioned sharpness .. and that the 50 was easy made good, which isn't true.

And while the 85 is å heavy lens, it's still a lens and it is only 130 grams over a 24-70....


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 21, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Your point was about wide open sharpness of a 35 f1,2... that's why i mentioned sharpness .. and that the 50 was easy made good, which isn't true. And while the 85 is å heavy lens, it's still a lens and it is only 130 grams over a 24-70....



I didn't want to bash the 85L, great lens of course, just noticed. But from what I know ~50mm is the focal length that is easiest to design *relatively* to longer or shorter ones - do you say otherwise, I'm happy to stand corrected? Btw: ever looked at the 50/1.8? You could put the parts of this design as an addition to the monthly Micky Mouse magazine and glue it together yourself.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 21, 2012)

I wish they would sell lens parts separately, so only price would interfere with ones ideas.. like, all lens elements could be combined as you wish. I can think of a few lenses i would like to build...

A 14 TS f 1.4 for example...


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I wish they would sell lens parts separately, so only price would interfere with ones ideas.. like, all lens elements could be combined as you wish. I can think of a few lenses i would like to build...
> 
> A 14 TS f 1.4 for example...



Get a reprap and source the lenses strait from EO. There are also quite a few threaded modifying lenses like macro and fisheye.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I wish they would sell lens parts separately, so only price would interfere with ones ideas.. like, all lens elements could be combined as you wish. I can think of a few lenses i would like to build...
> 
> A 14 TS f 1.4 for example...





Awesome Idea!

i'd be making a 35-85 f1.4L zoom with hybrid IS


----------



## Neeneko (Jun 22, 2012)

Amusing thing is, it would probably actually be easier to build your own camera from available parts then your own lens...


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 25, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Much more likely they'll just add weather sealing to a 35/1.4L, reduce the vignetting and double the price.
> ...



They could just buy in some Samyang 35/1.4s and add an AF motor and a rubber-band to seal it...


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 25, 2012)

Canon need to be a bit easier on their pricing of lenses. If this is going to be another lens at $2200 then I think we'll just all cry


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 26, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> If this is going to be another lens at $2200 then I think we'll just all cry



Canon is ok with you crying if you buy the lens anyway :-o


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 27, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ramon123 said:
> 
> 
> > If this is going to be another lens at $2200 then I think we'll just all cry
> ...



why do you think they make them weather sealed? its so the tears dont get in and screw up the electronics


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 27, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ramon123 said:
> ...



Exactly - but only the the newest red ring and big white lens gear! Cheapos buying ef-s like the $1100 17-55/2.8 for their sealed 7d will ruin their lens with their tears and then come see the "L" light


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 3, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> Canon need to be a bit easier on their pricing of lenses. If this is going to be another lens at $2200 then I think we'll just all cry



I tend to agree. I don't suppose they'll ever make the mistake again of creating another lens with the price/performance ratio of the 50mm f/1.4 at <$500USD.


----------



## japhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

I'd say it would be a pleasant surprise if Canon decided to make a 35mm f/1.2, but like others have mentioned, the size and price wouldn't be such a pleasure. For updating the current 35L, I'd say it's about time even if there is nothing wrong with the old one. I'm sure there are benefits to newer coating and manufacturing processes and there's always something to implement into an old design.

Then to the discussion about 50mm lenses. I've been wondering that if the 50mm focal length is such an easy thing to design, why on earth there isn't a decent one for Canon cameras. There are good ones with no AF, but all AF lenses are something I don't want to buy.

Nifty fifty is just a toy and the 1.4 isn't much better. The price/performance ratio might be tolerable, but price-wise it's just where it should be, maybe a bit too high. The 50L doesn't seem to impress with its sharpness so that's another candidate for an update. Sigma took the 50mm 1.4 in the right direction with added aperture blades and sharpness, but once again screwed up the AF. Inconsistent and slow, so there's really not a lot of choices if you want a good 50mm lens.

You can tell I'm in the market for a 50mm lens for my kit, but everywhere I look I see rotten fruits...


----------



## Halfrack (Jul 3, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> I tend to agree. I don't suppose they'll ever make the mistake again of creating another lens with the price/performance ratio of the 50mm f/1.4 at <$500USD.



Careful - the Shorty 40 may have it at $200.


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 3, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to agree. I don't suppose they'll ever make the mistake again of creating another lens with the price/performance ratio of the 50mm f/1.4 at <$500USD.
> ...



You may have a point. Then again, f/2.8 is a long ways from f/1.4...


----------



## Bosman (Jul 3, 2012)

Can someone tell me why people harp on the size of a lens? If you want the look and the quality, you buy it. Weight doesn't even come into the picture for a pro who wants it.

I would be quite thrilled by the idea of a 35 F1.2 just check out this voigtlander 35 F1.2. Its not that big and Canon could potentially design a similar option for their future potential mirrorless Leica style camera. Hopefully the just make it for reg SLR's.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/12/02/voigtlander-nokton-35-1-2-aspherical-ii-lens-review-on-the-leica-m9/


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 4, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Typo, typo, typo.



Great how even a type generates lots of discussions - where else would that be possible but on a rumor site  ?



Bosman said:


> Can someone tell me why people harp on the size of a lens? If you want the look and the quality, you buy it. Weight doesn't even come into the picture for a pro who wants it.



But the very heavy vignetting could have something to do with the length of the 35/1.4L lens?


----------



## sinclairbear (Jul 4, 2012)

I also noticed earlier on canon europe. " hopefully there’ll be a 28mm f/1.4 lens or a new EF35mm f/1.4L that’s even better"

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/jeff_ascough_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do

Don't see why Canon would publish that on their site if it wasn't significant. Either way, im looking forward to seeing both lens's !


----------



## Bosman (Jul 9, 2012)

sinclairbear said:


> I also noticed earlier on canon europe. " hopefully there’ll be a 28mm f/1.4 lens or a new EF35mm f/1.4L that’s even better"
> 
> [url]http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/jeff_ascough_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do]http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/jeff_ascough_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do][url]http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/jeff_ascough_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do
> 
> Don't see why Canon would publish that on their site if it wasn't significant. Either way, im looking forward to seeing both lens's !


the link isnt working.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 9, 2012)

Bosman said:


> the link isnt working.


Here


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 10, 2012)

What it's supposed to read is _ef 20mm f1.8 L_.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 10, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> What it's supposed to read is _ef 20mm f1.8 L_.



I'm still waiting for the EF-S 11mm f/2.0 L...


----------



## Bosman (Jul 12, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > the link isnt working.
> ...


Thanks for the link, i have read everything from Ascough but this is a newer one!


----------



## sinclairbear (Jul 13, 2012)

Yes, seems a bit strange that this is the second 'typo' to be seen on his site. Perhaps his own personal site, but Canons? hmmm im skeptical. Hope these lens's are in existence!


----------



## felipey (Jul 16, 2012)

The original image link seems to be down for me, any alternates? I love my 35 1.2, a mkII with weather sealing would be perfect.


----------

