# Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM coming May 9, 2019



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 27, 2019)

> *Update* We’re told that the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM will be officially announced and be available for preorder on May 9, 2019 (in North America), the global release will be at the same time.
> According to Nokishita, the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L USM will be the first of the six new unreleased RF mount lenses. There was no word whether or not the DS (Defocus Smoothing) version of the RF 85mm f/1.2L would also be coming at the same time.
> *Canon RF lenses to come:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## SV (Apr 27, 2019)

Seems like it could be a great lens!


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 27, 2019)

The 85mm focal length is a big deal so that's good prioritizing from Canon if true. The 24-240 will make a great walk around lens if the quality is there. I just hope that thing has a zoom lock on it


----------



## Viggo (Apr 27, 2019)

I realized it would be too expensive for me now, unfortunately, so I bought a barley used 135 instead. And the day after this news comes along to rub it in, spiffing ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> The 24-240 will make a great walk around lens if the quality is there. I just hope that thing has a zoom lock on it


Agreed. The RF 24-105/4L IS has one, but I don’t see a need for it (yet). That may not be the case with the non-L construction for the 24-240, particularly if it’s a ‘double-barrel’ extension like the EF-S 18-200 or the old EF 28-200.


----------



## LetsStewIt (Apr 27, 2019)

I wonder what the price difference between the regular and DS model will be.


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 27, 2019)

I hope the list is not reflecting the order in which the lenses will be released, as I am primarily interested in the 70-200 L and would love to have it for a trip in late August. Also no indication of an RF Extender 1.4x or 2x, which would complement that lens well.


----------



## yinzer (Apr 27, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> I hope the list is not reflecting the order in which the lenses will be released, as I am primarily interested in the 70-200 L and would love to have it for a trip in late August. Also no indication of an RF Extender 1.4x or 2x, which would complement that lens well.



I would love to have that 70-200 to use this summer. I _need _it! 

Also, don't worry about the order of that list. It's just primes and zooms in numerical order.


----------



## degos (Apr 28, 2019)

ENG1: "I therefore propose we concentrate on a trinity of 1.8 IS mid-tier lenses: 50mm, 85mm and 110mm. And to compete with Nikon for the wildlife / airshow market, a 200-500mm 5.6 IS with..."
EXEC: "Nah, screw that. Just clone some more EF L lenses and mark the price up. "
ENG2: "What about my idea for a $9000 8-12mm 1.2 L ? "
EXEC: "Genius! You're promoted!"


----------



## dave61 (Apr 28, 2019)

Hope the 70-200 comes along soon.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 28, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> Also no indication of an RF Extender 1.4x or 2x, which would complement that lens well.



I don't think they'll do extenders for RF. If you want an extender you'll probably need to stick to EF lenses.

Why? because the EF lenses that use the Canon extenders all need to have that gap at the back for the extender to fit into. The whole benefit of the RF lenses is their compact nature, so that is ruined if you have to design the lens around having a gap for an extender.

There are teleconverter designs for EF that will work on any lens as they don't protrude into the lens, but generally they're not very good optically.

I believe that instead of teleconverters you'll be encouraged to upgrade to a body with a higher pixel count and use cropping.

Maybe in the long term they'll replace the big whites with RF versions, but that will only happen once they stop selling EF bodies, which won't be for a while yet. Then they'll probably do extenders for those, but I think the'll be limited to the primes and zooms such as the 100-400 and the 70-200 won't support them. It's also equally possible that the RF versions of the big whites, when they come, have built-in teleconverters like the 200-400 EF


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 28, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> There are teleconverter designs for EF that will work on any lens as they don't protrude into the lens, but generally they're not very good optically.



On second thoughts, because the RF mount is so much closer to the sensor than EF, perhaps it's going to be easier optically to do a teleconverter that would work with all RF lenses. Let's hope so!


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 28, 2019)

degos said:


> ENG1: "I therefore propose we concentrate on a trinity of 1.8 IS mid-tier lenses: 50mm, 85mm and 110mm. And to compete with Nikon for the wildlife / airshow market, a 200-500mm 5.6 IS with..."
> EXEC: "Nah, screw that. Just clone some more EF L lenses and mark the price up. "
> ENG2: "What about my idea for a $9000 8-12mm 1.2 L ? "
> EXEC: "Genius! You're promoted!"


One could get that impression indeed, Canon seems to be working hard at the message that the RF mount is the foundation for lens designs we have never seen before, price not seeming to be the big issues (for them...). Case in point (so far) the 28-70 f:2 zoom. Horrendously expensive until you think of it as replacing your L primes (24 1.4 at a stretch, 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and close to the 85 1.2 .or 1.4) and offering flexibility with fewer lens changes. I had an early and unpleasant experience with the RP, getting some spots on the sensor during a lens change in a crowd. Not noticeable until I got home, and some long hours removing the blemishes from the images. Do we have to re-think our traditional lens collection premises with RF? Maybe.


----------



## proutprout (Apr 28, 2019)

That’s going to be an amazing 3k lense to put on your RP ! Or maybe canon will come with a cheaper new model the « RPC » (really poor camera)to put even more expensive lenses ! How about a 9k lense on a 400Usd camera next time ! Genius strategy


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 28, 2019)

proutprout said:


> That’s going to be an amazing 3k lense to put on your RP ! Or maybe canon will come with a cheaper new model the « RPC » (really poor camera)to put even more expensive lenses ! How about a 9k lense on a 400Usd camera next time ! Genius strategy


Not really the idea, I got the RP as a second body replacing an old 6D ( with my 5DIII being the main body for now) to "get y feet wet" with mirrorless and RF lenses. For the full mirrorless spending, I am waiting for the pro R camera with in-body IS which would make this all come together. Having said that, I remain firmly in the belief that pictures are made by the lens, with the sensors nowadays all being at least very good and going too superb. My first digital body was the 2004 Rebel (6.3MP if I recall well), soon after that I purchased a 70-200 f:2.8 L IS and it made amazing pictures. I kept that lens until last year, through 40D, 7D, 5D mk1 and now 5D mk3, the pictures gained in dynamics, the cameras were faster and AF a vast improvement, but the prints still looked similar with the slight softness ideal for portraits and the amazing bokeh.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 28, 2019)

No doubt it's going to be a great piece of glass. But will it beat the Milvus 1.4/85 (not counting the lack of AF)? 
(My bet is that the DS is going to beat it on bokeh; and both might do it the optical performance wide-open.)


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 28, 2019)

So Canon continues the mismatch between the lenses being offered and the bodies being offered. Where is the 24-240 lens or 5d level body?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2019)

I think it’s utter [email protected] that great lenses are somehow a waste on lesser bodies... it’s not even close to be true..

Would I rather have the 200 f2 on the RP or an old 75-300 on a 1dx2? Easy...


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 28, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> So Canon continues the mismatch between the lenses being offered and the bodies being offered. Where is the 24-240 lens or 5d level body?


One does get the impression that Canon had to release the mirrorless new generation of bodies and lenses ahead of their preferred schedule, which would probably have happened end 2019 with a pro IBIS and the RP together with 6-7 L lenses and 3-4 more mainstream and less expensive lenses like the 24-240. Nikon’s move and/or Sony’s growth forced an early and rather incoherent timing, with the R cobbled together and whatever lenses were ready for production, the rest following in a haphazard way. This is of course pure speculation


----------



## BillB (Apr 28, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> One does get the impression that Canon had to release the mirrorless new generation of bodies and lenses ahead of their preferred schedule, which would probably have happened end 2019 with a pro IBIS and the RP together with 6-7 L lenses and 3-4 more mainstream and less expensive lenses like the 24-240. Nikon’s move and/or Sony’s growth forced an early and rather incoherent timing, with the R cobbled together and whatever lenses were ready for production, the rest following in a haphazard way. This is of course pure speculation


On the other hand, I can't think of any example of Canon leading off a new initiative with a high end body. They didn't do it with the 350D and they didn't do it with the M line and they didn't introduce dual pixel at the top of the line either. Canon seems to like to have their stuff field tested before they roll out the really good stuff.


----------



## mk0x55 (Apr 28, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I've seen websites saying the RF50/1.2 is the sharpest lens ever made, others saying the Leice APO-Summicron 50/2 or the Otus 55/1.4.
> 
> But I haven't found any site that's tested even two of the three, has anyone else here?


Well, I'm not aware of anyone having tested the RF 50/1.2 against anything else in a scientific manner. Also, one would need some specialized machine for it, digital cameras for which the lenses with their mounts are made don't allow for it really. Consider only the RF glass. Currently, one can pretty much only test it on the EOS R, but the EOS R has only a 30mp sensor with an AA filter in front of it (not the best for testing close to pixel-level sharpness). For a comparison with the Milvus, I'd ask for nothing less than the 5DsR from Canon or something similar from some other brand (e.g., Sony A7R2/3 if it was possible). Ideally a specialized highly precise machine for testing MTFs like Zeiss' K8 and K9.

Second, sharpness is not everything. There are a dozen other attributes of a lens that are desirable and often not less important.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 28, 2019)

proutprout said:


> That’s going to be an amazing 3k lense to put on your RP ! Or maybe canon will come with a cheaper new model the « RPC » (really poor camera)to put even more expensive lenses ! How about a 9k lense on a 400Usd camera next time ! Genius strategy


Right up my ally, AvTvM, 4fun, mirage, proutprout, etc.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 28, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Second, sharpness is not everything. There are a dozen other attributes of a lens that are desirable and often not less important.


If sharpness were as important as some make it... we could all just buy into the "awesome photo" crowd. Fortunately, great photos can be made with any lens, and by anybody.  Sharpness be damned!


----------



## slclick (Apr 29, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I think it’s utter [email protected] that great lens lenses are somehow a waste on lesser bodies... it’s not even close to be true..
> 
> Would I rather have the 200 f2 on the RP or an old 75-300 on a 1dx2? Easy...


I agree, if you do not think that glass is more important than the body you have another thing coming. Now true, having both excellent is double plus good.


----------



## 1611kjb (Apr 29, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> I hope the list is not reflecting the order in which the lenses will be released, as I am primarily interested in the 70-200 L and would love to have it for a trip in late August. Also no indication of an RF Extender 1.4x or 2x, which would complement that lens well.


Interesting, I've been looking every which way at the mirrorless line and never considered tele-extenders. This will be important. It will be a long time before RF lenses equal EF lenses. So do you get the adapter and use an EF tele-extender, get an RF tele-extender and wait for RF long telephotos, or put an RF telextender on, then an adapter and then a long EF lens? Curious possibilities.


----------



## 1611kjb (Apr 29, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I think it’s utter [email protected] that great lens lenses are somehow a waste on lesser bodies... it’s not even close to be true..
> 
> Would I rather have the 200 f2 on the RP or an old 75-300 on a 1dx2? Easy...


Unfortunately there's no escaping the fact that no quality of glass can make up for the little tiny pixels on an APS-C sensor. If you are planning on any cropping or enlarging, it will be come quite apparent. If you are using images SOOC, then it will matter a lot less. As you stretch out those little pixels, spaces appear in between and make a very soft picture. It isn't much and doesn't matter to most users, but to those who need it, you can't extract it out little pixels. The difference is a technicality to many, but in the purest form of a question an APS-C image is inferior to a full frame.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2019)

1611kjb said:


> Unfortunately there's no escaping the fact that no quality of glass can make up for the little tiny pixels on an APS-C sensor. If you are planning on any cropping or enlarging, it will be come quite apparent. If you are using images SOOC, then it will matter a lot less. As you stretch out those little pixels, spaces appear in between and make a very soft picture. It isn't much and doesn't matter to most users, but to those who need it, you can't extract it out little pixels. The difference is a technicality to many, but in the purest form of a question an APS-C image is inferior to a full frame.


 Not arguing there, my point is simply that both the RP and the R are absolutely good enough for any RF glass planned or released.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 29, 2019)

Hmmmm.... RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 135mm f/1.2L? Will that be the "look what we can do" lens? (anywhere from 105mm -150mm would suit me fine)


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 29, 2019)

proutprout said:


> That’s going to be an amazing 3k lense to put on your RP ! Or maybe canon will come with a cheaper new model the « RPC » (really poor camera)to put even more expensive lenses ! How about a 9k lense on a 400Usd camera next time ! Genius strategy


Canon should consult you with your deep knowledge of market-strategy next time...
What about waiting for the next bodies, instead of whining?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hmmmm.... RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, RF 135mm f/1.2L? Will that be the "look what we can do" lens? (anywhere from 105mm -150mm would suit me fine)


100 f1.4 is at the top, top, of my list. Well, that and a Bron Para88


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> To be clear I mean sites like dpreview.com, lensrental.com etc. that publish scientific ratings.
> 
> 
> Most of the testing regimes don't use a camera at all, they use a purpose-built sensor in the test equipment.
> ...



The existence of a DS version makes me wonder though about the bokeh quality of the standard version. I'm worried that it might be too much on the "optically perfect" side of things, macro style - as I believe that it's the sort of design that benefits the most from apodization - while typically highly praised portrait lenses, such as the Nikon 105mm 1.4, tend to preserve some carefully tuned aberrations to enhance background blur and transitions, as this article illustrates (the 50 RF does the same in the centre wide open) : http://www.bokehtests.com/styled/

My little finger tells me that R users might have to choose between a very gaussian blur or a very flat, perfect blur, while some may prefer a lens that's kind of half-way between the two (as the 50 RF is).

Also, the apodized lenses we're seen so far tend to quickly loose their blur qualities as the lens is stopped down. The Nikon 58mm, for example, was specifically designed to keep a smooth, somewhat gaussian blur quality to background OOF areas even when significantly closed down.

IMO Apodization is interesting but may prove to be, even from Canon, a double edged sword. 

Given the 50 RF, I'm also worried about vignetting and off-centre bokeh. We'll know soon enough I guess.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> Given the 50 RF, I'm also worried about vignetting and off-centre bokeh. We'll know soon enough I guess.


You could be worried...or you could learn to appreciate cat’s eyes...


----------



## ethanz (Apr 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You could be worried...or you could learn to appreciate cat’s eyes...


_Cue Don_


----------



## slclick (Apr 29, 2019)

I guess my Tammy 85 SP will stop working on May 9th. (fwiw, very underrated lens, love this chunk)


----------



## deletemyaccount (Apr 29, 2019)

I'd be very curious to know how many are selling their DSLR's and EF mount lenses for this new very expensive gear.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You could be worried...or you could learn to appreciate cat’s eyes...



The problem with the 50 isn't the nature of the vignetting, which is unavoidable, but its degree. Just like the 50L it's got so much of it that you're not getting f1.2 worth of DOF for most of the frame. In practice you're rather getting the DOF of a 50mm f1.4 lens that's well corrected for vignetting. I guess that this is just the result of the compromises that had to be made between marketing asking for a f1.2 lens that's sharp and a small size. IMO the 50 RF would have been a better tool had it been designed as a f1.4 from the start and nearly no one would have seen the difference in pictures. 

It's totally the smart thing to do as they can sell it for €2500 euros and can introduce the RF mount with a fanfare but it's not really what serves the users the most IMO. I think that a 50mm f1.4 with low vignetting and zero astigmatism would have made for a more significant difference over previous designs. 

Anyway I'm quite excited to see which design choices Canon will make with this new 85mm and how they'll implement the apodization exactly. For starters that it's a coating technology is quite something as Canon claims they could more easily implement apodization in various designs.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> There's no one best answer.



Agreed. I'm super curious to see how Canon's approach to engineering apodization, ie a coating, not an internal filter, will affect the results. Perhaps they'll be able to implement a more progressive gradient than the Sony STF which should help when closed down.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 29, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I think it’s utter [email protected] that great lens lenses are somehow a waste on lesser bodies... it’s not even close to be true..
> 
> Would I rather have the 200 f2 on the RP or an old 75-300 on a 1dx2? Easy...


I'd rather have the 24-240 on the RP than the 200f/2.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 29, 2019)

camerabug said:


> I'd be very curious to know how many are selling their DSLR's and EF mount lenses for this new very expensive gear.


I won't, at least not really soon. At this rate, it'll be 2 or 3 years before Canon has the RF system components that I want.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 29, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> So maybe the idea of a lens giving perfect circles wide open just won't happen, since the aperture of any lens capable of that could also simply be opened up further to the point it has the mechanical vignetting and American football-shaped highlights.



It's an intuitive way of thinking about it, but I don't have the knowledge to be quite so sure that this is exactly how it works . 

From what I've read the difficulty in managing aberrations isn't quite "linear" with increasingly wider apertures. 



SwissFrank said:


> Now what interests me is that the RF 50/1.2 is designed to actually be sharp as heck wide open, with practically non-existent aberrations.



It has aberrations . Point light sources at the periphery show more aberrations than, for example, the Sigma 40mm 1.4. Perhaps some astigmatism but I don't know how to interpret these well (it could explain what I don't like about the RF's bokeh off centre). It's also got quite a bit of CA. 
I mean, it's a very well corrected lens, that's for sure. But off centre it's a bit off the truly world class mark that's all the rage these days.



SwissFrank said:


> But what if they knew the lens would be used with an apodization filter? That practically none of the light from the elements' periphery would actually be ending up on the sensor, thanks to the filter?



You could argue that its vignetting already helps tremendously in that regard, at least in one axis . 



SwissFrank said:


> I don't think there's any filter pattern you could use that would look good for multiple f-stops.



I have no idea about apodization filters - hence why I'm curious to see how Canon will implement apodization with the 85mm DS, but it's kinda possible with undercorrected spherical aberration. This is how the Nikon 58mm behaves when shooting a very small, bright (and here, green) point light source is shot slightly in front and behind the focal plane. The gradient you see between the centre and the edge of the background blur is maintained even when the aperture is closed down. Of course that lens is a very extreme design that puts all its eggs in one basket, but it's an illustration of how it's possible to get an "apodization" like gradient, even at smaller apertures, by biasing the blur quality in favour of rear gaussian smoothness (at the detriment of front side blur, sharpness, focus shift, etc.).



All the credit should go to Marianne Oelund, who initiated this thread on the subject, unfortunately now the pictures have been lost : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031515


----------



## padam (Apr 29, 2019)

camerabug said:


> I'd be very curious to know how many are selling their DSLR's and EF mount lenses for this new very expensive gear.


New gear is always very expensive (does not matter if it is a new EF lens or a new DSLR or anything that is new) and it always gets discounted as time goes on.
It just seems that it is even more costly, if one is buying a lot of it in one go. Switching to mirrorless (with native lenses) is expensive, doesn't matter which brand (or it is a compromise in sensor size, etc. etc.) and using an adapter is a viable solution as well

on the other hand all this new gear also pushes down the value of older gear, that was excellent yesterday - and is just as excellent today


----------



## CandySpan (Apr 29, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I realized it would be too expensive for me now, unfortunately, so I bought a barley used 135 instead. And the day after this news comes along to rub it in, spiffing ...


The 135mm f2 is quite a legendary lens, nothing to worry about!


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 29, 2019)

slclick said:


> I agree, if you do not think that glass is more important than the body you have another thin[k] coming.


That was very true in the film era with manual focus cameras. Then, the camera was largely a box to hold film and a shutter and to mount lenses. It is much less true in the era of a digital sensor inside an autofocus camera body.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 30, 2019)

slclick said:


> I agree, if you do not think that glass is more important than the body you have another thing coming. Now true, having both excellent is double plus good.


I agree. This is just as true today as in the film era.


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 30, 2019)

NICE....i mean, with no IBIS, and no stabalization, on a much lighter body...going to be interesting times in hit-rate land. Maybe.

"but its the technique"

Yeah, sure it is. it's also a lack of a feature. Happy shooting!


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2019)

Canon is forcing me to buy the R. I was holding on till they come out with the pro body. Aaaaaaaaa


----------



## slclick (Apr 30, 2019)

Canon isn't forcing me to do anything. My 2012 body works just great and my lenses from STM to L with or without IS all work great and 100% of the image quality rests with me. No copouts.


----------



## sanj (Apr 30, 2019)

slclick said:


> Canon isn't forcing me to do anything. My 2012 body works just great and my lenses from STM to L with or without IS all work great and 100% of the image quality rests with me. No copouts.


All my gear got stolen. I am rebuilding my list. I shoot wildlife and video. So am waiting for a pro body. And thanks for the reply.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> NICE....i mean, with no IBIS, and no stabalization, on a much lighter body...going to be interesting times in hit-rate land. Maybe.
> 
> "but its the technique"
> 
> Yeah, sure it is. it's also a lack of a feature. Happy shooting!


I’m so sorry your camera can’t achieve a shutter speed of 1/100 s or faster. Mine can, so I’ll be just fine. Or I’ll use my 85/1.4L IS with the adapter. Choice is good. You’re choosing to petulantly whine. Good for you.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 30, 2019)

We're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon


----------



## danfaz (Apr 30, 2019)

padam said:


> on the other hand all this new gear also pushes down the value of older gear, that was excellent yesterday - and is just as excellent today



Yep, I've picked up some very nice L glass lately for some pretty low prices!


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 30, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> What I'd love is a slot to stick in your own filter, and have a suite of filters with transmissions of say T/2, T/2.8, T/4, etc. Even for a given T there are infinite different gradations you could use giving different highlight shapes. There's no one best answer.


... or something like a transparent (LCD) display in the lens with high resolution which creates the apodization pattern  Some menu item where you can draw you own apodization pattern in-camera.

But major drawbacks are that it is polarizing (sometimes helpful, always loosing ~1 stop of light) and I am not shure if it is possible to make optically "clear" displays with very uniform transmission and at least 128 precise gray levels ...

EDIT: Forgotten to say that there are some revived lens designs where the f-stop is chosen by f-stop-slots like the petzval from lomo: https://shop.lomography.com/en/petzval-85-artlens-canon?country=de -- make your own filters via 3D printing or / and painting with a gray marker on glass ...
EDITEDIT: Lomo thought about customization: right item of https://shop.lomography.com/en/petzval-special-aperture-blades


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 30, 2019)

If the 85 DS is well made, it may be called in future in France "la Déesse" ("goddess"), like the famous Citroen DS.


----------



## Ladislav (Apr 30, 2019)

85/1.4 IS is already a very good lens and it can be bought for less than £1100 in UK. It also works on both EF and RF mount for those who own both DSLR and MILC. While this new lens will for sure be awesome, it will be also expensive but how much better it will be? DS version is at least supposed to bring something not currently available.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 30, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> There's no one best answer.



If only more people on these forums bore this wisdom in mind!


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 30, 2019)

This is great, I won't need to buy it until next years wedding season


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> OK, say that "gap in the back" is 25mm. That means that to allow a TC, the EF lens needs 44mm film-to-flange distance plus 25mm = 69mm.
> 
> It's possible that the RF, with a 20mm film-to-flang disance, would be happy with 20mm + 25mm = 45mm. _IF_ shorter film-rear element distance helps with telephotos, then the RF would still have an advantage.
> 
> On the other hand, even if the distance isn't crucial, I imagine they'll come out with RF versions of telephotos anyways. Even if it's not optically superior, simply being able to work without an adapter will appeal, on grounds of simplicity, reliability. Remember, the point of the EF mount was autofocus, yet Canon was happy to make some manual-focus-only lenses (the TS series) that couldn't take advantage of "the whole benefit of EF lenses." Canon didn't say, manual focus so might as well only release with the FD mount...



The difference is EF and RF are both EOS mounts with all electronic connections that speak the same exact language. This makes an EF to RF adapter little more than an extension ring with full communication. It's even less impactful optically speaking than an extender is, yet the top pros have no qualms about slapping an EF 1.4X III between their 1D X Mark II and a 400/2.8 III, 500/4 II, or 600/4 III.

That was hardly the case with the mechanically linked FD mount that had a shorter registration distance that the newer EF mount.

"Adapter" only becomes a dirty word when it forces compromises in functionality or optical performance.

An EF to RF adapter does neither.

Adapting an EF lens to an RF camera does not diminish the functionality of the EF lens at all, other than maybe slower AF speed due to the RF camera not having as powerful batteries as a 1D X or even LP-E6N powered 5/6/7 series camera. This is already the case with smaller EF cameras, such as the Rebels. They also AF slower with the same EF lenses than the 1 and 5/6/7 series do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> One does get the impression that Canon had to release the mirrorless new generation of bodies and lenses ahead of their preferred schedule, which would probably have happened end 2019 with a pro IBIS and the RP together with 6-7 L lenses and 3-4 more mainstream and less expensive lenses like the 24-240. Nikon’s move and/or Sony’s growth forced an early and rather incoherent timing, with the R cobbled together and whatever lenses were ready for production, the rest following in a haphazard way. This is of course pure speculation



The first "Pro" EOS body, the EOS-1, was not introduced for 30 months after the first EF mount camera, the EOS 650. This is nothing new.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 30, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Hey Maya,
> 
> Thanks so much for the interesting reply! I absolutely did not realize CA was the specific cause of these bad bokehs, but more importantly I never realized that front bokeh and back bokeh circles would be so complimentary.



In the case of the tests Marianne Oelund has realised, it's rather spherical aberration that's at play, as she only tested for one color (green). And it's only valid in the centre of the frame, off-centre other aberrations pile up I believe to make things even way more complex.

Fine-tuning spherical aberration to enhance background blur comes at the cost of foreground blur. Besides in the case of the Nikon 58mm the aberration is so extreme that focus shift is significant and resolution not quite excellent.

Marianne has also made tests with a white point light source (sorry I couldn't find the thread she posted these photos in) :


I think that these full spectrum tests are less representative of a lens' spherical aberrations - perhaps because it's difficult with common means to test lenses with very small and precise point light sources - but more so of its CA in the transition zone.

A more concrete illustration of what the blobs above mean :



It's from Lenstip's AF / LOCA test, and it's the Nikon 105mm 1.4. That lens is specifically designed to preserve some degree of spherical aberration to enhance background blur smoothness and progressive transitions : you can still read the "lensalign" text much further beyond the focal plane and it progressively blends in the overall background blur in a gaussian way (that corresponds to a blob with a brighter centre than the edge, like an apodised lens). The front bokeh however has been made significantly harsher / busy (that corresponds to a blob with a brighter edge and a darker centre). When you close the aperture, it's the equivalent of cutting the extreme edge of the blobs above. So a lens like the one below may show traces of edgy bokeh at f1.4 but will look completely smooth at f2 :




This is the reason why I always prefer to shoot my Canon 50mm STM at f2.5 at a maximum, provided there's enough light. Wider than that and bokeh starts to get edgy in the centre.

An apodised lens can do what the Nikon 105mm 1.4 does for both the front and the background blur (it's not quite the same but kinda). To do so in an equal fashion between front and rear, it's better for it to be very "neutral" in terms of spherical aberration, hence why I'm a little bit worried abut the 85mm RF non-DS version.



SwissFrank said:


> These might be gimmicky but you could also have filters such as: 1) clear center spot surrounded by ND. Things would be be sharp front to back due to a pinhole effect, but also surrounded by blur. Almost like a double-exposure wide open and stopped down. 2) shapes such as stars. 3) random scattering of pinholes, giving the most jarring bokeh...



Bring on the gimmicks . I'd love that. Although it's not at the aperture stop, has anyone experimented with the EF to RF drop in filter adapter to see if interesting effects can be obtained bokeh wise ?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Apr 30, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The first "Pro" EOS body, the EOS-1, was not introduced for 30 months after the first EF mount camera, the EOS 650. This is nothing new.


Good point.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 30, 2019)

Etienne said:


> We're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon



And the internet will be a happier place for it.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 30, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree. This is just as true today as in the film era.



I remember when I started shooting (maybe a decade ago) that caring more about the body than the lenses was supposed to be the mark of a newbie. That caring more about bodies has become the norm is... interesting.

I see more impressive shots from old bodies with excellent lenses than vice versa, though of course skill is the biggest predictor of quality.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 30, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Well, we may not have cared about the body so much, but we certainly cared about the film.
> 
> Now the body _is_ the film, so to speak, determining the look.



A decade ago the context was still entirely digital. If it were film, I wouldn't have been involved. The advice to people asking was still "get a cheaper body and a nicer lens or two".


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 30, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Now the body _is_ the film, so to speak, *determining the look.*


I don’t agree. It would be really hard to pick out a camera from the look of a photo. I’d go so far as to say it would be impossible, disregarding blind luck. 

Lighting, optics, and processing after the fact are what by and large gives unique looks.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 30, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I don’t agree. It would be really hard to pick out a camera from the look of a photo. I’d go so far as to say it would be impossible, disregarding blind luck.
> 
> Lighting, optics, and processing after the fact are what by and large gives unique looks.


Yup! And the same during the film era. I belong to a FaceBook group for vintage lenses. People there are apt to post that they like the old manual film era lenses because they like the "film" look. It always gives me a chuckle. It fascinates me. It just seems I remember film and paper choice being huge determiners of "look" and that the "film look" actually comes from using film... not from the lens. I've even set up surveys (polls?) with side by side photos taken on the same subject, same camera, and then digital vs vintage lenses. Nobody has ever been able to tell the difference with any reliable accuracy. They say they can, but they all fail the test. Then they accuse one of rigging the survey. They cannot possibly be wrong.  Some are even so bold as to put down exactly which lens was used. Funny as hell.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 30, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> One substantial difference is that they didn't bother with the EOS-1 until there were enough EF lenses that a pro would actually buy an EOS-1.



Not exactly. The EOS-1 was introduced in 1989. Also introduced that year was its holy trinity of lenses: 28-80 f/2.8-4, 20-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8. The first four lenses introduced for the EOS system, in 1987, were the 50 f/1.8, 35-105 f/3.5-4.5, 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 and 100-300 f/5.6, definitely not high end. There were some very high end lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989 but in 1987, the Canon F1 using the FD lens mount was king and Canon was introducing lenses for both the FD and EOS mounts. There was even an 85 f/1.2 for the FD mount. The 50 f/1.0 was the first lens that Canon introduced for the EOS mount while stating that it could not be made for the FD mount. That was in 1989.

In 1987, I owned a serious FD system and was extremely annoyed that Canon didn't see fit to make an FD body that had an in-focus indicator in the viewfinder. It wouldn't have been difficult, although there was no way that an FD lens could have been controlled by an FD body. There simply wasn't room in the mount.






View by series - Canon Camera Museum


You can see Canon's cameras by product series.



 global.canon










View by series - Canon Camera Museum


You can see Canon's cameras by product series.



global.canon










View by series - Canon Camera Museum


You can see Canon's cameras by product series.



global.canon


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 30, 2019)

After seeing all the bokeh talk in the previous few posts, I must say that I am happy 99% of my photos do not have the bokeh balls... and I'm even more happy that bokeh balls do not make a photo great or not great. Unless, of course, most of the photography some people pursue is bokeh ball photography. Never had anyone complain about my bokeh balls.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 30, 2019)

MayaTlab said:


> The problem with the 50 isn't the nature of the vignetting, which is unavoidable, but its degree. Just like the 50L it's got so much of it that you're not getting f1.2 worth of DOF for most of the frame. In practice you're rather getting the DOF of a 50mm f1.4 lens that's well corrected for vignetting. I guess that this is just the result of the compromises that had to be made between marketing asking for a f1.2 lens that's sharp and a small size. IMO the 50 RF would have been a better tool had it been designed as a f1.4 from the start and nearly no one would have seen the difference in pictures.
> 
> It's totally the smart thing to do as they can sell it for €2500 euros and can introduce the RF mount with a fanfare but it's not really what serves the users the most IMO. I think that a 50mm f1.4 with low vignetting and zero astigmatism would have made for a more significant difference over previous designs.
> 
> Anyway I'm quite excited to see which design choices Canon will make with this new 85mm and how they'll implement the apodization exactly. For starters that it's a coating technology is quite something as Canon claims they could more easily implement apodization in various designs.


And then some of us (me) add heavy vignetting to most shots anyway. So, while most assume vignetting is a bad thing, some of us (me, at least) happen to like it a lot.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 30, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I remember when I started shooting (maybe a decade ago) that caring more about the body than the lenses was supposed to be the mark of a newbie. That caring more about bodies has become the norm is... interesting.
> 
> "...skill is the biggest predictor of quality."


Skill? Nawwwwwwww.... Everyone knows that every possible shadow detail, aberration, vignette, etc., must be corrected in lens/camera. We pay so we don't have to have things like skill. If my photos suck, it's the gear.


----------



## Fleetie (May 1, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> ... or something like a transparent (LCD) display in the lens with high resolution which creates the apodization pattern  Some menu item where you can draw you own apodization pattern in-camera.


This could be really good.

It could give gimmicky bokeh effects like hearts and stars, but also more serious effects like gaussian, lorentzian, sinc, or uniform, hard-edged disc bokeh balls.

I can't see this being available for a long time, or probably never. Nice idea, though.


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2019)

Again. Great lens. But dear lord please can we get an announcement on trinity L glass or non-L primes. 15-35, 24-70 2.8 IS si vous plait? Those 20 something non L EF primes are long in the tooth. RF versions?


----------



## degos (May 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It just seems I remember film and paper choice being huge determiners of "look" and that the "film look" actually comes from using film... not from the lens.



I'm sure _you_ are so experienced that you couldn't possibly be wrong, but film-era lenses also had different rendering than modern designed-for-digital. Partly due to leaded glass, more primitive and single-sided coatings and generally fewer optical elemens.


----------



## Ozarker (May 1, 2019)

degos said:


> I'm sure _you_ are so experienced that you couldn't possibly be wrong, but film-era lenses also had different rendering than modern designed-for-digital. Partly due to leaded glass, more primitive and single-sided coatings and generally fewer optical elemens.


True, but that isn't a "film look". That is from the lens. I own and use 40+ various M42 mount lenses on my 5D Mark III. A Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 lens can achieve a swirly bokeh, flairs a certain way, vignettes a certain way, renders colors a certain way. Has nothing to do with film. It is the look one can get from a particular lens. The "Helios look" in this case.


----------



## sanj (May 1, 2019)

Etienne said:


> We're going to see a lot of sharp cat photos from rich peoples living rooms soon


Hahahah


----------



## Mbell75 (May 1, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> One does get the impression that Canon had to release the mirrorless new generation of bodies and lenses ahead of their preferred schedule, which would probably have happened end 2019 with a pro IBIS and the RP together with 6-7 L lenses and 3-4 more mainstream and less expensive lenses like the 24-240. Nikon’s move and/or Sony’s growth forced an early and rather incoherent timing, with the R cobbled together and whatever lenses were ready for production, the rest following in a haphazard way. This is of course pure speculation



Yea, I mean Canon has only had what? FIVE YEARS of watching Sony? Embarrassing they took so long to get into FF mirrorless and they were still not ready.


----------



## Mbell75 (May 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The first "Pro" EOS body, the EOS-1, was not introduced for 30 months after the first EF mount camera, the EOS 650. This is nothing new.



That was 30 years ago when cameras were released at a snails pace and Canon was first in everything. Its not 1989 any longer and its this type of thinking that has Canon trailing WAY behind Sony in everything.


----------



## Serenesunrise (May 1, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> Yea, I mean Canon has only had what? FIVE YEARS of watching Sony? Embarrassing they took so long to get into FF mirrorless and they were still not ready.


Lol...Another Troll...
What is embarrassing is it has taken Sony five years.(.they are on their third version of the A7 and A7R ) and they still can’t design a great handling camera with easy menus.
The Sony FF camera’s are seriously flawed... but if you like that go ahead.


----------



## Mbell75 (May 1, 2019)

Serenesunrise said:


> Lol...Another Troll...
> What is embarrassing is it has taken Sony five years.(.they are on their third version of the A7 and A7R ) and they still can’t design a great handling camera with easy menus.
> The Sony FF camera’s are seriously flawed... but if you like that go ahead.



A $60 grip takes care of the ergo problems for people with banana hands who like giant cameras and with 3 pages of favorites, The whole "confusing menu" thing is for dumb people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Those 20 something non L EF primes are long in the tooth. RF versions?


They are from 2012. Practically infants in terms of lens age.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 1, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Well, look at the resolution. Higher resolution would rule the a7iii out. Look at the noise. Low noise in dark shots, or high dynamic range would rule the EOS R out, as would a stabilized 24/1.4 shot. I agree it's not a Velvia vs. Kodachrome difference.


I mean, sure you could count pixels and compare them to known camera specs. But looking at noise in a photo doesn’t really tell you anything unless you also know how it was shot.


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> They are from 2012. Practically infants in terms of lens age.


Yes I was being a bit silly and sarcastic with that one because I selfishly would like to have some RF primes. I just acquired the 351.4 mk2 and 85 L 1.4 EF lenses in the last couple years. 

That’s why I’d like to see some more like the RF 35 Macro. Basic non-L glass of great quality and lower tier pricing. Not to mention RP owners need some cheaper glass asap. The mount adapter works great, but adds a lot of extra length to my L glass on there.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 1, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> What I'd love is a slot to stick in your own filter, and have a suite of filters with transmissions of say T/2, T/2.8, T/4, etc. Even for a given T there are infinite different gradations you could use giving different highlight shapes. There's no one best answer.



You're a century or so late.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 1, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Right.
> 
> One substantial difference is that they didn't bother with the EOS-1 until there were enough EF lenses that a pro would actually buy an EOS-1.
> 
> ...




Nowhere did I predict a 30 month span between the EOS R and the first "pro" RF body. I just made an observation about what happened 30 years ago.

Nowhere did I say pros "only" use telephoto lenses. But in the Canon system, only telephoto lenses accept Canon extenders. So in the context of Canon extenders, pros and amateurs alike may only use telephoto lenses with extenders.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 1, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I remember when I started shooting (maybe a decade ago) that caring more about the body than the lenses was supposed to be the mark of a newbie. That caring more about bodies has become the norm is... interesting.
> 
> I see more impressive shots from old bodies with excellent lenses than vice versa, though of course skill is the biggest predictor of quality.



Most advanced shooters still understand that great lens plus mediocre camera will almost always get much better results than mediocre lens and great camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 1, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> Not exactly. The EOS-1 was introduced in 1989. Also introduced that year was its holy trinity of lenses: 28-80 f/2.8-4, 20-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8. The first four lenses introduced for the EOS system, in 1987, were the 50 f/1.8, 35-105 f/3.5-4.5, 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 and 100-300 f/5.6, definitely not high end. There were some very high end lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989 but in 1987, the Canon F1 using the FD lens mount was king and Canon was introducing lenses for both the FD and EOS mounts. There was even an 85 f/1.2 for the FD mount. The 50 f/1.0 was the first lens that Canon introduced for the EOS mount while stating that it could not be made for the FD mount. That was in 1989.
> 
> In 1987, I owned a serious FD system and was extremely annoyed that Canon didn't see fit to make an FD body that had an in-focus indicator in the viewfinder. It wouldn't have been difficult, although there was no way that an FD lens could have been controlled by an FD body. There simply wasn't room in the mount.
> 
> ...



You're placing 21st century expectations on lenses created in the late 1980s to claim that lenses considered "premium" then weren't because they wouldn't be considered "premium" today. 

Several 1987, 1988, and 1989 EF lenses released months before the EOS-1 in September of 1989 were considered higher end lenses.

EF 100-300mm f/5.6 L (1987)
EF 135mm f/2.8 SF (1987) was considered an "advanced" lens
EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM (1987)
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 L (1988)
EF 600mm f/4 L USM (1988)
EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM (1988)
EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4 L USM (April 1989) is the equivalent of today's 24-70/2.8. It was out half a year before the EOS-1. It was the 24th EF lens released.

The EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM and EF 85mm f/1.2 L USM were released at the same time as the EOS-1, as were the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L USM and EF 20-35mm f/2.8 L USM.

But at the time, a "Holy Trinity" was a set of fast (i.e. f/2.8 or wider) 24 or 28 or 35/50/85 primes. The EF 35mm f/2 didn't hit the market until 1990, but the EF 28mm f/2.8 had been out since 1987 and the EF 24mm f/2.8 came in 1988. The original EF 50mm f/1.8 (1987) was also a little better build quality than the cheaper "plastic fantastic" EF 50mm f/1.8 II. 

Other than the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L, there was not a "premium" 24mm or 35mm "L" until 1997 and 1998, respectively. That ought to tell you all that you need to know about the acceptability of "non-L" primes for use by many pros back in the early EOS era.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 1, 2019)

Mbell75 said:


> That was 30 years ago when cameras were released at a snails pace and Canon was first in everything. Its not 1989 any longer and its this type of thinking that has Canon trailing WAY behind Sony in everything.



Actually, Minolta was the first to introduce a new mount with all electronic lens communication and AF in 1985, two years before Canon finally got around to introducing the EOS system.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 1, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Well, look at the resolution. Higher resolution would rule the a7iii out. Look at the noise. Low noise in dark shots, or high dynamic range would rule the EOS R out, as would a stabilized 24/1.4 shot. I agree it's not a Velvia vs. Kodachrome difference.



When did using an EF 24mm f/1.4 L on a solid tripod become no longer possible? That's as stabilized as it gets.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You're placing 21st century expectations on lenses created in the late 1980s to claim that lenses considered "premium" then weren't because they wouldn't be considered "premium" today.



I am??? That was not my intention. I was trying to point out that Canon's rollout strategy for RF bodies and lenses is more than slightly weird. If you don't believe me, look at this:









New BCN Report: EOS RP struggling in Japan


A new BCN report has been released where they tabulate their data for March and April, showing while the EOS RP had a strong start in March, it tailed off in April a month after release. The BCN report goes on to suggest that the lens lineup and the fact that price is not the only consideration...



www.canonnews.com





I did lie about the FD lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989. There was only one, the 200 f/1.8 in 1989. Canon stopped FD lens development after 1985. Does that sound familiar?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> I did lie about the FD lenses introduced between 1987 and 1989. There was only one, the 200 f/1.8 in 1989. Canon stopped FD lens development after 1985. Does that sound familiar?


Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.


Ask me again in 3 years. There was no easy upgrade path from FD to EF and there were enormous advantages of EF over FD. This is not true going from EF to RF. My guess is that the tilt shift lenses and big whites will be EF for 10 years or more.


----------



## PureClassA (May 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.



Let’s also not forget Canon just re-upped a lot of the larger telephoto EF glass. They wont be rushing to make RF versions of these things either. Unlike my 35L EF, a mount adapters extra inch of length makes little to no appreciable difference on lenses like those. The EF library is also extremely diverse and broad. Not easily replaced. We are still at least several years away from any serious cessation of EF development.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you suggesting that the lack of an EF lens release in the 6 months since the release of the EOS R means that Canon has stopped development of EF lenses? If so, that seems premature...and you’d be calling Canon liars with that assertion.



It probably is the case, though, that EF lens development has been placed on the back burner as Canon devotes a large portion of their lens development resources to filling out the RF line.

To mistake a _hiatus_ from major EF lens announcements while the RF lens line is created as a permanent _cessation_ of EF lens development seems to be the mistake many are making.

The fact that we haven't seen similar updates to the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and 500mm f/4L IS II close on the heels of the 400mmm f2.8L IS III and 600mm f/4L IS III updates the way we did with the introduction of the "II" Super Telephotos a few years ago does indicate that EF lens development is not getting the resources it was before RF became such a priority, at least for now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It probably is the case, though, that EF lens development has been placed on the back burner as Canon devotes a large portion of their lens development resources to filling out the RF line.
> 
> To mistake a _hiatus_ from major EF lens announcements while the RF lens line is created as a permanent _cessation_ of EF lens development seems to be the mistake many are making.
> 
> The fact that we haven't seen similar updates to the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II and 500mm f/4L IS II close on the heels of the 400mmm f2.8L IS III and 600mm f/4L IS III updates the way we did with the introduction of the "II" Super Telephotos a few years ago does indicate that EF lens development is not getting the resources it was before RF became such a priority, at least for now.


Agreed and perfectly logical.


----------



## ryebread (May 2, 2019)

if preorders are 5/9/19, when do you guess shipments will arrive to customers in the USA?


----------



## Michael Clark (May 3, 2019)

ryebread said:


> if preorders are 5/9/19, when do you guess shipments will arrive to customers in the USA?



When the courier makes their delivery.


----------



## ryebread (May 3, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> When the courier makes their delivery.



lol

I'm actually looking for some insight.
traditionally, how far out after announcement date, does canon take?
3 weeks? 6?


----------



## koenkooi (May 3, 2019)

ryebread said:


> lol
> 
> I'm actually looking for some insight.
> traditionally, how far out after announcement date, does canon take?
> 3 weeks? 6?



The TS-E updates where announced August 2017 and from what I can google up started shipping in December, first online reviews in January. 

From wikipedia:

The *EF 35 mm f/1.4L II USM* is a successor of the EF 35 mm f/1.4L USM. It was announced at the 27th of August 2015 and is available since October same year.


----------



## Viggo (May 3, 2019)

Any news regarding price?


----------



## dlmartin81 (May 8, 2019)

The official U.S. price for this lens will be $2,699.00.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1477265-REG/canon_rf_85mm_f_1_2l_usm.html


Cheers!


----------



## Ozarker (May 11, 2019)

Viggo said:


> I realized it would be too expensive for me now, unfortunately, so I bought a barley used 135 instead. And the day after this news comes along to rub it in, spiffing ...


Great lens you bought!


----------



## Viggo (May 11, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Great lens you bought!


Yes, it should be, mine has issues and the seller wasn’t willing to admit or solve anything so it’s just sitting in the box waiting for my report to go through, 12-15 weeks, before it’s resolved. Not too happy about that


----------

