Canon Announces First Lens in Series of Fixed Focal Length RF Hybrid Lenses – RF35mm F1.4L VCM

[David - Sydney]

Sounds to me like they understand that many still photographers don't need or want or will never use f1.2 and would rather have a lighter cheaper lens at f1.4 which is plenty fast enough for every possible use.

Hmmm... that sounds reasonable until you look at Canon's strategy for the RF50mm

 

[David - Sydney]

They’re controlling two separate groups, one for the floating group (nano USM) and one for the rear focusing group (VCM).

Canon has been doing that lately with just Nano USM, the lenses featuring Dual Nano USM (e.g., 100-500L, 100-300/2.8) have separate groups each with their own motor.

Next question, why VCM instead of Nano USM for one of the two motors? Canon says it used this design because it works well for both photo and video applications (from PetaPixel). I suspect it’s because a voice coil actuator can deliver more force than NanoUSM at the same speed, and the rear focus group of the RF 35/1.4 is reasonably heavy, but not heavy enough to need ring USM.

If 2 different motor technologies then why only "focus" on VCM in the lens description.
Surely it should be RF35 f1.4L VCM USM because if the "Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO" is a good name then Canon should jump on the bandwagon
Has Canon ever separated USM types before except for STM and USM (whether ring or nano or dual or VCM)?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Has Canon ever separated USM types before except for STM and USM (whether ring or nano or dual or VCM)?

Not in the lens name, no – only in the marketing descriptions. I would guess just VCM and not USM VCM for simplicity and also to further distinguish from the EF 35/1.4L lenses.

 

[David - Sydney]

and also to further distinguish from the EF 35/1.4L lenses.

Surely "RF" is all that is needed

 

[Richard CR]

Not in the lens name, no – only in the marketing descriptions. I would guess just VCM and not USM VCM for simplicity and also to further distinguish from the EF 35/1.4L lenses.

Yeah, I guess it sounds new from a marketing perspective.

 

[DhlcadR6]

No reason to buy a EL-10 when the Godox v860iii is out there with assist light at a much cheaper price

R50's digital cold shoe says hi

 

[danfaz]

No reason to buy a EL-10 when the Godox v860iii is out there with assist light at a much cheaper price

No reason to buy anything I guess, since there's always something cheaper out there.

 

[esglord]

Pretty pretty pretty good

 

[exige24]

I agree. I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and Rf 85mm 1.2 and despite their great quality, I hate shooting with them because of the weight. I would gladly trade them for 1.4 L primes.

I have both also and you couldn't pay me and give me the 1.4 lenses if it meant losing the extra stop since I'm a grown man and can hold 200-300 and even 400 grams almost indefinitely.

 

[exige24]

Very interesting development from Canon.

With how they've worded things, I really suspect we will eventually see an IQ focused 35 1.2 in the (near) far future, possibly when they update the 50 1.2 into a MKII version for those that just want the absolute no compromises image quality.

I do like the aperture ring, IF all the lenses in the line-up have it already, if they don't then I'd rather they leave it off. That's what I really like about the Sony kit I use for work. Every GM lens has an aperture ring that turns the same way, the zoom/focus rings are all in the same place and it makes it very easy for muscle memory to take over when you're thinking about a dozen other things when shooting. I suspect most will leave it in A and just change it via the body dials.

Also, aside from the more compact size, I am digging that price. Canon L glass comes in at roughly 15-20% more expensive that Sony in New Zealand, which can be the difference between building a 2.8 trinity kit or being able to also add a couple of 1.4 primes when purchasing several lenses. Maybe we've all just gotten accustomed to Canon's really high prices to where this is a breath of fresh air.

Yeah, I'll be holding on to my EF 1.4 II and just hope for a 1.2. Heck, I'd even keep the 1.4 even after getting the 1.2. It has an extremely unique falloff character I doubt either of these two new lenses could duplicate, sharpness be damned. Also it's pretty freaking sharp too.

 

[Surab]

I have both also and you couldn't pay me and give me the 1.4 lenses if it meant losing the extra stop since I'm a grown man and can hold 200-300 and even 400 grams almost indefinitely.

You get ~36% more light; not shabby, but definitely not an extra stop (100% more light).

 

[nhandumuc]

Yeah, I'll be holding on to my EF 1.4 II and just hope for a 1.2. Heck, I'd even keep the 1.4 even after getting the 1.2. It has an extremely unique falloff character I doubt either of these two new lenses could duplicate, sharpness be damned. Also it's pretty freaking sharp too.

Yes the 35mmII is plenty sharp, for daytime it is perfect, but using it via the adapter loses some of its stellar performance on EF mount cameras, like fringing and winged stars at wide open which would never happen with EF mount cams, I hope this new lens will correct that, and I will be a happy camper!

 

[Nemorino]

Question: what use would you have for a continuously variable (clickless) aperture ring for stills?

Faster continous shooting
No sound of the aperture blades
Control of focus shift
Control of DOF while shooting

 

[sanj]

$1499 for a 35 f1,4 L that is also a new hybrid, that scares me regarding IQ… Is a 1.2 coming?

I think like you.

 

[sanj]

I have both also and you couldn't pay me and give me the 1.4 lenses if it meant losing the extra stop since I'm a grown man and can hold 200-300 and even 400 grams almost indefinitely.

Yes, me neither. I am delighted with the 1.2...

 

[sanj]

Sounds to me like they understand that many still photographers don't need or want or will never use f1.2 and would rather have a lighter cheaper lens at f1.4 which is plenty fast enough for every possible use.

Not me. I would have picked the 1.2

 

[sanj]

Not me.

Me neither.

 

[sanj]

Now why the fkck does a 35mm 1.4 cost $1500?

(The 1.8 is a very good lens, aside from the ugly flare…)

Comparing apples with oranges.

 

[deorum]

Not sure how I feel about the EL-10 using AA batteries. I have a ton of those for the MT, MR and EL-100, but I love how the godox v860IIC handles bursts.

its true but my godox battery after 4 years of very very rare use got swollen.
another time i lost its seperate charger.
i now wish i had AA batteries.

 

[koenkooi]

its true but my godox battery after 4 years of very very rare use got swollen.
another time i lost its seperate charger.
i now wish i had AA batteries.

Mine is still OK after 3 years, fingers crossed!
The EL-1/5 ship without a charger, assuming you have a R5/6/7, which in theory saves a charger, but not for me when I sell my R7
I still don’t know if I want AA or a dedicated battery, but my godox is still working fine, so no real incentive to get an EL-5/10