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

[roby17269]

Seriously, or are you just venting about something you wouldn’t buy if it were available? So how much more would you be willing to pay for that extra half stop? $500, $1,000? How much bigger and heavier could it be before you thought it was too much?

Seriously indeed.
I wanted it and would have bought it if Canon had seen fit to release one. Price-wise I would have expected around $2500.
I have the RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 and love and use both of them. So the size and weight of the 85 do not bother me.

You can have a look at my signature here and see the gear I own and judge whether I would have been worthy of a 35 1.2

 

[neuroanatomist]

But I imagine the aperture ring on the 35/1.4 VCM isn't mechanically coupled - it's probably fly-by-wire, right?

I can’t speak definitively for the 35/1.4, but on the 24-105/2.8 the aperture ring is not mechanically coupled.

Even for video, why not just map a control ring for aperture control?

The advantage is that the aperture ring is clickless and silent (without having to pay Canon separately to modify the control ring).

 

[Anon]

My curiosity is piqued. Lots of info about people taking apart lenses to declick the aperture ring. What other manufacturers offer a switchable click/clickless lens ring?

Sigma has it for example on the 35mm 1.4 with a switch, also Sony has it on a buch of lenses (for example the 20-70 which I am using right now). Yongnuo has it on their new 11mm lens.

Also Zeiss has it on the Loxia series, although it has to be de-clicked with a small screw next to the lens mount. There might be others which I don't know (maybe Fuji?).

Granted, it is not super common, but also not unheard of.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sigma has it for example on the 35mm 1.4 with a switch, also Sony has it on a buch of lenses (for example the 20-70 which I am using right now). Yongnuo has it on their new 11mm lens.

Also Zeiss has it on the Loxia series, although it has to be de-clicked with a small screw next to the lens mount. There might be others which I don't know (maybe Fuji?).

Granted, it is not super common, but also not unheard of.

Thanks, it was unheard of by me (as someone who uses ILCs only for photos, not something I’d particularly be looking for). As I stated above, a really cool feature for a hybrid lens, and as you said something Canon could have implemented.

Edit: Earlier I noticed that the regarding the aperture adjustment the 35/1.4L tech specs simply state aperture in stills mode is set on the camera. Even though for the 24-105/2.8 Z Canon suggested the aperture ring would work in stills mode on 2024 cameras, that may not ever actually happen.

 

[scyrene]

omitting IS has not been a wise decision by Canon for this lens at least

How are you measuring wisdom? Presumably they considered including ILIS and chose not to. Why do you think that is?

What you mean is, you wish it had IS. What it sounds like you mean is, they made a mis-step by omitting it. Which can only be measured by sales down the line.

 

[SHAMwow]

Gordon has his review up already, apparently this lens outperformed the venerable EF 35 1.4L II in his tests, which is saying something.

Canon RF 35mm f1.4L: FIRST LOOKS vs EF 1.4L II vs RF 1.8 STM

My initial Canon RF 35mm f1.4L VCM review vs EF 35mm f1.4L II vs RF 35mm f1.8 STMOrder the RF 35mm f1.4L from B&H: TBC or WEX UK: TBCSell your used gear to M...

www.youtube.com

Gordon doesn't do reviews. There aren't any reviews yet. Joy is an ambassador so her video doesn't count either.

 

[SHAMwow]

How are you measuring wisdom? Presumably they considered including ILIS and chose not to. Why do you think that is?

What you mean is, you wish it had IS. What it sounds like you mean is, they made a mis-step by omitting it. Which can only be measured by sales down the line.

Agree here. If it reduced the size, and cost, then I'll live without it. I mean when have any of us ever taken a shot on a Canon mirrorless and determined that we needed IS in the lens in addition to the body alone? I'm good with this.

 

[6degrees]

pass

 

[SwissFrank]

Here's the money shot: the EF 1.4 MkII has horrible astigmatism while the RF 1.4 is absolutely fantastic.

He mentions the EF 1.4 MkII goes for USD1200 on eBay used... with the RF 1.4 coming in at USD1500, being a bit smaller, much lighter, much faster focus AND this improvement in corner image quality? I'd be uncomfortable keeping the EF in my roster...

Canon RF 35mm f1.4L: FIRST LOOKS vs EF 1.4L II vs RF 1.8 STM

My initial Canon RF 35mm f1.4L VCM review vs EF 35mm f1.4L II vs RF 35mm f1.8 STMOrder the RF 35mm f1.4L from B&H: https://bhpho.to/3KxCnf6 or WEX UK: https:...

youtu.be

 

[roby17269]

I'll 'fess up: I have preordered the 35 1.4
After seeing the image comparisons with the EF 35 1.4 II and the cost difference between it and the new RF, I've decided I need a 35 more than I need to maintain my righteous position of moral superiority over Canon's obviously wrong decisions and that my revenge plan (to buy a used EF 351.4 II from eBay) made no sense whatsoever

I'm still unhappy. If they will ever announce a 1.2 I will order it and sell the 1.4

Now, Canon: where's my new lens?!?!?

 

[BostonPaul]

On an R5, this lens has four different ways of changing the aperture, all of which are "clicky" (I think). I'll guess I'll have to live with not having a fifth way to do this.

 

[koenkooi]

On an R5, this lens has four different ways of changing the aperture, all of which are "clicky" (I think). I'll guess I'll have to live with not having a fifth way to do this.

Swiping the touchscreen is another, non-clicky way

 

[BBarn]

IS is rated according to the CIPA standard. Like the US EPA mileage estimates for cars, it's not necessarily reflective of real world use. That's perfectly logical, the EPA doesn't know how I personally step on the accelerator pedal, and CIPA doesn't know how much coffee I drink. It's still useful as a relative comparison.

Having said that, personally I get about 7 stops of real-world benefit with my typical shooting using the 28-70/2. That's pretty consistent with my testing of lens-based IS systems, which I did when writing reviews of the EF-M lenses for TDP and found that in my hands, they typically delivered 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop less than their Canon (CIPA) rating. Worth noting that with the R3 and 28-70/2, when I take a 30 fps burst I can reliably get at least a couple of crisp frames at 8-9 stops slower than without IS.

So, your own personal IBIS test results (with non-stabilized lenses) are very good. Can you cite any other testing source with similar results? As I said, I haven't read or heard of similar test results from published test sources.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Swiping the touchscreen is another, non-clicky way

So we’re up to 5 ways. Give us an aperture ring for stills or you’re DOOMED, Canon.

 

[Mountain Dave]

Tough crowd!!
1.2 vs 1.4: First, this is 1/3 stop, not 1/2. If you were shooting 1/30 at 1.4, you'd go to 1/40 at 1.2. At 35mm, the difference in depth of field would be veery difficult to notice.

Lack of IS: Somehow, we all got along without IS or IBIS forever and now both are necessary? Really? At this focal length? I shot the EF 135 2.0 on a 5D4 for years. Imagine that! I will concede IS is nice to have on the RF version but there is a considerable weight and price penalty. I never felt a need for IS on my EF 24-70 2.8L II. BTW, I shoot handheld 99% of the time.

Aperture ring: I shoot Av the majority of time and use the top wheel. It's easy, fast and I can count the clicks. I would not change to an aperture ring even if I could. I understand the use for video and Canon is wise to cater to those users.

All equipment has compromises. But geez, 19.6 ounces and 1499.?? I don't use 35mm very much, so I won't be buying it, at least not soon. I'd be all over a 50 or 85 with the same specs and price.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So, your own personal IBIS test results (with non-stabilized lenses) are very good. Can you cite any other testing source with similar results? As I said, I haven't read or heard of similar test results from published test sources.

Bryan (TDP) reports getting 4-5.5 stops of benefit with IBIS using non-IS on the R5. Not surprising that I get better results on the R3 with only about half the MP (and from past experience my hands are about half a stop more stable than his).

Other than that, I haven’t run across anyone doing such tests (nor have I looked, and FWIW I don’t watch YouTube ‘reviews’).

 

[YuengLinger]

Here's the money shot: the EF 1.4 MkII has horrible astigmatism while the RF 1.4 is absolutely fantastic.

He mentions the EF 1.4 MkII goes for USD1200 on eBay used... with the RF 1.4 coming in at USD1500, being a bit smaller, much lighter, much faster focus AND this improvement in corner image quality? I'd be uncomfortable keeping the EF in my roster...

Strange wording that, "uncomfortable keeping the EF..." It's still a lovely, snappy performer. Yes, the new lens looks to be better in the corners, and I'm happy and relieved Canon has finally announced an RF 35mm f/1.4L. I was tending to treat mine more carefully over time as I was concerned that it would be hard to replace with a brand new one.

Wow, great announced price for the RF! And Mr. Laing's video suggests excellent performance. But to switch for what I've seen? I've held on to my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS and don't feel a need to "upgrade."

In the past I have switched. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with the adapter just didn't have the ergonomics with the EOS R, so I switched to the RF version. Same with the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, plus I just didn't love the performance of the EF version. (The EF 35mm f/1.4L II, on the other hand, balances great for me.)

All-in-all, this is a great announcement for Canon RF shooters, even those of us clinging to a few of our older EF darlings.

 

[roby17269]

Bryan (TDP) reports getting 4-5.5 stops of benefit with IBIS using non-IS on the R5. Not surprising that I get better results on the R3 with only about half the MP (and from past experience my hands are about half a stop more stable than his).

Other than that, I haven’t run across anyone doing such tests (nor have I looked, and FWIW I don’t watch YouTube ‘reviews’).

Ken Rockwell (yes him ) has stabilization tests on most of his "reviews" (in quotes since half of the times he just copies and pastes specs)
He typically reports improvements that are fairly lower than CIPA numbers

 

[BBarn]

Bryan (TDP) reports getting 4-5.5 stops of benefit with IBIS using non-IS on the R5. Not surprising that I get better results on the R3 with only about half the MP (and from past experience my hands are about half a stop more stable than his).

Other than that, I haven’t run across anyone doing such tests (nor have I looked, and FWIW I don’t watch YouTube ‘reviews’).

Thanks. I missed that in his R5 review. Best results of IBIS (on non-stabilized Canon lenses) that I've heard/read. Most reviewers don't test or comment on IBIS performance with non-stabilized lenses, though they do sometimes cite the CIPA ratings.

 

[neuroanatomist]

1.2 vs 1.4: First, this is 1/3 stop, not 1/2. If you were shooting 1/30 at 1.4, you'd go to 1/40 at 1.2. At 35mm, the difference in depth of field would be veery difficult to notice.

Picking a nit here, but technically it’s closer to 1/2 a stop. Whether your camera is set to use 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments, there’s one ‘click’ between f/1.2 and f/1.4. But mathematically, the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is ~0.45 stops – closer to 1/2 than 1/3.

Agree that there’s little practical difference at 35mm.