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

[AJ]

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.

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

Why didn't they just make the control ring clickless?
I have lenses with rings where there is a switch for MF or control. When set to control it is clickless, and I can program my camera so that the ring controls fstop.

 

[esglord]

Even with my shaky hands, I won’t miss IS at 35mm, or paying extra for it.

 

[David - Sydney]

Is the 35/1.4 actually a mid range/price lens that punters have been saying Canon is missing in the RF lineup... or will it just be another great low cost lens?
Another example of the RF version being better/cheaper than the EF version (eg RF10-20 vs EF11-24)?

 

[RayValdez360]

Aparently, it is firmware issue and only applies to cameras released "before may 2024".

whats the point of it with photo? you have like 10 ways to change aperture on the camera body?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why didn't they just make the control ring clickless?

It’s offered as a service conversion ($100 in US, IIRC). I suspect the control ring has clicks for the same reason the dials on the cameras have clicks – tactile feedback when changing settings.

But for video (as I understand it), silent and smooth aperture changes are preferable.

I have lenses with rings where there is a switch for MF or control. When set to control it is clickless, and I can program my camera so that the ring controls fstop.

Unlike changing a setting that (for photos, at least) moves incrementally, focus should change continuously. So Canon apparently made a choice to prioritize MF over control ring from a clicking standpoint (at least, as I see it from a user perspective) with clickless rings on consumer lenses lacking separate control and MF rings (like my RF 28/2.8).

As discussed previously (and something I learned today), several other manufacturers have a switch on the barrel that changes a ring from clicked to clickless. Would be great if Canon implemented that solution.

 

[AJ]

So we have some properties that are smoothly changing and never in discrete steps (e.g. focusing distance)
Other properties that change smoothly for videographers but not for still shooters (e.g. f-stop)
And then we have properties that are stepped even though in theory they could change smoothly (e.g. shutterspeed, iso, exposure compensation, fec)
We have both clicky and clickless control rings changing both smooth and stepped properties.
Right. I think I'm starting to grasp this. Seems overly complicated though.

 

[EricN]

Because it is not a 1.2

I'm still hopeful because this 1.4 is much cheaper than the 50 and 80!
Edit: 85

 

[vjlex]

Is the new 35/1.4 weirdly cheap, or are we just accustomed to lenses that are too expensive?

Weirdly cheap because the yen is so historically and ridiculously weak right now. They finally released the price here in Japan- ¥253,000. That was roughly $2300 a couple years ago. Now it's closer to $1600.

 

[EricN]

I thought the 1.4 was poor wide open

On the R5, the ef 35mm 1.4 looks perfect close and about the same as the 28-70 f/2 further away

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I tried out the new Canon RF 35mm F1.4 – and it's the multi-purpose prime pros have been waiting for

Canon fills a key gap in its RF lenses lineup

www.techradar.com

Surprising amount of distortion here.

A common RF mount lens design feature. Dialling out barrel distortion and vignette control of the optical lens formula and passing it over to a camera digital lens profile.

 

[Viggo]

Wouldn’t it be cool if we could use the control-ring for different things based on an additional button push? Mine is used for EC and I need to half press shutter to avoid accidentally turning it while walking for example. If I could push the button on the front, for example, while turning the control-ring it changed aperture and focusing mode it would change that. Could be useful.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Sure, there is copy variations but I rather trust real life images than theoretical MTF charts.

I can understand if the reviewer was comparing the EF mk1 version. The EF mk2 is an astounding sharp optic. It’s a bit like comparing the EF 24-70 mk2 with the RF 24-70, optically they are pretty much the same. However the RF is a slightly superior lens in all other regards.
It looks like the same situation with the EF 35mm f1.4 Lmk2 and this new RF version

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It’s a seriously tempting lens. I hear that IBIS can give upto 7 stops for this lens. There’s enough features to warrant a side grade from my EF 35mm f1.4 II L.

 

[SwissFrank]

Strange wording that, "uncomfortable keeping the EF..."

It was 3AM and I was trying to think of a way to put it that wouldn't be rude or depressing to people who currently own that lens. Also haven't spoken English that much in the last 30 years.

 

[SwissFrank]

> it's amazing to me that we have a far more featured hybrid lens for video and stills and it is cheaper than the EF 35mm F1.4L II USM when it was released ($1799 – or $2379.88 in today's dollars)

Well, 20-50mm is the range where rangefinders (and now mirrorless) have a massive lens design advantage over SLR's, so maybe it shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Basically if you just design a lens for a given focal length and maximum aperture and mix of aberration constraints, 50mm+ lenses probably will have room for the SLR's mirror box, and that straightforward lens design can be used as is.

Wider than 50mm, the rear elements of this naive lens design would probably be too close to the lens to allow the mirror, so you'll have to modify the lens design and make it more complex in order to allow it to be farther from the sensor, and while you're doing so, it will be bigger, heavier, more complicated, more costly, more fragile, and probably have more aberrations and other negative features.

Wider than 20mm you get into a different set of issues so there's again no simple solution in the general case, though even then we see lenses like the Contax G outit's 16mm Hologon 16mm f/8 fixed aperture lens which was entirely within the camera body if I recall correctly. Very small, simple, light-weight, and just a few mm from the rear sensor. On the other hand this design can't be widened past f/8, and has no room for an aperture to stop it down either. Vignetting is also extreme. But almost by definition no SLR lens could be as compact.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

$2300 here…

I would find ever changing dof equally disturbing to exposure changes I think..

That would happen if you did not adjust the aperture for the changing light.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Professionals use a gimbal.

Not always but that is what these lenses are meant for.
The RF 24-105 f/2.8 Z is more intended for handheld use.
The RF 35 f/1.8 IS works fine on a gimbal and handheld so that was what I was hoping for.
I understand why Canon chose to favor the gimbal and I will stick with my 35 f/1.8.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

why is this even an issue, canon has more than enough still camera bodies to suit any purpose that have IBIS.

The cinema bodies don't.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Cinema line is 2x to 3x $$ for the gear,

The R5 C costs a few hundred dollars more than the R5.
Sure, the cheapest cinema camera is 6 x the R100 but it is less than the R3.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

Everyone will get different results.
CIPA test results may not be typical but they are standard.
If you want both standard and typical then that is never going to happen.
A truly scientific way would be to measure a sample of test subjects and average out the results.
It is simply not important enough for that time and effort.