Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM Confirmed for 2024 [CR3]

[clearwaterphotog]

> Back Focus: 0.29mm

It's technically possible, I suppose, but quite unlikely that it'd be that close to the sensor. That's less than 1/64 inch, for our addlebrained American brethren.

Could this be for a fixed lens camera? Fuji's X100V has half of the lens inside the body itself, to make it as compact as possible. Perhaps Canon has toyed with this approach as well. The short overall length at 2.44" doesn't seem possible, though, unless that's how far the lens protruded from the body, which wouldn't make sense to measure. I'd be pretty stoked to see a fixed lens R8+compact 35/1.2 though.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The short overall length at 2.44" doesn't seem possible, though, unless that's how far the lens protruded from the body, which wouldn't make sense to measure.

the lens total length in a patent is the optical formula length, from front surface (front element) to image plane (sensor). To approximate actual lens length, subtract the flange focal distance (20mm for RF), and add 1-2mm for filter threads, etc.

 

[alexvaltchev]

I hope the 24 and 28 mm are also 1.2 L : )

 

[MegaFlash]

Yay, another $2k+ lens.

As someone who is looking to move away from Fuji and really likes the colours that I get out of Canon raws the choice between cheap-ish plastic, non WR lenses and large and expensive as hell L lenses isn't making the system very attractive...

 

[alexvaltchev]

some ultra wide primes like 20mm or 15mm 11mm 1.4 or 1.2 will be nice

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Yay, another $2k lens.

As someone who is looking to move away from Fuji and really likes the colours that I get out of Canon raws the choice between cheap-ish plastic, non WR lenses and expensive as hell L lenses isn't making the system very attractive...

I hear ya. I moved from my X-T4 and red badge zooms/couple primes to an R5 and L zooms, chiefly for superior image quality (despite the Fuji system being fine). I can't help but appreciate sharpness and pixel peep, and so far, most of my photography is for me, so I might as well get what pleases me even if others find Fuji results satisfactory (which I did and still do for most use cases, other than once-in-a-lifetime landscape trips).

I too hate that it's either rice and beans, or A5 wagyu, when it comes to RF lenses, but that A5 is pretty special. If I wasn't planning on handing over my first born, I wouldn't have gone RF, as I think there are better options on the market if your budget is tighter - the low end RF lenses are pretty good by most accounts, but ultimately uninspiring (IMO).

Personally I won't be buying a 35/1.2 until I can get one for under $1500, so I'm sure I'll be waiting several years after this lens is released, to pick up what will probably be a used refurb. I would've preferred a ~$1000 35/1.4 instead. If I'm gonna spend more than that on a prime (which I enjoy using less than zooms due to versatility), it's gonna have to be a special prime, like a 14/1.2.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As someone who is looking to move away from Fuji and really likes the colours that I get out of Canon raws the choice between cheap-ish plastic, non WR lenses and large and expensive as hell L lenses isn't making the system very attractive...

Fuji targets two niche markets that Canon doesn't bother with – high-end APS-C and MF. High quality FF lenses aren't cheap, and smaller sensors make a bigger difference in lens cost at shorter focal lengths (longer telephoto lens designs aren't limited by the image circle, so there's no cost advantage for an APS-C design).

Canon does seem to be splitting the market into a dichotomy comprising a consumer segment and an affluent amateur/successful pro segment. IMO, they're doing great things for both, lenses like 15-30, 100-400 and 800/11 for consumers, lenses like the 28-70/2, 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8 for the high end.

Some people want the 'middle' but it seems Canon has a different idea of the overall market. I'm sure Canon understands the market well.

 

[EricN]

I fear that my spending with Canon hasn't ended. The RF 24-105 f/2.8 and 200-800 back-to-back with an R1 and possible R5II hot on its heels? Now this? In theory, I reality, I really don't use 35mm much for professional work. I used it a lot when I shot weddings, but I don't shoot them anymore. It will have to be what I tell myself when they launch this lens - I really DON'T need it and my Sigma Art 24mm and 35mm lenses that I picked up for well under $800 for the pair serve me well...that's what I have to keep telling myself! haha

I'm afraid I'll have to sell me house

 

[EricN]

Yeah, I own the EF Sigma 35/1.4 Art and find that I don't love using it anymore, even for weddings. The honeymoon is over, so to speak.

Next year, I want to upgrade to the RF 15-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, then throw one of those on each body (R6) and be good to go for the whole wedding day.

What is wrong with the sigma?

 

[danfaz]

when it comes to RF lenses that A5 is pretty special.

Indeed it is!

 

[navastronia]

What is wrong with the sigma?

Objectively, not much - it's fast, it's not expensive, it's sharp. But I'm not feeling inspired by primes of late, and moving up on L zooms is probably the move for flexibility, reliability, and weather sealing.

 

[EricN]

Objectively, not much - it's fast, it's not expensive, it's sharp. But I'm not feeling inspired by primes of late, and moving up on L zooms is probably the move for flexibility, reliability, and weather sealing.

I know some people go the other way wanting older lenses because they have more character, but their losing reliability at minimum.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I know some people go the other way wanting older lenses because they have more character

Whenever I read that people prefer an old lens for the ‘character’, I’m reminded of a line from an episode of the sitcom, News Radio. The episode Sinking Ship was a spoof of James Cameron’s Titanic (I saw the sitcom version before the actual movie, it was a pretty good summary).

The line is, “Artistic-- That's poor for ‘naked’.”

Having said that, some older lenses have interesting rendering. Sort of like film. Personally, I feel that most of that ‘character’ and ‘rendering’ is accompanied by a loss of IQ. I can add blur, vignetting, and color rendering in post. But I can’t add detail to what wasn’t captured.

 

[ugameus]

The line is, “Artistic-- That's poor for ‘naked’.”

Bonus points for the News Radio reference. Such a great show.

 

[Richard CR]

The patent application with the 0,29 mm BF is for a 35mm f1.3 lens: Canon patent application 2023077336 (Japan, published 6/5/23).

Thanks. I'll take a look ..

it's impossible on a camera to do that. shutter and IBIS and even tolerances would get totally in the way of that.

 

[Richard CR]

Could this be for a fixed lens camera? Fuji's X100V has half of the lens inside the body itself, to make it as compact as possible. Perhaps Canon has toyed with this approach as well. The short overall length at 2.44" doesn't seem possible, though, unless that's how far the lens protruded from the body, which wouldn't make sense to measure. I'd be pretty stoked to see a fixed lens R8+compact 35/1.2 though.

possibly.

but between IBIS and the fact that they still have to support legacy RF cameras with shutters, it's simply not happening with the RF mount.

 

[EricN]

Whenever I read that people prefer an old lens for the ‘character’, I’m reminded of a line from an episode of the sitcom, News Radio. The episode Sinking Ship was a spoof of James Cameron’s Titanic (I saw the sitcom version before the actual movie, it was a pretty good summary).

The line is, “Artistic-- That's poor for ‘naked’.”

Having said that, some older lenses have interesting rendering. Sort of like film. Personally, I feel that most of that ‘character’ and ‘rendering’ is accompanied by a loss of IQ. I can add blur, vignetting, and color rendering in post. But I can’t add detail to what wasn’t captured.

It's often true. On social media I see people posting "look at this great lens I found at the flea market" and you look at their photos and it's too soft even on a phone.

 

[sanj]

I am delighted that it is f1.2

 

[sanj]

Agreed. When i was younger i was more focused on specs/prestige. Older me: more practical

There already is a 35mm light and practical lens available.

 

[Botts]

And that patent example is of a lens that's ~40mm (1.5") long, i.e. much smaller than the RF 35/1.8. That's not the sort of design that becomes a production lens. OTOH, the first design example listed (34mm, f/1.24) is ~135mm (5.3") long, which is longer than the RF 24-70/2.8 so I'm not sure that's representative of the production lens, either.

A 40mm long 35mm f/1.3? That on an R8 would freaking ROCK. It'd be a (marginally larger) modern RX1R II.