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

#181
john1970 said:
I think you will find that most high quality (Sony GM , Canon L, Nikon S lens) with a similar apertures tend to be similarly price.

For example, let's look at the 135 mm f1.8 lenses:

Nikon Nikkor Z 135 mm f1.8 S Plena $2496.95 (B&H)​

Sony FE 135 mm f1.8 GM Lens $2098 (B&H)​

Canon RF 135 mm f1.8 L IS USM Lens $2099 (B&H)​

Yes there are exceptions. For example, the recently announced Nikon 400 mm f4.5 VR S lens for <$3K is an exceptional value.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you missed my point.

I was not so subtly complaining about the lack of "in-between" lenses.

With RF mount you either get OKish entry-level lenses or very expensive, large and excellent ones.

My Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 LM WR smokes the RF 35mm F1.8 in regards to optics and build quality for example (for the same price pretty much).

I've been looking at Z mount too, their F1.8 primes are large and kinda ugly but at least they're WR. If Nikon released primes that matched the Zf in style and build quality my path forward would be set, but there are no such lenses on the horizon afaik...

Sony has many nice lenses of all sizes but isn't an option currently because they have no bodies in the R6ii/Zf/S5ii price range I find very interesting. The only thing that the A7IV has going for it is AF, everything else in regards to usability is subpar.

Sticking with Fuji isn't an option either because I'm tired of how the smaller sensor(s) handle highlights and low light.

I think that the s5ii with the Sigma i Series primes are the closest to what I want out of a FF system currently in my price range.
 
Upvote 0
#182
MegaFlash said:
With RF mount you either get OKish entry-level lenses or very expensive, large and excellent ones.
Click to expand...
Mostly true. There are some non-L lenses that punch well above their price level, e.g., the 28/2.8 and 100-400. Also, lenses like the 15-30, 100-400 and 800/11 offer FF focal lengths at lower costs than anyone else.

MegaFlash said:
My Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 LM WR smokes the RF 35mm F1.8 in regards to optics and build quality for example (for the same price pretty much).
Click to expand...
Of course, those focal lengths do benefit from the smaller image circle. A FF 35/1.4 with similar optical quality as the Fuji would be much more expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#183
MegaFlash said:
Yeah, I think you missed my point.

I was not so subtly complaining about the lack of "in-between" lenses.

With RF mount you either get OKish entry-level lenses or very expensive, large and excellent ones.

My Fuji XF 23mm F1.4 LM WR smokes the RF 35mm F1.8 in regards to optics and build quality for example (for the same price pretty much).

I've been looking at Z mount too, their F1.8 primes are large and kinda ugly but at least they're WR. If Nikon released primes that matched the Zf in style and build quality my path forward would be set, but there are no such lenses on the horizon afaik...

Sony has many nice lenses of all sizes but isn't an option currently because they have no bodies in the R6ii/Zf/S5ii price range I find very interesting. The only thing that the A7IV has going for it is AF, everything else in regards to usability is subpar.

Sticking with Fuji isn't an option either because I'm tired of how the smaller sensor(s) handle highlights and low light.

I think that the s5ii with the Sigma i Series primes are the closest to what I want out of a FF system currently in my price range.
Click to expand...
Used EF L lenses are pretty much what you and many others are ignoring when it comes to high quality, mid price lenses for the R system cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#185
The length of this thing is surprising (longer than the EF L w/ adapter?!) but looks like it still fits vertically in the standard Pelican 1510 case and Domke bags. Until these lenses start taking extra slots in bags, I can’t complain too much even if the weight is a bit irritating.
 
Upvote 0
#188
neuroanatomist said:
Mostly true. There are some non-L lenses that punch well above their price level, e.g., the 28/2.8 and 100-400. Also, lenses like the 15-30, 100-400 and 800/11 offer FF focal lengths at lower costs than anyone else.


Of course, those focal lengths do benefit from the smaller image circle. A FF 35/1.4 with similar optical quality as the Fuji would be much more expensive.
Click to expand...
+1 on the RF 28 mm f2.8 pancake lens. I keep that lens on the R8 for a compact and light combo for everyday photography. Total combo weighs less than 1.4 lbs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#193
Exploreshootshare said:
Reading your post, I'm actually glad your not in charge because I'd guess Canon might be bankrupt by now...
how do "by-invitation-only..." or rental only create enough revenue in a struggling market?
Click to expand...
They're "halo" products, meant to increase the attraction of the product line as a whole. Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it. Ditto, Nikon's ultra-huge fisheye that could see wider than 180 degrees. Ditto the Zeiss (or was it Schneider) 50/0.7 lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#194
SwissFrank said:
They're "halo" products, meant to increase the attraction of the product line as a whole. Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it. Ditto, Nikon's ultra-huge fisheye that could see wider than 180 degrees. Ditto the Zeiss (or was it Schneider) 50/0.7 lenses.
Click to expand...
Hard to know for sure, but with the amount of military activity going on around the world, I suspect the the RF 1200mm L was far more profitable than you might think. Spooks want all the reach they can get and are willing to pay dearly to get it. The EF 1200mm f/5.6 was made in a different era that bore little resemblance to today's market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#195
Dragon said:
Hard to know for sure, but with the amount of military activity going on around the world, I suspect the the RF 1200mm L was far more profitable than you might think. Spooks want all the reach they can get and are willing to pay dearly to get it. The EF 1200mm f/5.6 was made in a different era that bore little resemblance to today's market.
Click to expand...
And I guess the same can be said of the Zeiss F0,7 and Nikkor 220 degree fisheye. The were used for instance by the NASA and some other well paying military and scientific organisations. The 1600mm Leica R supertele was built on order for a sheikh who agreed to pay what it cost. Leica made 3 of them.
If I'm not mistaken, the NASA once paid about $10000 for a plasticky toilet seat, guess how much the were charged for the Zeiss F 0,7 . Peanuts for them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#200
SwissFrank said:
They're "halo" products, meant to increase the attraction of the product line as a whole. Canon likely lost money on the 1200mm f/5.6 but people still talk about it. Ditto, Nikon's ultra-huge fisheye that could see wider than 180 degrees. Ditto the Zeiss (or was it Schneider) 50/0.7 lenses.
Click to expand...
Canon has always made the 1200mm to order, so they do not have any unsold ones.
I do not think they have lost money on the 1200mm, but, since they made very few of those (I think I have read 20 somewhere) and since they do not make money on someone reselling them (and those have been resold), I think they've made relatively little money on it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
RF 28mm f/1.4L VCM and RF 35mm f/1.2L USM
Replies
26
Views
2K
koenkooi
koenkooi
Canon Rumors
Report: The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is delayed until 2025
Replies
46
Views
4K
upallnight
U
Canon Rumors
Is a Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM a possibility?
Replies
113
Views
10K
Dragon
Dragon
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM to get that desired 1.4x built-in teleconverter?
Replies
51
Views
6K
GMCPhotographics
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L USM video features
Replies
94
Views
11K
SNJ Ops
S
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu