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

neuroanatomist said:

Usually isn’t always. Given the RF 35/1.4, a 35/1.2 in the near future seems very unlikely.

Click to expand...

100% agree, hence why it shouldn’t have been labeled CR3 imo.

SwissFrank said:

Totally agreed on all points. Still, it's probably good for astro. Even shooting the moon with my 600/4ISMkI and a doubler, I had to shoot uncomfortably high ISO on my 1DsMkIII just due to the moon rising speed. (I think I shot 1/180th and even then the moon was moving at least two pixels up.)

And, make fun of collectors and fashionistas if you want but their money's as good as our money. There are dozens of car brands whose entire mission statement is to sell cars their customers don't "need." If you make a lens that sells to 100s of collectors at $10k gross profit, you're making millions there, but the halo effect is probably worth more than whether a specific lens is profitable or not. It's quite common in the auto world for top models to cost far more to make than they sell for, but they make the brand a star in buyer's eyes.

Click to expand...

I suspect there are not that many folks who would buy a giant lens as a fashion statement just because it is expensive. Leica is a different story in that it is a portable device that can be shown off on the go. The collector market for rare obsolete items is somewhat different from the fashion market. In the end, the best halo products are ones that will be used extensively by the rich and the rude so that they have high visibility. Shoes that Michael Jordan does not wear are not as cool as ones that he actually does wear. The EF 1200 was more like a one off car built for an auto show - something that shows off the capability of the company more than an actual product. The 2000mm Nikon mirror lens kind of falls in the same category. Copies of that only pull in about a third of what an EF 1200 does, but still crazy for what it is.

BTW, an equatorial mount is a LOT cheaper than a faster lens for shooting the moon and that provides a 28x improvement (i.e. about 5 stops) without even adding lunar motion correction.

Dragon said:

BTW, an equatorial mount is a LOT cheaper than a faster lens for shooting the moon

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I never even considered getting a special mount. I only shot the moon because my 31st floor apartment had a great view of all the evening departures taking off from Haneda, about one a minute for hours, and pretty much guaranteeing 3-4 transits like this a night around full moon (actually earlier moonrises would have also worked but never thought of it). Of course a special mount would have helped a huge amount for the moon, but I also wanted to freeze the aircraft. This was 600/4 and 2x and 1DsMkIII I think, and still cropped maybe to 2400mm FOV or so. 1/80, ISO800

SwissFrank said:

Fair enough. I never even considered getting a special mount. I only shot the moon because my 31st floor apartment had a great view of all the evening departures taking off from Haneda, about one a minute for hours, and pretty much guaranteeing 3-4 transits like this a night around full moon (actually earlier moonrises would have also worked but never thought of it). Of course a special mount would have helped a huge amount for the moon, but I also wanted to freeze the aircraft. This was 600/4 and 2x and 1DsMkIII I think, and still cropped maybe to 2400mm FOV or so. 1/80, ISO800

View attachment 217949

Click to expand...

Nice shot. Fwiw I wouldn't worry about pushing the ISO on moon shots because imo you can apply much more aggressive noise reduction and sharpening than on other subjects. I've photographed it up to 5600mm without a tracking mount (in that instance, the exposures were 1/200). Going as high as ISO 3200 should be fine for this sort of thing.