Is There a Pair of New f/1.2L Lenses on the Horizon?

[trexphotos]

Cmon, be realistic. A 500 f/1.2 is far more likely!

I wish they'd make something like that to show-off at trade shows for the fun of it.

If they could also keep the weight under a metric ton, it would be ideal.

 

[john1970]

Maybe Canon is thinking a 35 mm f1.2 and a UWA f1.2 lenses? Frankly, I have no idea. I once owned the 50 mm f1.2, but decided to return it and wait for something lighter (e.g. 50 mm f1.4 L). For travel and general use I do find carrying and using the VCM 1.4 lenses easier than the 1.2 giants.

 

[Del Paso]

Where is my RF TS 14mm?

 

[Walrus]

When shooting close up, on focusing distances of around 4' the spherical aberration of the EF 1.4 is more apparent, but then who wants to shoot at f/1.4 at that distance ?

I'm biased by the kind of pictures I take, and my style preferences; I shoot mostly portraits and weddings, and I like to close on the subject, so 4 feet (if 4' is indeed 4 feet...I'm not super practical with the obscurity of feet and inches), between 1m and 1,5m is actually my distance of choice for 90% of things I do with a 50mm (and now a 40mm, as I opted out of 35mm and 50mm to have just one lens that covers both focals).
I shoot wide open either for the lack of natural light (and/or to preserve atmosphere) at weddings, or to obliterate the background during on location portraits, so that spherical aberration for me is not going well with the things I like to do, hence my profound hate for the EF 50 1.4
Stuff below is all recently shot with the Sigma 40 Art on R6 @f1.4 if I shot them with the EF we would see just fog...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I read @Walrus post just before heading off to my grandson's ninth birthday, so dug out the old EF 50 1.4 and gave it a spin. View attachment 223311

That's a really nice shot. However, i don't see the point of shooting a fast prime at f4. if i was going to use f4, i would opt for a more versatile zoom.
I shadows a rather famous wedding photographer (who will remain nameless) when I was a 2nd shooter / learning my craft and i noticed he did the same...choosing from his vast array of Canon fast primes and then shooting them all at f4....quite baffling. I figured he wanted to be seen to be using primes but liked the DOF and sharpness of F4.

 

[Sporgon]

hence my profound hate for the EF 50 1.4
Stuff below is all recently shot with the Sigma 40 Art on R6 @f1.4 if I shot them with the EF we would see just fog...

View attachment 223343

Nice pictures, capturing the spirit of the wedding, which is what it's all about. But.....I think you are being rather disingenuous to the Ef 50/1.4 by saying it would all be fog...
I shot this this morning to test the EF 50/1.4 @ 1.4 because I very rarely shoot like that. I apologise for the model but my wife point blank refused to sit for me, then relented and said she's have to get ready, which would mean delaying the pictures until dusk which was no good.
Fur is notoriously difficult to resolve, even artificial fur ! I've added a 100% crop of the bear and the grass - no fog there.
Also, do we always want razor sharp ? I'm not sure we do for portraits, and further away when combined with an ultra shallow dof it can give the " sticker" effect where the image looks like a montage of two different points of focus. Also, again this is just personal, but I think that the more simple, traditional lens designs give a more pleasing bokeh, though no doubt the lack of resolution in the periphery of the frames helps with this.
Incidentally given your 40mm focal length I think our first picture was shot at more like 10 foot away.
The below image was shot at 12' at f/1.4

 

[Sporgon]

That's a really nice shot. However, i don't see the point of shooting a fast prime at f4. if i was going to use f4, i would opt for a more versatile zoom.
I shadows a rather famous wedding photographer (who will remain nameless) when I was a 2nd shooter / learning my craft and i noticed he did the same...choosing from his vast array of Canon fast primes and then shooting them all at f4....quite baffling. I figured he wanted to be seen to be using primes but liked the DOF and sharpness of F4.

Many thanks GMC ! You can't go wrong with two pretty models ! I had a think about what you wrote, and of course it is personal choice, but I think in my case there are two main reasons; one is the handiness of the camera due to the smaller, lighter lenses whilst still being able to achieve the micro contrast / pop / brio / openness of data - call it what you will -for which I would need a top end zoom - like the EF 24-70 L II for instance, which is large and heavy. Secondly, same with the bokeh; when shooting close, even at say f/5.6 or 8, then the background blur is generally much more soft and gentle, unless again, you are using a top end zoom. I once shot a wedding with the old EF 24-105 L and the bokeh under certain conditions could be very nervous and distracting.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Many thanks GMC ! You can't go wrong with two pretty models ! I had a think about what you wrote, and of course it is personal choice, but I think in my case there are two main reasons; one is the handiness of the camera due to the smaller, lighter lenses whilst still being able to achieve the micro contrast / pop / brio / openness of data - call it what you will -for which I would need a top end zoom - like the EF 24-70 L II for instance, which is large and heavy. Secondly, same with the bokeh; when shooting close, even at say f/5.6 or 8, then the background blur is generally much more soft and gentle, unless again, you are using a top end zoom. I once shot a wedding with the old EF 24-105 L and the bokeh under certain conditions could be very nervous and distracting.

I hear you. I recently swapped my long term and trusty EF 24-70mm f2.8 L (mkI) for a EF mkII. When i migrated to a R8 and R6ii, I was finding my mk1 wasn't sharp enough for me any more at f2.8. The new mkII is REALLY sharp...no argument. However the out of focus rendering is a lot more agitated and I've noticed that I'm loosing a lot of the reproduction ratio at close focus distances that the mk I had.
I've found my EF 70-200.2.8 LIS II's out of focus rendering to be similar. The lens is VERY sharp but the out of focus areas are more agitated for sure. My trusty old EF 135mm f2.0 is noticably smoother (@f2) and the same with my EF 85mm f1.2.
I've also noticed that my previous massively heavy EF 400mm f2.8 LIS was able to melt backgrounds easier and more dreamily than my recent mkII purchase. Same focal length, same aperture....similar working distance. The mkII is noticably sharper, but the backgrounds are less dreamy. However, the mkII takes teleconverters better and the mkI and it's a lot easier to handle in a muddy field on a remote island shooting early morning birds.

 

[mxwphoto]

Come on Canon, beat Sigma and come out with a 12mm 1.2!

 

[trexphotos]

Come on Canon, beat Sigma and come out with a 12mm 1.2!

Yes. That's right. How hard can it be? Canon should step it up and make it a f0.75. How difficult can it be to put a 16mm hole in a 12mm long lens?

 

[MartynV]

IF the 35mm F1.2 comes out, I'll rent just because of you! Your longing for this lens has made me incredibly curious

I'd rather have a 35mm f/1.2 than Canon's current rainbow rattler offering. The older EF 35mm f/1.4L II has much better control of longitudinal CA than the new f/1.4 VCM lens.

 

[EvilTed]

28mm is a "non-standard" and would fight a lot more against 35mm. 35mm is the standard and is believed to be a more real representation of human eye. To me, anything else than 35mm is a mistake. If you want to be a part of any "human" event, you would have a 35mm lens with you, and you would want the best you can afford.
As for the second, it is most likely a 24mm. However, If I was Canon, I would go bold and reach for a 20mm. They already struggled to keep the price down on the VCM, they won't try it for 1.2. Personally, that is the magical focal length for environmental portrait and lifestyle storytelling for me, but it looks like everybody struggles to deliver a good one. If Canon is that good, I would challenge it and show the world.

28mm is the focal length used by smart phones, so one could argue that it IS standard, given that more photos are taken at this focal length than any other.

50mm used to be referred to the closest to the human eye and more recently, Leica has come out with a 43mm Q3, which is arguably closer.

The natural eye | Leica Q3 43 - Peter Poete Photography

Initial review and thoughts about the Leica Q3 43 in comparison to the normal Leica Q3 - 43mm focal length - normal lens and perspective.

peterpoete.de

 

[neuroanatomist]

28mm is the focal length used by smart phones, so one could argue that it IS standard, given that more photos are taken at this focal length than any other.

Is it? Maybe your phone has a 28mm lens. My iPhone (14 Pro) has a 24mm main camera lens (equivalent FoV, of course), as do the models over the past several years. Recent Samsung Galaxy models seem to use 24mm or 23mm.

So one could argue that 28mm is the most common photo focal length, but one doing so would probably be wrong.

 

[koenkooi]

Is it? Maybe your phone has a 28mm lens. My iPhone (14 Pro) has a 24mm main camera lens (equivalent FoV, of course), as do the models over the past several years. Recent Samsung Galaxy models seem to use 24mm or 23mm.[...]

The FoV on my iPhone is pretty much the same as the FoV of the RF16mm mounted on an R50V, just slightly wider. So the advertised "24mm" seems to be correct.

Having said that, I find 24mm equivalent slightly too wide, so I'd prefer a 28-ish lens. I'd trade in the R50V the moment the R8V becomes available