Patent: Canon RF 28mm f/1.4L USM and Canon RF 35 f/1.4L USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I totally agree. If I was in the market for a fast 35mm prime then 9mm wouldn't make any difference to me at all. However, I've been a long term user of a ef 35mm f1.4L mk1. Sure the newer mk2 is superior in every regard (including price). However, all that extra sharpness and faster AF and built quality caused the lens to be a lot heavier and physically larger. Comparing a rf 35mm f1.4L to a ef 35mm f1.4L mk1 is like a night and day handling experience.
On a different note, the new rf 100mm IS L Macro...geeze..sure it's got a few interesting new features...but the size of that thing compared to the EF version!
Upvote
0
It's slightly wider, but seems to be the same length as the EF100L + RF adapter.
Upvote
0
I'd rather have larger EOS R bodies with smaller, lighter lenses.
Nevertheless, I believe the current lens philosophy is a better choice for Canon, to get ahead of competition, appealing to pro users demanding f 1,2 and more.
And smaller Canon lenses are doubtlessly under development.
Nevertheless, I believe the current lens philosophy is a better choice for Canon, to get ahead of competition, appealing to pro users demanding f 1,2 and more.
And smaller Canon lenses are doubtlessly under development.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
OK, I'm just this week thinking of adding 'people' to my assignment photography offerings. I'm looking for a 35mm and an 85.
For an 85, there is the phenominal pair of f/1.2 choices, neither of which I can afford--or necessarily want--to buy. Such extremes for that last 1/3 of a stop! A 1.4 L with IS, smaller, and priced at like $1200-1800 would have been way more tempting. So I get the f/2. That's certainly fine, but underwhelming. I'd like an L because it'll be used A LOT with any luck.
This rumored fast 35 will likely be another $2800 f/1.2 despite this 1.4 patent. So I'll have the f/1.8 as an only option. Meh. Sure it's OK, but look how much sharper the butt-ugly Nikon 1.8 is in comparisons. I'm not going to dump all my stuff to go Nikon, but I'll likely wait another 3 years for a trio of 1.4 lenses.....
<rant/>
For an 85, there is the phenominal pair of f/1.2 choices, neither of which I can afford--or necessarily want--to buy. Such extremes for that last 1/3 of a stop! A 1.4 L with IS, smaller, and priced at like $1200-1800 would have been way more tempting. So I get the f/2. That's certainly fine, but underwhelming. I'd like an L because it'll be used A LOT with any luck.
This rumored fast 35 will likely be another $2800 f/1.2 despite this 1.4 patent. So I'll have the f/1.8 as an only option. Meh. Sure it's OK, but look how much sharper the butt-ugly Nikon 1.8 is in comparisons. I'm not going to dump all my stuff to go Nikon, but I'll likely wait another 3 years for a trio of 1.4 lenses.....
<rant/>
Upvote
0
Similar threads
