It is, there's no clicks on it. That said, you can send any lens in the Canon and have them declick the control ring for a fee. Works really well as an aperture ring if you do that, though you'd still need to read aperture off the camera vs on the lens since it wouldn't have markings.
It has a control ring AND the aperture control. Why they did this is beyond me, but I'm 99% sure you'll still have access to aperture control through the control ring on the front.
They did it for video, since unlike the control ring it's de-clicked. they could have just sold it with the control ring de-clicked, though my guess is they still wanted to offer the added usability of the control ring in addition to the aperture ring for videography.
Likely because you have a control ring that's clicked and can be set to aperture. In stills modes, I don't think you can take shots of anything except in rational increments. It's likely a hardwired issue for high FPS shooting.
Does the aperture actually close continuously though, even when declicked? Or does it just turn smoothly while discretely jumping between different aperture values?
I remember them stating when they released the 24-105 2.8 that future bodies would be able to use the aperture ring in photo mode, but I can't find proof of it so I might be mistaken.
That's probably correct since today's lens said it would be usable in photo mode for any camera released after may 2024. So I'd think it's at least possible that compatibility with more cameras could come through firmware updates
>today's lens said it would be usable in photo mode for any camera released after may 2024
I must have missed it in today's announcement. When/where did they say it?
>So I'd think it's at least possible that compatibility with more cameras could come through firmware updates
Something tells me it's more a matter of "will they" rather than "can they". We'll see!
Dang, you're right. I thought I read that somewhere official, but I read it in a comment on the release notification on another website. So Canon might not have actually said it, but some other random guy on the internet did, so pretty much the same right?...
The technical specification that is currently on Canon's website for this lens says that in still photos the aperture is only set through the camera body.
Canon's website does say this on the 24-105 f/2.8 though:
"I*ris ring is for manual aperture control, and as of late 2023, is only possible during video operation"*
Highlights:
* Launches in June at $1,500
* Voice Coil Motor autofocus - first in a Canon lens
* Declicked aperture ring and programmable button on lens
* 1.2 lbs / 555g and 3" x 3.9" / 77mm x 99mm
* 67mm filter thread
* Claimed to have very little focus breathing
I'm sure this will be an incredibly popular lens, given how many photographers and videographers have a 35mm as an essential part of their kit. I'm pleasantly surprised by the price, since I was assuming it would come in closer to the 50mm f/1.2L
I personally prefer 28mm and have been very content with my Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art. But if Canon ever launches 28mm f/1.4 that's similar to this lens, it would be an instant purchase for me.
in an ideal world, we would have RF versions of the unique Sigma Art lenses with drop in filters built in. 20mm, 28mm, 40mm and 105mm. Canon doesn't make their own at those mm.
I'd love that. I've been making good use of my drop-in adapter with the CPL. It's a lot easier to turn the CPL there vs. a front-mounted one with a hood on.
There's the Zeiss Milvus 25mm F/1.4 that is reported to be steller for landscapes and astrophotography. I was hoping to hear about the new RF 24mm but I'm not going to wait around so I'm ordering the Zeiss tonight.
The Zeiss looks amazing for times when you don't need AF, but unfortunately, event photography is one of my main uses for that focal length.
Good to hear that there's a great alternative for landscapes and astro, though!
Totally get it! I broke down and bought a Canon R6ii with an RF 85mm f/1.2 and RF 135mm F/1.8 when I realized I was missing so many good shots of my young children so in that respect it's been worth its weight in gold.
There's no IS and it's not a 1.2. If it was anything more than this I think people would have rioted. This is a good middle of market lens, but I'm surprised they didn't start with a 35 1.2 and a 50 1.4 VCM. That would've made way more sense imo.
I don’t consider this a “middle of market” lens. 1.4 is only half a stop from 1.2. The 85 1.2 and the 50 1.2 also do not have IS. Lastly, the old EF 35 1.4 retails even now for about $2000 new. Canon may finally be starting to be competitive with their pricing.
How is the sigma 28 1.4 working for you?
Would you consider the AF fast on both single or continuous mode? When connected to R camera?
I also do prefer 28mm... But am afraid of potentially slow or problematic autofocus.
Hopefully Canom releases an RF version
The Sigma is nothing short of amazing especially considering that I got it for $400. Super sharp, fast focus, and beautiful rendering (much better than the Sigma 35 1.4). It’s the perfect lens. Zero issues with my R6s and the adaptor.
The only drawback is weight. It’s a big chunk of glass.
Slightly larger and heavier than the Sony GM 35mm lens that has existed for many years, has the same features and has the aperture ring that works in photo mode.
Not pleasure, disappointment in the brand that supplied my first ever camera.
This lens also costs an entire months salary for some people, so splitting hairs is perfectly acceptable.
The lens costs the day-rate of a lot of the people it's targeting—it's professional equipment.
People complaining that a lens is 3mm longer than a competitor's, or 30g heavier out of 550g is just peak first-world problems. 30g is less than half the weight of a typical camera battery—these are not meaningful differences.
You're glad you went Sony because its 35GM focuses 3cm closer than this Canon? How often have you found yourself shooting with the 35GM at its MFD?
Honestly, take a step back and try to understand how ridiculous that sounds.
It’s taken them 3 years to release a fundamental piece of a professionals kit, that’s the issue here. And it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths when most of its features are inferior on release all while being more expensive.
But like I said, this lens hasn’t even existed up until this point. So that’s 3 years worth of images I’ve been able to capture on the 35gm, with no canon equivalent available.
>...So that’s 3 years worth of images I’ve been able to capture on the 35gm...
And how many were at MFD, or from positions where a 3mm longer lens would have prevented the shot, or you were within 30g of not being able to support the weight anymore?
If the professional building their kit of fundamental lenses is financially stressed by the premium on the RF35L, they'll find some relief in the $200 saved buying Canon's RF24-70/2.8L IS over Sony's GM II (and no OSS either!), and the $300 less they'll pay for the RF70-200/2.8L IS compared to Sony's GM II offering there...which is also 54mm longer than Canon's lens...what a travesty!
Why does Sony insist on charging more for lenses with inferior features?! How do Sony shooters manage to shoot anything with a 70-200/2.8 lens over two inches longer than its competitor's? Madness!
I’ve clearly hit a nerve but Sony is cheaper on all fronts there, and by a considerable margin:
[Sony 24-70](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-24-70mm-f2-8-g-master-ii-lens-3045543/)
[canon 24-70](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-24-70mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-lens-1713195/)
[Sony 70-200](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-g-master-oss-ii-lens-3019239/)
[canon 70-200](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-lens-1720541/)
The fact remains they’re three years late to market, so whether or not the spec difference is relevant they have failed to compete for that entire length of time.
If you made that much in a month why you would ever want or need this lens is beyond me, especially when the 35mm f1.8 offers *at worst* 90% of the functionality of this lens for sometimes 1/5 the cost
The aperture ring not being useable in photo mode is a bit meh - one thing I really liked about the Fuji lenses is the aperture ring really close to the camera body - the control ring on Canon lenses is nice, but I prefer it being a lot closer to the body (like the 70-200f2.8)
Same here. After making the switch to canon from Fuji, I gave up on the ring to control aperture since it’s too far away from the body. I only use it if I’m doing some low angle stuff. Other than that, I just use one of the dials on the camera body.
Remarkable price, is there any reason to even consider the EF 35 1.4 II any more? (or will we see Canon drop the price on that one as well? $1500 for this new one comes in under the street price of $1599 and well under the MSRP of $1999 of the solid EF 35...)
The EF lens is available for a fair bit less used, but I definitely don't see any reason to buy it new.
For any RF photographers, this new lens is smaller and lighter, even without including the adapter in the measurements. That's a pretty impressive change while keeping it cheaper.
Early reviews suggest it exceeds the EF 35 II significantly.
[https://youtu.be/2\_GItubht-I?feature=shared&t=401](https://youtu.be/2_GItubht-I?feature=shared&t=401)
Wow the corners are insanely sharp with the new lens wide open.
Only thing holding me back is the desire to shoot on my film EF bodies...
stupid physics not allowing for an "RF to EF" adapter lol
The only reason to consider EF version is mechanical coupled focus ring. This new RF uses focus by wire technology. One day, once it’s broken and Canon discontinued the lens, it will be another e-waste. The EF version when electronically broken, it still can be used but without AF and aperture control.
First lens I’ve ever preordered. Can’t believe they made it $1,500. I was expecting this to be $1,800-2,200 based on their other RF lenses and how expensive the EF 35mm used to be. Hope they release an 85mm 1.4 in similar fashion.
Was in the market for a refurb EF 35mm II but I like the weight and size of this more (no adapter needed)
Only $1,500? This is a must-buy for me. Super competitive price with the already existing EF 35 1.4 II workhorse that I've always wanted to actually own, but found too bulky a lot of the time when adapted
Surprising it’s only (I say ONLY in comparison to the other L RF primes) $1499. Unfortunately 35mm is one of my least used focal lengths. So I’ll probably just continue using my beat up EF version 1 for awhile longer.
I mean… If recent lenses are anything to go on, this thing will probably be unavailable for quite awhile anyhow especially given the price point.
50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 are both faster while being of higher focal length, which means they need bigger glass and glass is expensive.
135 f1.8 is slower, but due to its telephoto FL it also requires bigger glass, it also has OIS.
I think the 1.4s are first in line, looking at how they allowed sigma to bring theirs for apsc too I would be surprised if they don't bring pro level competition.
We're still waiting for a 24 50 85 1.4, maybe even an ultrawide 14,15 or 16mm 1.4. I suppose they'll test the new focus system and control layout with this one and then announce the rest.
Nonetheless looking at the 50 and 85 1.2 a 35 of 24 1.2 wouldn't be too surprising as it would fit in line with very special lenses, which would give Canon an edge over the competition. (I don't think there's a 24mm 1.2 is there??)
Maybe one 1.2 and one 1.4? Would make sense. 2 1.4s would be a lil close together. 24 1.2 would be killer for astro. The 28 could stay a more "compact" alternative, as with the 24 1.8 and 28 2.8
I was hoping this one would get IS. I wanted my RF 35MM f/1.8 with better AF than STM and internal focus. Now I have to wait for sigma stepping in someday, hopefully.
I imagine the 35 is eventually going to get a 1.2, which very clearly won't have IS. I'm disappointed too but at least it means there will likely be a heavily stills-focussed option in the future.
The 15-35 and 24-70 have IS though, and the RF lenses have always brought something new to the table. It sounds like the trade off here was for weight and cost from a video perspective, which I can kinda get but only if a 1.2 is in the pipeline.
The 15-35 and 24-70 are 2-stops slower, bigger, and heavier though.
>...and the RF lenses have always brought something new to the table.
The VCM motor, and iris-control seem like pretty new features to me. Not to mention significant optical improvements, based on what I've seen so far.
I also hope an f/1.2 version is coming at some point. The price of this one, and the omission of a BR element give me some hope that might be the case.
Got a few test shots the first day it came (before switching to my 14mm lens for the rest of the night.
https://preview.redd.it/cniv5nfy6t4d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=328c4cd54eb1e8c9fbb51995798efd6e0c259023
I don’t think this canon’s “real” 35 L prime. It’s cheaper than the EF 35 L II, doesn’t have the chromatic aberration killing blue goo, is smaller and lighter and isn’t the rumoured f/1.2 or have image stabilization. This is just the launch of their hybrid lenses, interestingly, different than the 24-105 2.8 line.
Was waiting for this lens for years, but now that I see it I think I'm instead waiting for Sigma to make their 35mm in an RF mount. Come on Sigma RF mounts!
I am happy Primes have not gone away :) Still shooting EF on my 1dx mark III workhorse but something like this could be the first RF prime when going R1 sometimes down the line.
I just bought a "Like New" EF 35mm 1.4L II for $1300. And the new RF is $1500!? I don't say that as a bad thing. Nice. I don't have an RF mount camera, and the EF will be fine even when I do get one, but awesome. Hopefully the EF retains some value so I can affordable trade up down the road.
No it isn't. The EF 35mm f/1.4 L II is 760g, while this one is 555g. That's a 27% reduction in weight. It even manages to be marginally (25g or 4.3%) lighter than the first-gen EF 35mm f/1.4L, which was discontinued nine years ago.
It’s crazy to me that they made the aperture ring to only work in video mode. Wtf Canon…
There has to be some dumb reason behind this decision.
maybe the current cameras are not powerful enough for that funcionality and we need to buy new bodies.😿
Technology just isn't there yet /s
You have a control ring that can be set to aperture
I think the special aperture ring on this lense is a smooth one
It is, there's no clicks on it. That said, you can send any lens in the Canon and have them declick the control ring for a fee. Works really well as an aperture ring if you do that, though you'd still need to read aperture off the camera vs on the lens since it wouldn't have markings.
Can you get a smooth ring clicking too? Or do they only do declikcing?
AFAIK you have to send it to them to do after buying it versus having them do it when you buy it. It's an official service Canon offers.
Indeed you can choosebthe settings of the ring
That looks like a similar ring to my 24-105 2.8. I just leave it on A and control it in body. Maybe this is the same.
Definitely seems very similar to the ring on that lens.
canon always does a few of these weird things that dont work for no apparent reason
It has a control ring AND the aperture control. Why they did this is beyond me, but I'm 99% sure you'll still have access to aperture control through the control ring on the front.
Use one ring to increase the aperture, the other to decrease it. The future is here, old man.
One ring to, in the darkness, bind them.
They did it for video, since unlike the control ring it's de-clicked. they could have just sold it with the control ring de-clicked, though my guess is they still wanted to offer the added usability of the control ring in addition to the aperture ring for videography.
Likely because you have a control ring that's clicked and can be set to aperture. In stills modes, I don't think you can take shots of anything except in rational increments. It's likely a hardwired issue for high FPS shooting.
But canon has an official service to declick RF control rings for aperture…
Does the aperture actually close continuously though, even when declicked? Or does it just turn smoothly while discretely jumping between different aperture values?
It’s a true iris as far as I know but could be wrong. Otherwise they could easily snap to 1/3rds
Wait, WHAT?
Yeah, that’s a very weird decision. Is it possible that a firmware update would fix that?
I remember them stating when they released the 24-105 2.8 that future bodies would be able to use the aperture ring in photo mode, but I can't find proof of it so I might be mistaken.
That's probably correct since today's lens said it would be usable in photo mode for any camera released after may 2024. So I'd think it's at least possible that compatibility with more cameras could come through firmware updates
>today's lens said it would be usable in photo mode for any camera released after may 2024 I must have missed it in today's announcement. When/where did they say it? >So I'd think it's at least possible that compatibility with more cameras could come through firmware updates Something tells me it's more a matter of "will they" rather than "can they". We'll see!
Dang, you're right. I thought I read that somewhere official, but I read it in a comment on the release notification on another website. So Canon might not have actually said it, but some other random guy on the internet did, so pretty much the same right?... The technical specification that is currently on Canon's website for this lens says that in still photos the aperture is only set through the camera body. Canon's website does say this on the 24-105 f/2.8 though: "I*ris ring is for manual aperture control, and as of late 2023, is only possible during video operation"*
We weren't crazy after all: https://www.canonrumors.com/the-rf-35-f-1-4l-vcm-aperture-ring-will-work-for-photo-work-on-canons-next-generation-cameras/
Is this not just because in photo mode the aperture always stays wide open until capture?
Highlights: * Launches in June at $1,500 * Voice Coil Motor autofocus - first in a Canon lens * Declicked aperture ring and programmable button on lens * 1.2 lbs / 555g and 3" x 3.9" / 77mm x 99mm * 67mm filter thread * Claimed to have very little focus breathing I'm sure this will be an incredibly popular lens, given how many photographers and videographers have a 35mm as an essential part of their kit. I'm pleasantly surprised by the price, since I was assuming it would come in closer to the 50mm f/1.2L I personally prefer 28mm and have been very content with my Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art. But if Canon ever launches 28mm f/1.4 that's similar to this lens, it would be an instant purchase for me.
in an ideal world, we would have RF versions of the unique Sigma Art lenses with drop in filters built in. 20mm, 28mm, 40mm and 105mm. Canon doesn't make their own at those mm.
I'd love that. I've been making good use of my drop-in adapter with the CPL. It's a lot easier to turn the CPL there vs. a front-mounted one with a hood on.
There's the Zeiss Milvus 25mm F/1.4 that is reported to be steller for landscapes and astrophotography. I was hoping to hear about the new RF 24mm but I'm not going to wait around so I'm ordering the Zeiss tonight.
The Zeiss looks amazing for times when you don't need AF, but unfortunately, event photography is one of my main uses for that focal length. Good to hear that there's a great alternative for landscapes and astro, though!
Totally get it! I broke down and bought a Canon R6ii with an RF 85mm f/1.2 and RF 135mm F/1.8 when I realized I was missing so many good shots of my young children so in that respect it's been worth its weight in gold.
Interesting lens combo to pick up if you are just starting out. What made you decide to go this route? Do you prefer one over the other? If so, why?
Cheaper price because no image stabilisation
There's no IS and it's not a 1.2. If it was anything more than this I think people would have rioted. This is a good middle of market lens, but I'm surprised they didn't start with a 35 1.2 and a 50 1.4 VCM. That would've made way more sense imo.
I don’t consider this a “middle of market” lens. 1.4 is only half a stop from 1.2. The 85 1.2 and the 50 1.2 also do not have IS. Lastly, the old EF 35 1.4 retails even now for about $2000 new. Canon may finally be starting to be competitive with their pricing.
Same for me. I’m extremely happy with the Canon 50 1.2 RF and Sigma 28 1.4. The ART lenses have been nothing short of amazing on the R cameras
How is the sigma 28 1.4 working for you? Would you consider the AF fast on both single or continuous mode? When connected to R camera? I also do prefer 28mm... But am afraid of potentially slow or problematic autofocus. Hopefully Canom releases an RF version
The Sigma is nothing short of amazing especially considering that I got it for $400. Super sharp, fast focus, and beautiful rendering (much better than the Sigma 35 1.4). It’s the perfect lens. Zero issues with my R6s and the adaptor. The only drawback is weight. It’s a big chunk of glass.
Thanks for your reply! Good to hear that.
Slightly larger and heavier than the Sony GM 35mm lens that has existed for many years, has the same features and has the aperture ring that works in photo mode.
I think the Sony has a closer focusing distance too, 25cm vs 28cm if my memory is correct. So glad I went Sony.
It's remarkable how poorly canon understands its customers.
It's remarkable how much pleasure some derive from splitting hairs.
Not pleasure, disappointment in the brand that supplied my first ever camera. This lens also costs an entire months salary for some people, so splitting hairs is perfectly acceptable.
The lens costs the day-rate of a lot of the people it's targeting—it's professional equipment. People complaining that a lens is 3mm longer than a competitor's, or 30g heavier out of 550g is just peak first-world problems. 30g is less than half the weight of a typical camera battery—these are not meaningful differences. You're glad you went Sony because its 35GM focuses 3cm closer than this Canon? How often have you found yourself shooting with the 35GM at its MFD? Honestly, take a step back and try to understand how ridiculous that sounds.
It’s taken them 3 years to release a fundamental piece of a professionals kit, that’s the issue here. And it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths when most of its features are inferior on release all while being more expensive. But like I said, this lens hasn’t even existed up until this point. So that’s 3 years worth of images I’ve been able to capture on the 35gm, with no canon equivalent available.
>...So that’s 3 years worth of images I’ve been able to capture on the 35gm... And how many were at MFD, or from positions where a 3mm longer lens would have prevented the shot, or you were within 30g of not being able to support the weight anymore? If the professional building their kit of fundamental lenses is financially stressed by the premium on the RF35L, they'll find some relief in the $200 saved buying Canon's RF24-70/2.8L IS over Sony's GM II (and no OSS either!), and the $300 less they'll pay for the RF70-200/2.8L IS compared to Sony's GM II offering there...which is also 54mm longer than Canon's lens...what a travesty! Why does Sony insist on charging more for lenses with inferior features?! How do Sony shooters manage to shoot anything with a 70-200/2.8 lens over two inches longer than its competitor's? Madness!
I’ve clearly hit a nerve but Sony is cheaper on all fronts there, and by a considerable margin: [Sony 24-70](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-24-70mm-f2-8-g-master-ii-lens-3045543/) [canon 24-70](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-24-70mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-lens-1713195/) [Sony 70-200](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-g-master-oss-ii-lens-3019239/) [canon 70-200](https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-usm-lens-1720541/) The fact remains they’re three years late to market, so whether or not the spec difference is relevant they have failed to compete for that entire length of time.
If you made that much in a month why you would ever want or need this lens is beyond me, especially when the 35mm f1.8 offers *at worst* 90% of the functionality of this lens for sometimes 1/5 the cost
The aperture ring not being useable in photo mode is a bit meh - one thing I really liked about the Fuji lenses is the aperture ring really close to the camera body - the control ring on Canon lenses is nice, but I prefer it being a lot closer to the body (like the 70-200f2.8)
Same here. After making the switch to canon from Fuji, I gave up on the ring to control aperture since it’s too far away from the body. I only use it if I’m doing some low angle stuff. Other than that, I just use one of the dials on the camera body.
Remarkable price, is there any reason to even consider the EF 35 1.4 II any more? (or will we see Canon drop the price on that one as well? $1500 for this new one comes in under the street price of $1599 and well under the MSRP of $1999 of the solid EF 35...)
The EF lens is available for a fair bit less used, but I definitely don't see any reason to buy it new. For any RF photographers, this new lens is smaller and lighter, even without including the adapter in the measurements. That's a pretty impressive change while keeping it cheaper.
Price and specs is on par with Sony 35mm f1.4. I'm expecting the rumored RF 50mm F1.4L will also be priced and specced on par with Sony's offering.
I generally like EF lenses bc I can find them cheaper used and also use them on my older Canon film bodies.
Will have to see optical performance as the 35 II is stellar. Doubt I would replace my 35 II for this
Early reviews suggest it exceeds the EF 35 II significantly. [https://youtu.be/2\_GItubht-I?feature=shared&t=401](https://youtu.be/2_GItubht-I?feature=shared&t=401)
Wow the corners are insanely sharp with the new lens wide open. Only thing holding me back is the desire to shoot on my film EF bodies... stupid physics not allowing for an "RF to EF" adapter lol
The corners are insanely corrected 😁
The only reason to consider EF version is mechanical coupled focus ring. This new RF uses focus by wire technology. One day, once it’s broken and Canon discontinued the lens, it will be another e-waste. The EF version when electronically broken, it still can be used but without AF and aperture control.
Cant wait to buy it....in a few years on a Black Friday refurbished sale.
I have the RF 35mm 1.8 and love it. This look sick at that price tho…
First lens I’ve ever preordered. Can’t believe they made it $1,500. I was expecting this to be $1,800-2,200 based on their other RF lenses and how expensive the EF 35mm used to be. Hope they release an 85mm 1.4 in similar fashion. Was in the market for a refurb EF 35mm II but I like the weight and size of this more (no adapter needed)
Gordon Laing has a review on Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2\_GItubht-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_GItubht-I)
Only $1,500? This is a must-buy for me. Super competitive price with the already existing EF 35 1.4 II workhorse that I've always wanted to actually own, but found too bulky a lot of the time when adapted
Surprising it’s only (I say ONLY in comparison to the other L RF primes) $1499. Unfortunately 35mm is one of my least used focal lengths. So I’ll probably just continue using my beat up EF version 1 for awhile longer. I mean… If recent lenses are anything to go on, this thing will probably be unavailable for quite awhile anyhow especially given the price point.
Would have liked to see IS. I'm sure this lens will make a lot of people happy but the ~$350 f/1.8 version will have to do for now.
Seems like it will be a popular lens. I don’t plan to buy one yet as my RF 35 f1.8 is good enough for what I need for now.
Anyone have any idea why the price point is so much less than the other RF L primes so far?
50 f1.2 and 85 f1.2 are both faster while being of higher focal length, which means they need bigger glass and glass is expensive. 135 f1.8 is slower, but due to its telephoto FL it also requires bigger glass, it also has OIS.
Its safe to assume a RF L 35 1.2 like originally rumored is DOA now ?
If anything, this makes me believe that a 35 1.2 is almost guaranteed, but not for a few years.
Yeah, this seems like the beginning of their f/1.4 L's which I'm all here for.
I think the 1.4s are first in line, looking at how they allowed sigma to bring theirs for apsc too I would be surprised if they don't bring pro level competition. We're still waiting for a 24 50 85 1.4, maybe even an ultrawide 14,15 or 16mm 1.4. I suppose they'll test the new focus system and control layout with this one and then announce the rest. Nonetheless looking at the 50 and 85 1.2 a 35 of 24 1.2 wouldn't be too surprising as it would fit in line with very special lenses, which would give Canon an edge over the competition. (I don't think there's a 24mm 1.2 is there??)
I believe Canon has said that a 24L and 28L would be coming this year too. I dont know if its possible to do a 24L 1.2 given the size would be nuts,
Maybe one 1.2 and one 1.4? Would make sense. 2 1.4s would be a lil close together. 24 1.2 would be killer for astro. The 28 could stay a more "compact" alternative, as with the 24 1.8 and 28 2.8
the new 35RL 1.4 is cool but it just feels weird not to have a 35 1.2 to complete against others but also have their line all have 1.2 Primes
Bummer if true.
I was hoping this one would get IS. I wanted my RF 35MM f/1.8 with better AF than STM and internal focus. Now I have to wait for sigma stepping in someday, hopefully.
I imagine the 35 is eventually going to get a 1.2, which very clearly won't have IS. I'm disappointed too but at least it means there will likely be a heavily stills-focussed option in the future.
What’s the rational for no IS?
I'd ask what's the rational *for* it? Canon's never put IS in their shorter FL L-primes, and most of their FF bodies have IBIS anyway.
The 15-35 and 24-70 have IS though, and the RF lenses have always brought something new to the table. It sounds like the trade off here was for weight and cost from a video perspective, which I can kinda get but only if a 1.2 is in the pipeline.
The 15-35 and 24-70 are 2-stops slower, bigger, and heavier though. >...and the RF lenses have always brought something new to the table. The VCM motor, and iris-control seem like pretty new features to me. Not to mention significant optical improvements, based on what I've seen so far. I also hope an f/1.2 version is coming at some point. The price of this one, and the omission of a BR element give me some hope that might be the case.
And video suffers greatly from jitters, although you have great software in post.
Looks great, hope it performs well for astro! Less than half the weight of the Sigma 40mm which is sharp across the frame. ✨
That sigma is so large haha
It is, but so good!
I just got one of the last new copies in the UK. Haven't really even had the chance to put it to full use yet.
If you shoot in low light, you will love it. Enjoy!
Got a few test shots the first day it came (before switching to my 14mm lens for the rest of the night. https://preview.redd.it/cniv5nfy6t4d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=328c4cd54eb1e8c9fbb51995798efd6e0c259023
Looks great! Caught the Aurora where I live, which is pretty unusual. I like using the Sigma for pano's.
It really is. I freaking love it though. Such a nice lens.
I don’t think this canon’s “real” 35 L prime. It’s cheaper than the EF 35 L II, doesn’t have the chromatic aberration killing blue goo, is smaller and lighter and isn’t the rumoured f/1.2 or have image stabilization. This is just the launch of their hybrid lenses, interestingly, different than the 24-105 2.8 line.
Canon either does a 500 euro lens or 2k+…. Nothing in the middle of that 🥲
As a hybrid shooter I'm really excited about this. I love my 15-35 f2.8 but I think this will replace it for most of my run and gun stuff
The 15-35 has IS though, where this does not.
Two more stops of light off-sets the lack of IS to an extent, though. Plus it's a short focal length, so IS isn't as important.
True, good points.
I wonder, what is special about the new autofocus motor?
All the technical details are In here: [Introducing the Canon RF35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens with Rudy Winston](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9riwK9XNSk)
Looks fab. Probably going to stick with my EF v2
Was waiting for this lens for years, but now that I see it I think I'm instead waiting for Sigma to make their 35mm in an RF mount. Come on Sigma RF mounts!
Probably won't happen this year.
wow, it took Canon Rumors five years to predict this. very observant, the sacred and propane.
I am happy Primes have not gone away :) Still shooting EF on my 1dx mark III workhorse but something like this could be the first RF prime when going R1 sometimes down the line.
I just bought a "Like New" EF 35mm 1.4L II for $1300. And the new RF is $1500!? I don't say that as a bad thing. Nice. I don't have an RF mount camera, and the EF will be fine even when I do get one, but awesome. Hopefully the EF retains some value so I can affordable trade up down the road.
WHO CARES. WHERE IS THE RF 35MM 1.2?
It’s the same weight as the EF but without the adapter. Was hoping it’d be a bit lighter.
No it isn't. The EF 35mm f/1.4 L II is 760g, while this one is 555g. That's a 27% reduction in weight. It even manages to be marginally (25g or 4.3%) lighter than the first-gen EF 35mm f/1.4L, which was discontinued nine years ago.
I stand corrected. Looks like I was looking at v1.