Bad news: The Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM has been pushed into 2023

Del Paso said:

According to LensRentals, they don't have more dust issues with pump-zooms than with the other type. It seems to be a psychological issue more than a real one.

Click to expand...

Yes, I read the LensRentals analysis some time ago, and I haven't had dust issues myself. I'm sure that there are some who exaggerate the issue, and probably a few malicious individuals searching for a reason to denigrate Canon glass for whatever reason. Also, there will be natural worriers who may be influenced by internet talk. Personally, if Canon gave me the choice between a telescopic zoom and an internal zoom, for comparable size and cost, and with the same MFD, I'd go for the internal one though - I just think it's a better design.

entoman said:

Yes, of course. I'm glad that the benefits have been significant for you.

For me there was no significant gain in going from the EF 24-105mm F4 to the RF version.

Click to expand...

The RF version of the 24-105/4L launched at the same price as the EF 24-105/4L II. Canon charges heavily for the RF improvements, but for the lens that didn't improve, they kept the price the same. Pretty fair, no?

Looking for a significant RF lens advantage? I'd even call it a huge one:
RF 1,2/50mm and RF 1,2/85mm !

entoman said:

Yes, I read the LensRentals analysis some time ago, and I haven't had dust issues myself. I'm sure that there are some who exaggerate the issue, and probably a few malicious individuals searching for a reason to denigrate Canon glass for whatever reason. Also, there will be natural worriers who may be influenced by internet talk. Personally, if Canon gave me the choice between a telescopic zoom and an internal zoom, for comparable size and cost, and with the same MFD, I'd go for the internal one though - I just think it's a better design.

Click to expand...

Me too...

neuroanatomist said:

The RF version of the 24-105/4L launched at the same price as the EF 24-105/4L II. Canon charges heavily for the RF improvements, but for the lens that didn't improve, they kept the price the same. Pretty fair, no?

Click to expand...

The price was fair, yes. My old EF 24-105mm F4 ii had gone back to Canon twice under warranty, both times with the same issue, that required the middle group of elements containing the iris mechanism to be completely replaced. I no longer trusted it, hence the "upgrade".

Nemorino said:

The higher magnification of the RF100L is IMO significant.

Click to expand...

For some it will be - e.g. for wedding photographers who use the lens to shoot portraits and close-ups of rings etc, it adds significant and worthwhile functionality, saving them from having to swap lenses.

I use the lens primarily for handheld AF photography of living insects and other invertebrates, so it offers me no real advantages (and a couple of downsides previously mentioned) compared to the EF version.

When I need higher magnification than 1:1, I'd be using the MF Laowa 25mm 2.5-5x on a focus rail and tripod.

We all have different needs, some of us will be pleased, others will be disappointed.

Del Paso said:

Me too...

Click to expand...

Me three…

SNJ Ops said:

I assume you are referring to DSLR lenses and not ones Sigma and Tamron have developed for mirrorless systems which have been made with licenses from the OEM?

Click to expand...

No, I am referring to the Sigma and Tamron mirrorless EF-M mount lenses.
The Sigma primes are pretty popular

entoman said:

The only non-RF lens I've retained is my T/S-E 24mm.

Click to expand...

What a magical, persnickety lens. One of my favorite Canon lenses of all time. I’m sure this would be the very last EF mount lens to get an RF replacement.

OK, carry on.

EOS said:

What a magical, persnickety lens. One of my favorite Canon lenses of all time. I’m sure this would be the very last EF mount lens to get an RF replacement.

OK, carry on.

Click to expand...

Rumors of updated TS-E lenses include possible AF, and also movement encoding. The former I could not care less about, the latter would be great if used, for example, to permit movement-specific corrections by RAW conversion software like DxO PhotoLab.

I have both the 17 and 24 II lenses, for the former an RF version would need to be something really special to outweigh the advantage of being able to use the drop-in filter adapter instead of the 145mm 'salad plate' front filters that I have but don't like carrying/using. Same applies to the EF 11-24/4 (I don't even have the 'dinner plate' filters for that (I do have a 10-stop piece of gelatin filter cut for it, but you can't rear-mount a CPL which is useful to control reflections).

SwissFrank said:

I got the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art at Adorama on a $539 sale not announced on this site (though several such sales have been). I had the first EF 35/1.4 and the 24/1.4 and the first was too normalish (and coma-prone) while the second not bokeh-y enough for me. The 28/1.4 is nice though it's the only lens I own that isn't for a specific shot.

Click to expand...

I wish I could buy at Adorama! They don’t ship to Australia. I’d be all over the Sigma 28mm at those prices.

What makes this 35/1.2 rumor fishy is the fact that the RF 50 & RF 85 are not faster than f/1.2 like say a f/1.0L or f/0.95