Patent: Canon RF 40mm f/1.8 & Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 optical formulas

[Timedog]

Or for that matter, a 135mm prime.

You can get the 135L so cheap used that it may as well be a non-L lens. The 135L is one of the best value lenses in canon's lineup IMO. The design is super old but it's still incredibly relevant to this day.

 

[Ozarker]

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

That would depend upon what kind of shooting you'd like to do and what your image quality requirements are, weighed against the cost. For absolute image quality, yes. If you are just a casual shooter who isn't a perfectionist, no. My plunge into L is mostly just wanting something very nice for when I occasionally shoot. I sometimes go weeks or even months without shooting anything other than my grandson puttering around the house apartment. Of all the people here, I am probably the least likely suspect to own anything so nice. "L" is my one single luxury in life. I consume copious amounts of ramen, rice, and beans to afford my bad habit. Not trying to be funny. That is just the facts.

 

[NetMage]

I would love a cheap 35mm 1.8 EF-S.

 

[Skux]

A 40mm pancake lens on an R body would be my street/everyday dream scenario.

 

[deleteme]

It's still one of their very sharpest EF lenses. In fact I don't know a sharper one that's not white. And the 72mm aperture makes people look like movie stars. You have to be far enough away with portraiture that communication is uncomfortable, but the look is worth it.

I actually prefer the distance as I feel that an 85 is too close and with a tight portrait the client thinks so also.

 

[Joules]

Since so many here talk as if this patent had anything to do with pancakes: both lenses from the patent are basically the same length as the RF 35mm 1.8 IS macro.

 

[slclick]

It's still one of their very sharpest EF lenses. In fact I don't know a sharper one that's not white. And the 72mm aperture makes people look like movie stars. You have to be far enough away with portraiture that communication is uncomfortable, but the look is worth it.

It blows my mind that some folks find fault with the 135L. The Siggy version gives everything the sticker effect, no thanks. Who gives a flying funk that it's from last century, it''s damn near perfection.

 

[Quackator]

It blows my mind that some folks find fault with the 135L.
The Siggy version gives everything the sticker effect, no thanks.

It also is a lot sharper than the 135L, and comes with almost no
chromatic aberrations right out of the box without the need to
fix it in post.

Pictures from the 135L and the 135 ART are day and night.

 

[jd7]

It also is a lot sharper than the 135L, and comes with almost no
chromatic aberrations right out of the box without the need to
fix it in post.

Pictures from the 135L and the 135 ART are day and night.

I am generally a fan of the Sigma Art lenses (I own the 35 and the 50) but I have not seen anything out of the 135 Art which makes me keen to switch to it from my 135L. Sharpness is not everything, and I am still a huge fan of what the 135L can do (and as a bonus, it's smaller and lighter than the Sigma too).

 

[slclick]

I am generally a fan of the Sigma Art lenses (I own the 35 and the 50) but I have not seen anything out of the 135 Art which makes me keen to switch to it from my 135L. Sharpness is not everything, and I am still a huge fan of what the 135L can do (and as a bonus, it's smaller and lighter than the Sigma too).

I used them both side by side and with my copy (that's a caveat) it was marginally sharper. As the Canon is already very sharp, this was a minor issue. I disliked the sticker effect wide open. YMMV. The CA is very minor as well on the 135L and only shown when photographing wedding rings, chrome as in on a moto and the like. This is not an EF 85 1.8 when it comes to CA. Not even worth mentioning.

What is worth mentioning is the AF speed and accuracy. This 24 year old design is still much faster and accurate than anything made by Sigma. One exception, the 24-35 had pretty fast AF, however not as accurate. the only thing imho that is Day and Night is the price. First party first.

 

[Quirkz]

That would depend upon what kind of shooting you'd like to do and what your image quality requirements are, weighed against the cost. For absolute image quality, yes. If you are just a casual shooter who isn't a perfectionist, no. My plunge into L is mostly just wanting something very nice for when I occasionally shoot. I sometimes go weeks or even months without shooting anything other than my grandson puttering around the house apartment. Of all the people here, I am probably the least likely suspect to own anything so nice. "L" is my one single luxury in life. I consume copious amounts of ramen, rice, and beans to afford my bad habit. Not trying to be funny. That is just the facts.

Judging by some of the photos you’ve shared, worth it

 

[Ozarker]

Judging by some of the photos you’ve shared, worth it

You are very kind.