Patent: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 & EF 100mm f/1.8

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,716
353
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
A patent showing 4 new optical formulas for EF prime lenses has appeared.</p>
<p><strong>Japan Patent Application 2018-005133 shows the following:</strong></p>


<ul>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.8</li>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.4 (Not the same as the EF 85mm f.1.4L IS)</li>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.8</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/1.8</li>
</ul>
<p>The EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 100mm f/2 could both use a replacement, the former being more likely.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 

Kiton

I'm New Here
Jun 13, 2015
20
3
Let's hope Canon gets their S____ together and replaces the 85 1.8.
Great lens, just make it a little sharper and keep the filter size below 67mm, staying at 58mm would be better still.

I tested the 85 1.4, Not a hope in Hell I would buy that beast (or the sigma and its 86mm front element).

If you are listening Canon, real street shooters want a 28mm f2 and 85mm f2, or 1.8.
 

michi

EOS RP
Jul 26, 2011
270
6
Would be great if they replaced all these lenses. All could use a bump in sharpness and AF performance.
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
296
62
Obligatory reminder that patents =/= lenses being made.

That said, it'll be interesting to see how Canon handles 100mm going forward. Originally, they made the 100mm f/2 first and the 85mm f/1.8 was a kind of "might as well" afterthought, reusing some of the same parts. It's no surprise that the 100mm turned out to be the better performer (everything was designed for it first), but 85mm ended up becoming a much more popular focal length (as people moved to 35mm stock for magazines, which required cropping) so that one 'won' anyway. So I'm interested to see—in the hypothetical situation where the lower-end 85mm and 100mm lenses are refreshed—which one Canon works on first. From a design point of view it would make more sense to make the 100mm first again as it's a technically simpler focal length to design; there's no questioning how much more popular 85mm still is, though.

There's also the issue of the AF. The 100mm f/2 has Canon's fastest* and most confident AF motor and the 85mm f/1.8 is just a hair slower (though noticeably less confident) and the other lenses of that series—the 50mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.8, and 20mm f/2.8—also have not been improved upon in terms of AF speed by either their replacements (28mm) or their betters (50mm f/1.2L; the 20mm has no comparable model, period). So, again in the hypothetical situation where these two lenses are remade, there's a very healthy chance that any new versions of the 100mm and 85mm might have worse AF than the existing models.

All that said, it'd sure be nice to have a short-telephoto lens which matches the 35mm f/2 IS. Throwing IS on the 85 and 100, without pushing the aperture so far they compete with the 'L' lenses, would be a solid move. That 35mm is lonely in it's weird midpoint, where it's not been given the L badge but it's clearly far better than any other primes Canon makes; giving it a short-tele friend would be swell.

*When lenses are tested in absolute optimal conditions. In average conditions it's the joint-second fastest.
 

3dit0r

EOS M50
Dec 4, 2017
47
10
I’d love an update to the 85 1.8 with IS and faster AF, optically it’s already nice.

Really I think the first lenses which need updating now are the 50 1.4 and 50 1.2. Their optical performance is quite poor now compared to the state of the art, and the 1.2 has pronounced CA.

The 50 1.4 would be great with IS (and even weather sealing) for landscape use to pack between a 16-35 and 70-200.
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,285
193
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
The 2 100mm lens has one great advantage: It is tiny at least with respect for its fast aperture and focal length and compared to "modern" designs. It has a length of 73.5 mm according to Canon websites.

If Canon News' "Whole length of the lens 135.00 " is true and the unit is mm it will never be a replacement:
I am not a streetshoter but I think Kiton is right (some posts above) that a small footprint is welcome for street shooters but also for me because the camera - lens combo is less interesting ... for a thief etc. + it might be much more usable with smaller cameras.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,609
2,071
mb66energy said:
The 2 100mm lens has one great advantage: It is tiny at least with respect for its fast aperture and focal length and compared to "modern" designs. It has a length of 73.5 mm according to Canon websites.

If Canon News' "Whole length of the lens 135.00 " is true and the unit is mm it will never be a replacement:
I am not a streetshoter but I think Kiton is right (some posts above) that a small footprint is welcome for street shooters but also for me because the camera - lens combo is less interesting ... for a thief etc. + it might be much more usable with smaller cameras.
Keep in mind that what is being patented is an optical formula, not a lens. As such, the 'total length' in a patent extends from the front element back to the image sensor. So, a lens patent with a length of 135mm for the EF mount with a flange focal distance of 43mm, means the physical lens will be ~92mm long.
 

Duct_Taper

I'm New Here
Dec 19, 2017
18
0
Ottawa, Canada
aceflibble said:
"... The 100mm f/2 has Canon's fastest* and most confident AF motor ...

*When lenses are tested in absolute optimal conditions. In average conditions it's the joint-second fastest. "
Since I can't think of an easy way to search for it - what is the fastest in average conditions? And which one is tied with the 100mm f/2 for second?
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
Duct_Taper said:
Since I can't think of an easy way to search for it - what is the fastest in average conditions? And which one is tied with the 100mm f/2 for second?
Is there a database for this? LensTip occasionally reports total near to far AF speed, but that might mask any hunting or confirmation that goes on when it gets there.

- A
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
296
62
Duct_Taper said:
Since I can't think of an easy way to search for it - what is the fastest in average conditions? And which one is tied with the 100mm f/2 for second?
On average and according to Canon's EU offices, the 300mm f/2.8 IS II is the fastest (hence why Canon market it as such). The 100mm f/2 and 400mm f/2.8 IS II are joint-second. (The 400mm is more-or-less the same as the 300mm, it just has to push a little more glass; the 100mm is fast because it has to push so little glass.)
After that I forget the exact order but roughly it's something like the 135mm f/2, 35mm f/2 IS, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, 70-200 f/4 IS, 28mm f/2.8 IS, 85mm f/1.8, 16-35 f/4 IS, 200m f/2.8, and 500mm f/4 IS II, as the 'especially fast' focusers. If that's not the exact order it's close to it. After that I really lose track. I want to say the 300mm f/4 IS is in with that lot but I'm less sure on that one, it's been a while.

Though that was as of 2013. Of course there's been a couple of lenses released since then and firmware/manufacturing updates could have adjusted things a little bit too. Even so, we're talking about tiny, tiny fractions of a second difference, and it's not like other lenses are slow. Those are just the ones Canon themselves (at least the EU branch) swear are the fastest. (Under 'normal' light, on pro bodies, with a simple target, etc.) I mean, they don't consider the 50mm f/1.4 to be 'especially' fast, and yet that goes through half its focus range somewhere in the region of 44ms. (44ms is the answer that stuck in my head when I first asked; individual units will be +/-10% and things like age, humidity, and temperature will alter that figure.) For reference, a single frame at 60fps is 16ms, and blinking your eye takes roughly 300ms.

In other words, what Canon considers 'average' is still nearly 7x faster than you can blink your eye. So the difference between that and the very top is minimal. In real world terms you'd feel they're all the same, and if you tried to time them with a stopwatch it'd take you longer to press the 'stop' button than it would for any of the lenses to focus. It's why I don't bother trying to test them precisely myself, I just ask the local Canon reps. (And I trust what they say since the EU offices are generally a little less beholden to the marketing blurb that the American and Japanese offices are.)
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
aceflibble said:
In other words, what Canon considers 'average' is still nearly 7x faster than you can blink your eye. So the difference between that and the very top is minimal.
Which is why I go with high level ranking as far as value propositions go:

Ring USM >> Micro USM >> STM > [not listed AF tech with the noisy motors that is largely out of production now]

Nano USM is in there somewhere on the left hand side but there are only two of those lenses I believe and I've not shot either of them. And there are exceptions where Ring USM is FBW or crazy slow due to how much glass is actually moving in the optical design (85mm f/1.2L II, I am looking at you).

But in general, as I shoot stills, it's USM or bust. What troubles me is the disappearance of Ring USM from mid-level lenses. We haven't seen Ring USM in a non-L EF lens since 2012, and not in EF-S since 2009. I know Nano or STM are better for video AF use, but if some classic old lenses like the 50 f/1.4 (micro) USM and 85 f/1.8 (ring) USM end up getting refreshed with nano instead of ring, I can only view that as a takeaway.

- A
 

goldenhusky

EOS RP
Dec 2, 2016
274
70
ahsanford said:
aceflibble said:
In other words, what Canon considers 'average' is still nearly 7x faster than you can blink your eye. So the difference between that and the very top is minimal.
Which is why I go with high level ranking as far as value propositions go:

Ring USM >> Micro USM >> STM > [not listed AF tech with the noisy motors that is largely out of production now]

Nano USM is in there somewhere on the left hand side but there are only two of those lenses I believe and I've not shot either of them. And there are exceptions where Ring USM is FBW or crazy slow due to how much glass is actually moving in the optical design (85mm f/1.2L II, I am looking at you).

But in general, as I shoot stills, it's USM or bust. What troubles me is the disappearance of Ring USM from mid-level lenses. We haven't seen Ring USM in a non-L EF lens since 2012, and not in EF-S since 2009. I know Nano or STM are better for video AF use, but if some classic old lenses like the 50 f/1.4 (micro) USM and 85 f/1.8 (ring) USM end up getting refreshed with nano instead of ring, I can only view that as a takeaway.

- A
I do have the 18-135mm nano USM. I very rarely use this lens and it is faster for my needs while I have not seen any noticeable difference between most Canon lenses anyways (I am not saying there is no difference. I am saying I have not felt it to the level where I can differentiate some lenses auto focuses slow Vs others), quiet and smooth. But like you I also prefer ring USM. My biggest deal breaker will be manual override and a distance scale. Without the distance scale it is simply impossible to manually focus to infinity.
 

goldenhusky

EOS RP
Dec 2, 2016
274
70
I am surprised by the fact there is no IS elements in these design. Did I get that right or missed that part?
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
goldenhusky said:
I am surprised by the fact there is no IS elements in these design. Did I get that right or missed that part?
I didn't check, but if it's not there I would safely presume they aren't going to make these lenses or they will be a new lower price point product.

These FLs + speeds are consistent with middle = 'nice but not best' non-L/non-DO EF primes, and the last three they of those they put out all got IS.

- A
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,285
193
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
neuroanatomist said:
mb66energy said:
The 2 100mm lens has one great advantage: It is tiny at least with respect for its fast aperture and focal length and compared to "modern" designs. It has a length of 73.5 mm according to Canon websites.

If Canon News' "Whole length of the lens 135.00 " is true and the unit is mm it will never be a replacement:
I am not a streetshoter but I think Kiton is right (some posts above) that a small footprint is welcome for street shooters but also for me because the camera - lens combo is less interesting ... for a thief etc. + it might be much more usable with smaller cameras.
Keep in mind that what is being patented is an optical formula, not a lens. As such, the 'total length' in a patent extends from the front element back to the image sensor. So, a lens patent with a length of 135mm for the EF mount with a flange focal distance of 43mm, means the physical lens will be ~92mm long.
Thanks for that information. I was a little bit shocked by that size and thought a moment about the possibility that they mean the measurement conditions you mentioned: This explains a lot and I do not fear the 1.8 100' size any longer :)
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,628
441
Germany
Put me on the list for the two f/1.8 teles 8)
(at least one of them)

For a 50 mm I would prefer a f/1.4, but I could live with f/1.8 if already quite sharp wide open and IS included.
(so not that patent)
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
67
4
aceflibble said:
Obligatory reminder that patents =/= lenses being made.

That said, it'll be interesting to see how Canon handles 100mm going forward. Originally, they made the 100mm f/2 first and the 85mm f/1.8 was a kind of "might as well" afterthought, reusing some of the same parts. It's no surprise that the 100mm turned out to be the better performer (everything was designed for it first), but 85mm ended up becoming a much more popular focal length (as people moved to 35mm stock for magazines, which required cropping) so that one 'won' anyway. So I'm interested to see—in the hypothetical situation where the lower-end 85mm and 100mm lenses are refreshed—which one Canon works on first. From a design point of view it would make more sense to make the 100mm first again as it's a technically simpler focal length to design; there's no questioning how much more popular 85mm still is, though.

There's also the issue of the AF. The 100mm f/2 has Canon's fastest* and most confident AF motor and the 85mm f/1.8 is just a hair slower (though noticeably less confident) and the other lenses of that series—the 50mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.8, and 20mm f/2.8—also have not been improved upon in terms of AF speed by either their replacements (28mm) or their betters (50mm f/1.2L; the 20mm has no comparable model, period). So, again in the hypothetical situation where these two lenses are remade, there's a very healthy chance that any new versions of the 100mm and 85mm might have worse AF than the existing models.

All that said, it'd sure be nice to have a short-telephoto lens which matches the 35mm f/2 IS. Throwing IS on the 85 and 100, without pushing the aperture so far they compete with the 'L' lenses, would be a solid move. That 35mm is lonely in it's weird midpoint, where it's not been given the L badge but it's clearly far better than any other primes Canon makes; giving it a short-tele friend would be swell.

*When lenses are tested in absolute optimal conditions. In average conditions it's the joint-second fastest.
Why would 100 mm be "a technically simpler focal length to design"?