BR Optics

[Ozarker]

Wondering whether or not the lack of BR in the new lenses can give a clue concerning lens development. As far as I can tell, the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM is the only Canon lens with the BR coating/element. Several lenses have been released since the release of that lens. None of them have BR. Why?

Could it be:

1. Those lenses released later than the 35mm were developed before BR became a factor in design. Canon simply released the more newly designed 35mm before the earlier designed lenses.

2. Manufacturing costs with BR are too expensive?

3. Canon found that BR just doesn't affect CA as much as thought?

Those are my guesses as to why. Number 1 is my best guess.

 

[ahsanford]

As I had heard here at CR before -- and would like confirmed if true -- some have said BR rewards wide-angle + wide aperture lenses but not necessarily longer and/or slower lenses.

If true, that would mean we haven't seen another BR lens because Canon simply hasn't developed fast + wide lenses since the 35L II. We might not see BR again until we get a new 24 f/1.4L III.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

As I had heard here at CR before -- and would like confirmed if true -- some have said BR rewards wide-angle + wide aperture lenses but not necessarily longer and/or slower lenses.

If true, that would mean we haven't seen another BR lens because Canon simply hasn't developed fast + wide lenses since the 35L II. We might not see BR again until we get a new 24 f/1.4L III.

- A

Well, one of the rumors says there is a 600mm f/4 DO with BR coming. That being the case, I would have expected it on the new 85, upcoming 135, the TS lenses, etc. That's why my guess would be that Canon does not release lenses in the order of final development. https://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-ef-600mm-f-4-do-br-lens-arriving-in-2017

But that's just a guess.

 

[Viggo]

The 16-35 f2.8 III didn’t have it either? Glad the 35 L II has it, I see no CA ever in my shots 8)

 

[Ozarker]

The 16-35 f2.8 III didn’t have it either? Glad the 35 L II has it, I see no CA ever in my shots 8)

Mine is also great. Very happy with it.

 

[BeenThere]

Another possibility is that Canon has discovered an aging issue with the BR material and it needs more development work. Might as well throw a negative thought into the hopper. I have the 35L II with BR, so I hope one of the other reasons is correct.

 

[Ozarker]

Another possibility is that Canon has discovered an aging issue with the BR material and it needs more development work. Might as well throw a negative thought into the hopper. I have the 35L II with BR, so I hope one of the other reasons is correct.

Never thought of that, and shame on you for letting that one out. Say it ain't so!

 

[jd7]

As (if?!) I understand it, the BR material is changing the angle of light in the blue spectrum differently from light in other parts of the spectrum to counterbalance the "normal" lens effect which sees blue light focused at a slightly different point from other frequencies (hence creating the colour fringing) - and tends to become most apparent at (relatively) large apertures. So my speculation is:

it is significant to the cost of production so Canon don't put it in unless they think there is a significant benefit to using it,

it provides a significant benefit in "standard" wide aperture, wider angle lenses, hence it's use in the 35L II - and my guess is we will see it in other wider angle L lenses (will be interesting to find out if 50 mm is wide enough to warrant inclusion of BR material or not, or if we only see it in 35 mm and wider lenses),

it provides a significant benefit to DO lenses even though they tend to be longer focal lengths (where the DO setup is useful to reduce overall size of the lens). I have no idea exactly why that would be, but the DO setups are bouncing light around more than a standard lens setup. Perhaps we will start seeing BR material in all of the future DO lenses??

Or maybe I'm just completely on the wrong track

 

[Ozarker]

As (if?!) I understand it, the BR material is changing the angle of light in the blue spectrum differently from light in other parts of the spectrum to counterbalance the "normal" lens effect which sees blue light focused at a slightly different point from other frequencies (hence creating the colour fringing) - and tends to become most apparent at (relatively) large apertures. So my speculation is:

it is significant to the cost of production so Canon don't put it in unless they think there is a significant benefit to using it,

it provides a significant benefit in "standard" wide aperture, wider angle lenses, hence it's use in the 35L II - and my guess is we will see it in other wider angle L lenses (will be interesting to find out if 50 mm is wide enough to warrant inclusion of BR material or not, or if we only see it in 35 mm and wider lenses),

it provides a significant benefit to DO lenses even though they tend to be longer focal lengths (where the DO setup is useful to reduce overall size of the lens). I have no idea exactly why that would be, but the DO setups are bouncing light around more than a standard lens setup. Perhaps we will start seeing BR material in all of the future DO lenses??

Or maybe I'm just completely on the wrong track

Sounds logical to me. Thanks!

 

[arthurbikemad]

The 16-35 f2.8 III didn’t have it either? Glad the 35 L II has it, I see no CA ever in my shots 8)

Mine is also great. Very happy with it.

Same here, the new 35 is a cracking lens, I just love the thing, it's awesome.

 

[Viggo]

Another possibility is that Canon has discovered an aging issue with the BR material and it needs more development work. Might as well throw a negative thought into the hopper. I have the 35L II with BR, so I hope one of the other reasons is correct.

Never thought of that, and shame on you for letting that one out. Say it ain't so!

Considering the status of the 35 L lenses I seriously doubt it’s a “whoops” about it in anyway. It’s, according to LensRentals, one of the most overengineered lens they’ve ever seen. I think maybe it’s sonething to do with zoom vs primes in addition to wider lenses and wider apertures. I’ll bet a few bucks that we’ll see it in the next 14 f2.8 (or faster) and a new 24 f1.4.

Because that sounds much better than it wasn’t durable enough 8)

 

[ejenner]

The 400 DO II doesn't have an issue with CA. I have shot in very contrasty conditions, and it would be really annoying if this was a problem.

However, DO optics are unusual, so it would not surprise me if there were some other benefit. Anything that would help the bokeh for instance would be a big deal (it's not horrible on the DO II, but could definitely be better).

Or maybe the 400 DO II has some other elements that would not be needed, or would be less expensive with a BR element instead.

Good points by the OP though, it does seem like it has been somewhat forgotten. OTOH, DO optics looked like they were going to be way more widespread and I think we really only have 1 'great' DO lens so far - the 400 mk II. the 70-300 is OK, but didn't really change the 70-300 game.

 

[mjg79]

I too have been surprised that it hasn't been seen on another lens since. Maybe the cost really is an issue - I think almost every review of the 35 L II said the same sort of thing: "the best AF 35mm lens money can buy but the old one is so good that it's hard to justify spending so much..."

I did get one and love it! 35mm is my preferred focal length for so many different types of photography.

One thing that did surprise me is that when you examine the lens under light and tilt it you can see the blue element near the front, it lost looks like a blue coloured haze on an element really- it's curious to me that that doesn't have some negative impact on the colours going through and suggests it really is something unusual and special and not just marketing hype.