Canon Shows off Interesting RF 55mm & RF 85mm F1.8 Designs

[Canon Rumors]

Canon's latest round of patent applications has been published. JPO 2026-059152 shows off some interesting consumer RF mount prime lens optical designs. The most noteable thing about these designs is that they're compact and don't have any stretching to cover the full image height of full frame sensors. The optical designs aren't as complex as […]

See full article...

 

[Kiton]

I have the 85 f2 and would dump it in a second for the 85 1.8 stm as a walk around lens!

The 55 is not a terrible idea at all.
I have both the 50 stm and the 1.2 and the stm is my walk around lens.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

45mm, 50mm and then 55mm sounds like quite the line-up I honestly don't believe Canon will release another 50ish mm lens, but I could imagine a replacement. How many versions of the original nifty-fifty were made? Three if I´m correct. So, thats definitely in the books.

A refresh for the 85mm F2 would be quite welcome if Canon improves the Af motor. I own the 85mm f2 and I loved it very much until I picked up the 50mm F1.4 L VCM. Now, I rarely use the 85mm F2 because in comparison it is reaaaaaaaly slow. The optics are reasonable good-very good, but it doesn't work well with (fast) moving objects. I currently only use it for "macro" (actually fake macro at 0,5 magnification) but I´m probably going to sell it and help fund a true macro lens like the RF 100mm F2.8. I can make use of it as a portrait lens as well.

 

[Del Paso]

45mm, 50mm and then 55mm sounds like quite the line-up I honestly don't believe Canon will release another 50ish mm lens, but I could imagine a replacement. How many versions of the original nifty-fifty were made? Three if I´m correct. So, thats definitely in the books.

A refresh for the 85mm F2 would be quite welcome if Canon improves the Af motor. I own the 85mm f2 and I loved it very much until I picked up the 50mm F1.4 L VCM. Now, I rarely use the 85mm F2 because in comparison it is reaaaaaaaly slow. The optics are reasonable good-very good, but it doesn't work well with (fast) moving objects. I currently only use it for "macro" (actually fake macro at 0,5 magnification) but I´m probably going to sell it and help fund a true macro lens like the RF 100mm F2.8. I can make use of it as a portrait lens as well.

Different use for the 85mm f/2 here!
Only for longer walks, mostly in the mountains, where focusing speed doesn't matter at all (for me!), but sharpness and close-ups do!.
Should the f/1,8 be optically even better, not much heavier, and offer 0,5 magnification: Why not!
Yet, I am presently more than satisfied with the f/2, my children are adults now, so, I don't care about AF speed for this particular lens!
But the 55mm, if really light, compact and sharp, and (!!!) close-up able, a sure buy. Sadly, the f/1,4 VCM has an inappropriate short focusing distance, and my Zeiss Classic 50mm f/2 lacks sharpness at longer distances.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I'm good with the RF 45, but I'm sure some would appreciate a higher end 50/55mm f/1.8 lens, similar to Sony's 55mm f/1.8 ZA, with better optics and build quality. Such lens would definitely find its place with those who expected higher and modern optical performance on a lens sitting between the 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 L VCM.

As for the 85mm f/1.8, I could consider such lens if it dropped the macro b******* and featured internal focusing, like the 45.
I don't quite know how to read patents, but it seems to me like the focusing groups are at the rear, so I guess that's promising.

 

[Maximilian]

I don't believe in a 50/55 mm lens replacing the 50 STM. It's a cheap and compact entry level lens.
And what I see here, seems to be bigger and more complex (no. of elements) and therefore more expensive.

I would welcome a 85/1.8 if IQ and AF performance was better than the 85/2 STM offers today.
Will it come? I don't think so.

I suppose, @Craig is correct that both designs are longshots and likely will not make it to market.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Different use for the 85mm f/2 here!
Only for longer walks, mostly in the mountains, where focusing speed doesn't matter at all (for me!), but sharpness and close-ups do!

I use to have the same use case as well. Great lens for hiking, low light, close ups (e.g. cherry blossoms) and then of course portraits (mainly of my wife). Now, enter my nearly four month old son: although he can't even crawl yet, he already moves so quickly in his chair, the 85mm misses a growing number of shots. The VCM lens does not... therefore, the vcm gets the call every single time now... Thats why I´m considering the 100mm macro (better close-ups, use case for portraits as well) and selling the 85mm F2. A second VCM lens is not in the books right now and if it was, I´d love to get the 20mm, not the 85mm.

Sadly, the f/1,4 VCM has an inappropriate short focusing distance

That´s true, the mfd is not suited for close-ups. But then again, I don't believe Canon designed the lens for it and it really excels at all other things.

 

[mangobutter]

Hopeful. I always thought the RF 50 STM and 85 F2 IS were awkward and out of place -- not in line with other manufacturers offerings that are quiet, silent, and modern/non extending. The RF 50 was just lazy and i always hated that it was merely a reshuffled EF 50 STM which itself was just a re-dressed design going back decades. I'm sure the 50 STM will still sell along side any more higher priced sibling, but there should be a quiet internally focusing higher quality lens in the 50 1.8 arena than what is currently being offered. In terms of the 85 macro.. really i could do without the macro feature. the decades old EF 85 1.8 seems way more polished in operation and materials.

Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them. they all seem like cheap lenses on their outsides with optics that are sharp yet make lots of distortion, with many of them with cheap feeling and looking extending barrels (and yes i get the physics/optical compromises/packaging considerations etc)

Give me back the look, feel, and operation of the old EF lenses that look and feel good to the touch, focus internally quickly and quietly. Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them. they all seem like cheap lenses on their outsides with optics that are sharp yet make lots of distortion, with many of them with cheap feeling and looking extending barrels (and yes i get the physics/optical compromises/packaging considerations etc)

You might feel differently if you owned one or more of these...

Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

Oh, they're still around.



And even though the front element of my RF 85/1.2L DS is a bit smaller than that of my RF 28-70/2, the RF prime's front element is larger than that of the EF 85/1.2L II that I owned years ago.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

You might feel differently if you owned one or more of these...

That's higher end, I think he meant the old gold rings, and the best modern silver rings, like the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, and EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM.
IIRC, only the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was on the lower side of things, with external focusing.

In my experience, for now, the only lens that is comparable is the RF 45mm. The RF 85mm f/2 could be another one, if it didn't focus externally.

I somewhat agree, these RF STM primes are the only lenses I've consistently been wishing to replace.
I ditched the RF 24 1.8, 35 1.8, the next possibly will be the 50 1.8 (I'm considering keeping it for the size, but it's unlikely), and the two other lenses I always look forward to replace are the RF 28 and RF 16, even though I consider these two to be a little more pleasant to use.

I don't need red rings on all my gear, but I would have paid an 100 or 200 extra bucks for the same lenses with a more refined experience.
Internal (front or rear, whatever, I don't care), quiet and smooth autofocus, dedicated lens hoods threads, and dedicated clicked control rings for consistency.

I don't think that's a lot to ask.

 

[riker]

Finally these just might be stuff I have been praying for, especially the 55/1.8.
The 50/1.8 is is cheap crap, and although I bought the 45/1.2 which is much better quality, it's size and weight is more than what would be ideal in scenarios when it matters.
I'd be happy with a 55/1.8 around 250g.

Also, a 85/1.8 with better AF but not more weight would be a welcomed upgrade to the 85/2.
I'd pre-order both.

 

[AJ]

I can't really see 85/1.8 non-IS being an upgrade over 85/2 IS. I'd pick IS over an extra third of a stop, anytime.
What the 85/2 really needs is a different focusing motor, rather than a different opical formula.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's higher end, I think he meant the old gold rings, and the best modern silver rings, like the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, and EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM.

I assumed so, and probably when he stated, "Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them," he meant lenses that he personally owns, not lenses that are available.

He did mention the EF 85/1.8, specifically, and while I remember that lens fondly (it was one of the very first pair of lenses that I bought, back in 2009), I don't kid myself about its optical performance. That lens had wicked bad axial CA...if the Jimmy Hendrix song didn't predate the lens by 25 years, I'd have said the song was written about the lens. The fact is that the RF 85/2 delivers significantly better optical results than the EF 85/1.8.

I can't speak to the build quality of the RF 85/2 as I've never used it, but holding the RF 24/1.8 STM and the RF 24/1.4L VCM side by side, the build quality is actually very similar, both are very good.



In terms of optics, the RF 24/1.8, RF 28/2.8, and especially the RF 35/1.8 are better than their EF 'best modern silver ring' counterparts, for example see this 35mm comparison.

 

[Sporgon]

The RF 50 was just lazy and i always hated that it was merely a reshuffled EF 50 STM which itself was just a re-dressed design going back decades.

The RF 50/1.8 is not a reshuffle of the EF 50/1.8.
If it’s a reshuffle (or rather a modern update) of anything then it’s the 40/1.7 of the 1970s Canonet rangefinder models. Incidentally that lens had a stellar reputation in its day.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 50/1.8 is not a reshuffle of the EF 50/1.8.

Oh, I think it is. They made one of the elements an aspherical, but it's still the same basic 6-element, 5-group, double Gauss design. In fact, Canon states, "The RF50mm F1.8 STM features an enhanced version of the highly praised optical configuration employed by the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM..."

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I can't speak to the build quality of the RF 85/2 as I've never used it, but holding the RF 24/1.8 STM and the RF 24/1.4L VCM side by side, the build quality is actually very similar, both are very good.

In terms of optics, the RF 24/1.8, RF 28/2.8, and especially the RF 35/1.8 are better than their EF 'best modern silver ring' counterparts, for example see this 35mm comparison.

To me, it's the combination of everything. That includes optical performance, build quality and refinement, and the first alone is not enough. If I don't like using a product, even if it provides better image quality, I'm ditching it. For instance, I know those 24 and 35 are better than their predecessors, but I still didn't like them, so I sold both and felt glad I got rid of them.

I've owned or at least tried most of the lenses I mentioned (all the RF lenses, at least).

Spoiler

The RF 24mm f/1.8 that you mentioned: good plastics, lovely dimensions, okay-ish lead-screw STM, proper lens hood attachment, but then focuses externally and has a long focus range due to its macro abilities. Yeah, that puts me off, forget it, it's long gone.

Then the RF 35mm f/1.8: again, good plastics, lovely dimensions, but an old gear type STM that is noisy and jerky, weird lens hood, external focus, long focus range due to its macro abilities. Nah, forget it, it's gone and never to be missed.

The RF 16mm: okay-ish plastics, lovely dimensions, proper lens hood attachment, then again the old gear type STM that is noisy and jerky, and external focus. At least this one doesn't have to move its elements a lot - that helps. I tolerate it, but I'm waiting for a silver ring upgrade.

The RF 28mm: plastics are okay, dimensions are okay (not much to grab, really), its gear type STM seems a little better but not amazing, then external focus, and a weird lens hood. Similarly to the 16mm, this one doesn't have to move its elements a lot. Yeah, I tolerate it, and it's one of my favourite focal lengths, but I'm waiting for a silver ring upgrade.

The RF 50mm f/1.8 at least is cheap. Okay-ish plastics, lovely dimensions, proper lens hood attachment, then again the old gear type STM that is noisy and jerky, external focus, somewhat long focus range due to its good magnification, and pretty bad colour if you don't use auto white balance. For the price, however, I won't complain, as it is an overall better package than some of its predecessors. I'm delaying selling it because it's cheap and small, but I doubt I'll keep it.

Do I actually enjoy using any of these lenses? Do/did I feel glad that I own/owned them? Do I want to use them? No, not really.
I'll take the 28 with me because it's the only 28mm RF lens there is, not because I enjoy using it.

The exception, to me, is the RF 45mm. Probably the worst optical performance, but good plastics, decent dimensions, proper lens hood attachment, smooth, quiet and internal autofocus. Finally, something that doesn't feel or work like a toy. It's a joy to use, I'm in! Get me more lenses like this!

 

[neuroanatomist]

To me, it's the combination of everything. That includes optical performance, build quality and refinement, and the first alone is not enough. If I don't like using a product, even if it provides better image quality, I'm ditching it. For instance, I know those 24 and 35 are better than their predecessors, but I still didn't like them, so I sold both and felt glad I got rid of them.

We have very different priorities, and that's perfectly fine. Ergonomics are important, which is why I prefer bodies with an integrated grip. But lenses? After I put a prime lens on my camera, I pretty much don't touch it until I take it off (I'd even say that applies to the EF 600/4 II, since I'm supporting it by the replacement RRS lens foot and not really touching the lens itself). About the only exception is manually focusing a lens for shooting the night sky (or lenses without AF, like the TS-Esand MP-E). Zoom lenses...I use the zoom ring, and that's it.

I've never had an issue with AF that's too slow. Perhaps that's due to my usage pattern – with fast-moving subjects I'm using an L-series lens, anyway. But comparing the RF 24/1.8 STM to the RF 28-70/2L, for example (which I just did, on my R8), they go from MFD to infinity focus in about the same amount of time. I’d say the 28-70/2 focuses reasonably quickly, but it’s perhaps two ‘notches’ slower than lenses like the RF 70-200/2.8 or RF 24-105/2.8, which are among the fastest-focusing lenses. Lenses like the RF 24-105/4, RF 100/2.8 and RF 100-500 are in between. The only lens that I've used where I'd call the AF relatively slow is the EF 85/1.2L II.

Refinement is subjective, but if you're looking for that then look for the L.

The exception, to me, is the RF 45mm. Probably the worst optical performance, but good plastics, decent dimensions, proper lens hood attachment, smooth, quiet and internal autofocus. Finally, something that doesn't feel or work like a toy. It's a joy to use, I'm in! Get me more lenses like this!

Yeah, not me. If I want my images to have a dreamy look to them, I'll just take a long nap...or maybe smear a coating of vaseline on a cheap filter and put that on my lens. I mean, it's great that the RF 45/1.2 offers similar image quality to the EF 50/1.2L for a much lower cost, but I didn't have any desire for the 50/1.2L, either.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

After I put a prime lens on my camera, I pretty much don't touch it until I take it off (I'd even say that applies to the EF 600/4 II, since I'm supporting it by the replacement RRS lens foot and not really touching the lens itself). About the only exception is manually focusing a lens for shooting the night sky (or lenses without AF, like the TS-Esand MP-E). Zoom lenses...I use the zoom ring, and that's it.

Well, apart from holding the camera from the lens (usually), it's not that I operate a lot of controls on the lenses either, but I do use their control rings sometimes, and I photograph exclusively handheld. I don't own lenses with custom buttons, neither VCMs with their aperture rings.
Also, I shoot absolutely everything using autofocus. Its smoothness can be felt in the hand and seen in the EVF. Plus, noise - or the absence of it.

External focusing designs, specially if with weird lens hoods (like the RF 35 1.8 and 28), are pretty much a vulnerability as they protrude from the lens housing. They're also more prone to allowing dust entering the lens - it doesn't take rubber gaskets for a lens to be a little more protected.

Refinement is subjective, but if you're looking for that then look for the L.

With the red ring often comes extra size, weight and, of course, the price tag.

I'm not asking a lot, I'm asking for attributes we had on gold and some silver ring EF lenses, like the EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2 USM, and probably others I'm not even aware of - all these were internal focusing and reasonably silent USM lenses with proper lens hoods.

So far, I think the RF 45mm is the only silver ring RF prime lens that is on par with that, in terms of "build quality".
Get me more lenses like that! Perhaps a 16mm f/1.8, a 20mm f/1.8, a 28mm f/1.8, an 85mm f/1.8...or f/2, whatever, I'm not asking for f/1.4 or f/1.2.

Like I said, I would have paid an extra 100 or 200 bucks for the same lenses (RF 16, RF 28, maybe others) with a little more refined experience.

Yeah, not me. If I want my images to have a dreamy look to them, I'll just take a long nap...

I won't say I'm fond of the dreamy look because I'm not, but I don't usually shoot at f/1.2 either (my most used aperture is definitely f/2.8, across all lenses) so, for the price, I can live with that.
Ergonomics are great, autofocus is not annoying, I don't have to worry if something knocks it at the front, and a filter prevents dust from entering directly the lens barrel. As long as it's not raining and I'm not photographing in the dust, I'm good.

 

[scyrene]

Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

I think people have said mirrorless/short flange distance (if that's the term) means the elements for some focal lengths can essentially be reversed, so the bigger ones are at the back? I suppose it means less glass exposed to potential scratches.