Is Ring-Type USM on the Way Out?

[Canon Rumors]

I have spent the last bunch of days going over the entire Canon lineup and getting a sense of what technology is in each lens. I was interested in knowing what type of focus motor each lens uses. Canon currently uses 6 different types of focus motors. Dual Nano USM, Nano USM, Ring-Type USM, STM […]

See full article...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Many of the newer lens designs have two separate focusing groups, typically driven by either two separate Nano USM or one each of VCM and Nano USM. The RF 14/1.4L has two VCM motors, though I think that's the only lens so far with that configuration.

Having one big, heavy focusing group necessitated Ring USM to move it fast enough. Even then, sometimes that wasn't very fast – like with the EF 85/1.2L (I and II), where the 'focusing group' was all of the glass in the lens except the thin rear element. One reason the RF 85/1.2L focuses much faster is that the focusing group is smaller, only 7 of the 13 elements and not including the two largest ones in front, but it still needs Ring USM to move it.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Many of the newer lens designs have two separate focusing groups, typically driven by either two separate Nano USM or one each of VCM and Nano USM. The RF 14/1.4L has two VCM motors, though I think that's the only lens so far with that configuration.

Having one big, heavy focusing group necessitated Ring USM to move it fast enough. Even then, sometimes that wasn't very fast – like with the EF 85/1.2L (I and II), where the 'focusing group' was all of the glass in the lens except the thin rear element. One reason the RF 85/1.2L focuses much faster is that the focusing group is smaller, only 7 of the 13 elements and not including the two largest ones in front, but it still needs Ring USM to move it.

Thanks, I missed the Dual VCM on the 14. Here I had thought I had researched well.

VCM dual motor setups will have no problem moving large groups going forward. I think it's over for the rings. Nano and VCM are also easier to repair

 

[Zadak]

About time we bring high-end lenses to higher standards

 

[Tom R5R7]

Many of the newer lens designs have two separate focusing groups, typically driven by either two separate Nano USM or one each of VCM and Nano USM. The RF 14/1.4L has two VCM motors, though I think that's the only lens so far with that configuration.

Having one big, heavy focusing group necessitated Ring USM to move it fast enough. Even then, sometimes that wasn't very fast – like with the EF 85/1.2L (I and II), where the 'focusing group' was all of the glass in the lens except the thin rear element. One reason the RF 85/1.2L focuses much faster is that the focusing group is smaller, only 7 of the 13 elements and not including the two largest ones in front, but it still needs Ring USM to move it.

Yeah, the 85/1.2L in EF form, as well as the 50/1.2 (and the old 50/1.0), the focusing motor moved the entire length group. And that lens group is quite HEAVY! Still have my EF 50/1.2L though. For all its quirks, it is a nice producer of bokeh. The 85 was even smoother. But old school, both of them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Still have my EF 50/1.2L though. For all its quirks, it is a nice producer of bokeh. The 85 was even smoother. But old school, both of them.

I had the EF 85/1.2L II, and really liked it. I now have the RF 85/1.2L DS, which is an amazing portrait lens.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The first thing that jumps out is that all of these are older lenses.

See full article...

There are two other things that jump out imo:
- they are all heavy lenses
- at least the 50/85 primes and 28-70mm suffer (heavily) from focus breathing.

Of course, this could all be due to old lens designs. But maybe Canon hit a wall and realized that lighter or improved focus breathing is not possible or possibly ineffective with ring type usm. For me, this would (it´s all very hypothetical) make sense. Canon realized that these lenses have flaws which need a major redesign. Therefore, they might skip ring type USM and go ahead to develop the lenses differently.

This needs time and would explain the otherwise inexplicable long and silly absence of the 35mm F1.2. I always suggested, Canon skipped the lens because it fits the exact same built type as the three lenses above and the competition made better in the meantime. Also, I've always speculated that the 35mm F1.2 will feature new tech, be lighter and won't suffer from focus breathing.

 

[vikingar]

It might have to do with video. My 28-70 f2 makes audible noise when focusing, completely overpowering the internal mic when recording video. An external mic helps, but it's still not perfectly silent.

I could see that as the main drawback of the focusing tech for hybrid shooters.

 

[SnowMiku]

Here's me thinking that 2018 is a "modern" lens haha.

 

[dolina]

The stock out is likely caused by a delayed part shared by those lenses OR production line is scheduled before expected stock out.

Geopolitics may be causing this.

I doubt any RF lens will get a Series II before 2028 or 2030. Based on EF L refresh cycle's typically every decade, dozen years or 2 decades.

Yeah, the 85/1.2L in EF form, as well as the 50/1.2 (and the old 50/1.0), the focusing motor moved the entire length group. And that lens group is quite HEAVY! Still have my EF 50/1.2L though. For all its quirks, it is a nice producer of bokeh. The 85 was even smoother. But old school, both of them.

Last month I started using the 2024 R1 on an 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II with DLO and other optical correction improvements enabled.

The EF 85mm's AF response time, focus speed and accuracy is as if I was upgraded to a Series III lens. Especially when the SOOC JPEG were largely missing CA and LoCA!

I used it effectively for evening indoor and outdoor pickleball. It locks into the head/eyes then rarely lets go of the AI Servo focus of it.

When I attach the R1 to a 2001 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Series I it had difficulty locking onto focus for more than 20% of the action shots.

Having said that I wish I sold all my pre-2006 EF lenses & 2008 5D Mark II & 2009 1D Mark IV before 2018.

To maximize R1, R5 Mark II, R3 and R7 would be to use RF L lenses like the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z.

 

[Maximilian]

To put it short:
Canon, please put the fastest and most accurate AF into your lenses.
And if it is quiet, too, that would be perfect.
If this means that Ring USM is dead than that's the way of innovation and evolution.

 

[mimbu]

Ring USM died when hybrids became the future. It's nearly silent to us humans but it gets picked up by mics and makes on-camera mics mostly useless. It was a revolutionary tech for its time but there are better options now.

What I want to see is for Canon to stop putting STM AF into lenses. There is no excuse for Canon to still be using STM. It's not fast enough and not good enough for the level of micro-adjustment needed by today's AF systems.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Considering Canon's recent releases of pro / press orientated zooms have both been USM motored lenses, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 L IS USM Z , the RF 70-200mm f2.8 F2.8 L IS USM Z and the RF 100-300mm f2.8 L IS USM come to mind. I suspect that the issue that Canon has with implementing VCM across it's range, is that it doesn't have the motors available in all sizes yet. With every lens, they have to design an enirely new motor each time and it slows down design and manufacturing time. Where as the ring USM, Canon's pretty much got an available parts bin for anything that an engineer / lens designer could wish for.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Considering Canon's recent releases of pro / press orientated zooms have both been USM motored lenses, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 L IS USM Z , the RF 70-200mm f2.8 F2.8 L IS USM Z and the RF 100-300mm f2.8 L IS USM come to mind. I suspect that the issue that Canon has with implementing VCM across it's range..

The title of the post is, “Is Ring-Type USM on the Way Out?” The lenses you list use Nano USM, not Ring USM. There’s a significant difference. Most of the VCM lenses have two AF motors, one VCM and one Nano USM.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The title of the post is, “Is Ring-Type USM on the Way Out?” The lenses you list use Nano USM, not Ring USM. There’s a significant difference. Most of the VCM lenses have two AF motors, one VCM and one Nano USM.

Ahh, thank you for clarifying. The devil is always in the detail!

 

[DocInfoSci]

The King is dead? Long live the King!

Ring USM was all about performance in the context of photography, manufacturing at scale, and reliability. Anything that replaces it with rock solid performance that can be achieved at quantity and be occasionally hit against a rock is equally a good solution. It looks like VCM is increasingly carrying the torch.

From a personal opinion standpoint, I dislike anything that can break when twisted and the power is off. So for the way some gear drives have been implemented I tend to avoid them in any brand's makeup.

But looking at the EF lens catalog, many of the initial offerings were limited in their drive capability. I stopped counting at 41, but glancing ahead on the page more than 41 EF lenses used gear or PZ or other drives. I don't think RF is doing anything different here in terms of equivalency. I think that where the RF lens stable is avoiding high performance drives in the 2020s is surprising to me, but Canon must have its reasons.

Of course, I only own USM EF lenses — save for the 40mm 2.8 STM — because I have other tools or remote / external mics for video. So I don't care if they're a little noisy — I care that they're responsive for their purpose. Also, while some USM lenses moved enough glass to be slow as compared to many, for typical use cases they AF just fine (the 50mm 1.2 is a typical portrait lens, for example, not an F1 straightway snapper — my peeps just don't move in a blurring motion; even the kids aren't that fast).

USM, VCM, whatever. Just be fast, reliable, and tough. Oh, and Canon — please stop releasing $2.5k+ lenses without focus rings. The sports folks might not care, but some of the rest of us do. Not that my opinion matters here. A 200-800 lens without a dedicated focus ring is, well, just silly. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Eric84]

Maybe a dumb question, but would it be impossible for Canon to take the RF 50mm F1.2L (or the 85mm) USM and "just" replace the USM-motor with a VCM style motor? or is the motor inside a lens so composed that a total redesign of everything is necessary?

 

[DocInfoSci]

USM is a vibrating drive that rotates a glass group, whereas VCM pushes/pulls using the magnetic force. The glass groups can probably be recycled, but moving from USM to VCM specifically probably requires some case redesign. Still, Yongnuo was able to clone the EF 14mm using a gear drive motor and still maintain the same form factor so probably not too big of a deal.

I’d love to see winning EF designs recycled into quality but relatively affordable consumer lines that keep prices down by avoiding the glass R&D costs to keep OEM lenses with Canon benefits like DLO more affordable for younger shooters. I doubt that will happen any time soon, but over the expected life of the RF line probably not crazy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 14/1.4L has two VCM motors, though I think that's the only lens so far with that configuration.

It seems that the RF 85/1.4L VCM is also VCM-only, without a Nano USM motor. Several online reviews state that it has both, but I can’t find anything from Canon saying anything other than VCM. The lens appears to have only a single focusing group, whereas lenses with VCM + Nano USM or Dual Nano USM have two focusing groups (one floating).

Maybe a dumb question, but would it be impossible for Canon to take the RF 50mm F1.2L (or the 85mm) USM and "just" replace the USM-motor with a VCM style motor? or is the motor inside a lens so composed that a total redesign of everything is necessary?

I suspect a redesign would be needed, for either a smaller focusing group or two focusing groups. I believe Ring USM is still more powerful. Compare the focusing group of the RF 85/1.4L VCM (3 elements) with that of the RF 85/1.2L (7 elements), for example.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Ring USM is, what, 35 years old, maybe more? It was superb back when the most important attributes of an AF motor were fast starting and fast, accurate stopping, plus quietness. No other brand could compete with Canon's Ring USM for stills on a 1990s SLR. It's kind of sad to see it go but there are so many better alternatives now.

I still have an EF 35-135 USM which is not the sharpest of lenses, but I have kept it as a souvenir of those days.