Patent: Canon RF 14mm f/1.4L IS USM & Canon RF 24mm f/1.4L IS USM

Can we have RF 50/1.4 IS USM and a RF 20mm f2/f1.8 prime... Their EF version is long overdue for update
IS on a 50/1.4 would be unlikely I think, but also not necessary. The RF50/1.8 has a 7-stop advantage with IBIS and is basically as hand-holdable as the RF35/1.8 IS. With the R6 and either of the two lenses I can routinely expose non-critical scenes for a full second handheld. YMMV on higher MP bodies of course. Also, sorry R, RP, and R10 users :p

I am a bit on the fence about the 50/1.4 vs the 50/1.8. I do not think it would be for me since 50mm is not a focal length where I look for tack-sharp quality. USM is nice though, but nothing that would make me upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
One of the most often read and justified criticisms about Canon is the lack of an "astro" ultra WA lens. Sigma seemed to benefit from this situation.
So, I cannot imagine Canon introducing a 1,4/14mm and not paying attention to coma. The price will be a different affair...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
One of the most often read and justified criticisms about Canon is the lack of an "astro" ultra WA lens. Sigma seemed to benefit from this situation.
So, I cannot imagine Canon introducing a 1,4/14mm and not paying attention to coma. The price will be a different affair...
I find the typical 14mm 2.8 milky ways boring. Not many stars (only 5mm entrance pupil). This could be better with 1.4, but it is also only 10mm....

The main part of the milky way of the center bulge you can easily fit into 35mm. I did that with the EF 35 IS:
But I had to use f/3.5 for that because of coma reason. This was EF, I didn't try it with my RF 35 1.8 yet.

So it would be much better, if I could use f/2 or even f/1.2 of an RF35mm. 29mm entrance pupil would bring out so much more stars, not only the possible decrease of exposure time....
But coma is the key issue always... But if they build IS inside an 14mm I don't know what the reason is? Handheld astro without tripod? For architecture you can profit with an IS, but there you use f/5.6 or more always,...
What am I missing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Omg yes please!!!! 14mm F1.4 would be my dream lens for Astro/ nightsky/ cityscapes at night :)

Does anybody have an idea how big this lens would be? Filter size? Weight? Any guesses.

Of course, I’d probably have to rethink my lens line up and sell a few so I can pay for such a unicorn lense…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I find the typical 14mm 2.8 milky ways boring. Not many stars (only 5mm entrance pupil). This could be better with 1.4, but it is also only 10mm....

The main part of the milky way of the center bulge you can easily fit into 35mm. I did that with the EF 35 IS:
But I had to use f/3.5 for that because of coma reason. This was EF, I didn't try it with my RF 35 1.8 yet.

So it would be much better, if I could use f/2 or even f/1.2 of an RF35mm. 29mm entrance pupil would bring out so much more stars, not only the possible decrease of exposure time....
But coma is the key issue always... But if they build IS inside an 14mm I don't know what the reason is? Handheld astro without tripod? For architecture you can profit with an IS, but there you use f/5.6 or more always,...
What am I missing?
Nice pic :) thx for sharing

I like the RF 35mm F1.8 for nightsky/ cityscapes at night as well. A very capable lens :)
 
Upvote 0
Can we have RF 50/1.4 IS USM and a RF 20mm f2/f1.8 prime... Their EF version is long overdue for update
If Canon thought there was money in updating either, it wouldn't have waited 30 years. Zooms and smartphones with cameras have taken over, the market is dwindling, and its not like the other non-L primes have received an upgrade. IIRC, I've read the 24-28-35mm primes had only their electronics updated, not the optical formulas.

I wouldn't even bet on a 20mm L prime. My impression is the focal length has limited popularity, and Canon might fill the hole between 14mm and 24mm with the rumored ultra wide L zoom.
 
Upvote 0
Does anybody have an idea how big this lens would be? Filter size? Weight? Any guesses.
The Sony GM and Sigma might give you an idea. The Sony is small and the Sigma is larger and heavier. Seeing as how the RF glass is not exactly “compact” like the Sonys are, and since it’s 1.4 instead of 1.8, I would assume it might be a little larger than the Sigma if Canon was able to make it more compact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
I've read the 24-28-35mm primes had only their electronics updated, not the optical formulas.
I really hope that’s not true.
The EF 24 is nowhere near as sharp as Sonys 24GM.
The 35 GM is still slightly sharper than the EF.
If it’s just a matter of changing the focusing motors and the rest of the electronics, then why is it taking so long to get a 35 out to market?
I hope they do update the formulas to give us something magical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
IIRC, I've read the 24-28-35mm primes had only their electronics updated, not the optical formulas.
Not sure what you're even talking about. Do you mean the EF original to the updated EF? Or the EF to the RF? For the former, those were updated optical designs (plus adding IS). For the latter, there is no RF 28mm lens, and the 24mm and 35mm lenses are quite different optical designs. So either YDRC or the source was FOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Can we have RF 50/1.4 IS USM and a RF 20mm f2/f1.8 prime... Their EF version is long overdue for update
I had the EF 50 1.4, I never was satisfied. Today it is replaced by the RF 50 1.8 which makes me really happy!
The 50 1.2 is for very different needs, great as well.

I do see many more relevant gaps in the Canon RF lineup,
- i.e. FL shorter than 15mm, faster than 2.0
- primes below those 400 2.8 /600 4.0 but faster than 600 f11
- RF L anywhere between 20 and 28mm
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
24mm could be good for astro. Just worried about the price. I'd hope for $1500, but expect over $2k. If this were good for Astro, I'd love to have one to also use for indoor shots at family events and stuff. The dual use would maybe make it worth it.

For the 14mm, the Sigma art is a great lens at ~$1300. This one would be faster at 1.4 vs. 1.8. So adding the canon premium over Sigma, plus the wider aperture, plus the RF premium over EF....that could be a $2500 lens. I'd rather have a second body if I were going to spend that on a low use Astro lens.

-Brian
 
Upvote 0