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

Aurora I wouldn't call as Astro... (yes yes, Sun...) - But, yes, for Aurora a fast lens is very good. (But I did it also with f/4... works).
But is this the target for the 14 IS here? A special lens for all Aurora enthusiasts? This "big" market?
yes you can use f4 but you'll not be able to get all the fine details when they look like a veil (sorry English not my language too) by using a very short duration (1 to 3sec), also you can get pin point stars and that (IMHO) more beautifull.

same thing for Milky Way, when you don't want to use a tracker (or if you don't have), it's a lot easier with big aperture to get pin point stars

last but not least, about IS : I try to travel to make pics and weight is limited, so I also use this lens for landscape, so if it has IS it's better for me.
 

Attachments

  • aurore.jpg
    aurore.jpg
    492.4 KB · Views: 7
  • voielactee.jpg
    voielactee.jpg
    1,002.3 KB · Views: 7
Upvote 0

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
318
458
Sturtevant, WI
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?

How do you feel about the Sigma ART 35mm and 28mm at f/1.4 for astro?
 
Upvote 0

photographer

CR Pro
Jan 17, 2020
86
59
86
Canon should make some halo lenses: 35/1.0 and 135/1.0DS.

35/1.0 would have the 35mm aperture of a 50/1.4, so you'd have the same DOF as a 50/1.4 just over twice the area. It'd be eminently usable and shouldn't require a monstrous amount of glass. There are already several 35/1.0's for smaller sensors I think. My 35mm lineup would be a 35/1.0 halo lens, very low production, but generate a lot of buzz. 35/1.4 pro lens, general purpose use. 35/2 economical lens for new amateurs, and a 35/2 or 35/2.8 street lens with modest spec but superb rendition and sharpness, to lure the Leica crowd.

135/1.0DS would have a 135mm aperture (of course), same as a Nikon 300/2, or a 400/2.8, 600/4, etc. It's huge... but not undoable by any means. Now, like most lenses, the highlights would be football-shaped towards the corners. But at f/1.4, it would have perfectly round out-of-focus highlights from center to corner. The DS filter would be a drop-in (like the telephoto circular polarizers) that would turn the f/1.4 perfect circle into a perfect sphere. It'd cut transmission by about half, so the resulting lens works much as a wide-open 135/2, albeit with perfect fuzzball highlights. It might be a USD15,000 lens, but it'd be a lens whose images you could recognize anywhere. How many other lenses can that be said of??
I have a Sigma Art 105 1.4 and I think a crane would have to be part of the 135/1.0DS package. Drop-in is a good idea - the question is whether it can be done. Even with the 85 DS, there are many people who find the photos from it unnatural - that they look like they have been edited. If I pay $15,000 for a lens, I want "WOW!" and not "I have that filter on my iPhone too".

35/1.0 I have an erection! :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
We have another optical formula patent for lenses that are likely to reach the market some time in the near future. This time we have formulas for a Canon RF 14mm f/1.4L IS USM & Canon RF 24mm f/1.4L IS USM. A fast RF L prime has been long rumoured, and an RF 24mm f/1.4L

See full article...

I think Canon is missing out something. If you want a fast prime lens, you have to choose between the cheap crappy STM ones and the insanely expensive ones. (The RF 50/1,2 cost app €2500 in Sweden, incl vat.) And restricting third part RF-manufacturers to use this mount Canon pushes a lot of of us pro users with restricted budget to look for another brand. I really regret getting into the RF cameras, and I am stuck with bad choice or no choice. (I know EF lenses and adapter is a choice but thats not the thing about bying a RF-mount camera is it) Canon are too slow and to greedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,617
4,192
The Netherlands
I think Canon is missing out something. If you want a fast prime lens, you have to choose between the cheap crappy STM ones and the insanely expensive ones.[...]
I wouldn't call the RF STM lenses 'cheap', they are a lot more expensive than their EF counterparts. You do get a lot more, like a lot more sharpness wide open and for the RF85, IS. But still not what I'd call cheap.

I do miss the extra speed the USM motor gave the EF85 f/1.8, but I like the lack of CA at f/2 and more consistent AF a lot more :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
522
360
I think Canon is missing out something. If you want a fast prime lens, you have to choose between the cheap crappy STM ones and the insanely expensive ones. (The RF 50/1,2 cost app €2500 in Sweden, incl vat.) And restricting third part RF-manufacturers to use this mount Canon pushes a lot of of us pro users with restricted budget to look for another brand. I really regret getting into the RF cameras, and I am stuck with bad choice or no choice. (I know EF lenses and adapter is a choice but thats not the thing about bying a RF-mount camera is it) Canon are too slow and to greedy.
I understand your point. The newest lenses are good designs, and the mirrorless architecture helps especially the wide-angle and wide-to-normal zoom lenses be better than was possible with EF. This is a big attraction of the RF system.

However, I think you still get many benefits from an R camera even with EF lenses, and thanks to RF, EF used lenses are now 30-40% lower in price. This is an incredible time to get a 600/4IS MkI for only USD4000 in good condition, for instance, or a 135/2 for USD450. The 50/1.8 is actually about the same quality as the EF one from 1987 (the professional-use version). And you still get the low-noise, high-resolution sensors that shoot at very high ISO, and the excellent autofocus. I'm reading that the RF lenses have a much faster data connection than the EF lenses, in part to improve autofocus, but I haven't seen that EF lenses are actually notably worse than RF. I would advise anyone to buy an R camera, and maybe a RF24-105/4, then get used primes from the EF series used.
 
Upvote 0

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
219
95
Berlin
www.flickr.com
How do you feel about the Sigma ART 35mm and 28mm at f/1.4 for astro?
I don't have it.


yes you can use f4 but you'll not be able to get all the fine details when they look like a veil (sorry English not my language too) by using a very short duration (1 to 3sec), also you can get pin point stars and that (IMHO) more beautifull.
Depends on the speed of changes.
ISO3200, f/4, 15sec
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0