Patent: Canon RF 24mm f/1.4L and Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I get that this is often true, but some internet dwellers have been piecing together the matches between patents and actual lenses released. Bill Claff over at Photonstophotos.net has been actively seeking out these matches. I'm not sure he's published anything yet, but when speaking to him some months ago, he mentioned the effort, and I was able to shoot him over one match that I noticed. Will be interesting to get some stats on that. He, by the way, is one of those great figures on the web who does real research and publishes results just because he loves the stuff. He doesn't appear to be seeking thanks, but we should all be grateful for his and the work of others like him (like Uncle Roger).
Yeah, I read this patent the same way when I wrote up a little digest of it. It's less about the lenses and more about the speed of focusing group. That said, I expect that because the nature of the patent's purpose requires a redesigned lens, that one or two of these designs are more likely to come out as real products than your average Canon patent. Craig's guess that the 24mm one is most likely is a good prediction.
Upvote
0
I loved the 50 f/1.2 back when I owned it briefly. But I had the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art for EF, and the difference in quality wasn't worth it for me relative to getting a different RF lens (helped fund the 70-200 f/2.8).
When I shot Sony for a year, I got a nice 35mm (Sigma f/1.2) and a decent 85mm (Samyang f/1.4), and having those two primes meant I seldom took out the 50mm lens (that same Sigma f/1.4).
This 35/85 focal length combo of primes is really useful. I carried those two at a few events I was hired to do in facilities with crap light.
I think I'm going to do the same with RF mount. I have the RF 85 f/1.2 (I still get adrenaline rush when I just type that lens name, its so good), and expect the 35 to be my next "last" RF purchase.
The idea of Canon using focus speed to sell its f/1.4 lenses is very intriguing to me. I'm not sure if I'd prefer a 1.2 with 85mm f/1.2 style quality or an f/1.4 that concentrated on focus speed. If you look at the glass designs in the patent, even the f/1.4 ones are going to be big soup cans.
When I shot Sony for a year, I got a nice 35mm (Sigma f/1.2) and a decent 85mm (Samyang f/1.4), and having those two primes meant I seldom took out the 50mm lens (that same Sigma f/1.4).
This 35/85 focal length combo of primes is really useful. I carried those two at a few events I was hired to do in facilities with crap light.
I think I'm going to do the same with RF mount. I have the RF 85 f/1.2 (I still get adrenaline rush when I just type that lens name, its so good), and expect the 35 to be my next "last" RF purchase.
The idea of Canon using focus speed to sell its f/1.4 lenses is very intriguing to me. I'm not sure if I'd prefer a 1.2 with 85mm f/1.2 style quality or an f/1.4 that concentrated on focus speed. If you look at the glass designs in the patent, even the f/1.4 ones are going to be big soup cans.
Upvote
0
Considering focal length is only measured at infinity, and all lenses are either rounded up or down, how much difference do you thing there actually is between a 14mm lens and a 15mm lens or between 25mm and 24mm?
I bet if you posted half a dozen photos here and asked people to guess the focal length used (I have done it several times) you'd get a massive range and almost everybody would be wrong. One mm of focal length doesn't make any difference.
Upvote
0
Well.. these news brings up a serious problem that I have, it is called money in the bank, or in more specific way, the lack of it.... "So many lenses too little cash".
Upvote
0
And I don't care about 1.2, for me 1.4 is fine as long as the build and image quality is stunning. Some of us do travel and it's enough to carry a 600g lens, not need for 1kg lenses.
Upvote
0
I already have the 35 f1.4 I want more shallow depth of field than that lens is capable of.
Upvote
0
I hope so but I will rent it first to do a side by comparison of my 1.4 version first. If not I can save money and forget about it. I’ve seen many comparisons of the 50 1.4 vs 1.2 and there’s definitely a difference (I just upgraded to the rf 50 1.2 and it’s the best lens I’ve ever owned) but that a tele and not a wide angle lens so more compression to start with. It’s possible with a wide angle to only get negligible improvement but I want to upgrade all my lense to RF over time anyways and I’m sure it’ll be better optically as well.
Upvote
0
You got me. I took this just to irritate people who can't afford $3000 lenses to take baby pictures of their own kids. If I'd stopped down to F2.8 and gotten a pleasing image, everyone would think I was poor.
Actually, the artist was going for this look that gives an almost abstract view of hairline, eye line, nose line and mouthline, with all else disappearing like certain vintage portraits of children. The added benefit is that we avoid the distration of the garment coverage.
Upvote
0
I am no expert but I am pretty sure you do not have to justify artistic choices with strangers on the internet.
I enjoyed the photo though.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
