Patent: Canon RF 24mm f/1.4L and Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L

Sorry to shout, but guys, these patents are almost never about the example lenses shown in the patent, but about the higher-level design. There is NO indication in this patent that these particular lenses might possibly be manufactured.

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 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).

This patent is over a specific set of lens group constraints that gives a result of minimizing the size of the focus group (to need a small motor and have low battery drainage and fast focus speed, one presumes) while satisfactorily correcting aberrations.

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.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0


I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
This might sound odd, but I still want to put it out there in case Canon is spying on the forum. Why can't Canon make 25mm and 15mm just like the Zeiss Milvus? If you look at the EF prime line up, let's start from 200mm, 135mm, 100mm, 85mm, 50mm, 35mm. I just feel that 25mm and 15mm are the logical sequence and not 24mm and 14mm. This might just be my OCD kicking in, but I have contemplated buying Zeiss just to keep the numbers logical.

Right now I have the following Prime RF Lenses, 100 Macro, 85mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.2. I am waiting for the RF 35mm f/1.2 (I have that covered for now with Tamron 35 f/1.4) and I will like to see 25mm f/1.4 and 15mm f/2.8 or even f/4 to complete the cycle.
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


5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
Yorkshire, England
Here's a recent RF85 f1.2 (no DS - not needed) shot where the model crawled away from the good natural lighting, but it still pleases Daddy.

View attachment 199410
Don’t you think that picture might have been better with a little more depth of field ?
Upvote 0


Mar 6, 2017
Do you think 1/3 stop less dof at 35mm is going to be that noticeable?
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


Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
For me the degree of blur / OOF overpowers an otherwise pleasing image.
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.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

EOS 4 Life

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 20, 2020
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.
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