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

[YuengLinger]

I spent the day with my RF50 1.2 (indoor kid birthday activities) and was constantly backing up. I suspect a 35 will replace the 50, and the 85 can take up the portrait distance slack.

The ef 35mm f/1.4L II has spectacular IQ on the R5/R6, and it balances as well as (or better than) any of my RF lenses.

But, for me, not all EF lenses have good ergonomics with the adapter. For example, I had a very good copy of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and sold it because it was too front heavy and the zoom ring just wasn't quite right with the R in portrait orientation. Too clumsy.

Definitely worth grabbing the ef 35mm while they are still available, imo.

I agree with you about 50mm being problematic in typical home-sized rooms for parties and other events.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]

for me the real surprise is that no-one seems to make a 70mm. I have the Leica 75/1.4, but otherwise it seems like 85mm and 90mm are more common.

70mm F2.8 DG MACRO | Art | Lenses | SIGMA Corporation

Information about the SIGMA lens 70mm F2.8 DG MACRO

www.sigma-global.com

 

[fastprime]

I spent the day with my RF50 1.2 (indoor kid birthday activities) and was constantly backing up. I suspect a 35 will replace the 50, and the 85 can take up the portrait distance slack.

I'm mainly getting these primes to get great pics of my kiddos. For them I've found the 35mm is best indoors and the 50mm for outdoors. I can't wait to get a 35mm faster than 1.8.

 

[kafala]

If Canon makes a 35mm 1.4 as light as Sony, then I'll switch back to Canon. I prefer Canon's color science and ibis compared to Sony. Sony just has more affordable lenses and they're smaller and lighter which I like.

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

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 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).

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.

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

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.

 

[InchMetric]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[masterpix]

Continue reading...

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".

 

[blackcoffee17]

I just want that RF 35mm f1.2 in my hands ASAP! Don’t care about f1.4.

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.

 

[Juangrande]

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.

I already have the 35 f1.4 I want more shallow depth of field than that lens is capable of.

 

[privatebydesign]

I already have the 35 f1.4 I want more shallow depth of field than that lens is capable of.

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

 

[Sporgon]

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 ?

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

I really don't know. What other patents will they have before they actually issue a 24/1.4, say? Maybe the 35/1.4 is already too far down the pipeline to use this specific formula? Maybe one of their previous patents had a formula that's actually better, ultimately, for a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4, with a larger focus group but other advantages? I wouldn't be surprised if you're right... but I also wouldn't bet on any of them one way or the other. The only thing I'm definitely going to bet is that anyone who thinks this is a patent for these specific lenses is wrong, and I'll bet any amount of money on that.

 

[InchMetric]

Don’t you think that picture might have been better with a little more depth of field ?

No. Why?

 

[Sporgon]

No. Why?

For me the degree of blur / OOF overpowers an otherwise pleasing image.

 

[blackcoffee17]

For me the degree of blur / OOF overpowers an otherwise pleasing image.

I agree. This is one example when a bit more DOF would look better.

 

[Juangrande]

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.

 

[InchMetric]

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.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.