Patent: Canon RF 40mm f/1.8 & Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 optical formulas

[Canon Rumors Guy]

A patent showing two optical formulas for some Canon RF primes has been uncovered by Canon News.
Canon RF 40mm f/1.8

Focal Length: 41.92mm
F-Number: 1.85
Angle of View: 27.30°
Image Height: 21.64mm
Lens length: 71.50mm
BF: 13.97mm

Canon RF 35mm f/1.8

Focal length: 36.00mm
F-number: 1.85
Angle of view: 31.00mm
Image height: 21.64mm
Lens length: 79.97mm
BF: 11.65mm

I’m expecting non-L RF mount prime lenses to be coming in the relatively near future, and this patent may be part of a series of Non-L prime lenses coming to the EOS R system
The patent does show a DSLR for the illustrations, but the backfocus length of these optical formulas shoes these designs are definitely for the RF mount.

Continue reading...

 

[Stuart]

I'd love a Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 with a lower cost FF body.

 

[Larsskv]

I would be very surprised if a new RF 35 f1.8 was released in the near future. The current RF 35 f1.8 IS is quite excellent as it is.

 

[MadScotsman]

I would be very surprised if a new RF 35 f1.8 was released in the near future. The current RF 35 f1.8 IS is quite excellent as it is.

Exactly. And a fun little macro to boot. Can't imagine another 35 1.8 would have anything to offer over the current 35 1.8? Doesn't make sense, perzactly. Unless there's something different about trying that's not apparent.

 

[jeffa4444]

A series of non L f1.8 lenses and a series of f1.4L lenses in RF mount makes a lot of sense. Dont understand the need for a second RF35 f1.8 though.

 

[MadScotsman]

I'd love a Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 with a lower cost FF body.

Honest question. Isn't that the current RF 35mm 1.8 and the RP? To me, thats precisely what you're wishing for?

What am I missing?

 

[dwarven]

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

 

[bbeatty]

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

yes

 

[sulla]

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

yes

 

[AJ]

Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?

 

[AdmiralFwiffo]

Maybe an even cheaper, plastic-fantastic 35mm?

 

[SteveC]

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

A couple of people have answered Yes, but I'll be a little more cautious. My 100-400 L is vastly superior to the non-L lenses I own...but only you can answer the question of whether the improved image quality is worth the extra money TO YOU.

I can say there IS a difference, only you can put a value on it versus whatever else you might be able to do instead with the extra money.

 

[sulla]

Well, Bryan Carnathan at the-digital-picture appropriately writes: "What you can get when you use Canon L lenses (if you do your part right) are amazing pictures. In fact, this amazement is said to cause a disease know as "L-Disease". Once caught, it is incurable. You will have to buy Canon L lenses in all of the focal lengths you use. AND you will be happy (and I hope you know that I am not being totally serious). "

Canon L Lens Series

Canon L series lenses are the best of the best. We explain why.

www.the-digital-picture.com

So, PLEEEAAAASSSEEEE, keep your fingers off of L-lenses. It's just way toooo dangerous to catch that disease.

 

[Stuart]

Honest question. Isn't that the current RF 35mm 1.8 and the RP? To me, thats precisely what you're wishing for?

What am I missing?

For me in the UK this is £470 - Canon 35mm f1.8 IS Macro STM RF Lens
The EF nifty fifty is about£100, so that's what i'm looking - for a cheaper lens.

 

[MadScotsman]

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

YES!

 

[Stuart]

YES!

The only L i owned was a 24-105 f4, compared but my EF 50mm f1.8 is an amazing lens. So i'd say Sometimes, not yes always.

 

[MadScotsman]

The only L i owned was a 24-105 f4, compared but my EF 50mm f1.8 is an amazing lens. So i'd say Sometimes, not yes always.

Thinks the current 35 1.8 is too expensive, and the $100 50 is better than the 24-105 4L.

Riiight....

 

[JoshEFuller]

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

If you're asking if the newest, latest-and-greatest L glass is better than any of the alternatives out there, then the answer is almost always YES. It's the best.

But if by "worth it" you're asking about value... the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III is $1800 whereas the Tamron 70-200 G2 is $1200. That's 2/3rds the price. So, is the Canon 33% better? Noooo... but you won't get a lot of argument that the Canon is at minimum a little better in most categories.

So, as with all things, it's "up to you".

 

[koenkooi]

If you're asking if the newest, latest-and-greatest L glass is better than any of the alternatives out there, then the answer is almost always YES. It's the best.

But if by "worth it" you're asking about value... the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III is $1800 whereas the Tamron 70-200 G2 is $1200. That's 2/3rds the price. So, is the Canon 33% better? Noooo... but you won't get a lot of argument that the Canon is at minimum a little better in most categories.

So, as with all things, it's "up to you".

Nitpick: 50% better, 1200+400 is not 1800

 

[JoshEFuller]

Nitpick: 50% better, 1200+400 is not 1800

WELL, THAT JUST MAKES THE TAMRON SOUND LIKE AN EVEN BETTER VALUE!

Kidding. But yea, you’re right. I meant to say “So, is the Tamron 33% worse?”