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

slclick

Forum Dweller
Dec 17, 2013
4,241
2,284
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?”
At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.
 

slclick

Forum Dweller
Dec 17, 2013
4,241
2,284
I personally wouldn't say the Sigma Art series or the G2 series are "33% worse" or anything even approaching that...

But regardless, if I wanted the best, yes, that would be a Canon L.
And I did not state any numbers just the fact, AF is worse, worse in what way? Every lens design and copy variation makes that impossible to say. The G2's I have used and owned achieve focus much faster than any of the 6 or 7 Art lenses I have had. However, I have not owned any Siggy Art made in the last 3 years so the AF motors and algorithms might be much better these days. I would love to get my hands on that 40 tank and see what the fuss is all about.
 

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
322
83
Austria
www.flickr.com
There are cheap, stellar lenses out there: I absolutely love my EF 40 2.8. It's amazing, a lens like no other. IQ is superb, on par with the 24-70 2.8 L, and it's size an price make it a truely unique lens.
So yes, I am definitely interested in non-L lenses if they offer something other than just low price. IQ should be high. I've also owned the EF 50 1.4, a rather horrible lens, expecially wide open. Didn't like it.

So, it depends just how good the simpler lens designs are. Ther will be good ones, there will be bad ones.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
322
83
Austria
www.flickr.com
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.
Are third party lenses generally 2/3 or even 1/2 the price? yes, indeed.
Will you miss a lot of shotos due to focus-inconsistencies? Yes, indeed. ==> this alone makes Canon L worth it for me
Will you miss 1/3 or 1/2 the shots? Surely not. ==> so 3rd party lenses are interesting to some
 

Timedog

EOS R
Aug 31, 2018
58
41
At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.
The Tamron 24-70 g2 is not 33% worse at AF. Can't comment on the AF of the g1. After calibration hit-rate was comparable to my L lenses, meaning I very rarely had issues (after proper calibration). Haven't noticed any issues at all on my EOS R.
 

slclick

Forum Dweller
Dec 17, 2013
4,241
2,284
Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?
The specs say 71.5mm and the EF 40 pancake 2.8 is 68mm so could very well be. Especially when you take the difference between EF to RF flange distance into consideration.
 

slclick

Forum Dweller
Dec 17, 2013
4,241
2,284
A fast pancake might be my first RF lens (If I ever get the R5) since the 40 is pretty much glued to my 5D3.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
272
195
Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?
You can’t patent after you’ve released the product I most of the world. In the US you have a one year grace that no serious company would use (risk of other companies thinking of improvements to your design, and applying for a patent on those improvements before you patent your idea). It’s unlikely that this relates to the existing prime, unless this is an old patent they just uncovered.

So all I can think is maybe it’s a cheaper 35mm? No is or macro? The current lens, while being the cheapest RF lens by far, is still not exactly mass market consumer pricing, and costs as much as an m200 kit with camera and lens.
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
669
77
You can’t patent after you’ve released the product I most of the world. In the US you have a one year grace that no serious company would use (risk of other companies thinking of improvements to your design, and applying for a patent on those improvements before you patent your idea). It’s unlikely that this relates to the existing prime, unless this is an old patent they just uncovered.

So all I can think is maybe it’s a cheaper 35mm? No is or macro? The current lens, while being the cheapest RF lens by far, is still not exactly mass market consumer pricing, and costs as much as an m200 kit with camera and lens.
Sometimes lens manufacturers file patents on lens designs that are similar to a lens they have already on the market, so that the competition is shut out of a slightly different but competing lens design.
If so, Canon may not intend to manufacture and sell these designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quirkz