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

[slclick]

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

And my answer is........affirmative

 

[slclick]

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.

 

[JoshEFuller]

At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.

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.

 

[slclick]

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]

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.

 

[sulla]

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]

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

Riiight....

The 100 50mm IS better than the 24-105 4L...at 50mm.

 

[Timedog]

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.

 

[davidespinosa]

The filing date on this patent is 2018-08-31.
So IMO this is the patent for the current RF 35mm f/1.8.

 

[MadScotsman]

The 100 50mm IS better than the 24-105 4L...at 50mm.

And my RF 50 1.2L is better than the $100 50 Non L. Period.

 

[Timedog]

And my RF 50 1.2L is better than the $100 50 Non L. Period.

So is mine. I don't see your point...

 

[MadScotsman]

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

Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?

 

[slclick]

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]

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]

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.

 

[deleteme]

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

Most will say yes, but a more practical reason is that Canon does not offer lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 in non-L versions.

 

[SteveC]

Most will say yes, but a more practical reason is that Canon does not offer lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 in non-L versions.

Or for that matter, a 135mm prime.

 

[jd7]

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.

40mm f/1.8 pancake would be very interesting indeed!

 

[AJ]

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.

 

[AJ]

Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?

Sorry I'm no expert at reading optical formulas. Maybe somebody else can chime in? It's a good question.