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

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
10,779
3,158
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
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...
 

MadScotsman

EOS R / RP
Sep 9, 2019
45
82
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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). "
So, PLEEEAAAASSSEEEE, keep your fingers off of L-lenses. It's just way toooo dangerous to catch that disease.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
390
128
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
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".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,573
4,109
The Netherlands
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0