Patent: Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro, Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 & Canon EF-M 100mm f/2

[Danglin52]

Myself as well, really. You've mentioned battery power and long term use of the viewfinder. That's not quite the only disadvantage, but it's the only one I can't see any way around and that isn't subjective. The other SLR benefits (so far) is less lag in the viewfinder, less "blank" time after taking a picture, and so on--I'm sure I'm missing a few. But those are all things that are improving, they aren't inherent to mirrorless, just aspects of something still in its early development. What's left? There are those who simply hate using an EVF. (Whether they are justified or not, the hate is there.)

I'm all-in on mirrorless, personally, though I won't spurn EF lenses. They will continue to serve one very useful role for the foreseeable future--they can be used on ALL Canon mirrorless cameras-- M and RF. How long that will impel Canon to continue to make them (not develop, but make) is another question entirely.

Another issue with mirrorless is ”instant on” to be ready to shoot. If an SLR has gone to sleep mode, it will wake and be ready to shoot almost instantly. The mirrorless take a lot of time for the EVF to wake.

 

[chong67]

So many new lens announced, but nothing has been released for the RF. I still see the normal eleven RF lens on Canon site. LOL

 

[Berowne]

85/1.8 or 85/2.0...
Whatever Canon decides to release, bring it on. I want to see the lens that could draw me into R systzem the most (..or not).
Would prefer an 85/1.8, of course.
The displayed optical formula seems to be about 1.5 cm shorter than the old EF design. The mechanical lens could be longer because of flange distance, of course. But this together with an RP or R6 body... *yummy

By the way:
Quick dive but couldn't find the optical formula of the old EF 85/1.8. Does anybody have a link? Thanks

Canon EOS System

It is at page 38.

 

[Antono Refa]

Actually the 85mm 1.8 patent does not mention IS, would the line-up have both a 1.8 non-IS and a 2.0 IS?

For some lenses, Canon gives customers the choice between IS & IS-less, e.g. EF 70-200mm.

Possibly Canon wants to do the same in RF, though with declining lens sales it might want to give itself the choice of giving the customers a choice.

 

[picperfect]

I'm a very big supporter of the EOS-M cameras and lenses, but I really don't understand the need for a 160mm equivalent lens in the lineup. That's a really odd focal length that's a little too long for traditional portraits and a little too short to be of much use for wild life or sports...so it's just strange.

It would be nice to see Canon tackle the more pressing needs like a fast ultra-wide or a super-telephoto lens. We've all been asking for a 15mm f/2 small prime or something longer and faster than 200mm f/6.3. Would it be too much of a challenge to get a native 300mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/5.6 lens?

i'd love an EF-M 100/2.0 - I'd mainly use it for concerts in small-to-medium venues. But it needs to have IS. And a (near) silent AF-drive, like STM.

EF-M 15/2.0 - no need from my end. 11-22 covers all my UWA needs. Not into astro/night sky.

300/5.6 or 400/5.6 both way too big for EOS M. they would not be smaller than EF versions - look at 70-300, 100-400, 400/5.6. focal lengths > 100mm don't profit sizewise from smaller APS-Cimage circle. lens size pretty much dependent on diameter of entrance pupil/front element.

 

[Jasonmc89]

I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?

Almost definitely.

 

[Andy Westwood]

I understand many of these patents never end in an actual product, the Canon EF-M 100mm f/2 does sound interesting. IS would be a must I feel for a lens like that, hopefully it would be compact and light weight as with the other EF-M line up lenses.

I think I’m right in saying that on an EOS M body would equate to 160mm f3.2 on an M series crop factor body so some nice bokeh should be possible.

 

[BladeRunner]

To me one of the important questions regarding the slower lens versions like this 85mm is, if they will be in par with the 1.2 versions. Nikon decided to release cheaper 1.8 versions first and apparently the quality is as good as it gets - just a bit slower than the 1.2’s they are going to release. The RF 35mm 1.8 however looks like a cheaper version with inferior quality - obviously to keep the L lenses at distance. For amateurs me that would be a string reason to buy into the Z mount instead while well earning Pros may be attracted by the Halo lenses canon is releasing one after the other.

 

[Maximilian]

Canon EOS System

It is at page 38.

Thanks a lot.

Was puzzled to find page 38 when I opened the PDF with only 33 pages, but there are two pages in one

 

[riker]

It was about time for the 85/1.8 and 100/2. I just hope that with the help of the RF mount they get even smaller/lighter than original EF versions.
And of course waiting for the 28/1.8 aaaaaaaand may that be so boring to mention again, 50/1.4.

 

[SwissFrank]

Quick dive but couldn't find the optical formula of the old EF 85/1.8. Does anybody have a link? Thanks

Just google "EF 85mm f/1.8 diagram" and you'll get some images even if you're not on image search. Sorry if that's not what you're looking for.

 

[Maximilian]

Just google "EF 85mm f/1.8 diagram" and you'll get some images even if you're not on image search. Sorry if that's not what you're looking for.

Thanks. As so often it's the way you search and ask. At least I tried to myself and didn't just ask dumbly.

 

[SteveC]

LOL.

I've heard the phrase "optical formula" before...I never imagined it was just a line drawing of the lens element cross sections.

What formula? I thought it meant actual math!

I should think if nothing else you'd need two radii of curvature (with sign indicating convex/concave) for the front and back side of each element. and a refraction index for each element. And much more complicated than that if aspherical. Oh, and the distances between elements, their diameters and any thickness above bare minimum given their radii and diameters.

 

[SwissFrank]

I should think if nothing else you'd need two radii of curvature (with sign indicating convex/concave) for the front and back side of each element. and a refraction index for each element. And much more complicated than that if aspherical. Oh, and the distances between elements, their diameters and any thickness above bare minimum given their radii and diameters.

you also need properties of the glass itself

 

[SteveC]

you also need properties of the glass itself

That's what was meant by "refraction index."

But now that you mention it: If you want to go beyond the geometry of the image, you'd have to add in whether it tends to pass light of different wavelenghts unevenly, and how much light overall it absorbs. Plus, probably other things I haven't learned about yet.

 

[canonmike]

I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?

Was wondering the same thing......

 

[puffo25]

Hi all, sorry for a question that might sound stupid to some of you.

In the process to get this Summer the R5, since I own already a RF 16-35mm F2,8 a EF 24-70 f/2,8, a RF 70-200 F/2,8, and an EF 300mm f/4, I am wondering if you think that a RF 50mm f/1,2 is quite necessary to take pictures @ night or in very low light conditions? Or you think that the R5 should be capable to handle high iso (ie 6400 or a bit higher) without miuch image noise and so making this possible additional purchease not necessary? Of course if I buy this 50mm F/1,2lens it will cost me at least 1700 USD which is not cheap...

Any feedback is welcome.
Happy Easter!
Andrea

 

[SwissFrank]

I am wondering if you think that a RF 50mm f/1,2 is quite necessary to take pictures @ night or in very low light conditions?

I don't think so. First, as incredible as its resolution is, it has up to 3 stops vignetting in the corners. So the image may only be as bright as f/3.5. In the kind of shots I do with 50mm at night, I rarely have my subject centered, so this isn't a great match for how I use it. Or, you could say that if I used this lens I'd be using it stopped down to 2.8 even at night, and be using it mainly for its excellent resolution.

Second in my experience night shooting's better with a 35mm and I'm guessing Canon will release a 35/1.4 or 35/1.2 very soon.

Third is that the noise at higher ISO isn't that scary. You can totally shoot at 1600+ if you want or need. You don't need f/1 or f/1.2 or even f/1.4 to shoot candlelight dinners any more.

I use a Leica 35/1.4ASPH in shooting in dark conditions, but the 24-105/4L IS should have 4 stops worth of IS, allowing say 1/6 sec at 24mm or 1/10 at 35mm, 1/15 at 50mm while still obeying the "reciprocal rule."

I have the 50/1.2 but will probably sell it. The resolution is beyond compare. It makes EVERY other lense look like crap if you're shooting resolution charts. But I just don't go for centered subjects that often, and if I'm stopping down to f/2-2.8 to use it, then it should be a small, inexpensive lens.

 

[puffo25]

Thanks SwissFrank.
Than even the hypotetical RF 35mm f/1,2 might be not necessary?
According to your considerations as I can shoot raw files under candle light conditions using my RF 16-35mm F2,8 I will increase if necessary a bit the iso around 3200 or 6400 and than reduce a bit noise in lightroom (especially if I shoot an image with people and so the tripod is not useful as I still need a shutter speed around 1/60 sec....?

 

[SwissFrank]

Than even the hypotetical RF 35mm f/1,2 might be not necessary?

Well, when I say 1600+ is acceptable, of course 200 would be better :-D

I used to shoot my Leica at for instance dinners out in candlelight at 1600, 35/1.4, 1/15 or 1/30. And that's not the exposure a light meter might advise, a meter might have wanted 3200 or 6400 but I just drew the line at 1600 grain and prefered to be underexposed rather than any more grain.

Starting I think with the next R they'll have IBIS with possibly 4 stops, which is 100 35/1.4 1 second ?!!? Sorry, people move around too much! Maybe 1/10 sec would be OK though.

So let's say, 800 35/1.4, 1/8 sec? People move much slower at night so could work, but f/1.2 would give 800 35/1.2, 1/10.

That sounds pretty good. And ISO is still relatively low given modern tech, so if you find DOF or image quality is too weak wide-open, or the shutter is getting too much subject motion, you can use a little faster shutter or smaller aperture and still have a relatively low-noise 1000.

Ideally Canon would come out with a super-compact 35/1.4 like the Leica 35/1.4 before the ASPH, then a cost-no-object, size-no-object 35/1.2 that's probably huge.

At night I either shot the Leica inside--where the wider angle was absolutely critical--or shot Canons on tripods, in which case I'd use Velvia (50 speed film) and 10 second exposures or whatever.

Arguably you it'd be great to also have a 24 or 28 for shooting a photo at a memorable dinner.

------------------

Anyway I'm just rambling. In direct answer to your question, you definitely don't "need" f/1.2. But it may buy you a bit lower ISO or a bit faster shutter, which might be handy. And a lot of times you want a bit less DOF say to de-resolve other tables' diners, or the drink station behind your date, or what have you. (35/1.4 has DOF of 50/2, so 35/1.2 would be about like 50/1.8.) In short you CAN shoot single subjects all the time wide open at 35/1.2. But again with 35mm you're usually telling a bit of a story with multiple subjects, and if they're not on a plane than suddenly you'll need 2.8 or something, Depending on how common that is the 1.2 might not be used often.

I'd probably buy both a super-resolution monster 35/1.2, and a average-resolution tine 35/1.4... then carry the big one any time I was going out to dinner anyway, so I'd have the 1.2 if I needed it. I'm a geek. OTOH I'd have the tiny 1.4 mounted on the camera in my backpack and end up taking most of my shots with that I think, just because I had it with me.