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

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
487
419
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

Andy Westwood

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 10, 2016
181
316
UK
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
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.
 
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
163
55
58
italy
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
163
55
58
italy
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....?
 
Upvote 0