Patent - EF 35 f/1.4L II

[Canon Rumors]

<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/05/patent-ef-35-f1-4l-ii/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/05/patent-ef-35-f1-4l-ii/"></a></div>
<strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong></p>
<div id="attachment_6585" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-6585" title="35L" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/35L-300x226.gif" alt="" width="300" height="226" /><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 35 f/1.4L II</p></div>
<p></strong></p>
<p><strong>Canon files patent for EF 35 f/1.4L II</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Patent Publication No. US 7,944,625</li>
<li>Published 2011.5.17</li>
<li>Filled 2009.8.5</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Specifications</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal Distance: 34.59</li>
<li>Fno: 1.45</li>
<li>Half angle of view: 32.02</li>
<li>Image Height: 21.64</li>
<li>Lens Length (mm): 126.93</li>
<li>Back Focus (mm): 37.98</li>
</ul>
<p>This is definitely a lens the Canon world wants to see. How do you improve a classic? I’m sure they’ll find a way.</p>
<p><em> thanks George</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html?BI=2466&KBID=3296">Canon EF 35 f/1.4L $1469.00 at B&H</a>

 

[Joaquox]

Please just weather seal the damn thing. Nothing else is really needed, but center sharpness at the 35/2 level would be a extra boon.

 

[kennykodak]

hopefully i'll see this before i retire. i have had the 8-15 fisheye on order since some time last year, and made the mistake of selling off my 15 when they suggested the first release date and added it to their lineup.

 

[Ricku]

What is there to improve?

 

[Justin]

AF, corner sharpness, wide open sharpness. CAs. Weather sealing.

What is there to improve?

 

[anthony11]

Do those of you wanting more weather sealing really shoot in downpours?

 

[IWLP]

Do those of you wanting more weather sealing really shoot in downpours?

Mostly just drizzle, but thinking about shooting in downpours makes me feel like more manly of a photographer than discussing CA's on the Internet ...

 

[LFG530]

Do those of you wanting more weather sealing really shoot in downpours?

Yes .

 

[alipaulphotography]

I mainly just want the original to be cheaper as I haven't got one yet and it is probably my next purchase. That would be ace.

Also waiting for the 5D mkIII announcement to buy the mkII when it will hopefully be cheaper.

Can you tell that I am a student?

 

[sjaudio]

Do those of you wanting more weather sealing really shoot in downpours?

Yes .

I live in Seattle, I'd love it if all of my gear was weather sealed!

 

[Joaquox]

Do those of you wanting more weather sealing really shoot in downpours?

In Sweden, we have bad weather 9 months every year. Everything from drizzle to snowstorms with random polar bear attacks. And during summer we have some very nice beaches where the sealing protects against sand.

 

[J-Man]

I assume it will have:
Nano coating
Less CA
Less distortion
Weather sealing
Faster 7 more accurate AF

Can't wait to get it!

 

[Justin]

Do those of you wanting more weather sealing really shoot in downpours?

Mostly just drizzle, but thinking about shooting in downpours makes me feel like more manly of a photographer than discussing CA's on the Internet ...

Haha. Indeed. As others have said, it's a confidence thing. Do you really want to take a $1300 lens out into the great blue yonder when there is a 50% chance of rain? I know it makes me think twice about what I pack and how I pack it. A $1300 lens should have a $20 seal on its mount.

 

[Loswr]

Haha. Indeed. As others have said, it's a confidence thing. Do you really want to take a $1300 lens out into the great blue yonder when there is a 50% chance of rain? I know it makes me think twice about what I pack and how I pack it. A $1300 lens should have a $20 seal on its mount.

It's more than just the gasket around the mount. The switch(es) and focus ring (and zoom ring on other lenses) also need internal seals.

Personally, it's about more than confidence. I have used non-sealed (EF-S 17-55mm, 100-400mm L) in light drizzle with no resulting problems (when I go inside, I extend the barrels and store the lenses in a Pelican case with desiccant). I use my sealed lenses in outright rain - in fact, that's why I recently picked up a 2x II extender to use with my 70-200 II, as a sealed alternative to the 100-400mm. The results with the 70-200 II + 2x were surprisingly good.

 

[/dev/null]

Compared to the present 35mm f/1.4, this design actually looks quite different - see Canon Lens Works.

The element labeled GNF seems to be new, and the doublet GP/GN replaces what is now a single lens.

Do any of the geeks here have an idea what this might do to the optical performance?