Patent: EF-S 30mm f/1.8 & EF 50mm f/1.8

[ecka]

I'm not hurt . Just saying (a bit sarcastically) that it would make much more sense (and profit) if it was an EF lens. All that Canon's self-competing phobia is silly. I think that crop shooters, who wanted their "fast" 50(ish) equivalent, already got the EF35/2IS or one of Sigma's offerings (30/1.4, 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 ).

The point of an EF-S 30mm is to take advantage of the smaller image circle resulting in a smaller cheaper lens. But I agree that the venerable 28mm/1.8 could use a replacement.

I think that to have a chance of success, any EF-S 30mm F1.8 would need to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 35 f2.0. Canon does seem to be competing pretty aggressively in the APS-C space these days. Is there any chance the 30mm patent could be applied to an EF-M lens design?

In addition to having a smaller image circle, an EF-S lens may not have enough clearance for the swing of a FF mirror. That is likely why a FF Canon camera will not accept an EF-S lens.

I think the point of the EF-S 30/1.8 is to compete with Nikon's DX 35/1.8G $200 lens. But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling, a self-competing phobia, because even cheap so-so lenses can shine on FF while being worthless on crop. Which is why FF rules! 8). Canon don't want to make too many cheap FF lenses, which is sad.

 

[Loswr]

But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling...

What one calls crippling, another may call optimization.

 

[ecka]

But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling...

What one calls crippling, another may call optimization.

Yes, same thing ...
Remember those old Canon extension tubes not compatible with EF-S?

 

[BillB]

Quote from: BillB on June 10, 2017, 07:46:09 PM
And the 28/2.8IS is a joke because... ?

Isn't the price doubling of an old and slow prime after adding IS, a joke? Thank god the 35 IS is not F2.8 . Same thing with 24/2.8IS.
I don't know ... maybe I'm wrong. What are you shooting with your 28/2.8IS? What's the best use for it? Shooting video on EOS-1D



28mm2.8IS has a new lens formula with an aspheric element and USM as well as IS. Greatly improved resolution over previous 28 is well documented. Not the same lens as the one it replaced. I use a 28 where others might use a 35, with a bit more width. You use the 28 1.8. I use the 2.8 IS. No joke.

By "old and slow prime" I meant that it's not very popular in 21st century . The 24/2.8 is a much more desirable lens. Too bad it's not F2 . It is weird that a full stop aperture difference means nothing to you. I shoot people with my 28/1.8, so the blurry corners at wide open are not terribly problematic. But I cannot imagine using the 28/2.8 IS instead. It would produce absolutely different results and the IS wouldn't help a bit. Even for landscapes, the distortion would make stitching tricky or even questionable and 28mm is not wide enough to one-shot everything. Stitching 40/2.8 STM is a breeze - so sharp and well corrected. Canon need to make a new 20mm prime , IS or not, but F1.8 would be nice (like the Nikon one). However, I'm not going to buy a bunch of slow stabilized primes ($500-$600 each) in steps of just a few millimeters. That's madness. I'd just get a decent UWA zoom instead. Perhaps the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC, or the EF 16-35/4L IS.

I'm not prepared to agree that the results of the the 28 F2.8 would be "absolutely different" from something taken by a 28mm F1.8 wideopen, although there would certainly be differences. I agree that stitching with the 40mm pancake makes more sense, and that is what I do. I agree that my choice of the 28 focal length is at least somewhat eccentric, but that would seem to apply to your choice of the 28 f1.8, unless you are saying that being able to shoot at F1.8 somehow eliminates the wierdness of a 28mm lens. I had the 28 before Canon announced the 16-35 f4 which I also have, and I probably would have passed on the 28 if the 16-35 had been available at the time. But that wasn't the case, and it doesn't go to the point that the 28mm f2.8 is a pretty good lens, sharper than the 16-35 at 28mm, and a good deal smaller and less conspicuous. Anyway, you seem to be talking about the difference between an extra stop of light or IS. You have your notions on that choice and I have mine.

 

[Eclectik]

I'm not hurt . Just saying (a bit sarcastically) that it would make much more sense (and profit) if it was an EF lens. All that Canon's self-competing phobia is silly. I think that crop shooters, who wanted their "fast" 50(ish) equivalent, already got the EF35/2IS or one of Sigma's offerings (30/1.4, 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 ).

The point of an EF-S 30mm is to take advantage of the smaller image circle resulting in a smaller cheaper lens. But I agree that the venerable 28mm/1.8 could use a replacement.

I think that to have a chance of success, any EF-S 30mm F1.8 would need to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 35 f2.0. Canon does seem to be competing pretty aggressively in the APS-C space these days. Is there any chance the 30mm patent could be applied to an EF-M lens design?

In addition to having a smaller image circle, an EF-S lens may not have enough clearance for the swing of a FF mirror. That is likely why a FF Canon camera will not accept an EF-S lens.

I think the point of the EF-S 30/1.8 is to compete with Nikon's DX 35/1.8G $200 lens. But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling, a self-competing phobia, because even cheap so-so lenses can shine on FF while being worthless on crop. Which is why FF rules! 8). Canon don't want to make too many cheap FF lenses, which is sad.

"Self-competing phobia" is a bad idea: I did the switch to Fuji. They have plenty of fast and lightweight lenses, which can be a criteria too. Clearly, Canon wasn't on that segment, and had decided not to be. They seem to come back, a bit late IMO.

 

[ecka]

I'm not hurt . Just saying (a bit sarcastically) that it would make much more sense (and profit) if it was an EF lens. All that Canon's self-competing phobia is silly. I think that crop shooters, who wanted their "fast" 50(ish) equivalent, already got the EF35/2IS or one of Sigma's offerings (30/1.4, 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 ).

The point of an EF-S 30mm is to take advantage of the smaller image circle resulting in a smaller cheaper lens. But I agree that the venerable 28mm/1.8 could use a replacement.

I think that to have a chance of success, any EF-S 30mm F1.8 would need to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 35 f2.0. Canon does seem to be competing pretty aggressively in the APS-C space these days. Is there any chance the 30mm patent could be applied to an EF-M lens design?

In addition to having a smaller image circle, an EF-S lens may not have enough clearance for the swing of a FF mirror. That is likely why a FF Canon camera will not accept an EF-S lens.

I think the point of the EF-S 30/1.8 is to compete with Nikon's DX 35/1.8G $200 lens. But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling, a self-competing phobia, because even cheap so-so lenses can shine on FF while being worthless on crop. Which is why FF rules! 8). Canon don't want to make too many cheap FF lenses, which is sad.

"Self-competing phobia" is a bad idea: I did the switch to Fuji. They have plenty of fast and lightweight lenses, which can be a criteria too. Clearly, Canon wasn't on that segment, and had decided not to be. They seem to come back, a bit late IMO.

The fact is that even F1.4 on APS-C is not that fast. It is like F2.2 on FF and any affordable FF set of F1.4~F2 lenses just kills the whole point of spending thousands on Fuji's luxury toys. And they are not really lightweight, because any equivalent FF lens is similar in size and weight. There is no free lunch in optics, no magic, only physics and the rest is just delusions and wishful thinking. I guess, having a few small and cheap prime options for a crop system is OK. But, building (and buying) the whole system of expensive crop lenses, makes no sense. The most irritating part of it is HOW people compare different systems. They take the most expensive top FF lenses, which tend to be the largest as well (FOR a REASON!), and compare them to the most expensive Fuji lenses, which are much smaller, because Fuji doesn't make any serious FF equivalent lenses (which would be just as large as FF). Yes, as silly as that ... top FF vs top Fuji. Of course, nobody seems to care about the truth, which is why Fuji is able to sell all those expensive crop lenses. I'm not saying they are bad lenses, I'm saying that this direction of technological advancement is not as efficient as FF. There was time, when FF cameras were too expensive for consumer market. But times change. APS-H is gone and APS-C must follow. There's a lot of crazy talks like - "APS-C is the new FF" or "APS-C is the future" - and similar nonsense. But in reality, what's coming next is a cheaper fully electronic camera (EVF, global shutter, fast CDAF), which will allow to use small, cheap, narrow aperture AF lenses (like F5.6+) without compromises.

 

[dzak]

In what timeframe does these patent come to realisation? I'm particularly interested in the EF-s 30mm 1.8 but if it takes more than 2 years it might not be relevant and I better get the 35mm IS USM f/2.

 

[Loswr]

In what timeframe does these patent come to realisation?

Somtimes, weeks or months. Often, never. For these specific patents, we don't know.