Patent: RF prime lenses including an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM and RF 50mm f/1.4 USM

[privatebydesign]

We do not yet have a RF prime for astrophotography and nightscapes. I hope that 24 f1.4 has sharp, low coma, corners.

Have Canon ever made such a lens? I don’t think coma has ever been any kind of priority for any Canon lens that I can think of.

 

[David - Sydney]

Have Canon ever made such a lens? I don’t think coma has ever been any kind of priority for any Canon lens that I can think of.

I have to agree which is a little strange as Canon have their dedicated astro bodies.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have to agree which is a little strange as Canon have their dedicated astro bodies.

I think the 'A's have always been aimed at telescope users rather than very wide field shooters. Of course you can get excellent results with the big whites, but that is different again...

 

[CanonFanBoy]

Of course, these are just patents. I do wonder though, why not f/1.2 for the 24mm? I know, I know... not a big difference at all. Still, I wonder. I'm guessing a 24mm f/1.4L would dash any hopes of a 24mm f/1.2L. Would f/1.2 on a 24mm just be too huge?

I hope the RF 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens. My Tamron 45mm is pretty darn good for the money, but focus seems slow to me.

Moving to the Ozarks in Arkansas in a couple weeks (tiny town of about 3,000 residents), so I may have to switch to wildlife and landscape for my hobby. Can't wait to start fly fishing again. It's been years and years.

 

[Del Paso]

Of course, these are just patents. I do wonder though, why not f/1.2 for the 24mm? I know, I know... not a big difference at all. Still, I wonder. I'm guessing a 24mm f/1.4L would dash any hopes of a 24mm f/1.2L. Would f/1.2 on a 24mm just be too huge?

I hope the RF 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens. My Tamron 45mm is pretty darn good for the money, but focus seems slow to me.

Moving to the Ozarks in Arkansas in a couple weeks (tiny town of about 3,000 residents), so I may have to switch to wildlife and landscape for my hobby. Can't wait to start fly fishing again. It's been years and years.

Your next models will be quite different in Arkansas.
I guess you'll need the RF 5,6/1200 in Bear State!

 

[Bahrd]

As someone who learned photography with the EF 50 1.4 as my main lens, I can't wait for an RF version. I have the RF 50 f1.2, but its girth is enough to make me leave it at home sometimes. The 1.4 would never leave my bag.

The patent says it will have 100mm in length. And the number of lenses at drawings suggests it isn't going to be lightweight either...

 

[slclick]

I have not seen him here in quite awhile. Hope he and Don are ok.

I think he felt 'outed' but I could be wrong. He did put a lot of attention on himself with the 50 for a time however.

 

[SUNDOG04]

And in the meantime, Nikon, who has been slow to roll out their mirrorless cameras and lenses, has had an excellent 50 1.8 right from the start.

 

[Antono Refa]

As someone who learned photography with the EF 50 1.4 as my main lens, I can't wait for an RF version. I have the RF 50 f1.2, but its girth is enough to make me leave it at home sometimes. The 1.4 would never leave my bag.

I had an EF 50mm f/1.4. Then its AF motor got stuck. Thought about it hard, decided its not worth fixing, and threw it to the trash. A couple of months before Canon acknowledge its a manufacturing problem. My lens' serial was covered, if only I waited a bit...

Later on I sold the 35mm f/2 IS USM to buy a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM mkIII, which was my last Canon prime.

 

[jjesp]

One thing I don't understand. The RF 50mm 1.4 usm is listed twice as long physical, as the old EF 50mm? Why did Canon make a new lens mount that requires so big lenses? I don't get it... I would love to go back to Canon, but with these new big lenses - I will consider the Fuji GFX system instead.

 

[tron]

Have Canon ever made such a lens? I don’t think coma has ever been any kind of priority for any Canon lens that I can think of.

The EF14mm f/2.8L II has coma but it's not at the disgusting level of EF24mm 1.4L II. It has been my favorite for Astro for years.

The EF16-35 2.8L III zoom does not have coma at 16mm but it has a lot of vignetting. The lens mentioned above does not suffer from a lot of vignetting.

But yes I agree with you. Canon does not have any super astro lens. That's why I got the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8.

 

[Kit.]

One thing I don't understand. The RF 50mm 1.4 usm is listed twice as long physical, as the old EF 50mm? Why did Canon make a new lens mount that requires so big lenses?

The patent is not about a mount. It's "to suppress aberration variation during focusing".

 

[slclick]

A retrofocus 50 from Canon. 50% of shooters will be overjoyed! Now, just how much better will it be than the offerings from Tokina and Sigma? Can they keep it lighter than a 24-105?

 

[YuengLinger]

Hopefully IS without a big increase in size, weight, and price for the 50 f/1.4. Mainly, I suppose, for those of us who plan to never give up our EOS R! Waiting for this news is one reason I held off on the nifty-fifty 1.8.

 

[slclick]

One thing I don't understand. The RF 50mm 1.4 usm is listed twice as long physical, as the old EF 50mm? Why did Canon make a new lens mount that requires so big lenses? I don't get it... I would love to go back to Canon, but with these new big lenses - I will consider the Fuji GFX system instead.

google double gauss vs retrofocus lens design

 

[jjesp]

google double gauss vs retrofocus lens design

Thanks, but that is too theoretical for me. I'm just a photographer. The old EF lenses were great, lighter and smaller. Still would love to have a mirrorless Canon with EF mount. But hey, I mainly do street and documentary photography. So I guess the R system is not necessary. Retrofocus lens design or not

 

[slclick]

Thanks, but that is too theoretical for me. I'm just a photographer. The old EF lenses were great, lighter and smaller. Still would love to have a mirrorless Canon with EF mount. But hey, I mainly do street and documentary photography. So I guess the R system is not necessary. Retrofocus lens design or not

It's a simple comparison. Smaller and lighter with lesser sharpness and aberration control or heavier and larger with better sharpness across the field plus better distortion control. however some retrofocus clenses an give a certain look a lot of shooters do not appreciate i.e. sigma 'sticker look'.
Knowing a bit about lens design can make you a better photographer since it will assist in your future purchase decisions. This isn't akin to understanding sensor physics like some here salivate over. I too am a'just a photographer'.

 

[jjesp]

It's a simple comparison. Smaller and lighter with lesser sharpness and aberration control or heavier and larger with better sharpness across the field plus better distortion control. however some retrofocus clenses an give a certain look a lot of shooters do not appreciate i.e. sigma 'sticker look'.
Knowing a bit about lens design can make you a better photographer since it will assist in your future purchase decisions. This isn't akin to understanding sensor physics like some here salivate over. I too am a'just a photographer'.

Yes, but Leica M lenses are not that big. They are known for sharpness and aberration control. And I wouldn't say that their small lenses are not sharp across the field. And distortion? I know they have the rear element much closer to the sensor. But the RF is not that far away, as I remember.

 

[Aaron D]

This is pretty exciting stuff! If it comes true, I'm for the 50 and the 28! ESPECIALLY the 28, Canon!

 

[BakaBokeh]

The patent says it will have 100mm in length. And the number of lenses at drawings suggests it isn't going to be lightweight either...

I'm okay with it being bigger than the EF version. My point of reference is the RF 50 f1.2. It's just a little too big to lug around. At night, I will grab it because it is something magical in low light, but the extra stops isn't necessary during the day. The other point of reference is the RF 2.8 24-70 which feels less girthy and less front heavy than the RF 50 f1.2, which just happens to be what I'm comfortable with balancing on the R or R5. This RF 50 1.4 is assuredly smaller and lighter than that lens, which is enough for me.