That sucks. I'm either one of the fortunate ones who got a good copy, or just too inexperienced at the time to know better. This lens at the time was my first fast prime. I was using kit lenses and affordable zooms before that.
Patent: RF prime lenses including an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM and RF 50mm f/1.4 USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
> I’ve been doing this site for 13 years now,
I didn't read that correctly the first time I read it!
I didn't read that correctly the first time I read it!
f/1.4 50mm looks good - hopefully similar to the EF-M 32 in terms of quality and close focus range.
If I understood some of the text correctly the last group is fixed - maybe some anti-focus-breathing design for video with the C70 and hopefully an C-RP @ 1299 $/€
a dual gain 2k sensor would be sufficient for me!
If I understood some of the text correctly the last group is fixed - maybe some anti-focus-breathing design for video with the C70 and hopefully an C-RP @ 1299 $/€
a dual gain 2k sensor would be sufficient for me!My view is that the traditionally f/2.8 trinity is moving to f/4+, since we don't need f/2.8 for AF, bright viewfinders, or low noise photos any more.
So this makes having a few fast primes even more useful.
Now, I'm holding out for a 35/1.0, have the 50/1.2, probably would get a 135/1.4 and so on, but I had literally all Canon 50s at the same time and had use for each maybe ten years ago and would totally get a 50/1.4 even having the 50/1.2. 50/1.4 is an "always have the camera in your backpack" lens are are the rest of these, whereas a 50/1.2 etc. really you're just not going to have on you unless you're leaving the house to shoot.
(I had the original 1987 50/1.8 pro-build lens just because it was enough smaller than the 1.4 to have my EOS-1N, 1v, and 1Ds MkI II III in my backpack at all times. obviously I could have carried the 1.4 and had a lighter body but not what I was comfortable with.)
So this makes having a few fast primes even more useful.
Now, I'm holding out for a 35/1.0, have the 50/1.2, probably would get a 135/1.4 and so on, but I had literally all Canon 50s at the same time and had use for each maybe ten years ago and would totally get a 50/1.4 even having the 50/1.2. 50/1.4 is an "always have the camera in your backpack" lens are are the rest of these, whereas a 50/1.2 etc. really you're just not going to have on you unless you're leaving the house to shoot.
(I had the original 1987 50/1.8 pro-build lens just because it was enough smaller than the 1.4 to have my EOS-1N, 1v, and 1Ds MkI II III in my backpack at all times. obviously I could have carried the 1.4 and had a lighter body but not what I was comfortable with.)
Thinking about the RF 24 F/1.4, I didn't previously consider the EF mount to be a very interesting lens, but with the addition of the RF 28-70 F/2, I'm moreso considering the idea of switching to the 28-70 and having a fast 24mm in my belt kit to swap to. A 24mm F/1.8 would also serve that function for much cheaper, but I do wonder if the RF 24mm gets more of a market now thanks to 28-70 users. That said, a 20mm F/1.4 may be even more enticing for that crowd.
Pretty disappointed to see the 24/1.4 listings both come in at 120mm.
The Sony 24/1.4 GM is 92.4mm. That is only 77% of the length of the Canon, which if it comes out will be several years newer. Given how sharp the Sony is, there isn’t really much to compete on other than size for those looking at each system.
The Sony 24/1.4 GM is 92.4mm. That is only 77% of the length of the Canon, which if it comes out will be several years newer. Given how sharp the Sony is, there isn’t really much to compete on other than size for those looking at each system.
CR guy should add a "The lens length given in patents includes the 20 mm flange distance. Subtract to compare with other lenses" to these posts.
120 mm in patent = 100 mm lens sticking out of the body.
I've done quite a bit of nightscapes and astrophotography with the Canon EF 35mm f1.4L II and it is superb, with no coma to speak of. It is wide enough to give some beautiful nightscapes, especially if you want some good foreground elements to your photo. I sold the lens (prematurely) with the anticipation of a RF replacement (groan). Currently, I use the RF 15-35 f2.8L for nightscapes, but I'm finding that f2.8 is a huge step-down from f1.4. I'm of the opinion that beautiful nightscapes, like day-landscapes, are often greatly improved by a beautiful foreground, dimly lit under the gorgeous night sky.
Considering the length of the 24mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4 lenses described in the patents and comparing them to the EF mount equivalents, it appears Canon is going for a heavier optical design with more glass elements:
24mm f/1.4 (120mm vs 87mm)
50mm f/1.4 (100mm vs 50mm)
While I'm confident that these will be great performers, I would have loved for Canon to adopt design principles similar to Sony's 24mm f/1.4 & 35mm f/1.4 GM models, both of which are both the lightest and sharpest in their respective categories.
24mm f/1.4 (120mm vs 87mm)
50mm f/1.4 (100mm vs 50mm)
While I'm confident that these will be great performers, I would have loved for Canon to adopt design principles similar to Sony's 24mm f/1.4 & 35mm f/1.4 GM models, both of which are both the lightest and sharpest in their respective categories.
They are actually both 20 mm shorter than the numbers you quoted there. Don't forget that patent length includes the 20 mm flange distance!
Is there a reference somewhere to say this is the case? In the patent the lengths are listed as "whole length of the lens", additionally, the description of the technical drawings indicates that the lengths describe the optical system which is measured by the line L0, which you can see only encloses the optical elements and not the flange to sensor distance, as the patent specifies the length of the optical system, and not the theoretical camera to which it may be attached.
I don't have a reference at hand. You can of course compare actual lenses to their patents to see for your self that the total lens length figure in a patent does not match the actual length of the lens.
Here are the patents for the RF 50 mm 1.8, all claiming a total lens length about 20 mm larger than the 40.5 mm stated by Canon's product page: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-50mm-f-1-8/
The small discrepancy there might be explained by either including or excluding the actual mount lock protrusions.
Anyway, skipping through the patent at hand I could not find a passage that directly stated the L0 length. L0 is the optical components, that's clear. But its length? Would you mind quoting that passage you are referring to?
I see where you’re coming from. If you skip to the end of the patent it discusses the use cases for L0, which can be placed in a mirrored interchangeable lens camera, a mirrorless camera, or a compact camera in which L0 is placed.
There is no explicit answer either way, at least without being able to read japanese probably. But I suspect you are probably right.
What is Canon waiting for?! :/
Go all in with 14mm up to 135mm (f1.2 - 1.8 range) primes! (and those tele primes 200mm+)
Go all in with 14mm up to 135mm (f1.2 - 1.8 range) primes! (and those tele primes 200mm+)
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Holy mutha, can this possibly be true?
My 50 1.4 is still my workhorse lens after 8+ years. I went through 4 copies to find mine, and its been gangbusters ever since.
But a new stabilized one will be like the rapture!
My 50 1.4 is still my workhorse lens after 8+ years. I went through 4 copies to find mine, and its been gangbusters ever since.
But a new stabilized one will be like the rapture!
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
My 50mm kills...5 countries and 10 years of fashion week, it never fails.
That said, the 35 IS i bought from canon was hilariously/frustratingly broken. One of the worst lenses at first purchase...until repair fixed it up. Its been a winner ever since.
Put IS on that 50!!!
Consider yourself lucky to have a good sample! Many years ago, my buddy Mark, I think the most talented photographer in this city, went to his retailer and had them bring every 50 1.4 they had in stock to the counter and one by one checked them and cherry picked his. He loves his. I was not so lucky. Lets hope the RF version is stellar.
I too really would like to see IS on an RF 50 1.4. In fact, I won't even buy a 1.4 if it lacks IS.
I doubt Canon will ever make an R camera without IBIS again so you've got your wish.
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
