Close Menu

    Patent: Canon RF 28mm f/1.4L USM and Canon RF 35 f/1.4L USM

    By Updated:29 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents
    patent2814 - Patent: Canon RF 28mm f/1.4L USM and Canon RF 35 f/1.4L USM

    Canon News has uncovered a patent showcasing what would be two popular fast prime optical formulas in the form of an RF 28mm f/1.4L USM (Yay!) and an RF 35mm f/1.4L USM.

    As you may remember, we recently saw a patent for the long-rumoured Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM. It probably doesn't make much sense to have both a `1.2 and a 1.4 35mm lens in the lineup. The RF 28mm f/1.4L USM does excite me on a personal level.

    Canon RF 28mm f/1.4L USM

    • Focal Length: 28.00mm
    • F-number: 1.42
    • Half angle: 37.69°
    • Image height:21.64mm
    • Lens total length: 140.62mm
    • Backfocus: 21.99mm

    Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L USM

    • Focal Length: 34.98mm
    • F-number: 1.42
    • Half angle: 31.73°
    • Image height: 21.64mm
    • Lens total length: 154.45mm
    • Backfocus: 16.17mm
    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    29 comments

    3. Does "Lens total length" not mean what I think it does? These would be wayyyy too big at 140mm and 154mm in length. The EF 35 1.4L II is 105mm. The new Sony 35mm 1.4 is 96mm.
      If they are really that big it will be a deal breaker for me for sure.
    4. Does "Lens total length" not mean what I think it does? These would be wayyyy too big at 140mm and 154mm in length. The EF 35 1.4L II is 105mm. The new Sony 35mm 1.4 is 96mm.
      My first reaction as well. As much as I appreciate the RF lenses, I do envy Sony for the small but still very good 24 and 35 f1.4 GM lenses. I thought the larger RF lens mount would benefit Canon in both size and quality. Maybe I am wrong.
    5. Does "Lens total length" not mean what I think it does? These would be wayyyy too big at 140mm and 154mm in length. The EF 35 1.4L II is 105mm. The new Sony 35mm 1.4 is 96mm.
      You have to subtract 20 mm from total lens length to get how much is sticking out of the body. And of course you have to add 24 mm to an EF lens length to get a fair comparison, as that's the length of the adapter.
    6. Does "Lens total length" not mean what I think it does? These would be wayyyy too big at 140mm and 154mm in length. The EF 35 1.4L II is 105mm. The new Sony 35mm 1.4 is 96mm.
      9mm difference. 9mm makes absolutely no difference to me. I find it very hard to believe that 9mm is a deal breaker for anyone. It certainly isn’t a reason to switch brands. 9mm? Nothing to sweat about.
    8. I would appreciate smaler lenses on my R6. The EF-Lenses are quite big with adapter. Here is a comparison with my Leica SL and the 2.8/60mm Macro-Elmarit. This is the size i would have for RF-Primes.
    9. I'd love a 28 mm fixed lens, though I'd prefer a compact f/2. With IS, doesn't have to be an L. It will always be a street/travel lens for me, on an R body.

      And an f/1.4 50 mm with IS!
    10. I personally feel they have room for both in the lineup! The f/1.2 lens can be the larger lens with no compromises in IQ but high priced and the f/1.4 is the betweener which has great IQ, fast aperture but moderately priced and smaller/lighter.
    11. Finally, Canon seems to have understood that there is a real demand for Hi IQ wide-angle primes. Nikon and Sony already have theirs.
      Good news!
      What about a 1,8/20mm ?
    12. I would appreciate smaler lenses on my R6. The EF-Lenses are quite big with adapter. Here is a comparison with my Leica SL and the 2.8/60mm Macro-Elmarit. This is the size i would have for RF-Primes.
      I too have the R 2,8/60 .
      And absolutely love it, not only for being small.
      It is deadly sharp, contrasty, distortionless, flare resistant, low vignetting : just a perfect MF lens.
      Is this the way to go: smallish EOS R cameras with barrel-sized lenses ?
      We need more options.
    13. Hmm, I don't know, this trend of lens development starts to look excessively over-engineered. Ok, I guess some people might wish to have an extremely well corrected lens with large aperture. But how much is this lump of glass going to weight? IQ will certainly be much better than the old style SLR lenses, but at some point the improvement isn to worth the extra weight and size. Maybe it's my old eyes that don't need pixel perfect resolution anymore.... Anyway, as long as it sells for Canon, it's ok. But don't forget lenses for the rest of the photographers that would like to have something reasonable that is better than a smartphone.
    15. Funny timing on this one. I just ordered the Sigma 28 f1.4 ART to use on my R5. Canon really needs to step up their game on the wide end for the RF lenses. I look enviously at all the great wide angl;e options available in the Sony E mount and what Nikon has already put out for the Z cameras.
    16. Funny timing on this one. I just ordered the Sigma 28 f1.4 ART to use on my R5. Canon really needs to step up their game on the wide end for the RF lenses. I look enviously at all the great wide angl;e options available in the Sony E mount and what Nikon has already put out for the Z cameras.
      It always makes me smile when an individual says something like “Canon needs to...”. Canon are turning out class leading and tech leading lenses and bodies faster than anybody else.

      As an aside, can you get uncooked RAW files from the Sony’s or Nikon’s when using those new small fast wide primes? I suspect not....
    18. It always makes me smile when an individual says something like “Canon needs to...”. Canon are turning out class leading and tech leading lenses and bodies faster than anybody else.

      As an aside, can you get uncooked RAW files from the Sony’s or Nikon’s when using those new small fast wide primes? I suspect not....
      Fair enough. I must say that I love the files coming from Sigma ART lenses on the R5. I can deal with the extra ounces.
    19. I'd love a 28 mm fixed lens, though I'd prefer a compact f/2. With IS, doesn't have to be an L. It will always be a street/travel lens for me, on an R body.

      And an f/1.4 50 mm with IS!
      I am with you on the 28 being an F2. I feel like a broken record harping on Sigma and Canon to follow Nikon with a 1.8 or F2 lens. That is all we need in the street, I get them wanting the 35 and the 85 that is big and bright and comes with an optional sherpa, but the 28 is a lens that should slip in to a pocket!

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment