Patent: Canon RF 40mm f/1.8 & Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 optical formulas

Stuart · Mar 5, 2020

I'd love a Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 with a lower cost FF body.

Larsskv · Mar 5, 2020

I would be very surprised if a new RF 35 f1.8 was released in the near future. The current RF 35 f1.8 IS is quite excellent as it is.

MadScotsman · Mar 5, 2020

Larsskv said:
I would be very surprised if a new RF 35 f1.8 was released in the near future. The current RF 35 f1.8 IS is quite excellent as it is.

Exactly. And a fun little macro to boot. Can't imagine another 35 1.8 would have anything to offer over the current 35 1.8? Doesn't make sense, perzactly. Unless there's something different about trying that's not apparent.

jeffa4444 · Mar 5, 2020

A series of non L f1.8 lenses and a series of f1.4L lenses in RF mount makes a lot of sense. Dont understand the need for a second RF35 f1.8 though.

MadScotsman · Mar 5, 2020

Stuart said:
I'd love a Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 with a lower cost FF body.

Honest question. Isn't that the current RF 35mm 1.8 and the RP? To me, thats precisely what you're wishing for?

What am I missing?

dwarven · Mar 5, 2020

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

avoidingconcrete · Mar 5, 2020

dwarven said:
As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

yes

sulla · Mar 5, 2020

dwarven said:
As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

yes

AJ · Mar 5, 2020

Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?

AdmiralFwiffo · Mar 5, 2020

Maybe an even cheaper, plastic-fantastic 35mm?

SteveC · Mar 5, 2020

dwarven said:
As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

A couple of people have answered Yes, but I'll be a little more cautious. My 100-400 L is vastly superior to the non-L lenses I own...but only you can answer the question of whether the improved image quality is worth the extra money TO YOU.

I can say there IS a difference, only you can put a value on it versus whatever else you might be able to do instead with the extra money.

sulla · Mar 5, 2020

Well, Bryan Carnathan at the-digital-picture appropriately writes: "What you can get when you use Canon L lenses (if you do your part right) are amazing pictures. In fact, this amazement is said to cause a disease know as "L-Disease". Once caught, it is incurable. You will have to buy Canon L lenses in all of the focal lengths you use. AND you will be happy (and I hope you know that I am not being totally serious). "

Canon L Lens Series

Canon L series lenses are the best of the best. We explain why.

www.the-digital-picture.com

So, PLEEEAAAASSSEEEE, keep your fingers off of L-lenses. It's just way toooo dangerous to catch that disease.

Stuart · Mar 5, 2020

MadScotsman said:
Honest question. Isn't that the current RF 35mm 1.8 and the RP? To me, thats precisely what you're wishing for?

What am I missing?

For me in the UK this is £470 - Canon 35mm f1.8 IS Macro STM RF Lens
The EF nifty fifty is about£100, so that's what i'm looking - for a cheaper lens.

MadScotsman · Mar 5, 2020

dwarven said:
As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

YES!

Stuart · Mar 5, 2020

MadScotsman said:
YES!

The only L i owned was a 24-105 f4, compared but my EF 50mm f1.8 is an amazing lens. So i'd say Sometimes, not yes always.

MadScotsman · Mar 5, 2020

Stuart said:
The only L i owned was a 24-105 f4, compared but my EF 50mm f1.8 is an amazing lens. So i'd say Sometimes, not yes always.

Thinks the current 35 1.8 is too expensive, and the $100 50 is better than the 24-105 4L.

Riiight....

JoshEFuller · Mar 6, 2020

dwarven said:
As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?

If you're asking if the newest, latest-and-greatest L glass is better than any of the alternatives out there, then the answer is almost always YES. It's the best.

But if by "worth it" you're asking about value... the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III is $1800 whereas the Tamron 70-200 G2 is $1200. That's 2/3rds the price. So, is the Canon 33% better? Noooo... but you won't get a lot of argument that the Canon is at minimum a little better in most categories.

So, as with all things, it's "up to you".

koenkooi · Mar 6, 2020

JoshEFuller said:
If you're asking if the newest, latest-and-greatest L glass is better than any of the alternatives out there, then the answer is almost always YES. It's the best.

But if by "worth it" you're asking about value... the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III is $1800 whereas the Tamron 70-200 G2 is $1200. That's 2/3rds the price. So, is the Canon 33% better? Noooo... but you won't get a lot of argument that the Canon is at minimum a little better in most categories.

So, as with all things, it's "up to you".

Nitpick: 50% better, 1200+400 is not 1800

JoshEFuller · Mar 6, 2020

koenkooi said:
Nitpick: 50% better, 1200+400 is not 1800

WELL, THAT JUST MAKES THE TAMRON SOUND LIKE AN EVEN BETTER VALUE!

Kidding. But yea, you’re right. I meant to say “So, is the Tamron 33% worse?”

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.

EOS R

EOS R / RP

EOS 5D Mark IV

EOS R / RP

EOS RP

EOS R

EOS RP

EOS R

Terrible photographer

R5

EOS RP

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.

EOS R / RP

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.

EOS R / RP

5D MK IV + EOS R

EOS 5D Mark IV

5D MK IV + EOS R

Similar threads

Subscribe