svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Patent: Canon RF 40mm f/1.8 & Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 optical formulas

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

    By Updated:51 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents

    A patent showing two optical formulas for some Canon RF primes has been uncovered by Canon News.

    Canon RF 40mm f/1.8

    • Focal Length: 41.92mm
    • F-Number: 1.85
    • Angle of View: 27.30°
    • Image Height: 21.64mm
    • Lens length: 71.50mm
    • BF: 13.97mm

    Canon RF 35mm f/1.8

    • Focal length: 36.00mm
    • F-number: 1.85
    • Angle of view: 31.00mm
    • Image height: 21.64mm
    • Lens length: 79.97mm
    • BF: 11.65mm

    I'm expecting non-L RF mount prime lenses to be coming in the relatively near future, and this patent may be part of a series of Non-L prime lenses coming to the EOS R system

    The patent does show a DSLR for the illustrations, but the backfocus length of these optical formulas shoes these designs are definitely for the RF mount.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    51 comments

    3. 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.
    5. 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?
    11. 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.
    12. 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). "
      www.the-digital-picture.com

      Canon L Lens Series

      Canon L series lenses are the best of the best. We explain why.
      www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
      So, PLEEEAAAASSSEEEE, keep your fingers off of L-lenses. It's just way toooo dangerous to catch that disease.
    13. 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.
    16. 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....

      :rolleyes:
    17. 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".
    18. 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
    19. 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?”

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment