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.
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.
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?
yes
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.
Canon L Lens Series
The EF nifty fifty is about£100, so that's what i'm looking - for a cheaper lens.
YES!
Thinks the current 35 1.8 is too expensive, and the $100 50 is better than the 24-105 4L.
Riiight....
:rolleyes:
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".
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?”