Patent: Canon RF 50mm f/1.4 USM and other primes

An RF35 1.4 would be no-brainer. Can be without IS.

Remember the days when a 50 f1.8-2.0 was a basic Gaussian 6 element design, and the bigger, more expensive f1.4 had 1 more element? The f1.4 also had higher quality. My 50 f1.4 FD was considered to be a superb lens. I suppose today it would fail every test. All of my FD lenses, the pro models, are considered as tiny today.

though my 100mm f2.8 is still one of the sharpest lenses I’ve ever had.

melgross said:

My 50 f1.4 FD was considered to be a superb lens. I suppose today it would fail every test.

Click to expand...

The standards have changed in the past few decades. Technically, sensors have more details than most films, and the standard of living has raised, and people can and do print larger.

An RF 50mm f/1.4???

DJL329 said:

An RF 50mm f/1.4???

View attachment 193843

Click to expand...

Yeh, if these were made 11-15 element 50mm lenses are going to cost over $1,500.

Antono Refa said:

The standards have changed in the past few decades. Technically, sensors have more details than most films, and the standard of living has raised, and people can and do print larger.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was the point. My company used to process Kodachrome. We had our own pro process. I used to write for Kodak’s Lab Notes. I’m about as familiar with this as anyone. Kodachrome, according to Kodak, was equivalent to about 14-18MP. So that gives an idea. But that 100 f2.8 is still a very sharp lens. I’ve got an adapter for FD lenses on the EOS mount. Unfortunately, you can’t focus to infinity with it, but otherwise, you can use those lenses. On my 5D mk IV, it’s still pretty damn sharp. Surprising, but true.

a Compact 50 f1.4 usm, weather-sealed ....please!!!

melgross said:

Kodachrome, according to Kodak, was equivalent to about 14-18MP.

Click to expand...

Which Kodachrome ? The only one I have found to come close to 14 mp in resolution and 18mp in colour definition was Kodachrome 25. (35 mil of course).

But I've also found that fine grain 35mm film is as brutal on lenses and technique as a 5DS when you start scanning and outputting to the same kind of sizes we routinely do today.

if they make 35 and 50mm weather-sealed f/1.4 lenses, i will buy both of them.

Sporgon said:

Which Kodachrome ? The only one I have found to come close to 14 mp in resolution and 18mp in colour definition was Kodachrome 25. (35 mil of course).

But I've also found that fine grain 35mm film is as brutal on lenses and technique as a 5DS when you start scanning and outputting to the same kind of sizes we routinely do today.

Click to expand...

K-25.

nah, film is easy, by today’s standards. And by the way, lens manufacturers used to lie all the time about flat field (Leica, I’m looking at you!). Film in film gates where the back plate doesn’t clamp down on the film, isn’t flat. Think about everything that film is and what the requirements for mechanical operation is, and you’ll understand why. It’s a major reason why film lenses can be fairly sharp in the center, and so bad everywhere else, for digital. That’s for lower rez digital. We began, in my lab, to see that for 6MP.

Ziz said:

a Compact 50 f1.4 usm, weather-sealed ....please!!!

Click to expand...

I don't even care about USM as long as AF is accurate, just make it compact and give it good bokeh. an RF version of the Sigma 50/1.4 EX would be perfect.

Ziz said:

a Compact 50 f1.4 usm, weather-sealed ....please!!!

Click to expand...

I hoped for an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM along the lines of the 24-28-35mm trio upgrade since, well, the upgrade. Apparently its not in the cards.

Antono Refa said:

I hoped for an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM along the lines of the 24-28-35mm trio upgrade since, well, the upgrade. Apparently its not in the cards.

Click to expand...

I don't think we'll be seeing USM in non-L primes from now on.

melgross said:

K-25.

nah, film is easy, by today’s standards. And by the way, lens manufacturers used to lie all the time about flat field (Leica, I’m looking at you!). Film in film gates where the back plate doesn’t clamp down on the film, isn’t flat. Think about everything that film is and what the requirements for mechanical operation is, and you’ll understand why. It’s a major reason why film lenses can be fairly sharp in the center, and so bad everywhere else, for digital. That’s for lower rez digital. We began, in my lab, to see that for 6MP.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I noticed with an old Leica M Summicron 35 f2 , extremely good on Kodachrome, but marshmallow soft corners on Leica digital bodies under f8. Same applies to the Leica R 28mm f2,8.
Yet, the 50 M, 75 M, 90 M, 135 M and all the other Leica R APO vintage lenses are still tack sharp, even in the extreme corners.
Even most of my Olympus lenses were unusable for digital... and got sold

Finally, a new 50mm f 1.4! High time, the EF version is really old design, very soft wide open ... I waited many years for a new EF version in vain, now, with the new mount, it doesn't come as a surprise.

Antono Refa said:

I hoped for an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM along the lines of the 24-28-35mm trio upgrade since, well, the upgrade. Apparently its not in the cards.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think Canon will not invest in an upgrade of this lens for the EF mount - game over for the medium fast fifty.

melgross said:

All of my FD lenses, the pro models, are considered as tiny today.

Click to expand...

Canon's rangefinder lenses from the 1950s and 60s were even much smaller, my vintage 50mm f/1.8 has about the size of two bottle caps stacked.

Del Paso said:

That's exactly what I noticed with an old Leica M Summicron 35 f2 , extremely good on Kodachrome, but marshmallow soft corners on Leica digital bodies under f8. Same applies to the Leica R 28mm f2,8.
Yet, the 50 M, 75 M, 90 M, 135 M and all the other Leica R APO vintage lenses are still tack sharp, even in the extreme corners.
Even most of my Olympus lenses were unusable for digital... and got sold

Click to expand...

What’s interesting is how manufacturers handled backfocus. Back then, with manual, analog cameras, there was no backfocus adjustments. A manufacturer decided where to put that main focus at. Sometimes, it was closer to the front, sometimes to the rear. Some lenses were sharper with thinner b/w film, and some with thicker color film. Some were even aimed at thick Kodachrome.

by the way, apochromatic lenses aren’t necessarily sharper, nor do they always have flat field. It just means that three colors focus on the same plain, curved or flat. Stopping down a couple of stops, as always, results in better performance across the frame.

justaCanonuser said:

Canon's rangefinder lenses from the 1950s and 60s were even much smaller, my vintage 50mm f/1.8 has about the size of two bottle caps stacked.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I used a Nikon rangefinder in college, when I was on the newspaper. Pretty small too. So we’re my Leica lenses for my M5. Though the 90 f2.0 didn’t seem small.