# Patent: EF-S 30mm f/1.8 & EF 50mm f/1.8



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 9, 2017)

```
A Canon patent was found over at <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-ef-lenses-rumours-and-news/">Northlight Images</a> for a 50mm/1.8, which was replaced relatively recently, and a APS-C 30mm/1.8 lens has appeared at the Japanese patent office (No. 2017-102352 )</p>
<p><strong>Full frame lens specifications:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length 51.60mm</li>
<li>F number 1.85</li>
<li>Field angle 22.75</li>
<li>Image Height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Lens total length 84.19mm</li>
<li>BF 39.08mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>APS-C lens specifications:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length 30.90mm</li>
<li>F number 1.85</li>
<li>Field angle 23.85mm</li>
<li>Image height 13.66mm</li>
<li>Lens total length 84.50mm</li>
<li>BF 35.50mm</li>
</ul>
<p>There has always been rumbings about a “good” EF-S prime coming and 30mm has been passed around over the years, however nothing has every come of it.</p>
<p>The EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM Macro hasn’t started shipping yet, while a very neat looking lens, it’s not exactly the “fast” prime people have been looking for from Canon for APS-C shooters.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-ef-lenses-rumours-and-news/">Northlight Images</a> does say that they’ve been told to expect a “good” EF-S prime in the future.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 9, 2017)

I'm sure they're just adding it to the patent portfolio as a "just in case", but I can't help wondering if the world _really_ need another 50/1.8 formula.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 10, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> I'm sure they're just adding it to the patent portfolio as a "just in case", but I can't help wondering if the world _really_ need another 50/1.8 formula.



I am not knowledgeable about lens designs, but looking at the diagram for the new 50mm f/1.8 it looks like a cross between the 50mm f/2.5 Macro and the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4: 
http://www.eflens.com/ef-lenses/ef_50_f_18.html
http://www.eflens.com/ef-lenses/ef_50_f_25_compact_macro.html
http://www.eflens.com/ef-lenses/ef_50_f1.4_usm.html

The 50mm f/2.5 Macro is just about the oldest lens in the catalog, and I can't think of a better way to make it sell again than expanding the aperture a stop.

Lens designs have to move on, so on that basis alone I could argue that Canon has many lenses in its extensive catalog that could be up for replacement. If this is a close focusing, sharp replacement to the ancient macro lens and doubles as an excellent general normal lens, sign me up for one!


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 10, 2017)

OH MY GOD IT MIGHT FINALLY HAPPEN


----------



## Woody (Jun 10, 2017)

An EF-S 30mm f/1.8 will convince me to finally settle down to a 77D.

We shall see...


----------



## ecka (Jun 10, 2017)

Why EF-S? WHY?!
 ??? :-\ :-[ :'(


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 10, 2017)

ecka said:


> Why EF-S? WHY?!
> ??? :-\ :-[ :'(



Is the availability of fast EF primes not to your liking? You wouldn't just be happy with the 35/2 IS or the 28/1.8 or the 28/2.8 IS or any of the third-party options? Crop shooters, on the other hand, have very few crop-specific prime options, and no fast ones other than the apparently-mediocre 30Art.


----------



## ecka (Jun 10, 2017)

I use the 28/1.8, it's not bad, I like it, the bokeh is very nice (unusual for a wide lens), but wide open it feels very outdated and it doesn't work that well (rather poorly) for landscapes. The 35/2IS is not it and the 28/2.8IS is a joke.
Finally, if you really love fast primes, then you better go FF in the first place. This EF-S 30/1.8 will only get you close to 50/2.8 on FF and not even a good one. I think that 50/1.8STM on FF at F2.8 will put it to shame for around half or 1/3 of the price.
On the other hand, if it was an EF 30/1.8, then maybe I could replace my old 28/1.8 with it. Which is why I'm 'facepalming'.
What makes you think that it will be better than the 30/1.4Art? It's not F1.4, so it already lost in aperture department. Sigma comes with a lens hood, one more point to Sigma. And it's a nice sturdy hood, unlike the rattling trembling Canon fashion. We'll see ...


----------



## Camerajah (Jun 10, 2017)

You guys could be on to something in that the new 50 could be a macro lens or new redesign,notice its longer than the EF 100mm F2


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 11, 2017)

Camerajah said:


> You guys could be on to something in that the new 50 could be a macro lens or new redesign,notice its longer than the EF 100mm F2


What it calls the "total length of the lens" actually includes the entire path traveled by the light until it reaches the image sensor inside the camera. Thus, the lens itself, would be about 4.5 cm long.


----------



## BillB (Jun 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> I use the 28/1.8, it's not bad, I like it, the bokeh is very nice (unusual for a wide lens), but wide open it feels very outdated and it doesn't work that well (rather poorly) for landscapes. The 35/2IS is not it and the 28/2.8IS is a joke.
> Finally, if you really love fast primes, then you better go FF in the first place. This EF-S 30/1.8 will only get you close to 50/2.8 on FF and not even a good one. I think that 50/1.8STM on FF at F2.8 will put it to shame for around half or 1/3 of the price.
> On the other hand, if it was an EF 30/1.8, then maybe I could replace my old 28/1.8 with it. Which is why I'm 'facepalming'.
> What makes you think that it will be better than the 30/1.4Art? It's not F1.4, so it already lost in aperture department. Sigma comes with a lens hood, one more point to Sigma. And it's a nice sturdy hood, unlike the rattling trembling Canon fashion. We'll see ...
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2017)

*******! *******! Canon is *******!

Since the vast bulk of their sales are crop cameras, offering a pair of primes specifically for those crop cameras is obviously an act of desperation..... and when they sell well, that will be further proof that they are *******!

Seriously though, I bet if they make the 30F1.8, that it will be a good seller....


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> I use the 28/1.8, it's not bad, I like it, the bokeh is very nice (unusual for a wide lens), but wide open it feels very outdated and it doesn't work that well (rather poorly) for landscapes. The 35/2IS is not it and the 28/2.8IS is a joke.
> Finally, if you really love fast primes, then you better go FF in the first place. This EF-S 30/1.8 will only get you close to 50/2.8 on FF and not even a good one. I think that 50/1.8STM on FF at F2.8 will put it to shame for around half or 1/3 of the price.
> On the other hand, if it was an EF 30/1.8, then maybe I could replace my old 28/1.8 with it. Which is why I'm 'facepalming'.
> What makes you think that it will be better than the 30/1.4Art? It's not F1.4, so it already lost in aperture department. Sigma comes with a lens hood, one more point to Sigma. And it's a nice sturdy hood, unlike the rattling trembling Canon fashion. We'll see ...



I have no idea if it will be better than the Sigma. I actually rarely use my cropper, and when I do it's usually for the flexibility of the 18-135STM. My question was about why you seemed so hurt that the new lens would be EF-S, because that focal length (especially give or take a few mm) seems very well-covered by existing offerings.

And I just bought the 24-70/2.8ii and 70-200/2.8ISii, so I'm not getting ANY new lenses for a while...


----------



## msatter (Jun 11, 2017)

Indeed good is not good enough. They have to be excellent if not perfect for the big money they are asking for it.


----------



## ecka (Jun 11, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I use the 28/1.8, it's not bad, I like it, the bokeh is very nice (unusual for a wide lens), but wide open it feels very outdated and it doesn't work that well (rather poorly) for landscapes. The 35/2IS is not it and the 28/2.8IS is a joke.
> ...



I'm not hurt . Just saying (a bit sarcastically) that it would make much more sense (and profit) if it was an EF lens. All that Canon's self-competing phobia is silly. I think that crop shooters, who wanted their "fast" 50(ish) equivalent, already got the EF35/2IS or one of Sigma's offerings (30/1.4, 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 ).



BillB said:


> And the 28/2.8IS is a joke because... ?



Isn't the price doubling of an old and slow prime after adding IS, a joke? Thank god the 35 IS is not F2.8 . Same thing with 24/2.8IS.
I don't know ... maybe I'm wrong. What are you shooting with your 28/2.8IS? What's the best use for it? Shooting video on EOS-1D C?


----------



## BillB (Jun 11, 2017)

Quote from: BillB on June 10, 2017, 07:46:09 PM
And the 28/2.8IS is a joke because... ?

Isn't the price doubling of an old and slow prime after adding IS, a joke? Thank god the 35 IS is not F2.8 . Same thing with 24/2.8IS.
I don't know ... maybe I'm wrong. What are you shooting with your 28/2.8IS? What's the best use for it? Shooting video on EOS-1D



28mm2.8IS has a new lens formula with an aspheric element and USM as well as IS. Greatly improved resolution over previous 28 is well documented. Not the same lens as the one it replaced. I use a 28 where others might use a 35, with a bit more width. You use the 28 1.8. I use the 2.8 IS. No joke.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 12, 2017)

ecka said:


> I'm not hurt . Just saying (a bit sarcastically) that it would make much more sense (and profit) if it was an EF lens. All that Canon's self-competing phobia is silly. I think that crop shooters, who wanted their "fast" 50(ish) equivalent, already got the EF35/2IS or one of Sigma's offerings (30/1.4, 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 ).



The point of an EF-S 30mm is to take advantage of the smaller image circle resulting in a smaller cheaper lens. But I agree that the venerable 28mm/1.8 could use a replacement.


----------



## BillB (Jun 12, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not hurt . Just saying (a bit sarcastically) that it would make much more sense (and profit) if it was an EF lens. All that Canon's self-competing phobia is silly. I think that crop shooters, who wanted their "fast" 50(ish) equivalent, already got the EF35/2IS or one of Sigma's offerings (30/1.4, 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 ).
> ...




I think that to have a chance of success, any EF-S 30mm F1.8 would need to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 35 f2.0. Canon does seem to be competing pretty aggressively in the APS-C space these days. Is there any chance the 30mm patent could be applied to an EF-M lens design?

In addition to having a smaller image circle, an EF-S lens may not have enough clearance for the swing of a FF mirror. That is likely why a FF Canon camera will not accept an EF-S lens.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 12, 2017)

BillB said:


> In addition to having a smaller image circle, an EF-S lens may not have enough clearance for the swing of a FF mirror. That is likely why a FF Canon camera will not accept an EF-S lens.



Yes, good point. A 30mm has to be retrofocal in both EF and EF-S but the shorter clearance of EF-S probably helps with the lens design anyway.


----------



## Quackator (Jun 12, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> The EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM Macro hasn’t started shipping yet, (...)



Not true. My local dealer (Düsseldorf, Germany) lists it as immediately available.


----------



## ecka (Jun 12, 2017)

BillB said:


> Quote from: BillB on June 10, 2017, 07:46:09 PM
> And the 28/2.8IS is a joke because... ?
> 
> Isn't the price doubling of an old and slow prime after adding IS, a joke? Thank god the 35 IS is not F2.8 . Same thing with 24/2.8IS.
> ...



By "old and slow prime" I meant that it's not very popular in 21st century . The 24/2.8 is a much more desirable lens. Too bad it's not F2 . It is weird that a full stop aperture difference means nothing to you. I shoot people with my 28/1.8, so the blurry corners at wide open are not terribly problematic. But I cannot imagine using the 28/2.8 IS instead. It would produce absolutely different results and the IS wouldn't help a bit. Even for landscapes, the distortion would make stitching tricky or even questionable and 28mm is not wide enough to one-shot everything. Stitching 40/2.8 STM is a breeze - so sharp and well corrected. Canon need to make a new 20mm prime , IS or not, but F1.8 would be nice (like the Nikon one). However, I'm not going to buy a bunch of slow stabilized primes ($500-$600 each) in steps of just a few millimeters. That's madness. I'd just get a decent UWA zoom instead. Perhaps the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC, or the EF 16-35/4L IS.


----------



## ecka (Jun 12, 2017)

BillB said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



I think the point of the EF-S 30/1.8 is to compete with Nikon's DX 35/1.8G $200 lens. But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling, a self-competing phobia, because even cheap so-so lenses can shine on FF while being worthless on crop. Which is why FF rules! 8). Canon don't want to make too many cheap FF lenses, which is sad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2017)

ecka said:


> But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling...



What one calls crippling, another may call optimization.


----------



## ecka (Jun 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > But, yes, the EF-S design does utilize the free space inside crop camera bodies, due to smaller mirror. The point is - it's not really necessary. It is more like an intentional crippling...
> ...



Yes, same thing ... 
Remember those old Canon extension tubes not compatible with EF-S?


----------



## BillB (Jun 12, 2017)

ecka said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Quote from: BillB on June 10, 2017, 07:46:09 PM
> ...



I'm not prepared to agree that the results of the the 28 F2.8 would be "absolutely different" from something taken by a 28mm F1.8 wideopen, although there would certainly be differences. I agree that stitching with the 40mm pancake makes more sense, and that is what I do. I agree that my choice of the 28 focal length is at least somewhat eccentric, but that would seem to apply to your choice of the 28 f1.8, unless you are saying that being able to shoot at F1.8 somehow eliminates the wierdness of a 28mm lens. I had the 28 before Canon announced the 16-35 f4 which I also have, and I probably would have passed on the 28 if the 16-35 had been available at the time. But that wasn't the case, and it doesn't go to the point that the 28mm f2.8 is a pretty good lens, sharper than the 16-35 at 28mm, and a good deal smaller and less conspicuous. Anyway, you seem to be talking about the difference between an extra stop of light or IS. You have your notions on that choice and I have mine.


----------



## Eclectik (Jun 12, 2017)

ecka said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...



"Self-competing phobia" is a bad idea: I did the switch to Fuji. They have plenty of fast and lightweight lenses, which can be a criteria too. Clearly, Canon wasn't on that segment, and had decided not to be. They seem to come back, a bit late IMO.


----------



## ecka (Jun 13, 2017)

Eclectik said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



The fact is that even F1.4 on APS-C is not that fast. It is like F2.2 on FF and any affordable FF set of F1.4~F2 lenses just kills the whole point of spending thousands on Fuji's luxury toys. And they are not really lightweight, because any equivalent FF lens is similar in size and weight. There is no free lunch in optics, no magic, only physics and the rest is just delusions and wishful thinking. I guess, having a few small and cheap prime options for a crop system is OK. But, building (and buying) the whole system of expensive crop lenses, makes no sense. The most irritating part of it is HOW people compare different systems. They take the most expensive top FF lenses, which tend to be the largest as well (FOR a REASON!), and compare them to the most expensive Fuji lenses, which are much smaller, because Fuji doesn't make any serious FF equivalent lenses (which would be just as large as FF). Yes, as silly as that ... top FF vs top Fuji. Of course, nobody seems to care about the truth, which is why Fuji is able to sell all those expensive crop lenses. I'm not saying they are bad lenses, I'm saying that this direction of technological advancement is not as efficient as FF. There was time, when FF cameras were too expensive for consumer market. But times change. APS-H is gone and APS-C must follow. There's a lot of crazy talks like - "APS-C is the new FF" or "APS-C is the future" - and similar nonsense. But in reality, what's coming next is a cheaper fully electronic camera (EVF, global shutter, fast CDAF), which will allow to use small, cheap, narrow aperture AF lenses (like F5.6+) without compromises.


----------



## dzak (Jun 19, 2017)

In what timeframe does these patent come to realisation? I'm particularly interested in the EF-s 30mm 1.8 but if it takes more than 2 years it might not be relevant and I better get the 35mm IS USM f/2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2017)

dzak said:


> In what timeframe does these patent come to realisation?



Somtimes, weeks or months. Often, never. For these specific patents, we don't know.


----------

