# Patent: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 1, 2015)

```
We’ve been told that Canon’s next L lens would be a prime. Most of the people I’ve talked to think that the EF 35mm f/1.4L will be the lens getting the update. There have been a lot of patents in the past for the optical formula, and recently a new one has appeared.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-72370 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.4.16</li>
<li>Filing date 2013.10.3</li>
</ul>
<p>Example 1</p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 35.47mm</li>
<li>Fno. 1.45</li>
<li>Half angle of view ω = 31.38 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64mm</li>
<li>Lens length 141.37mm</li>
<li>BF 39.37mm</li>
<li>Positive, positive ShiboTadashi</li>
</ul>
<p>We expect to see a new L lens some time in late summer or early fall and all the signs continue to point to a new 35L.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-05-01" target="_blank">Egami</a>]</p>
```


----------



## mb66energy (May 1, 2015)

It's funny to see the convergence of size between wide angles and telephoto primes/zooms! What a monster for a "simple" 1.4 35 mm lens ... with 140 mm length.

But: If the qualitiy is stellar - and I feel such a complex lens has the potential to deliver - why not for those who like moderate wide angle at low light (event, astro, e.g.). Or a high aperture standard lens for their SL1/100D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

Good point - it's a monster compared to the 86mm physical length of the current 35/1.4L.


----------



## exquisitor (May 1, 2015)

The design looks quite similar to the Sigma 35 Art, except two further positive/negative elements in the front and rear groups in Canon design:





Sigma:





Sigma is 94 mm long, Canon would be significantly bigger with ~140 mm. Let's hope they will go with another design and make it at least not bigger than Sigma...


----------



## [email protected] (May 1, 2015)

I will replace my EF35mm F2 IS USM with upcoming EF35mm F1.4L II USM.


...If it has the "IS", which I seriously doubt it will.

Yeah, call me pussy, lol.
But can you blame me? The "IS" will help me a lot with slow shutter-speed.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (May 1, 2015)

Sign me up for a preorder


----------



## ahsanford (May 1, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> It's funny to see the convergence of size between wide angles and telephoto primes/zooms! What a monster for a "simple" 1.4 35 mm lens ... with 140 mm length.
> 
> But: If the qualitiy is stellar - and I feel such a complex lens has the potential to deliver - why not for those who like moderate wide angle at low light (event, astro, e.g.). Or a high aperture standard lens for their SL1/100D



140mm length is ridiculously long. That's roughly _70-300L_ long. I guess you won't be shooting street with this thing. 

Or you could lose a stop, lose the red ring and weathersealing gasket, and get the very fine 35 f/2 IS, which comes in at less than half that physical length and packs IS.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 1, 2015)

BTW, what's going on, CR Dungeon Masters? First, the story on the EOS-M3 reviews is put in the Lens forum, and this story gets put in the Bodies forum.

#coffee :

- A


----------



## mb66energy (May 1, 2015)

exquisitor said:


> The design looks quite similar to the Sigma 35 Art, except two further positive/negative elements in the front and rear groups in Canon design:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I started with "140mm is very big" but perhaps the translation is misleading. Comparing the Canon lens arrangement with the Sigma ones I see no difference in the physical size if you take into account that f/1.4 is somewhat smaller for a 35mm focal length.

Perhaps the 140mm are measured from the outer front lens surface to the image plane - resulting in a net lens length incl. case of roughly 100mm which is not as intimidating than the 140mm ...


----------



## drjlo (May 1, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> Sigma is 94 mm long, Canon would be significantly bigger with ~140 mm.



Ehh, no. It looks like my 35L is not going anywhere; 35 mm is supposed to be a "walkaround" length, not "work-out-arm." If nobody can improve on the 35L (Sigma, Canon) without making it so much larger, I think the 35L is good enough to keep. It's a great lens ;D


----------



## grainier (May 1, 2015)

It looks to me like Sigma Art sent Canon lens designers back to the drawing board.


----------



## exquisitor (May 1, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> I started with "140mm is very big" but perhaps the translation is misleading. Comparing the Canon lens arrangement with the Sigma ones I see no difference in the physical size if you take into account that f/1.4 is somewhat smaller for a 35mm focal length.
> 
> Perhaps the 140mm are measured from the outer front lens surface to the image plane - resulting in a net lens length incl. case of roughly 100mm which is not as intimidating than the 140mm ...



Hopefully... But could be true. Previous patented 35 f/1.4 designs were also in the 125-130 mm range. It is difficult too compare the size from the sketch only, with the similar arrangement Canon lens could be bigger for example to reduce vignetting and improve corner performance.


----------



## dolina (May 1, 2015)

The 40/2.8 pancake makes this lens less compelling especially if you shoot stopped down.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2015)

dolina said:


> The 40/2.8 pancake makes this lens less compelling especially if you shoot stopped down.



Depends on your need for fast AF (not a strength of STM lenses), and your need for weather sealing (which an updated 35L would certainly have).


----------



## dolina (May 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The 40/2.8 pancake makes this lens less compelling especially if you shoot stopped down.
> ...


If it breaks due to water I can always buy a 35/1.4. 

Or better yet buy another 40/2.8 and replace it with another when it breaks. ;D


----------



## mb66energy (May 2, 2015)

exquisitor said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > I started with "140mm is very big" but perhaps the translation is misleading. Comparing the Canon lens arrangement with the Sigma ones I see no difference in the physical size if you take into account that f/1.4 is somewhat smaller for a 35mm focal length.
> ...



I wasn't very precise with my arguments. I will try again 
The ratio of apertures between 1.4 35 and 1.4 50 is 35:50 or 0.7 . For similar lens formulae you can
scale both images to match both apertures for this ratio.
Measuring the corresponding distances in both images show me that the distance from first lens surface
last lens surface of the Canon patent  is only 80% is only slightly larger (~10%) of that of the Sigma lens.
So there is a good chance that the lens is actually smaller than similar to the Sigma (depending on the lens chassis).


----------



## Mika (May 2, 2015)

> It looks to me like Sigma Art sent Canon lens designers back to the drawing board.



I've been saying for some time that this has been the case. Not that I'm any way linked to Canon and know for sure, but it was quite obvious that the introduction of the 35 mm Art caused issues, deduced from the amount of Canon patents related to 35/1.4 designs before that. 

Now watch as Canon is facing pressure to improve both 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 due to Sigma 50 mm Art, AND they are pushed by Yongnuo to improve the 50/1.8. Which somehow tells me there's going to be improvements on these lenses in a rather short notice. However, this is good news for the consumer.

Then on the patent, I think that the published patent says track length, and mentions the back focal length separately from it. The total length of the lens is then around 102 mm. However, you'll have to add some millimeters for the mounting mechanics. 

The current 35/1.4 are retro-focus type designs, so Canon, Sigma, Zeiss and Nikon all look sort of the same. The lens construction is principally a wide angle attachment followed by a modified Double Gauss. However, this is hardly surprising; the earlier 50 mm double gauss designs (Ultrons) looked very similar between different brands as well.


----------



## Freddell (May 2, 2015)

I just bought a 35L1.4 last week, momentarily forgetting the persistent rumor of a replacement. I already witnessed CA with the 35L in some shots and was nudging myself about that!

Based on experience with 18-35 1.8 sigma on my 70D and inability to focus properly using the center focusing point I would not easily buy another sigma. (But it could be the 70D problem, and not sigmas fault (I have now replaced 70D with 6D)). I bought 35L because I could not get the 35 2.0 IS at a reasonable discount where I live. An on-line retailer even canceled my order when he discovered my price was too good.

Based on the patent for a significantly larger lens without IS? I can now sleep better knowing that I would probably not appreciate the cost and weight of the new lens. I really like the heft of the existing 35L. I am sure the PQ will be excellent with mkII. But I am just an amateur photographer so the improvement will not make me any more money.

I respect that a lot of people will be super exited by a new modern 35L, ready to out-resolve the 5DS! For me it was a question to sink 1000 USD on a Fuji X100T or a 35mm lens. (already have the original X100)!


----------



## jarrodeu (May 2, 2015)

Freddell said:


> I respect that a lot of people will be super exited by a new modern 35L, ready to out-resolve the 5DS! For me it was a question to sink 1000 USD on a Fuji X100T or a 35mm lens. (already have the original X100)!


Even if the 5DS were 100 MP it wouldn't be able to out-resolve any Canon lens of the past decade.

Jarrod


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good point - it's a monster compared to the 86mm physical length of the current 35/1.4L.


Also longer than the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art that measures 94mm long. That wouldn't be the lens you want to carry for street photography...


----------



## zim (May 3, 2015)

Big lens  , maybe it's not a new 35 1.4, maybe its a new 135 1.4!


----------



## exquisitor (May 3, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...


I think you right. I've checked another Canon patents and the length of the lens obviously means the distance from the front lens to the focus plane of image circle. So the real lens length in this case would be around 100 mm as you already mentioned.


----------



## Viggo (May 3, 2015)

I like Canon the best when they go all in, no compromise, just as awesome as possible. If they make a 50 f1.2 L II the size of the 70-200 II to make it epic sharp into the corners and extremely well corrected, I'll be first in line. Same with the 35 L II, it can be bigger than the 85 L II if it's superb optically and killer AF.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (May 3, 2015)

Viggo said:


> I like Canon the best when they go all in, no compromise, just as awesome as possible. If they make a 50 f1.2 L II the size of the 70-200 II to make it epic sharp into the corners and extremely well corrected, I'll be first in line. Same with the 35 L II, it can be bigger than the 85 L II if it's superb optically and killer AF.



+1 I don't care if it's big and heavy as long as it delivers epic performance


----------



## K (May 4, 2015)

The 35mm II interests me only because if and when it comes out, the 1st generation 35mm L will drop in price and perhaps I can find a better deal on it. 

;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 4, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Wow! Someone that values sharpness corner to corner over magic bokeh and creamy images that comes from lack of image detail in the corners. Wonders will never cease here on CR.



I bet you more people would desire sharpness edge to edge than intentional softening aberrations. Worth a poll?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2015)

exquisitor said:


> I think you right. I've checked another Canon patents and the length of the lens obviously means the distance from the front lens to the focus plane of image circle. So the real lens length in this case would be around 100 mm as you already mentioned.



That makes sense when you consider what is actually being patented – an optical _design_, not an actual lens.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (May 4, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I like Canon the best when they go all in, no compromise, just as awesome as possible. If they make a 50 f1.2 L II the size of the 70-200 II to make it epic sharp into the corners and extremely well corrected, I'll be first in line. Same with the 35 L II, it can be bigger than the 85 L II if it's superb optically and killer AF.
> ...



I don't think the two parameters (creamy bokeh & sharpness) are mutually exclusive.........my 135 APO is blisteringly sharp and has creamy bokeh at the same time.


----------



## Viggo (May 4, 2015)

can0nfan2379 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



+1, I own the 200 f2 and it has the best bokeh, and the sharpness wide open is the best I have ever seen. Zero distortion and no aberations that my colorblind self can see.


----------

