# Patent: Soft Focus Lens Designs, Various Focal Lengths



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 21, 2018)

```
Canon has filed a patent <a href="https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-soft-focus-lenses">spotted by Canon News</a> for a variety of soft focus lenses. The most interesting of the bunch is a 70-200 f/4 full frame lens with a backfocus of 25mm, meaning it’s not an EF mount lens.</p>
<p><strong>35mm f/1.8 full frame EF Canon mount</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal Length 33.75</li>
<li>F-Number 1.72</li>
<li>Image Height 21.64</li>
<li>Total Lens Length 132.93</li>
<li>BF 39.14</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>58mm f/1.4 full frame EF Canon mount</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal Length 57.57</li>
<li>F-Number 1.43</li>
<li>Image Height 21.64</li>
<li>Total Lens Length 160.04</li>
<li>BF 40.43</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>105mm f/2.0 full frame EF Canon mount</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal 103.2</li>
<li>F-Number 2.17</li>
<li>Image Height 21.64</li>
<li>Total Lens Length 123.79</li>
<li>BF 42.2</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>70-200 f/4 full frame BF of 25mm (not EF mount)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal 72.21 – 194.06</li>
<li>F-Number 4.00</li>
<li>Image Height: 21.64</li>
<li>BF 25.98</li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 21, 2018)

70-200 f/4 full frame *BF of 25mm (not EF mount)*

Interesting... 

- A


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 21, 2018)

Thinking...

Cheapo non IS 35mm f1.8 in a similar vein to the 50mm f1.8

Hopefully 58mm f1.4 IS in a similar vein to the 35mm f2.0 IS

105mm ! Hmmm, patent filler ? Or replacement for 100mm non L or maybe a macro ???


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 21, 2018)

Again, most patents don't end up as products.

But I'm curious, who on earth wants a soft focus lens these days?

Unless this means an apodization filter, which I think it could be (the part labelled SP in the diagrams)


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 21, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Again, most patents don't end up as products.
> 
> But I'm curious, who on earth wants a soft focus lens these days?
> 
> Unless this means an apodization filter, which I think it could be (the part labelled SP in the diagrams)



Canon was tired of leaving all the LensBaby money on the table. ;D

- A


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jun 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Again, most patents don't end up as products.
> ...



Nailed it! I'm surprised they aren't producing present versions with insane amounts of flare and aberrations. Some crazy filters are popular with the younger generation. 
Bad in the day, we used to smear Vaseline on a filter for soft effects.


----------



## timmy_650 (Jun 21, 2018)

I wonder if it is more for the Asian makets. There was that Casio selfie camera what did great over there.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 21, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I use Lee Filters soft effects filters for portraits sometimes, they don't destroy sharp features like eyes but they do make highlights "glow" and help smooth out skin. 

In the movie industry weve seen a huge increase in the use of low contrast or soft fx filters over the last two years because those vast amount of MPs don't make actresses in particular look good.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 21, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> I use Lee Filters soft effects filters for portraits sometimes, they don't destroy sharp features like eyes but they do make highlights "glow" and help smooth out skin.
> 
> In the movie industry weve seen a huge increase in the use of low contrast or soft fx filters over the last two years because those vast amount of MPs don't make actresses in particular look good.



Can't you somewhat get that same effect with a Clarity negative slider move?

- A


----------



## NancyP (Jun 21, 2018)

Yes. I would rather use (and have used on me, since I am "of a certain age") a vintage lens from the 1970s than a Zeiss Otus for women's portraits.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 70-200 f/4 full frame *BF of 25mm (not EF mount)*
> 
> Interesting...


Indeed! 

Question (quick search, couldn't find it):
What is the typical BF of EF-M? Thanks.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 22, 2018)

not much explanation to the "soft focus" thing? is it 
1. an "apodization filter" as implemented in eg the 56/1.2 Fuji lens? https://dpreview.com/articles/4106200256/fujifilm-introduces-xf-56mm-f1-2-r-apd-with-apodization-filter or 
2. a new/"updated" appearance of the old "SF" Canon used in their (1987, now discontinued?) EF 135/2.8 SF lens? https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx or 
3. something entirely different? 

maybe someone has looked at the patent detail? i dont really want to, just mildly curious. 

not convinced at all that this patent will result in actual products.

re BF: 26mm backfocus would be about in line with my expections for "wisely chosen" Canon "EF-X" new native "slim" mirrorless FF mount parameters. BF in patents typically is a bit shorter than FFD. EF-M FFD is 18 mm. so 25mm BF lens does not "appear" to be designed for EF-M mount.
see patent for an EF-M 9-18mm BF is 14-16mm (wide end, long end).
http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-m-9-18mm-f3-5-4-5/

only my conclusion (guess, conjecture, ASSumption) though.  


but again, what gives me more pause re. this patent is the "soft focus" bit. cannot see sufficient market for it, when any of these IQ-degrading effects can easily be added via software - in camera or in post-process.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 22, 2018)

It seems the patent requires the aperture to move when focusing. Is that right? Are there other primes that move the aperture when focusing?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> BF in patents typically is a bit shorter than FFD. EF-M FFD is 18 mm. so 25mm BF lens does not "appear" to be designed for EF-M mount.
> see patent for an EF-M 9-18mm BF is 14-16mm (wide end, long end).



Don't forget the FFD only defines the *minimum* BF (and even then it can sometimes extend into the body), there's nothing stopping a lens designer using the EF-M mount and having the same BF as a standard EF lens, should they be lazy enough to do things that way. 

In wide angle lenses the BF is usually pretty close to the FFD, but on longer lenses there's usually a big difference. The 70-200 lenses for EF mount for example needs a gap for the extender.

So - long story short, you can't draw *any* conclusions about the FFD of the new mount from this lens.

In fact, all evidence so far is still pointing towards a FF capable EF-M mount - which I still think will be the best solution.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 22, 2018)

I agree, the only "highly likely conclusion" is that this 70-200 patent is not for EF mount [44mm FFD]. NF for the other 3 lenses in the patent is also quite a bit shorter than 44mm, but by far not as much as on that 70-200. 



jolyonralph said:


> In fact, all evidence so far is still pointing towards a FF capable EF-M mount - which I still think will be the best solution.



no and no.  
Canon execs responsible for EF-M themselves have clearly stated in an interview [I linked to it in some other thread] that it is not intended for FF image circle. But if you have newer "evidence" that they changed their mind on this, please provide information.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon execs responsible for EF-M themselves have clearly stated in an interview [I linked to it in some other thread] that it is not intended for FF image circle.



Well, I don't know what they said, but I really don't think there's any coincidence that the mount is almost identical to the sony E/FE mount and also the same throat width as Nikon F mount, both of which obviously work for a FF image circle.

EF-M is perfectly capable of FF. Look at the Sony FE mount as an example. When you mount an adaptor such as the Metabones on the mount and plug in a standard EF lens there's no additional vignetting - the mount is perfectly designed for a FF image circle. 

Now, that doesn't mean they WILL use EF-M for mirrorless, as there are clearly many reasons to keep the EF mount. But I doubt that Canon would create yet another incompatible mount format. Keeping to the EF-M mount means that future FF mirrorless lenses would also work on their APS-C cameras - as the EF lenses do on EF-S mount cameras, why would Canon go backwards and create incompatible mounts between their APS-C and FF mirrorless options when there is absolutely no need to?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 22, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Canon execs responsible for EF-M themselves have clearly stated in an interview [I linked to it in some other thread] that it is not intended for FF image circle.
> ...




no. EF-M is NOT "perfectly capable of FF". Just like the poorly chosen Sony E-mount it would entail MASSIVE compromises to press it into FF service. In the form of lenses that rre not as compact as they could and should be, more complex than they could and should be and wy more expensive than they could and should be. See Sony FE ... no lens I would buy over there. Either subpar performance and high price or performance on par with Canon glass and 30-50% more expensive. A lot of it is due to Sony's decision to use E-mount with its "well chosen for APS-C" parameters also for FF image circle. Ever wondered why there is so much hollow air-filled tube at the mount end of those stupid Sony FE lenses? 

Why is it, that you guys always find time to post but are NEVER able to google something and read it first? SO here is AGAIN the link to the interview with the Canon guys who actually DESIGNED the EF-M mount:
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/551672.html

And to make it even easier for all "reading-challenged posters", here the important piece: 



> - Where is the most important factor in developing a new mount called "EF - M"?
> Nakamura: It is a mount diameter that satisfies the APS - C size image circle properly, but also to make it possible to realize small size and light weight. In addition, the operation feeling such as attaching and detaching the lens is designed to be the same as the EF mount.
> EF-M mount. The mount diameter is also reduced from the EF mount
> 
> ...



in other words: "not designed for FF, maybe borderline possible, but only with MASSIVE COMPROMISES". See Sony FE. Any questions?

TL;DR: Canon EF-M is not a suitable, good mount for FF image circle. Canon knows that. Most likely it is one of the main reasons they have not been able to launch a FF mirrorless system yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> in other words: "not designed for FF, maybe borderline possible, but only with MASSIVE COMPROMISES". See Sony FE. Any questions?



And yet...Sony E-mount full frame lenses from Sony (GM) and Zeiss deliver excellent IQ. Sure, they’re no smaller than equivalent EF lenses. But the compromise is only ‘MASSIVE’ because _you personally_ want a FF MILC system that’s as small as possible, or even smaller. Get this fact through your thick skull – YOU DO NOT REPRESENT THE MARKET.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 22, 2018)

you might want to be a bit more careful with your ASSumptions. 

I am definitely "representative" for a much larger portion of the stills imaging market than you. 

How many (private) Canon EF 600/4 owners are there globally? 10.000 ? More? Less? 

And how many potential buyers of a compact, fully competent, enthusiast-affordable mirrorless Canon FF camera system are out there? 

... owned. ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ... owned. ;D



Are you nine years old? You can't be a cheering section for your own content.

Just a thought: convince _someone else here_ to pat you on the back instead of doing it yourself. I don't know, log back on as AvTvM and say "Wow. Great point. You nailed it, dude." 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > ... owned. ;D
> ...



Yeah, he’s a real legend in his own mind. Of course, if you live in your own private universe, it’s easy to be popular with all of your imaginary friends.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 22, 2018)

just a bit sick and tired of "incessant" personal attacks and the ongoing attempt to bully me by stating "i was all alone and nobody else" would want the products and features I'd like to get ... rather than useless Canon gimmicks like 1970s style LCD displays on lens barrels.

In reality Canon customers like me are the vast majority. And folks like Neuro are a tiny minorety niche.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> just a bit sick and tired of "incessant"



You just hit yourself over the head with the irony hammer. Ouch!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 22, 2018)

Wait a minute, I'm getting confused by the argument.

I thought *I* was the one who wanted a super compact FF Canon mirrorless system, which is why I want EF-M mount and not EF mount.

As I said before, there will be EF mount or EF-M mount, I think it's almost impossible Canon will go for a third incompatible mount system. Once they start doing, for example, cheap 50mm lenses, they'll want them to be sold to APS-C shooters as well as FF shooters, so the mount has to be the same.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 22, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> As I said before, there will be EF mount or EF-M mount, I think it's almost impossible Canon will go for a third incompatible mount system. Once they start doing, for example, cheap 50mm lenses, they'll want them to be sold to APS-C shooters as well as FF shooters, so the mount has to be the same.



There is no "incompatible" mount. Canon will simply move from 2 mounts in the mirrorslapping past to 2 mounts in the mirrorless future. 1 FF mount, 1 APS_C mount. 

1. EF -> EF-X ... "full frame" image circle; full backwards compatibility with EF glass via simple adapter; functionality within limits of legacy EF glass - especially for AF, but also other more advanced functions; "wireless E-TTL II with second curtain snyc" for example ;-) 

2. EF-S -> EF-M .. for APS-C. transition almost complete already. Not many more EF-SS lenses to come. Except an 18-55 kit lens with lens LCD display, maybe 

Only during multi-year transition period will there be "4 versions of mounts" - 2 old, 2 new. Evrything cross-compatible within reason [lenses need to cover image circle]. 

Canon does a separate mount for APS-C and FF also with mirrorless because it has worked so well for them in the past. First, people run out and buy "entry level" APS-C cameras and APS-C lenses [EF-S]. Then they upgrade to "full frame" cameras and lenses [EF]. Then they add mirrorless APS-C cameras + lenses [EF-M] for small size. Then they buy full frame mirrorless cameras and lenses ["EF-X"] once Canon launches them. 

End result: Canon has cashed in 4 times on the same customer set.  ;D

Even me, a typical, highly representative, well-informed, good-looking, critical and smart Canon customer has completed the first 3 steps in this lemming cycle already. And looking forward to take the 4th step too. Stupid me. LOL.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> There is no "incompatible" mount. Canon will simply move from 2 mounts in the mirrorslapping past to 2 mounts in the mirrorless future. 1 FF mount, 1 APS_C mount.
> 
> 1. EF -> EF-X ... "full frame" image circle; full backwards compatibility with EF glass via simple adapter; functionality within limits of legacy EF glass - especially for AF, but also other more advanced functions; "wireless E-TTL II with second curtain snyc" for example ;-)
> 
> 2. EF-S -> EF-M .. for APS-C. transition almost complete already. Not many more EF-SS lenses to come. Except an 18-55 kit lens with lens LCD display, maybe



EF lenses mount natively on APS-C DSLRs. The hypothetical ‘EF-X’ mount lenses would require an adapter to mount on EOS M bodies, which is a barrier for buyers transitioning from APS-C to FF. Moreover, the ‘really right’ EF-MDB* mount for a FF MILC would require an adapter that’s 6-8mm thick, which is an ergonomic nightmare. 

* EF-Mode Dial Boy



fullstop said:


> Only during multi-year transition period will there be "4 versions of mounts" - 2 old, 2 new. Evrything cross-compatible within reason [lenses need to cover image circle].



Multi-decade, you mean.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2018)

My Loupedeck+ finally arrived today. I have it installed, I had to restart my computer to get the configuration software to run, but then it was ok.
There is definitely going to be a learning curve, particularly in setting the configuration. I did not want to change the defaults yet, remembering all the unmarked buttons may be a pain if its a seldom used function. That big dial juist wants you to turn it, that puts it in the crop mode and then rotates the image. There is a auto straighten function in the crop mode, I use it, so I need to figure that one out. I also use the auto tone as a starting point, I know it can be done, I just need to find the button.
Its too late to do more anyway, so I'll play tomorrow. I have 2000 images to sort and edit so I'll find out if it hurts lass than using my mouse.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My Loupedeck+ finally arrived today. I have it installed, I had to restart my computer to get the configuration software to run, but then it was ok.
> There is definitely going to be a learning curve, particularly in setting the configuration. I did not want to change the defaults yet, remembering all the unmarked buttons may be a pain if its a seldom used function. That big dial juist wants you to turn it, that puts it in the crop mode and then rotates the image. There is a auto straighten function in the crop mode, I use it, so I need to figure that one out. I also use the auto tone as a starting point, I know it can be done, I just need to find the button.
> Its too late to do more anyway, so I'll play tomorrow. I have 2000 images to sort and edit so I'll find out if it hurts lass than using my mouse.



This is a soft-focus lens thread, isn't it? ???

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 28, 2018)

yes, but interest and demand for soft focus lenses seems a bit ... soft.


----------

