# Patent: Canon RF 40mm f/1.8 & Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 optical formulas



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 5, 2020)

> 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
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Stuart (Mar 5, 2020)

I'd love a *Canon RF 35mm f/1.8* with a lower cost FF body.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 5, 2020)

I would be very surprised if a new RF 35 f1.8 was released in the near future. The current RF 35 f1.8 IS is quite excellent as it is.


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 5, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I would be very surprised if a new RF 35 f1.8 was released in the near future. The current RF 35 f1.8 IS is quite excellent as it is.



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.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 5, 2020)

A series of non L f1.8 lenses and a series of f1.4L lenses in RF mount makes a lot of sense. Dont understand the need for a second RF35 f1.8 though.


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 5, 2020)

Stuart said:


> I'd love a *Canon RF 35mm f/1.8* with a lower cost FF body.



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?


----------



## dwarven (Mar 5, 2020)

As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?


----------



## avoidingconcrete (Mar 5, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?



yes


----------



## sulla (Mar 5, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?


yes


----------



## AJ (Mar 5, 2020)

Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Mar 5, 2020)

Maybe an even cheaper, plastic-fantastic 35mm?


----------



## SteveC (Mar 5, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?



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.


----------



## sulla (Mar 5, 2020)

Well, Bryan Carnathan at the-digital-picture appropriately writes: "What you can get when you use Canon L lenses (if you do your part right) are amazing pictures. In fact, this amazement is said to cause a disease know as "L-Disease". Once caught, it is incurable. You will have to buy Canon L lenses in all of the focal lengths you use. AND you will be happy (and I hope you know that I am not being totally serious). "








Canon L Lens Series


Canon L series lenses are the best of the best. We explain why.




www.the-digital-picture.com




So, PLEEEAAAASSSEEEE, keep your fingers off of L-lenses. It's just way toooo dangerous to catch that disease.


----------



## Stuart (Mar 5, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> 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?


For me in the UK this is £470 - *Canon 35mm f1.8 IS Macro STM RF Lens*
The EF nifty fifty is about£100, so that's what i'm looking - for a cheaper lens.


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 5, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?



YES!


----------



## Stuart (Mar 5, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> YES!


The only L i owned was a 24-105 f4, compared but my EF 50mm f1.8 is an amazing lens. So i'd say Sometimes, not yes always.


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 5, 2020)

Stuart said:


> The only L i owned was a 24-105 f4, compared but my EF 50mm f1.8 is an amazing lens. So i'd say Sometimes, not yes always.



Thinks the current 35 1.8 is too expensive, and the $100 50 is better than the 24-105 4L.

Riiight....


----------



## JoshEFuller (Mar 6, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?



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".


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 6, 2020)

JoshEFuller said:


> 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".


Nitpick: 50% better, 1200+400 is not 1800


----------



## JoshEFuller (Mar 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Nitpick: 50% better, 1200+400 is not 1800



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?”


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?


And my answer is........affirmative


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2020)

JoshEFuller said:


> 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?”


At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.


----------



## JoshEFuller (Mar 6, 2020)

slclick said:


> At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.



I personally wouldn't say the Sigma Art series or the G2 series are "33% worse" or anything even approaching that... 

But regardless, if I wanted the best, yes, that would be a Canon L.


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2020)

JoshEFuller said:


> I personally wouldn't say the Sigma Art series or the G2 series are "33% worse" or anything even approaching that...
> 
> But regardless, if I wanted the best, yes, that would be a Canon L.


And I did not state any numbers just the fact, AF is worse, worse in what way? Every lens design and copy variation makes that impossible to say. The G2's I have used and owned achieve focus much faster than any of the 6 or 7 Art lenses I have had. However, I have not owned any Siggy Art made in the last 3 years so the AF motors and algorithms might be much better these days. I would love to get my hands on that 40 tank and see what the fuss is all about.


----------



## sulla (Mar 6, 2020)

There are cheap, stellar lenses out there: I absolutely love my EF 40 2.8. It's amazing, a lens like no other. IQ is superb, on par with the 24-70 2.8 L, and it's size an price make it a truely unique lens.
So yes, I am definitely interested in non-L lenses if they offer something other than just low price. IQ should be high. I've also owned the EF 50 1.4, a rather horrible lens, expecially wide open. Didn't like it.

So, it depends just how good the simpler lens designs are. Ther will be good ones, there will be bad ones.


----------



## sulla (Mar 6, 2020)

JoshEFuller said:


> 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.



Are third party lenses generally 2/3 or even 1/2 the price? yes, indeed.
Will you miss a lot of shotos due to focus-inconsistencies? Yes, indeed. ==> this alone makes Canon L worth it for me
Will you miss 1/3 or 1/2 the shots? Surely not. ==> so 3rd party lenses are interesting to some


----------



## Timedog (Mar 6, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> Thinks the current 35 1.8 is too expensive, and the $100 50 is better than the 24-105 4L.
> 
> Riiight....


The 100 50mm IS better than the 24-105 4L...at 50mm.


----------



## Timedog (Mar 6, 2020)

slclick said:


> At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.


The Tamron 24-70 g2 is not 33% worse at AF. Can't comment on the AF of the g1. After calibration hit-rate was comparable to my L lenses, meaning I very rarely had issues (after proper calibration). Haven't noticed any issues at all on my EOS R.


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 6, 2020)

The filing date on this patent is 2018-08-31.
So IMO this is the patent for the current RF 35mm f/1.8.


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 6, 2020)

Timedog said:


> The 100 50mm IS better than the 24-105 4L...at 50mm.



And my RF 50 1.2L is better than the $100 50 Non L. Period.


----------



## Timedog (Mar 6, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> And my RF 50 1.2L is better than the $100 50 Non L. Period.


So is mine. I don't see your point...


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 6, 2020)

AJ said:


> Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?



Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?


The specs say 71.5mm and the EF 40 pancake 2.8 is 68mm so could very well be. Especially when you take the difference between EF to RF flange distance into consideration.


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2020)

A fast pancake might be my first RF lens (If I ever get the R5) since the 40 is pretty much glued to my 5D3.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 6, 2020)

AJ said:


> Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?


You can’t patent after you’ve released the product I most of the world. In the US you have a one year grace that no serious company would use (risk of other companies thinking of improvements to your design, and applying for a patent on those improvements before you patent your idea). It’s unlikely that this relates to the existing prime, unless this is an old patent they just uncovered. 

So all I can think is maybe it’s a cheaper 35mm? No is or macro? The current lens, while being the cheapest RF lens by far, is still not exactly mass market consumer pricing, and costs as much as an m200 kit with camera and lens.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 6, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?


Most will say yes, but a more practical reason is that Canon does not offer lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 in non-L versions.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 6, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> Most will say yes, but a more practical reason is that Canon does not offer lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 in non-L versions.



Or for that matter, a 135mm prime.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 7, 2020)

slclick said:


> A fast pancake might be my first RF lens (If I ever get the R5) since the 40 is pretty much glued to my 5D3.


40mm f/1.8 pancake would be very interesting indeed!


----------



## AJ (Mar 7, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> You can’t patent after you’ve released the product I most of the world. In the US you have a one year grace that no serious company would use (risk of other companies thinking of improvements to your design, and applying for a patent on those improvements before you patent your idea). It’s unlikely that this relates to the existing prime, unless this is an old patent they just uncovered.
> 
> So all I can think is maybe it’s a cheaper 35mm? No is or macro? The current lens, while being the cheapest RF lens by far, is still not exactly mass market consumer pricing, and costs as much as an m200 kit with camera and lens.



Sometimes lens manufacturers file patents on lens designs that are similar to a lens they have already on the market, so that the competition is shut out of a slightly different but competing lens design.
If so, Canon may not intend to manufacture and sell these designs.


----------



## AJ (Mar 7, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?


Sorry I'm no expert at reading optical formulas. Maybe somebody else can chime in? It's a good question.


----------



## Timedog (Mar 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Or for that matter, a 135mm prime.


You can get the 135L so cheap used that it may as well be a non-L lens. The 135L is one of the best value lenses in canon's lineup IMO. The design is super old but it's still incredibly relevant to this day.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 7, 2020)

dwarven said:


> As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?


That would depend upon what kind of shooting you'd like to do and what your image quality requirements are, weighed against the cost. For absolute image quality, yes. If you are just a casual shooter who isn't a perfectionist, no. My plunge into L is mostly just wanting something very nice for when I occasionally shoot. I sometimes go weeks or even months without shooting anything other than my grandson puttering around the house apartment. Of all the people here, I am probably the least likely suspect to own anything so nice. "L" is my one single luxury in life. I consume copious amounts of ramen, rice, and beans to afford my bad habit. Not trying to be funny. That is just the facts.


----------



## NetMage (Mar 7, 2020)

I would love a cheap 35mm 1.8 EF-S.


----------



## Skux (Mar 7, 2020)

A 40mm pancake lens on an R body would be my street/everyday dream scenario.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> It's still one of their very sharpest EF lenses. In fact I don't know a sharper one that's not white. And the 72mm aperture makes people look like movie stars. You have to be far enough away with portraiture that communication is uncomfortable, but the look is worth it.


I actually prefer the distance as I feel that an 85 is too close and with a tight portrait the client thinks so also.


----------



## Joules (Mar 8, 2020)

Since so many here talk as if this patent had anything to do with pancakes: both lenses from the patent are basically the same length as the RF 35mm 1.8 IS macro.


----------



## slclick (Mar 9, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> It's still one of their very sharpest EF lenses. In fact I don't know a sharper one that's not white. And the 72mm aperture makes people look like movie stars. You have to be far enough away with portraiture that communication is uncomfortable, but the look is worth it.


It blows my mind that some folks find fault with the 135L. The Siggy version gives everything the sticker effect, no thanks. Who gives a flying funk that it's from last century, it''s damn near perfection.


----------



## Quackator (Mar 9, 2020)

slclick said:


> It blows my mind that some folks find fault with the 135L.
> The Siggy version gives everything the sticker effect, no thanks.



It also is a lot sharper than the 135L, and comes with almost no
chromatic aberrations right out of the box without the need to
fix it in post.

Pictures from the 135L and the 135 ART are day and night.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 10, 2020)

Quackator said:


> It also is a lot sharper than the 135L, and comes with almost no
> chromatic aberrations right out of the box without the need to
> fix it in post.
> 
> Pictures from the 135L and the 135 ART are day and night.


I am generally a fan of the Sigma Art lenses (I own the 35 and the 50) but I have not seen anything out of the 135 Art which makes me keen to switch to it from my 135L. Sharpness is not everything, and I am still a huge fan of what the 135L can do (and as a bonus, it's smaller and lighter than the Sigma too).


----------



## slclick (Mar 10, 2020)

jd7 said:


> I am generally a fan of the Sigma Art lenses (I own the 35 and the 50) but I have not seen anything out of the 135 Art which makes me keen to switch to it from my 135L. Sharpness is not everything, and I am still a huge fan of what the 135L can do (and as a bonus, it's smaller and lighter than the Sigma too).


I used them both side by side and with my copy (that's a caveat) it was marginally sharper. As the Canon is already very sharp, this was a minor issue. I disliked the sticker effect wide open. YMMV. The CA is very minor as well on the 135L and only shown when photographing wedding rings, chrome as in on a moto and the like. This is not an EF 85 1.8 when it comes to CA. Not even worth mentioning.

What is worth mentioning is the AF speed and accuracy. This 24 year old design is still much faster and accurate than anything made by Sigma. One exception, the 24-35 had pretty fast AF, however not as accurate. the only thing imho that is Day and Night is the price. First party first.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That would depend upon what kind of shooting you'd like to do and what your image quality requirements are, weighed against the cost. For absolute image quality, yes. If you are just a casual shooter who isn't a perfectionist, no. My plunge into L is mostly just wanting something very nice for when I occasionally shoot. I sometimes go weeks or even months without shooting anything other than my grandson puttering around the house apartment. Of all the people here, I am probably the least likely suspect to own anything so nice. "L" is my one single luxury in life. I consume copious amounts of ramen, rice, and beans to afford my bad habit. Not trying to be funny. That is just the facts.



Judging by some of the photos you’ve shared, worth it


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 10, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> Judging by some of the photos you’ve shared, worth it


You are very kind.


----------

