# Patent: CN-E 35-260mm f/2.8 Soft Focus Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 10, 2015)

```
<p>Canon has published a patent for a new zoom cinema lens with a soft focus mechanism. The lens is for the Super 35 image sensor size.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2014-235203 (Google Translated)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2014.12.15</li>
<li>Filing date 2013.5.31</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 3</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 7.50</li>
<li>The focal length f = 34.00-68.00-102.00-136.00-254.99mm</li>
<li>Fno. 2.70</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 24.58-12.88-8.67-6.52-3.49 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 15.55mm</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 441.54mm</li>
<li>BF 51.02mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon patent</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>4-group zoom of positive and negative negative-positive</li>
<li>Spherical aberration adjustment group (soft focus)</li>
<li>Not shift the focus position can be switched to soft focus</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-01-11" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## candc (Jan 11, 2015)

I have no idea how it works but that has to be record number of elements?


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 11, 2015)

Does anyone actually find them useful? If you wanted soft, you could do that in post, couldn't you?


----------



## zim (Jan 11, 2015)

First reaction to this was, oh err the sites been hacked . ;D
Then realised this is a cine lens, I assume soft focus is a much more tedious affect to apply post or its used in cine for more than the traditional stills use?


----------



## Skip (Jan 11, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> Does anyone actually find them useful? If you wanted soft, you could do that in post, couldn't you?



Or buy a Sigma 150-500mm ;D ;D


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 11, 2015)

IMO it is always a good idea to see immediately what you get - and if I think in "4k" + "movie" I see hardly a good method to do some on the fly high quality processing to get images consistently soft. We speak about calculating soft focus effects for 24 x 8 MPix frames per second resulting in 192 full color MPix per second which is roughly 1.2 GByte per second.

Another reason for the existence of such lenses might be the fact that "hardware softening" changes the bokeh differently from the main subject - this would be a hard job (if possible) in post.

Just my 2ct ...


----------



## preppyak (Jan 11, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> Another reason for the existence of such lenses might be the fact that "hardware softening" changes the bokeh differently from the main subject - this would be a hard job (if possible) in post.


This is the reason. Achieving the softness of the object in focus is relatively easy in post with some diffusion, etc...but smoothing out the bokeh is borderline impossible. Especially if your subject is moving, since you'd have to mask that motion and not have it be noticeable.

Why do all that when you can flick a switch and voila, its done


----------



## cbphoto (Jan 11, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> The lens is for the Super 35 image sensor size.



I suspect this lens has been designed for the C-series cinema cameras.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 11, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> Does anyone actually find them useful? If you wanted soft, you could do that in post, couldn't you?



I'm sure the cine people will be happy.

What Canon should do for stills is release an equivilent lens to the Minolta (now SONY) 135mm with a apodization filter that controls the bokeh - its an amazing piece of glass for portraits etc. And there is no way of emulating its effect through software (ever!). Cine can also use the effect for good purpose.


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 11, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone actually find them useful? If you wanted soft, you could do that in post, couldn't you?
> ...



Do you mean something similar to the old Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens?


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 12, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > What Canon should do for stills is release an equivilent lens to the Minolta (now SONY) 135mm with a apodization filter that controls the bokeh
> ...



No. No softening. It actually takes tack sharp pictures. But the bokeh (OOF areas) are the smoohtest ever - and we're not talking pixel peeping here. Its a stand out effect. And you can actually control the front/back bokeh(!).

The price you pay is 2 stops due to the the apodization filter. Plus its manual only (if that's a problem).

I have several times been extremely close to buying a SONY cam just to be able to shoot that lens. (I may still do it one day...).


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 12, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Aha, thanks!
Sounds indeed like a totally different behaviour.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 12, 2015)

In summary, it seems the only benefit is the bokeh, yeah? Not to be overly critical, but does that limit this soft-focus lens to backlit situations under warm sunsets and perhaps some night-on-the-street scenes?

I'm really racking my brains to think of a recent movie with a soft-focus scene. The image that keeps showing up in my head is some old Whitney Houston music videos.


----------



## Khufu (Jan 13, 2015)

> Does anyone actually find them useful? If you wanted soft, you could do that in post, couldn't you?





> First reaction to this was, oh err the sites been hacked . ;D
> Then realised this is a cine lens, I assume soft focus is a much more tedious affect to apply post or its used in cine for more than the traditional stills use?



...and if you're short on both time for editing and finances for new soft-focus glass just lick the front of the lens you've got to hand, sorted!


----------



## preppyak (Jan 13, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> In summary, it seems the only benefit is the bokeh, yeah? Not to be overly critical, but does that limit this soft-focus lens to backlit situations under warm sunsets and perhaps some night-on-the-street scenes?
> 
> I'm really racking my brains to think of a recent movie with a soft-focus scene. The image that keeps showing up in my head is some old Whitney Houston music videos.


Well, we are relying on a google translation of the terms, its quite possible that the practical effect could be similar to what Sony does with their 135 lens, which is genuinely unique.

Truth is, in the cine world, even 4k is only relying on about 8mp of resolution. So, what shows up as "soft-focus" on a 20mp modern sensor could have a very different use within the video world.

35-260 is an interesting range for that application. Maybe they intend it for things like broadcast news? Or a similar event/talking style, where background separation is key and "sharpness" in the traditional sense is not as crucial


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 13, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> No. No softening. It actually takes tack sharp pictures. But the bokeh (OOF areas) are the smoohtest ever - and we're not talking pixel peeping here. Its a stand out effect. And you can actually control the front/back bokeh(!).
> 
> The price you pay is 2 stops due to the the apodization filter. Plus its manual only (if that's a problem).
> 
> I have several times been extremely close to buying a SONY cam just to be able to shoot that lens. (I may still do it one day...).




Do you know about the Nikon 105mm and 135mm f/2.0 DC lenses?

They can be used on Canon cameras too.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 15, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > No. No softening. It actually takes tack sharp pictures. But the bokeh (OOF areas) are the smoohtest ever - and we're not talking pixel peeping here. Its a stand out effect. And you can actually control the front/back bokeh(!).
> ...



Very interesting! I once read that DC was a soft focus lens - which it is clearly not. Different tech than SONY but same results. It even has autofocus. I'm very surprised not more Nikon people use this lens. Its almost a reason to in itself to use Nikon if you do outdoor portraits and wedding shots.

Hope Canon has one comming up as part of their strategy to market new lenses in order to promote their lens line-up as a key selling point. 

___

Edit note: Nikon actually adds to the confusion by calling it "Defocus Control" that's maybe why I thought it was a soft focus lens. Gives a wrong idea of the lens.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 15, 2015)

I had heard about the Nikon DC lens over at Fred Miranda's site in the Alt forum. 

It is a great lens, and I use it on Canon. 

If I had a nit to pick, it's the minimum focus distance. Close work needs an extension tube, although it is probably fine as is for portrait work. 

If I can find a 135 at a great price, I'll get one.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 15, 2015)

So... no real-world examples of a soft focus lens in use? I'm very curious.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 16, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> So... no real-world examples of a soft focus lens in use? I'm very curious.



Check out the amply named "The dying art of in-camera soft focus" group at flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 16, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> So... no real-world examples of a soft focus lens in use? I'm very curious.



The first 3 were done with a Nikon 105 f/2 DC and a Kenko 12mm tube on a 1DX. Last one, no tube. 

I'm pretty sure they were all done at f/2 and the DC control set to rear and 2.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 16, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > So... no real-world examples of a soft focus lens in use? I'm very curious.
> ...



Have I misunderstood something here. If you set the dial to 2 my understanding from reading about this lens is that you in fact are then not changing the background bokeh compared to just shooting it wide open as the aprature also is 2?


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 16, 2015)

Setting the DC control to the same number as the aperture is the maximum effect, as I understand it. 

Setting the control to 0 results in no change, rather the lens performs as if the DC control was not used.

Lens aperture at 2 and DC control at 5.6 is a minimum effect, for example.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 17, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Setting the DC control to the same number as the aperture is the maximum effect, as I understand it.
> 
> Setting the control to 0 results in no change, rather the lens performs as if the DC control was not used.
> 
> Lens aperture at 2 and DC control at 5.6 is a minimum effect, for example.



The DC control as neutral is the minimum effect, larger the number either direction from that the greater the effect is.

Generally the guideline is that if you set the DC to the same as your working aperture the effect will mostly be confined to the out of focus areas of the image making either the front or rear smoother and the opposite harsher. If you choose a setting beyond your working aperture(so for example shooting at F/2 but with DC set to rear F/5.6) then the effect becomes stronger also having a significant impact on the in focus areas of the image more akin to a typical soft focus lens.

This image was shot at F/2 and rear F/5.6 for example...







The other thing to consider as well is that when you mess around with the DC it also alters the focus, both in terms of shifting the focus point and in the cameras own focus reading. The latter is really the main weakness of the feature I would say as if your using AF(even just to confirm manual focus) you need to constantly change your micro focus adjustment. The easiest way to work is to just use a magnified view on the rear screen.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 18, 2015)

moreorless said:


> The other thing to consider as well is that when you mess around with the DC it also alters the focus, both in terms of shifting the focus point and in the cameras own focus reading. The latter is really the main weakness of the feature I would say as if your using AF(even just to confirm manual focus) you need to constantly change your micro focus adjustment. The easiest way to work is to just use a magnified view on the rear screen.



Thanks. 

I can see I'll have to try it to judge it properly. Maybe the SONY implementation has some advantages in real life use.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 19, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I can see I'll have to try it to judge it properly. Maybe the SONY implementation has some advantages in real life use.



To explain it a little better using the DC effects focus in two ways, if you focus on a subject then switch the DC setting the focus point will shift so you need to refocused or make sure DC is set first. Also though when you have DC enguaged it effects the cameras ability to AF so you need to change the micro focus adjustment. The amount it effects it by seems to relate to the DC setting relative to the aperture, so for example if your shooting the same DC setting as your aperture(weather that's F/2 for both of F5.6 for both) you'll be ok with the same Microfocus adjustment(I generally find about +5 or -5 in this case), obviously it changes from front to rear as well.

A lot of the reason why people view the DC as making the lens too soft is that they don't take the latter into account so end up with out of focus images. I also find that a lot of the examples people give of DC in use aren't really that helpful as its not so much that it shifts the out of focus areas further out of focus as that it smooths them out more so an already smooth background won't change that much but a busy one say full of tree branches will.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 23, 2015)

I have never used a soft-focus lens so I may appear daft here, but the example pictures look like they could be mostly achieved in post.

Also, the Flickr page's images look like some were manipulated by smearing the UV filter. And these are just stills for personal tastes (not seeing too many of these on mainstream media).

Most importantly, I still can't see any real-world, practical applications for this lens in the movie scene. It doesn't make sense for anyone to market a (dare I say it) useless lens to the high-end market.


----------

