# Patent: RF prime lenses including an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM and RF 50mm f/1.4 USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 17, 2021)

> Japan Patent 2021-18277A shows off a bunch of optical formulas for various fast prime lenses for the RF Mount.
> Included in this patent are two 24mm f/1.4 optical formulas, as well as an RF 28mm f/1.8 (Yes Please!), a 35mm f/1.8 and a lens that would likely be quite popular, an RF 50mm f/1.4.
> I think it’s safe to say that we will see an RF 24mm f/1.4L USM at some point in the next year or two. I’ve been doing this site for 13 years now, and we’re all still waiting for a new 50mm f/1.4 lens from Canon. I can already see the “Shut up and take my money” memes.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Berowne (Feb 17, 2021)

Asanford will like this news!


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 17, 2021)

I know it's a hotly contested topic, but I still believe that the RF 50mm F/1.2 was priced so high to give room for a ~$1000 50mm F/1.4L, not at all unlike the 85mm range in the EF mount.

Other than that, the RF 24mm F/1.4L will be a nice lens, though I would feel that a 35mm L series option would be a higher priority.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2021)

Will Adam like the jelly jar size?


----------



## SteveC (Feb 17, 2021)

That 50mm would basically replace the EF f/1.4, which badly needs replacing. I'd probably go for that one, eventually, actually selling the old lens even though I could theoretically use it on my EF-M cameras.

They don't seem to be thinking of an 85mm f/1.8 though!


----------



## BakaBokeh (Feb 17, 2021)

As someone who learned photography with the EF 50 1.4 as my main lens, I can't wait for an RF version. I have the RF 50 f1.2, but its girth is enough to make me leave it at home sometimes. The 1.4 would never leave my bag.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 17, 2021)

Yes! I think the RF 50mm f1.4 (L hopefully) would be a great lens! Hopefully with a big max. magnification value if at all possible.
Come on, Canon, show us your lenses, and we'll show you the money!


----------



## deleteme (Feb 17, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The 50 f1.4 is a no-brainer. The EF is a wretched lens in terms of build, AF and general unreliability. 
The IQ is representative of the era in which it was introduced and it delivered spectacular images of dinosaurs in its day.


----------



## Kiton (Feb 17, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> The 50 f1.4 is a no-brainer. The EF is a wretched lens in terms of build, AF and general unreliability.
> The IQ is representative of the era in which it was introduced and it delivered spectacular images of dinosaurs in its day.


Agreed, I had two different ones, gave one to my daughter, after a while she gave it back! Sold the other one. the STM 50 is way better than most production modes of the 1.4. I am told once in a while they made a good one, I have never seen it, but some people say the got the odd diamnond in the rough!

I would go for 28mm too.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 17, 2021)

SteveC said:


> That 50mm would basically replace the EF f/1.4, which badly needs replacing. I'd probably go for that one, eventually, actually selling the old lens even though I could theoretically use it on my EF-M cameras.
> 
> They don't seem to be thinking of an 85mm f/1.8 though!


They have an 85mm f/2.0 so it would be VERY wishful thinking to think there would be an f/1.8 any time soon.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 17, 2021)

A 50mm F1.4 non-L priced kinda like the RF 35 F1.8 would be very sweet. Since the F1.8 is very affordable I guess it could happen. 

Also, I am very glad to hear that others had trouble with the EF 50mm F1.4 as well. I once "upgraded" from the nifty fifty but since I so many difficulties with this lense I "downgraded" again... Now, I can actually blame it on the lense


----------



## codynpatterson (Feb 17, 2021)

Heck yeah. If that 24mm is less than $1500 USD I’ll be ordering it. If not, it’s not worth it and I’ll wait for Sigma or Tamron to go in on RF.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Feb 18, 2021)

A 50mm 1.4 would be great! (with USM and better IQ than the 1.8, please).
The 35 1.8... makes me wonder why they need to do another one (may be with USM? non IS-macro and pancake?)
I wish to see soon the 24 1.8 If it small and "affordable" probably will fit in my bag.
My GF wish to have that 28 1.8 so bad! (she was using it a lot when she was a nikon user)


----------



## drhuffman87 (Feb 18, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I know it's a hotly contested topic, but I still believe that the RF 50mm F/1.2 was priced so high to give room for a ~$1000 50mm F/1.4L, not at all unlike the 85mm range in the EF mount.
> 
> Other than that, the RF 24mm F/1.4L will be a nice lens, though I would feel that a 35mm L series option would be a higher priority.



I can’t quite justify paying 2k for a lens, but a 50 mm 1.4L priced similarly to the 24-105 4L would be right up my alley. RF glass is just so optically precise and sharp that it makes EF glass nearly feel broken haha.


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Feb 18, 2021)

Just please use one of those nano USM, instead of the slow & noisy STM, add stabilization to it like the EF 85 1.4+IS, then just charge us more for it.


----------



## KirkD (Feb 18, 2021)

We do not yet have a RF prime for astrophotography and nightscapes. I hope that 24 f1.4 has sharp, low coma, corners.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2021)

Berowne said:


> Asanford will like this news!


I have not seen him here in quite awhile. Hope he and Don are ok.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have not seen him here in quite awhile.


Probably gave up as Canon didn't release a 50/1.4


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 18, 2021)

KirkD said:


> We do not yet have a RF prime for astrophotography and nightscapes. I hope that 24 f1.4 has sharp, low coma, corners.


Is 24mm wide enough for astro? I have always wanted/needed much wider lenses. The days of stitching multiple rows for pano are behind me now.


----------



## gbc (Feb 18, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> The 50 f1.4 is a no-brainer. The EF is a wretched lens in terms of build, AF and general unreliability.
> The IQ is representative of the era in which it was introduced and it delivered spectacular images of dinosaurs in its day.


My thoughts exactly. I was going to buy the RF 50 1.8, but I will definitely wait to replace my EF 50 1.4. It's a lens I need most in low light situations, but unfortunately it's terrible at AF in low light situations. If they can keep the size the same as the EF version, it'll definitely be my go-to lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 18, 2021)

KirkD said:


> We do not yet have a RF prime for astrophotography and nightscapes. I hope that 24 f1.4 has sharp, low coma, corners.


Have Canon ever made such a lens? I don’t think coma has ever been any kind of priority for any Canon lens that I can think of.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Have Canon ever made such a lens? I don’t think coma has ever been any kind of priority for any Canon lens that I can think of.


I have to agree which is a little strange as Canon have their dedicated astro bodies.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 18, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I have to agree which is a little strange as Canon have their dedicated astro bodies.


I think the 'A's have always been aimed at telescope users rather than very wide field shooters. Of course you can get excellent results with the big whites, but that is different again...


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2021)

Of course, these are just patents. I do wonder though, why not f/1.2 for the 24mm? I know, I know... not a big difference at all. Still, I wonder. I'm guessing a 24mm f/1.4L would dash any hopes of a 24mm f/1.2L. Would f/1.2 on a 24mm just be too huge?

I hope the RF 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens. My Tamron 45mm is pretty darn good for the money, but focus seems slow to me.

Moving to the Ozarks in Arkansas in a couple weeks (tiny town of about 3,000 residents), so I may have to switch to wildlife and landscape for my hobby. Can't wait to start fly fishing again. It's been years and years.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Of course, these are just patents. I do wonder though, why not f/1.2 for the 24mm? I know, I know... not a big difference at all. Still, I wonder. I'm guessing a 24mm f/1.4L would dash any hopes of a 24mm f/1.2L. Would f/1.2 on a 24mm just be too huge?
> 
> I hope the RF 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens. My Tamron 45mm is pretty darn good for the money, but focus seems slow to me.
> 
> Moving to the Ozarks in Arkansas in a couple weeks (tiny town of about 3,000 residents), so I may have to switch to wildlife and landscape for my hobby. Can't wait to start fly fishing again. It's been years and years.


Your next models will be quite different in Arkansas.
I guess you'll need the RF 5,6/1200 in Bear State!


----------



## Bahrd (Feb 18, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> As someone who learned photography with the EF 50 1.4 as my main lens, I can't wait for an RF version. I have the RF 50 f1.2, but its girth is enough to make me leave it at home sometimes. The 1.4 would never leave my bag.


The patent says it will have 100mm in length. And the number of lenses at drawings suggests it isn't going to be lightweight either...


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have not seen him here in quite awhile. Hope he and Don are ok.


I think he felt 'outed' but I could be wrong. He did put a lot of attention on himself with the 50 for a time however.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Feb 18, 2021)

And in the meantime, Nikon, who has been slow to roll out their mirrorless cameras and lenses, has had an excellent 50 1.8 right from the start.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 18, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> As someone who learned photography with the EF 50 1.4 as my main lens, I can't wait for an RF version. I have the RF 50 f1.2, but its girth is enough to make me leave it at home sometimes. The 1.4 would never leave my bag.



I had an EF 50mm f/1.4. Then its AF motor got stuck. Thought about it hard, decided its not worth fixing, and threw it to the trash. A couple of months before Canon acknowledge its a manufacturing problem. My lens' serial was covered, if only I waited a bit...

Later on I sold the 35mm f/2 IS USM to buy a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM mkIII, which was my last Canon prime.


----------



## jjesp (Feb 18, 2021)

One thing I don't understand. The RF 50mm 1.4 usm is listed twice as long physical, as the old EF 50mm? Why did Canon make a new lens mount that requires so big lenses? I don't get it... I would love to go back to Canon, but with these new big lenses - I will consider the Fuji GFX system instead.


----------



## tron (Feb 18, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Have Canon ever made such a lens? I don’t think coma has ever been any kind of priority for any Canon lens that I can think of.


The EF14mm f/2.8L II has coma but it's not at the disgusting level of EF24mm 1.4L II. It has been my favorite for Astro for years.

The EF16-35 2.8L III zoom does not have coma at 16mm but it has a lot of vignetting. The lens mentioned above does not suffer from a lot of vignetting.

But yes I agree with you. Canon does not have any super astro lens. That's why I got the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 18, 2021)

jjesp said:


> One thing I don't understand. The RF 50mm 1.4 usm is listed twice as long physical, as the old EF 50mm? Why did Canon make a new lens mount that requires so big lenses?


The patent is not about a mount. It's "to suppress aberration variation during focusing".


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2021)

A retrofocus 50 from Canon. 50% of shooters will be overjoyed! Now, just how much better will it be than the offerings from Tokina and Sigma? Can they keep it lighter than a 24-105?


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 18, 2021)

Hopefully IS without a big increase in size, weight, and price for the 50 f/1.4. Mainly, I suppose, for those of us who plan to never give up our EOS R! Waiting for this news is one reason I held off on the nifty-fifty 1.8.


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2021)

jjesp said:


> One thing I don't understand. The RF 50mm 1.4 usm is listed twice as long physical, as the old EF 50mm? Why did Canon make a new lens mount that requires so big lenses? I don't get it... I would love to go back to Canon, but with these new big lenses - I will consider the Fuji GFX system instead.


google double gauss vs retrofocus lens design


----------



## jjesp (Feb 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> google double gauss vs retrofocus lens design


Thanks, but that is too theoretical for me. I'm just a photographer. The old EF lenses were great, lighter and smaller. Still would love to have a mirrorless Canon with EF mount. But hey, I mainly do street and documentary photography. So I guess the R system is not necessary. Retrofocus lens design or not


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2021)

jjesp said:


> Thanks, but that is too theoretical for me. I'm just a photographer. The old EF lenses were great, lighter and smaller. Still would love to have a mirrorless Canon with EF mount. But hey, I mainly do street and documentary photography. So I guess the R system is not necessary. Retrofocus lens design or not


It's a simple comparison. Smaller and lighter with lesser sharpness and aberration control or heavier and larger with better sharpness across the field plus better distortion control. however some retrofocus clenses an give a certain look a lot of shooters do not appreciate i.e. sigma 'sticker look'. 
Knowing a bit about lens design can make you a better photographer since it will assist in your future purchase decisions. This isn't akin to understanding sensor physics like some here salivate over. I too am a'just a photographer'.


----------



## jjesp (Feb 18, 2021)

slclick said:


> It's a simple comparison. Smaller and lighter with lesser sharpness and aberration control or heavier and larger with better sharpness across the field plus better distortion control. however some retrofocus clenses an give a certain look a lot of shooters do not appreciate i.e. sigma 'sticker look'.
> Knowing a bit about lens design can make you a better photographer since it will assist in your future purchase decisions. This isn't akin to understanding sensor physics like some here salivate over. I too am a'just a photographer'.


Yes, but Leica M lenses are not that big. They are known for sharpness and aberration control. And I wouldn't say that their small lenses are not sharp across the field. And distortion? I know they have the rear element much closer to the sensor. But the RF is not that far away, as I remember.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 18, 2021)

This is pretty exciting stuff! If it comes true, I'm for the 50 and the 28! ESPECIALLY the 28, Canon!


----------



## BakaBokeh (Feb 18, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> The patent says it will have 100mm in length. And the number of lenses at drawings suggests it isn't going to be lightweight either...


I'm okay with it being bigger than the EF version. My point of reference is the RF 50 f1.2. It's just a little too big to lug around. At night, I will grab it because it is something magical in low light, but the extra stops isn't necessary during the day. The other point of reference is the RF 2.8 24-70 which feels less girthy and less front heavy than the RF 50 f1.2, which just happens to be what I'm comfortable with balancing on the R or R5. This RF 50 1.4 is assuredly smaller and lighter than that lens, which is enough for me.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Feb 18, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I had an EF 50mm f/1.4. Then its AF motor got stuck. Thought about it hard, decided its not worth fixing, and threw it to the trash. A couple of months before Canon acknowledge its a manufacturing problem. My lens' serial was covered, if only I waited a bit...
> 
> Later on I sold the 35mm f/2 IS USM to buy a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM mkIII, which was my last Canon prime.


That sucks. I'm either one of the fortunate ones who got a good copy, or just too inexperienced at the time to know better. This lens at the time was my first fast prime. I was using kit lenses and affordable zooms before that.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 18, 2021)

f/1.4 50mm looks good - hopefully similar to the EF-M 32 in terms of quality and close focus range.
If I understood some of the text correctly the last group is fixed - maybe some anti-focus-breathing design for video with the C70 and hopefully an C-RP @ 1299 $/€  a dual gain 2k sensor would be sufficient for me!


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 18, 2021)

Thinking about the RF 24 F/1.4, I didn't previously consider the EF mount to be a very interesting lens, but with the addition of the RF 28-70 F/2, I'm moreso considering the idea of switching to the 28-70 and having a fast 24mm in my belt kit to swap to. A 24mm F/1.8 would also serve that function for much cheaper, but I do wonder if the RF 24mm gets more of a market now thanks to 28-70 users. That said, a 20mm F/1.4 may be even more enticing for that crowd.


----------



## Jesse E (Feb 19, 2021)

Pretty disappointed to see the 24/1.4 listings both come in at 120mm. 

The Sony 24/1.4 GM is 92.4mm. That is only 77% of the length of the Canon, which if it comes out will be several years newer. Given how sharp the Sony is, there isn’t really much to compete on other than size for those looking at each system.


----------



## Joules (Feb 19, 2021)

Jesse E said:


> Pretty disappointed to see the 24/1.4 listings both come in at 120mm.
> 
> The Sony 24/1.4 GM is 92.4mm. That is only 77% of the length of the Canon, which if it comes out will be several years newer. Given how sharp the Sony is, there isn’t really much to compete on other than size for those looking at each system.


CR guy should add a "The lens length given in patents includes the 20 mm flange distance. Subtract to compare with other lenses" to these posts.

120 mm in patent = 100 mm lens sticking out of the body.


----------



## KirkD (Feb 19, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Is 24mm wide enough for astro? I have always wanted/needed much wider lenses. The days of stitching multiple rows for pano are behind me now.


I've done quite a bit of nightscapes and astrophotography with the Canon EF 35mm f1.4L II and it is superb, with no coma to speak of. It is wide enough to give some beautiful nightscapes, especially if you want some good foreground elements to your photo. I sold the lens (prematurely) with the anticipation of a RF replacement (groan). Currently, I use the RF 15-35 f2.8L for nightscapes, but I'm finding that f2.8 is a huge step-down from f1.4. I'm of the opinion that beautiful nightscapes, like day-landscapes, are often greatly improved by a beautiful foreground, dimly lit under the gorgeous night sky.


----------



## parampreet (Feb 19, 2021)

Considering the length of the 24mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4 lenses described in the patents and comparing them to the EF mount equivalents, it appears Canon is going for a heavier optical design with more glass elements:
24mm f/1.4 (120mm vs 87mm)
50mm f/1.4 (100mm vs 50mm)

While I'm confident that these will be great performers, I would have loved for Canon to adopt design principles similar to Sony's 24mm f/1.4 & 35mm f/1.4 GM models, both of which are both the lightest and sharpest in their respective categories.


----------



## Joules (Feb 19, 2021)

parampreet said:


> Considering the length of the 24mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4 lenses described in the patents and comparing them to the EF mount equivalents, it appears Canon is going for a heavier optical design with more glass elements:
> 24mm f/1.4 (120mm vs 87mm)
> 50mm f/1.4 (100mm vs 50mm)
> 
> While I'm confident that these will be great performers, I would have loved for Canon to adopt design principles similar to Sony's 24mm f/1.4 & 35mm f/1.4 GM models, both of which are both the lightest and sharpest in their respective categories.


They are actually both 20 mm shorter than the numbers you quoted there. Don't forget that patent length includes the 20 mm flange distance!


----------



## Jesse E (Feb 19, 2021)

Joules said:


> CR guy should add a "The lens length given in patents includes the 20 mm flange distance. Subtract to compare with other lenses" to these posts.
> 
> 120 mm in patent = 100 mm lens sticking out of the body.


Is there a reference somewhere to say this is the case? In the patent the lengths are listed as "whole length of the lens", additionally, the description of the technical drawings indicates that the lengths describe the optical system which is measured by the line L0, which you can see only encloses the optical elements and not the flange to sensor distance, as the patent specifies the length of the optical system, and not the theoretical camera to which it may be attached.


----------



## Joules (Feb 19, 2021)

Jesse E said:


> Is there a reference somewhere to say this is the case? In the patent the lengths are listed as "whole length of the lens", additionally, the description of the technical drawings indicates that the lengths describe the optical system which is measured by the line L0, which you can see only encloses the optical elements and not the flange to sensor distance, as the patent specifies the length of the optical system, and not the theoretical camera to which it may be attached.


I don't have a reference at hand. You can of course compare actual lenses to their patents to see for your self that the total lens length figure in a patent does not match the actual length of the lens.

Here are the patents for the RF 50 mm 1.8, all claiming a total lens length about 20 mm larger than the 40.5 mm stated by Canon's product page: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-50mm-f-1-8/

The small discrepancy there might be explained by either including or excluding the actual mount lock protrusions.

Anyway, skipping through the patent at hand I could not find a passage that directly stated the L0 length. L0 is the optical components, that's clear. But its length? Would you mind quoting that passage you are referring to?


----------



## Jesse E (Feb 20, 2021)

Joules said:


> I don't have a reference at hand. You can of course compare actual lenses to their patents to see for your self that the total lens length figure in a patent does not match the actual length of the lens.
> 
> Here are the patents for the RF 50 mm 1.8, all claiming a total lens length about 20 mm larger than the 40.5 mm stated by Canon's product page: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-rf-50mm-f-1-8/
> 
> ...



I see where you’re coming from. If you skip to the end of the patent it discusses the use cases for L0, which can be placed in a mirrored interchangeable lens camera, a mirrorless camera, or a compact camera in which L0 is placed. 

There is no explicit answer either way, at least without being able to read japanese probably. But I suspect you are probably right.


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 20, 2021)

What is Canon waiting for?! :/ 

Go all in with 14mm up to 135mm (f1.2 - 1.8 range) primes! (and those tele primes 200mm+)


----------



## Canonlight13 (Feb 25, 2021)

Where's the much coveted 35mm 1.2 coming? We need a fast 35 rf soon!


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 25, 2021)

Holy mutha, can this possibly be true?

My 50 1.4 is still my workhorse lens after 8+ years. I went through 4 copies to find mine, and its been gangbusters ever since.

But a new stabilized one will be like the rapture!


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 25, 2021)

Kiton said:


> Agreed, I had two different ones, gave one to my daughter, after a while she gave it back! Sold the other one. the STM 50 is way better than most production modes of the 1.4. I am told once in a while they made a good one, I have never seen it, but some people say the got the odd diamnond in the rough!
> 
> I would go for 28mm too.



My 50mm kills...5 countries and 10 years of fashion week, it never fails. 

That said, the 35 IS i bought from canon was hilariously/frustratingly broken. One of the worst lenses at first purchase...until repair fixed it up. Its been a winner ever since.

Put IS on that 50!!!


----------



## Kiton (Feb 26, 2021)

ashmadux said:


> My 50mm kills...5 countries and 10 years of fashion week, it never fails.
> 
> That said, the 35 IS i bought from canon was hilariously/frustratingly broken. One of the worst lenses at first purchase...until repair fixed it up. Its been a winner ever since.
> 
> Put IS on that 50!!!


Consider yourself lucky to have a good sample! Many years ago, my buddy Mark, I think the most talented photographer in this city, went to his retailer and had them bring every 50 1.4 they had in stock to the counter and one by one checked them and cherry picked his. He loves his. I was not so lucky. Lets hope the RF version is stellar.


----------



## BBarn (Mar 29, 2021)

I too really would like to see IS on an RF 50 1.4. In fact, I won't even buy a 1.4 if it lacks IS.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 29, 2021)

jjesp said:


> Yes, but Leica M lenses are not that big. They are known for sharpness and aberration control. And I wouldn't say that their small lenses are not sharp across the field. And distortion? I know they have the rear element much closer to the sensor. But the RF is not that far away, as I remember.


I can confirm that my 50mm Summicron is not only small and lightweight, but also dead-sharp, corners included.
And I'm speaking of a 1969 (!) lens, Canon, do you listen?
The newer Apo Summicron 50 is certainly sharper than any other 50mm on the market.


----------



## swkitt (Apr 23, 2021)

Hopefully Canon will release a lot of new RF lenses in the coming year, because Sony is doing very good on this side. Their new 1,8/14 looks quite amazing and Canon don't have anything to compete in this range. Just like the 200-600 and some others...


----------

