# Patent: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 with apodization filter



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 12, 2019)

> As soon as I read this patent, I immediately thought of someone. The Canon Rumors community knows who I’m talking about.
> This patent covers the optical formula for an EF 50mm f/1.4 with an apodization filter, perhaps this could be part of a new line of “DS” lenses, first started with the RF 85mm f/1.2L DS.
> *Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 Japan Patent Application 2019-056780:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Rampuri (Apr 12, 2019)

I'm afraid it's not "his" lens or is there any mention of IS?


----------



## juststeve (Apr 12, 2019)

This is the same or virtually the same optical formula as the present 50/1.4. There is no jiggle element for IS.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 12, 2019)

juststeve said:


> This is the same or virtually the same optical formula as the present 50/1.4. There is no jiggle element for IS.



I don't think many people (even that one) were unhappy with the image quality of the old 50/1.4; it was the fragile micro-USM that could be damaged by bumping the extending front element. If this has ring- or nano-USM it would address that, at least. But doesn't the apodization filter heavily reduce the light transmission, making it less suitable for general use?


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 12, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I don't think many people (even that one) were unhappy with the image quality of the old 50/1.4



I'm not happy with the 50mm f/1.4's image quality, specifically

1. It's not that sharp. E.g. on 21mp sensors @ f/2, it isn't as sharp as the 35mm f/2 IS USM. At f/2.8 it isn't as sharp as the 40mm f/2.8.

Shouldn't it be easier to make a sharp 50mm lens than it is to make a 35mm or 40mm lens?

2. Having nearly three stops of vignetting wide open doesn't make me happy. I'd like under 2.

3. It's probably going to look worse on higher resolution cameras.



QuisUtDeus said:


> it was the fragile micro-USM that could be damaged by bumping the extending front element. If this has ring- or nano-USM it would address that, at least.



That too. IS would be nice as well.

Is it really that hard to make a 50mm f/1.8 IS USM with better IQ for $600?


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 12, 2019)

Well, Canon doesn't seem to know that, according to some "experts" on this forum, EF is dead


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2019)

I have been summoned.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

ahsanford said:


> I have been summoned.


No IS. Try again later.


----------



## padam (Apr 12, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm not happy with the 50mm f/1.4's image quality, specifically
> 
> 1. It's not that sharp. E.g. on 21mp sensors @ f/2, it isn't as sharp as the 35mm f/2 IS USM. At f/2.8 it isn't as sharp as the 40mm f/2.8.
> 
> ...


Yes it is. You add in a lot of corrective elements to combat distortion vignetting and other optical errors and you still need to move at least some those elements around, so the lens has to be internal focusing as well (none of Canon's 50mm lenses are internally focused) and add stabilisation onto that as well. At this point the lens is probably as big and heavy (and as expensive) as the Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens.

Meanwhile the 50/1.8 STM is still very sharp on the 5DsR...

http://www.martinmojzis.com/en/en-clanky-38-canon-ef-50-1.8-stm.html

With the RF mount begin a much better platform to make primes like this(and it will have built-in IS as well, which can be handy...), it is probably not worth bothering with any more EF 50mm primes other than doing some more minor tweaking like this one.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 12, 2019)

Nice to see patents.
Better to see announcements


----------



## peterzuehlke (Apr 12, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm not happy with the 50mm f/1.4's image quality, specifically
> 
> 1. It's not that sharp. E.g. on 21mp sensors @ f/2, it isn't as sharp as the 35mm f/2 IS USM. At f/2.8 it isn't as sharp as the 40mm f/2.8.
> 
> ...


Agree. And the 50mm 1.4 has very poor contrast wide open, really down to f/2. And I had to repair the focus track after dropping mine onto a sofa from about 1 foot up. (during a video shoot). My Tamron 45mm f/1.8 is a much much better lens, in terms of IQ, contrast, resolution, and bokeh, especially wide open, and has IS. Don't use my Canon 50 1.4 anymore. There is a lot of room for improvement. It's not just him ;-)


----------



## flip314 (Apr 12, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I don't think many people (even that one) were unhappy with the image quality of the old 50/1.4;



I've never heard good things about the 1.4, most reviewers say it's not really better than the 1.8.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 12, 2019)

Interesting; I thought I'd read people saying it was fine. Maybe not. Either way, the big complaint I always heard was the AF motor.


----------



## deleteme (Apr 13, 2019)

I can attest that the 50 f1.4 is a poor contender in this day of some very good competition. AF was rotten in almost every environment and I went through three versions before giving up and buying the Sigma.
The new RF 50 1.2 sets the bar for premium lenses and I expect the replacement for the 1.4 to be superb.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 13, 2019)

padam said:


> Yes it is. You add in a lot of corrective elements to combat distortion vignetting and other optical errors and you still need to move at least some those elements around, so the lens has to be internal focusing as well (none of Canon's 50mm lenses are internally focused) and add stabilisation onto that as well. At this point the lens is probably as big and heavy (and as expensive) as the Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens.



And somehow that doesn't happen at the 35mm focal length?


----------



## padam (Apr 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> And somehow that doesn't happen at the 35mm focal length?


There is obviously a fair bit of difference between 35 and 50.
That's only an f/2 lens, the Tamron 35/1.8 VC is already somewhat bigger and the 35/1.4 lenses (no IS) are bigger still, especially the L II (and very expensive)
I'm not saying it is not possible, I am saying it might not be feasible to recoup the development cost (it just wouldn't sell that well if it needs to be priced high), especially with mirrorless where the distortion can be inherently lower with less elements, so basis is much stronger (but it still provides some challenges, seeing how big and heavy the RF 50/1.2 is).


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 13, 2019)

padam said:


> There is obviously a fair bit of difference between 35 and 50.



Yes, AFAIK, it should be easier with 50mm.



padam said:


> That's only an f/2 lens, the Tamron 35/1.8 VC is already somewhat bigger and the 35/1.4 lenses (no IS) are bigger still, especially the L II (and very expensive)



Hence my question about 50mm f/1.*8* IS USM.



padam said:


> I'm not saying it is not possible, I am saying it might not be feasible to recoup the development cost (it just wouldn't sell that well if it needs to be priced high)



Probably the real reason.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 13, 2019)

Theoretically, it might be possible to use leaf shutter as a kind of dynamic apodization filter. Even with a flash (in HSS mode).


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 13, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Theoretically, it might be possible to use leaf shutter as a kind of dynamic apodization filter. Even with a flash (in HSS mode).



I was reading up on apodization this week and came across https://petapixel.com/2018/02/12/get-look-smooth-trans-focus-without-stf-lens/ , I wonder if the much touted speed increase in body to lens communications RF gives would make it possible to close the aperture a bit at the end of the exposure at normal shutterspeeds.


----------



## deleteme (Apr 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> The problem is that getting that sharpness is straightforward, but results in huge monster lenses. Heck, a 1.4 as sharp as the RF 50/1.2 is going to be nearly the size of the RF 50/1.2.
> 
> I'd rather a seriously premium implementation of a modest "double-Gauss" formula, like the Leica M-series' 50/1.4 or even 2.0.


Actually, I bought the older pre-art Sigma that was only slightly larger than the Canon. Yet it was sharper and actually focused (noisily).
It is as sharp as I need.
I also think an f2 50 could be small and sharp.


----------



## scottburgess (Apr 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I'm not happy with the 50mm f/1.4's image quality, specifically
> 
> 1. It's not that sharp. E.g. on 21mp sensors @ f/2, it isn't as sharp as the 35mm f/2 IS USM. At f/2.8 it isn't as sharp as the 40mm f/2.8.



I have to agree with this, too. I'm considering dumping mine without a lens to replace it, and also considering renting the Sigma Art alternative (all my lenses are Canon). This lens is the biggest weakness in my landscape tools. An EF 50mm f/1.4 with the same optical formula isn't likely to do it for me, even with improved optical coatings. The current lens is unacceptable in the mid-frame until f/2.8, and then it is just okay. Why bother making an f/1.4 lens that isn't solid at wide apertures? Sure, the viewfinder is bright, but a bright viewfinder does not an image make.

What Canon gets right, I think, with this patent is the apodization filter as a _value-added feature_. It gives me a reason to potentially select this over a similar lens with no special features. Not exciting (since a filter is a reasonable alternative), but fresh. It would encourage me to take a close look because I like photoimpressionism.

Canon may be redesigning this lens more to eliminate popular lenses which still are manufactured manually rather than on their new automated lines. Laudable for the stockholders sake, if true, but perhaps missing an opportunity.

I'd chuck the old (double-Gauss?) design and build a modern lens to incorporate this. Leave the 50mm f/1.4 around as a budget choice, build an L version along the lines of the 35mm f/1.4 II as the step-up option. Or even better, make a big splash with a new design for the 50mm f/1.2L with apodization. Cripes, the length of the lens described is larger than the f/1.2 anyway. 

My advice to Canon would be to make a fifty that is a "wow" lens, damn the size and cost, and offer something besides autofocus that the Zeiss Otus 55mm lacks, whether that is apodization or something else. Canon has the capability of turning out a great lens in the $1500-2200 range, I believe. JUST DO IT.

Scott


----------



## stevelee (Apr 13, 2019)

The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2019)

stevelee said:


> The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.


As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question. 

Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.

Now many say 85mm

Many now say 135mm

Some even say 200mm 


I think that 50mm demand is partly from tradition, but it is nice to see that we now accept much more variation.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 14, 2019)

stevelee said:


> The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.



I used to be in the camp of really wanting Canon to make one and got a 50A. I used it a few times, then it sat on a shelf for a few years and I sold it. The 35/2IS is just better for me.


----------



## flip314 (Apr 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question.
> 
> Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.
> 
> ...



These days, I break out my 1200mm f5.6 for portraits.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 14, 2019)

stevelee said:


> The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.



Similar story here, I had the 50mm f/1.8 (both the old and the new version) for my 7D and M, but the EF-M 32mm has replaced it for the M and thanks to the eye-AF in the RP the 85mm f/1.8 is on that camera most of the time.
I did rent the RF 50mm f/1.2, the AF on that is much, much faster than on the other lenses. By the time I have enough toy budget saved up to buy the RF 50 the RF 85mm f/1.2 will probably be out and I'll have to choose between the 50, 85 and 85 ds


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question.
> 
> Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.
> 
> ...



My photography teacher said (about shooting portraits en face), in a nicer way, that the more prominent the customer's nose is, the longer the lens he would use, even 300mm.

I don't shoot portraits for a living, I would be happy to use a 70-200mm f/2.8 for those. I want fast primes for low light, so I could use lower ISO.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2019)

I find the Canon 50mm lenses an oddity. They just aren't sharp wide open. I've had multiple copies of the 50 f1.2L and multiple 50 f1.4 lenses..and the one I've settled on is the old metal mount 50mm f1.8 from the 80's. It seems that Canon are unwilling or incapable of designing a 50mm that is as sharp as it's other L lenses. The 50mm f1.4 is built like a toy...and it's soft wide open...it has this weird dreamy low contrast effect wide open that I don't care for either. The 50L is a great lens except it's AF is pretty inconsistent and slow in low light and again it's soft wide open. If Canon can design and make stellar lenses like the 35mm f1.4L and the 85mm f1.2L lenses...then a 50mm should be a far more straight forwards design prospect. I suspect that Canon haven't given the lens team a very big budget to design a good 50mm and as a result we've ended up with the crappy half hearted attempts so far. Even a 24-70 f2.8 L is better than any of these primes at f2.8 and that zoom is wide open. 
Sure, the RF 50L is an amazing lens...but it's pretty obvious that Canon have been holding back this design / R&D budget for the RF mount. It's over sized and vastly over priced. There is nothing in a 50mm lens that needs the shorter mount...lenses under 38mm need a retro focus design on an SLR. So a 50mm shouldn't have any mirror less benefits vs SLR mounting. If anything...it's likely to be an SLR design with a 20mm flange on the back to make up the lack of a mirror box. Even Sigma seems to be able to design and build a better 50mm f1.4 lens in their ART range...although the usual Sigma focus accuracy seems to cripple it. 
Looking at this lens block diagram...to me it looks like a variation on the existing 50mm f1.4 Gaussian optics but with an added apodisation coating. The patent here looks like the addition of the coating on the current 50mm rather than a patent for an entirely new lens...which is also disappointing.


----------



## BillB (Apr 14, 2019)

stevelee said:


> The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.


Yep. The market for less expensive primes shrank with the availability of good zooms, and that was a while ago.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question.
> 
> Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.


It was a cheap lightweight lens suitable to shooting both environmental portraits and studio portraits.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 14, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm puzzled by this too. The 50/1.8 has been literally the same glass since 1987. I had the MkI, pro-quality one. It and the 50/1.4 never were sharp, just the obvious combination of portable and low-light. I also had the 50/1.2 and again, just not sharp.
> 
> These (and the 1.0, _also_ not sharp) are all double-Gauss designs. Then the RF50 and Otus 55 are utterly different, with no underlying design concept I can name by looking at it.
> 
> ...


I had the nifty fifty 1.8 and for a cheap lens it was sharp.
I had the 50 1.4 which wasn't sharp wide open but produced attractive photos
I still have the 50 1.2 - I do find this sharp.
I haven't been as unhappy as others on the 50mm choices.
The RF 50mm does sound interesting.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't think your "38mm" rule of thumb is accurate. I think a pinhole lens has to be the focal length away from the film/sensor, but that means a 44mm pinhole is the widest you could shoot on an EF body. Once you start throwing lenses in, I think single lenses and cemented doublets have to be pretty close to that, but more complicated formulae are anyone's guess. Back with manually-designed lenses a human indeed would put a specific retrofocus group on the end of a design, but I suppose nowadays the retrofocus feature is spread throughout the lens.
> 
> Looking at my RF50, the rear element is actually jutting 1-2mm PAST the mount surface, into the camera. That means 18mm from the sensor.



http://www.coinimaging.com/retrofocus.html and example of an old website that pre-dates the mirrorless spin. a 50mm lens doesn't require retro focus design to make the focal length work on a n SLR with a 38mm mirror box assembly. 

The rear element of the RF 50 is fairly irrelevant in this discussion. There is no specific design requiement for the rear element to be that close to the sensor plane. But that doesn't stop Canon from designing this lens that way anyhow. This basic design could easily have been adapted to either an SLR format or RF format with a change of a few rear elements to dial in the ubiquitous mirror box distance requirement. 

But my argument still stands, If Canon can make a sharp 35mm f1.4 lens or a 24mm f1.4 lens which are both retro focus..then why not a sharp ef 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lens? They seem to be able to make a sharp 85mm f1.2 and f1.4 lens and that's not much longer in focal length. The 85mm f1.2 kind of proves that a double Gaussian optic can be very sharp.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 15, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I don't think many people (even that one) were unhappy with the image quality of the old 50/1.4; it was the fragile micro-USM that could be damaged by bumping the extending front element. If this has ring- or nano-USM it would address that, at least. But doesn't the apodization filter heavily reduce the light transmission, making it less suitable for general use?



Add me to the list of those who didn't like the old 50/1.4 In general the 50/1.8 STM is a far better lens at less than half the price.


----------



## jtf (Apr 16, 2019)

I've been using the 50 1.4 in all its' different versions since '75. I did buy the Sigma Art 50 on sale a while back and intended to sell the Canon 50 but decided to keep it for the small size. When using the M5 for my walk around the Canon 50 fits in my jacket pocket with room to spare. 

I ended up doing the same thing with the 85 1.8 after buying the Art 85 1.4


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 18, 2019)

Interesting comments.

I have been shooting with the 50 1.4 for about 8 years, exclusively at 2.8. _At that aperture_, I have experienced none of the image quality concerns that permeate these comments. Mine is very sharp...it took four copies to land on my current version. However, once i go below 2.8, the AF pretty much goes to hell. And at 1.4, the image is a haze.

And i also own a 35 f2 IS- that was nicely fixed up by canon after being sold a broken lens. Um, yeah, my 50 is better than the new model 35 in both sharpness and bokeh. Boken for the 35 is not one its strong points- it is rakish at best, and oof trees and shrubbery can look pretty horrible at times.

That said I am curious why canon has not updated the optical formula for this, the 85 18 (and its UGLY purple hazey, wide open images). They have put in a ton of work for an L version, while the normal version lingers. The forums + customers for years have been begging for an update, and...nothing. 20 years old formula....it's just crazy.


----------

