# Patent: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 & EF 100mm f/1.8



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 11, 2018)

```
A patent showing 4 new optical formulas for EF prime lenses has appeared.</p>
<p><strong>Japan Patent Application 2018-005133 shows the following:</strong></p>


<ul>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.8</li>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.4 (Not the same as the EF 85mm f.1.4L IS)</li>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.8</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/1.8</li>
</ul>
<p>The EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 100mm f/2 could both use a replacement, the former being more likely.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Kiton (Jan 11, 2018)

Let's hope Canon gets their S____ together and replaces the 85 1.8.
Great lens, just make it a little sharper and keep the filter size below 67mm, staying at 58mm would be better still.

I tested the 85 1.4, Not a hope in Hell I would buy that beast (or the sigma and its 86mm front element).

If you are listening Canon, real street shooters want a 28mm f2 and 85mm f2, or 1.8.


----------



## michi (Jan 11, 2018)

Would be great if they replaced all these lenses. All could use a bump in sharpness and AF performance.


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 11, 2018)

Obligatory reminder that patents =/= lenses being made.

That said, it'll be interesting to see how Canon handles 100mm going forward. Originally, they made the 100mm f/2 first and the 85mm f/1.8 was a kind of "might as well" afterthought, reusing some of the same parts. It's no surprise that the 100mm turned out to be the better performer (everything was designed for it first), but 85mm ended up becoming a much more popular focal length (as people moved to 35mm stock for magazines, which required cropping) so that one 'won' anyway. So I'm interested to see—in the hypothetical situation where the lower-end 85mm and 100mm lenses are refreshed—which one Canon works on first. From a design point of view it would make more sense to make the 100mm first again as it's a technically simpler focal length to design; there's no questioning how much more popular 85mm still is, though.

There's also the issue of the AF. The 100mm f/2 has Canon's fastest* and most confident AF motor and the 85mm f/1.8 is just a hair slower (though noticeably less confident) and the other lenses of that series—the 50mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.8, and 20mm f/2.8—also have not been improved upon in terms of AF speed by either their replacements (28mm) or their betters (50mm f/1.2L; the 20mm has no comparable model, period). So, again in the hypothetical situation where these two lenses are remade, there's a very healthy chance that any new versions of the 100mm and 85mm might have worse AF than the existing models.

All that said, it'd sure be nice to have a short-telephoto lens which matches the 35mm f/2 IS. Throwing IS on the 85 and 100, without pushing the aperture so far they compete with the 'L' lenses, would be a solid move. That 35mm is lonely in it's weird midpoint, where it's not been given the L badge but it's clearly far better than any other primes Canon makes; giving it a short-tele friend would be swell.

*When lenses are tested in absolute optimal conditions. In average conditions it's the joint-second fastest.


----------



## 3dit0r (Jan 11, 2018)

I’d love an update to the 85 1.8 with IS and faster AF, optically it’s already nice.

Really I think the first lenses which need updating now are the 50 1.4 and 50 1.2. Their optical performance is quite poor now compared to the state of the art, and the 1.2 has pronounced CA.

The 50 1.4 would be great with IS (and even weather sealing) for landscape use to pack between a 16-35 and 70-200.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 11, 2018)

The 2 100mm lens has one great advantage: It is tiny at least with respect for its fast aperture and focal length and compared to "modern" designs. It has a length of 73.5 mm according to Canon websites.

If Canon News' "Whole length of the lens 135.00 " is true and the unit is mm it will never be a replacement:
I am not a streetshoter but I think Kiton is right (some posts above) that a small footprint is welcome for street shooters but also for me because the camera - lens combo is less interesting ... for a thief etc. + it might be much more usable with smaller cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> The 2 100mm lens has one great advantage: It is tiny at least with respect for its fast aperture and focal length and compared to "modern" designs. It has a length of 73.5 mm according to Canon websites.
> 
> If Canon News' "Whole length of the lens 135.00 " is true and the unit is mm it will never be a replacement:
> I am not a streetshoter but I think Kiton is right (some posts above) that a small footprint is welcome for street shooters but also for me because the camera - lens combo is less interesting ... for a thief etc. + it might be much more usable with smaller cameras.



Keep in mind that what is being patented is an optical formula, not a lens. As such, the 'total length' in a patent extends from the front element back to the image sensor. So, a lens patent with a length of 135mm for the EF mount with a flange focal distance of 43mm, means the physical lens will be ~92mm long.


----------



## Duct_Taper (Jan 11, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> "... The 100mm f/2 has Canon's fastest* and most confident AF motor ...
> 
> *When lenses are tested in absolute optimal conditions. In average conditions it's the joint-second fastest. "



Since I can't think of an easy way to search for it - what is the fastest in average conditions? And which one is tied with the 100mm f/2 for second?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 11, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Since I can't think of an easy way to search for it - what is the fastest in average conditions? And which one is tied with the 100mm f/2 for second?



Is there a database for this? LensTip occasionally reports total near to far AF speed, but that might mask any hunting or confirmation that goes on when it gets there.

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 11, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Since I can't think of an easy way to search for it - what is the fastest in average conditions? And which one is tied with the 100mm f/2 for second?


On average and according to Canon's EU offices, the 300mm f/2.8 IS II is the fastest (hence why Canon market it as such). The 100mm f/2 and 400mm f/2.8 IS II are joint-second. (The 400mm is more-or-less the same as the 300mm, it just has to push a little more glass; the 100mm is fast because it has to push so little glass.)
After that I forget the exact order but roughly it's something like the 135mm f/2, 35mm f/2 IS, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, 70-200 f/4 IS, 28mm f/2.8 IS, 85mm f/1.8, 16-35 f/4 IS, 200m f/2.8, and 500mm f/4 IS II, as the 'especially fast' focusers. If that's not the exact order it's close to it. After that I really lose track. I want to say the 300mm f/4 IS is in with that lot but I'm less sure on that one, it's been a while.

Though that was as of 2013. Of course there's been a couple of lenses released since then and firmware/manufacturing updates could have adjusted things a little bit too. Even so, we're talking about tiny, tiny fractions of a second difference, and it's not like other lenses are slow. Those are just the ones Canon themselves (at least the EU branch) swear are the fastest. (Under 'normal' light, on pro bodies, with a simple target, etc.) I mean, they don't consider the 50mm f/1.4 to be 'especially' fast, and yet that goes through half its focus range somewhere in the region of 44ms. (44ms is the answer that stuck in my head when I first asked; individual units will be +/-10% and things like age, humidity, and temperature will alter that figure.) For reference, a single frame at 60fps is 16ms, and blinking your eye takes roughly 300ms.

In other words, what Canon considers 'average' is still nearly 7x faster than you can blink your eye. So the difference between that and the very top is minimal. In real world terms you'd feel they're all the same, and if you tried to time them with a stopwatch it'd take you longer to press the 'stop' button than it would for any of the lenses to focus. It's why I don't bother trying to test them precisely myself, I just ask the local Canon reps. (And I trust what they say since the EU offices are generally a little less beholden to the marketing blurb that the American and Japanese offices are.)


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 11, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> In other words, what Canon considers 'average' is still nearly 7x faster than you can blink your eye. So the difference between that and the very top is minimal.



Which is why I go with high level ranking as far as value propositions go:

Ring USM >> Micro USM >> STM > [not listed AF tech with the noisy motors that is largely out of production now]

Nano USM is in there somewhere on the left hand side but there are only two of those lenses I believe and I've not shot either of them. And there are exceptions where Ring USM is FBW or crazy slow due to how much glass is actually moving in the optical design (85mm f/1.2L II, I am looking at you).

But in general, as I shoot stills, it's USM or bust. What troubles me is the disappearance of Ring USM from mid-level lenses. We haven't seen Ring USM in a non-L EF lens since 2012, and not in EF-S since 2009. I know Nano or STM are better for video AF use, but if some classic old lenses like the 50 f/1.4 (micro) USM and 85 f/1.8 (ring) USM end up getting refreshed with nano instead of ring, I can only view that as a takeaway.

- A


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 12, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, what Canon considers 'average' is still nearly 7x faster than you can blink your eye. So the difference between that and the very top is minimal.
> ...



I do have the 18-135mm nano USM. I very rarely use this lens and it is faster for my needs while I have not seen any noticeable difference between most Canon lenses anyways (I am not saying there is no difference. I am saying I have not felt it to the level where I can differentiate some lenses auto focuses slow Vs others), quiet and smooth. But like you I also prefer ring USM. My biggest deal breaker will be manual override and a distance scale. Without the distance scale it is simply impossible to manually focus to infinity.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 12, 2018)

I am surprised by the fact there is no IS elements in these design. Did I get that right or missed that part?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> I am surprised by the fact there is no IS elements in these design. Did I get that right or missed that part?



I didn't check, but if it's not there I would safely presume they aren't going to make these lenses or they will be a new _lower_ price point product.

These FLs + speeds are consistent with middle = 'nice but not best' non-L/non-DO EF primes, and the last three they of those they put out all got IS.

- A


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > The 2 100mm lens has one great advantage: It is tiny at least with respect for its fast aperture and focal length and compared to "modern" designs. It has a length of 73.5 mm according to Canon websites.
> ...



Thanks for that information. I was a little bit shocked by that size and thought a moment about the possibility that they mean the measurement conditions you mentioned: This explains a lot and I do not fear the 1.8 100' size any longer


----------



## Cory (Jan 12, 2018)

I would pre-order an 85 1.8 replacement right now.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 12, 2018)

Put me on the list for the two f/1.8 teles 8)
(at least one of them)

For a 50 mm I would prefer a f/1.4, but I could live with f/1.8 if already quite sharp wide open and IS included. 
(so not that patent)


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 12, 2018)

If they can come up with a 1.8 50mm that's anywhere close to the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm 1.8 lens then that'd be a massive improvement over the current 1.4

The 55mm 1.8 is one of my favourite lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2018)

Cory said:


> I would pre-order an 85 1.8 replacement right now.



...even if it was a plastic fantastic STM lens like the 50 f/1.8 STM?

- A


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 12, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Obligatory reminder that patents =/= lenses being made.
> 
> That said, it'll be interesting to see how Canon handles 100mm going forward. Originally, they made the 100mm f/2 first and the 85mm f/1.8 was a kind of "might as well" afterthought, reusing some of the same parts. It's no surprise that the 100mm turned out to be the better performer (everything was designed for it first), but 85mm ended up becoming a much more popular focal length (as people moved to 35mm stock for magazines, which required cropping) so that one 'won' anyway. So I'm interested to see—in the hypothetical situation where the lower-end 85mm and 100mm lenses are refreshed—which one Canon works on first. From a design point of view it would make more sense to make the* 100mm first again as it's a technically simpler focal length to design*; there's no questioning how much more popular 85mm still is, though.
> 
> ...



Why would 100 mm be "a technically simpler focal length to design"?


----------



## Cory (Jan 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > I would pre-order an 85 1.8 replacement right now.
> ...


Good point, but assuming that it's like the current one without the occasional purple. I wonder if the smallest possible/highest quality optics in an 85 2.8 is something that would have a market.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 13, 2018)

gruhl28 said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > Obligatory reminder that patents =/= lenses being made.
> ...



The longer the focal length the larger the distance of the last lens before the mirror box / sensor if you compare one lens design class.

If you have additional space between last lens element and mirror box / sensor you have more variability to place the lenses / add lenses to improve the image quality.

For shorter wavelengths you have to make workarounds: a simple 16mm lens with a 30mm deep mirror box is simply impossible - additional lens elements bend the light to shift the lens elements out of the 30mm deep mirror box but "simulate" a lens with 16mm focal length. This explains the ~15 lens elements of typical ultrawides and the aspherical elements to correct for spherical aberrations.
Longer focal lengths may suffer from dispersion, the different focal lengths for different colors. Here you need special glasses with low dispersion (= nearly same focal length for different colors) and/or combination of two lenses (=lens groups) with different dispersion types which reduce dispersion effectively (achromatic , apochromatic correction).

This explains why 135mm lenses are among the best corrected lenses for a long time e.g. the ca. 1975 FD 3.5 / 135 and FD 2.5 / 135 designs and the comparable products of other companies. The FD 3.5 / 135 sports just 4 lens elements in 4 groups but sports a near perfect IQ.


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 17, 2018)

^Basically all that, and also because production is already well versed for a few common focal lengths. The reason 50mm became the 'standard' focal length, despite a mathematical standard being more like 43mm, is simply because Leica and Zeiss both set up production for 50mm (they already had lenses around the 40mm mark, and 50mm for them was intended to be a 'secondary' standard, much like 35mm is) and it just so happened that workers, machines, and whole production line which were used to make those 50mms ended up being moved to/used by other companies, too, and it was cheaper for those companies to keep the 50mm lenses coming than to reconfigure for a more proper standard. Thus 50mm completely took over as the standard focal length.

For 100mm, it's much the same story. 100-110mm was often adapted to 35mm from medium format (where it was more like a 35-50mm equivalent, depending on the MF in question), and 100mm (or thereabouts) was _the_ portrait length for decades. It wasn't really until the late 70s that 85mm started to pick up steam, and it wasn't until the late 80s that it equalled 100mm in popularity. As 35mm format was used more and more for magazine shoots, which required cropping, the slightly wider 85mm picked up in popularity and by the mid-90s 85mm was 'the' portrait length... but production was still set up for 100mm. It takes a long time to get factories to move on and to get designers used to prioritising new focal lengths. That's why even in the early 90s, when it was starting to look like 85mm would take over from 100mm in popularity, Canon still designed and released the 100mm f/2 before the 85mm f/1.8, and based the 85 on the 100's design. It was becoming clear 85mm would be the bigger deal, but it was cheaper and quicker for them to get 100mm sorted and out the door, first, and then use that to kickstart the 85mm afterward.

These days it's less about physical production and more about the ease of design (as mb66energy says, lenses around this length are often the easiest and best-corrected designs) as well as the designer's familiarity with the lengths. That will change as the older generation of designers retire and younger engineers come up.


----------

