# Yowza -- 28mm f/1.4L patent surfaces



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2016)

I am not sure to file this under :-\ or : or 

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-03-11

If you believe there is little place for a 28mm prime and that 24 and 35 do enough for us, you are probably hoping this patent never materializes, and, say a non-L 50mm with IS materializes instead.

If you are an astro person -- fully recognizing 28 + 1.4 is far from perfect astro-wise -- you may still get a little excited that Canon might deliver the coma-free / fast / wide lens you've been waiting for.

If you love the 28mm focal length, enjoy your 28mm f/2.8 IS, or own the old 28mm f/1.8 USM and spoon with it at night like people did with their Amiga computers when they were discontinued, etc. you might be breathing into a paper bag right now.

Thoughts?

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2016)

Patents are for a optical formula, so the formula can be expressed in different focal lengths and apertures. There are working examples (Physical models) crafted to demonstrate the patent.

Working Example 1 in the patent is 35mm

Working Example 2 is 35mm

Working Example 3 is 35mm

Working Example 4 is 28mm.

So why does Egami refer to it as a 28mm? It seems very unlikely and added as a after thought


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 11, 2016)

I've seen this before, where one working example out of multiples ended up being a product. It was around the time of the slower IS primes from a few years ago. I'll see if I can find the patents.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> I've seen this before, where one working example out of multiples ended up being a product. It was around the time of the slower IS primes from a few years ago. I'll see if I can find the patents.



Here's hoping. I love my 28mm f/2.8 IS. But this seems almost like a luxury FL with such solid primes immediately on either side of it.

[Marketing skeptic in me -->] How on earth would this crack even a top 5 list of most wanted L primes? In the next few years, should we not just expect a massive L standard prime refresh with the BR gunk? I'd think the 50L, 85L, and 135L would be locks for a 'BR refresh' before too long. The 24mm prime is more modern and might be at the end of that list.

But who is screaming for a 28L at any decibel level comparable to 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 / 135? I know they are out there, but there simply can't be that many of them.

- A


----------



## tron (Mar 11, 2016)

28 1.8 needs updating but going from that lens to a 28 1.4L is a big jump that will incur a very big price increase. They can update first their 24mm 1.4L II to make a version III that is coma free. The version II has probably the worst coma in the world !


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> I've seen this before, where one working example out of multiples ended up being a product. It was around the time of the slower IS primes from a few years ago. I'll see if I can find the patents.



I'm sure that is the case, I just wonder why they picked the 4th example when their were three 35mm ones to choose from.

If Canon were going to make a 28mm f/1.4L, why not use the same formula as the 35L II. I suppose they could make a consumer version. Somehow, it seems unlikely, and so do the three 35mm versions for that matter.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2016)

tron said:


> 28 1.8 needs updating but going from that lens to a 28 1.4L is a big jump that will incur a very big price increase. They can update first their 24mm 1.4L II to make a version III that is coma free. The version II has probably the worst coma in the world !



Canon has long shown that it only loves astro photographers 2/3 as much as it could:

Of Wide / Fast / Coma-Free, you only get a choice of two. :'(

- A


----------



## frankchn (Mar 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Canon has long shown that it only loves astro photographers 2/3 as much as it could:
> 
> Of Wide / Fast / Coma-Free, you only get a choice of two. :'(



It is probably pretty hard to correct for coma without sacrificing corrections for more fundamental aberrations such as CA or distortion. The fast, wide and coma-free lens that is also sharp wide open is probably going to be Otus-like in price, size and weight. 

Even then, the Otus 28 has problems controlling flare when you are taking photos with the sun in frame along the edges.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2016)

frankchn said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has long shown that it only loves astro photographers 2/3 as much as it could:
> ...



I personally just see astro aficionados as being too unreasonable. Some also tack 'inexpensive' to the end of that triumvirate and I giggle. Their dream leans appears to be a 16mm f/1.4 that's coma free for $999. 

I wish them luck in getting what they want, I do, but each and every fast/wide lens gets them so excited and then the coma results sink it. It's happened a few times in the last 12 months alone. So they are stuck with a fairly coma free f/2.8 lens, which is like having a Ferrari you can only leave in first gear.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> frankchn said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


Corners are not fantastic on the 24L-II at wider apertures. I'd gladly trade in mine for a 18mm f/2 or 20mm f/1.8 with low vignette and low astigmatism.

p.s. I got a ride in a Ferrari a while back and it could exceed the speed limit in first gear.... and boy does it sing at high revs. :'( #tearsofjoy


----------



## tron (Mar 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> frankchn said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


If Canon makes a coma free 16-35 2.8 L III I will get it. I sold my 16-35 2.8 L (version 1) and got a 16-35 f/4L IS which I use for landscapes. It is coma free but it is f/4. Also 24-70 2.8 L II is coma free. So I believe Canon can make coma free lenses.Whether they will make and which lenses they make is a totally different matter...


----------



## slclick (Mar 12, 2016)

More and more I hear comments about how the 28mm perspective is favored by a lot of shooters. And why not? To each their own. All FL's are awesome in particular situations and framing scenarios. I think this would make a fantastic addition to the L lineup if it's anything like the 35 1.4 mk2. Personally, I am liking having my 24, 28 and 35 all in one fat pickle jar.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 12, 2016)

Another EF prime lens  
It is time to throw some glass at crop users. Come on Canon.


----------



## slclick (Mar 12, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Another EF prime lens
> It is time to throw some glass at crop users. Come on Canon.



Don't worry, Sigmas been listening


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 12, 2016)

Hopefully Canon can give us a nice 18mmf1.4 Prime on EOS-M (28mm FOV), where a lens like that doesn't even need to be retrofocusing.


----------



## Wizardly (Mar 12, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Patents are for a optical formula, so the formula can be expressed in different focal lengths and apertures. There are working examples (Physical models) crafted to demonstrate the patent.
> 
> Working Example 1 in the patent is 35mm
> 
> ...



Because Egami cherry-picks patent results in their titles and is a terrible resource to quote without question?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2016)

slclick said:


> More and more I hear comments about how the 28mm perspective is favored by a lot of shooters. And why not? To each their own. All FL's are awesome in particular situations and framing scenarios. I think this would make a fantastic addition to the L lineup if it's anything like the 35 1.4 mk2. Personally, I am liking having my 24, 28 and 35 all in one fat pickle jar.



I currently have 8 lenses for sale, the one that has had least interest shown in it is the EF 28mm f2.8 IS. Which I am a little surprised about............


----------



## Mac Duderson (Mar 12, 2016)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Get the crap out of here!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I've been asking about this lens and would KILL to have it http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28604.0

Funny because I finally ended up getting the 35mm 1.4 BR because I didn't think something like this was going to happen. PLEASE CANON do it!!!! ;D

I love my 28mm's! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c3nMO_Lxfk


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2016)

Amiga's maybe discontinued, but very far from dead. Had another go with mine just yesterday. 8)


----------



## ecka (Mar 12, 2016)

After Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC those EF 24,28/2.8 IS seem like a bad joke even more than before . I think that instead of adding USM, IS and doubling the price, Canon should have made them STM and leave it at $300-$350.
The 28/1.8USM is teasing me for a long time . Those closeup wide-open environmental portraits are very nice, but its dated optical performance is a bit disappointing. New fast 28mm USM under $800 would be great. Not sure about the twice as expensive 1.4L (for astro shooters), it could just lose it to 24mm and 35mm.


----------



## funkboy (Mar 12, 2016)

I would have paid another $100-150 or so for an extra stop in the 28mm f/2.8 IS USM. I ended up getting the 35mm f/2 IS USM instead (for the extra stop), even though I prefer the 28mm focal length. My 24-105L didn't cost a lot more...

Tamron, are you listening?


----------



## Pag (Mar 12, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Another EF prime lens
> It is time to throw some glass at crop users. Come on Canon.



The old 28 mm 1.8 was a decent equivalent to a 50 mm on crop. That's why got mine. This new one would work too.


----------



## ecka (Mar 12, 2016)

Pag said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Another EF prime lens
> ...



Maybe it was, until Sigma 30/1.4 showed up and now it's in the Art league . But the real game changer was the 18-35/1.8 (and now 50-100/1.8 ), so the whole 'fast prime on crop' concept has changed. Perhaps EF-S 28/1.2 USM (sub-$1k) could bring back some fans. Otherwise, the 35/2 IS USM serves the same purpose, pretty much.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2016)

ecka said:


> Pag said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



I don't see that at all. You don't get the light gathering because you are using a smaller sensor, equivalence states a bigger sensor at higher iso will give you the same dof and shutter speed but improved noise charachteristics; and you don't get the shallow dof because you are using a wider lens from the same place for the same framing.

There are many advantages of crop cameras over ff cameras for many users, but shallow dof and 'light gathering' are not two of them.


----------



## ecka (Mar 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Pag said:
> ...



I'm not talking about crop vs FF . I'm talking about fast primes on crop vs fast zooms on crop. Why would I pay $500 for the 28/1.8 or 35/2 or 24 or 20, while there is 18-35/1.8?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2016)

ecka said:


> I'm not talking about crop vs FF . I'm talking about fast primes on crop vs fast zooms on crop. Why would I pay $500 for the 28/1.8 or 35/2 or 24 or 20, while there is 18-35/1.8?



1) Weight. 

2) Sharpness. Primes of the same price/quality/'age' (when they were designed) will outresolve zooms. Comparing a 2015 zoom to an old beater from 1995 isn't exactly a fair comparison.

3) Low-profile appearance. Not everyone wants to go around with a huge pickle jar bolted on to their rig.

4) Less moving parts or things that can fail.

5) Price.

6) First-party Canon AF routines.

Primes aren't always better than zooms, but implying that a sharp faster-than-previously-ever-offered-before zoom obsoletes the need for primes is, quite simply, madness. There is so much more to a lens than its speed, max aperture and sharpness.

- A


----------



## ecka (Mar 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not talking about crop vs FF . I'm talking about fast primes on crop vs fast zooms on crop. Why would I pay $500 for the 28/1.8 or 35/2 or 24 or 20, while there is 18-35/1.8?
> ...



1) Yes, weight is one good reason for that, if one prime lens is enough. However, two prime lenses could weight near as much and three of them could weight even more than 18-35/1.8

2) Well, there is only one 28/1.8 from Canon and Sigmas own 30/1.4 Art is optically worse than this zoom. 35/2IS USM isn't as sharp wide open and !OMG!, even the mighty 35L'II got screwed . That Sigma 18-35/1.8 is magic.

3)4)5)6) Yes, but what's the point, really? Why not go FF then? It would allow to use even smaller and cheaper lenses to get the same images. 40/2.8STM (my love :-* ) on FF is like 25/1.8 on crop and costs what? $150? Yeah, sometimes FF is cheaper  go figure ... FF 50/1.8 is another gem. Crop equivalent - 30/1.1, cost - almost nothing, weight - almost nothing . What next? FF 85/1.8 vs 50/1.2 crop? FF 135/2 vs 85/1.2 crop?

Yes, it's madness.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 13, 2016)

Great news, I much prefer this FL to 24mm as a general walk around lens, but whether I'd choose it over a 35 f/1.4 is a different matter.


----------



## slclick (Mar 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > More and more I hear comments about how the 28mm perspective is favored by a lot of shooters. And why not? To each their own. All FL's are awesome in particular situations and framing scenarios. I think this would make a fantastic addition to the L lineup if it's anything like the 35 1.4 mk2. Personally, I am liking having my 24, 28 and 35 all in one fat pickle jar.
> ...



I had that lens and sold it last month for more than I paid for it in about two days on Amazon.


----------



## rbr (Mar 13, 2016)

Personally I have always liked the 28mm focal length. It was my first wide angle lens when I began photography in the early '80's and I've always been comfortable with it. With a step backward or forward it can be used for most of the things you'd want either a 24 or 35mm for. Today I usually use zooms to cover that range, but I have the 28 IS and like it for it's small size and IS and carry with me and use it often. With that said it doesn't make a whole lot of business sense to me for Canon to come out with a 28 f1.4L. Updating the current 28 f1.8 makes more sense as a lower cost alternative to the slightly faster and much more expansive L lenses.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 13, 2016)

rbr said:


> Personally I have always liked the 28mm focal length. It was my first wide angle lens when I began photography in the early '80's and I've always been comfortable with it. With a step backward or forward it can be used for most of the things you'd want either a 24 or 35mm for. Today I usually use zooms to cover that range, but I have the 28 IS and like it for it's small size and IS and carry with me and use it often. With that said it doesn't make a whole lot of business sense to me for Canon to come out with a 28 f1.4L. Updating the current 28 f1.8 makes more sense as a lower cost alternative to the slightly faster and much more expansive L lenses.



Tamron will eventually release 24, 28 f/1.8 VC lenses and fill that void nicely.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Mar 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > More and more I hear comments about how the 28mm perspective is favored by a lot of shooters. And why not? To each their own. All FL's are awesome in particular situations and framing scenarios. I think this would make a fantastic addition to the L lineup if it's anything like the 35 1.4 mk2. Personally, I am liking having my 24, 28 and 35 all in one fat pickle jar.
> ...


Maybe people like the "extreme" 24mm and the "classic" 35mm more than the intermediate 28mm. Here in Italy we say "né carne né pesce" ("neither meat nor fish") about something that doesn't have very specific features.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 14, 2016)

If they bring this lens out I will be first in the line. Ive got the EF 28mm f2.8 from the beginning of the EOS (nostalgia) system and the EF 28mm f2.8 IS. The 28mm is a great landscape focal length.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> If they bring this lens out I will be first in the line. Ive got the EF 28mm f2.8 from the beginning of the EOS (nostalgia) system and the EF 28mm f2.8 IS. The 28mm is a great landscape focal length.



I use my 28 f/2.8 IS all the time. It's my go-to 'small and unassuming' lens when I just want to bring my camera along. I use it for landscapes, street, low-light handheld shooting, etc.

- A


----------



## Ruined (Mar 15, 2016)

I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 15, 2016)

Ruined said:


> I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.



Amen!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 15, 2016)

Ruined said:


> I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.



Sizing up the age of current L primes (excluding T/S and whites):

14mm f/2.8L II = 2007
24mm f/1.4L II = 2008
35mm f/1.4L II = 2015
50mm f/1.2L = 2006
85mm f/1.2L II = 2006
100mm f/2.8L IS Macro = 2009
135mm f/2L = 1996
180mm f/3.5L Macro = 1996
200mm f/2.8L II = 1996

I appreciate not everything on that list is a high-runner for sales and therefore may not be on the same refresh timetable. 

My guess:


The standard primes 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 will all get the BR gunk first. The 35 got it first, and one has to think a 50 and 85 are a high priority to refresh.
A longer macro and a 135 refresh will simply arrive like the other 'white unicorns' we pine for -- they will just show up as a surprise someday.
Not sure we'll see another 14L or 200 2.8L anytime soon.

- A


----------



## tron (Mar 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.
> ...


It's a pity (not to see a 14 2.8L III soon!)


----------



## Etienne (Mar 21, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I'd personally rather see a 24L III that has less erratic autofocus than the current model wide open in low light... And improved optics.
> ...



Hallelujah


----------



## tron (Mar 21, 2016)

Etienne said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...


With very low coma


----------



## Zanken (Mar 22, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > More and more I hear comments about how the 28mm perspective is favored by a lot of shooters. And why not? To each their own. All FL's are awesome in particular situations and framing scenarios. I think this would make a fantastic addition to the L lineup if it's anything like the 35 1.4 mk2. Personally, I am liking having my 24, 28 and 35 all in one fat pickle jar.
> ...



The problem I think, is that it feels too close to the 35mm f2 IS which is brighter, and the other way people will opt for the 24mm for a compact wide. I wanted to replace my 24 Art for event shooting with something a lot lighter and ended up buying this 28mm because it came up half price of retail second hand - the demand is so low.
Honestly, between 24mm and 28mm I think i came out with the more practical length. I love it.



ecka said:


> Maybe it was, until Sigma 30/1.4 showed up and now it's in the Art league . But the real game changer was the 18-35/1.8 (and now 50-100/1.8), so the whole 'fast prime on crop' concept has changed. Perhaps EF-S 28/1.2 USM (sub-$1k) could bring back some fans. Otherwise, the 35/2 IS USM serves the same purpose, pretty much.


All that 18-35mm does is highlight how absurdly poor fast prime choices are for crop. Fuji make have capitilised on this with their crop lens range. The 23mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.2 show that they 'get it.' While the market might not be there for premium crop primes with Canon/Nikon, some small competitively priced primes (like the 24 pancake) would really 'complete' the lineup for crop cameras.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 22, 2016)

Zanken said:


> The problem I think, is that [28mm] feels too close to the 35mm f2 IS which is brighter, and the other way people will opt for the 24mm for a compact wide. I wanted to replace my 24 Art for event shooting with something a lot lighter and ended up buying this 28mm because it came up half price of retail second hand - the demand is so low.
> Honestly, between 24mm and 28mm I think i came out with the more practical length. I love it.



+1

I have 4 recent L lenses (last 10 years) and I probably _enjoy shooting_ with my 28mm f/2.8 IS the most. Love that lens. I have lenses that run circles around it optically, but that 28mm is the lens I slap on my 5D3 for a day of walkaround shooting. I liken it to the small/light/simple/free world the EF 40mm pancake gets me, but with the additional bonuses of:

* A FF Focal length I enjoy more -- terrific for street, candids, social events, environmental portraiture, the odd handheld landscape, etc.
* IS
* Proper USM focusing speed
* (Relatively) standard filter size -- besides UV and CPL, my Lee 4x4 / 4x6 setup works fine with it.
* Solid bayonet hood attachment
* Internal focusing
* Solid build quality

Not shockingly, I use that 28mm (and 24 IS and 35 IS) as my roadmap for an ideal 50mm prime. Obviously, I'd like something f/2 or quicker for a 50, but just about everything else above I'd like to see in a future EF 50mm f/1.4 USM replacement.

- A


----------



## Zanken (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Zanken said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I think, is that [28mm] feels too close to the 35mm f2 IS which is brighter, and the other way people will opt for the 24mm for a compact wide. I wanted to replace my 24 Art for event shooting with something a lot lighter and ended up buying this 28mm because it came up half price of retail second hand - the demand is so low.
> ...



I hear you. I also use the 40mm pancake a lot, I WAS using it over the 24 Art which is when I realised I needed to ditch it for something smaller. Now it's relegated to unimportant situations where my state of mind is questionable (amazing during the recent brewery tour). 

I agree that a 50mm f2 IS would be neat - especially if light transmission was good. I love the crap out of my 50 Art but the heft and light transmission (t1.7-t1.8 according to dxo), it might be a more practical bet.

edit: On topic! I think the 28mm f1.4L is a good idea, but should follow in the 35LII/Otus idea of non-compromising image quality. This would make it a nice choice between it and the weaker 24L.


----------



## Mac Duderson (Jun 4, 2017)

Nikon just announced their new Nikkor 28mm f/1.4E ED to replace the older Nikon 28mm f/1.4 AF-D and still no word from Canon. Nikon has quite a few 28mm F mount options but seems Canon has no interest.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 6, 2017)

Coming out with a 28mm L lens just makes things more expensive for lens collectors like myself. 14L, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 100L, 135L, 200L, is enough for me. I only have two of those so far, so please Canon, stop it! Shoulda just stuck to zooms.


----------

