When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Canon's latest round of patent applications has been published. JPO 2026-059152 shows off some interesting consumer RF mount prime lens optical designs. The most noteable thing about these designs is that they're compact and don't have any stretching to cover the full image height of full frame sensors.
The optical designs aren't as complex as the L VCM prime lenses, but they're not simple designs either.
Canon RF 55mm F1.8 STM
Is it possible that Canon is working on a refresh for the “nifty fifty” RF 50 F1.8 STM? I think it's a longshot, but you never know. Unless Canon thinks they can sell yet another prime lens around 50mm.
Canon RF 55mm F1.8 STM
There are two noteable elements to this optical design. The lens design is quite short, though not as small as the RF 50 F1.8 STM. Mounted to the camera it would be under 2.3″/6cm in length as part of the lens will sit inside the mount just over 10mm.
We have the RF 45mm F1.2 STM, which has been a popular lens thus far, all that speed for so little money. If Canon did bring a new “nifty-fifty”, going with 55mm, even in name would help a bit with potential customer confusion between 45mm and 50mm.
Canon RF 85mm F1.8 STM
The second interesting optical design is an RF 85mm F1.8 STM. Canon has four 85mm prime lenses in their lineup and adding a fifth isn't going to happen, but a replacement for the RF 85mm F2 IS STM might be something worthwhile.
Canon RF 85mm F1.8 STM
There's nothing inherently wrong with the 85 F2, but it is using an older generation STM focus motor, and you can feel it. It's a great lens for a lot of things, but it's not great for anything where tracking movement is the goal. An updated version with the latest STM focus motor would be welcomed.
There doesn't seem to be an IS group in the design, but if IBIS is going to make its way through the next generation of EOS R cameras as a core feature, it wouldn't be needed.
Longshots
It's a longshot that either of these designs will make it to market, but it's interesting to see Canon is still working on optical designs that don't require computational correction. I think for most of the people around these parts, they'd rather see a similar approach for a lens like an RF 35 F1.2 L VCM or similar.
I think we're going to see a lot of optical design patents in the coming months as we get closer to product announcements. Note that it's rare to see L lens designs show up in patent applications ahead of launches, but non-L lenses can appear beforehand from time to time.
The 55 is not a terrible idea at all.
I have both the 50 stm and the 1.2 and the stm is my walk around lens.
A refresh for the 85mm F2 would be quite welcome if Canon improves the Af motor. I own the 85mm f2 and I loved it very much until I picked up the 50mm F1.4 L VCM. Now, I rarely use the 85mm F2 because in comparison it is reaaaaaaaly slow. The optics are reasonable good-very good, but it doesn't work well with (fast) moving objects. I currently only use it for "macro" (actually fake macro at 0,5 magnification) but I´m probably going to sell it and help fund a true macro lens like the RF 100mm F2.8. I can make use of it as a portrait lens as well.
Only for longer walks, mostly in the mountains, where focusing speed doesn't matter at all (for me!), but sharpness and close-ups do!.
Should the f/1,8 be optically even better, not much heavier, and offer 0,5 magnification: Why not!
Yet, I am presently more than satisfied with the f/2, my children are adults now, so, I don't care about AF speed for this particular lens!
But the 55mm, if really light, compact and sharp, and (!!!) close-up able, a sure buy. Sadly, the f/1,4 VCM has an inappropriate short focusing distance, and my Zeiss Classic 50mm f/2 lacks sharpness at longer distances.
As for the 85mm f/1.8, I could consider such lens if it dropped the macro b******* and featured internal focusing, like the 45.
I don't quite know how to read patents, but it seems to me like the focusing groups are at the rear, so I guess that's promising.
And what I see here, seems to be bigger and more complex (no. of elements) and therefore more expensive.
I would welcome a 85/1.8 if IQ and AF performance was better than the 85/2 STM offers today.
Will it come? I don't think so.
I suppose, @Craig is correct that both designs are longshots and likely will not make it to market.
That´s true, the mfd is not suited for close-ups. But then again, I don't believe Canon designed the lens for it and it really excels at all other things.
Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them. they all seem like cheap lenses on their outsides with optics that are sharp yet make lots of distortion, with many of them with cheap feeling and looking extending barrels (and yes i get the physics/optical compromises/packaging considerations etc)
Give me back the look, feel, and operation of the old EF lenses that look and feel good to the touch, focus internally quickly and quietly. Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.
Oh, they're still around.
And even though the front element of my RF 85/1.2L DS is a bit smaller than that of my RF 28-70/2, the RF prime's front element is larger than that of the EF 85/1.2L II that I owned years ago.
IIRC, only the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was on the lower side of things, with external focusing.
In my experience, for now, the only lens that is comparable is the RF 45mm. The RF 85mm f/2 could be another one, if it didn't focus externally.
I somewhat agree, these RF STM primes are the only lenses I've consistently been wishing to replace.
I ditched the RF 24 1.8, 35 1.8, the next possibly will be the 50 1.8 (I'm considering keeping it for the size, but it's unlikely), and the two other lenses I always look forward to replace are the RF 28 and RF 16, even though I consider these two to be a little more pleasant to use.
I don't need red rings on all my gear, but I would have paid an 100 or 200 extra bucks for the same lenses with a more refined experience.
Internal (front or rear, whatever, I don't care), quiet and smooth autofocus, dedicated lens hoods threads, and dedicated clicked control rings for consistency.
I don't think that's a lot to ask.
The 50/1.8 is is cheap crap, and although I bought the 45/1.2 which is much better quality, it's size and weight is more than what would be ideal in scenarios when it matters.
I'd be happy with a 55/1.8 around 250g.
Also, a 85/1.8 with better AF but not more weight would be a welcomed upgrade to the 85/2.
I'd pre-order both.
What the 85/2 really needs is a different focusing motor, rather than a different opical formula.
He did mention the EF 85/1.8, specifically, and while I remember that lens fondly (it was one of the very first pair of lenses that I bought, back in 2009), I don't kid myself about its optical performance. That lens had wicked bad axial CA...if the Jimmy Hendrix song didn't predate the lens by 25 years, I'd have said the song was written about the lens. The fact is that the RF 85/2 delivers significantly better optical results than the EF 85/1.8.
I can't speak to the build quality of the RF 85/2 as I've never used it, but holding the RF 24/1.8 STM and the RF 24/1.4L VCM side by side, the build quality is actually very similar, both are very good.
In terms of optics, the RF 24/1.8, RF 28/2.8, and especially the RF 35/1.8 are better than their EF 'best modern silver ring' counterparts, for example see this 35mm comparison.
If it’s a reshuffle (or rather a modern update) of anything then it’s the 40/1.7 of the 1970s Canonet rangefinder models. Incidentally that lens had a stellar reputation in its day.
I've owned or at least tried most of the lenses I mentioned (all the RF lenses, at least).
Do I actually enjoy using any of these lenses? Do/did I feel glad that I own/owned them? Do I want to use them? No, not really.
I'll take the 28 with me because it's the only 28mm RF lens there is, not because I enjoy using it.
The exception, to me, is the RF 45mm. Probably the worst optical performance, but good plastics, decent dimensions, proper lens hood attachment, smooth, quiet and internal autofocus. Finally, something that doesn't feel or work like a toy. It's a joy to use, I'm in! Get me more lenses like this!
I've never had an issue with AF that's too slow. Perhaps that's due to my usage pattern – with fast-moving subjects I'm using an L-series lens, anyway. But comparing the RF 24/1.8 STM to the RF 28-70/2L, for example (which I just did, on my R8), they go from MFD to infinity focus in about the same amount of time. I’d say the 28-70/2 focuses reasonably quickly, but it’s perhaps two ‘notches’ slower than lenses like the RF 70-200/2.8 or RF 24-105/2.8, which are among the fastest-focusing lenses. Lenses like the RF 24-105/4, RF 100/2.8 and RF 100-500 are in between. The only lens that I've used where I'd call the AF relatively slow is the EF 85/1.2L II.
Refinement is subjective, but if you're looking for that then look for the L.
Yeah, not me. If I want my images to have a dreamy look to them, I'll just take a long nap...or maybe smear a coating of vaseline on a cheap filter and put that on my lens. I mean, it's great that the RF 45/1.2 offers similar image quality to the EF 50/1.2L for a much lower cost, but I didn't have any desire for the 50/1.2L, either.
Apart from holding the camera from the lens (usually), it's not that I operate a lot of controls on the lenses either, but I do use their control rings sometimes, and I photograph exclusively handheld. I don't own lenses with custom buttons, neither VCMs with their aperture rings.
And I shoot absolutely everything using autofocus. Its smoothness can be felt in the hand and seen on the EVF. Plus, noise - or the absence of it.
External focusing designs, specially if with weird lens hoods (like the RF 35 1.8 and 28), are pretty much a vulnerability as they protrude from the lens housing. They're also more prone to allowing dust entering the lens - it doesn't take rubber gaskets for a lens to be a little more protected.
With the red ring often comes extra size, weight and, of course, the price tag.
I'm not asking a lot, I'm asking for attributes we had on gold and some silver ring EF lenses, like the EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2 USM, and probably others I'm not even aware of - all these were internal focusing and reasonably silent USM lenses with proper lens hoods.
So far, I think the RF 45mm is the only silver ring RF prime lens that is on par with that, in terms of "build quality".
Get me more lenses like that!😀 Perhaps a 16mm f/1.8, a 20mm f/1.8, a 28mm f/1.8, an 85mm f/1.8...or f/2, whatever, I'm not asking for f/1.4 or f/1.2.
Like I said, I would have paid an extra 100 or 200 bucks for the same lenses (RF 16, RF 28, maybe others) with a little more refined experience.
I won't say I'm fond of the dreamy look because I'm not, but I don't usually shoot at f/1.2 either (my most used aperture is definitely f/2.8, across all lenses). I go to f/2~f/1.2 when I specifically want the shallow DoF, or when available light drops significantly so, for the price, I think can live with that.
Ergonomics are great, autofocus is not annoying, I don't have to worry if something knocks it at the front, and a filter prevents dust from entering directly the lens barrel. As long as it's not raining and I'm not photographing in the dust, I'm good.
Here are both the EF 50/1.8 & RF 50/1.8 ( latter on the right.)
The EF 50/1.8 is a classic double gauze planar design.
Here is the block diagram of the 1964 Canonet 45mm f/1.7 rangefinder lens
Both the Canonet 45mm lens and the RF 50mm f/1.8 have a very similar optical formula, and is a cross between a double gauze and a Zeiss Biometar formula. The modern update on the RF lens replaces the fifth simple element of the Canonet with an aspherical, and makes the doublet a curved mating, possibly achromatic, to improve performance and probably because with modern manufacturing techniques it's not now prohibitively expensive to do, whereas in the '60s it would have added a lot of cost to the lens.
I presume that Canon went down this optical route as the Canonet formula was already created for a rangefinder flange distance, although I note that in the RF 50/1.8 the rear element is quite a way off the sensor.
This is why I say that if the RF lens is a 'reshuffle' of anything, it is the 1964 Canonet lens, not the classic 'planar' of the EF 50/1.8.