# Patent: Lots of optical formula lens patents for the RF mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 25, 2019)

> Canon is full steam ahead as far as lens development goes, as a whole slew of optical formulas have appeared at patent offices.
> First up, the RF mount.
> *Japan Patent Application 2019-066701*
> *Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## canonnews (Apr 25, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!



Right?

I was stoked when I discovered the F4.0 UWA patent embodiments.

Check out some of the EF primes though we discovered on our site. There's some eye watering amazing primes we found today too. I assume CR is going to re-post those as well.


----------



## zonoskar (Apr 25, 2019)

*17-70mm f/3.5-5.6* is also a nice lens paired with the RP.


----------



## Equinox (Apr 25, 2019)

oooooh lala, 14-40 F4L! Add that to the growing list of revolutionary lenses for MILC.

I bet that 17-70 will sell a load with the RP


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2019)

Seems like they're going to choose only a couple of these to produce, but want to do a bit of a design land-grab now that everyone and their brother are designing new lenses for short flange distances.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 25, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> *17-70mm f/3.5-5.6* is also a nice lens paired with the RP.



I WANT that lens. UWA + Normal in one lens. Just like .. wow.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 25, 2019)

Canon RF 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6
Is a APS-C lens?


----------



## canonnews (Apr 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Canon RF 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6
> Is a APS-C lens?


full frame.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Canon RF 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6
> Is a APS-C lens?


As far as I know the Image Height is the same as image radius and this is roughly 21.5mm = FF compatible.

For me an ingenious ultrawide-to-small-tele range which fits well to a 70-200 option or - if you do not mind the gap - a 100-400 option - therefore it is well suited for a two-lens-two-body solution.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 25, 2019)

I hope they make some small lenses


----------



## peters (Apr 25, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!


Ha, I thought the same! Thats an incredible usefull focal lense! For weddings and travel this would be the shit! I love the Tamron 15-30, especialy for travel. But I always miss a little bit more focal lenght for some "normal" portraits or something. 14-40 sounds awesome. f2,8 would be even more awesome, but I guess that would have increased the weight and size to much. =)


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 25, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> As far as I know the Image Height is the same as image radius and this is roughly 21.5mm = FF compatible.
> 
> For me an ingenious ultrawide-to-small-tele range which fits well to a 70-200 option or - if you do not mind the gap - a 100-400 option - therefore it is well suited for a two-lens-two-body solution.



Interesting. Canon 5D IV sensor height is 24mm.
*Canon* 700 FF has a 38.1mm x 20.1mm sensor

Therefore, the lens, seems, is suitable for Canon 700 perfectly. Or... takes care of the x1.7 video crop factor of the new R/RP. 
It becomes 29-120 when R/RP in video mode


----------



## canonnews (Apr 25, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Interesting. Canon 5D IV sensor height is 24mm.
> *Canon* 700 FF has a 38.1mm x 20.1mm sensor
> 
> Therefore, the lens, seems, is suitable for Canon 700 perfectly. Or... takes care of the x1.7 video crop factor of the new R/RP.


No, the image height specification is actually the radius the image circle, or 1/2 the diagonal measurement.
21.64 is the standard measurement for a full frame sensor in Canon patent applications.


----------



## sanj (Apr 25, 2019)

Canon just make a pro R body. I will not turn and look back at DSLR after that. The R lenses are killing it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 25, 2019)

Thank you. Makes sense. I do not shoot video but if I had to, I would consider using this lens on R.
29-120 equivalent in x1.7 crop 4K video mode.


----------



## dominic_siu (Apr 25, 2019)

What should I get? RF15-35 2.8L IS or wait even longer for RF14-40 4L? >_<


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> *17-70mm f/3.5-5.6* is also a nice lens paired with the RP.


I agree, if I am going for the RP (still making my mind up) I'd really prefer such a smaller, more compact and light zoom as a starter. When I want a big & fast lens, I always can adapt my EF 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 lenses - or the lighter EF 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## Stuart (Apr 25, 2019)

Some closely paired patents, little chance of them making both. 
So are these aimed APS-c bodies with the small image height e.g. RF-s


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 25, 2019)

Stuart said:


> So are these aimed APS-c bodies with the small image height e.g. RF-s



No, as has been said above, ”image height” means image circle radius ie. half frame diagonal. Which is 21.6mm for FF.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2019)

dominic_siu said:


> What should I get? RF15-35 2.8L IS or wait even longer for RF14-40 4L? >_<


Depends on how much you are in a hurry. Personally, I'd prefer less fast (ultra) wide angle lenses since in most cases you need to go for higher f-stop numbers anyway to get a sufficient depth of field (landscapes, cityscapes). So, mostly you carry extra weight, need extra space and pay extra money for nothing useful. Big, fast lenses make more sense IMO in the 50 mm and upward focal distance range, e.g. for portrait. That's why I always preferred my Zeiss Distagon 18mm f/3.5 over the higher regarded Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, since the 18mm is relatively light and compact. And I nearly never shoot that one completely wide open.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2019)

sanj said:


> Canon just make a pro R body. I will not turn and look back at DSLR after that. The R lenses are killing it.


It'll come for sure, but only bodhisattva Kannon knows, when


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2019)

No 35mm f1.4L ?


----------



## art sanchez (Apr 25, 2019)

I'd love to see formulas for RF tilt shift lenses popping


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 25, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Right?
> 
> I was stoked when I discovered the F4.0 UWA patent embodiments.
> 
> Check out some of the EF primes though we discovered on our site. There's some eye watering amazing primes we found today too. I assume CR is going to re-post those as well.


Those ultra wide, large aperture lenses should work better in a short flange RF version. Why EF?


----------



## padam (Apr 25, 2019)

David said:


> No 35mm f1.4L ?


It has already been patented
https://www.canonrumors.co/canon-ap...ng-recently-announced-rf-85mm-f-1-2l-ds-lens/


----------



## Tom W (Apr 25, 2019)

The 17-70 would make a nice kit for the RP, and maybe even the R, especially given the 4K movie crop.
I'm liking a couple of those F/4 ultrawide zooms, although I've used the 16-35 f/4 EF on my RP and like it.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 25, 2019)

I don't see any IS glass in that bunch so may be IBIS is coming to the next R bodies.

A nice selection of lenses that said, I was wondering when a kit type zoom lens would appear for the RP, the 17-70 would tick that box.


----------



## ketilring (Apr 25, 2019)

Still waiting for RF 20-50mm f/2.8 IS ...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2019)

Etienne said:


> I hope they make some small lenses


I agree and I am sure it'll come. The RP fits perfectly to the original ML promise of a light and compact gear, so it deserves small RF lenses. This is the FF market gap that Sony opened up by supersizing their A7 line with every new generation. Now, Canon can move in. I wouldn't wonder if Sony dared to even implement a collapsable drone system into their next generation XXXXL A7's to serve their fanboyz


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 25, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Some closely paired patents, little chance of them making both.
> So are these aimed APS-c bodies with the small image height e.g. RF-s


There won't be an RF-s. That's covered by the M.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 25, 2019)

Bring me a 70-150mm f/1.8L!


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 25, 2019)

Glass is where it's at. If Canon can continue to produce stunning lenses then I am definitely *not* switching to Sony to push shadows 6 stops vs 5 stops or to track an eye with 87% success versus 78% success.

But if they don't get their read out speeds up I just might add a Fuji for video


----------



## LSXPhotog (Apr 26, 2019)

It looks like they're spit-balling some design options for wide angles at various price points. That 14-40 f/4L sounds right up my alley...but I am already planning on the 15-35 f/2.8 if we get some more serious bodies. I personally can't justify another RF purchase until I have at least a second body in my bag that can use it.


----------



## addola (Apr 26, 2019)

A lens like 14-40 f/4 is to be expecting given that Nikon already have a 14-30 f/4 out. Canon seem to be taken full advantage of the shorter flange distance of the RF-mount, which is a great thing!


----------



## wanako (Apr 26, 2019)

I will admit, the 14-40 f/4 and the 17-70 have me the most interested. That UWA lens is going to be incredible and to have a standard kit zoom with such a massive range will be amazing.


----------



## analoggrotto (Apr 26, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> It'll come for sure, but only bodhisattva Kannon knows, when


Goddess of Mercy, us Canon users can use a bit of mercy.


----------



## Franklyok (Apr 26, 2019)

why so many designs / patents ? Patent everything and release"1%" Is this how canon is going to beat competition ? feels like patent trolls.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2019)

Am I correct that none of these Patents includes IS?
So Canon is going the IBIS only way here?

If so I will not step into the R system before I see a decent priced body with IBIS.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> why so many designs / patents ? Patent everything and release"1%" Is this how canon is going to beat competition ? feels like patent trolls.


You always protect your knowledge and developments with patents.
And you only release those that have a chance of profit in the market.
That's the way business goes - and no trolls.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 26, 2019)

It think the RF mount is finally going to get some smaller and lighter lenses. While all the uber fast primes and f2.8 zoomsters are a top end pre-requisite....there's a big market for general use / travel zooms that are f4/5.6...wide focal range...light and neat. I covered a lot of family vacations with a 28-135 IS. Something like this on an RF mount makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 26, 2019)

It will be interesting what Canon picks in the end. Will it just be 16-35 F4 and F2.8 and 17-40 F4.
Going wider tends to make the lens big and bulky. 
I think the RP will be popular as a travel camera so F4 lens are suited to that. A 16-70 F4 and 70-200 F4 would be ideal companions.
16-70 must be very difficult to achieve


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 26, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> It will be interesting what Canon picks in the end. Will it just be 16-35 F4 and F2.8 and 17-40 F4.
> Going wider tends to make the lens big and bulky.



I think Canon will make an RF 16-35mm f/4, so as not to make owners of the existing EF 16-35mm f/4L go longer when moving to RF, and it probably will be smaller than the EF version. I doubt photographers would upgrade the EF 16-35mm f/4L to an RF 16-35mm f/2.8 due to price, size, and weight.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> So I think f/4 trinity zooms are the way forward, and more-so for the wide-angle than the rest. The reason I'm cheering a 14-40mm f/4 isn't because I hate f/2.8 at all (or even f/1.4, which was bandied about in some rumors). It's because in this focal range, I'd rather have 1) extended range, 2) sharpness, 3) portability and price and only dead last 4) big aperture.


Agreed, and that’s why I have a 16-35mm f/4L IS and someone else now has my 16-35mm f/2.8L II. But at the longer end, I still prefer my 70-200/2.8 for portraits.


----------



## navastronia (Apr 27, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Agreed, the 70-200/2.8 still makes total sense as 70mm f/2.8 really lets your subject pop out from the background, and you soon get into a lot of bokeh. I have the EF135/2 and it's been my fav lens since, gosh, 1996. Portraiture is contrived enough that you can walk around to get your shot in a way you can't in other genres.
> 
> Ultimately I think I'd rather have a lighter f/4 zoom, or a 75-300/4, and have the 135/2 in my mothership, same way I have the 24-105/4 but also the 50/1.2.



While we're posting requests, my "someday" setup is a pro (1DX level) R body, an RF 85/1.2 (for portraits), an RF 75-300/4 (for weddings/events/sports) and an RF 35/1.2 or 1.4 (for me )


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Apr 28, 2019)

peters said:


> Ha, I thought the same! Thats an incredible usefull focal lense! For weddings and travel this would be the shit! I love the Tamron 15-30, especialy for travel. But I always miss a little bit more focal lenght for some "normal" portraits or something. 14-40 sounds awesome. f2,8 would be even more awesome, but I guess that would have increased the weight and size to much. =)


The Nikon 14-30 f4S is compact, although shorter range.


----------



## felipeolveram (May 29, 2019)

> *Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L*
> 
> Focal distance 15.30mm 24.20mm 34.00mm
> F number 2.91 2.91 2.91
> ...



What do the different "Whole length of the lens" mean? There are three different lengths.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> What do the different "Whole length of the lens" mean? There are three different lengths.


The length changes as you zoom the lens. In the case of the 15-35, the front element will move slightly behind the plane of the filter threads, as current UWA zooms do.


----------

