# Patent: Canon RF f/1.8 primes at various focal lengths



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 15, 2020)

> Northlight has uncovered a USPTO patent dealing with various prime lenses for the RF mount with a max aperture of f/1.8
> *Canon RF 105mm f/1.8*
> 
> Focal Length: 105.00mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## degos (Oct 15, 2020)

Interesting that they're not telephoto, being at least as long as their focal length.

But I wouldn't care so long as a 150mm f1.8 came to market , preferably without a red ring. I can only think of converted movie lenses that long and fast up to.now.


----------



## filmmakerken (Oct 15, 2020)

Very interesting. 

So far Canon isn't distinguishing between still photo lenses and cinema lenses in the RF mount so it's hard to know who their target market is for these lenses. Given that the CN-E 135mm T2.2 L F Cinema Prime Lens sells for $3700 (at B&H) I expect these primes to cost at least that much. Unless these are more in line with the EF 135mm f/2L USM ($999 @ B&H). 

I don't really understand the details of the patents. Perhaps someone who does can shed some light on at which market these lenses are aimed


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 15, 2020)

YAY!!! I would LOVE to buy a RF 105 f1.85 lens. The 57mm aperture would be ideal for a high IQ yet still a moderate enough size/weight lens.

I would also LOVE to buy a RF 131 f1.85 lens as well. The 71mm aperture would be perfect for high IQ and still a (just) tolerable enough size/weight lens.

A 150 f1.85 would have 81mm aperture so it's starting to get big & heavy (I assume), but not so much that I couldn't consider getting it if the IQ was compelling enough.

For all of these, I hope they're an "L" lens, but I would still consider them if not. I hope they have IS, but as the aperture gets bigger I know there is less chance of it (which is still OK). Hopefully they have dual nano AF (STM would be disappointing but still worth considering). I'd love it if it had a high max. magnification (.3 to .5x) but I strongly doubt it due to the large aperture (which is still OK).

All in all, this is one of the most exciting patent posts I've seen to date. I hope Canon comes out with these lenses, especially if they're "L" dual-nano AF ones!!!


----------



## Etienne (Oct 15, 2020)

I wish they'd make more small primes to match the small body. Some of these primes are bigger than zooms


----------



## Joel C (Oct 15, 2020)

I'd be a customer for that 150mm f1.8


----------



## AlP (Oct 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> All in all, this is one of the most exciting patent posts I've seen to date. I hope Canon comes out with these lenses, especially if they're "L" dual-nano AF ones!!!



The 150 mm could even be the first "triple-nano" design:


Except they couple the groups mechanically.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 15, 2020)

AlP said:


> The 150 mm could even be the first "triple-nano" design:
> View attachment 193380
> 
> Except they couple the groups mechanically.


I hadn't noticed that. After looking further into the patent listing itself, the fig. 3 patent does show this (but not the others). But is fig. 3 for the 150mm FF version? 

Based on the fig. 3 design, you're right in that they could implement a triple nano focusing system. But why do you say they couple the groups mechanically? I only see movement in the 3 different lens groups that have the "Focus" mentioned, as the other elements don't move. So they could have 3 independantly moving nano groups. The main problem I could see is that 2 of those moving groups are almost touching each other so it may be hard to pack the moving rails and hardware so close together between them. On second thought, they could use a single set of rails for the 2 close focus groups while moving them separately with 2 independent nano motors.

But it they did do a "triple nano" design, imagine the better focusing ability they'd have, not to mention the new beautiful advertising videos they could use to sell them? Who knows, maybe a triple nano focusing would give them more flexibility to increase the close focusing ability, and thus increase the maximum magnification? I'd LOVE to see lenses like this with a 0.5X max magnification at high IQ and wide apertures - can you imagine how much beautiful background blur that would give you? - Wow!


----------



## goldenhusky (Oct 15, 2020)

I would be interested in the 105 f/1.8


----------



## AlP (Oct 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Based on the fig. 3 design, you're right in that they could implement a triple nano focusing system. But why do you say they couple the groups mechanically? I only see movement in the 3 different lens groups that have the "Focus" mentioned, as the other elements don't move. So they could have 3 independantly moving nano groups. The main problem I could see is that 2 of those moving groups are almost touching each other so it may be hard to pack the moving rails and hardware so close together between them. On second thought, they could use a single set of rails for the 2 close focus groups while moving them separately with 2 independent nano motors.



I was thinking about helicoids driven by a USM ring-motor moving the two groups in the back, exactly because they are very close together. But they could also share rails as you said and have the nano-USM drivers at opposite sides of the optics. That might extend the parameter range of the lens.
Anyways, this is just a patent application, if at all this lens will be realized, it will likely have a different design.
Still, could be a very interesting lens!


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 15, 2020)

AlP said:


> I was thinking about helicoids driven by a USM ring-motor moving the two groups in the back, exactly because they are very close together. But they could also share rails as you said and have the nano-USM drivers at opposite sides of the optics. That might extend the parameter range of the lens.
> Anyways, this is just a patent application, if at all this lens will be realized, it will likely have a different design.
> Still, could be a very interesting lens!


Agreed! In fact I often see patents that don't mention IS elements at all, and then the lens is manufactured with IS in it.


----------



## dwarven (Oct 15, 2020)

Help, I can't stop buying camera gear.


----------



## max (Oct 15, 2020)

hopefully the 130 1.8 is similar rendering than the135


----------



## chasingrealness (Oct 16, 2020)

Either the 130 or 150mm lens would be amazing and since they’re developing a 135 1.4 I’d assume they won’t be L and therefore more affordable options, especially unstabilized. But I’d love to see the 150 be an L with IS.


----------



## digigal (Oct 16, 2020)

This is true camera porn


----------



## caffetin (Oct 16, 2020)

Ha, 1,8.Price....


----------



## Pixel (Oct 16, 2020)

I’d rather see a 180mm or 200 f1.8


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 16, 2020)

Lenses that go to 6.7/7.1....no thanks

whatever happened to 4-5.6


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> YAY!!! I would LOVE to buy a RF 105 f1.85 lens. The 57mm aperture would be ideal for a high IQ yet still a moderate enough size/weight lens.


I'm with you on that 105mm! Yes, I am hoping for "L".


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 19, 2020)

Pixel said:


> I’d rather see a 180mm or 200 f1.8


+1!


----------

