# Patent: Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro, Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 & Canon EF-M 100mm f/2



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 7, 2020)

> A new patent showing three different mirrorless optical formulas have been uncovered by Canon News.
> *Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro*
> 
> Focal length: 84.05mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 7, 2020)

The EF-M 100f/2 would be great. This together with my M5 wouldn't exceed the load limit of the NN3 MK3 Mecha panorama head as it currently does with the M5 with EF adaptor and EF100 f/2,8 L Macro. I like doing panos with such focal length as it will give very detailed endresults.

Frank


----------



## SV (Apr 7, 2020)

I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 7, 2020)

Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 7, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.



I thought I would mind the difference as well, but then I realized I'm using my EF85mm f/1.8 mostly at f/2.5 to get better IQ. So if f/2 will be better than f2.5 on the EF I'm OK with that. It's only for taking pictures of my family, so I can't make up a decent excuse to get the f/1.2


----------



## Ruiloba (Apr 7, 2020)

No more info on Rf 100-500?


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 7, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I thought I would mind the difference as well, but then I realized I'm using my EF85mm f/1.8 mostly at f/2.5 to get better IQ. So if f/2 will be better than f2.5 on the EF I'm OK with that. It's only for taking pictures of my family, so I can't make up a decent excuse to get the f/1.2


Actually the 85mm 1.8 patent does not mention IS, would the line-up have both a 1.8 non-IS and a 2.0 IS?


----------



## MORphoto.net (Apr 7, 2020)

SV said:


> I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?


I can’t imagine it’s not.


----------



## JustUs7 (Apr 7, 2020)

Too many patents and announcements. I wish they’d actually release something that I’m in no position to buy. So I can read product reviews and drool over specs and sample images.


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 7, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.


Perhaps one is a pancake and the other a traditional prime?


----------



## SteveC (Apr 7, 2020)

This does look like RF versions of existing EF lenses. I'm not familiar with the whole EF lineup, but I own two of those lenses (and know of the third) in EF.

If these are actually brought out it's a strong signal that they expect the future to be in RF and that they expect EF will eventually die on the vine as more people leave it.


----------



## IcyBergs (Apr 7, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.


Yesterday was a rumor (CR1), probability of being a real product we'll eventually see...idk 25% maybe? 

Today we have a patent, probability of being a real product we'll eventually see....50/50 maybe?

Neither one of these reports is anything to bank on. But the reassuring thing about them is that the higher quantity and frequency of the various bits of information circulating means we will eventually see some from of this product.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 7, 2020)

85/1.8 or 85/2.0...
Whatever Canon decides to release, bring it on. I want to see the lens that could draw me into R systzem the most (..or not).
Would prefer an 85/1.8, of course.
The displayed optical formula seems to be about 1.5 cm shorter than the old EF design. The mechanical lens could be longer because of flange distance, of course. But this together with an RP or R6 body... *yummy

By the way:
Quick dive but couldn't find the optical formula of the old EF 85/1.8. Does anybody have a link? Thanks


----------



## SteveC (Apr 7, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> This already seemed absolutely obvious to me.



Myself as well, really. You've mentioned battery power and long term use of the viewfinder. That's not quite the only disadvantage, but it's the only one I can't see any way around and that isn't subjective. The other SLR benefits (so far) is less lag in the viewfinder, less "blank" time after taking a picture, and so on--I'm sure I'm missing a few. But those are all things that are improving, they aren't inherent to mirrorless, just aspects of something still in its early development. What's left? There are those who simply hate using an EVF. (Whether they are justified or not, the hate is there.)

I'm all-in on mirrorless, personally, though I won't spurn EF lenses. They will continue to serve one very useful role for the foreseeable future--they can be used on ALL Canon mirrorless cameras-- M and RF. How long that will impel Canon to continue to make them (not develop, but make) is another question entirely.


----------



## dancan (Apr 7, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Whatever Canon decides to release, bring it on. I want to see the lens that could draw me into R systzem the most (..or not).
> Would prefer an 85/1.8, of course.


I want to see the lenses, not just the one which make me change...


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 7, 2020)

dancan said:


> I want to see the lenses, not just the one which make me change...


I want to see lenses that I would use, not only what is possible.
An f/2.0-zoom is a brilliant piece of engineering, but not in reach for my budget.
Right now I see only 2 RF lenses that I would be willing to buy, if I had the will to get there: the 35 and the 24-105. Maybe the 70-200, too.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Apr 7, 2020)

I'm a very big supporter of the EOS-M cameras and lenses, but I really don't understand the need for a 160mm equivalent lens in the lineup. That's a really odd focal length that's a little too long for traditional portraits and a little too short to be of much use for wild life or sports...so it's just strange.

It would be nice to see Canon tackle the more pressing needs like a fast ultra-wide or a super-telephoto lens. We've all been asking for a 15mm f/2 small prime or something longer and faster than 200mm f/6.3. Would it be too much of a challenge to get a native 300mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/5.6 lens? I take my M6 Mark II out with me almost every day when I walk my dog by the lake and love it for bird photography. The 55-200 is not a good lens for this, sadly. So I will typically use the 55-250 or 70-300.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 7, 2020)

Canon has been in the top 5 in numbers of US patents for over 30 years or so. Odds are none of these will ever be produced in their current form. It's just forum fodder...


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Myself as well, really. You've mentioned battery power and long term use of the viewfinder. That's not quite the only disadvantage, but it's the only one I can't see any way around and that isn't subjective. The other SLR benefits (so far) is less lag in the viewfinder, less "blank" time after taking a picture, and so on--I'm sure I'm missing a few. But those are all things that are improving, they aren't inherent to mirrorless, just aspects of something still in its early development. What's left? There are those who simply hate using an EVF. (Whether they are justified or not, the hate is there.)
> 
> I'm all-in on mirrorless, personally, though I won't spurn EF lenses. They will continue to serve one very useful role for the foreseeable future--they can be used on ALL Canon mirrorless cameras-- M and RF. How long that will impel Canon to continue to make them (not develop, but make) is another question entirely.


Another issue with mirrorless is ”instant on” to be ready to shoot. If an SLR has gone to sleep mode, it will wake and be ready to shoot almost instantly. The mirrorless take a lot of time for the EVF to wake.


----------



## chong67 (Apr 8, 2020)

So many new lens announced, but nothing has been released for the RF. I still see the normal eleven RF lens on Canon site. LOL


----------



## Berowne (Apr 8, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> 85/1.8 or 85/2.0...
> Whatever Canon decides to release, bring it on. I want to see the lens that could draw me into R systzem the most (..or not).
> Would prefer an 85/1.8, of course.
> The displayed optical formula seems to be about 1.5 cm shorter than the old EF design. The mechanical lens could be longer because of flange distance, of course. But this together with an RP or R6 body... *yummy
> ...



Canon EOS System 

It is at page 38.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 8, 2020)

Rivermist said:


> Actually the 85mm 1.8 patent does not mention IS, would the line-up have both a 1.8 non-IS and a 2.0 IS?



For some lenses, Canon gives customers the choice between IS & IS-less, e.g. EF 70-200mm.

Possibly Canon wants to do the same in RF, though with declining lens sales it might want to give itself the choice of giving the customers a choice.


----------



## picperfect (Apr 8, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> I'm a very big supporter of the EOS-M cameras and lenses, but I really don't understand the need for a 160mm equivalent lens in the lineup. That's a really odd focal length that's a little too long for traditional portraits and a little too short to be of much use for wild life or sports...so it's just strange.
> 
> It would be nice to see Canon tackle the more pressing needs like a fast ultra-wide or a super-telephoto lens. We've all been asking for a 15mm f/2 small prime or something longer and faster than 200mm f/6.3. Would it be too much of a challenge to get a native 300mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/5.6 lens?



i'd love an EF-M 100/2.0 - I'd mainly use it for concerts in small-to-medium venues. But it needs to have IS. And a (near) silent AF-drive, like STM. 

EF-M 15/2.0 - no need from my end. 11-22 covers all my UWA needs. Not into astro/night sky.

300/5.6 or 400/5.6 both way too big for EOS M. they would not be smaller than EF versions - look at 70-300, 100-400, 400/5.6. focal lengths > 100mm don't profit sizewise from smaller APS-Cimage circle. lens size pretty much dependent on diameter of entrance pupil/front element.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Apr 8, 2020)

SV said:


> I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?


Almost definitely.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 8, 2020)

I understand many of these patents never end in an actual product, the Canon EF-M 100mm f/2 does sound interesting. IS would be a must I feel for a lens like that, hopefully it would be compact and light weight as with the other EF-M line up lenses.

I think I’m right in saying that on an EOS M body would equate to 160mm f3.2 on an M series crop factor body so some nice bokeh should be possible.


----------



## BladeRunner (Apr 8, 2020)

To me one of the important questions regarding the slower lens versions like this 85mm is, if they will be in par with the 1.2 versions. Nikon decided to release cheaper 1.8 versions first and apparently the quality is as good as it gets - just a bit slower than the 1.2’s they are going to release. The RF 35mm 1.8 however looks like a cheaper version with inferior quality - obviously to keep the L lenses at distance. For amateurs me that would be a string reason to buy into the Z mount instead while well earning Pros may be attracted by the Halo lenses canon is releasing one after the other.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 8, 2020)

Berowne said:


> Canon EOS System
> 
> It is at page 38.


Thanks a lot.

Was puzzled to find page 38 when I opened the PDF with only 33 pages, but there are two pages in one


----------



## riker (Apr 8, 2020)

It was about time for the 85/1.8 and 100/2. I just hope that with the help of the RF mount they get even smaller/lighter than original EF versions.
And of course waiting for the 28/1.8 aaaaaaaand may that be so boring to mention again, 50/1.4.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 8, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Just google "EF 85mm f/1.8 diagram" and you'll get some images even if you're not on image search. Sorry if that's not what you're looking for.


Thanks. As so often it's the way you search and ask. At least I tried to myself and didn't just ask dumbly.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 9, 2020)

LOL.

I've heard the phrase "optical formula" before...I never imagined it was just a line drawing of the lens element cross sections. 

What formula? I thought it meant actual math!

I should think if nothing else you'd need two radii of curvature (with sign indicating convex/concave) for the front and back side of each element. and a refraction index for each element. And much more complicated than that if aspherical. Oh, and the distances between elements, their diameters and any thickness above bare minimum given their radii and diameters.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 11, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> you also need properties of the glass itself



That's what was meant by "refraction index."

But now that you mention it: If you want to go beyond the geometry of the image, you'd have to add in whether it tends to pass light of different wavelenghts unevenly, and how much light overall it absorbs. Plus, probably other things I haven't learned about yet.


----------



## canonmike (Apr 12, 2020)

SV said:


> I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?


Was wondering the same thing......


----------



## puffo25 (Apr 12, 2020)

Hi all, sorry for a question that might sound stupid to some of you. 

In the process to get this Summer the R5, since I own already a RF 16-35mm F2,8 a EF 24-70 f/2,8, a RF 70-200 F/2,8, and an EF 300mm f/4, I am wondering if you think that a RF 50mm f/1,2 is quite necessary to take pictures @ night or in very low light conditions? Or you think that the R5 should be capable to handle high iso (ie 6400 or a bit higher) without miuch image noise and so making this possible additional purchease not necessary? Of course if I buy this 50mm F/1,2lens it will cost me at least 1700 USD which is not cheap...

Any feedback is welcome.
Happy Easter!
Andrea


----------



## puffo25 (Apr 13, 2020)

Thanks SwissFrank.
Than even the hypotetical RF 35mm f/1,2 might be not necessary? 
According to your considerations as I can shoot raw files under candle light conditions using my RF 16-35mm F2,8 I will increase if necessary a bit the iso around 3200 or 6400 and than reduce a bit noise in lightroom (especially if I shoot an image with people and so the tripod is not useful as I still need a shutter speed around 1/60 sec....?


----------



## SecureGSM (Apr 15, 2020)

Sigma recently released a 35/1.2 Art Sony mount Lens. It is ... Large...


----------

