# Patent: Non-L RF Mount zoom lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2019)

> Northlight has uncovered a USPTO patent showcasing some telephoto zoom lenses for the RF mount. These lens designs appear to be fairly simple and might suggest they’re not L zooms.
> 
> The Canon EOS R system will obviously need some less expensive glass, and announcing a non-L RF 70-300 alongside an entry-level EOS R system camera would make a lot of sense.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

The 100-400mm II has been very heavily discounted for a while now. Maybe it's to be more competitive but is there the possibility that a III is on the cards?


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 24, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The 50-240 could be a lens paired with a cheaper 18-55 that is full frame. This would make sense if the sensor used in a cheaper R system camera was smaller than full frame. The more I think of the idea that all lenses are full frame compatible makes an enticing upgrade path possible for those who buy a non full frame R mount camera. Even if they never actually do that the fact that it could be done is a good incentive versus systems that don't offer that.


----------



## AJ (Jan 24, 2019)

Is Canon guarding against cheap lenses from third-party manufacturers?


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 24, 2019)

To me it would be very important what IQ and what AF performance those would deliver.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> ... is there the possibility that a III is on the cards?


Wouldn't even bet a cent on that.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 24, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> To me it would be very important what IQ and what AF performance those would deliver.


Less than L lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

Wrote too soon about the lack of Olympus Telephoto lenses, they have just announced one https://www.olympus-global.com/news/2019/nr01035.html
M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO with a built in 1.25xTC and an external 2xTC, available next year.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400mm II has been very heavily discounted for a while now. Maybe it's to be more competitive but is there the possibility that a III is on the cards?


This lens has been so popular, and for good reasons, that component costs and recovery of initial investment may be allowing Canon to reduce retail pricing.


----------



## Stuart (Jan 24, 2019)

There is already an EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS STM Lens - thats for APS-c


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Wrote too soon about the lack of Olympus Telephoto lenses, they have just announced one https://www.olympus-global.com/news/2019/nr01035.html
> M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO with a built in 1.25xTC and an external 2xTC, available next year.


1000mm ff equivalent reach w/o the teleconverter in a hand holdable lens. This will be interesting for sports and wildlife when paired with the new micro 4/3 camera. If one doesn’t need large prints (and only a few really do), this will be a great combination. For me, I would have to completely give up my Canon gear to afford changing over to Olympus. That would be difficult.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2019)

It's not equivalent reach, it's equivalent field of view. MFT is a low mpx sensor with 3.3µ pixels. The 5DSR has pixels that are only 24% bigger. So, in practice the equivalent reach of 400mm of the Olympus is 496mm on the 5DSR and 500mm with the TC is 624mm. So, a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm on the 5DSR would give nearly the same long telephoto reach and twice the field of view.

Edit - oops I meant to put the Olympus post in the Olympus thread. I'll repost there. Apologies.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jan 24, 2019)

I know I might be in the minority on such a lens (and I know this post is about non-L RF lenses) but I would like to see a mid-range zoom, 55-135 f2 or 2.8 lens. I shoot a lot of floor gymnastics with my 70-200 and could use a a wider FOV when the gymnasts come on the close side of the floor. We shoot exclusively in portrait mode and since the routines are so short and fast pace, it is next to impossible to change grips and switch to landscape.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It's not equivalent reach, it's equivalent field of view. As I wrote above, MFT is a low mpx sensor with 3.3µ pixels. The 5DSR has pixels that are only 24% bigger. So, in practice the equivalent reach of 400mm of the Olympus is 496mm on the 5DSR and 500mm with the TC is 624mm. So, a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm on the 5DSR would give nearly the same long telephoto reach and twice the field of view.


Good point.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 24, 2019)

Stuart said:


> There is already an EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS STM Lens - thats for APS-c



Don't forget the original EF 50-200 f/3.5-4.5 lens was a full-frame lens.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Don't forget the original EF 50-200 f/3.5-4.5 lens was a full-frame lens.



Yes. An RF 50-240 lens could be a good consumer travel lens for a lower cost R body. Might even be sold as a kit lens option.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 24, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> To me it would be very important what IQ and what AF performance those would deliver.



I would like to see Canon keep IQ very good on all RF as well as EF and M lenses. Like the did with the FD series lenses which for the most part were very good even if not L lenses.
Then save L for rugged construction and weather sealing for heavy pro abuse.
This would be a huge step in the right direction for Canon as all their lenses would be great optically just the mechanics, build and sealing will be less robust to save money.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 24, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I would like to see Canon keep IQ very good on all RF as well as EF and M lenses.



I don't think Canon have released a truly BAD lens regardless of target market for a long time. Their cheapest EF lens, the 50mm f/1.8 STM is a superb optical performer for example.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 24, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think Canon have released a truly BAD lens regardless of target market for a long time. Their cheapest EF lens, the 50mm f/1.8 STM is a superb optical performer for example.


I think this is true of the entire industry, except perhaps for Tokina. The biggest sin Canon tends to commit is releasing a rev of a lens many years after the original, and/or a rev that's just about the same as the previous one. They haven't been putting out EF 50mm F/1.4-type crud in quite some time.


----------



## Pape (Jan 24, 2019)

yeah but consumer class 100-400mm would be great . they need something to compete with excellent nikkor 200-500mm f5,6


----------



## AJ (Jan 24, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think Canon have released a truly BAD lens regardless of target market for a long time. Their cheapest EF lens, the 50mm f/1.8 STM is a superb optical performer for example.


Probably the mediocre-est lens that Canon has on the market right now is the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6. It's bundled as a kit lens with lower end cameras. It was first released some time ago, though.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jan 24, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> 1000mm ff equivalent reach w/o the teleconverter in a hand holdable lens. This will be interesting for sports and wildlife when paired with the new micro 4/3 camera. If one doesn’t need large prints (and only a few really do), this will be a great combination. For me, I would have to completely give up my Canon gear to afford changing over to Olympus. That would be difficult.


I Put this lens beside Nikon P1000 mega zoom point and shoot. nowhere near to any professional camera


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 24, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> I Put this lens beside Nikon P1000 mega zoom point and shoot. nowhere near to any professional camera


I will wait for some reviews before deciding. I think this is just a development announcement, so it will be awhile before it’s available.


----------



## degos (Jan 24, 2019)

*RF 50-240mm f/4-5.6*

Finally a lens that breaks out of the 70-200 obsession. Finally.

Who on Earth finds 70mm useful? It's neither one ( 50mm ) nor another ( 85mm ).


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 24, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> I will wait for some reviews before deciding. I think this is just a development announcement, so it will be awhile before it’s available.


No, it's not even that - it's a patent application, not an announcement as such.
Remember that such applications often show specific novel technical elements that may show examples that may be the basis for a product at some point...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> No, it's not even that - it's a patent application, not an announcement as such.
> Remember that such applications often show specific novel technical elements that may show examples that may be the basis for a product at some point...


Absolutely, we often never know when a patent or just parts of one go into a product. Some of the patents are for process improvements that improve the process for applying a lens coating. Nothing about the lens changes, but the coating may be more durable, or have less rejects and therefore cost less.

You can usually guess if a patent is for a high end product or a entry level, a 50-250 sounds a lot like a APS-C lens, for example.


----------



## Photointo (Jan 25, 2019)

Give me smaller, more lightweight RF 100-400 and I'm taking it.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jan 25, 2019)

Photointo said:


> Give me smaller, more lightweight RF 100-400 and I'm taking it.



physics might object




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Absolutely, we often never know when a patent or just parts of one go into a product. Some of the patents are for process improvements that improve the process for applying a lens coating. Nothing about the lens changes, but the coating may be more durable, or have less rejects and therefore cost less.
> 
> You can usually guess if a patent is for a high end product or a entry level, a 50-250 sounds a lot like a APS-C lens, for example.



i believe that discission was regarding the (wrongly posted) development announcement for the olympus 150-400


----------



## keithcooper (Jan 25, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Absolutely, we often never know when a patent or just parts of one go into a product. Some of the patents are for process improvements that improve the process for applying a lens coating. Nothing about the lens changes, but the coating may be more durable, or have less rejects and therefore cost less.
> 
> You can usually guess if a patent is for a high end product or a entry level, a 50-250 sounds a lot like a APS-C lens, for example.


Just checked the patent again and all of these are full frame short back focus (at the wide end) so RF full frame style


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2019)

degos said:


> *RF 50-240mm f/4-5.6*
> 
> Finally a lens that breaks out of the 70-200 obsession. Finally.
> 
> Who on Earth finds 70mm useful? It's neither one ( 50mm ) nor another ( 85mm ).



Yes I agree in the context of a standard zoom lens. A 24-85mm f2.8 is far more useful to me than a 28-70 f2 or a 24-70 f2.8. But in a telephoto zoom context, I find the 70-100 range very useful because of the lack of that range on the smaller standard zoom. I tend to find that a 24-70 is actually closer to 65mm on the long end. So the extra range on the tele zoom is a welcome addition and frames slightly longer than the 70mm marking on both lenses. I often run with a 135 f2.0 L instead of the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II because it's a lot smaller and discrete. Most of the times that I need a 200mm...I can use the 135 and walk the difference. I also find the focal length breaths less so as I get to MFD, the prime retains it's focal length better than the zoom, so again the prime frames better at shorter focusing.
If I need something over 200mm, I tend to use either my 70-200 with a 1.4x tc or I break out my 400mm f2.8 LIS...so I guess we all have our needs and compromises.
Years ago I had a Sigma 100-300 mm f4. I thought I'd enjoy the extra range, but I soon found that I didn't like it and preferred the slightly shorter but faster 70-200 2.8


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400mm II has been very heavily discounted for a while now. Maybe it's to be more competitive but is there the possibility that a III is on the cards?


I'd be surprised, the mkII isn't all that old and it's a main stay of most pro/semi pro's bag. Over the year's I've seen more 24-70/2.8 and 100-400 LIS combos in pro's bags than any other lens combos. Go to a wildlife workshop and nearly every photographer is using them. The MK1 (regardless of what is said on forums) was a greatly loved and used lens. Canon pretty much got the mkII spot on in terms of rectifying the mk1's weaknesses. So I can't see that a mkIII will offer much in the way of an upgrade. The mkII already has one of the finest IS units available. Its AF is very fast and accurate and it's image Quality is excellent. 
If a mkIII is in the offering it'll probably a bit like the 70-200 f2.8 LIS III...coatings and shell paint shade....


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> 1000mm ff equivalent reach w/o the teleconverter in a hand holdable lens. This will be interesting for sports and wildlife when paired with the new micro 4/3 camera. If one doesn’t need large prints (and only a few really do), this will be a great combination. For me, I would have to completely give up my Canon gear to afford changing over to Olympus. That would be difficult.


it looks like a very similar lens to the Canon 200-400 f4 LIS...in fact from a spec and function point of view it looks very similar.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'd be surprised, the mkII isn't all that old and it's a main stay of most pro/semi pro's bag. Over the year's I've seen more 24-70/2.8 and 100-400 LIS combos in pro's bags than any other lens combos. Go to a wildlife workshop and nearly every photographer is using them. The MK1 (regardless of what is said on forums) was a greatly loved and used lens. Canon pretty much got the mkII spot on in terms of rectifying the mk1's weaknesses. So I can't see that a mkIII will offer much in the way of an upgrade. The mkII already has one of the finest IS units available. Its AF is very fast and accurate and it's image Quality is excellent.
> If a mkIII is in the offering it'll probably a bit like the 70-200 f2.8 LIS III...coatings and shell paint shade....


I see a lot of 100-400mm IIs every week in the UK on my regular birding outings, but also a fair number of Nikkor 200-500s and the150-600mm. But, in Florida this month, it was overwhelmingly the Canon.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 25, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think Canon have released a truly BAD lens regardless of target market for a long time. Their cheapest EF lens, the 50mm f/1.8 STM is a superb optical performer for example.



I agree. But just maintain the high quality. There have been some kit zooms that are not all that good. I would like to see the non-L kit lenses to be very good performers. Also make sure there are no more noisy arc form drives ever again and the front elements don't rotate. These are small annoyances that if resolved would take the Canon brand to the next level for everyone. With new manufacturing methods etc. this should not be an issue for all lenses made.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 25, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It's not equivalent reach, it's equivalent field of view. MFT is a low mpx sensor with 3.3µ pixels. The 5DSR has pixels that are only 24% bigger. So, in practice the equivalent reach of 400mm of the Olympus is 496mm on the 5DSR and 500mm with the TC is 624mm. So, a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm on the 5DSR would give nearly the same long telephoto reach and twice the field of view.
> 
> Edit - oops I meant to put the Olympus post in the Olympus thread. I'll repost there. Apologies.


Could you explain that a little further?
Say the 5DSR had a 600mm lens and an Olympus had a 300mm lens and both took a photograph. Uncropped would they look the same (in general) but you could crop more on the 5DSR and have a usuable photo. Or is it different to that.?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 25, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> I Put this lens beside Nikon P1000 mega zoom point and shoot. nowhere near to any professional camera


Olympus lens are typically very good. The small sensor is the general problem but you can still take very good images (but you need to get it right in camera as processing and cropping are more limited).


----------



## Pape (Jan 25, 2019)

more like you putting 300mm f2,8 and 2x tele converter to full frame camera and it looks pretty same than olympus with 300mm i believe?
600mm canon lens gives very high qualtiy pic with 5dsr, olympus lense should be lot sharper to deliver same quality pic and i doubt its case


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> Could you explain that a little further?
> Say the 5DSR had a 600mm lens and an Olympus had a 300mm lens and both took a photograph. Uncropped would they look the same (in general) but you could crop more on the 5DSR and have a usuable photo. Or is it different to that.?


The relative resolution ("reach") depends on the size of pixels in the sensor as well as focal length of the lens. The MFT 20 mpx sensor has 3.3µ pixels, half the size of the 6.6µ pixels of of the 20mpx 1DXII, so a 300mm on the MFT has the same resolution as 600mm on the FF (all else being equal). The 5DSR has 4.1µ pixels, and so a 300mm*(4.1*3.3) ie 373mm lens on it would resolve as well as as 300mm on the MFT. And an 80mpxl FF sensor would have exactly the same size pixels as the MFT and a 300mm lens on it would resolve as well as 300mm on the MFT.


----------



## asl (Jan 26, 2019)

I would like to see a aps-c L tele lense 400 F/4 (or something), probably not gonna happen, but IMO it would make sense (more so now for the RF mount than before). I think many for wild life are dragging around more glass than needed.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 26, 2019)

asl said:


> I would like to see a aps-c L tele lense 400 F/4 (or something), probably not gonna happen, but IMO it would make sense (more so now for the RF mount than before). I think many for wild life are dragging around more glass than needed.



The 400/5.6 lens hasn't seen a refresh since it was introduced in 1993(!). If a refresh can add IS and keep the current price point, that would be a very nice lens.


----------



## RobertG. (Jan 27, 2019)

I think I have seen a couple of days ago in Berlin one of these lenses already. I was sitting in the train waiting at a train station when in front of my window a young Asian guy came walking along on the platform. He was about 5 or 6 feet away from my window. He had a big Canon mirrorless cam (probably the Canon R, the Canon logo was above the lens in the same position as in the Canon R) and a white telephoto lens attached to it. There was no adapter. The white lens was attached directly to the camera, which caught my attention. He took an image and checked it on the screen. Judging from the size of the lens, I assume it was 70-200mm f4. There were no words written on it. It was all plastic. No red ring.


----------



## Reeperbahn (Jan 28, 2019)

RobertG. said:


> I think I have seen a couple of days ago in Berlin one of these lenses already. I was sitting in the train waiting at a train station when in front of my window a young Asian guy came walking along on the platform. He was about 5 or 6 feet away from my window. He had a big Canon mirrorless cam (probably the Canon R, the Canon logo was above the lens in the same position as in the Canon R) and a white telephoto lens attached to it. There was no adapter. The white lens was attached directly to the camera, which caught my attention. He took an image and checked it on the screen. Judging from the size of the lens, I assume it was 70-200mm f4. There were no words written on it. It was all plastic. No red ring.



In Berlin? 
It was a film camera, for sure


----------

