# Patent: Canon RF 12mm f/2.8, RF 14mm f/2.8 and RF 20mm f/2.8



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 25, 2021)

> A new optical formula patent showing off some ultra-wide prime lenses for the RF mount has been uncovered by Canon News.
> An ultra-wide prime lens would obviously be a big seller for Canon, and I expect we’ll see this missing lens for the RF lineup sometime in...



Continue reading...


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 25, 2021)

A 14mm f/2.8 is standard in many manufacturers' lines. As Canon has no zoom that covers that focal length, I'm sure an RF 14mm f/2.8 will be released sooner or later.

Canon didn't bother upgrading the EF 20mm f/2.8. Its covered by the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, and I'm not sure Canon can make an RF 20mm f/2.8 for a competitive price. I wouldn't bet either way.

An RF 12mm f/2.8 might be shadowed between the rumored RF 10-24mm f/4 and an RF 14mm f/2.8. Seems more likely than an RF 20mm f/2.8, but I wouldn't bet either way either.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 25, 2021)

If I was an RF shooter, I'd probably by one to supplement my 16-35mm lens. A 12mm f2.8 prime is a lot smaller and lighter to carry as an occasional use lens than lugging a 11-24mm around. If it's small, neat and cheap...sure I'd get one. Especially if it's able to use a pair of front filters.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 25, 2021)

I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production. 
- trinity zoom territory 
- too close to the 24mm
- Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense. 

I think one of the 14mm or 12mm will make into production. Imho, I can see Canon opting for the 12mm since the trinity zoom now covers 15mm (F4 might cover 14mm) as well and they could go ahead and widen their UWA prima as well. Also, it's a selling point compared to the Sigma 14mm F1.8, which would be a strong competition at 14mm. 

If it was 12mm F2 this lense would be a killer astro lense, F2.8 seems lo leave something to wish for. 


Anybody have an idea about pricing on 14mm or 12mm? I don't how much the EF 14mm costs (or sold for when it was introduced), so I can't calculate with the 40% RF Mark-up


----------



## JaydenEricBeaudoin (Mar 25, 2021)

I'm wondering why Canon doesn't just release a super-wide zoom at 2.8? It'd be amazing to see a 12-24 f/2.8, or better yet, 14-28 f/2.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 25, 2021)

These are the lenses I've been waiting for, especially the 2,8/20.
At last some wide-angle primes!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 25, 2021)

JaydenEricBeaudoin said:


> I'm wondering why Canon doesn't just release a(...) 14-28 f/2.


There are a lot of people waiting for such a lense  including me, although I probably couldn't afford it. Or to be more exact: I'm not allowed to spend that kind of money


----------



## zim (Mar 25, 2021)

Can you tell from the formulas that these are not L lenses?


----------



## dominic_siu (Mar 26, 2021)

JaydenEricBeaudoin said:


> I'm wondering why Canon doesn't just release a super-wide zoom at 2.8? It'd be amazing to see a 12-24 f/2.8, or better yet, 14-28 f/2.


I also waiting for F2 ultra wide zoom wider than 15-35 L


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> A 14mm f/2.8 is standard in many manufacturers' lines. As Canon has no zoom that covers that focal length, I'm sure an RF 14mm f/2.8 will be released sooner or later.
> 
> Canon didn't bother upgrading the EF 20mm f/2.8. Its covered by the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, and I'm not sure Canon can make an RF 20mm f/2.8 for a competitive price. I wouldn't bet either way.
> 
> An RF 12mm f/2.8 might be shadowed between the rumored RF 10-24mm f/4 and an RF 14mm f/2.8. Seems more likely than an RF 20mm f/2.8, but I wouldn't bet either way either.


Personally I doubt the use case for an RF 14 f2.8 prime. There is already a very good 15-35 f2.8 zoom And the people that need 14 and can’t use 15 simply aren’t a large enough group to cater to. I would expect a 10 or 11 to 25 or 30 f4.

A 12 f2.8 sits comfortably wider than the 15-35 f2.8 so that might appear.


----------



## Craven (Mar 26, 2021)

First post here. Joined after years of reading. The R was my first camera; Now I have the R5 and want to do some astro. I've been looking for news about that RF 14-21mm f/1.4L that I thought was 'in the hands of testers'. Better check if that post was on April 1st. Any news? Cheers!


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 26, 2021)

Craven said:


> First post here. Joined after years of reading. The R was my first camera and now I have the R5 and want to do some astro. I've been looking for news about that RF 14-21mm f/1.4L that I thought was 'in the hands of testers'. Better check if that post was on April 1st. Any news? Cheers!


It was last September.

Sigma makes a 14mm f/1.8 lens for 3 years, and none of the competitors responded. Not even Zeiss, which has a similar prime for the PL mount, IIRC 14mm T/2. My guess is between the market size, production costs, and limited production resources, its not worth making such a lens, not even for the halo effect.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 26, 2021)

If these lenses will see the light - would give lots of people great options, not only for photography but for the C70 and future RF mount cinema cameras.
The 20mm would be roughly a 30 mm on APS-C/Super 35 and make a good alternative to a 24mm lens on FF.

Another great thing: Canon tends to use lots of lens elements but minimizes the number of groups systematically (this is my opinion) which reduces glass air surfaces and increases contrast. 14(12 for 20mm) elements but only 9 groups is great and similar to the EF-M 32 which has 14 elements (!) and only 8 groups - EF-M 32 is a dream lens if you combine the optical properties and features (like f/1.4, compact design and 1:4 max. reproduction ratio).


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 26, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production.
> - trinity zoom territory
> - too close to the 24mm
> - Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.
> ...


The price will depend on whether it is an L lens or not (my guess: L for the 12 and 14, non-L for the 20). The EF 14 L is $2100 list, so either the RF 12 or RF 14 would be dangerously close to the divorce line for most buyers. It will be a long time before Canon can pry from my camera bag the EF 11-24L, heavy and bulky as it is, it is hard to beat, and although an RF 10-24, hopefully more compact thanks to the RF mount, may be appealing the expected price tag well north of $3,000 will put off a trade-in for a long time. The patent mentioned some time ago for a TS-R 14mm or the RF 14-35 may have more versatility to justify mortgaging the homestead.


----------



## fussy III (Mar 26, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production.
> - trinity zoom territory
> - too close to the 24mm
> - Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.


This lens (RF 20/2.8) is for me. I love it. And I already own a Sigma 20/1.4.

here is why I want a 20/2.8:

I love the Sigma 20/1.4 for people shots and isolation in very environmental shots, weddings, reportage etc.

However when I am hiking in the mountains for nature and landscape photography I need something light like a 18/2.8 or 20/2.8. Such a lens covers wide angle below the standard Zoom starting at 24mm without adding too much weight to the combo. I would never carry a "trinity" of ANY given max. f-stop in the mountains.

So far in the mountains I am doing all my nature-photography with FF-Sony because they have the lightest lenses: 200-600mm/5.6, 28-60mm/4.0-5.6, Pentax close-up Diopter, Meike extension tubes, Samyang 18mm/2.8
This covers most of my needs and weighs a fraction of what I'd have to carry if I was to plan on using Canon-equipment.

With an excellent 20/2.8 (which btw was long overdue in the EF-System - the old modell was terrible), Canon might win me back when it comes to photography in the mountains. Just wished, Canon made an execellent lightweight FF-Standardzoom, similar to Sony's 28-60mm.

BTW: When I am doing landscape shots in flat terrain or relying on a car as transport, I still prefer the flexibility of my 16-35/4.0mm 

In any case, the 15-35/2.8 is not for me - it either does not offer enough isolation for people photography or is too expensive and heavy for the landscape photography I do.

Thanks, Canon, for finally planning on some lightweight RF glass!
Keep it comin'.


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 26, 2021)

fussy III said:


> This lens (RF 20/2.8) is for me. I love it. And I already own a Sigma 20/1.4.
> 
> here is why I want a 20/2.8:
> 
> ...


On the theme of "old lenses never replaced" I had the FD 17mm f:4 SSC for a long time, the perfect ultra wide in a very compact form factor and allowing 72mm filters. Back then it was all primes - 24, 35, 85, 135, 300 - but nowadays such a lens would complement a 24-105 + 100-500 combo without taking up much room.


----------



## fussy III (Mar 26, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> On the theme of "old lenses never replaced" I had the FD 17mm f:4 SSC for a long time, the perfect ultra wide in a very compact form factor and allowing 72mm filters. Back then it was all primes - 24, 35, 85, 135, 300 - but nowadays such a lens would complement a 24-105 + 100-500 combo without taking up much room.


Thanks, I was not aware of this FD 17mm. But I found a review on the web stating "Yes, on full frame fall off (vignetting) is quite obvious when shooting wide open, edges are softish and suffer from CA, but put it on S35 camera and most of that gets cropped out!"

If however you have the impression that the review is not nailing it (and that the FD 17mm is really good in the cormers at say f10 on fullframe), let us know, please!

I still own the 17mm/3.5 Tokina for camera-trapping but corners even on APS-C are much worse than even EF-S 18-55 STM at 18mm.


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 26, 2021)

Regretfully I sold all my FD lenses (11 if I recall correctly) and my 2 F-1n bodies plus a ton of accessories, focusing screens, motor drives, the whole 9 yards in 2004. This funded my first EF equipment (somehow I missed out on EOS pre-digital). The 17mm was a 1971 design, so probably not stellar by today's standards and the less so if using hi-res digital sensors, our expectations from glass back then were much lower than today. I have scanned all my slide collection and am busy putting the more relevant stuff online, take a look at https://www.lamanchatx.com/Travel-Photography/ScanProject-2/India-1979-80/ as I know I had the lens with me on that trip, architecture was either the 17mm or the 35 TS. Scanning done 28 years later so some loss in the film her time.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 27, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production.
> - trinity zoom territory
> - too close to the 24mm
> - Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.
> ...



A 20 2.8 is still much wider than 24mm. It would make sense IF the size would be very small with good image quality.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 27, 2021)

JaydenEricBeaudoin said:


> I'm wondering why Canon doesn't just release a super-wide zoom at 2.8? It'd be amazing to see a 12-24 f/2.8, or better yet, 14-28 f/2.


My experience with W.A. zooms is that they sometimes (depending on aperture ,distance, focus settings) exhibit a strange behaviour.
Some parts of the pictures that should be in focus aren't, while other equidistant ones, are.
Primes are far more reliable.
But maybe this is a purely personnel experience?
Additionally: just try to compare the 11-24 or 16-35 set at 24mm with results obtained with the EF 1,4/24 or TSE 24 II ...
Or have a look at the Nikon Z 24mm.
Primes are in my subjective pixel-peeping opinion sharper.
I just hope the new Canon primes will not be comatose wide open.


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 27, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> My experience with W.A. zooms is that they sometimes (depending on aperture ,distance, focus settings) exhibit a strange behaviour.
> Some parts of the pictures that should be in focus aren't, while other equidistant ones, are.
> Primes are far more reliable.
> But maybe this is a purely personnel experience?
> ...


I do admit to not having checked down to such detail, I use UWA almost exclusively for landscape / travel photography, and yes I have owned at different times the EF 24mm 1.4L (amazing) and the TS-E 24mm (exceptional), but the 11-24 is very close and shines where I need it most (11-20), since I have the RF 24-105L for 24mm and above (OK, some distortion at 24 as well, but again not something that is so far off the "perfect" rating for my specific usage). More important for me when looking at a trade-off "quality versus versatility" is having access to the whole range on UWA with a single lens. When bulk is an issue I have the EF 16-35 F4 IS which is quite amazing across the whole spread of focal lengths, and slightly better than the 24-105 in the 24-35 range.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Mar 27, 2021)

Rivermist said:


> ...RF 14 would be dangerously close to the divorce line for most buyers.


At the moment, my divorce line is set at around 2.000 € max. I thought about picking up the 15-35mm F2.8 (2.500 € in Germany) for landscape and astro but I wound up sleeping on the couch...metaphorically speaking,


----------



## Rivermist (Mar 28, 2021)

Someone already made the comment that there is an RF markup of sorts, and it is true that so far the RF L lenses have been a solid increase on their EF equivalents. With the EF 11-24 already priced at $3,000, the RF L 10-24 will probably hit well above $3,500 if not $4,000. The $2,100 EF 14mm 2.8 will translate to just short of $3,000 in RF, and the RF 14mm TS will definitely be in the lower to mid- $3,000 compared to the TS-E 17mm.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 28, 2021)

I'm afraid the 14mm TSE will even cost a (huge) bit more...


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 28, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> My experience with W.A. zooms is that they sometimes (depending on aperture ,distance, focus settings) exhibit a strange behaviour.
> Some parts of the pictures that should be in focus aren't, while other equidistant ones, are.
> Primes are far more reliable.
> But maybe this is a purely personnel experience?


No, its field curvature. As Roger Cicala wrote, "wide-angle lenses tend to have more curvature, or more irregular curvature". Generally, zooms are less corrected than primes, so your personal experience makes sense.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 29, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> These are the lenses I've been waiting for, especially the 2,8/20.
> At last some wide-angle primes!


I agree. In my current lens poverty situation, I get excited at any announcements.  My only wish is that these could at least be f/1.4 or f/1.2. Champagne taste on a water budget.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 30, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> No, its field curvature. As Roger Cicala wrote, "wide-angle lenses tend to have more curvature, or more irregular curvature". Generally, zooms are less corrected than primes, so your personal experience makes sense.


The interesting element in your answer is the "irregular" field curvature.
I had myself thought of field curvature, but rejected that solution, since only one side of the picture was affected.
But the fact that field curvature can be irregular is indeed an interesting suggestion. It could also be decentering...
I have the afore-mentionned issue only around 30-35mm with the EF 16-35 f4 at infinity setting.


----------

