# Patent: Canon RF mount Big White Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 11, 2021)

> Big white lenses for the RF mount are a logical next step for Canon, and I was expecting to see at least a couple of them announced ahead of the Tokyo games this year, but that appears to still be in a certain level of flux, so who knows at this point?
> Outside of an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM, all of the optical formulas that appear in this USPTO patent uncovered by Northlight Images are also part of the rumoured RF lens roadmap that I published a while ago.
> Another of the rumoured lenses on our roadmap is an RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM, but I haven’t seen any sort of patent reference for such an optical formula yet.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 11, 2021)

Uh oh, "Big Whites" are coming!

Da dum, Da dum, Da dum da dum da dum da dum ...

I think we're going to need a "_bigger camera!_ "


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 11, 2021)

Interesting that they all are listed as longer than the EF mount versions? 

I'm guessing that the design for telephoto lenses stays pretty similar except that they basically have a built in RF adapter to bridge the extra backfocus, but I'm sure there's not much Canon can do about that in those designs


----------



## padam (Feb 11, 2021)

With the new RF teleconverters these are going perform even better than before.


----------



## Joules (Feb 11, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Interesting that they all are listed as longer than the EF mount versions?


Keep in mind that you have to subtract the 20 mm flange distance from the total lens lenght figure in the patents, and also add 24 mm to the length of any EF lens to account for the adapter.


----------



## dolina (Feb 11, 2021)

A big draw for the RF white fast primes would be reduced weight


----------



## Fbimages (Feb 11, 2021)

My wallet is NOT ready


----------



## unfocused (Feb 11, 2021)

Hoping for a 600 mm RF big white that will drive down the cost of the EF 600mm III.


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2021)

No DO design plus the latest big whites have superb IQ. I will pass. Automatically I will be saving huge amount of money.
Of course if someone starts from scratch that is a different story.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 11, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Hoping for a 600 mm RF big white that will drive down the cost of the EF 600mm III.



I would be very interested to know if Canon will make a whole new lens for the 600mm on the RF mount, or will adapt the EF design for RF uses in some way.

I assume Canon has been eyeing making the big whites DO like in their sample DO 600mm F/4, which looked amazing, but it seems like that has taken awhile.

Another interesting thought--I know the F/11 lenses are consumer based, but what if Canon make the 500mm F/4, for example, collapsible as well? I see no reason they couldn't make a super sturdy geared mechanism for that.


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 11, 2021)

My wishes to new white L primes:
Reducing the price... and the minimum focus distance!! more in the direction of zoom lenses please... not over 3m! <3m would be fine to me!

To have a solid line-up Canon needs a great combination of bright (2.8/4.0) and more mobile/flexible lenses (4.0/5.6 & ZOOOMS!)


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> My wishes to new white L primes:
> *Reducing the price... and the minimum focus distance!*! more in the direction of zoom lenses please... not over 3m! <3m would be fine to me!
> 
> To have a solid line-up Canon needs a great combination of bright (2.8/4.0) and more mobile/flexible lenses (4.0/5.6 & ZOOOMS!)


And the size ... and the weight ... and then I wake up 

EDIT: But some of these can be achieved by ... cheating on f/sise: Let's say a 600 f/5.6 DO or a 800 f/8 or ...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2021)

padam said:


> With the new RF teleconverters these are going perform even better than before.


I would not be so sure. Canon's MTF charts certainly don't show that comparing the effects of the 1.4xTCIII on the 100-400mm II with the RF 1.4x on the 100-500mm. Also, the new designs for the big whites have Canon's new method of reducing weight by replacing the heavy big elements at the front behind the front element with smaller ones further back. This slightly lowers the IQ of the 600mm f/4 L according to TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=748&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and Canon's MTF chart for the old 400mm f/2.8 II (right) is better than for the version III (left).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 11, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Another interesting thought--I know the F/11 lenses are consumer based, but what if Canon make the 500mm F/4, for example, collapsible as well? I see no reason they couldn't make a super sturdy geared mechanism for that.


Or a module system, like Leica's APO-Telyt-Modules for their R system once :









Leica APO-Telyt-R Module 280 / 400 / 560 / 800 mm


Information resources for users of Leica's Apo-Telyt-R Module system. Learn more about these exceptional tele-photo lenses!




www.apotelyt.com


----------



## SteveC (Feb 11, 2021)

Fbimages said:


> My wallet is NOT ready



You still have a wallet?


----------



## AccipiterQ (Feb 12, 2021)

800 2.8 I've been deadlifting my whole life to prepare.


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 12, 2021)

I had a hope Canon will do a mount conversion service on the EF 600mm f/4L IS USM III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III, but if they are going to introduce new lens probably they are not going to do mount conversion on the EF version


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 12, 2021)

I'd like some pricing so I can figure if I need to sell both my kidneys!


----------



## SteveC (Feb 12, 2021)

scottkinfw said:


> I'd like some pricing so I can figure if I need to sell both my kidneys!



That's not the question, you will.

Will you have to abduct someone off the street (or cannibalize a relative) to sell _their_ kidneys as well? That's the _real_ question.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 12, 2021)

Would be a great opportunity (although expensive) to move forward to a 400 2.8. The current EF III is amazingly light. Currently shooting a 500 f/4 so I’d have to sell that to make it financially bearable, but 400 2.8 would fit my needs better


----------



## Chig (Feb 12, 2021)

padam said:


> With the new RF teleconverters these are going perform even better than before.


Perhaps but the RF adapters can't be stacked like the EF mark ii ones


----------



## risto0 (Feb 12, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> I had a hope Canon will do a mount conversion service on the EF 600mm f/4L IS USM III and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III, but if they are going to introduce new lens probably they are not going to do mount conversion on the EF version


why would you prefer to mount convert your lens? Isn't it so that one day when you decide to sell your lens, there are more potential buyers for EF than for RF mount because EF can be adapted to other systems as well? Wouldn't it more beneficial to purchase EF-RF adapter and leave it to the lens ( = more options in future)


----------



## rawshooter (Feb 12, 2021)

Wow the difference between the first 400 2.8 IS and the III is 2.530g. That's almost half the weight. Yea if that drops the used prices I'll upgrade.


----------



## risto0 (Feb 12, 2021)

I wonder what benefits might RF 600mm F4 have over EF 600mm F4 III. (using EF-RF adapter is not a concern therefore mount difference does not matter here).


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 12, 2021)

I'm would be disappointed if the 300 weighs in at an more than 2kg and the 500 2.5kg. If they can reduce the weight in line with the EF 400 and 600 vIII I'll eventually swap both my older 300 v1 and 500 vII.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 12, 2021)

Yes! Yes! Yes! RF 300mm f/2.8 - bring it on. I'm ready to preorder. It'll probably be an eye-watering 7.500$ - but its my biggest yearning having switched to Canon mirrorless.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 12, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I'm would be disappointed if the 300 weighs in at an more than 2kg


 wake up and face reality...


----------



## tron (Feb 12, 2021)

My EF300mm f/2.8L IS II is just fine thank you


----------



## tron (Feb 12, 2021)

risto0 said:


> I wonder what benefits might RF 600mm F4 have over EF 600mm F4 III. (using EF-RF adapter is not a concern therefore mount difference does not matter here).


It will certainly have an interesting RF designation in front of the 600 vs a rather boring EF one


----------



## Jordan23 (Feb 12, 2021)

risto0 said:


> I wonder what benefits might RF 600mm F4 have over EF 600mm F4 III. (using EF-RF adapter is not a concern therefore mount difference does not matter here).


I'll guess they'll be designed for faster fps.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 12, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough, we all love the 150mm aperture series but this time around I want not only the 800/5.6 and 1200/8, but I also want a 300/2, 200/1.4, and 135/1.



Canon made a few 300mm f/1.8 for horse races, and Nikon made a commercial 300mm f/2 in the eighties. There's no technical barrier, so I guess its just a matter of insufficient demand to make it profitable.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough, we all love the 150mm aperture series but this time around I want not only the 800/5.6 and 1200/8, but I also want a 300/2, 200/1.4, and 135/1.


You not only have to have deep pockets to pay for that lot but also strong musculature.


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 12, 2021)

Just thinking about the price makes me nervous..


----------



## Mistkäfer (Feb 12, 2021)

I would like to see an RF 600 with inbuilt 1,4 converter like by the EF200-400mm


----------



## tron (Feb 12, 2021)

Mistkäfer said:


> I would like to see an RF 600 with inbuilt 1,4 converter like by the EF200-400mm


DO version or it will be a monster lens (like a 800 5.6)


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 12, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> Just thinking about the price makes me nervous..


How many will be over $15k? Will there be any under 10k? My guess is MOST and NONE. 

-Brian


----------



## unfocused (Feb 12, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> I'll guess they'll be designed for faster fps.


???


----------



## AccipiterQ (Feb 12, 2021)

How big would an 800 F4 be?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 12, 2021)

Fischer said:


> wake up and face reality...


I have, too bad you seem to be stuck in the past. Already the old 300 is only 2.3kg, so hardly a stretch to achieve 2kg with the new lightweight magnesium alloys and redesigned optics. I'll bet you also dismissed the idea of a 400 f/2.8 under 3kg too. LOL


----------



## Jim Corbett (Feb 13, 2021)

Coming next: the 1DX-bodied R1 with a huge battery, fast stacked sensor, 20fps @ 36mpx @ 14bit, low-light-king-of-the-underworld, and... 
*NO video(!!!), and NO low-pass filter!!!*

(Disclaimer: this is not a rumor... just me daydreaming...)


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Feb 13, 2021)

The layout of the lens elements is similar to the design of the current 400/2.8L IS III so the RF version should be very similar in weight.


----------



## tron (Feb 13, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> I'll guess they'll be designed for faster fps.


I believe the EF big whites are designed for fast fps given that they work with 1DxIII.


----------



## Jordan23 (Feb 13, 2021)

tron said:


> I believe the EF big whites are designed for fast fps given that they work with 1DxIII.


But how fast can the AF-unit keep up? Now when cameras are hitting 20+ fps the AF-units must be able to make adjustments at the same speed. Maybe the 400/600 mk3 are able to make AF-adjustments at 16 fps or even 20 fps. That a lens work is not the same as it can make AF-adjustments that quick. On the R5 you get 20 fps with even older versions of the big whites, but I don't expect the AF-unit to be able to keep up at that speed.


----------



## tron (Feb 13, 2021)

Jordan23 said:


> But how fast can the AF-unit keep up? Now when cameras are hitting 20+ fps the AF-units must be able to make adjustments at the same speed. Maybe the 400/600 mk3 are able to make AF-adjustments at 16 fps or even 20 fps. That a lens work is not the same as it can make AF-adjustments that quick. On the R5 you get 20 fps with even older versions of the big whites, but I don't expect the AF-unit to be able to keep up at that speed.


Obviously they can with 1DxIII. And 1DxIII has a battery that can drive big whites faster.


----------



## risto0 (Feb 13, 2021)

risto0 said:


> I wonder what benefits might RF 600mm F4 have over EF 600mm F4 III. (using EF-RF adapter is not a concern therefore mount difference does not matter here).


was just comparing 600mm f4 v II and v III --> How RF 600 f4 could improve is to bring back the sharpness of v II lens but keep the weight and chomatic aberration control from v III.


----------



## risto0 (Feb 13, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


why is this rumor under EOS Bodies?


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 13, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> The lenses needn't be profitable if they're "halo models."
> 
> A 135/1, for instance, would have the front element size of a 400/2.8, but otherwise not be especially long, and even the MkII 600/4's are really light weight so a fairly short lens even without such a big front element would be hand-holdable.



As Nikon made a 300mm f/2 four decades ago, I doubt the market would see an RF 300mm f/2 as a halo model.

Otherwise, I wouldn't bet on what halo lenses Canon would, or wouldn't, make.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2021)

risto0 said:


> why is this rumor under EOS Bodies?


Because the Title is "Patent: Canon RF mount..." and the RF mount is on an EOS body. It's the OP's site and he can choose which of his forums to post it in.


----------



## mpmark (Feb 13, 2021)

tron said:


> No DO design plus the latest big whites have superb IQ. I will pass. Automatically I will be saving huge amount of money.
> Of course if someone starts from scratch that is a different story.


Same, I have the 3002.8ll, I use it with the 1.4xlll and it works amazing on my R5, absolutely no reason to upgrade, the IQ is ridiculous!


----------



## Dragon (Feb 13, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Interesting that they all are listed as longer than the EF mount versions?
> 
> I'm guessing that the design for telephoto lenses stays pretty similar except that they basically have a built in RF adapter to bridge the extra backfocus, but I'm sure there's not much Canon can do about that in those designs


Yep, the only way they get shorter is with DO and no sign of that here.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 13, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I would not be so sure. Canon's MTF charts certainly don't show that comparing the effects of the 1.4xTCIII on the 100-400mm II with the RF 1.4x on the 100-500mm. Also, the new designs for the big whites have Canon's new method of reducing weight by replacing the heavy big elements at the front behind the front element with smaller ones further back. This slightly lowers the IQ of the 600mm f/4 L according to TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=748&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and Canon's MTF chart for the old 400mm f/2.8 II (right) is better than for the version III (left).
> 
> View attachment 195761
> View attachment 195762


The III versions of the 400 and 600 with a 2x extender are a bit better in the periphery, but noticeably worse center and mid frame. I specifically asked Brian at TDP about the test shots and he said they were very careful the get the best focus possible. The EF 500 II still shows the best extender performance of any of the big whites - probably why (along with weight) it is so popular with birders. I will stick with my EF 800L. It seems to work just fine with the R5 and a dedicated adapter falls into the chicken feed category when you are talking big whites .


----------



## Fischer (Feb 13, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I have, too bad you seem to be stuck in the past. Already the old 300 is only 2.3kg, so hardly a stretch to achieve 2kg with the new lightweight magnesium alloys and redesigned optics. I'll bet you also dismissed the idea of a 400 f/2.8 under 3kg too. LOL


Time will tell...


----------



## Fischer (Feb 13, 2021)

PiezoSwitch said:


> The layout of the lens elements is similar to the design of the current 400/2.8L IS III so the RF version should be very similar in weight.


Yup.  Can see I'm not the only one "living in the past".


----------



## Kiton (Feb 13, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Interesting that they all are listed as longer than the EF mount versions?
> 
> I'm guessing that the design for telephoto lenses stays pretty similar except that they basically have a built in RF adapter to bridge the extra backfocus, but I'm sure there's not much Canon can do about that in those designs



I scrapped a 300 2.8 last week, sent it to Canon Canada for repairs, they said it was a write off. When they do that, they normally give you a small discount on a replacement. I asked about getting a 300 f4 for now and waiting until the 2.8 RF is here, they said the 4 is discontinued and there are stock issues with the 2.8. I can't help but wonder if that means they will wind down the EF mounts too. I think it is way too soon for that, but what the hell do I know. ‍


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2021)

Kiton said:


> I scrapped a 300 2.8 last week, sent it to Canon Canada for repairs, they said it was a write off. When they do that, they normally give you a small discount on a replacement. I asked about getting a 300 f4 for now and waiting until the 2.8 RF is here, they said the 4 is discontinued and there are stock issues with the 2.8. I can't help but wonder if that means they will wind down the EF mounts too. I think it is way too soon for that, but what the hell do I know. ‍


They make all the big whites in batches as they use the same production lines and equipment to do it. This means they can be out of stock for a while of one or more of the big whites if they underestimated demand or if they didn't schedule a new batch soon enough. I suspect with all the other production issues they have had it is just a case of the latter.


----------



## GoldWing (Feb 14, 2021)

If The R1 is equal to the R5 in resolution, I will be happy to buy all new Big Whites and assorted lenses. If not, we will stick with our OVF based 1DXMKII's and approx $60,000 in lenses.

Just like Canon under delivered with the 1DXMKIII I'm sure none of us will be spending $70K per shooter when the R1 comes out. It won't equal the resolution of the R5 or SONY'S A1.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2021)

Joules said:


> Keep in mind that you have to subtract the 20 mm flange distance from the total lens lenght figure in the patents, and also add 24 mm to the length of any EF lens to account for the adapter.


If you want to compare lengths you have to compare the real length of the RF lens to the real length of the EF lens plus the adapter. These are the only combination that get in front of the same camera (R, R6, etc). 

If you want to compare the RF combo to the EF/DSLR combo you have to compare the real length of the RF lens + mirrorless camera depth to the real EF lens length plus DSLR camera length ( about the 20mm flange distance difference).

In ALL cases you should either take into account one or the other.


----------



## Joules (Feb 14, 2021)

tron said:


> If you want to compare lengths you have to compare the real length of the RF lens to the real length of the EF lens plus the adapter. These are the only combination that get in front of the same camera (R, R6, etc).


That's exactly what I said.


tron said:


> If you want to compare the RF combo to the EF/DSLR combo you have to compare the real length of the RF lens + mirrorless camera depth to the real EF lens length plus DSLR camera length ( about the 20mm flange distance difference).
> 
> In ALL cases you should either take into account one or the other.


In case you missed it: The total lens length figure in the patents is not the physical length of the lenses - instead, it includes the flange distance of 20 mm. So that has to be substracted in order to get what you call the real lens length. But since you can't mount an RF lens to an EF body, the only relevant comparison is when both are mounted to an RF body - so you have to add the 24 mm adapter length to the EF lenses real length. It is not a one or the other consideration.


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2021)

Joules said:


> That's exactly what I said.
> 
> In case you missed it: The total lens length figure in the patents is not the physical length of the lenses - instead, it includes the flange distance of 20 mm. So that has to be substracted in order to get what you call the real lens length. But since you can't mount an RF lens to an EF body, the only relevant comparison is when both are mounted to an RF body - so you have to add the 24 mm adapter length to the EF lenses real length. It is not a one or the other consideration.


OK! In that case both are equal:

29.25cm -2cm +R5 depth = 27.25 cm + R5 depth

vs 

24.8 + 2.4 + R5 depth = 27.20cm + R5 depth

Same total length. I guess unless some DO technology is involved we cannot get length savings.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The EF 500 II still shows the best extender performance of any of the big whites - probably why (along with weight) it is so popular with birders.



And price!


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 14, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Interesting that they all are listed as longer than the EF mount versions?
> 
> I'm guessing that the design for telephoto lenses stays pretty similar except that they basically have a built in RF adapter to bridge the extra backfocus, but I'm sure there's not much Canon can do about that in those designs


So, I wonder if there is any way Canon could do a collapsible lens design to use all that empty space? The problem would be the size of the front element AND reliability for pro shooters. The RF 600/ 800 ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME DIAMETER FOR THE ENTIRE LENS WITH A MUCH SMALL ER FRONT ELEMENT. Where are the DO’s?


----------

