# Patent: Some crazy fast RF mount prime lenses, including an RF 18mm f/1.0L



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 14, 2019)

> Back in August, I mentioned that Canon was working on a whole line of f/1.2L prime lenses for the RF mount. So far we have the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the RF 85 f/1.2L USM, but there are more clues that more f/1.2L lenses are in the pipeline.
> Canon News has uncovered the following optical designs for the RF mount.
> *Canon RF 18mm f/1.2L USM*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## canonnews (Nov 14, 2019)

To be fair, as we mentioned, it's unlikely that 18mm gets made - it has a 5mm back focus distance which is pretty tight for the RF mount.

but just the fact that they came up with a design for an 18mm F1.0 is pretty incredible.


----------



## CJudge (Nov 14, 2019)

I wonder if the more recent explosion in popularity for ultra-wide angle lenses on smartphones is encouraging them to look into these design options. Smartphone photography, being so ubiquitous, could easily be shaping trends.


----------



## zonoskar (Nov 14, 2019)

Now do a 10mm f1.2 (or even f2)


----------



## bitcars (Nov 14, 2019)

Is there any plans for a RF 35mm 1.2?


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 14, 2019)

Pretty amazing stuff being explored.
Would be great if they can make some with a price that is somewhat affordable.


----------



## Joules (Nov 14, 2019)

CJudge said:


> I wonder if the more recent explosion in popularity for ultra-wide angle lenses on smartphones is encouraging them to look into these design options.


Smartphones don't even begin to compare with the light gathering ability of these lenses on an FF mount. If offering an alternative to a smartphone would be the goal here, I imagine these lenses would be f4 and focused on small size, instead of being so bright.

Seems to me like Canon wants to have camera system with truly leading low light performance. People mention all the time that they want an improvement in this regard, even though they sensor technology is basically as good as it will get in this regard. Faster glass, however, yields actual improvements.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 14, 2019)

So this is the type of stuff that will eventually make me make the jump into the EOS-R ecosystem.


----------



## amorse (Nov 14, 2019)

I know most will likely never see the light of day, but oh man, an 18mm f/1 would be potentially a heck of an astrophotography lens.

If the RF mount enables these sort of speed demons, I'm all for it!


----------



## edoorn (Nov 14, 2019)

bitcars said:


> Is there any plans for a RF 35mm 1.2?


Probably


----------



## Franklyok (Nov 14, 2019)

And this is like "5 kg" lens. Old farts will never go to gym, in order to handle those lens. So we will no see those lens.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 14, 2019)

I suspect of these 24mm f1.2 might be the first lenses to hit market if Canon were to start manufacturing them.


----------



## Stuart (Nov 14, 2019)

canonnews said:


> To be fair, as we mentioned, it's unlikely that 18mm gets made - it has a 5mm back focus distance which is pretty tight for the RF mount.



Why is a small BF tight? what is the BF measurement?


----------



## SteveC (Nov 14, 2019)

Hah, it'd be interesting to see how much a 100mm or even a 135 mm f/1.2 would end up going for. (And how much that heavy beast would bend light OUTSIDE of the optical pathway from its gravity.)


----------



## Joules (Nov 14, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Why is a small BF tight? what is the BF measurement?


The distance between the sensor and the last lens element, if I'm not mistaken. With the RF flange distance being 20mm, this means the lens sticks out beyond the mount quite a bit, which might mean this is not a practical design.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2019)

Wow! sure makes one wish he had a wheel barrow full of money.


----------



## Joules (Nov 14, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> And this is like "5 kg" lens. Old farts will never go to gym, in order to handle those lens. So we will no see those lens.


Apart from going into uncalled for assumptions with your commen, your argument is flawed.

For one, these lenses are very wide so they don't need to be as big and heavy as the already existing 1.2 RF primes. And as I said, there already are big and heavy primes in the RF lineup, showing that Canon does not hesitate to release such lenses if they provide sufficient quality to make up for it.


----------



## Canon1966 (Nov 14, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Pretty amazing stuff being explored.
> Would be great if they can make some with a price that is somewhat affordable.


The RFs are extremely expensive I will continue to use EFs until maybe RFs go down in price or get refurbs.


----------



## slclick (Nov 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Wow! sure makes one wish he had a wheel barrow full of money.


And just how is an old fart going to roll that wheelbarrow to the bank? You have to get a strapping mirrorless millennial to roll it there for you. Then we can roll your wheelchair to the tripod where the 5kg lens is mounted. All set!


----------



## fentiger (Nov 14, 2019)

i wonder if canon have explored the feasibility of there great whites being faster than f2.8/ f4 
imagine a 400 f2.0, i suspect its doable at a price £$


----------



## bks54 (Nov 14, 2019)

Joules said:


> The distance between the sensor and the last lens element, if I'm not mistaken. With the RF flange distance being 20mm, this means the lens sticks out beyond the mount quite a bit, which might mean this is not a practical design.



It's practical enough that Canon has done it before. Since there is no mirror with R series cameras, lens designs that project close to the image plane are possible, just as they were for rangefinders. Canon's 19mm f3.5 was a 1960s rangefinder ultra-wide angle lens that projected deep into the body beyond the mount. See https://www.canonrangefinder.org/Canon_19mm.htm The new patent shows optical features with some similarities to these early "symmetrical" designs.


----------



## Tom W (Nov 14, 2019)

I can easily conceive of the 24/1.2 coming to fruition, and maybe the 16 f/1.4. But an 18 f/1.0 is kind of crazy. Possible, maybe, but kind of crazy.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 14, 2019)

Somehow I really enjoy those "crazy" patents, especially if they come alive in a product.

But if Canon wants "normal enthusiasts" like me to get into the R system, they need to make such less "crazy" and much less expensive products like a native RF mount 85/1.8 or a f/4 WA zoom for reasonable prices like we already see in the EF lineup.
If I was to buy into the RF system there would be exactly two lenses I could justify for me: the 24-105 and the 35/1.8.
Otherwise RF is just a desirable but too big, too heavy, too expensive and too much specialized "freak show" to me.

And before someone gets this wrong I really enjoy the pics taken with the RF 50 and 85 f/1.2, but I could not justify them for me.
Please keep posting 

Edit: Not to forget some small f/2.8 pancakes to join the RP


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 14, 2019)

fentiger said:


> i wonder if canon have explored the feasibility of there great whites being faster than f2.8/ f4
> imagine a 400 f2.0, i suspect its doable at a price £$



Sure it's doable. But I doubt you'll find many buyers for a lens with a >20 cm front element. The price would likely be in the high five figures or low six figures, like the EF 1200mm f/5.6 which has a similar aperture size.


----------



## jvillain (Nov 14, 2019)

CJudge said:


> I wonder if the more recent explosion in popularity for ultra-wide angle lenses on smartphones is encouraging them to look into these design options. Smartphone photography, being so ubiquitous, could easily be shaping trends.


Sounds like a compelling reason to shoot tight.


----------



## dwilz (Nov 14, 2019)

Joules said:


> The distance between the sensor and the last lens element, if I'm not mistaken. With the RF flange distance being 20mm, this means the lens sticks out beyond the mount quite a bit, which might mean this is not a practical design.


Does no one google anymore? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/back focus


----------



## Tom W (Nov 14, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Somehow I really enjoy those "crazy" patents, especially if they come alive in a product.
> 
> But if Canon wants "normal enthusiasts" like me to get into the R system, they need to make such less "crazy" and much less expensive products like a native RF mount 85/1.8 or a f/4 WA zoom for reasonable prices like we already see in the EF lineup.
> If I was to buy into the RF system there would be exactly two lenses I could justify for me: the 24-1056 and the 35/1.8.
> ...



Yeah, I agree. They really need a set of f/4 zooms (the 24-105 being one), and some f/1.8-2.8 range small primes. I say 2.8 because getting into the 20 mm range, it will make a big difference in size/cost, I would think. 

My thinking - a 15-35 f/4 IS and a 70-200 f/4 IS to go with the 24-105. And, a 20/2.8, a 24/2, a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2 to go with the 35/1.8. IS on all or most of them.


----------



## justawriter (Nov 14, 2019)

fentiger said:


> i wonder if canon have explored the feasibility of there great whites being faster than f2.8/ f4
> imagine a 400 f2.0, i suspect its doable at a price £$


It exists! As many as four in existence according to this article.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 14, 2019)

I am eagerly awaiting the 24 f1.2, but I find it troubling that according to the patent, the lens is set to be 129mm long. That is 12mm longer than the RF 85 f1.2, which I own, and I find is too big.

Sony released their 24 f1.4 GM lens, which seems great optically, and yet reasonably sized. I really do hope Canon priorities size and weight over the last percent of optical perfection.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 14, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> The RFs are extremely expensive I will continue to use EFs until maybe RFs go down in price or get refurbs.



Of course all but 2 RF lenses are L lenses thus far.
EF has a wide range of non-L lenses.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 14, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> And this is like "5 kg" lens. Old farts will never go to gym, in order to handle those lens. So we will no see those lens.



My understanding the RF mount allows for a smaller front element thus actually making for a lighter lens than can be made if the rear mount were a smaller diameter. Also the distance being shortened favors this. Yes Canon has made big RF lenses but look at the absolute wild designs to show what can be done. These will not be monsters as we know them from the days of DSLR mount being larger in distance or others with small diameter opening at camera which again requires very large front elements.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 14, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Somehow I really enjoy those "crazy" patents, especially if they come alive in a product.
> 
> But if Canon wants "normal enthusiasts" like me to get into the R system, they need to make such less "crazy" and much less expensive products like a native RF mount 85/1.8 or a f/4 WA zoom for reasonable prices like we already see in the EF lineup.
> If I was to buy into the RF system there would be exactly two lenses I could justify for me: the 24-105 and the 35/1.8.
> ...



You are right. I believe Canon has a great stable of EF lenses and here at first they are flexing their optical muscle in the RF mount to generate a sense of wow what a great system, I cannot afford it but when the more human level lenses come there will be the thought that some day perhaps. And also remember if you really need to use a far superior lens to all others there is always places like Lens Rentals ready to let you explore those exotic lenses for a few days on your RF system and impress your girlfriend, (Just be careful with your wife finding out about her    ).


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2019)

Just give me a 70-135 f/2L and I will be happy. My life would be complete.


----------



## melgross (Nov 14, 2019)

Joules said:


> The distance between the sensor and the last lens element, if I'm not mistaken. With the RF flange distance being 20mm, this means the lens sticks out beyond the mount quite a bit, which might mean this is not a practical design.


You mean, like a number of Leica M lenses do?


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 14, 2019)

That's exactly what Leica has been demonstrating for decades, with no mirror in the path of light, you can develop astonishing wide-angles!


----------



## navastronia (Nov 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just give me a 70-135 f/2L and I will be happy. My life would be complete.


Hahahah, I was waiting for you to post this


----------



## RPF (Nov 14, 2019)

The 18/1.0 back focus is too short that can not be employed as an interchangable lens. 24/1.2 is the one who most possible to be continued.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 14, 2019)

At what size and weight though? Seriously.....


----------



## CJudge (Nov 14, 2019)

jvillain said:


> Sounds like a compelling reason to shoot tight.



If you want to stand out form the crowd, yes. But there are certain "looks" that come in and out of popularity, and will be sought out for that reason. Food photography was all about shallow depth of field, when lighting constraints meant that shooting at a wide aperture was necessary. Then smartphones came along, without any ability to limit DOF, and suddenly the "on trend" look is flat-lay. So even pros with expensive glass were almost overnight being requested to photograph in the same style, because it's now popular.

Being different isn't always the goal in commercial photography.


----------



## CJudge (Nov 14, 2019)

Joules said:


> Smartphones don't even begin to compare with the light gathering ability of these lenses on an FF mount. If offering an alternative to a smartphone would be the goal here, I imagine these lenses would be f4 and focused on small size, instead of being so bright.
> 
> Seems to me like Canon wants to have camera system with truly leading low light performance. People mention all the time that they want an improvement in this regard, even though they sensor technology is basically as good as it will get in this regard. Faster glass, however, yields actual improvements.



I completely agree that Canon is aiming at being the low-light lens champion, it would be foolish to think otherwise with these apertures. But I also think that 4 UWA lens patents for a new camera system is pretty unusual, given that long teles have traditionally been the gatekeeper for "professional" photography. Remember how long Sony's mirrorless system was being balked at for not having enough compelling telephoto lens options.

I'm not suggesting that Canon are trying to offer an alternative to smartphones, the price tag alone will put these lenses out of reach for most low-cost RP consumers. I'm suggesting that the next 5 years of photographic trends may very well be influenced by the advent of UWA lenses on smartphones. If the general public come to expect a certain look, brands will be clamouring all over themselves to give it to them until they become bored and move on to the next trend. And by offering the best in class for UWA lenses, professionals shooting for those brands will jump on these.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 14, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Hahahah, I was waiting for you to post this


At least I know a 135 will come along one day.


----------



## canonnews (Nov 14, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Sure it's doable. But I doubt you'll find many buyers for a lens with a >20 cm front element. The price would likely be in the high five figures or low six figures, like the EF 1200mm f/5.6 which has a similar aperture size.


hahaha I was just about the write the same analogy.


----------



## melgross (Nov 15, 2019)

CJudge said:


> I completely agree that Canon is aiming at being the low-light lens champion, it would be foolish to think otherwise with these apertures. But I also think that 4 UWA lens patents for a new camera system is pretty unusual, given that long teles have traditionally been the gatekeeper for "professional" photography. Remember how long Sony's mirrorless system was being balked at for not having enough compelling telephoto lens options.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that Canon are trying to offer an alternative to smartphones, the price tag alone will put these lenses out of reach for most low-cost RP consumers. I'm suggesting that the next 5 years of photographic trends may very well be influenced by the advent of UWA lenses on smartphones. If the general public come to expect a certain look, brands will be clamouring all over themselves to give it to them until they become bored and move on to the next trend. And by offering the best in class for UWA lenses, professionals shooting for those brands will jump on these.


Canon has plenty of excellent teles. Sony had pretty much none. And those they did have were pretty old, from the film era. Using an adapter on a tele has much less of an effect on weight, length and balance than using one on normalish and wides. I think Canon can coast for a while on the strength of that excellent tele line-up. A 70-200 is different, and is why the new one.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 15, 2019)

16mm f1.4 must be perfect for astroscapes. Unfortunately, the lens isn't out yet and there's no suitable (for me) camera yet. So it's all about imaginary gear at the moment.


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 15, 2019)

14-28mm f/2

Make it happen and you'll get my money!


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 15, 2019)

fentiger said:


> i wonder if canon have explored the feasibility of there great whites being faster than f2.8/ f4
> imagine a 400 f2.0, i suspect its doable at a price £$



Once upon a time, Nikon made 300mm f/2 lens. Canon made 300mm f/1.8 lens for horse races photo finish. I guess those lenses are too expensive to sell in sufficient numbers to become a commercial product.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 15, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Once upon a time, Nikon made 300mm f/2 lens. Canon made 300mm f/1.8 lens for horse races photo finish. I guess those lenses are too expensive to sell in sufficient numbers to become a commercial product.



They'd need to supply a forklift with them too.


----------



## Pape (Nov 15, 2019)

My opinion about wide angles is if you want distort world its cheaper eat magic mushrooms 
just make that RF 85 1,8 and RF 300 f4 .


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 15, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> The RFs are extremely expensive I will continue to use EFs until maybe RFs go down in price or get refurbs.



So far I had no interest in RF lenses since the cameras suck, but was looking the other day at the new 24-70 and 15-35, and fell off my chair, $1K dearer and around $3.7K in Australia. Insane pricing way beyond the 24-70L II's and 16-35L III pricing at release and I couldn't care less about IS in them. The holy trinity would run $11K in Australia alone. Highly doubt I'll be investing Canon's mirrorless. I used to think Sony's pricing was absurd which is why I'm still mainly using Canon glass with their bodies. I just hope the new Sigma 24-70 DN is a ripper.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 15, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> So far I had no interest in RF lenses since the cameras suck, but was looking the other day at the new 24-70 and 15-35, and fell off my chair, $1K dearer and around $3.7K in Australia. Insane pricing way beyond the 24-70L II's and 16-35L III pricing at release and I couldn't care less about IS in them. The holy trinity would run $11K in Australia alone. Highly doubt I'll be investing Canon's mirrorless. I used to think Sony's pricing was absurd which is why I'm still mainly using Canon glass with their bodies. I just hope the new Sigma 24-70 DN is a ripper.


Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> ... to let you explore those exotic lenses for a few days on your RF system and impress your girlfriend, (Just be careful with your wife finding out about her    ).


I've never known a woman being impressed by a big or white lens. 
With one exception: 
One wedding photog on a friends reception. She seemed to be a little bit jealous on my equipment. Esp. on the 5D3 as she "only" had a 5D2.


----------



## Joules (Nov 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.


Obviously, they "suck" the money out of your wallet because of those irresistible RF lenses


----------



## BurningPlatform (Nov 15, 2019)

Joules said:


> Obviously, they "suck" the money out of your wallet because of those irresistible RF lenses


I have been a happy EOS R user for about a month now. I am happy to say that the camera does not suck at all. Quite on the contrary, it has blown new life into my photography (well, that probably does not amount to much, as I am probably the worst "semi-serious" photography hobbyist I know, but anyway, this is my subjective feeling). Now saving money to buy some of the marvellous lenses they have.


----------



## MartinF. (Nov 15, 2019)

Canon is doing it right. RF Lenses - especially high-end lenses before more RF cameras. I am impressed by the speed they are building op, an RF range of lenses.
Canon (and Nikon) might came late into mirrorless but especially Canon is showing their strength and muscles.

In the meanwhile I plan for staying with my 6D and EF-lenses for a while, and probably even investing in the upcoming 5DmkV. 
So "R-series" and RF glass is 10+ years down the road for me.


----------



## zonoskar (Nov 15, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I am eagerly awaiting the 24 f1.2, but I find it troubling that according to the patent, the lens is set to be 129mm long. That is 12mm longer than the RF 85 f1.2, which I own, and I find is too big.


The lens is 129mm, but due to the short backfocus, it extends a bit into the camera, so the lens is only 122mm from the mount. Still way to big


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 15, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I am eagerly awaiting the 24 f1.2, but I find it troubling that according to the patent, the lens is set to be 129mm long. That is 12mm longer than the RF 85 f1.2, which I own, and I find is too big.





zonoskar said:


> The lens is 129mm, but due to the short backfocus, it extends a bit into the camera, so the lens is only 122mm from the mount. Still way to big




129mm is the total length of the optical system, from the front element to the image plane. To get an idea of the size of a physical implementation of a lens design, subtract the flange distance, in this case 20mm.


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 15, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> 129mm is the total length of the optical system, from the front element to the image plane. To get an idea of the size of a physical implementation of a lens design, subtract the flange distance, in this case 20mm.



I do hope you are right, but I see that it is stated that the lens length of the RF 24 F1.2 is 129mm.The RF 85 F1.2 is 117mm long according to BHPhoto. In any case, if the 24 F1.2 is significantly larger than the 85, I will have to think at least twice before buying it.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.


I love my horrible R. Best camera I ever owned. And the lenses, OMG! I may end up with another body in a few years, but the lenses are forever.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.


Oh my God!
I bought a camera that sucks, I really must be a poor fool.
And I'm even extremely happy with it, what a shame!


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I am eagerly awaiting the 24 f1.2, but I find it troubling that according to the patent, the lens is set to be 129mm long. That is 12mm longer than the RF 85 f1.2, which I own, and I find is too big.
> ...


Hi Guys!

Sorry, but neither of you is fully correct.
Relevant data of the RF 24mm f/1.2 patent:

Total lens length 129.01mm
BF 13.57mm
flange distance 20mm
This means the mechanical length of the lens from front to rear element is: 115,44 mm (=129,01 mm -13,57 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
This would be the space needed in your bag, as the lens will protrude into the body by 6,43 mm (=20 mm - 13,57 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
The mechanical length from front element to flange is 109,01 mm (=129,01 mm -20 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
This would be the space in front of the camera when mounted.

Have a nice weekend


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 15, 2019)

MartinF. said:


> Canon is doing it right. RF Lenses - especially high-end lenses before more RF cameras. I am impressed by the speed they are building op, an RF range of lenses.
> Canon (and Nikon) might came late into mirrorless but especially Canon is showing their strength and muscles.
> 
> In the meanwhile I plan for staying with my 6D and EF-lenses for a while, and probably even investing in the upcoming 5DmkV.
> So "R-series" and RF glass is 10+ years down the road for me.



What is most wonderful about Canon and no one else is all your old AF lenses of the EF and EFs persuasion are fully compatible with the RF mount. So even if you have a large stable of great lenses the work, and from what I hear work even better on the RF cameras.
I am in no hurry and am waiting as well to see what the RF mount line up fleshes out to be but will be definitely getting the RF system when I see what closely meets my needs and desires.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> What is most wonderful about Canon and no one else is all your old AF lenses of the EF and EFs persuasion are fully compatible with the RF mount. So even if you have a large stable of great lenses the work, and from what I hear work even better on the RF cameras.
> [..]



I especially enjoy the CPL adapter, finally a polarizer for all my lenses and no issues with flare and macro flashes! It does make me a bit apprehensive about a future MP-R65mm or 100mm macro, since those will likely lack the filter slot.


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 15, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Hah, it'd be interesting to see how much a 100mm or even a 135 mm f/1.2 would end up going for. (And how much that heavy beast would bend light OUTSIDE of the optical pathway from its gravity.)



Sigma and Tokina both have 105 T1.5 Cine lenses, with Sigma having a 105 f/1.4 stills version that’s fairly affordable at $1599. And Tokina just joined Zeiss with having a 135 T1.5 Cine lens, but theirs is actually less than five figures, coming in at a surprising $8999 and almost 7lbs(Zeiss is almost $24K). So, based on that, if someone wanted to make a stills version, you could probably see a 135 f/1.4 for maybe ~$3K.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 15, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> This means the mechanical length of the lens from front to rear element is: 115,44 mm (=129,01 mm -13,57 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
> This would be the space needed in your bag, as the lens will protrude into the body by 6,43 mm (=20 mm - 13,57 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
> The mechanical length from front element to flange is 109,01 mm (=129,01 mm -20 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
> This would be the space in front of the camera when mounted.



I was thinking distance from camera mount to front of the lens, so I wouldn't say I was "incorrect", though I could've been clearer. Things that go inside the shutter box don't count 

Incidentally, there's a third reasonable definition for lens physical length: total length when the lens is at MFD, as opposed to infinity which is how backfocus distance is measured. If the rear group moves when focusing, it might protrude much less, or not at all, at MFD compared to infinity. That, of course, very much depends on the lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 15, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> Oh my God!
> I bought a camera that sucks, I really must be a poor fool.
> And I'm even extremely happy with it, what a shame!


We're all just clueless happy idiots. What would we do if nobody could tell us how bad our cameras suck? Guess I'd better start riding the short bus.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.



it does not have cat tracking mode..... how can you take a picture of a sleeping cat without a specialized cat tracking mode? YAWN!


----------



## avoidingconcrete (Nov 15, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> We're all just clueless happy idiots. What would we do if nobody could tell us how bad our cameras suck? Guess I'd better start riding the short bus.



Hope there's a seat for me too!


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 15, 2019)

Market? How many wold pay $6k for such a lens. Would be primarily for bragging rights, but that has some value in marketing the Canon brand.


----------



## Trey T (Nov 15, 2019)

I remember several optic physicists or engineers on here were disgusted that I proposed that with Canon RF platform they can create significantly faster lenses than EF. Very close-minded ppl


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 15, 2019)

Trey T said:


> I remember several optic physicists or engineers on here were disgusted that I proposed that with Canon RF platform they can create significantly faster lenses than EF. Very close-minded ppl


Who was "disgusted"? It isn't as though Canon didn't have f/1.2 lenses before RF. Besides, you are not one of those engineers, so what would make your opinion worth listening to?

Anyway, I'll give you two brownie points and an atta-boy for your opinions. Feel better?

Was it this fantasy? 



neuroanatomist said:


> You're like a bull terrier, you just won't let this go. Tell you what...why don 't you go design and manufacture a 400mm f/2.0 pancake lens. We'd all love that! Physics be damned!
> 
> Heck, I'd even settle for you finding one legitimate source that suggests supertelephoto lenses will be smaller because of the RF mount. Good luck.
> 
> ...


----------



## BillB (Nov 15, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Yeah, I agree. They really need a set of f/4 zooms (the 24-105 being one), and some f/1.8-2.8 range small primes. I say 2.8 because getting into the 20 mm range, it will make a big difference in size/cost, I would think.
> 
> My thinking - a 15-35 f/4 IS and a 70-200 f/4 IS to go with the 24-105. And, a 20/2.8, a 24/2, a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2 to go with the 35/1.8. IS on all or most of them.


Well, Canon has already rolled out the RF24-105, and the RF 35, along with the R and the RP. So, how these sell may help Canon make up its mind with how far it wants to go with f4 zooms and smallish primes. My guess is that no matter what Canon brings out, their biggest sellers in this part of the market will be the 24-105 and the 35mm. There is a reason why Canon started with those lenses.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 16, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> it does not have cat tracking mode..... how can you take a picture of a sleeping cat without a specialized cat tracking mode? YAWN!


Well what with Sony's new(ish) Real-Time Animal Eye AF, maybe they'll actually ...

And with the miracle of firmware updates, they can add it without releasing a whole new model number body!


----------



## Andy Westwood (Nov 16, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> So far I had no interest in RF lenses since the cameras suck,



The EOS R Sucks! Really!

Granted I pre-ordered the camera and so got one of the first bodies to arrive in the UK, I wasn’t at first blown away with it. Until the latest firmware update and then WOW! Now I love the camera, ignore any reviews of this camera pre the latest firmware update as this makes a massive difference to auto focus.

You only need to watch the YouTube movie by the extremely talented and mostly Sony shooter Manny Ortiz to see the capabilities of this camera






RF Lens wise Canon is going to soon dominate the market with more spectacular glass, personally I’d like to see some new smaller and lighter f4 zooms and one or two f2.8 pancakes but you can’t knock them for having the desire and innovation to create these crazy fast primes.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 16, 2019)

Andy Westwood said:


> The EOS R Sucks! Really!
> 
> Granted I pre-ordered the camera and so got one of the first bodies to arrive in the UK, I wasn’t at first blown away with it. Until the latest firmware update and then WOW! Now I love the camera, ignore any reviews of this camera pre the latest firmware update as this makes a massive difference to auto focus.
> 
> ...


You seem to have missed the memo: Canon doesn't innovate. Canon is *******.  BTW: Love my R also.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 16, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Well what with Sony's new(ish) Real-Time Animal Eye AF, maybe they'll actually ...


I guess that's why you will never see a photo of a _sleeping_ cat from a Sony "influencer".


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I guess that's why you will never see a photo of a _sleeping_ cat from a Sony "influencer".


But don't forget, Sony cameras are used in doctors offices to detect the pink eye.


----------



## uri.raz (Nov 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Who was "disgusted"? It isn't as though Canon didn't have f/1.2 lenses before RF.



The 24mm f/1.2 is fractionally faster than the EF 24mm f/1.4L, and Canon made an EF 50mm f/1.0L as well.

One might claim Canon didn't make any ultra wide lenses as fast, both the 20mm & 14mm being f/2.8


----------



## deleteme (Nov 18, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Perfect!
Now I can make my model's nose as large as possible without it being in focus.

I see the new bokeh fashion: Eyes sharp, faces looking like characters from "Freaks" (the movie, 1932) but fetchingly out of focus.

Just what will the aliens think when examining the ruins of our civilization? People using vast resources to develop technology to make images for amusement.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 18, 2019)

The RF 24mm f/1.2L sounds tempting. Same goes for a 35mm.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> 5mm should be fine. Why would that be a problem? 1mm would be fine as long as putting it in at an angle wouldn't scratch the lens or sensor.


And where would the shutter go?


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 20, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Perfect!
> Now I can make my model's nose as large as possible without it being in focus.



There are uses for wide and fast, e.g. astro, and there are other lenses in this niche, e.g. Sigma 14mm f/1.8


----------



## deleteme (Nov 24, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> There are uses for wide and fast, e.g. astro, and there are other lenses in this niche, e.g. Sigma 14mm f/1.8


Sure, but I am certain we will see mostly non-astro images from such a creature if it ever sees the light of day (or as you might say "first light")


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 25, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> Sure, but I am certain we will see mostly non-astro images from such a creature if it ever sees the light of day (or as you might say "first light")



And that's reason enough not to release such lenses. Sure.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 25, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> And that's reason enough not to release such lenses. Sure.


They will release such lenses only if they see money. I have zero idea how large the astro market is but they did intro the Ra so there's that.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 26, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> They will release such lenses only if they see money. I have zero idea how large the astro market is but they did intro the Ra so there's that.



Someone pointed out that the Ra is aimed at 'deep sky' astro, not the wide angle star scapes that Canon lenses tend to suck at due to coma.


----------

