# Patent: Canon RF 17-70mm f/4-5.6 BR



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 25, 2021)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent for a Canon RF 17-70mm f/4-5.6 BR optical formula. This is a pretty detailed patent, and kind of interesting with the inclusion of a BR lens element. A BR element can help in reducing the size required for such a lens.
> One drawback as pointed out by Canon News is that this design requires image stretching from 17mm to about 28mm.
> This sort of lens design would be a great kit lens for an APS-C RF mount camera that would also work on your full-frame RF mount camera. Which I think is the route Canon will go whenever they announce an APS-C RF mount camera body.
> Canon RF 17-70mm F4-5.6 BR
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2021)

I hope that patents like this is pointing towards more consumer/enthusiast focused products. 
Though the IQ and performance of L lenses is great and impressing I suppose to keep the camera market alive Canon will have to address people more that don't want to spend too much money but want more than the EOS M system. And we haven't seen much news there.


----------



## Bonich (Nov 25, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> I hope that patents like this is pointing towards more consumer/enthusiast focused products.
> Though the IQ and performance of L lenses is great and impressing I suppose to keep the camera market alive Canon will have to address people more that don't want to spend too much money but want more than the EOS M system. And we haven't seen much news there.


I'm still waiting for delivery of the RF16mm which I think is to dress those people.
More to come ....


----------



## Jethro (Nov 25, 2021)

I immediately thought 'APS-C RF kit lens' - but if so, it would say that the APS-C body is likely to be consumer grade rather than an R-series successor to the 7D. Still, I'm never sure what to read into patents.


----------



## RexxReviews (Nov 25, 2021)

Jethro said:


> I immediately thought 'APS-C RF kit lens' - but if so, it would say that the APS-C body is likely to be consumer grade rather than an R-series successor to the 7D. Still, I'm never sure what to read into patents.


I think thats what the 16mm is algo going to be geared towards. That 16mm on APC will be about 24mm... and I can tell you after filming with it in crop mode , which is 24mm that is the sweet spot for that lens. We also have now seen them drop the price of the 35mm to $399. The 16/35/50 all fit nicely into the APC-C RF platform. You can get all 4 of those for about $1000


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 26, 2021)

Jethro said:


> I immediately thought 'APS-C RF kit lens' - but if so, it would say that the APS-C body is likely to be consumer grade rather than an R-series successor to the 7D. Still, I'm never sure what to read into patents.


If Canon decides to go the APS-C R system route, I would think that there will be more than one body. I would think there first priority if they go Crop-R, would be an entry level camera to go for the next generation Rebel user. I think if that camera is a reasonable success, then they might consider a higher end model. I seriously doubt they would develop only one Crop-R camera for only the 7D users.

But, of course, I have no idea what Canon is considering.


----------



## esspy2 (Nov 26, 2021)

love the extended focal range for aps-c. although a minimum focal range tighter than 24mm is going to be a hard sell for vloggers


----------



## reefroamer (Nov 26, 2021)

Canon already has most everything in place they need to launch a crop sensor R camera: a solid lineup (and still growing) of outstanding RF L lenses, and very good/affordable non-L zooms from 24 to 400mm along wth affordable 16, 35, 50, 85, 600 and 800 mm primes. An RF 17-70 might be kit lens. The only thing I see missing is a superwide RF version of the very good and cheap EF-S 10-18. My guess is that we’ll see a Canon R crop sensor camera during 2022, beginning with something closer to an R6.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 26, 2021)

Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. It is good to distinguish themselves from other manufacturers like Sony. Unfortunately that is often leaving out the excellent mid-priced lenses often with either very fast, very high quality, but overpriced lenses or cheaper, lower resolution lens. Canon knows the market and what they are doing, but that leaves me stuck in he middle and I would think, a lot of serious but not professional photographers also stuck in the middle. I mean hell, there is the cheap 50 1.8 or 50 1.2. Just gimme a goddam quality 50mm lens like Nikon's 50 1.8. Then there is the issue of the R6. Yes, it is excellent, but for $100 more I could get a Nikon Z6II with 24-70 f/4. Canon has better focus and overall is better, but as one interested in landscape and general nature photography (I don't do video) I could give a rats ass about the better autofocus. I cringe when I see these reviewers running at you and darting from side to side to test the autofocus. To quote John Shaw in his book...John Shaw's Focus on Nature: "Not Once have my lenses gone out and taken a photograph." I don't intend on switching from Canon. It has served me extremely well and I am sure should I go to mirrorless I would still have equipment capable of excellent photos even going with the cheaper lenses, but won't settle for any lens numerically higher than f4, unless something like a 500mm f/5.6, but I won't hold my breath on that one.


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 26, 2021)

It's looks like Canon are using some more computational photography then the EF system (Vignetting, Distortion) with the entry level R lenses to keep lens sizes smaller and lighter.

Hopefully they will include a remote cable release port on an entry level APS-C R body unlike the M50, in my opinion the good old fashioned wired cable is just easier to use.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 26, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. [...]


Same here! It is always good to have (not too much) options - leave out the options not fitting your need.
I bought the EOS RP with the 1.8 35 IS MACRO two years ago and I must say, the this lens is a gorgeous package.
Hoped for a 1.4 (or 1.8) 50 IS MACRO but they gave us the non-IS non-MACRO ...
Hoped for a well corrected RF 2.8 16 but they gave us a fisheye lens defished in camera ...

I really like my (basic, simple) camera gear which gives me lots of options with all these great old(er) EF/EF-S lenses but I HATE, really HATE designing "bad" lenses and correct them in camera (that is JUST MY OWN OPINION).

For the 50mm IS MACRO lens: I use mainly my two M50s (maybe add a third one) and enjoy the 1.4 32 lens as "50mm replacement" without IS but with good close focus (60 x 90mm image field is close to 1:2 macro in FF).
For the 16mm 2.8 RF lens: I think strongly about buying an EF 4.0 16-35 IS for the 16mm option which is compatible to all my cameras. And it is open to video with maybe the EF-EOS R variable ND filter adapter or the focal reducer with the C70 if I need better video ...


----------



## i_SH (Nov 26, 2021)

Long ago, Canon would have ordered from Tamron those lenses that he produces for Sonya and Fuji, there would be no need to take a steam bath! What's wrong with, for example, 11-20 / 2.8, 17-70 / 2.8 and 18-300 / 3.5-6.3? For most amateurs, others are no longer needed!


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Nov 26, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> It's looks like Canon are using some more computational photography then the EF system (Vignetting, Distortion) with the entry level R lenses to keep lens sizes smaller and lighter.
> 
> Hopefully they will include a remote cable release port on an entry level APS-C R body unlike the M50, in my opinion the good old fashioned wired cable is just easier to use.


My thoughts also. I really like my EF 16-35 f4, but if I went to mirrorless I would use my lens even though it would take an adapter to do so. The reviews of the RF 14-35 were disappointing because of the the vignetting and distortion. Maybe using it and with the correction software, I would think differently. There again, starting from scratch, the Nikon 14-30 Z looks, at least on paper, more desirable.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 26, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. It is good to distinguish themselves from other manufacturers like Sony. Unfortunately that is often leaving out the excellent mid-priced lenses often with either very fast, very high quality, but overpriced lenses or cheaper, lower resolution lens. Canon knows the market and what they are doing, but that leaves me stuck in he middle and I would think, a lot of serious but not professional photographers also stuck in the middle. I mean hell, there is the cheap 50 1.8 or 50 1.2. Just gimme a goddam quality 50mm lens like Nikon's 50 1.8. Then there is the issue of the R6. Yes, it is excellent, but for $100 more I could get a Nikon Z6II with 24-70 f/4. Canon has better focus and overall is better, but as one interested in landscape and general nature photography (I don't do video) I could give a rats ass about the better autofocus. I cringe when I see these reviewers running at you and darting from side to side to test the autofocus. To quote John Shaw in his book...John Shaw's Focus on Nature: "Not Once have my lenses gone out and taken a photograph." I don't intend on switching from Canon. It has served me extremely well and I am sure should I go to mirrorless I would still have equipment capable of excellent photos even going with the cheaper lenses, but won't settle for any lens numerically higher than f4, unless something like a 500mm f/5.6, but I won't hold my breath on that one.


If your primary interest is landscape and you aren't concerned about AF, then you should probably be looking at - and comparing - the Canon R, not the R6, to the Nikon Z6. But I understand your thoughts. Earlier this year, I switched to Nikon because their mirrorless cameras seemed a much better deal. The Z5, in fact, would be great choice for anyone on a budget as it has pretty much everything the Z6 does. I bought mine for $899 refurbished. The Nikon Z lenses I bought were fantastic. Dare I say, as goor or even better than similar Canon offerings - but also quite expensive. For the money, if you don't need the high FPS and the more sophisticated AF that Canon offers with their latest mirrorless cameras, Nikon seems a great bargain. Their 14-30mm f/4 is a very good lens, equal in quality and slightly wider than the Canon 16-35 f/4, but why spend over $1000 to switch if you already have the Canon?

Alas, after 25 years or so shooting Canon, I ended up switching back to Canon and did buy an R6 about a month ago. I came back for the Canon color. I know many folks don't notice, or don't care, or might even like the Nikon colors better, but I did not. But if that was not an issue, I would have had no problem saying bye to Canon and going with Nikon for the foreseeable future. They make excellent cameras and lenses as far as I can tell.

One advantage to sticking with Canon , however, would be that you don't need to buy any RF lenses. Since you don't seem to be satisfied with what is offered so far, just use the EF lenses you have now - or even buy additional EF lenses used for relatively inexpensive. If , as you say, you won't buy any lenses slower than f/4, however, I think you are going to find mirrorless lenses in that category are going to be in whatever systems "pro" category and expensive.


----------



## RexxReviews (Nov 26, 2021)

esspy2 said:


> love the extended focal range for aps-c. although a minimum focal range tighter than 24mm is going to be a hard sell for vloggers


Thats why the 16mm came out. Ive said in a few different post here when the 16mm came out that canon was gearing it towards the unreleased APS-C body. They want to have a nice assortment of cheap lenses ready to go when that body hits the shelves.


----------



## AJ (Nov 26, 2021)

I hope that this isn't a kit lens for APSC. Trying to use FF ultrawides as crop standard lenses reminds me of 2006 or thereabouts when people were buying 17-40/4L lenses for their 300Ds and 20Ds. I thought we were past that.
I think this would be a cool walk-around lens for cityscapes and such.


----------



## entoman (Nov 26, 2021)

17-70mm on APS-C would be equivalent to 28-112mm on full frame, which is a slightly odd and unexpected range.

For APS-C I would have expected either 17-85mm (circa 28-135mm on FF), or 15-65mm (circa 24-105mm on FF).

So I think this formula is more likely to be a compact budget full frame lens, a contender for a new ultra-cheap FF model below the RP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2021)

I’m picturing this as an L lens, like a 24-70/4 where you get 7mm on the wide end but give up a stop on the long end. Sort of like the 28-70/2 gains a stop but gives up 4mm on the wide end. 

AFAIK, the only lenses so far with a BR elements are L (EF 35/1.4L II and both RF 85/1.2L).


----------



## entoman (Nov 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m picturing this as an L lens, like a 24-70/4 where you get 7mm on the wide end but give up a stop on the long end. Sort of like the 28-70/2 gains a stop but gives up 4mm on the wide end.
> 
> AFAIK, the only lenses so far with a BR elements are L (EF 35/1.4L II and both RF 85/1.2L).


With a maximum aperture of F4-5.6, and considering the focal length range, I can't honestly see this being an L lens, but I agree that the use of a highly specialised BR element does reduce the likelihood of it being a budget lens.

However, the current trend with Canon is to expand their range of small aperture lower-cost lenses, as per 600/F11, 800/F11, 100-400/F5.6-8, and I expect further lenses in this category to be added, especially if they have a mind (as you've suggested in the past) to bang out a really cheap entry-level FF body.

One thing for sure, as demonstrated by the dual fish-eye, is that Canon are thinking outside the box and testing the market with non-traditional lens designs.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 27, 2021)

Had to look up Canon's website for more info on BR lens elements.

It's worth taking a look at their web page, which shows how effectively the BR lens reduces CA in the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM compared to the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM









BR Lens


Canon has developed BR optics, delivering anomalous dispersion characteristics equal to or surpassing fluorite.




hk.canon





_"This color fringing – called chromatic aberration – has long been the Achilles heel of lens performance. As part of ongoing efforts to correct chromatic aberration, Canon successively developed and implemented fluorite, UD, and Super UD lenses. Now, aiming to achieve ideal correction of chromatic aberration, Canon has developed BR (Blue Spectrum Refractive) optics, delivering anomalous dispersion characteristics equal to or surpassing fluorite."







"BR optics is based on a new organic optical material, developed by reexamining lens material from its molecular structure. This new lens material features unique anomalous dispersion characteristics that are capable of greatly refracting blue light (short wavelengths spectrum), which has traditionally been difficult to focus on a single point."_

The second paragraph includes an interesting point _"BR optics is based on a new organic optical material"_, which is a fancy way of saying that they're using an optical plastic lens element, that they've sandwiched between two glass elements.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 27, 2021)

BR elements are brilliant but it also makes this lens sound expensive if it comes to market. The difference between the already excellent 35mm f/1.4 L II and the 35mm f/1.4 L II was noticeable in many lighting situations. Its the one Canon lens I kept after going mirrorless. Software can do a lot but nothing beats a clean RAW file.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 27, 2021)

Fischer said:


> BR elements are brilliant but it also makes this lens sound expensive if it comes to market. The difference between the already excellent 35mm f/1.4 L II and the 35mm f/1.4 L II was noticeable in many lighting situations. Its the one Canon lens I kept after going mirrorless. Software can do a lot but nothing beats a clean RAW file.


If the BR lens only fixes CA, and the design requires image stretching from 17mm to about 28mm, are we looking at another heavily distorted lens with an extended focal range, that requires heavy software correction, like the RF 24-240mm? 

Welcome to Canon's brave new world!


----------



## Joules (Nov 27, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> _ The _second paragraph includes an interesting point _"BR optics is based on a new organic optical material"_, which is a fancy way of saying that they're using an optical plastic lens element, that they've sandwiched between two glass elements.


I recall seeing the fantastic nickname 'the blue goo' being given to the BR material by a few forum members for that reason 


LogicExtremist said:


> If the BR lens only fixes CA, and the design requires image stretching from 17mm to about 28mm, are we looking at another heavily distorted lens with an extended focal range, that requires heavy software correction, like the RF 24-240mm?
> 
> Welcome to Canon's brave new world!


It isn't necessarily a distorted image though. The wording is a bit confusing perhaps, but the remark about 28 mm isn't saying that the 17 mm setting requires stretching ro a 28 mm field of view. 

As the patent shows, the image circle doesn't cover a FF sensor until the lens is zoomed to about 28 mm. So the image will have black corners at wider than 28 mm on a FF sensor. But we can't really know what that means in terms of distortion yet.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Had to look up Canon's website for more info on BR lens elements.
> 
> It's worth taking a look at their web page, which shows how effectively the BR lens reduces CA in the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM compared to the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
> 
> ...


That write up by Canon's marketing is scientific nonsense. It claims that blue light is more difficult to refract than red, which is the wrong way round. Shorter wavelengths have higher refractive indexes than longer wavelengths.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That write up by Canon's marketing is scientific nonsense. It claims that blue light is more difficult to refract than red, which is the wrong way round. Shorter wavelengths have higher refractive indexes than longer wavelengths.


What they probably meant was that index of refraction varies with wavelength, and is usually higher for blue than red, so blue light bends more.

Conversely, when focussing light on a sensor, the diffraction limit, the smallest theoretical spot which can be created by a lens, is dependent on wavelength: Minimum Spot Size(Airy Disk Diameter)[μm]=2.44×λ[μm]×(f/#), which tells us it's easier to get a small circle of blue light than red light at the same aperture.

I don't understand enough about optics to determine which for of chromatic aberrations this is meant to correct, is it just lateral color shift, or is it chromatic focal shift as well? They really could explain thing better.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> If the BR lens only fixes CA, and the design requires image stretching from 17mm to about 28mm, are we looking at another heavily distorted lens with an extended focal range, that requires heavy software correction, like the RF 24-240mm?
> 
> Welcome to Canon's brave new world!


Maybe. But those are other issues. BR helps with CA which is a big thing - esspecially for wide lenses.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Maybe. But those are other issues. BR helps with CA which is a big thing - especially for wide lenses.


The difference that the BR lens makes on the 35mm f/1.4 L II is pretty amazing. 

We'll have to wait and see what this lens have to offer, and what it reveals about Canon's future direction. I've seen a few mentions of this lens and the RF 16mm f/2 as decent APSC lenses if that ever happens.


----------



## Alam (Nov 28, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. It is good to distinguish themselves from other manufacturers like Sony. Unfortunately that is often leaving out the excellent mid-priced lenses often with either very fast, very high quality, but overpriced lenses or cheaper, lower resolution lens. Canon knows the market and what they are doing, but that leaves me stuck in he middle and I would think, a lot of serious but not professional photographers also stuck in the middle. I mean hell, there is the cheap 50 1.8 or 50 1.2. Just gimme a goddam quality 50mm lens like Nikon's 50 1.8. Then there is the issue of the R6. Yes, it is excellent, but for $100 more I could get a Nikon Z6II with 24-70 f/4. Canon has better focus and overall is better, but as one interested in landscape and general nature photography (I don't do video) I could give a rats ass about the better autofocus. I cringe when I see these reviewers running at you and darting from side to side to test the autofocus. To quote John Shaw in his book...John Shaw's Focus on Nature: "Not Once have my lenses gone out and taken a photograph." I don't intend on switching from Canon. It has served me extremely well and I am sure should I go to mirrorless I would still have equipment capable of excellent photos even going with the cheaper lenses, but won't settle for any lens numerically higher than f4, unless something like a 500mm f/5.6, but I won't hold my breath on that one.


Nah. Imho go cheap and compact or go super expensive

Mid range leave the taste of "if only i spend more"

There's a reason to keep cheap compact and top of the line, grab the cheap for casual and grab the flagship for serious work

In the other hand, there's no reason to have both mid range with top of the line or cheap compact, the benefit is too low


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

Alam said:


> Nah. Imho go cheap and compact or go super expensive
> 
> Mid range leave the taste of "if only i spend more"
> 
> ...


Perhaps Canon's biggest markets are beginners who buy lower-tier Rebel DSLRs and M50s, and retired old men who buy all the latest and greatest top-tier stuff often. It could be that the mid-tier enthusiast/prosumer market is not big enough to be a priority. Could this be how Canon is planning to rationalise their product lines? 

We do know while the RF L-series lenses are replacing their EF counterparts, no surprises there. If the budget RF lenses are replacing both the old APSC lenses, and the various tiers of regular EF lenses, this will result in a drastically rationalised two-tier system, where the choice is either go budget, or pay the big money and go pro. Pure speculation, but food for thought nevertheless.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 28, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> It's looks like Canon are using some more computational photography then the EF system (Vignetting, Distortion) with the entry level R lenses to keep lens sizes smaller and lighter.
> 
> Hopefully they will include a remote cable release port on an entry level APS-C R body unlike the M50, in my opinion the good old fashioned wired cable is just easier to use.


I'm wondering if this is the first in a series of lenses for APSc, but which also work on FF as entry level offerings? There has been much talk of RF-s lenses and how unlikely it is that Canon will go that route. And there have been a number of patents that have lenses that just don't quite make a FF image circle, but get close. While they would require stretching on a FF sensor, they'd be fine on a crop. So they could be sold to owners of both body types. And if you bought one as a kit with your APSc body, it would work with your R5 or R6 when you upgrade. 

Brian


----------



## SteveC (Nov 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Perhaps Canon's biggest markets are beginners who buy lower-tier Rebel DSLRs and M50s, and retired old men who buy all the latest and greatest top-tier stuff often. It could be that the mid-tier enthusiast/prosumer market is not big enough to be a priority. Could this be how Canon is planning to rationalise their product lines?
> 
> We do know while the RF L-series lenses are replacing their EF counterparts, no surprises there. If the budget RF lenses are replacing both the old APSC lenses, and the various tiers of regular EF lenses, this will result in a drastically rationalised two-tier system, where the choice is either go budget, or pay the big money and go pro. Pure speculation, but food for thought nevertheless.



I think it's simpler and perhaps subtler than that.

Imagine you're trying to create a new (but backward compatible) system. The first thing you're going to want to do is show off its capabilities. So you'll produce high end lenses.

As you want to expand your line of lenses you're going to want lenses as different as can be from the ones already there; those will by their nature pull in more new people than ones similar to what's already there.

The maximum difference is the low end, since the high end is covered.

Only later do you fill in the wide gap between the two. We're not at this step yet.


----------



## Alam (Nov 30, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Perhaps Canon's biggest markets are beginners who buy lower-tier Rebel DSLRs and M50s, and retired old men who buy all the latest and greatest top-tier stuff often. It could be that the mid-tier enthusiast/prosumer market is not big enough to be a priority. Could this be how Canon is planning to rationalise their product lines?
> 
> We do know while the RF L-series lenses are replacing their EF counterparts, no surprises there. If the budget RF lenses are replacing both the old APSC lenses, and the various tiers of regular EF lenses, this will result in a drastically rationalised two-tier system, where the choice is either go budget, or pay the big money and go pro. Pure speculation, but food for thought nevertheless.


Well, IMHO prosumers aren't as big as we thought they are, but they are loud in the internet

Most photog i know make a living with rebels, nikon 3xxx sony a6000 and nifty fifty, especially with how good editing software now the difference between mid and low gear is tiny


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 30, 2021)

Alam said:


> Well, IMHO prosumers aren't as big as we thought they are, but they are loud in the internet
> 
> Most photog i know make a living with rebels, nikon 3xxx sony a6000 and nifty fifty, especially with how good editing software now the difference between mid and low gear is tiny


There may be an element of an uncomfortable truth in what you're saying, maybe mid-tier prosumers are a vocal minority! 
Without seeing a breakdown of Canon's sales stats, can't say for sure, but someone here is probably resourceful enough to find that sort of data.


----------



## Alam (Nov 30, 2021)

"WDemand drop as price rises, and demand rises as price drops"

That's already a Law in economy 

"With X factor taken out, this law is unquestionable"

That's how the chinese rule the market nowadays


----------



## Kit. (Nov 30, 2021)

Alam said:


> "WDemand drop as price rises, and demand rises as price drops"
> 
> That's already a Law in economy
> 
> ...


Actually, when all the factors other than price are irrelevant, the good is a Veblen good and the law doesn't work.


----------

