# Canon has registered two unreleased lenses with certification agencies



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 25, 2021)

> Canon has registered two new lenses with Russian certification authorities. Back in October within their third-quarter financials, Canon did mention two more RF mount lenses coming this year. With 2021 ending in a week or so, these two lenses may be coming in January instead.
> The registered lenses have the following model numbers
> 
> 5055C005
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2021)

The 3Q financials stated they planned to have 26 lenses by the end of the year. They have 26 lenses now.




Canon counts extenders as lenses, if you’re not counting them that would explain the discrepancy between your count and theirs.


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 25, 2021)

Here's hoping it's the RF24mm f1.8 macro and the 35mm f1.2L prime. Both would be excellent additions to the lineup. 

For once in my life, I'm really loving the cheap non-L series primes. After getting the RF 35mm 1.8, I realized how nice it is having some cheap and light primes for casual shooting with the family or on travel. At $300-400, it barely costs me anything to get them, and not everything needs to be my big and heavy L-series zooms. 

That said, I could also see it being the pair of autofocus tilt shift lenses, though I don't think that would make much sense to announce near/alongside a cinema camera.


----------



## jvillain (Dec 25, 2021)

Good point about them possibly being Cine lenses. With more Canon cinema cameras going RF they need to build out that side of the equation. Then again they could be industrial lenses for all we know.


----------



## jam05 (Dec 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 3Q financials stated they planned to have 26 lenses by the end of the year. They have 26 lenses now.
> 
> View attachment 201799
> 
> ...


Why would extenders need certification?


----------



## entoman (Dec 25, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Here's hoping it's the RF24mm f1.8 macro and the 35mm f1.2L prime. Both would be excellent additions to the lineup.
> 
> For once in my life, I'm really loving the cheap non-L series primes. After getting the RF 35mm 1.8, I realized how nice it is having some cheap and light primes for casual shooting with the family or on travel. At $300-400, it barely costs me anything to get them, and not everything needs to be my big and heavy L-series zooms.
> 
> That said, I could also see it being the pair of autofocus tilt shift lenses, though I don't think that would make much sense to announce near/alongside a cinema camera.


Yes, the "budget" non-L lenses are optically more than good enough for most usage, and although the specifications (max aperture, lack of weather-sealing) are inferior to L glass, they are remarkably affordable, and very light and compact. I have the RF800 and RF600, both of which are excellent birding lenses, and the macros are also very good, although limited to 1:2 scale.

It would for me be great if some more non-L lenses were added to the range - I'd love to have a light and compact 180mm F5.6 stabilised AF macro (1:1) similar to the one made many years ago by Sigma, but I'm probably dreaming...

... and my guess is that both of the newly certified lenses will be high end L primes - most likely the 500mm F4 and a wide-aperture wide-angle.

Now, if I was a rich man, I'd probably get every single lens that Canon makes.... how nice it would be to be able to choose from all of them.

New bodies are nice, but extra lenses open more doors to creativity.


----------



## lnz (Dec 25, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I'm waiting only one lense : 10-24 f4


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 26, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Here's hoping it's the RF24mm f1.8 macro and the 35mm f1.2L prime. Both would be excellent additions to the lineup.
> 
> For once in my life, I'm really loving the cheap non-L series primes. After getting the RF 35mm 1.8, I realized how nice it is having some cheap and light primes for casual shooting with the family or on travel. At $300-400, it barely costs me anything to get them, and not everything needs to be my big and heavy L-series zooms.
> 
> That said, I could also see it being the pair of autofocus tilt shift lenses, though I don't think that would make much sense to announce near/alongside a cinema camera.



That sounds like a good guess to me. If we're considering these as two lenses that were supposed to come out this year that are getting pushed back because of all the manufacturing issues that have been plaguing so many industries.

For 2021 they released: 

RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM - 1.4× maximum magnification
RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM
RF600mm F4 L IS USM
RF14–35mm F4 L IS USM
RF16mm F2.8 STM
RF100–400mm F5.6–8 IS USM
RF5.2mm F2.8 L Dual Fisheye
Of the two, the 24 1.8 seems the most likely. It would complete the set of non-L primes from 16 to 85, which sounds like something they'd want to do to be set for the Year of the Camera Body which includes successors to the cheaper end R and and RP. The 35 1.4L would "balance" out the releases of the year and help to fill out the L primes, also in prep for the Year of the Camera Body.

It could be the two auto-focus tilt shift lenses, but I feel like the 5.2mm Dual Fisheye is the niche/unique/statement lens for 2021 and they'd want the tilt-shift lenses in a separate year (still assuming this lenses were supposed to be part of 2021 and just got delayed.) 

The only other combo from the roadmap I can see that makes sense would be the 24 1.8 STM, and the 18-45 STM if they're also announcing the APS-C body to be its kit lens.

None of the other lenses in the roadmap make sense, imo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Why would extenders need certification?


The point is that CRguy counted 24 lenses and is suggesting that Canon’s statement that they’ll have 26 lenses by year’s end means two more are coming. But, Canon considers extenders to be lenses so by Canon’s count they’ve met their goal and have 26 lenses already.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 26, 2021)

Hoping very much for a 35/1.2 L!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 26, 2021)

Im hoping they bring out a RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM and an RF 35mm f1.4L IS USM


----------



## MartinVLC (Dec 26, 2021)

I´m hoping for the affordable and compact 28-70mm f/2.8 that was rumored earlier this year. Canon has put out nice affordable primes, but not a single affordable fast zoom.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 26, 2021)

If the lenses mentioned are neither:
RF TSE 14mm
RF 180mm macro:
I'll jump ship!

Edit: Or wait...


----------



## canonmike (Dec 26, 2021)

lnz said:


> I'm waiting only one lense : 10-24 f4


Concur, wholeheartedly. Bring this lens on......


----------



## RexxReviews (Dec 26, 2021)

Dont forget about the Canon RF 17-70mm f/4-5.6 BR that was just leaked here a few weeks ago.


----------



## entoman (Dec 26, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> If the lenses mentioned are neither:
> RF TSE 14mm
> RF 180mm macro:
> I'll jump ship!
> ...


Unfortunately I think you (and I) will be waiting a long time, maybe 3 or 4 years, before a stabilised 180mm macro appears.

The old EF 180mm macro is my favourite lens. Fortunately, since the latest R5 firmware update, it has become a lot more usable. The update has improved the effectiveness of IBIS with this lens by about a stop. But I'd still jump at the chance to have an improved version, with optical stabilisation. I don't really see a need for a macro to have an aperture wider than F5.6, so the lens could be made a lot smaller and lighter than the F3.5 model. My ancient Sigma 180mm F5.6 AF macro was half the length of the Canon, and a third of the weight...


----------



## roby17269 (Dec 26, 2021)

Here's to hoping for a 35mm f/1.2L 
... and for a fast 135mm L and new RF TS lenses.
But the 35mm comes first!

C'mon Canon!


----------



## entoman (Dec 26, 2021)

Strange that the certification actually lists 3 lenses, the other being named in full as the old EF 100mm macro, which was released a long time ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2021)

Lots of nice wishes. Me ol’ Irish Da used to say, “Wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.”

In addition to this thread being based on a miscount of available lenses (there are already the 26 RF lenses Csnon said there would be), CRguy said something of significance:


Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The registered lenses have the following model numbers
> 
> 5055C005
> 5056C005
> ...



The reference is to the fact that such sequential model numbers are generally assigned to a lens released in multiple colors. Perhaps this is an updated EF-M kit lens in black and white versions. As a reminder, one was patented a while back:









Patent: Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM II


Canon continues to submit patent applications for an improved EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. The current version is inconsistent at best, some people get a grea



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## entoman (Dec 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lots of nice wishes. Me ol’ Irish Da used to say, “Wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.”
> 
> In addition to this thread being based on a miscount of available lenses (there are already the 26 RF lenses Csnon said there would be), CRguy said something of significance:
> 
> ...


The inclusion of the old EF 100mm macro in the certification, which everyone else seems to have overlooked, certainly points to an erroneous conclusion by CRGuy. Why on Earth would a 12 year old EF lens appear in the same certification document as 2 brand new unreleased models? Is it 1st April or what? I'm pretty confident that the 2 code-named lenses are models that have been in production for many years, and someone somewhere has cocked up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> I'm pretty confident that the 2 code-named lenses are models that have been in production for many years, and someone somewhere has cocked up.


I don’t think so. The new SKUs are not for existing products. For example, Google “5554C002” and see what you get. Then try that with the new SKUs (you’ll get this thread and it’s clones, but no products and if you restrict to site:canon.com you get nothing).

So there are two new lenses coming. I just think they’re not going to be any of the ones people here are wishing for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> Why on Earth would a 12 year old EF lens appear in the same certification document as 2 brand new unreleased models? Is it 1st April or what?


I can’t speak for Russia, but in the US the Consumer Product Safety Commission states, “Any material changes, such as changing the paint, metal, fabrics, or other items used to manufacture a product or changing the product's design or manufacturing process, for example, could render the product noncompliant. In that situation, you should retest for compliance to those rules affected by the material change. You may also need to update your GCC.”

So a small change in the manufacturing process for an old lens, e.g., a new paint formula, may necessitate a re-certification.


----------



## entoman (Dec 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t think so. The new SKUs are not for existing products. For example, Google “5554C002” and see what you get. Then try that with the new SKUs (you’ll get this thread and it’s clones, but no products and if you restrict to site:canon.com you get nothing).
> 
> So there are two new lenses coming. I just think they’re not going to be any of the ones people here are wishing for.


You seem to be contradicting what you said in your other post regarding new paint on an old lens. Are you defining a lens as being "new" if it's just a change of paint colour? My guess is that the code-named lenses are simply old models that have had a very minor cosmetic revamp, or maybe some minor parts of the existing lens are now unavailable and had to be replaced with new parts and recertified - could even be something as trivial as a different focus-ring rubber.

What really puzzles me though, is why the old EF 100mm macro appears in the same certification. If that lens also has to be recertified because of a minor component being no longer available, why wasn't that lens given a new codename too?


----------



## AJ (Dec 26, 2021)

I'm wondering about RF 18-45/4-5.6 IS STM and 24/1.8 IS macro


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 26, 2021)

If it's two versions of the same lens, then a black and silver (or white) version of the RF 18-45 is STM makes sense alongside black and silver (or white) version of the APS-C body.

Kick off the RF Rebel or SL line with two colors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> You seem to be contradicting what you said in your other post regarding new paint on an old lens. Are you defining a lens as being "new" if it's just a change of paint colour?


No, I’m not contradicting myself. These are two new SKUs, meaning two new lenses. The sequential numbers is consistent with them being two different colors of the same new lens. That suggests an M-series kit lens 



entoman said:


> My guess is that the code-named lenses are simply old models that have had a very minor cosmetic revamp, or maybe some minor parts of the existing lens are now unavailable and had to be replaced with new parts and recertified - could even be something as trivial as a different focus-ring rubber.


They are new SKUs, so they are new lenses. 



entoman said:


> What really puzzles me though, is why the old EF 100mm macro appears in the same certification. If that lens also has to be recertified because of a minor component being no longer available, why wasn't that lens given a new codename too?


Because it’s not a new lens, it doesn’t get a new SKU. But a change in the production process may mean a new certification is needed.


----------



## Shane (Dec 26, 2021)

I love the 35 1.8 but would welcome a faster 35L. I really rally want to see a fast 135L. There were rumors of a 135 f1.4L. That would make my day!


----------



## entoman (Dec 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, I’m not contradicting myself. These are two new SKUs, meaning two new lenses. The sequential numbers is consistent with them being two different colors of the same new lens. That suggests an M-series kit lens
> 
> 
> They are new SKUs, so they are new lenses.
> ...


OK I'm with you now, I thought you were suggesting that there were 2 new colour versions of an existing M lens, but you are talking about a completely new M kit lens in 2 colour versions. That's a logical enough conclusion based on the SKU's, but I would have thought that there were enough lenses for the M series already (for the market they are aimed at), so I'd think it more likely that this is a pair of small (pancake?) kit lenses designed specifically for the smaller RF cameras (RP and future models below it).


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 26, 2021)

Since we're all guessing anyway... the 14TS & 24TS were on the rumor roadmap for a while now so perhaps these?


----------



## R Ramina (Dec 26, 2021)

Me too...


----------



## mxwphoto (Dec 26, 2021)

If it is M kit lenses, then it would come with a new M body, exciting! On the other hand, it could also be a RF kit for a new rp/rebel, which wouldn't be bad either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> OK I'm with you now, I thought you were suggesting that there were 2 new colour versions of an existing M lens, but you are talking about a completely new M kit lens in 2 colour versions. That's a logical enough conclusion based on the SKU's, but I would have thought that there were enough lenses for the M series already (for the market they are aimed at), so I'd think it more likely that this is a pair of small (pancake?) kit lenses designed specifically for the smaller RF cameras (RP and future models below it).


My suggestion was a replacement kit lens, e.g. an EF-M 15-45 MkII (I posted a link to a patent for one). Keep in mind there were _many_ iterations of the APS-C DSLR 18-55mm, and the M15-45 replaced the M18-55.

The RF 24-105 is pretty compact. You seem to be suggesting EOS R-series bodies/lenses appealing to the same market as the M-series. I’m not sure we’re going to see than happen.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 27, 2021)

I wouldn’t discount the possibility that a couple of the remaining big whites may be pending. Canon held off on releasing new EF versions which could mean they have had the designs essentially done and have been waiting for the right time. With the R3 hitting the market and the Winter Olympics coming up they may want to expand the range of RF big whites.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The RF 24-105 is pretty compact. You seem to be suggesting EOS R-series bodies/lenses appealing to the same market as the M-series. I’m not sure we’re going to see than happen.


I've got the RF 24-105mm F4L and yes it's more compact than the EF version, but still a bit large when attached to a small RP body.

As you know, I admire the M series and think they are great for people who want something pocketable and are happy with a limited choice of lenses. I don't see any possibility of Canon discontinuing such a successful line for some time yet. But ultimately I think they'd like to amalgamate the M and RF lines by switching all their MILCs to RF mount. I think it's perfectly feasible to produce a pocketable (APS-C) MILC with RF mount, at a price competitive with the M series, and aimed at the same market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've got the RF 24-105mm F4L and yes it's more compact than the EF version, but still a bit large when attached to a small RP body.


Sorry for not being clear, we were talking entry-level kit lenses and I was referring to the RF 24-105 non-L.






entoman said:


> As you know, I admire the M series and think they are great for people who want something pocketable and are happy with a limited choice of lenses. I don't see any possibility of Canon discontinuing such a successful line for some time yet. But ultimately I think they'd like to amalgamate the M and RF lines by switching all their MILCs to RF mount. I think it's perfectly feasible to produce a pocketable (APS-C) MILC with RF mount, at a price competitive with the M series, and aimed at the same market.


Possibly. However, I think the RF mount is simply too large. The RF mount cap is as tall as my EOS M6.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 27, 2021)

The RF mount might be too big for the M6 body, but the question is how small of a body can Canon make with the RF mount, and is it small enough for the target market even if it's larger than the M6.

I think Canon will certainly attempt to find out. And as soon as it seems possible, if it turns out that way, they'll drop the M line as fast as they dropped the EF mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> …as fast as they dropped the EF mount.


Yes, Canon has only produced well over a million EF mount cameras this year. Total abandonment.


----------



## dcm (Dec 27, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> The RF mount might be too big for the M6 body, but the question is how small of a body can Canon make with the RF mount, and is it small enough for the target market even if it's larger than the M6.
> 
> I think Canon will certainly attempt to find out. And as soon as it seems possible, if it turns out that way, they'll drop the M line as fast as they dropped the EF mount.



I looked into this a while back. The RP (132 x 85 x 70) is about as small as you can go with a viewfinder. The RP has similar margins (space above, below, left, and right) around the lens as the M6 (119.6 x 70 x 49.2) does. Most of my EF lenses overwhelm the M6. They could shave a bit off the top if they eliminate the viewfinder, but the width is necessary for a grip to hold the body with an attached lens and have some form of lens release mechanism. 

The EOS M50 (116 x 88.1 x 58.7) is actually a bit larger than the M6. The M100/200 (108 x 67 x 35) are slightly smaller with very small margins around the mount. I doubt an R mount body can go that small.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, Canon has only produced well over a million EF mount cameras this year. Total abandonment.


"Fast as" doesn't mean instant abandonment. However, as soon as it was clear the RF line was succeeded, they did a mass announcement of newly discontinued lenses.

Which doesn't mean there won't be a sufficient amount of years to support the products that people bought, but it's clear they wont be producing more EF lenses or release new bodies. 

They will drop the EF-M mount as fast as the EF mount, meaning still years of overlap and sufficient product support but clear sign of transitioning.


----------



## dcm (Dec 27, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> "Fast as" doesn't mean instant abandonment. However, as soon as it was clear the RF line was succeeded, they did a mass announcement of newly discontinued lenses.
> 
> Which doesn't mean there won't be a sufficient amount of years to support the products that people bought, but it's clear they wont be producing more EF lenses or release new bodies.
> 
> They will drop the EF-M mount as fast as the EF mount, meaning still years of overlap and sufficient product support but clear sign of transitioning.



It might be better to clarify what you mean by "drop". It really happens in stages, some of which can be many years apart. Cease new product development? Cease manufacturing? Cease sales? Cease support? 

Canon continued to manufacture, sell, and support film bodies long after they ceased new product development. For example, Canon released the EOS-1v in 2000, ceased manufacturing in 2010, ceased to sell the EOS-1v in 2018, and will repair them until 2025 as long as parts remain. The last SLR film bodies were released in 2004, with a few SureShot film bodies in 2005. Canon ceased to sell most film bodies in 2008.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> "Fast as" doesn't mean instant abandonment. However, as soon as it was clear the RF line was succeeded, they did a mass announcement of newly discontinued lenses.


Canon stated:

_“Canon has around 80 lens options for creators to choose from – only 22 of which are RF at this time. Over the past two years, we’ve been focused on building out our range of RF lenses to expand the creative possibilities of our R-System consumers, however our commitment to supporting our EF lens range is unwavering. It’s true, Canon has recently discontinued select EF lenses in our range, however this is a process of series optimization, not an indication of us abandoning EF lenses. Lenses that have been recently discontinued are lenses that have multiple versions available; comprise technology that’s been superseded by other available options; or, are low volume lenses. There are still many options for creators to choose from in our EF range, while our RF range continues to expand.”_



PhotoGenerous said:


> Which doesn't mean there won't be a sufficient amount of years to support the products that people bought, but it's clear they wont be producing more EF lenses or release new bodies.


EF lenses are still being produced. 



PhotoGenerous said:


> They will drop the EF-M mount as fast as the EF mount, meaning still years of overlap and sufficient product support but clear sign of transitioning.


They haven’t dropped either mount.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 28, 2021)

dcm said:


> I looked into this a while back. The RP (132 x 85 x 70) is about as small as you can go with a viewfinder. The RP has similar margins (space above, below, left, and right) around the lens as the M6 (119.6 x 70 x 49.2) does. Most of my EF lenses overwhelm the M6. They could shave a bit off the top if they eliminate the viewfinder, but the width is necessary for a grip to hold the body with an attached lens and have some form of lens release mechanism.
> 
> The EOS M50 (116 x 88.1 x 58.7) is actually a bit larger than the M6. The M100/200 (108 x 67 x 35) are slightly smaller with very small margins around the mount. I doubt an R mount body can go that small.


The RP and M50 are two bodies that I don't have to really understand what those dimensions mean in my hand.

For sure they would remove the EVF if trying for smallest possible body. But I know nothing about camera internals. Would going with the APS-C sensor size make any difference despite the actual mount still being RF? 

(As for EF lenses on the M6, I know what you mean. The 135mm 2.8 softfocus lens actually feels really great on the EF-M mount and is pretty much the exact width as the adapter, but it's too long of a focal length to be everyday usable for me. However, I just picked up the EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 for my M6II and it's a beautiful fit in terms of size and weight and with a great focal range and speed.)


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon stated:
> 
> _“Canon has around 80 lens options for creators to choose from – only 22 of which are RF at this time. Over the past two years, we’ve been focused on building out our range of RF lenses to expand the creative possibilities of our R-System consumers, however our commitment to supporting our EF lens range is unwavering. It’s true, Canon has recently discontinued select EF lenses in our range, however this is a process of series optimization, not an indication of us abandoning EF lenses. Lenses that have been recently discontinued are lenses that have multiple versions available; comprise technology that’s been superseded by other available options; or, are low volume lenses. There are still many options for creators to choose from in our EF range, while our RF range continues to expand.”_
> 
> ...


Poor word choice again. There was a mass discontinuation of EF lenses, but not a total discontinuation. EF lenses are still being manufactuered/produced. However, new EF lenses are not going to be developed (produced as I was thinking, but wasn't a specific enough term). And there will be no 5DV, 7DIII, EF Rebel, etc.

As for Canon's quote. That doesn't really change what I said either way. But to address it, while Canon's statement is mostly a series of factual statements, "_There are still many options for creators to choose from in our EF range, while our RF range continues to expand" _is the main takeaway. Meaning, what you see is what you get with EF now. We'll still sell it if you're buying it, but only expect more RF from this point on.

If Canon can make something small enough with an RF mount to appeal to the EF-M consumer base, I expect the same of the EF-M mount. They will continue to sell current models as long as people are buying it, but it will be phased in a similar manner. There might be one more body in this coming Year of the Camera Body while they're still not sure if they can pull it off, but if there is an RF body in this coming Year of the Camera Body that will push how small they can go and test the waters now that they have nearly a full line up of smaller, non-L RF primes and a perfect APS-C kit general zoom lens in the roadmap, then I think that's the sign that EF-M has reached its end stages.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 28, 2021)

I'm putting money on these things costing about two grand each.

The R6 is almost 3 Grand with tax (us), what's another 4 grand for lenses


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I can’t speak for Russia, but in the US the Consumer Product Safety Commission states, “Any material changes, such as changing the paint, metal, fabrics, or other items used to manufacture a product or changing the product's design or manufacturing process, for example, could render the product noncompliant. In that situation, you should retest for compliance to those rules affected by the material change. You may also need to update your GCC.”
> 
> So a small change in the manufacturing process for an old lens, e.g., a new paint formula, may necessitate a re-certification.



We see this happen on the Russian and some other international regulator sites. Singapore comes to mind. You'll see some strangely-old lens newly-registered. I've always assumed that it was because that lens happened to have not been released in that country for some reason previously, but I'm not sure. All I can tell you is that it's more normal than many assume. And, yes, we've seen product codes mixed in with older lenses before within a single registration entry. Sometimes rumor sites even get ahead of themselves and wrongly assume that because it's a product number and not a lens name, it's a new lens. That doesn't appear to be the case here. 

The particular database that this Russian registration appeared in focuses primarily on devices that emit or detect RF (not that RF) transmissions. The Russians are really quite attentive when it comes to that sort of thing. A random factoid from someone who's been watching these for a while: Canon lenses are registered by different entities. Sometimes it's Canon, and sometimes it's an importer, and sometimes it appears to be some sort of registration service or law firm. I've always wondered at the inconsistency.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> The particular database that this Russian registration appeared in focuses primarily on devices that emit or detect RF (not that RF) transmissions.


So the EF 100mm Macro emits or detects radio frequency transmissions?


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So the EF 100mm Macro emits or detects radio frequency transmissions?


It has modern electronics, which virtually always emit RF. The certification is there to ensure the emissions outside the product are low enough and/or outside protected bands (e.g. GPS, GSM, etc).

I don't know if the USM motors need hi-speed signals to drive them, but the EF pins have a relatively high frequency protocol going over them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> It has modern electronics, which virtually always emit RF. The certification is there to ensure the emissions outside the product are low enough and/or outside protected bands (e.g. GPS, GSM, etc).
> 
> I don't know if the USM motors need hi-speed signals to drive them, but the EF pins have a relatively high frequency protocol going over them.


Agree that lenses need electronic certification. @[email protected] stated that there aren’t new lenses being registered.



[email protected] said:


> Sometimes rumor sites even get ahead of themselves and wrongly assume that because it's a product number and not a lens name, it's a new lens. *That doesn't appear to be the case here.*



The fact that these are new SKUs suggests they are, in fact, new lenses.


----------

