# Patent: Canon patents RF 200mm f/2L IS, RF 300mm f/2.8L IS and RF 500mm f/4L IS optical formulas



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 29, 2022)

> Canon is obviously working on RF mount versions of the legendary EF 200mm f/2L IS, EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and EF 500mm f/4L IS lenses. I expect the 300mm and 500mm lenses to be announced in late 2022 or in 2023. As for an RF 200mm f/2L IS, maybe further down the road as it’s a pretty niche lens.
> Canon RF 200mm f/2L IS USM
> 
> Focal length 200.00mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

Nice. By the time the RF 300/2.8 becomes a reality, I'll probably be in the market for one. I'm guessing availability in the summer of 2023, we'll see.


----------



## dolina (Apr 29, 2022)

Would be nice if each weighed ~1kg.


----------



## john1970 (Apr 29, 2022)

I wonder if any of these lenses will use DO to further reduce weight. Moreover, I suspect that these lenses will be announced in parallel with the R1 flagship.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 29, 2022)

Wondering if we ever will see replacement to 300mm f4 and 400mm f5.6 lenses. Would be curious to find pricing of 500mm f4 which would be a rental thing for weekends.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Wondering if we ever will see replacement to 300mm f4 and 400mm f5.6 lenses.


I doubt it. I think the 100-500 is the 'replacement' for them, in the sense that that EF 100-400 (1998) came out after both the 400/5.6 (1993) and the 300/4 IS (1997), and the 100-400 was updated to a MkII in 2014 while the two primes were not.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 29, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


There must be a typo in the 500mm section - the focal length is the same as the 300mm (292.53mm)


----------



## liv_img (Apr 29, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I wonder if any of these lenses will use DO to further reduce weight. Moreover, I suspect that these lenses will be announced in parallel with the R1 flagship.


Sadly no, because the RF 500mm f4 in this patent is 2,8 cm longer than the current EF 500mm f4. The DO lenses are lighter and much shorter.


----------



## Joel C (Apr 29, 2022)

I'm going to be honest here for a second. I really want that 200mm f/2, but, I will likely settle for the 300mm as it will probably be years for the 200 if it ever comes out at all...


----------



## davidhfe (Apr 29, 2022)

Would love to see a built in TC for that 300, similar to what Nikon did with their 400. (I am not holding my breath)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

liv_img said:


> Sadly no, because the RF 500mm f4 in this patent is 2,8 cm longer than the current EF 500mm f4. The DO lenses are lighter and much shorter.


Agree that it won't be DO. However, the length of this lens patent (if it becomes a real lens) will be closer to the EF version than you suggest. The EF 500mm f/4L IS II is 383mm, that's the spec of the actual lens. The 411mm length above is the length of the optical formula, which is true for all lens patents. To estimate the length of the real lens based on a patent, you need to subtract the flange focal distance, which is 20mm for RF. Thus, the RF lens described here would be ~391mm long, only 8mm longer than the EF version.


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 29, 2022)

That is a beautiful list of stuff I want but can't afford!


----------



## EOS (Apr 29, 2022)

Joel C said:


> I'm going to be honest here for a second. I really want that 200mm f/2, but, I will likely settle for the 300mm as it will probably be years for the 200 if it ever comes out at all...


The EF 200mm f/2L IS is a thing of beauty. It requires effectively zero lens distortion correction (I never adjusted for it) and very little vignetting (gone by f/4). But yes, a very niche, very amazing lens.


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Apr 29, 2022)

For the 200...why not go all the way and do an f1.8...I would love to own one again.


----------



## mxwphoto (Apr 29, 2022)

dolina said:


> Would be nice if each weighed ~1kg.


Given the likely prices of these (calling it now, 300mm $8000, 200mm $9500, 500mm $11000), if you can afford the lens, then you can afford a sherpa to lug it for you thus weight is a non-issue.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 29, 2022)

Nothing like the EF 200's rendering. An RF? Hope it's similar and not Sigma sticker look.


----------



## roby17269 (Apr 29, 2022)

EOS said:


> The EF 200mm f/2L IS is a thing of beauty. It requires effectively zero lens distortion correction (I never adjusted for it) and very little vignetting (gone by f/4). But yes, a very niche, very amazing lens.


I had one once. Loved it deeply  . Used it a lot for fashion. I sold it to finance (partially) my move into MF... but oh I do miss it!
One other great quality of the EF 200 f/2L IS.... super easy to sell at good prices  
Well I am sad now


----------



## jd7 (Apr 30, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Nothing like the EF 200's rendering. An RF? Hope it's similar and not Sigma sticker look.


Sigma sticker look?

You mean like in this photo (which is not mine!)?

__
https://flic.kr/p/RvEHVK

And the photos about half way down in this review?








Fstoppers Reviews the Fujifilm 50mm f/2 WR


Fujifilm's XF 50mm f/2 WR is the third addition in the series that have affectionately become known as the "Fujichrons." These are compact, lightweight, weather resistant, and have extremely fast autofocus. Made up of nine elements in seven groups, and formed in Fujifilm's classicly-styled...




fstoppers.com


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 30, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Sigma sticker look?
> 
> You mean like in this photo (which is not mine!)?
> 
> ...


Somewhat. The Hard Rock hoodie pretty much. Not sure if you know what I mean or are guessing? Too much separation basically. A layered look. I think people like it to tell you the truth as if it's a critical level of DoF quality.


----------



## EOS (Apr 30, 2022)

Darrell Cadieux said:


> For the 200...why not go all the way and do an f1.8...I would love to own one again.


The f/1.8L _was_ 1/3 stop faster (and had the “Eye of Sauron” nickname LOL) but, if they are copying existing designs, the f/2L was by far the superior lens.


----------



## dolina (Apr 30, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> Given the likely prices of these (calling it now, 300mm $8000, 200mm $9500, 500mm $11000), if you can afford the lens, then you can afford a sherpa to lug it for you thus weight is a non-issue.


A good incentive for owners of the EF SKUs of these lenses to upgrade would be dropping the physical weight by ~33-50%

If all L lenses became DO for the weight savings and more compact physical dimension then good. Nikon managed to do that with their PF lenses


----------



## jd7 (Apr 30, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Somewhat. The Hard Rock hoodie pretty much. Not sure if you know what I mean or are guessing? Too much separation basically. A layered look. I think people like it to tell you the truth as if it's a critical level of DoF quality.


Sorry Blue Zurich, I shouldn't really have responded as I did in my earlier post. I was being a bit snippy. The point I was trying to make is that I think the "sticker effect" can happen with just about any lens, certainly any lens which has a wide maximum aperture and is pretty sharp even wide open, and Sigma lenses are no worse than their peers when it comes to the "sticker effect".

The issue has been discussed before on CR (I think well before I recall seeing your handle on CR), for example see




__





No New 50mm Lens Coming in 2017 [CR2]


My interest has been peaked with the news that Canon is looking into an f1.0 design :O With the latest Canon technology that could be amazing! I would be interested if we knew any more about the time frame though. No availability in 2017 sucks, but I would hope it was 2018 not later... I'd...




www.canonrumors.com





You may (or may not!  ) be interested to have a read.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 30, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Sorry Blue Zurich, I shouldn't really have responded as I did in my earlier post. I was being a bit snippy. The point I was trying to make is that I think the "sticker effect" can happen with just about any lens, certainly any lens which has a wide maximum aperture and is pretty sharp even wide open, and Sigma lenses are no worse than their peers when it comes to the "sticker effect".
> 
> The issue has been discussed before on CR (I think well before I recall seeing your handle on CR), for example see
> 
> ...


Yep, I was involved in many of those discussions, as a former self (been on here since nearly the beginning)

From my experience, many lenses in the Art series exemplified that look. I owned a few a few years back. Once again, not a terrible thing, just not my cup of tea. A side note, while I look forward to possible niche lenses such as an RF 200 f/2, I will never own one but am always interested what other with capable hands can do with them.


----------



## H2Oplanet (Apr 30, 2022)

Love and use my EF 200mm f/2. Other than market size, is there a reason for RF version to lag the production of 300mm f2.8 and the 500mm f4.0?


----------



## kaihp (Apr 30, 2022)

H2Oplanet said:


> Love and use my EF 200mm f/2. Other than market size, is there a reason for RF version to lag the production of 300mm f2.8 and the 500mm f4.0?


Most likely they are in less demand than the 400mm and 600mm lenses.


----------



## Joel C (Apr 30, 2022)

EOS said:


> The EF 200mm f/2L IS is a thing of beauty. It requires effectively zero lens distortion correction (I never adjusted for it) and very little vignetting (gone by f/4). But yes, a very niche, very amazing lens.


Yeah, I am thinking the timeline is likely the biggest hurdle here, other than price after the fact. I have moved pretty much exclusive into RF glass (I still have some static video cameras on EF) and I don't want to go backwards in mounts, so I imagine that the wait time is going to be intense.


----------



## dolina (Apr 30, 2022)

kaihp said:


> Most likely they are in less demand than the 400mm and 600mm lenses.


200/2.0 probably sells as well as the 800/5.6 or 1200/8.0


----------



## kaihp (Apr 30, 2022)

dolina said:


> 200/2.0 probably sells as well as the 800/5.6 or 1200/8.0


Possibly, but the development cost was likely to be marginal as they just slabbed on the RF 2x TC. 
What the development cost of a new RF 200/2L is, I don't know, but surely larger than the 400/2.8+2xTC and 600/4+2xTC costs.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 30, 2022)

dolina said:


> 200/2.0 probably sells as well as the 800/5.6 or 1200/8.0


Why do you think (or know) so?

My guess (with no sales data, that's all I can do) is it doesn't sell as well as...

1. Like the EF 135mm f/2L, its "shadowed" by the EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

2. Unlike the EF 135mm f/2L, its 3x more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8. That limits sales to those who are willing & able to spend the money.

[As rough and anecdotal evidence, I saw shops offering 800mm f/5.6 on their web site more often than 200mm f/2. I'm sure its an ad thing, though bothering to ad is, IMHO, an indication.]


----------



## dolina (May 1, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Why do you think (or know) so?
> 
> My guess (with no sales data, that's all I can do) is it doesn't sell as well as...
> 
> ...


As you aptly pointed out there are alternatives that are cheaper.

Before it was discontinued from production the 200/2.0 is often ranked on BH to be a saleable as the 800/5.6

Lest I offend someone from my memories of the past.

It would be nice if Canon were to offer a 200/1.8 again but at under 2kg


----------



## InchMetric (May 1, 2022)

kaihp said:


> Possibly, but the development cost was likely to be marginal as they just slabbed on the RF 2x TC.
> What the development cost of a new RF 200/2L is, I don't know, but surely larger than the 400/2.8+2xTC and 600/4+2xTC costs.


I presume that the development cost of all the big whites was immense and still being paid for. Most of it was 3-5(?) years ago and paying off well because it yields the dividends of applying to different mounts and different focal lengths. Which is a beneficial feature, not a criticism or flaw (though it doesn’t trigger the novelty dopamine hit sought by some). It’s like Tesla buyers complaining that the Model S design hasn’t been substantially changed in 10 years.

Nothing wrong with adopting excellent existing EF designs when the RF mount doesn’t afford any striking benefits for an expensive redesign. A smart company will have a good blend, as we see.


----------



## Alejko (May 2, 2022)

Would it make sense for Canon to make something like a 500/5.6 or a 600/5.6? They should be able to make them quite light and hopefully not as expensive as the f/4.0 versions. That would be something really suitable for me at least. Am I foolish for thinking this would be a good lens?


----------



## AlanF (May 2, 2022)

Alejko said:


> Would it make sense for Canon to make something like a 500/5.6 or a 600/5.6? They should be able to make them quite light and hopefully not as expensive as the f/4.0 versions. That would be something really suitable for me at least. Am I foolish for thinking this would be a good lens?


You are not foolish.


----------



## kaihp (May 2, 2022)

InchMetric said:


> I presume that the development cost of all the big whites was immense and still being paid for. Most of it was 3-5(?) years ago and paying off well because it yields the dividends of applying to different mounts and different focal lengths. Which is a beneficial feature, not a criticism or flaw (though it doesn’t trigger the novelty dopamine hit sought by some). It’s like Tesla buyers complaining that the Model S design hasn’t been substantially changed in 10 years.
> 
> Nothing wrong with adopting excellent existing EF designs when the RF mount doesn’t afford any striking benefits for an expensive redesign. A smart company will have a good blend, as we see.


Maybe I wasn't clear enough: what I meant by "development cost was likely to be marginal" is that the _incremental_ development cost (outside of the original cost of developing the Big White lenses and the RF 2xTC) was likely to be marginal. I'm not going to argue against the development cost of the Big Whites as still being paid for (even when used in both EF and RF mounts).


----------



## Fischer (May 2, 2022)

EOS said:


> The f/1.8L _was_ 1/3 stop faster (and had the “Eye of Sauron” nickname LOL) but, if they are copying existing designs, the f/2L was by far the superior lens.


Not sure the f/2 was optically noticeably better than the f/1.8 which had the advantage of lead optical elements (it was better - but it was also f/2 and not f/1.8), however it was just a pain to handle with so much front weight whereas the f/2 - even if not significantly lighter - could be used for all-day shooting.


----------



## Fischer (May 2, 2022)

I've been waiting too long for the RF 300 mm f/2.8. My mistake believing that Canon would give it priority. Early 2023 official release and in my hands summer 2023 sounds OK. On the fence with the RF 200 f/2. I'll compare when the reviews are out.


----------



## Gloads (May 3, 2022)

I guess the rumored radical RF 500 f/4 is now dead, and the long wait will be for an EF refresh like the other big whites? That is a sad turn given the wait so far.


----------



## HopingforRF200L1.8 (May 4, 2022)

Oh my god! How I wish Canon will bring the RF 200L 2.0 soon! My EF was stolen in August and I miss it badly. Best Canon lens ever! 

And if they bring a *RF 200L 1.8*, no matter at what price, I will travel to Japan and bring them a bottle of Dom Perignon. Oh lord, please hear my prayers!


----------



## AlanF (May 4, 2022)

Gloads said:


> I guess the rumored radical RF 500 f/4 is now dead, and the long wait will be for an EF refresh like the other big whites? That is a sad turn given the wait so far.


It's unlikely it will be a simple refresh. It is a Mk II lens, and the 400 and 600 went through a Mk III with significantly reduced weight before having a simple "refresh".


----------



## dolina (Sep 17, 2022)

Weight difference of the past 25 years of select Canon EF & RF lenses.

Bonus: NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S

I would not be surprised that these RF lenses will be less than 2.2 kilograms when released within 20 months

- RF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM
- RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
- RF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> Weight difference of the past 25 years of select Canon EF & RF lenses.
> 
> Bonus: NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
> 
> ...


It seems like there’s an echo on the forums today.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 28, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I wonder if any of these lenses will use DO to further reduce weight. Moreover, I suspect that these lenses will be announced in parallel with the R1 flagship.


the answer is no, and how we know that? the published lengths. the published lengths are consistent with a 25-28cm extension in length. My assumption is the 300 and 500 will have the same design as the version III 400/600 lenses with a built in converter like the new RF 400/600 have increasing their lengths by 25cm.
The good new is that the EF version III lenses were substantially lighter so the new 300 and 500 should be as well.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 28, 2022)

dolina said:


> Weight difference of the past 25 years of select Canon EF & RF lenses.
> 
> Bonus: NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
> 
> ...




IF we go by the logical here, taking the direction the 400/600 II upgrades to III and then RF those lenses saved 22-25% in weight from the verision II
From the published lengths above in this original post the new lenses are consistent with a 25-28cm increase in length for a built in EF-RF converter. But I believe the 300/500 version II will also get the same redesign of optics config as the 400/600 II did for III. So its safe to assume a 22-25% weight savings with the new 300/500 lenses.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 29, 2022)

mpmark said:


> IF we go by the logical here, taking the direction the 400/600 II upgrades to III and then RF those lenses saved 22-25% in weight from the verision II
> From the published lengths above in this original post the new lenses are consistent with a 25-28cm increase in length for a built in EF-RF converter. But I believe the 300/500 version II will also get the same redesign of optics config as the 400/600 II did for III. So its safe to assume a 22-25% weight savings with the new 300/500 lenses.


I would hope that the length increase is limited to 25-28mm, not cm. 

I doubt that a 25 cm length increase would be successful in the marketplace (unless it's for planetariums).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2022)

mpmark said:


> the answer is no, and how we know that? the published lengths. the published lengths are consistent with a 25-28cm extension in length. My assumption is the 300 and 500 will have the same design as the version III 400/600 lenses with a built in converter like the new RF 400/600 have increasing their lengths by 25cm.


Your assumption appears to be incorrect (ignoring your units error). The published lengths above are consistent with lenses only 10-12 mm longer than the MkII versions of the EF lenses.

You seem to be unaware that the ‘lens length’ in a patent application is the length of the optical formula, i.e., from the sensor to the front surface of the front element. You need to subtract the flange focal distance (20 mm for RF) to estimate the length of the actual lens represented by the patent.


----------

