# Patent: New big white lens designs for the EF mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 7, 2019)

> Every so often we see new big white lens patents, and this time we get another round of designs for the EF mount. There doesn’t appear to be anything here that shows these designs are for the RF mount.
> *Canon 400mm f/2.8*
> 
> Focal length: 392.56 mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 7, 2019)

This is interesting. Looks like the EF mount still has some life left in it. Of course it is 100% compatible with the RF and M mounts so this is a win win for many with EF mount cameras but also want to try a mirrorless. 
Canon had a great vision over 30 years ago with the EF mount that all others stuck with old primitive tech then and are now severely paying for that lack of vision today.


----------



## risto0 (Nov 7, 2019)

400mm and 600mm just came out. Does it mean that replacements are already on its way?


----------



## keithcooper (Nov 7, 2019)

These could perfectly well be RF designs - longer lenses don't tend to have the short BF distance that's an obvious RF pointer. At some point the RF versions will come - maybe to go with a mirrorless 1D X level model

BTW In the US patent application there is a discussion of the focusing mechanism that might suggest we'll see a reasonable drop in minimum focus distance
USPTO


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 7, 2019)

It would be a headscratcher that they'd currently be developing these for EF, as new versions are already out. I hope it doesn't mean that, looking at the horizon, Canon has little faith in its EVF development. On the other hand, maybe they are worried that no matter how good an EVF, the photographers most likely to buy these would not want to go mirrorless...even years from now???

Or maybe there are aspects to the patents that Canon wants to protect so competitors can't use them?


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Nov 7, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Or maybe there are aspects to the patents that Canon wants to protect so competitors can't use them?


Always a strong reason for patents, if there are no plans/needs to actually produce yourself right now.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2019)

I would expect that we will see new 500mm and 800mm EF lenses. It would make sense to announce these around the same time as the new 1Dx III and in time for the Olympics. That would mean the major big white primes are updated and good for another 6-10 years. Right now, there is little reason to offer big whites in the R mount.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 7, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> It would be a headscratcher that they'd currently be developing these for EF, as new versions are already out. I hope it doesn't mean that, looking at the horizon, Canon has little faith in its EVF development. On the other hand, maybe they are worried that no matter how good an EVF, the photographers most likely to buy these would not want to go mirrorless...even years from now???
> 
> Or maybe there are aspects to the patents that Canon wants to protect so competitors can't use them?



Today's industry-leading EVF is found in the S1R and the just-released SL2. Neither of these are sports cameras. I'm not going to bet on it, but a mirrorless pro R should have an EVF at least this good, especially given what it's used for.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 7, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Always a strong reason for patents, if there are no plans/needs to actually produce yourself right now.



Then this might be the Occam's Razor hypothesis.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 7, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Today's industry-leading EVF is found in the S1R and the just-released SL2. Neither of these are sports cameras. I'm not going to bet on it, but a mirrorless pro R should have an EVF at least this good, especially given what it's used for.



I just did a search and learned that the Leica, Panasonic, and new Sony uses this same EVF. But I couldn't find a clear answer to who makes the EVF...

Yes, it looks great!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 7, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I would expect that we will see new 500mm and 800mm EF lenses. It would make sense to announce these around the same time as the new 1Dx III and in time for the Olympics. That would mean the major big white primes are updated and good for another 6-10 years. Right now, there is little reason to offer big whites in the R mount.




Canon could have made 2 versions of the new whites, with EF and RF mount.


----------



## padam (Nov 7, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Today's industry-leading EVF is found in the S1R and the just-released SL2. Neither of these are sports cameras. I'm not going to bet on it, but a mirrorless pro R should have an EVF at least this good, especially given what it's used for.


It's not that simple unfortunately.
EVF resolution is one thing, and what the sensor is able to feed into it full-time (and with as little lag as possible) is another, there is a reason why the TOL A9II has kept the lesser resolution EVF, and for that matter the SL2's live feed isn't as crisp either, so it is a fine line between them.

But it is safe to say that Canon likes to segment things and it's going to be a newer model, too, so the EVF should improve over what's in the R right now.



YuengLinger said:


> I hope it doesn't mean that, looking at the horizon, Canon has little faith in its EVF development.


They have a TOL EVF (6k$) available for their cinema cameras , so yes, they have faith in EVF development


----------



## navastronia (Nov 7, 2019)

padam said:


> It's not that simple unfortunately.
> EVF resolution is one thing, and what the sensor is able to feed into it full-time (and with as little lag as possible) is another, there is a reason why the TOL A9II has kept the lesser resolution EVF, and for that matter the SL2's live feed isn't as crisp either, so it is a fine line between them.



I don't think you can argue, necessarily, that Sony kept the A9's lower resolution EVF for the A9II due to performance concerns. Isn't it just as likely that they wanted to update only what was most necessary, while watching their bottom line?

What lag is there in the SL2? Is it between the subject and what's seen in the EVF? Is it worse than any lag observed in the A9? Just curious, if you have a source. And if this kind of lag does exist, you're right, it could be attributed to a system that can't drive the EVF fast enough to keep pace with the subject being captured. And, by all means, if the same folks who calculate sensor throughput want to step in and offer some guesses at the processing speed a higher rez EVF would necessitate, go ahead, but my understanding of this is too amateur to speculate especially about the relationship between subject/EVF lag and processing/sensor speed.

It bears mentioning that both the 3.6 million dot EVF in the a9 and the 5.76 million dot EVF in the S1R can each display at 120 fps, according to Imaging Resource. It would be a shame if the higher resolution and silky-smooth refresh came at the cost of subject lag, but even if this is the case in the S1R, I wouldn't assume the same in a new Canon system with different (and potentially must faster) architecture.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> It would be a headscratcher that they'd currently be developing these for EF, as new versions are already out. I hope it doesn't mean that, looking at the horizon, Canon has little faith in its EVF development. On the other hand, maybe they are worried that no matter how good an EVF, the photographers most likely to buy these would not want to go mirrorless...even years from now???
> 
> Or maybe there are aspects to the patents that Canon wants to protect so competitors can't use them?


The demise of the EF is based upon , well..nothing. It''s the mirrorless folks need to reinforce the lie they have been telling us for the past year that DSLR's are dead. It will be a slow death, maybe by 2035.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 8, 2019)

slclick said:


> The demise of the EF is based upon , well..nothing. It''s the mirrorless folks need to reinforce the lie they have been telling us for the past year that DSLR's are dead. It will be a slow death, maybe by 2035.



We will most likely reach a point where 98% of ILCs sold are mirrorless, and people will at that point wake up and realize that DSLRs have become a niche, like film has. Good work can be done with it, but very few would do so.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 8, 2019)

slclick said:


> The demise of the EF is based upon , well..nothing. It''s the mirrorless folks need to reinforce the lie they have been telling us for the past year that DSLR's are dead. It will be a slow death, maybe by 2035.


Who are these "mirrorless folks"?


----------



## SteveC (Nov 8, 2019)

slclick said:


> That is the most ricockulous thing I have read here in a long time. Niche... like film. When were you born? Pre 1990?



I was.

I'm assuming your issue is with my use of the word "niche" to describe film cameras today. "Niche" wasn't intended to belittle, so if you took it that way I apologize for lack of clarity. It just means it's a comparatively rare way to take pictures these days. And someday DSLRs will be rarer than mirrorless. Rare doesn't mean bad; many people do excellent work with film today, and they will do excellent work with DSLRs even if/when they become rare compared to mirrorless. (And DSLRs will have one advantage against film--they don't use as a consumable an item that's largely no longer being produced.)

Of course, you can disagree that DSLRs will become a small percentage of ILC cameras at some point in the future (I haven't said when, bit I am thinking within the next 15 years). And I'd have to concede you could well be right. I figure it won't happen ever unless the sorts of issues that action shooters complain about (justly) get sorted.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 8, 2019)

SteveC said:


> "Niche" wasn't intended to belittle, so if you took it that way I apologize for lack of clarity. It just means it's a comparatively rare way to take pictures these days...



Actually, all cameras that can't place phone calls have long since become niche products. 




SteveC said:


> ...someday DSLRs will be rarer than mirrorless...



Maybe, but maybe not. No one knows. Looking at the situation in 2019, there are pretty good arguments that DSLRs and Mirrorless each have strengths and weaknesses that may make it difficult for one to completely supplant the other. No reason both can't coexist indefinitely 




SteveC said:


> And DSLRs will have one advantage against film--they don't use as a consumable an item that's largely no longer being produced.



Unless that consumable item happens to be Compact Flash, C-Fast or other storage medium that is no longer being made. But that will impact both DSLRs and Mirrorless equally.



SteveC said:


> Of course, you can disagree that DSLRs will become a small percentage of ILC cameras at some point in the future (I haven't said when, bit I am thinking within the next 15 years). And I'd have to concede you could well be right. I figure it won't happen ever unless the sorts of issues that action shooters complain about (justly) get sorted.



That's really the great unknown. But it is more than just action shooters. Read some of the posts from wildlife shooters who don't want to sit in a blind for hours watching their electronic viewfinders drain their batteries away. I repeat once again something that I keep saying: Canon is agnostic about whether or not mirrorless will ultimately replace DSLRs. Only people on this forum take sides. Canon is on the side of selling consumers whatever they want.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 8, 2019)

risto0 said:


> 400mm and 600mm just came out. Does it mean that replacements are already on its way?


No, it could be just a byproduct of applying the same design ideas to multiple lenses in the lineup.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 8, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Who are these "mirrorless folks"?


Sony "influencers" and people falling for their marketing drivel?


----------



## Kit. (Nov 8, 2019)

SteveC said:


> And someday DSLRs will be rarer than mirrorless.


Haven't they always been?



SteveC said:


> Of course, you can disagree that DSLRs will become a small percentage of ILC cameras at some point in the future (I haven't said when, bit I am thinking within the next 15 years).


So, you are talking about the fourth or fifth future generation of ILCs? And even more if those are generations of Sony ILCs?

I'm not even sure that ILCs would still be a thing by then.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 8, 2019)

slclick said:


> The demise of the EF is based upon , well..nothing. It''s the mirrorless folks need to reinforce the lie they have been telling us for the past year that DSLR's are dead. It will be a slow death, maybe by 2035.


You must work for Kodak.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 8, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> You must work for Kodak.


Unlikely. All Kodak DSLRs, iirc, were made by Canon.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 8, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Actually, all cameras that can't place phone calls have long since become niche products.



Good point.

If you look at ALL picture taking that's true.

If you look at the subset of "dedicated cameras" then you can again see, within that set, there are "mainstream" options and "niche" options--again that's within that context.

And that was the context I was thinking of. But it's good to be reminded of the Bigger Picture every once in a while.

And yes, I forgot the wildlife shooters; I was mentally bucketing them with "action" but many of their concerns are quite distinct.

As for what Canon wants, I think you're likely at least partially right. I suspect they want to make a mirrorless that will be satisfactory to everyone, but they won't be bummed out about it if it never happens; they'll just crank out Ms, Rs, and EFs. They're big enough to survive doing that; other smaller companies will have to choose one or the other.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 9, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Canon could have made 2 versions of the new whites, with EF and RF mount.



Shurely they could - but for what reason? If you are EOS R user and have e.g. the
RF 50mm, the RF 28-70. EF 2.8 300 and EF 4 600 you might have the money to
buy two EF-RF adapters to have only one final mount system on your lenses.
And makes it easier for e.g. me who maybe wants to use 2.8 300mm on an
M camera and later on an R camera.
I do not see any advantage to have RF mount for these well developed telephoto
lenses in terms of better IQ or much smaller size except maybe RF 2.8 200 or RF 4 300.


----------



## yungfat (Nov 10, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Today's industry-leading EVF is found in the S1R and the just-released SL2. Neither of these are sports cameras. I'm not going to bet on it, but a mirrorless pro R should have an EVF at least this good, especially given what it's used for.


Well, to many people, Sony a9 & a9II already have the best of everything (including EVF) for “ALL” sports shooter.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 10, 2019)

yungfat said:


> Well, to many people, Sony a9 & a9II already have the best of everything (including EVF) for “ALL” sports shooter.


Yeah, what they lack is a CPS Grade level of service and Spare parts available for at least 5-7 years to support one’s investment into the system. 
Ask yourself a simple question: what to do if in five years from now I needed an urgent repair for an expensive lens or a camera and there is no parts available from Sony? When my a 3 years old $3000 Sony TV failed and I needed a replacement main board, Sony told me to buy a new TV unit instead. No spare parts available globally.


----------



## Joules (Nov 10, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> I do not see any advantage to have RF mount for these well developed telephoto
> lenses in terms of better IQ or much smaller size except maybe RF 2.8 200 or RF 4 300.


The RF mount has more electrical contacts than EF, allowing for faster communication between lens and body for quicker AF and more responsive IS. In theory anyway, I suspect we will see some more evidence of this only when a higher spec R body is available to make use of this, especially for IBIS in combination with in lens IS.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> The RF mount has more electrical contacts than EF, allowing for faster communication between lens and body for quicker AF and more responsive IS. In theory anyway, I suspect we will see some more evidence of this only when a higher spec R body is available to make use of this, especially for IBIS in combination with in lens IS.


Thats really a good argument! You are right ... if IBIS helps a lot with these telephoto lenses. And I think it does at least within one degree of freedom: Rotation which can be managed by rotating the sensor but not by shifting lenses or rotating (rotational symmetric) lenses


----------



## Pape (Nov 10, 2019)

I wonder if those RF extra pins got nothing to do with 2 motor focus system?


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 10, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> These could perfectly well be RF designs - longer lenses don't tend to have the short BF distance that's an obvious RF pointer. At some point the RF versions will come - maybe to go with a mirrorless 1D X level model
> 
> BTW In the US patent application there is a discussion of the focusing mechanism that might suggest we'll see a reasonable drop in minimum focus distance
> USPTO



If this does turn out to be an rf design, then your 1dx level r camera is right around the corner.


----------



## Joe Subolefsky (Nov 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> The RF mount has more electrical contacts than EF, allowing for faster communication between lens and body for quicker AF and more responsive IS. In theory anyway, I suspect we will see some more evidence of this only when a higher spec R body is available to make use of this, especially for IBIS in combination with in lens IS.



The new 600III and new 400 already have extra contacts.However the current extenders don’t perhaps they will offer an EF to RF extender for the new big whites that also acts as the adapter and has the extra contacts .


----------



## AJ (Nov 12, 2019)

I was thinking about long lenses the other day. I was wondering if a teleconverter with an R-mount on the camera side and EF on the lens side would allow for optical improvements. It would be longer then an R-R or EF-EF converter. Rather than cramming the lens elements into a short tube, there'd be more room to play with. Could be helpful for designing 2x TCs.


----------

