# Patent: Canon RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 31, 2019)

> Canon continues to develop optical formulas for an RF mount superzoom, something that we’ll likely see sooner than later. This patent shows an optical formula for an RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6. It’s hard to say if this is an L lens, as they tend to be larger than their non-L counterparts.
> *Canon RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6 embodiement:*
> 
> Focal length: 24.72mm 90.83mm 290.86mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 31, 2019)

As if the 24-240 wasn't bad enough.


----------



## shawn (Dec 31, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> As if the 24-240 wasn't bad enough.



The 24-240 is fine when corrected. I can only imagine this new lens is much larger which makes it less of consumer zoom.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 1, 2020)

I guess there's a chance this could be an L lens. It could be the RF lens equivalent of the 28-300L.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> As if the 24-240 wasn't bad enough.



I haven't read the reviews of the RF 24-240mm and EF 28-300mm side by side, but IIRC the later's IQ justifies the 2.7x price difference. The later is an upgrade of the EF 35-350mm, so apparently it makes a profit, and might make one on RF as well.


----------



## Daner (Jan 1, 2020)

When traveling with checked baggage I bring my RF 24-105 and my EF 100-400 II (and the 1.4x extender), but when I am limited to carry-on only I just go with the smaller lens. The IQ and durability limitations of the 24-240 have kept it off my list so far. If this one deals effectively with both of those concerns while providing some additional reach, it could be a serious consideration for one-bag travel.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jan 1, 2020)

Daner said:


> When traveling with checked baggage I bring my RF 24-105 and my EF 100-400 II (and the 1.4x extender), but when I am limited to carry-on only I just go with the smaller lens. The IQ and durability limitations of the 24-240 have kept it off my list so far. If this one deals effectively with both of those concerns while providing some additional reach, it could be a serious consideration for one-bag travel.



My thoughts as well. This would be a great one lens solution for landscape photography when I have to lug gear for miles in a backpack.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 1, 2020)

I wish the superzoom concept would go more the other way, ie something like an RF 15-85 f/4. That would be a more useful travel lens for me than a 24-xxx


----------



## Nelu (Jan 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I wish the superzoom concept would go more the other way, ie something like an RF 15-85 f/4. That would be a more useful travel lens for me than a 24-xxx


I guess it depends on what do you mean by "travel". I was doing a three-days backpacking trip in August with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens. I really would have loved to have the 24-270mm lens when we ran into the grizzly mama bear, with three cubs...


----------



## shawn (Jan 2, 2020)

Nelu said:


> I guess it depends on what do you mean by "travel". I was doing a three-days backpacking trip in August with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens. I really would have loved to have the 24-270mm lens when we ran into the grizzly mama bear, with three cubs...


I agree. I would take extra reach over wider angle of view on any and all conceivable trips. If I want a really wide shot I prefer to shoot a panorama at a narrower focal length as it has a much more natural look.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 2, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I wish the superzoom concept would go more the other way, ie something like an RF 15-85 f/4. That would be a more useful travel lens for me than a 24-xxx



I would love such a lens, but wonder what chances there for such a lens.

IIRC, the experts on this site explained there are physical obstacles to designing zooms that cross the normal from wide to tele. Possibly it's easier to design one for a MILC?


----------



## Daner (Jan 2, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I wish the superzoom concept would go more the other way, ie something like an RF 15-85 f/4. That would be a more useful travel lens for me than a 24-xxx



I would settle for an RF 15-70 f/4 (and an RF 100-400).


----------



## Optics Patent (Jan 2, 2020)

I used to be a superzoom fan but the RF 70-200 does the job with one pocket-sized wide prime like the RF 35mm 1.8. Or as wide as needed.

The 24-240 cost $500 as kit lens with RP and gets little use unless light is good and lens changing isn’t desired.


----------

