# Patent: Canon RF 13-21mm f/2.8L



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 27, 2020)

> A patent showcasing an RF 13-21mm f/2.8 optical formula has appeared in Japan.
> *Canon RF 13-21mm f/2.8 embodiment:*
> 
> Zoom ratio: 1.58
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## tron (Feb 27, 2020)

Not interesting! It is much less practical than a 15-35 (and yes I know that even 1mm at these focal lengths can make a difference). There are also so many 14mm lenses (with one of these at 1.8) that can be used with the adaptor but the main rival of this lens is the RF15-35 (which by the way has IS). Now if they make a f/2 zoom or a f/1.4 prime at say 13mm now that would be something to talk about!


----------



## oXo_se (Feb 27, 2020)

I would love this with a EOS R5


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 27, 2020)

This must be a smaller and lighter lens than the 15-35... that's the only reasoning I can think of for wanting this over the already great lens that's available.


----------



## sulla (Feb 27, 2020)

There were RF 10-24 f/4 and RF 14-28 f/2.0 patents recently. Intresting. We won't see all 3 of them, I guess. 13-21 seems a bit of a small zoom ratio to me. I'd prefer the 10-24 f/4, I believe.


----------



## frisbfreek (Feb 27, 2020)

I’m still learning about these patents... what does it mean when the back focus is variable? Does the back element move in this case?


----------



## Jethro (Feb 27, 2020)

There has been a shed-load of development work going on for RF lenses. Fascinating to see which one of the very wide angle zooms becomes real.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 27, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Unlikely this will ever be a product since focal range is small and f/2.8 is nothing special.
As opposed to an earlier patent released some months ago of a 14-21 f/1.4


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 27, 2020)

It is really nice to adopt wide-angle EF lenses to RF! Because there is this Canon ND adapter! 
But there is also another possibility with a clip-in ND filter.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 28, 2020)

Umm why not a 14-24 f/2.8, what a stupidly weird FL range.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 28, 2020)

sulla said:


> There were RF 10-24 f/4 and RF 14-28 f/2.0 patents recently. Intresting. We won't see all 3 of them, I guess. 13-21 seems a bit of a small zoom ratio to me. I'd prefer the 10-24 f/4, I believe.



I want the f/4 IS zoom that goes the widest and still can take regular 72mm filters. I'm willing to sacrifice on the long end as long as it can get to 24mm.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 28, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Umm why not a 14-24 f/2.8, what a stupidly weird FL range.



There's already a 15-35 f/2.8.


----------



## slclick (Feb 28, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> There's already a 15-35 f/2.8.


+ does it always have to be in classic and repeated ranges? Perhaps they found a formula for excellent IQ through the range.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 28, 2020)

tron said:


> Not interesting! It is much less practical than a 15-35 (and yes I know that even 1mm at these focal lengths can make a difference). There are also so many 14mm lenses (with one of these at 1.8) that can be used with the adaptor but the main rival of this lens is the RF15-35 (which by the way has IS). Now if they make a f/2 zoom or a f/1.4 prime at say 13mm now that would be something to talk about!



Unless they managed to makes this lens filterable... somehow. That would be huge.

p.s. anything over 4 stops of vignetting in extreme corners wide open at 13 mm excluding, please.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 28, 2020)

Sounds a bit like my Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.
It seems like a narrow range but it does make quite a bit of difference.
I use this for 4k video on my R, and it does a really good job.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 28, 2020)

slclick said:


> + does it always have to be in classic and repeated ranges? Perhaps they found a formula for excellent IQ through the range.


It is funny to me that I have read over and over on this forum that Canon is too conservative, doesn't innovate, etc. Yet every single time Canon does something new that is out of the ordinary people start harping, "It's never been done that way before so it can't possibly be a good idea." I don't know whether or not this lens will ever get released, but one would think people would at least wait and see what it is all about before twisting and shouting so. Not saying anyone here is doing that yet, but it will happen... especially if it gets released. I don't shoot landscapes, interiors, or astro anymore, but I would think this is what such a specialty lens is for.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 28, 2020)

tron said:


> Not interesting!



To whom?

Customers would probably be interested in either the 15-35mm f/2.8L IS or the F 10-24mm f/4L, but Canon might be interested in it for the IP or some aspect other than your interest and entertainment.

Also, note the patent and the lens that actually comes out might be two different things. IIRC, Canon had a patent for a 10mm prime that eventually came out as the 11-24mm f/4L zoom. Or was it the TS-E 17mm f/4L?


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 28, 2020)

Bennymiata said:


> Sounds a bit like my Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.
> It seems like a narrow range but it does make quite a bit of difference.
> I use this for 4k video on my R, and it does a really good job.


Tokina is a crop sensor lens though. 13-21 on FF is quite a bit wider. If filterable, could make into a trinity candidate lens for events or real estate / interior folks.


----------



## tron (Feb 28, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> To whom?
> 
> Customers would probably be interested in either the 15-35mm f/2.8L IS or the F 10-24mm f/4L, but Canon might be interested in it for the IP or some aspect other than your interest and entertainment.
> 
> Also, note the patent and the lens that actually comes out might be two different things. IIRC, Canon had a patent for a 10mm prime that eventually came out as the 11-24mm f/4L zoom. Or was it the TS-E 17mm f/4L?


To me at first! I did not say not interesting to everyone. It is an opinion site. There is no absolute truth. Feel free to prefer it if it becomes available. And of course it is better to have more choices than less. As another forum user mentioned it would be interesting if t would be smaller than 15-35.


----------



## slclick (Feb 28, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It is funny to me that I have read over and over on this forum that Canon is too conservative, doesn't innovate, etc. Yet every single time Canon does something new that is out of the ordinary people start harping, "It's never been done that way before so it can't possibly be a good idea." I don't know whether or not this lens will ever get released, but one would think people would at least wait and see what it is all about before twisting and shouting so. Not saying anyone here is doing that yet, but it will happen... especially if it gets released. I don't shoot landscapes, interiors, or astro anymore, but I would think this is what such a specialty lens is for.


+!

I owned the Sigma 24-35 Art for a bit and loved it for the type of shooting I enjoyed with it. It was and still is ridiculed in the camera world. 

It was like having 3 primes in one, not such a bad thing. Shorter the zoom range, more consistency across the range.


----------



## addola (Feb 28, 2020)

We already have an ultra-wide zoom, the RF15-35, so should Canon go wider than 15mm? Well, there's a Nikon has a 14-30 f/4, a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with a bulgy front element and Canon EF 11-24 f/4, so I think Canon will probably make a super ultra-wide RF lens, but I doubt it would be f/2.8, unless the have a way to make it practical.


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 28, 2020)

I could see this being an interesting lens if it’s tack sharp corner to corner, doesn’t suffer from coma, chromatic aberrations or too much vignetting, is very lightweight and small-bodied, and is less than $800. They could undercut the third-party landscape/astro lens market a bit that way. Speaking of which, could this be something that’s being made with the Ra in mind?


----------



## Bert63 (Feb 28, 2020)

oXo_se said:


> I would love this with a EOS R5




I just bought a 16-35 F4L last summer and love the effects you can create with it. I also have a 10-22 that I've had since shooting my 40D a million years ago.

Could give a noob to wide angle some idea what you might do with such a wide lens, and why having it on the R5 might make a difference?

Not trying to be internationally obtuse but I would appreciate the insight. From anyone.


----------



## melgross (Feb 28, 2020)

Unless that front element is so huge it makes everything look small in proportion, I’m surprised at the small rear element. Most of the recent designs I’ve been seeing are using larger rear elements.


----------



## melgross (Feb 28, 2020)

addola said:


> We already have an ultra-wide zoom, the RF15-35, so should Canon go wider than 15mm? Well, there's a Nikon has a 14-30 f/4, a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with a bulgy front element and Canon EF 11-24 f/4, so I think Canon will probably make a super ultra-wide RF lens, but I doubt it would be f/2.8, unless the have a way to make it practical.



for the R mount, we’ve been seein a lot of lenses we’ve never seen before. The f2 28-70, a new f2 70-135, etc. the lenses seem to be squeaking just under $3,000. I figure that if the could do this for $3,000, there will be a fair chance we
ll see it, or something like it. If we get the 20-24 f4, why not a 13-21 f2.8?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 28, 2020)

slclick said:


> +!
> 
> I owned the Sigma 24-35 Art for a bit and loved it for the type of shooting I enjoyed with it. It was and still is ridiculed in the camera world.
> 
> It was like having 3 primes in one, not such a bad thing. Shorter the zoom range, more consistency across the range.


Now, now, we must remain orthodox in our focal length choices.  I'm even seeing the occasional complaint about a 70-135 being too short and how f/2 isn't right for a zoom. I don't mean too short for them personally, but too short for anyone to possibly want. People complained about the 28-70 not going from 24mm too. It doesn't matter that maybe a 28-70 was better as a design performance choice. I guess it is good to sometimes have the lens/camera Stazi around to keep us all in line. Can't have any anti-establishment mobs running loose.

Anyway, of the five most common setups, do you prefer single fins, twin fins, thrusters, four fins, or five fins on a surfboard? When I used to body board as a teen in my birth state of Hawaii I only ever used a single flipper for thrust. It never dawned on me at the time to excoriate my favorite fin brand (Churchill I think) for "forcing" me to buy two. Then again, the internet was still to be invented and there was no forum to vent manufactured rage.  Back in the old days we had to keep all that bottled up inside because there weren't armies of loonies who would listen.  Imagine if we could have bitched to the world about board rash. 

Side note: I think Michael Jackson stole his one glove idea from the single flipper body boarders.


----------



## slclick (Feb 28, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Now, now, we must remain orthodox in our focal length choices.  I'm even seeing the occasional complaint about a 70-135 being too short and how f/2 isn't right for a zoom. I don't mean too short for them personally, but too short for anyone to possibly want. People complained about the 28-70 not going from 24mm too. It doesn't matter that maybe a 28-70 was better as a design performance choice. I guess it is good to sometimes have the lens/camera Stazi around to keep us all in line. Can't have any anti-establishment mobs running loose.
> 
> Anyway, of the five most common setups, do you prefer single fins, twin fins, thrusters, four fins, or five fins on a surfboard? When I used to body board as a teen in my birth state of Hawaii I only ever used a single flipper for thrust. It never dawned on me at the time to excoriate my favorite fin brand (Churchill I think) for "forcing" me to buy two. Then again, the internet was still to be invented and there was no forum to vent manufactured rage.  Back in the old days we had to keep all that bottled up inside because there weren't armies of loonies who would listen.  Imagine if we could have bitched to the world about board rash.
> 
> Side note: I think Michael Jackson stole his one glove idea from the single flipper body boarders.


Ahh the 'I put too much Kahlua in my coffee' post....

I never got past riding Eggs or longboards. I had buddies who rode twins in the 80's and flipped all around like maniacs but I was more of a boogie boarder, first gen, got ours from Tom's warehouse, factory blemish 2nds. Still ride one when I visit Mother Ocean. 
Back OT, I'd still own that Siggy if the AF was up to Canon levels. I just can't do third party any longer except Manual Focus.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 28, 2020)

slclick said:


> Ahh the 'I put too much Kahlua in my coffee' post....
> 
> I never got past riding Eggs or longboards. I had buddies who rode twins in the 80's and flipped all around like maniacs but I was more of a boogie boarder, first gen, got ours from Tom's warehouse, factory blemish 2nds. Still ride one when I visit Mother Ocean.
> Back OT, I'd still own that Siggy if the AF was up to Canon levels. I just can't do third party any longer except Manual Focus.


Kahlua Wowie.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Feb 29, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Now, now, we must remain orthodox in our focal length choices.  I'm even seeing the occasional complaint about a 70-135 being too short and how f/2 isn't right for a zoom. I don't mean too short for them personally, but too short for anyone to possibly want. People complained about the 28-70 not going from 24mm too. It doesn't matter that maybe a 28-70 was better as a design performance choice. I guess it is good to sometimes have the lens/camera Stazi around to keep us all in line. Can't have any anti-establishment mobs running loose.
> 
> Anyway, of the five most common setups, do you prefer single fins, twin fins, thrusters, four fins, or five fins on a surfboard? When I used to body board as a teen in my birth state of Hawaii I only ever used a single flipper for thrust. It never dawned on me at the time to excoriate my favorite fin brand (Churchill I think) for "forcing" me to buy two. Then again, the internet was still to be invented and there was no forum to vent manufactured rage.  Back in the old days we had to keep all that bottled up inside because there weren't armies of loonies who would listen.  Imagine if we could have bitched to the world about board rash.
> 
> Side note: I think Michael Jackson stole his one glove idea from the single flipper body boarders.



Yeah, having an army of loonies online now is better than feeling like you were the only loony writing a letter or calling to complain back then.

I may have mentioned the 70-135. I'm really glad they're making it. The 28-70 (and EOS R firmware eye-AF/drag focus update) brought me back to Canon. But I'm trying to visualize the difference between 70 and 135, which is there don't get me wrong – but it's nothing like the difference between 28 and 70 FOV. Between 28 and 70 there are at LEAST three distinct focal lengths delivering three distinct "looks" (four if you're a fan of the 35mm FOV, which I'm usually not). That said, the first samples I see, I will probably decide I have to have it.


----------



## melgross (Feb 29, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Yeah, having an army of loonies online now is better than feeling like you were the only loony writing a letter or calling to complain back then.
> 
> I may have mentioned the 70-135. I'm really glad they're making it. The 28-70 (and EOS R firmware eye-AF/drag focus update) brought me back to Canon. But I'm trying to visualize the difference between 70 and 135, which is there don't get me wrong – but it's nothing like the difference between 28 and 70 FOV. Between 28 and 70 there are at LEAST three distinct focal lengths delivering three distinct "looks" (four if you're a fan of the 35mm FOV, which I'm usually not). That said, the first samples I see, I will probably decide I have to have it.



the 70 to 135 gives an interesting slightly longer look than 50, but it also gives standard lengths of 85, 105 and 135. If shooting portraits, this makes it much easier to get the look you want.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Feb 29, 2020)

melgross said:


> the 70 to 135 gives an interesting slightly longer look than 50, but it also gives standard lengths of 85, 105 and 135. If shooting portraits, this makes it much easier to get the look you want.



I agree it has merit, I'm saying the observable differences between 28/50/70 are much greater than 70/105/135. Useful, just not AS useful for me.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Mar 2, 2020)

slclick said:


> + does it always have to be in classic and repeated ranges? Perhaps they found a formula for excellent IQ through the range.



I mean the existing lens is 1mm less wide (which is more significant on that end, to be fair) and 11mm more telephoto, with the same aperture, with IS. I suppose a 14-24 could be smaller, but might not take regular filters as the 15-35 does (Nikon's 14-24 doesn't). I can't imagine the IQ would be significantly better than the 15-35.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 2, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> I mean the existing lens is 1mm less wide (which is more significant on that end, to be fair) and 11mm more telephoto, with the same aperture, with IS. I suppose a 14-24 could be smaller, but might not take regular filters as the 15-35 does (Nikon's 14-24 doesn't). I can't imagine the IQ would be significantly better than the 15-35.


I have a strange feeling that 13-21/2.8 May end up being a filterable lens...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Mar 2, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> I have a strange feeling that 13-21/2.8 May end up being a filterable lens...



That would be exciting. Even better if it was 72mm, but beggars can't be choosers at that point. I would shoot the hell out of that lens on a body with IBIS, and then get the 70 - 135 f/2 for portraits. Then I could carry a 28 (I prefer this to 35, already have the Sigma ART), a 50 f/1.8 (would sell my RF f/1.2), and maybe a 300mm f/2.8 and I wouldn't need anything else except a walkaround lens (and I already have the RF 24 - 105 f/4).


----------



## melgross (Mar 3, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I agree it has merit, I'm saying the observable differences between 28/50/70 are much greater than 70/105/135. Useful, just not AS useful for me.


The “for me” is the best point. Too often, it’s forgotten in a post.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 3, 2020)

melgross said:


> The “for me” is the best point. Too often, it’s forgotten in a post.



It's strange we are taught in writing classes that saying things like "in my opinion" or "to me" are to be avoided since it's supposed to be obvious if we're writing in the first person it's our personal opinion. But casually online, I think it's important to include these disclaimers since otherwise it may come across as the writer trying to "tell everyone how things are".

To continue the conversation, though: If I were a portrait shooter who favored telephotos, the 70-135 might be a good choice over the also-rumored RF 135 f/1.4. Frankly, they both sound like amazing lenses, but having used the RF 28-70 f/2 and RF 50 f/1.2 for several months now (and loving the output), I'm thinking twice about having too many f/2 zooms and wide-aperture primes without their use being confined to anywhere I can use a camera bag with rollers on it (or shooting from near my vehicle or home). I think it's great we're getting an f/2 zoom trinity, but I also think the trinity is not designed to be all carried together in many scenarios.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 3, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I think it's great we're getting an f/2 zoom trinity, but I also think the trinity is not designed to be all carried together in many scenarios.


I look at it as being less expensive, long term, than a gym membership. 

You are right though, I think carrying all three f/2 zooms would be a major PITA with a backpack. I carry my camera and lenses in a Pelican case. Flash gear too, though in separate cases (2). So that's three Pelican cases. Getting from the car to the shoot location can be a problem without a folding wagon because I also have to carry stands (c stands these days) and sand bags. One trip is ideal since I am usually there before my subject shows up and there usually isn't somebody there to watch my gear while making a second trip from the car. Sometimes there is 50+ yards between myself and the car. I'm fortunate when the wife comes along to keep an eye on things. I don't get to shoot creatively as often as I'd like, but when I do it is a major undertaking for me.

Side note: I use Pelican cases because there is an opening in the foam for each piece of gear. If I have an open spot in the foam, I know I haven't gathered up all my stuff. This was a problem for me when I used backpacks. I get forgetful.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 3, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I look at it as being less expensive, long term, than a gym membership.
> 
> You are right though, I think carrying all three f/2 zooms would be a major PITA with a backpack. I carry my camera and lenses in a Pelican case. Flash gear too, though in separate cases (2). So that's three Pelican cases. Getting from the car to the shoot location can be a problem without a folding wagon because I also have to carry stands (c stands these days) and sand bags. One trip is ideal since I am usually there before my subject shows up and there usually isn't somebody there to watch my gear while making a second trip from the car. Sometimes there is 50+ yards between myself and the car. I'm fortunate when the wife comes along to keep an eye on things. I don't get to shoot creatively as often as I'd like, but when I do it is a major undertaking for me.
> 
> Side note: I use Pelican cases because there is an opening in the foam for each piece of gear. If I have an open spot in the foam, I know I haven't gathered up all my stuff. This was a problem for me when I used backpacks. I get forgetful.



Let me tell you, that 28-70 is indeed a workout – unfortunately when it's all in my backpack, the workout (i.e. "pain") is focused squarely on my lower back 

I forget that some photographer's setups involve a lot more gear – setups not unlike a guitarist having to lug around guitars and amps to gigs. I'm an amateur sunset shooter with constant G.A.S. so I end up with more than I need, weight-wise. I'm still holding out hope that Canon will make an RF version of the EF 28-300L. If I had that, I'd probably leave everything else at home.


----------



## slclick (Mar 3, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Let me tell you, that 28-70 is indeed a workout – unfortunately when it's all in my backpack, the workout (i.e. "pain") is focused squarely on my lower back
> 
> I forget that some photographer's setups involve a lot more gear – setups not unlike a guitarist having to lug around guitars and amps to gigs. I'm an amateur sunset shooter with constant G.A.S. so I end up with more than I need, weight-wise. I'm still holding out hope that Canon will make an RF version of the EF 28-300L. If I had that, I'd probably leave everything else at home.


I'm currently on a 10 day trip and had my bag packed with the f/4ish unholy zoom trinity (16-35, 24-105 , 100-400) and at the last moment changed bags, took off my L bracket and put one lens on the camera. The 40 pancake. Best decision I could have made. 

Light bag, good semi wide/semi normal focal length (I loathe 50mm), balancing life along non shooters with photography. I'm away for 12 days next month and might do it again.


----------



## melgross (Mar 4, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> It's strange we are taught in writing classes that saying things like "in my opinion" or "to me" are to be avoided since it's supposed to be obvious if we're writing in the first person it's our personal opinion. But casually online, I think it's important to include these disclaimers since otherwise it may come across as the writer trying to "tell everyone how things are".
> 
> To continue the conversation, though: If I were a portrait shooter who favored telephotos, the 70-135 might be a good choice over the also-rumored RF 135 f/1.4. Frankly, they both sound like amazing lenses, but having used the RF 28-70 f/2 and RF 50 f/1.2 for several months now (and loving the output), I'm thinking twice about having too many f/2 zooms and wide-aperture primes without their use being confined to anywhere I can use a camera bag with rollers on it (or shooting from near my vehicle or home). I think it's great we're getting an f/2 zoom trinity, but I also think the trinity is not designed to be all carried together in many scenarios.


I like the fact that we’re being given a distinct choice that’s less involved in our needing to agonize over quality, as both the 2.8 line and the 2 line are clearly best in class, but rather it being a much more reasonable pocketbook and weight issue.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 4, 2020)

melgross said:


> I like the fact that we’re being given a distinct choice that’s less involved in our needing to agonize over quality, as both the 2.8 line and the 2 line are clearly best in class, but rather it being a much more reasonable pocketbook and weight issue.



Plus the f/4 trinity should come to RF as well.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 4, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'm currently on a 10 day trip and had my bag packed with the f/4ish unholy zoom trinity (16-35, 24-105 , 100-400) and at the last moment changed bags, took off my L bracket and put one lens on the camera. The 40 pancake. Best decision I could have made.
> 
> Light bag, good semi wide/semi normal focal length (I loathe 50mm), balancing life along non shooters with photography. I'm away for 12 days next month and might do it again.



Yeah, once you've seen the light from a small single-lens solution, it's hard to go back to the heavy bag. I'm currently using the Leica Q for that but am looking forward to the rumored native RF pancake to appear.


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Plus the f/4 trinity should come to RF as well.


f/4 trinities are the unsung less expensive heroes of higher priced lens mounts. In some cases much better overall usage than 2.8 counterparts.


----------



## melgross (Mar 4, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Plus the f/4 trinity should come to RF as well.


I wasn’t even thinking about that. I wonder if the IQ of those will be as high as the others, or whether it will be thought of, by Canon, as mostly a less expensive, lighter series, with lower IQ.

so far, Canon has been hitting all the high points. If an f4 series is also a high point, I honestly don’t see how Nikon is going to catch them.


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 5, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> Speaking of which, could this be something that’s being made with the Ra in mind?



AFAIK, the advantage of Ra is with long lenses, not wide.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 5, 2020)

melgross said:


> I wasn’t even thinking about that. I wonder if the IQ of those will be as high as the others, or whether it will be thought of, by Canon, as mostly a less expensive, lighter series, with lower IQ.
> 
> so far, Canon has been hitting all the high points. If an f4 series is also a high point, I honestly don’t see how Nikon is going to catch them.



I think as long as we're talking about f/4 **L** lenses, we're going to be safe IQ-wise.


----------



## chong67 (Mar 13, 2020)

So many lens announced and patents filed since last year. I have not seen any new RF lens.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Mar 17, 2020)

chong67 said:


> So many lens announced and patents filed since last year. I have not seen any new RF lens.



The RF 24–105 mm f/4–7.1 IS STM is coming soon, and the holy trinity zooms + 85 f/1.2 DS just became available in Q4 last year.


----------



## sercheese (Jul 12, 2020)

Hello, just wondering... 
Is RF 10-24mm f/4L still only as a patent and it possibly won't be announced in the near future (let say 2021) or are there any news that it's in the pipeline? 
I want to buy Canon R5 and was wandering should I buy RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS to accompany it with RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS? As the latter already has the focal length beginning at 24 mm I thought 10-24mm would be better, considering the wider 10mm. But I haven't found any more information, just about the patent.


----------



## padam (Jul 12, 2020)

They are keeping it as a secret, that's why. Maybe some time later they will add more products to the future roadmap and it will appear.
Recently they came out with a handful of telephoto lenses the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM should be next in line along with a nifty fifty and 2020 is complete.

So in 2021 they may continue at the wide end of things, but we really don't know.


----------

