# Patent: Canon RF 70-200mm f/4



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 18, 2019)

> With the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS already announced, it was only a matter of time before an f/4 version of the lens hit the market. This patent shows that Canon is actively working on such a lens.
> Unlike the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, the f/4 version in this patent appears to show an internal zoom lens design.
> *Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2019)

The lens would be ~20mm longer than the EF 70-200/4...so as with the RF 70-200/2.8 when extended to 200mm, the sensor to front element distance would be essentially the same for the RF version on a MILC and the EF version on a DSLR.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 18, 2019)

Would be quite surprising to me if that patent became product, as Canon seems to go the telescoping way with the RF 70-200/2.8.
Why not doing it the same with the f/4 version?


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 18, 2019)

Good news: One more reason to keep the70-200 4 IS mk i because it will have the same size including the adapter.

Really interesting: A 12 lens / 10 group design might help to increase contrast and flare resistens furthermore compared
to the 20/15 design of my lens! But maybe no IS group - a hint for IBIS coming?

Or it's just a not-so-espensive lens.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 18, 2019)

I don't see the point of this lens without IS. Probably it's just a patent.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Apr 18, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I don't see the point of this lens without IS. Probably it's just a patent.



Yeah, probably. The only other reason I can see for omitting OIS is to deliver a highly optically corrected zoom lens at a very low MSRP. Considering the exceptional quality EF 70-200 F/4L II already has 5 stops of OIS and only retails for $1299, this lens would have to come in at $799 at the most I think.


----------



## juststeve (Apr 18, 2019)

The lens element diagram shown is not for a zoom lens. When a lens zooms, elements have to move. Ain't no way lens elements in that thing are going to move unless it is hit by a train. Beside, there is/are no jigglator element(s) for IS. Looks more like a 135/2 or 1.8 diagram.


----------



## Trey T (Apr 18, 2019)

has there been images of the physical RF 70-200mm f/2.8 @ 200mm yet? is the length, @200mm, the same as EF version or longer?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 18, 2019)

Trey T said:


> has there been images of the physical RF 70-200mm f/2.8 @ 200mm yet? is the length, @200mm, the same as EF version or longer?



No images. Canon won't even confirm that it extends on zooming; I think they're going to pretend that's not the case until the NDA drops for the reviewers.


----------



## dflt (Apr 18, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I don't see the point of this lens without IS. Probably it's just a patent.


IBIS baby. IBIS might replace in lens stabilisation.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 18, 2019)

juststeve said:


> The lens element diagram shown is not for a zoom lens. When a lens zooms, elements have to move. Ain't no way lens elements in that thing are going to move unless it is hit by a train. Beside, there is/are no jigglator element(s) for IS. Looks more like a 135/2 or 1.8 diagram.



hah! good catch.

the image that is shown there is for the EF 58mm 1.4.

I've added the 70-200/4 image to my article on all this, also there appears to be IS on the 70-200. at least there could be as there is an optical grouping that canon usually shoves IS on.


----------



## flip314 (Apr 18, 2019)

dflt said:


> IBIS baby. IBIS might replace in lens stabilisation.



IBIS will never replace OIS for telephoto lenses. The longer the lens gets, the further you would have to move the sensor to correct for it. OIS makes much more sense for longer lenses (or potentially OIS+IBIS).

But Canon is still selling EF 70-200s with and without IS, we may see the same thing for RF.


----------



## yinzer (Apr 19, 2019)

_RE: telescoping on the 70-200 2.8_


QuisUtDeus said:


> No images. Canon won't even confirm that it extends on zooming; I think they're going to pretend that's not the case until the NDA drops for the reviewers.



This isn't exactly right. The prototype at The Photography Show 2019 clearly had a zoom lock switch.

As for both in terms of exact dimensions: don't read too much into the specific of patents. That stuff changes all of the time.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 19, 2019)

I'd be very interested in a 58mm f/1.4 (or any fast prime around the 60mm-ish focal length)! The question is where Canon would position it, given the already-existing RF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.2L?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2019)

jd7 said:


> I'd be very interested in a 58mm f/1.4 (or any fast prime around the 60mm-ish focal length)! The question is where Canon would position it, given the already-existing RF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.2L?


As a non-L lens.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> As a non-L lens.


You are probably correct about that - it does seem to make sense. And if so, it should at least tend to limit the price a bit, so I might end up being happy enough about it!

That said, Canon does have both the 85/1.2L II and the 85/1.4L though so ...? The 85s are EF lenses though, of course, and there is already a broad EF range, but the same cannot yet be said for the RF range. My guess (similar to yours, I think(?)) is that at this stage of development of the RF line, if Canon released another 50-ish RF prime, it would be at the relatively cheaper level compared with an L lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2019)

jd7 said:


> That said, Canon does have both the 85/1.2L II and the 85/1.4L though so ...? The 85s are EF lenses though


They also have the EF 85/1.8, a non-L lens that’s much cheaper than the L versions.

With the ‘affordable’ RP, I expect we’ll see non-L lenses to go with it, we already know about the 24-240.


----------



## Jethro (Apr 19, 2019)

I'm surprised at the lack of OIS in the announced (and patent leaked) RF lenses so far. I get the desire to concentrate on great optical results but a lot of people (including me) won't upgrade from existing (generally IS) lenses until RF IS versions exist. Maybe they're not too fussed if I (and my demographic) don't update for a while, but it seems to be a missed opportunity ...


----------



## canonnews (Apr 19, 2019)

Jethro said:


> I'm surprised at the lack of OIS in the announced (and patent leaked) RF lenses so far.



from what I can tell the 3 RF lenses that I found yesterday all have the potential of containing IS.


----------



## juststeve (Apr 20, 2019)

For a little light reading while having my morning cup of coffee, I read the patent. Not only does the 58/1.4 patent show two moving focusing elements, but also the 70-200/4 shows it and mentions having two sets of moving elements for focusing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2019)

juststeve said:


> For a little light reading while having my morning cup of coffee, I read the patent.


You’re a brave man. I need to wait an hour or so for the caffeine to kick in before reading a patent.


----------



## canonnews (Apr 20, 2019)

juststeve said:


> For a little light reading while having my morning cup of coffee, I read the patent. Not only does the 58/1.4 patent show two moving focusing elements, but also the 70-200/4 shows it and mentions having two sets of moving elements for focusing.


Yes. Unlike most lens patents, this one was really about the focus system and not the lenses.


----------



## Jethro (Apr 21, 2019)

canonnews said:


> from what I can tell the 3 RF lenses that I found yesterday all have the potential of containing IS.


Fantastic if that's the case - I take it the IS elements can be added later and don't need to be patented along with the rest of the formula?


----------



## canonnews (Apr 21, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Fantastic if that's the case - I take it the IS elements can be added later and don't need to be patented along with the rest of the formula?



the 28mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8 definitely mention the IS element.
this patent was really about the dual auto focus motors and related logic surrounding that, it didn't go into much detail of the lens design.


----------

