# Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 27, 2020)

> Yesterday I posted a patent showing the optical formulas for both an RF 15-35mm f/4L and an RF 16-35mm f/4L. I noted that an RF 14-35mm f/4L is rumored to be coming in 2021, and I did wonder aloud if that was a type, but it appears Canon is definitely working on an RF 14-35mm f/4L optical formula.
> It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom and will likely have IS as well.
> Japan Patent Application 2020-190696
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Mr.Burberry (Nov 27, 2020)

Well.. good news get even better!


----------



## xwxw (Nov 27, 2020)

244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.


----------



## Tangent (Nov 27, 2020)

xwxw said:


> 244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.



Good point... but maybe that length pertains to the underwater housing mentioned in the OP?


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 27, 2020)

RF 15-32 f4-4.5 though! Not that it makes much difference, but I'd prefer they were honest about this.


----------



## fred (Nov 27, 2020)

"It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom."

If true, it is already better than the Nikon Z 14-30 F4 S.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 27, 2020)

If this is continuing the increase in preformance/IQ compared to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM I'll raise my hat to Canon for their R&D department.


----------



## padam (Nov 27, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> If this is continuing the increase in preformance/IQ compared to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM I'll raise my hat to Canon for their R&D department.


If it is only just as sharp at equivalent focal lengths while being wider as well as lighter and more compact, it is a big advancement.
They will also take care of of some other minor flaws, namely flaring, and the noisy AF during video recording.

But it's also going to cost twice as much compared to the EF lens, so it won't be as popular. But due to all camera sales continually decreasing, it's not designed to be anyway.


----------



## Joules (Nov 27, 2020)

Wow, what a gigantic lens! What ever happened to mirrorless being all about making wide lenses smaller?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 27, 2020)

xwxw said:


> 244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.



There are weird lens lengths in patents from time to time. I wouldn't read too much into it.


----------



## xwxw (Nov 27, 2020)

You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be?  I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.


----------



## LensFungus (Nov 27, 2020)

xwxw said:


> You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be?  I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 194188


D looks like the cannonball from Super Mario.


----------



## KirkD (Nov 27, 2020)

I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm. It would be more honest to call it a 15-34 zoom when one looks at the actual numbers.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 27, 2020)

KirkD said:


> I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm.


I also have mathematical issues. Canon's cripple rounding.


----------



## Bahrd (Nov 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I also have mathematical issues. Canon's cripple* rounding.



* When a distribution is skewed, such a rounding can produce a proper outcome... 

PS
I wouldn't blame Canon (yet) anyway... There is no direct designation of the lens' parameters in the patent. The headlines seem to rather be our host's (and the CN guy) translation/interpretation.


----------



## sanj (Nov 28, 2020)

KirkD said:


> I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm. It would be more honest to call it a 15-34 zoom when one looks at the actual numbers.


It would be prudent to hold the judgement until after the launch. This is just a rumour.


----------



## Ale_F (Nov 28, 2020)

fred said:


> "It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom."
> 
> If true, it is already better than the Nikon Z 14-30 F4 S.


Despite the two RF70-200 are compact, I prefer the internal zoom like the EF17-40 and others.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Nov 28, 2020)

The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.


----------



## Joules (Nov 28, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> we can move to an f/4 trinity. 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 in three lenses


A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though. What does that have to do with the points you made before and after about cheaper or lighter?


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 28, 2020)

Joules said:


> A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though. What does that have to do with the points you made before and after about cheaper or lighter?



I read it as I think it was intended. f/4 or slower lenses.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 28, 2020)

I´m very glad to see this patent since I'm really hoping for an RF 14-35mm instead of a 16-35mm. 

I'm not concerned about the length or the aperture being F4.5 at 32mm because this is one patent (probably of many to come...) and I'm pretty sure Canon will figure things out to get it right. Furthermore, this patent is obviously more concerned with getting it in into an underwater housing, so maybe the specs are either old or maybe altered for research purposes.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Nov 28, 2020)

Mmmm... 1mm extra at the wide end, internal zoom, still retaining IS and cheaper, but 1 stop slower. If I owned a R body, it would sound like a trade-off I'd be willing to take, especially for landscape and travel photography.


----------



## Ale_F (Nov 28, 2020)

davidcl0nel said:


> The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.



No, it's internal.








EF 17-40 f/4L USM


EF Mount L-Series Lens F/4 Super UD Ring Ultrasonic Autofocus Motor Manual Focus Override Water and Dust Resistant




www.usa.canon.com


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 29, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> No, it's internal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't change size on the outside, but it does move the front elelemt while zooming:






And it's also one of those L lenses which are only "weather sealed" if you screw on a front filter. I removed the filter for the video, but normally there's always one on there.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 29, 2020)

There's a rumored RF 10-24mm f/4L, which the EF 11-24mm f/4L makes me believe is true. The wider the RF 1x-35mm f/4L will be, the more it will eat into the 10-24mm's sales, all the more so if it would have IS. With the 10-24mm being a niche lens that would have to compete with the EF 11-24mm f/4L w/ adapter, I think Canon would rather not add any more competition.

So I think Canon would release an RF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM to replace the EF lens, in face of Nikon's competing 14-30mm f/4


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 29, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> There's a rumored RF 10-24mm f/4L, which the EF 11-24mm f/4L makes me believe is true. The wider the RF 1x-35mm f/4L will be, the more it will eat into the 10-24mm's sales, all the more so if it would have IS. With the 10-24mm being a niche lens that would have to compete with the EF 11-24mm f/4L w/ adapter, I think Canon would rather not add any more competition.
> 
> So I think Canon would release an RF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM to replace the EF lens, in face of Nikon's competing 14-30mm f/4



Surely, in theory a 14-35mm could cost a few sales regarding the 10-24mm, but there is another side to it: 
Sigma has an excellent 14-24mm and an very affordable 12-24mm. As you mentioned, Nikon has a 14-30mm f4 . Keeping the UWA F4 lense at 16-35mm would probably mean more lost sales to Sigma as a third party lense manufacturer than lost sales on a 10-24mm. 

Regarding new customers Nikons offer would be more intriguing as well, not even considering Sony and their 12-24 F4. 

Customers requiring/ asking for a 10-14mm range are willing to pay in order not to make comprises, so in my opinion not going wider would be more costly for Canon. 

Imho, Canon needs a* filterable* 14-35mm F4 like Nikons 14-30mm which uses a 82mm filter thread if I'm not mistaken here.


----------



## Ale_F (Nov 29, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It doesn't change size on the outside, but it does move the front elelemt while zooming:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops, I use a frontal filter so I never seen this part moving.
Broadly speaking it's an external but internal varifocal lens :-D


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 29, 2020)

Can someone elaborate on the underwater housing aspect for it in the patent? Normally the difference in the lens length is adjusted in the housing by changing the port extensions. There are a set number of lengths and a combination of them gets you the length you need. The dome (generally 8" or more) adjusts for the field of view for the air/water interface. 8"/curvature handles from 8mm fisheye upwards so I am not sure why the patent includes it.


----------



## sanj (Nov 30, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> There's a rumored RF 10-24mm f/4L, which the EF 11-24mm f/4L makes me believe is true. The wider the RF 1x-35mm f/4L will be, the more it will eat into the 10-24mm's sales, all the more so if it would have IS. With the 10-24mm being a niche lens that would have to compete with the EF 11-24mm f/4L w/ adapter, I think Canon would rather not add any more competition.
> 
> So I think Canon would release an RF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM to replace the EF lens, in face of Nikon's competing 14-30mm f/4


Dont think so. There is a world of difference between 10mm and 15 mm.


----------



## victorshikhman (Nov 30, 2020)

This is an exciting lens, and just as exciting will be picking up the EF 16-35 F4 refurb for $450 when the rich kids upgrade to the $2200 lens  But seriously, there's no one even close to Canon in bringing out these monsters, one after another. Even as a rumor, it's giving Nikon and Sony engineers sleepless nights. So many bought into Nikon just to use that 14-24 f2.8. This is the kind of lens that anchors a system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 30, 2020)

davidcl0nel said:


> The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.



Yes, and all of the movement of the front element is recessed inside the outer lens barrel.


----------



## melgross (Nov 30, 2020)

Looks more like a 15-33 mm zoom.


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 30, 2020)

With the 16-35 F4 being my current most used lens (by quite a large margin) - I'ld just say that for me - being able to mount filters on the front is a necessity.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 30, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Surely, in theory a 14-35mm could cost a few sales regarding the 10-24mm, but there is another side to it:
> Sigma has an excellent 14-24mm and an very affordable 12-24mm. As you mentioned, Nikon has a 14-30mm f4 . Keeping the UWA F4 lense at 16-35mm would probably mean more lost sales to Sigma as a third party lense manufacturer than lost sales on a 10-24mm.



I think this should be broken to three categories:

1. Nikon has no lens wider than 14mm. I can see why it would like to stretch its 16-35mm f/4 a little wider. 

2. An RF 10-24mm f/4L would cover both the Sigma & Sony 12-24mm f/4 lenses.

3. Nikon has a 14-24mm f/2.8 for over a decade. Seems between the 11-24mm f/4, Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8, and Sigma 12-24mm f/4, Canon never felt a need to compete with Nikon. 



Exploreshootshare said:


> Customers requiring/ asking for a 10-14mm range are willing to pay in order not to make comprises, so in my opinion not going wider would be more costly for Canon.



I have the EF 11-24mm. Sometimes I miss my EF 15mm f/2.8.



sanj said:


> Don't think so. There is a world of difference between 10mm and 15 mm.



Yes, on the wide side every mm counts. Then, other things count as well, e.g. money.

The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L costs $2,900. An RF 10-24mm f/4L will be even more expensive. How wide can an RF 1x-35mm f/4L go before people give up because they don't use 10-1x enough, would rather shoot panos, etc?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 30, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> 2. An RF 10-24mm f/4L would cover both the Sigma & Sony 12-24mm f/4 lenses.



Considering the focal you obviously right. But the price for the 11-24mm is about twoandahalf the price of the Sigma and twice the price then the Sony. So, I'd consider the RF 10-24mm to be even more expensive and due to pricing and focal range it really has a market of its own.



Antono Refa said:


> 3. Nikon has a 14-24mm f/2.8 for over a decade. Seems between the 11-24mm f/4, Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8, and Sigma 12-24mm f/4, Canon never felt a need to compete with Nikon.



Given what I stated at No. 2, in imho the RF follow-up for the EF 16-35mm F4 is the lense that will actually compete with the Sony/ Nikon lense. Therefore, I do see a need to go wider.



Antono Refa said:


> The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L costs $2,900. An RF 10-24mm f/4L will be even more expensive. How wide can an RF 1x-35mm f/4L go before people give up because they don't use 10-1x enough, would rather shoot panos, etc?


That's a question I can't answer. Canon needs to find an answer while designing those two lenses, it'll probably be a compromise something like "go wider, but not too wide" because they want to sell both lenses. Therefore, I'm expecting a 15-35 F4, but I'm still hoping for 14-35mm...


----------



## millan (Dec 1, 2020)

What does the image height of 21.64 mm mean? I thought the image height of FF camera was 24 mm, not 21.64 mm.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2020)

millan said:


> What does the image height of 21.64 mm mean? I thought the image height of FF camera was 24 mm, not 21.64 mm.


image height in patents refers to die radius of the image circle. To be labeled an FF lens, this has to equal or larger than the diagonal from the center to any edge of a full frame sensor.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There are weird lens lengths in patents from time to time. I wouldn't read too much into it.


Can someone elaborate on the underwater housing aspect within the patent? Normally the difference in the lens length is adjusted in the housing by changing the port extensions. There are a set number of lengths and a combination of them gets you the length you need. The dome (generally 8" or more) adjusts for the field of view for the air/water interface. 8"/curvature handles from 8mm fisheye upwards so I am not sure why the patent includes it.


----------

