# Patent: Lower cost RF mount prime and zoom lenses, including an RF 16-35mm f/4



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 29, 2019)

> Canon obviously needs some “affordable” prime and zoom lenses for the RF mount, and a few JPO patent applications seem to suggest we’re getting closer to that being a reality.
> *Canon RF 20mm f/2*
> 
> Focal length: 20.50
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 29, 2019)

Some of those look familiar, specifically the September rumor mentions 20mm f/2, 35mm f/2, and a 16-35mm f/4.

IMHO, Canon will release some of those lenses. E.g. Canon hasn't released a 20mm lens since '92, but I don't see it leaving a hole at this focal length in the RF mount.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 29, 2019)

That 35mm f/2 is practically a pancake when you subtract the flange distance.


----------



## Tom W (Nov 29, 2019)

Interesting - the 20/2 and 16-35 f/4 are of interest. Although my EF 16-35 works just fine on the R also.


----------



## Daner (Nov 29, 2019)

If the RF 16-35 f/4 has IS, it is likely to be a very interesting alternative to the RF 15-35 f/2.8.


----------



## KrisK (Nov 29, 2019)

28mm


----------



## Stuart (Nov 29, 2019)

Yes indeed, some more accessible lenses would be of interest. Zooms and a few niche primes. I'd rather Canon released theirs before the 3rd party MFGs beat them to it. ( +1 for the 16 to 35 f4)


----------



## gzroxas (Nov 29, 2019)

I’m really looking forward to a 16-35 f4 IS and 85 1.8 (maybe IS too)!


----------



## Kit. (Nov 29, 2019)

Why is 35/2.8 so long? A macro lens?


----------



## IcyBergs (Nov 29, 2019)

An RF 16-35 f4 makes a lot of sense and not just from an affordability standpoint. If you aren't an event shooter chances are you may never use those focal lengths and anything wider than f8, and if so the extra weight and cost of the f2.8 is a waste. 

The f4 ultrawide has always been a popular lens with landscapers since the introduction of the 17-40 and continued with the much better 16-35 f4 IS, and so will this RF version when ultimately released.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 29, 2019)

> ... Lower cost RF ... “affordable” ...


*ROTFL*

I know, good glass costs good money - sometimes even more - but...

Okay, let's wait and see what will hit the market and when.

But right now nothing but a big lottery win would draw me into R/RF system.
And as I payed attention in probability calculation I don't play gambling games.


----------



## Mars1954 (Nov 30, 2019)

IcyBergs said:


> An RF 16-35 f4 makes a lot of sense and not just from an affordability standpoint. If you aren't an event shooter chances are you may never use those focal lengths and anything wider than f8, and if so the extra weight and cost of the f2.8 is a waste.
> 
> The f4 ultrawide has always been a popular lens with landscapers since the introduction of the 17-40 and continued with the much better 16-35 f4 IS, and so will this RF version when ultimately released.


!6-35 f/4 has also been a favorite of real estate photographers!


----------



## Jethro (Nov 30, 2019)

Mars1954 said:


> !6-35 f/4 has also been a favorite of real estate photographers!


Certainly at the wide end!


----------



## Jethro (Nov 30, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> That 35mm f/2 is practically a pancake when you subtract the flange distance.


Not quite at 50mm but still a good size. I'd snap up an RF pancake ...

Edit, but as pointed: out 50mm - flange distance. I would probably buy it as a walk around lens for the EOS R.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why is 35/2.8 so long? A macro lens?



Perhaps it's a sign they will offer a few high-IQ f/2.8 L primes similar to the Fujifilm GF f/2.8 lenses for the GFX.


----------



## Pape (Nov 30, 2019)

Mars1954 said:


> !6-35 f/4 has also been a favorite of real estate photographers!


Those cheating house seller wants room look bigger  honest seller would use hasselblad


----------



## Han (Nov 30, 2019)

No pancake


----------



## Joules (Nov 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why is 35/2.8 so long? A macro lens?





Jethro said:


> Not quite at 50mm but still a good size. I'd snap up an RF pancake ...





Han said:


> No pancake


Did you guys forget to subtract the flange distance? Total lens length of 50mm means 30mm sticking out past the mount. The EF 40mm 2.8 is 23 mm long and it definitely is a pancake.

In my eyes, those 7 mm make no difference. That lens is tiny!


----------



## Kit. (Nov 30, 2019)

highdesertmesa said:


> Perhaps it's a sign they will offer a few high-IQ f/2.8 L primes similar to the Fujifilm GF f/2.8 lenses for the GFX.


GF are lenses with a larger image circle. Fuji makes them 2.8 just not to make them _too_ expensive.



Joules said:


> Did you guys forget to subtract the flange distance?


Subtract or not, how do you explain that the 35/2.8 is a centimeter longer than the 35/2.0?


----------



## jeliel (Nov 30, 2019)

What about a RF 70-300mm f/4(-5,6 ?) IS USM ?


----------



## Joules (Nov 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Subtract or not, how do you explain that the 35/2.8 is a centimeter longer than the 35/2.0?


At 63 mm past the mount, the RF 35 mm 1
8 Is is still 23 mm longer than this 35 mm 2.8. I don't think macro capabilities are only adding a cm to such a lens. I would simply guess that the longer lens has more corrective elements? In any case, it is still small.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 30, 2019)

Joules said:


> At 63 mm past the mount, the RF 35 mm 1
> 8 Is is still 23 mm longer than this 35 mm 2.8.


But it's an /1.8 macro lens. /2.0 non-macro lens from the patent is expectedly shorter. Why is /2.8 longer than /2.0 if it's not a macro lens?


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 30, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Not quite at 50mm but still a good size. I'd snap up an RF pancake ...



I’d like you to pay special attention to the part of my message that says ”when you subtract the flange distance”. 50 mm – 20 mm = 30 mm.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 30, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



This is great news. Canon is innovating again and looking to support all levels of users.
Now where is IBIS please.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 30, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> This is great news. Canon is innovating again and looking to support all levels of users.



You mean Canon wasn't innovating with such lenses as EF 11-24mm (where is Nikon's equivalent?), EF 8-15mm (Nikon's was released 7 years after the Canon), tilt shift lenses (Nikon's PC-E 19mm came out 7 years after Canon's TS-E 17mm), etc?



Architect1776 said:


> Now where is IBIS please.



Fair question.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Nov 30, 2019)

Some lovely patients appearing for the RF mount, we know most wont ever see the light of day however it looks like lots of new RF glass is on the horizon for Canon R series shooters.

I’m enjoying shooting with the RF 24-70 IS, the AF is noticeably quicker than adapted older EF lenses and the effective IS allows a lower shutter speed in darker conditions using off camera flash again allowing the camera to see better and so aid quicker AF, but it’s just such a heavy combination. I knew I had to go for the 24-70 over the lighter 24-105 but a better choice of lighter lenses for certain shoots would be welcomed.

The RF 20mm f/2 and the RF 16-35mm f/4 from this batch sound appealing to me I’d love an RF pancake too.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 1, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> That 35mm f/2 is practically a pancake when you subtract the flange distance.



Great news, i love the 22mm on EOS-M because its very tiny.
This as a equivalent might be a little bit bigger than a tiny EOS-M+22, but maybe is even better.


----------



## analoggrotto (Dec 1, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> That 35mm f/2 is practically a pancake when you subtract the flange distance.



Let's hope so! Hungry for some pancakes! A pancake will allow my fullframe canon to go where ever I do.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 1, 2019)

KrisK has said it already--how about a 28 mm?! An old 28 f/2.8 was my best ever single lens. An RF f/2 IS would be fantastic. Doesn't need to be tiny or macro or super cheap. Excellent optics and good build is all.

And for what it's worth--I really like my R. It's a fantastic camera just as it is. Sure it could be improved, but for 1800, what the hell?


----------



## victorshikhman (Dec 1, 2019)

Oh come on, Canon. Refresh that old EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 with better IQ, weather sealing, five stops of IS and start moving 90D's by the truckload. It's the camera you have now, not the camera you promise to give us in 2022. Just do it! How can this not be a thing when you're making all sorts of niche nonsense.


----------



## jjesp (Dec 2, 2019)

But still no 28mm?? Come on Canon. Make one now!


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 2, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> You mean Canon wasn't innovating with such lenses as EF 11-24mm (where is Nikon's equivalent?), EF 8-15mm (Nikon's was released 7 years after the Canon), tilt shift lenses (Nikon's PC-E 19mm came out 7 years after Canon's TS-E 17mm), etc?
> 
> 
> 
> Fair question.



Those are great lenses but are evolutionary. Not major innovation like the EF mount.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 3, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Those are great lenses but are evolutionary. Not major innovation like the EF mount.



While IBIS is innovative?

Yeah, sure.


----------



## Jaysheldon (Dec 3, 2019)

Interesting there's an 85 mm f1.8 on the list. I just bought the EF version for CDN$350. Regular price CDN$620. While it's on the Canon Canada Store web site, that lens is no longer listed as available for purchase (which I assume means only stock left in stores is avail for purchase). I wonder if Canon is clearing older EF non-L lenses out. I noticed a few months ago the EF 100mm f2 was no longer listed by Canon Canada. Nor, suddenly is the EF 50mm f1.4. A salesman told me Saturday the recent Black Friday sale price of that lens cleared out all the stock in his store. Now if only there was a good sale on the EF 35 mm f2 (which now in Canadian dollars lists at $880. BFriday sale $750)


----------



## analoggrotto (Dec 4, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Oh come on, Canon. Refresh that old EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 with better IQ, weather sealing, five stops of IS and start moving 90D's by the truckload. It's the camera you have now, not the camera you promise to give us in 2022. Just do it! How can this not be a thing when you're making all sorts of niche nonsense.



Between their 2 APS-C lines, Canon does seem to have every sub $1500 segment and sub segment covered.


----------



## mpeeps (Dec 4, 2019)

Daner said:


> If the RF 16-35 f/4 has IS, it is likely to be a very interesting alternative to the RF 15-35 f/2.8.


 The 15-35 also has IS.


----------

