# Patent: Canon RF 70-240mm f/4 IS and RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 3, 2019)

> Canon is obviously busy developing new lenses for the RF mount, and we expect a lot of new lenses next year. We also expect some more affordable offerings for the RF mount.
> In the latest round of patents, we see optical formulas for both an RF 70-240mm f/4 IS and an RF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.
> *Canon RF 70-240mm f/4 IS USM:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## aquagene (Oct 3, 2019)

That RF 70-300 has been the one I'm really looking forward to. Using the EF 70-300 Nano USM with adapter right now for wildife photography and it's pretty unwieldy at times. This new design at 137mm (5.4 inches) closed will be amazing.

Interesting to see a 70-240 F4. I'm guessing that's probably just a design patent that might not turn into a lens.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 3, 2019)

Looks like Canon is getting serious about a good range of lenses for the RF mount. What is exciting is most all of them are eminently usable. Not like a what do you do with it, $9,000, f.95 manual focus lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 3, 2019)

I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300.  What will be the crying be about today?


----------



## shakedong93 (Oct 3, 2019)

IS???????


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 3, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300.  What will be the crying be about today?



The trolls will find something else in order to make their poor choices be justified in their minds.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 3, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300.  What will be the crying be about today?



Well, it's worth a try.

Canon won't make an M5 II!!! Waaaaaaah!!!!!!


----------



## melgross (Oct 3, 2019)

A 70-240 f4 that’s not an L version. How odd. An f4-6.3 that’s not an L, I would understand.


----------



## windsorc (Oct 4, 2019)

not making a 400mm f5.6, I'll cry about that


----------



## Tom W (Oct 4, 2019)

I think it'd be kind of nice to see a 100-300 f/4 zoom, a good companion to the 24-105. Throw on a 1.4X and you have a nice 140-420 f/5.6 zoom which is also useful.

Then again, the 100-400 II covers this pretty nicely.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 4, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Well, it's worth a try.
> 
> Canon won't make an M5 II!!! Waaaaaaah!!!!!!



LOL - yes they will. They started making it yesterday, right after I received my M6 II.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

Tom W said:


> LOL - yes they will. They started making it yesterday, right after I received my M6 II.



You only THINK that's a joke...

According to Canon News there's a patent that looks like a new version of the 11-22mm M series lens.

I just bought mine yesterday.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2019)

melgross said:


> A 70-240 f4 that’s not an L version. How odd. An f4-6.3 that’s not an L, I would understand.


What makes you think it’s not an L?


----------



## melgross (Oct 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> What makes you think it’s not an L?



I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.

i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.


----------



## Pape (Oct 4, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Well, it's worth a try.
> 
> Canon won't make an M5 II!!! Waaaaaaah!!!!!!


They make it when getting digic 9 and can do full video with 32mpix sensor


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2019)

melgross said:


> I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.
> 
> i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.


Compared to lenses like the RF 50, 85 and 28-70, a lens priced like the EF 70-200/4L IS would be ‘affordable’


----------



## BillB (Oct 4, 2019)

melgross said:


> I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.
> 
> i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.


Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

BillB said:


> Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?



If not, I'd check the patent for the presence of fluorite elements. If I understand correctly those usually are present in Ls and usually not present in non-Ls.


----------



## melgross (Oct 5, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Compared to lenses like the RF 50, 85 and 28-70, a lens priced like the EF 70-200/4L IS would be ‘affordable’


I guess it means different things to different people. What’s affordable to us may be very expensive to others.


----------



## melgross (Oct 5, 2019)

BillB said:


> Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?


Considering that the L lenses are their own designs, then whatever the design would be would be in the patent. As far as The L goes, that’s a trademark.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2019)

BillB said:


> Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?


Not per se. But in the Canon lineup, there is only one constant aperture zoom lens that’s not an L lens, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS (unless I’ve missed one or more). All FF constant aperture zoom lenses are L. To me, that suggests an RF 70-240/4 IS will have a red ring.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 5, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not per se. But in the Canon lineup, there is only one constant aperture zoom lens that’s not an L lens, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS (unless I’ve missed one or more). All FF constant aperture zoom lenses are L. To me, that suggests an RF 70-240/4 IS will have a red ring.



I agree... I think that for the RF trinity tele you might get your choice of f2.8, or f4 with slightly longer reach. Kind of like 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 5, 2019)

melgross said:


> I guess it means different things to different people. What’s affordable to us may be very expensive to others.


however, Neuro is right. reading the OP: We also expect some *more affordable* offerings ....

So not an affordable lens in absolute terms but relatively affordable in comparison to available RF lenses. makes sense.


----------



## melgross (Oct 5, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> however, Neuro is right. reading the OP: We also expect some *more affordable* offerings ....
> 
> So not an affordable lens in absolute terms but relatively affordable in comparison to available RF lenses. makes sense.


Well, I’m just speculating based on what he wrote in the description. I’m not saying it’s right, or wrong.


----------



## Pape (Oct 5, 2019)

200$ 70-240 f4 would be cool and prolly possible to make. But yeah sounds like red ring stuff.
Or maybe not ,cheapest full frame ef zooms seems to be 500E


----------



## RPF (Oct 8, 2019)

Actually this is the newest patent for FF mirrorless 70-200/2.8 (for Example 1, 2and3 ), aspherical UD lens is utilized, extremely high resolution and good multi-wavelength abberation correction.


----------

