It's only a matter of time before we see an ultra-wide angle zoom lens for the Canon RF mount (as well as the RF-S mount). It looks like Canon may be trying to go wider than the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM if the bevy of patents are leading to a consumer available product.

This latest patent shows optical formulas for an RF 8-15mm f/4L USM and an RF 16-24mm f/4L USM. The RF 16-24mm f/4L USM doesn't make much sense with the existence of the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. The RF 8-15mm f/4L USM lines up with the EF 8-15mm f/4L USM zoom fisheye.

We have previously reported that a zoom fisheye would be coming to the RF mount in the next year or so, so this may be part of that development.

Japan Patent JP,2023-104025 deals with decreasing the size of a full-frame RF ultra-wide zoom lens.

To obtain high optical performance in the entire zooming range in a small-sized zoom lens having a wide angle of view.

https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/c1800/PU/JP-2023-104025/5A42F24A88DE05A9C924B00C476F42139B0E0CC33F32042B52D2001A887B0673/11/en

Canon RF 8-15mm f/4L USM

  • Focal length: 8.56mm – 14.42mm
  • F-number: 4.12
  • Half angle of view: 52.47° – 56.32°
  • Height: 11.15mm – 21.64mm
  • Length Overall: 119.70mm
  • Back Focus: 22.47mm – 34.96mm

Canon RF 16-24mm f/4L USM

  • Focal length: 16.00mm – 24.00mm
  • F-number: 4.12
  • Half angle of view: 53.52° – 42.03°
  • Height: 21.64mm
  • Length Overall: 118.86mm
  • Back Focus: 23.30mm – 37.54mm

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Go to discussion...

31 comments

  1. "To obtain high optical performance in the entire zooming range in a small-sized zoom lens having a wide angle of view."
    Canon RF 8-15mm f/4L USM
    • Focal length: 8.56mm – 14.42mm
    • F-number: 4.12
    • Half angle of view: 52.47° – 56.32°
    • Height: 11.15mm – 21.64mm
    • Length Overall: 119.70mm
    • Back Focus: 22.47mm – 34.96mm
    119.70 mm is quite a bit longer than the EF 8-15mm f/4L USM
    • 0
  2. Canon seem to be very slow to bring out an ultra wide for the RF-S cameras. I assume they would be trying to sell RF-S cameras in bulk but are not currently well supported with RF-S Lens. On the RF the market for very wide angles is slim. Wider than 11mm is fairly extreme and subjects it suit’s limited. I’ve the EF 11-24mm and it’s one of my least used lens. It works really well on a certain limited range of subjects. Anything wider rectilinear I’d have no use for. It gets crazy expensive. A 16-35mm F4 is a much more useful lens and far cheaper
    • 0
  3. 16-24 would make much sense for me, since I always have a 35 mm on my Leica M. The 16-24, if small, would ideally complement the 35 mm. These 2 WAs, a macro and a 100-400 (500?) sound like the perfect equipment for mountain hikes.
    PS: I would not use the 35mm focal of a 14/15/16 - 35mm zoom, being convinced that the Summilux 35 produces better pictures and also because my second body is always the M. So, the 16-24 RF would be great for me !
    • 0
  4. Talking about wideangle patents...
    I don't think these 12 & 15mm prime patents have been mentioned here before?:
    Good find.

    What exactly does this mean?

    "If you're looking forward to it, the "15mm F2" and "12mm F2.8" will be around, but neither of them have enough image height for full-frame use, and it seems that the design is based on the assumption that the corners will be extended when correcting distortion."
    • 0
  5. What exactly does this mean?

    "If you're looking forward to it, the "15mm F2" and "12mm F2.8" will be around, but neither of them have enough image height for full-frame use, and it seems that the design is based on the assumption that the corners will be extended when correcting distortion."
    It means the designs have strong barrel distortion and correction of that distortion will be forced in-camera. That’s the case with several current RF lenses, like the 16/2.8 and 14-35/4L. That correction ‘stretches’ the corners of the image to fill the frame. If you look at an uncorrected RAW image, the extreme corners are black.

    It’s not necessarily a bad thing, the IQ can remain very good and it means smaller, lighter lenses (e.g., it’s why the 14-35/4 can take 77mm filters).

    • 0
  6. Also on Asobinet July 28.2023 are these intriguing items.

    Patent application for optical system assuming "RF24-300mm F2.8-5.6 IS", "RF24-240mm F2-5.6 IS", "RF40-350mm F2.8-5.6 IS". Most seem to be quite large, bulky lenses, but one is reasonably small.

    • 0
  7. Personally, I’d prefer a faster ultra wide like a 12-24 f/2.8 or something more exotic like a 14-24 f/2. Canon has already made some great workhorse options with the 14-35 and 15-35, but I’d love to see some of weirder and lesser used options become available. These sound much more like very size conscious options, which have their place, but I’d really love to see some faster options.
    • 0
  8. Personally, I’d prefer a faster ultra wide like a 12-24 f/2.8 or something more exotic like a 14-24 f/2. Canon has already made some great workhorse options with the 14-35 and 15-35, but I’d love to see some of weirder and lesser used options become available. These sound much more like very size conscious options, which have their place, but I’d really love to see some faster options.
    I own the 11-24/4 lens. It is great when the subject matter begs for it. But it is huge and heavy and my 16-35/4 gets the most work, especially if carrying it more than a mile is a factor. I think a 2.8 version would be even larger and heavier and might demand a truck both to carry it and haul enough cash to buy it to the photo store.
    • 0
  9. RF 16-24 f4 doesn't make sense inho since there's RF15-30 and RF14-35L already. If it's RF-S 16-24 f4 still doesn't make sense, it's not too slow but short focal range makes it limited. If it's a lens sit price between RF15-30 and RF14-35L. This will be very interesting. A true competitor to typical E-mount 16-28/17-28, and most likely smaller size.

    If Canon is willing to make tons of 500~999USD f4 lens with IS. The RF 3rd party cries will die off.
    • 0
  10. Personally, I’d prefer a faster ultra wide like a 12-24 f/2.8 or something more exotic like a 14-24 f/2. Canon has already made some great workhorse options with the 14-35 and 15-35, but I’d love to see some of weirder and lesser used options become available. These sound much more like very size conscious options, which have their place, but I’d really love to see some faster options.
    I wonder what a RF14-24/2 would retail at!!
    • 0
  11. I own the 11-24/4 lens. It is great when the subject matter begs for it. But it is huge and heavy and my 16-35/4 gets the most work, especially if carrying it more than a mile is a factor. I think a 2.8 version would be even larger and heavier and might demand a truck both to carry it and haul enough cash to buy it to the photo store.

    Yeah, I already carry the 16-35 f/4 and a 14 f/2.8 together on some very long hikes, so my hope is that something like this actually reduces the burden! I’d expect my 16 to still be a go to just for filler use. I’ve found that I often need a bit wider than my 14, but I still also need it fast. With that said, Sony manages to build that lens for just shy of $3k and it weighs 847g, so it can be done!
    • 0
  12. I wonder what a RF14-24/2 would retail at!!
    A lot!

    A lens no one else makes? The sky is the limit. I thought there was a rumour of something similar at one point, like a 14-21 f/2, to go with the 28-70 f/2. But yes, very big, very heavy, very expensive.
    • 0
  13. A lot!

    A lens no one else makes? The sky is the limit. I thought there was a rumour of something similar at one point, like a 14-21 f/2, to go with the 28-70 f/2. But yes, very big, very heavy, very expensive.
    Yes - there was a rumour about this lens long ago:

    • 0
  14. I do astro and low light/night street photography.
    I am looking for a very bright wide angle/fish eye lens, something like F1,8 or F2.0 maximum (I think that Sony has some like that or at least compatible from third parties...).
    I have the Canon R5 with the RF 15-35mm f2,8 which is a very good lens. Something like a bit wider like an RF 10mm f 1,8 would be just perfect:-)
    • 0
  15. I do astro and low light/night street photography.
    I am looking for a very bright wide angle/fish eye lens, something like F1,8 or F2.0 maximum (I think that Sony has some like that or at least compatible from third parties...).
    I have the Canon R5 with the RF 15-35mm f2,8 which is a very good lens. Something like a bit wider like an RF 10mm f 1,8 would be just perfect:)
    If you don't mind manual focus and no EXIF: Laowa has extremely wide primes at f/4 and f/5.6 and less extremely wide primes at f/2, all availabe in RF. Their extremely wide f/2 primes are sadly only for crop sensors.
    • 0
  16. Good find.

    What exactly does this mean?

    "If you're looking forward to it, the "15mm F2" and "12mm F2.8" will be around, but neither of them have enough image height for full-frame use, and it seems that the design is based on the assumption that the corners will be extended when correcting distortion."
    The image height is not large enough so image stretching is required.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment