This is an intriguing patent application (2024-074321) because there are a few different embodiments that deserve a closer look than I originally thought reading through it.

First, the 20-60mm F2.8 would cover a lot of focal length bases for me. I love to shoot a bit wider than 24mm, and 60mm seems a nice compromise between 50 and 70mm. This is a fairly complex lens, but not enough that I would necessarily expect a red ring around it.

The 28-70 and 24-70's embodiments are far simpler in terms of optical design than the current L's so we could see these are cheaper non-L's of constant aperture F2.8's. This wouldn't be a bad thing at all, giving people more lens options is always a good thing in my world.

All in all, I think these lenses seem to be sitting in between the consumer STM and the professional series L lenses – something that Canon hasn't regularly explored but we'd be better off if they did.

Canon RF 20-60mm F2.8

NearMiddleFar
Focal Length21.63 41.64   61.25
F-Number2.89     2.89     2.89     
Half Angle Of View39.77    27.46    19.45  
Lens Length (including focal Plane Distance)171.39   150.09   154.91  
Back Focus Distance22.99    26.93    30.88  

Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8

NearMiddleFar
Focal Length24.70    46.61    68.70  
F-Number2.89     2.89     2.89
Half Angle Of View36.73    24.90    17.48  
Lens Length (including focal Plane Distance)171.15   152.40   157.34  
Back Focus Distance (mm)22.75    25.47    28.19  

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8

NearMiddleFar
Focal Length28.70    49.06    68.70  
F-Number2.89     2.89     2.89  
Half Angle Of View32.71    23.80    17.48  
Lens Length (including focal Plane Distance)158.44   146.78   153.21  
Back Focus Distance22.44    23.91    26.15  

As with all patent applications, this may or may not end up in an actual patent, but it's a look into Canon's ongoing research.

Source: Japan Patent Application 2024-074321

Go to discussion...

15 comments

  1. Canon might be leaning into simplified lens designs with a lot of in camera lens correction. The RF 24-105mm f/2.8 Z proved that a technically poor lens can produce fantastic images if the camera is correcting for lens aberrations.
    • 0
  2. Would a fast zoom covering 85mm be possible? Many event photographers prefer 85 for portraits, I wish there was something like 20-85 f/2 or even a 24-85. The current 28-70 f/2 isn’t quite wide and long enough, and the 24-105 f2.8 isn’t quite fast enough, at least not fast enough to replace primes.
    • 0
  3. Would a fast zoom covering 85mm be possible?
    Of cause but large, heavy and very, very expensive.:eek:
    Probably too heavy and too expensive to be ever produced.:unsure:
    • 0
  4. Would a fast zoom covering 85mm be possible? Many event photographers prefer 85 for portraits, I wish there was something like 20-85 f/2 or even a 24-85. The current 28-70 f/2 isn’t quite wide and long enough, and the 24-105 f2.8 isn’t quite fast enough, at least not fast enough to replace primes.
    There is the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8. I doubt if it does f/2 at 85 mm, but close enough maybe? Unfortunately this lens does not come in RF or EF mount.
    • 0
  5. I would rather love to see a 18-55mm F/4L with IS. It could be prioritized to be small and cover the full frame sensor. Basically it could be a Canon version of the Tamron 17-50mm F/4, but hopefully smaller. The weather sealing would make it a one and done travel lens
    • 0
  6. Would a fast zoom covering 85mm be possible? Many event photographers prefer 85 for portraits, I wish there was something like 20-85 f/2 or even a 24-85. The current 28-70 f/2 isn’t quite wide and long enough, and the 24-105 f2.8 isn’t quite fast enough, at least not fast enough to replace primes.
    • 0
  7. Would a fast zoom covering 85mm be possible? Many event photographers prefer 85 for portraits, I wish there was something like 20-85 f/2 or even a 24-85. The current 28-70 f/2 isn’t quite wide and long enough, and the 24-105 f2.8 isn’t quite fast enough, at least not fast enough to replace primes.

    Sure it would, but at a price, size and weight.
    • 0
  8. From a pocketability perspective, an f/4 variant would excite me more.

    And what pocket would that go into? A kangaroo pouch?

    Sorry, that was some real low hanging fruit :p

    PS- f/4 still wouldn't be small. And it would make it an order of magnitude less interesting.
    • 0
  9. And what pocket would that go into? A kangaroo pouch?

    Sorry, that was some real low hanging fruit :p

    PS- f/4 still wouldn't be small. And it would make it an order of magnitude less interesting.
    My winter parka can it an r8+100-400 in its side pockets :)
    More seriously, the f/4 version would either fit in a bag with other stuff or I can pick
    the smallest bag I have and use that. This would be a lens most used on family trips, so the more space saved, the more cookies I can bring :)
    • 0
  10. A 20-60L would be an instant buy for me.
    Add to this a 100 L macro, a 100-400L or 100-500L and I'd have the compact mountain hiking equipment with only 3 lenses.
    Provided the 20-60 range wouldn't mean any optical quality compromises (corner sharpness!).
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment