In this patent application (2023-130885), Canon lists quite a few primes with a significant ingress, but also more notably a smaller image circle than what would normally be used for APS-C. For Canon APS-C, that's 13.66mm, whereas all these lenses have 12.50mm. Super-35 just in case anyone is thinking that is around 14.2mm so they are not for that application either. This means that to fill the entire APS-C frame, the image would have been stretched to fill the frame, thus leading to a loss of resolution. However, the usual benefits are a smaller lens and also cheaper costs to manufacture the lens.

Usually, I would ignore this patent application out of principle, but here we are. To be fair, these are nice, fairly small ultra-wide APS-C lenses, so I'd buy them in a heartbeat and ignore everything that I just wrote. Economics and practicality do win out occasionally.

When reading these particulars, take into account that the lens length is to the sensor plane, so that includes the 20mm flange distance of the RF mount (as an example), so the physical lens length is 20mm shorter.

These lenses do have a short back focus distance, but it's still in the realm of possibility.

I'm of the mindset that with focal lengths from 9mm to 30mm, Canon should simply make them all.

Canon APS-C 13mm F2.0

Focal length           13.40  
F number                2.06  
Half angle of view (°) 43.01  
Image height           12.50  
Lens Total length      77.83  
Back focus             12.43  

Canon APS-C 11mm F2.0

Focal length           11.30  
F number                2.06  
Half angle of view (°) 47.89 
Image height           12.50  
Lens total length      77.85  
Back focus             12.44  

Canon APS-C 22mm F2.0

Focal length           22.00  
F number                2.06
Half angle of view (°) 29.60
Image height           12.50
Lens total length      72.85
Back focus             12.44

Canon APS-C 30mm F2.0

Focal length           30.52  
F number                2.06  
Half angle of view (°) 22.27  
Image height           12.50  
Lens total length      75.88  
Back focus             14.49

Canon APS-C 9mm F2.0

Focal length            9.00  
F number                2.06  
Half angle of view (°) 54.25  
Image height           12.50  
Lens total length      79.30  
Back focus             12.43

As with all patent applications, this application may not lead to an actual patent or actual products – but it does allow us to see what Canon was researching and thought relevant enough to attempt to patent it.

Source: Japan Patent Application 2023-130885

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

Go to discussion...

23 comments

  1. In this patent application (2023-130885), Canon lists quite a few primes with a significant ingress, but also more notably a smaller image circle than what would normally be used for APS-C. For Canon APS-C, that’s 13.66mm, whereas all these lenses have 12.50mm. Super-35 just in case anyone is thinking that is around 14.2mm so they

    See full article...
    Canon seems to be trolling me for sure .. Here Richard.. another image stretcher for you.
    • 0
  2. Maybe a 10-20 or 9-18 f2.8 zoom will work better
    I don't think that canon will produce any f/2.8 APS-C zoom any more.
    I hope I am wrong.
    OTOH, f/2 prime is much smaller and delivers much more light on the sensor.
    And sometimes that is really needed.
    • 0
  3. The patents include both 9mm F2 and 11mm F2, though they may not actually be produced.
    I did read the patent description!
    I did realize that those are included!
    And because of this, I wrote my comment.

    The EF-M 22/2 is highly considered. So getting an RF-S version is almost a no-brainer to me.
    And this is representing the typical FF equivalent of a 35mm lens.
    But for people loving primes, something wider would be cool to add as a really nice prime setup.

    Or what do you think?
    • 0
  4. The lack of such lenses is one reason I would still steer at least some people to the M50 rather than the R50/R100. The latter really need such lenses if they're going to be a complete replacement for the M50.
    • 0
  5. I gave up hoping for decent APS-C zooms. Probably will buy an R8 instead. Canon won i guess.
    Seems they know their business. Shocking.

    On a serious note, the R8 is quite nice. It's the same price as the R7, and although the controls are not as good (the lens control ring or using Fv mode mitigates a lot of that), the R8 performance is overall better (battery life notwithstanding).
    • 0
  6. Seems they know their business. Shocking.

    On a serious note, the R8 is quite nice. It's the same price as the R7, and although the controls are not as good (the lens control ring or using Fv mode mitigates a lot of that), the R8 performance is overall better (battery life notwithstanding).

    I would have preferred something in the size of the R50, or even R50 without a viewfinder.
    • 0
  7. Seems they know their business. Shocking.

    On a serious note, the R8 is quite nice. It's the same price as the R7, and although the controls are not as good (the lens control ring or using Fv mode mitigates a lot of that), the R8 performance is overall better (battery life notwithstanding).
    The R7 has nearly twice the resolution, and in my world that's no contest for the R8 vs R7 as well as the low fps in EFCS. YM clearly V from mine.
    • 0
  8. Seems like Canon paid attention (retrospectively!) to the devastating recent critique in DPR of the R50, where the main criticism of the R50 BODY was that ... they're weren't many APS-C lenses to fit it ...

    [sarcasm alert]
    • 0
  9. I don't think that canon will produce any f/2.8 APS-C zoom any more.
    I hope I am wrong.
    OTOH, f/2 prime is much smaller and delivers much more light on the sensor.
    And sometimes that is really needed.
    Don't get our hopes up...I doubt Canon pulling a Thanos, where Canon is making all the decent price&spec primes.
    • 0
  10. ... where Canon is making all the decent price&spec primes.
    I feel quite sure that an RF-S 22/2 will come. It would be nice from Canon to add another one.
    But I won't say anything about my expectation on price ;) :(
    • 0
  11. I feel quite sure that an RF-S 22/2 will come. It would be nice from Canon to add another one.
    But I won't say anything about my expectation on price ;) :(
    I'm worried those EF-M lens might have flange distance that's too short, turning it into RF might end up a 24mm/f2. EF-M15-45 turned into RF-S18-45.
    • 0
  12. I'm worried those EF-M lens might have flange distance that's too short, turning it into RF might end up a 24mm/f2. EF-M15-45 turned into RF-S18-45.
    These patents are new designs. Maybe based on the EF-M, but new optical formulae. That means they are calculated for the RF system and its flange distance.
    So IMO you'll only have to worry IF and WHICH of these lenses will become a real product.
    But the patent is as it is and it shows a 22/2 formula.

    I don't know, if the flange distance was the reason that EF-M15-45 turned into RF-S18-45.
    Maybe there were other reasons that made Canon decide to make it start at 18mm.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment