Close Menu

    Canon patents optical formula for an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x

    By 100 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents
    rf200500 728x364 - Canon patents optical formula for an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x

    One of the more popular “big white lenses” from Canon was the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x. It was never a reach to assume Canon would make an RF follow-up to that lens. It also shouldn't surprise anyone that Canon would do a redesign of the lens instead of a simply modifying the existing design for the RF mount.

    In this patent found by asobinet, Canon shows a bevy of similar optical formulas. If we had to guess, the RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x would be the perfect follow-up to its EF mate.

    Canon RF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x

    • Focal length: 205.1mm – 385.5mm
    • F-number: 4.1
    • Half angle of view: 5.99 – 3.21
    • Image Height: 21.63mm
    • Length Overall: 367.62mm
    • Back Focus: 39.994mm

    Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x

    • Focal length: 207.0mm – 487.9mm
    • F-number: 4.1
    • Half angle of view: 5.97-2.54
    • Image Height: 21.63mm
    • Length Overall: 410.05mm
    • Back Focus: 39.998mm

    Canon RF 300-700mm f/5.6L IS 1.4x

    • Focal length: 288.1mm – 678.9mm
    • F-number: 5.7
    • Half angle of view: 4.30-1.83
    • Image Height: 21.65mm
    • Length Overall: 410.05mm
    • Back Focus: 39.998mm
    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    100 comments

    2. Canon would make a lot of people happy by releasing an RF 200-500mm F4L IS 1.4x. I'm not in the market for such a lens, financially and by lack of use. I'm perfectly happy with RF 100-500mm but a consumer version (non L - more like the RF600/800mm) of the RF 300-700mm with a decent price would absolutely tempt me.
    3. This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
      I wonder about weight and cost.
      The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
      Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.
    4. Canon would make a lot of people happy by releasing an RF 200-500mm F4L IS 1.4x. I'm not in the market for such a lens, financially and by lack of use. I'm perfectly happy with RF 100-500mm but a consumer version (non L - more like the RF600/800mm) of the RF 300-700mm with a decent price would absolutely tempt me.
      You forget that the largest market for the big whites is not private use, but professional. Most of it end up with agencies and media outlets. Money is less of an object, then. The original 200-400 is one of the most successful sports photography lenses ever. Just look at any major sport event, to see how much of those bright super telephoto lenses are around. Make it longer and you win a lot of wildlife photographers for whom the EF version did not offer enough reach.
    5. This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
      I wonder about weight and cost.
      The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
      Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.
      They can do a 200-400 that is a lot lighter than the current one.
      The front element in a 200-500 has to be much bigger, although it will switch to electronic manual focusing, which in itself will save weight, not including the technical advancements made in optical design. Manufactures have shifted weight more and more rearwards with their latest super telephoto designs. So it will be much easier to handhold, even if it does not weigh a lot less on a scale.
      Price will be sky-high indeed.
    6. You forget that the largest market for the big whites is not private use, but professional. Most of it end up with agencies and media outlets. Money is less of an object, then. The original 200-400 is one of the most successful sports photography lenses ever. Just look at any major sport event, to see how much of those bright super telephoto lenses are around. Make it longer and you win a lot of wildlife photographers for whom the EF version did not offer enough reach.
      There will be many salivating over this lens, but not me. It's going to be too heavy for me for a walk around lens - the RF 100-500mm fulfils that role. And, if I need a wider lens I'd be in the market for a new generation of 300/2.8, 400/4 500/4 plus extenders where the weight can be significantly reduced.
    7. There will be many salivating over this lens, but not me. It's going to be too heavy for me for a walk around lens - the RF 100-500mm fulfils that role. And, if I need a wider lens I'd be in the market for a new generation of 300/2.8, 400/4 500/4 plus extenders where the weight can be significantly reduced.
      Same thoughts here.
      Though, I am always interested in what is technically possible and how will it perform.
      But price, weight, etc. will take me out of the market for that kind of super tele as well...
    9. That 300-700mm is far more attractive lens for wildlifers.
      The 300-700 is not a thing.
      It is the 200-500 with the 1.4x TC activated.
      I made the same mistake when I first read the patent.
    10. Sounds like an ideal lens to take on a safari. Since for me, that’s pretty much the only used case where this lens would be preferable to the 100–500 or 600/4, rental would be the best option if I want to use one.
    11. Sounds like an ideal lens to take on a safari. Since for me, that’s pretty much the only used case where this lens would be preferable to the 100–500 or 600/4, rental would be the best option if I want to use one.
      I agree, but I still question the weight of the lens. If I am on a game drive for 3-4 hrs with other individuals do I want to be dealing with such a large an heavy lens? Personally, I would prefer an ultralight 300 mm f2.8 or 500 mm f4 / f4.5 DO designs with built in 1.4x TCs or even a 200-600 mm f5.6-f6.3 similar to the Sony offering.

      I was always intrigued by the Canon EF 200-400 mm f4 L, but the weight of ~8 lbs was a big turn off for me and I doubt a 200-500 mm f4 would be lighter.
    12. The 300-700 is not a thing.
      It is the 200-500 with the 1.4x TC activated.
      I made the same mistake when I first read the patent.
      That's a real shame 300-700 f5.6 with TC wont exist, as that would make it a great wildlife lens at "reasonable" price(even a 300-700 5.6 without TC would be a great lens for wildlife).
    14. I agree with what many have said. It would be a perfect lens except for weight and price. I wonder if Canon will ever use Diffractive Optics in their R mount lenses to save weight? (Nikon uses their equivalent - Phase Fresnel - in their Z mount 800 lens).
    15. I wonder if Canon will ever use Diffractive Optics in their R mount lenses to save weight? (Nikon uses their equivalent - Phase Fresnel - in their Z mount 800 lens).
      The relatively inexpensive RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 use diffractive optics.
    16. This would be pretty much the only wildlife lens I'd ever need.
      I wonder about weight and cost.
      The old 200-400 TC was a hefty chunk at 3.6 kilos. Zoom lenses do not offer as much potential for weight savings, because of all the moving glass inside it. If Canon could achieve about the weight of the old 500/4 II (± 3 kg), this would be marvellous.
      Price: I would not be surprised about a 20k price tag. I hope though, Nikons more aggressive pricing put some pressure on Canon.
      Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
    17. The 300-700 is not a thing.
      It is the 200-500 with the 1.4x TC activated.
      I made the same mistake when I first read the patent.
      Ah, that explains the identical 120mm front element size of the two combinations.
    18. There is soooo much potential in lenses with TC included.... but we will wait for ever for lenses like Nikon now has (400 & 600 with TC). BUT Hey!!! we have a complete overpriced 800 & 1200mm without a TC...
    19. Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
      Some would say the same about a prime lens.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment