|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Canon continues its development of super telephoto zoom lenses with another patent application showcasing a lot of different designs. The RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM design is the one that caught our attention.
We have been reporting for the last while that a fixed f/5.6 super telephoto zoom was coming, and likely alongside a bigger and faster zoom.
Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM
- Focal length: 205.00-495.00mm
- F-number: 5.75
- Half angle of view: 6.02°-2.50°
- Image height: 21.64
- Total length: 350.00
- Back focal length: 37.96
It is rare to see the exact optical design for an L lens to appear before the actual product is announced, but there are always a lot of related patent applications showcasing different optical designs, but the patents being more for a specific bit of tech.
This specific patent is for
To suppress aberration fluctuation and one-sided aperture occurrence that occur during zooming in a small and lightweight zoom lens.
Japan Patent Office 2025-080464
Size and weight continue to be a big area of development for obvious reasons, and it looks like the RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM design is quite compact for what it is. The lens design here would be about the same length as the RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM and with the same internal zoom design.
That also keeps it only slightly longer than the Nikon NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR.
Optical designs don't generally tell us the expected weight or circumference of a lens design, just the length and backfocus on the physical side of things.
We're going to be getting a lens like this sometime in next bunch of months, will this turn out to be what we see, or will we get something like an RF 150-600mm f/5.6L IS USM? We really hope to know with a level of certainty soon.
Source: Japan Patent Office
People were furious about the f/7.1 aperture and declared the lens to be unusable in anything else than broad daylight.
Of course the same was said about the f/11 lenses, but those were below the financial threshold of those snobs.
So if canon releases a new lens with a max aperture of f/5.6 I am very much interested in seeing if the same people now find some other reason to say it's unusable.
They'll probably say something like "why would you buy this lens, if there's already a 100-500?" Or "it's far too heavy to handhold so it's unusable"
Rereading patent discovered a 60-180/2.8 of similar design, total length of about 200,
Most of the lenses seem to have similar back focus of 37.4 mm which I believe is enough to accommodate the teleconverters. The 200-400/4 has a longer back focus 43.54. The 200-500/5.6 back focus is 37.96. Both lenses are 350 mm long.
Haven't we seen some of these lenses already? Might be an omen of what is to come. And if you look at the diagrams, these lenses look to be very highly corrected, something already seen from the 70-200/2.8 and the 100-300/2.8. A person needs to check out just how many aspheric surfaces are in those two lenses. So did. B&H has the 70-200/2.8 Z lens with three aspherics and the 100-300/2.8 with one. The lenses in this patent all have five aspheric surfaces with the ninth element being a double aspheric lens. The IS unit has an aspheric element.
Personally, I think I would stick with my 100-500 as my go everywhere lens. This past week I exercised its full range of focal lengths, The same with my 200-800. Much of the time I carried both lenses, one on the R5, the other on the R5ii. A 150-600/5.6 or variable aperture as long as it was internally zoomed would probably be my preference. The extra 50 mm on the short side is as important to me as the extra 100 on the long end. With a 1.4 teleconverter it would cover most of my needs with my trusty 500/4ii in reserve for extra light gathering. Even with that I would keep my 100-500. Its size and weight are just too nice for a carry everywhere lens.
Ok it's more heavy but that isn't always a problem
Sincerely with the exceptional quality of this lens, the result is super despite these converters!
But with an EF400 f/2.8, you have everything you need for all situations.
400mm F2/8
560mm F/4
800mm F/5.6
1120mm F/8 but with an autofocus limited at 300-400m
In this context, I am fairly sure that ‘fixed’ refers to an internal zoom mechanism rather than an extending zoom mechanism, and not to the aperture being fixed.
Canon certainly does offer prime lenses with “reasonable” apertures. The RF 600/4 and 800/5.6, as two examples. People buy the f/11 lenses because for many people the price of those reasonable apertures is very unreasonable.
Ok makes sense.
A L supertelezoom with a fixed F5.6 (as only available aperture) would've put this in a truly unique place and I started what how light it could be.
Always amusing, in a sad sort of way, when people think their personal desire represents that of the majority.
Especially in this case, where the intent appears to be protection of a method generally applicable to zoom lenses. Patents that become products typically have several similar examples with modest differences in focal length and/or aperture.