Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM II May Have Appeared in Latest Patent

[Canon Rumors]

Canon has submitted a patent application in Japan for a series of fast, supertelephoto prime lenses that reduce the size of the current EF and RF versions of the 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4. RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM II The 400mm f/2.8L IS USM in this optical design is down about a […]

See full article...

 

[Del Paso]

No integrated switchable extender?

 

[AlanF]

The one I would like, but is the least likely, would be a very light version of the 300mm f/2.8, at about half the price of the zoom, which is too heavy for me. Sony has a very nice one, which comes in at only 1.74kg with hood and tripod ring. But, I can't see Canon doing that alongside the zoom. Used EF 300mm f/2.8 ii are around, and I used one 10 years ago when I was younger and stronger but too heavy for me now.

 

[NotSure700]

The RF 500mm F4 has a focal length of 543.19mm and there seems to be an integrated 1.4 TC, which looks almost like the one in the EF 200-400mm F4.

 

[SvO2]

Yes, the real focal length is usually shorter on a long lens like this, which makes this patent a very strange exception.


Switchable or not. There is a 1.4x TC in this patent.

You might be right, 387.99 (the '400mm' focal length) * 1.4 is exactly 543.19

On the other hand, the overall diagram looks pretty much identical to the 300mm lens with a tele group added, but the math there doesn't really work out for 1.4 or 2x

 

[AlanF]

The RF 500mm F4 has a focal length of 543.19mm and there seems to be an integrated 1.4 TC, which looks almost like the one in the EF 200-400mm F4.

Well spotted!

 

[sanj]

Bye bye Charles Schwab.

 

[fox40phil]

When the next 400 2.8 is without TC I will switch to Nikons + z8ii. Also when a Canon one costs way more then the current ~12500€ for the Nikon WITH TC! This is unbelievable! I assume not less then 16k€ for a RF 400 2.8+TC!

And I also want a leight weight 300 2.8.

 

[P-visie]

Yes, the real focal length is usually shorter on a long lens like this, which makes this patent a very strange exception.


Switchable or not. There is a 1.4x TC in this patent.

The lens diagrams for the 400mm f2.8 lens (example 1) and the 500mm f4 lens (example 2) on Asobinet are identical, with the exception of the ‘teleconverter’. The length of both lenses in the patent is almost identical.
Maybe Canon is doing the same thing as with the RF 800mm f5.6 and RF 1200mm f8: add a teleconverter to an existing design to create a ‘new’ lens.

 

[Berowne]

The one I would like, but is the least likely, would be a very light version of the 300mm f/2.8, at about half the price of the zoom, which is too heavy for me. Sony has a very nice one, which comes in at only 1.74kg with hood and tripod ring. But, I can't see Canon doing that alongside the zoom. Used EF 300mm f/2.8 ii are around, and I used one 10 years ago when I was younger and stronger but too heavy for me now.

Recently I obtained a used EF 400/2.8 Mk. II - now I need a trolley ...

 

[Beastiedawg]

Probably coming in at a 13-15k bill.

 

[SonicStudios]

Hopefully this comes to fruition before November. Is it normal to Patent just before a release? Built in TC would be great, but I’m more interested in it being a 2.8

I remember reading that we should be expecting a new totally redesigned 400 and 600 just before the Olympics in February 2026

 

[David - Sydney]

Have I got the RF list correct for long L lenses going to at least 300mm?
100-300/2.8
400/2.8
600/4
800/5.6 & 1200/8 = 400/600mm + internal fixed TC.
100-500/4.5-7.1

The EF L lineup was introduced over a much longer time vs 7 years for RF lenses so far. Have I missed any?
The question for me is what volumes of these would be significant or profitable vs the current RF list?
70-300/4-5.6 => Not great quality
28-300/3.5-4.5.6 => Not great quality
300/2.8 (2.5kg/250mm) => Cheaper and shorter but almost the same weight as RF100-300/2.8 (2.6kg/325mm).
300/4 (1.2kg)=> No equivalent
400mm f/4 DO ii => No equivalent
500/4 => Would users buy this vs 400/2.8 or 600/4?
200-400/4 + TC => Heavy, big and expensive

Given the tech advances in high ISO dynamic range, full sensor AF, AF focusing at much smaller apertures and new optical design sharpness then are the non-L RF long lenses sufficient? Clearly Nikon/Sony have additional or different long lenses but I am less convinced that the current
100-400/5.6-8
200-800/6.3-9
600/800/f11

All that I can see that is missing is a light weight and cheap(ish) 300/4. Maybe a DO 500 or 600mm/5.6. Maybe a 200-500+TC.
Thoughts??

 

[john1970]

If version II does not have a built-in 1.4x TC I would see little value in upgrading from the original version, which I already own.

 

[Deleted member 378085]

Don't care for TCs like most seem too. My RF600 is more than amazing already.

 

[Dr_Flash]

I'm using the EF 200-400 4.0 and I love the build in TC. If Canon decides against a build in TC for their next Gen 400 2.8, I guess I have to move to Nikon... I'm not waiting another 7-10years... So plz Canon don't f..k it up.

 

[DaveGershon]

I currently have a EF 400mm f2.8 III lens with an adapter to my R1. Great lens. Even though my EF lens it is the lightest 400mm f2.8 available from Canon. Anything to reduce the weight of this new lens would be greatly appreciated and keep it at f2.8.

 

[john1970]

The RF 500mm F4 has a focal length of 543.19mm and there seems to be an integrated 1.4 TC, which looks almost like the one in the EF 200-400mm F4.

That lens would be intriguing to me especially if they made it as lightweight as possible.

 

[Frodo]

Have I got the RF list correct for long L lenses going to at least 300mm?
100-300/2.8
400/2.8
600/4
800/5.6 & 1200/8 = 400/600mm + internal fixed TC.
100-500/4.5-7.1

The EF L lineup was introduced over a much longer time vs 7 years for RF lenses so far. Have I missed any?
The question for me is what volumes of these would be significant or profitable vs the current RF list?
70-300/4-5.6 => Not great quality
28-300/3.5-4.5.6 => Not great quality
300/2.8 (2.5kg/250mm) => Cheaper and shorter but almost the same weight as RF100-300/2.8 (2.6kg/325mm).
300/4 (1.2kg)=> No equivalent
500/4 => Would users buy this vs 400/2.8 or 600/4?
200-400/4 + TC => Heavy, big and expensive

Given the tech advances in high ISO dynamic range, full sensor AF, AF focusing at much smaller apertures and new optical design sharpness then are the non-L RF long lenses sufficient? Clearly Nikon/Sony have additional or different long lenses but I am less convinced that the current
100-400/5.6-8
200-800/6.3-9
600/800/11

All that I can see that is missing is a light weight and cheap(ish) 300/4. Maybe a DO 500 or 600mm/5.6. Maybe a 200-500+TC.
Thoughts??

Hi David, I would add the EF 400mm f/4 DO ii to the list. A great lens, that could be lighter when constructed in the new engineering plastics of the RF superteles.
Nikon has a few great lightweight long tele primes, at least one using their PF technology. Not everyone wants or can afford the large teles, but many would like more light gathering than the tele zooms.

 

[Smokey]

I'm using the EF 200-400 4.0 and I love the build in TC. If Canon decides against a build in TC for their next Gen 400 2.8, I guess I have to move to Nikon... I'm not waiting another 7-10years... So plz Canon don't f..k it up.