Patent: Canon RF-S 15-70mm f/4 and RF-S 15-85mm f/2.8-4

[neuroanatomist]

Are you trying to argue that the EF-M mount is smaller, cheaper (at the moment) and more lightweight solution than the RF-S mount?

No, I'm stating that your rationale #1, that the RF-S 18-45 is a better kit lens choice for content creators because it's cheaper than a (hypothetical) 15-45 or 18-55 is not supported by the fact that the EF-M 15-45 and EF-S 18-55 are both cheaper as kit lenses than the RF-S 18-45.

Similarly, you suggested that the RF-S 18-45 is a better kit lens choice for content creators because it's lighter than a (hypothetical) 15-45 or 18-55, but that's also not supported by the facts since the EF-M 15-45 is the same weight as the RF-S 18-45, and the RF-S 18-150 is only 3% heavier than the EF-M version, i.e. that hypothetical RF-S 15-45 kit lens would not weight meaningfully more than the RF-S 18-45.

Hardly anyone expects them to create award-winning content with Canon's kit lenses. Still, their crappy content will look better to them if they don't (accidentially, but highly likely) use 24mm for selfie videos.

The RF-S 18-45 retracts to a non-functional storage position, just like the EF-M 15-45. So, one would have to extend the barrel to some point to use it, i.e. you'd have to choose a focal length. Even if you don't retract the lens to the parked position, but just twist the zoom so the lens is at its shortest physical length, that length is not the wide end but rather somewhere in the middle (for the EF-M 15-45, the shortest length if you don't park the lens is 24mm, giving a FF AoV of 38mm that you might 'accidentally' end up at for your selfie, not 24mm AoV. So again, your argument that a (hypothetical) 15-45 kit lens would result in likely accidental shots at 15mm is not supported by the physical characteristics of related lenses.

I'd say it's the same as with the lack of the filter rotation wondow on the hood of the RF 100-300L. It's not the solution I would personally prefer, but I'm not the target audience of this lens.

I asked, "Why would an 18-45mm lens be better for "content creators" than a 15-45mm lens or an 18-55mm lens?" So far, none of the reasons you suggest make sense in light of available facts. The only reason that continues to make sense is to increase Canon's profit.

 

[Tom W]

There will obviously be more RF-S lenses coming coming this year as well as next year. Today we see a patent for a couple of RF-S optical formulas. One of these optical formulas will likely be close to a future product by the looks of the designs. Canon RF-S 15-70mm f/4 Canon RF-S 15-70mm f/2.8-4

See full article...

I think an RF-S 15-70 f/4 would be a great "normal zoom" for my R7.

 

[vangelismm]

Canon RF-S 15-70mm f/4

Just take my money!
And give me some RF-s wide angle and tele f/4 as well, to complete my dream landscape/trekking lens.

 

[Kit.]

No, I'm stating that your rationale #1, that the RF-S 18-45 is a better kit lens choice for content creators because it's cheaper than a (hypothetical) 15-45 or 18-55 is not supported by the fact that the EF-M 15-45 and EF-S 18-55 are both cheaper as kit lenses than the RF-S 18-45.

Indeed, rationales are not supported by irrelevant facts.

And the current prices of lenses in dying mounts are, unfortunately, irrelevant in this context.

Similarly, you suggested that the RF-S 18-45 is a better kit lens choice for content creators because it's lighter than a (hypothetical) 15-45 or 18-55, but that's also not supported by the facts since the EF-M 15-45 is the same weight as the RF-S 18-45, and the RF-S 18-150 is only 3% heavier than the EF-M version, i.e. that hypothetical RF-S 15-45 kit lens would not weight meaningfully more than the RF-S 18-45.

That's if we forget the 2mm difference in the flange distances of EF-M and RF mounts (which the EF-M 15-45 in particular fully uses).

The RF-S 18-45 retracts to a non-functional storage position, just like the EF-M 15-45. So, one would have to extend the barrel to some point to use it, i.e. you'd have to choose a focal length. Even if you don't retract the lens to the parked position, but just twist the zoom so the lens is at its shortest physical length,

What is if you twist the zoom from its parked position to the click on the zoom ring?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Indeed, rationales are not supported by irrelevant facts.

Where are your facts to show that Canon designed the RF-S 18-45 specifically with content creators in mind and that for that group a more restricted focal range is desirable?

And the current prices of lenses in dying mounts are, unfortunately, irrelevant in this context.

The additional cost of the lenses in the kits I referenced were the same as at launch. In the case of the M50 II, that was in late 2020. So they are relevant facts, you just want to ignore them. The fact is that with RF-S, Canon has chosen to offer a kit lens that has a lower spec than the equivalent EF-M and EF-S kit lenses, and to charge more for it.

That's if we forget the 2mm difference in the flange distances of EF-M and RF mounts (which the EF-M 15-45 in particular fully uses).

The EF-M 18-150's optics were re-housed in the RF-S mount with the same mount-side protrusion in terms of depth (pic from Camera Decision), and the EF-M 18-150 has the same mount-side profile as the EF-M 15-45 (picture from my copies of the EF-M lenses). Actually, when I look closely the rear element of the M18-150 extends a slightly greater distance from the mount surface than that of the EF-M 15-45 (less than 0.5mm by eye, but still slightly further toward the sensor than the 15-45).



Thus, there's no objective reason the EF-M 15-45 optics could not have been rehoused in an RF-S barrel/mount, as was done for the EF-M 18-150.

Feel free to conveniently forget that fact as well.

What is if you twist the zoom from its parked position to the click on the zoom ring?

If you twist slowly and carefully, yes there's a click at 15mm. But in actual use, especially if one is in a hurry to get the lens into working position, a typical push-and-twist stops at 17-20mm. Personally, I don't typically lock the lens, I just set the zoom so the lens is as short as possible. That would be even more true if I knew I had a tendency to want to grab the camera and just start shooting. As I said, that's ~24mm (actually between 24-28mm).

Look this has been fun and all, but it's clear you're going to ignore basic facts and continue perseverating on the idea that Canon decided that content creators would benefit from an 18-45mm lens more than a 15-45mm lens, all logic and reason to the contrary. Kindly, sweet Canon with only the best interests of the customer at heart, protecting them from shooting a too-wide selfie by taking 3 mm of focal length away from them. You keep believing that, Pollyanna. I'm out.

 

[K33p1ts1mpl3]

This is the lens out of the list that makes the most sense to me.
Decent aperture and a decent focal range.

This is the one to make. I always thought the faster wide end that rises quickly to min aperture (2.8-4 version) was a huge waste of glass and space. Small and sharp f4 would be great.

 

[unfocused]

There seems to be a lot of "old guy" condescension here regarding content creators. Maybe also driven by some jealously over the success of content creators.

I imagine content creators know what they need and buy what they need. If they are are in business, they are like any other professional and don't buy more than what they need to get the job done. The medium (social media videos) has limited use for "L" quality glass and fast apertures. It's the content, not the images, that brings in the dollars. I think of it as a little like the days when newspapers dominated the market. Papers weren't printed on high quality paper, but on newsprint and the quality of the reproduction was sufficient to convey the action, but not intended for gallery walls.

There are, of course, lots of different content creators with a lot of different needs and Canon is probably trying to offer a range of products to meet individual needs.

 

[unfocused]

When the EF-S lens was first introduced it was in tandem with the original 18mp 7D. That sensor was good for its time, but noise became apparent quickly (I seldom shot above ISO 400 and felt like the image began to degrade even at ISO 800.) With that sensor, Canon offered the 15-85 with a max aperture of f3.5 which very quickly went to f5.6.

With all the advances in sensor design, I have real doubts that Canon is going to offer an f2.8 lens, especially since Canon seems to be going the opposite direction with many of its RF lenses.

 

[SDFilmFan]

I just bought an R10 with 18-150, but had been wishing for an EF-S 15-85 equivalent. I liked my original 17-85 on digital Rebels, and love the 15-85 on my SL1. The 15-85 is sharp and contrasty, and made my SL1 my go-to rig for daylight shoots, over my 5D3 with 24-105L. I had both the EF-M 15-45 and 18-55 for an M50, and hated both, thinking my S95 took sharper photos. I traded the 18-55 with the M50 along with the 5D3+24-105 last year when I bought my R6. But I haven't shed the SL1+15-85 yet.

 

[ghalib737]

Really curious about the lens. The kit lens is Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 which is 600USD alone and 300with XS-10. Canon will through away Fuji if they can keep it 400USD with Canon R7 or R10 (as a kit lens option).

But I had a fear that maybe F4 will be image stabilized and 2.8-4 will be not image stabilized. Can anyone confirm?

There will obviously be more RF-S lenses coming coming this year as well as next year. Today we see a patent for a couple of RF-S optical formulas. One of these optical formulas will likely be close to a future product by the looks of the designs. Canon RF-S 15-70mm f/4 Canon RF-S 15-70mm f/2.8-4

See full article...

 

[Skux]

There seems to be a lot of "old guy" condescension here regarding content creators. Maybe also driven by some jealously over the success of content creators.

I imagine content creators know what they need and buy what they need. If they are are in business, they are like any other professional and don't buy more than what they need to get the job done. The medium (social media videos) has limited use for "L" quality glass and fast apertures. It's the content, not the images, that brings in the dollars. I think of it as a little like the days when newspapers dominated the market. Papers weren't printed on high quality paper, but on newsprint and the quality of the reproduction was sufficient to convey the action, but not intended for gallery walls.

There are, of course, lots of different content creators with a lot of different needs and Canon is probably trying to offer a range of products to meet individual needs.

Agreed, it's a little rich seeing people who don't make YouTube/Instagram/TikTok content arguing over what content creators are 'supposed' to want.

They'll probably be fine with any kit lens as long as they know how to use it.

 

[AJ]

A consumer zoom that starts at f/2.8 instead of 4.5. How about that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A consumer zoom that starts at f/2.8 instead of 4.5. How about that.

Don't hold your breath. Most likely f/3.5 at the wide end.

 

[mariosk1gr]

I hope to see sometime soon the long awaited for many years, the superb, the great non L, the most desired lens for APSC, the King... Canon RF-S 17-55mm f:/2.8 (L) IS Usm! Hope to be L and it has to be with the success it had!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I hope to see sometime soon the long awaited for many years, the superb, the great non L, the most desired lens for APSC, the King... Canon RF-S 17-55mm f:/2.8 (L) IS Usm! Hope to be L and it has to be with the success it had!!

It was released in 2006, and was so popular that Canon never updated it. So popular it’s still available today as refurbished from Canon USA.

I doubt we’ll see it in an RF-S mount. It’s too bad, because I agree it was a great lens (first Canon lens I ever bought, in fact).

 

[Dragon]

It would be really nice if it actually was a RF-S 15-85mm f/2.8-4 lens design, but as far as I can see from machine-translated original source it is a RF-S 15-85mm f/2.8-5.6 design.
Still my favourite of the listed though, and would probably replace the EF-S 15-85mm on my R7.

Actually, 2.8/5.6 is more logical. That would make it a direct replacement for the EF-s 15-85 with a slighly faster wide end (but probably not more than 1mm off the stop). the 15-70 f/4 would be a replacement for the 17-55 f/2.8. One stop slower, but more range on each end, a couple of stops more IS, and still constant aperture. Both are likely to be very nice lenses and on the pricier end of the RF-s spectrum. Canon seems to be introducing a new similar RF lens 8-10 months after discontinuing an EF/EF-s lens. Likely refitting existing lines as no sense in adding additonal lines when the market is so flat. In the end, Canon will still have the broadest line of lenses.

 

[mariosk1gr]

It was released in 2006, and was so popular that Canon never updated it. So popular it’s still available today as refurbished from Canon USA.

I doubt we’ll see it in an RF-S mount. It’s too bad, because I agree it was a great lens (first Canon lens I ever bought, in fact).

If they want sales they have to do it... it will be a success for sure!

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Actually, 2.8/5.6 is more logical. That would make it a direct replacement for the EF-s 15-85 with a slighly faster wide end

I wonder if the "faster" wide-end (f2.8 vs f3.5 in old lens) is related to the optically lens-correction required at the wide end of the new RF-S lens-design?
I mean is it really faster as also being a faster T-stop (taking more light in)?
Any optical specialists having an understanding of this?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder if the "faster" wide-end (f2.8 vs f3.5 in old lens) is related to the optically lens-correction required at the wide end of the new RF-S lens-design?
I mean is it really faster as also being a faster T-stop (taking more light in)?
Any optical specialists having an understanding of this?

I’ll point out (again) that the patent for the RF 100-500 was f/4-6.3 while the lens is f/4.5-7.1, and the patent for the RF 100-400 was f/5-7.1 while the lens is f/5.6-8. Seems likely the 15-85, if ever made, will be f/3.5-6.3.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

I’ll point out (again) that the patent for the RF 100-500 was f/4-6.3 while the lens is f/4.5-7.1, and the patent for the RF 100-400 was f/5-7.1 while the lens is f/5.6-8. Seems likely the 15-85, if ever made, will be f/3.5-6.3.

But it doesn't really change my question regarding the wide-end lens-correction needed in post, and how to interpret F- and T-stops in the wide end for such designs...

PS. There was several 100-500mm patents discovered after the release of the actual Canon RF 100-500mm lens. If any one of these matches the released design (except for speed), I don't know? https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-rf-telephoto-zoom-lenses