Patent: Canon RF 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6

May 11, 2017
1,365
635
While it's not a standard APS-C kit lens, even though it would be much better to have an RF-S 17-70mm, it would to the job in a pinch if Canon wanted to simply release an APS-C camera into the wild with no supporting RF-S lenses. It's one of the few full frame lenses that I could see fitting into both full frame and aps-c, as a kit lens for both sensor sizes. the EOS RP could use it as a sweet kit lens, and so could an APS-C RF camera.

Also, this is the second time we've seen 17-70mm in patent applications, which makes it a bit more likely it's going to happen.
17-70 would go nicely with 70-200, 70-300 and 100-400 on either a FF or crop camera.
 
Upvote 0
I'm really surprised that Canon haven't designed a range of small and light pancake prime lenses...after all...the RF mount is an ideal Range Finder.
So far every thing launched has been in the exotic and very large category. But for many, the RF mount sits alongside their EF kit and needs to find a reason to be...so small and light is the way forwards for many. Not everyone is looking for an DSLR replacement camera.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,575
4,111
The Netherlands
I'm really surprised that Canon haven't designed a range of small and light pancake prime lenses...after all...the RF mount is an ideal Range Finder.
So far every thing launched has been in the exotic and very large category. But for many, the RF mount sits alongside their EF kit and needs to find a reason to be...so small and light is the way forwards for many. Not everyone is looking for an DSLR replacement camera.

'Designed' and 'launched' are two very different things. We don't really know what Canon has been designing, we only know what they announce.
Personally, I'm hoping for an improved version of the EF f/1.8 primes in RF mount, but I wouldn't say no to an RF version of the EF-M 22mm f/2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
That only confirms it's not an ff lens. The image height on an apsc lens is lower, but ff sensors are taller. So it will not cover the image on a FF sensor.

This confirms they are testing apsc lenses for a probable aspc Eos R camera.
Sorry, but it only confirms you don’t understand patent nomenclature. ‘Image height’ in an optical formula patent refers to the radius of the image circle, i.e. one-half of the diagonal of the sensor. 21.64 mm x 2 = 43.3 mm, which is the diagonal of a 24 x 36 mm FF sensor. It’s a FF lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Sorry, but it only confirms you don’t understand patent nomenclature. ‘Image height’ in an optical formula patent refers to the radius of the image circle, i.e. one-half of the diagonal of the sensor. 21.64 mm x 2 = 43.3 mm, which is the diagonal of a 24 x 36 mm FF sensor. It’s a FF lens.

True, I'm not used to trusting what I can see on these patents.

Time will tell us what Canon does .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,510
1,885
All three were premium upgrades for apsc models.

And before those existed, canon apsc users had the Ef 17-40 f4 L.
I don't care what they were. There was a time when a consumer 28-80 lens was a "premium upgrade" to a kit 35-80. But the times have changed, and today a "standard" zoom without a 24mm equivalent in its zoom range cannot be called "an ideal lens".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I don't care what they were. There was a time when a consumer 28-80 lens was a "premium upgrade" to a kit 35-80. But the times have changed, and today a "standard" zoom without a 24mm equivalent in its zoom range cannot be called "an ideal lens".

I totally agree with that!
I got used to having a 24 equivalent on my hs10 9 years ago and when I bought my Apsc camera 18mm wasn't wide enough sometimes.

Now I use a 17-50 2.8 which is ok on the wide end when you get used to it.

The EFs 15-85 is a great lens, but a new version is long overdue.

Or at least the same lens at a better price.
 
Upvote 0