Patent: Canon RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,587
313
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Another detailed patent for an RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens has appeared, the first one came as part of a patent for an RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM.
The 70-300mm zoom lens has always been a part of the budget telephoto zoom lens lines of various manufacturers, and it makes sense that we’ll see one for the RF mount, and likely sooner than later.
Japan Patent Application 2019028212

Focal length: 71.53mm 132.28mm 293.70mm
F-number: 4.16 5.18 5.83
Half-field angle: 16.83° 9.29° 4.21°
Image height: 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
Lens total length: 179.52mm 216.99mm 250.81mm
BF: 48.94mm 22.62mm 18.05mm
Continue reading...


 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
840
242
Turku, Finland
Huh, interesting construction. The BF actually decreases when you zoom in. Also seems Canon engineers are happily taking advantage of the short BF distance even with telephoto designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy Hunte

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
1,981
127
29
34109
www.facebook.com
Just one 70-300, please. Canon at one time had more more than three 75-300 & three 70-300 available at a given time. Consolidating them all into one SKU would allow for cheaper lenses through economies of scale.
 

flip314

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2018
172
200
Just one 70-300, please. Canon at one time had more more than three 75-300 & three 70-300 available at a given time. Consolidating them all into one SKU would allow for cheaper lenses through economies of scale.
I think it's likely.

The current EF 75-300 is a horrible lens, but it's cheap and already designed. These days there are far better options, 55-250 for crop and 70-300 for FF.

The EF 70-300 IS II USM is an amazing lens at a reasonable price. The EF 70-300L is a bit of an oddball, and these days I don't think it makes sense compared to the amazing 100-400L II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dolina

pj1974

EOS 7D MK II
Oct 18, 2011
593
56
Adelaide, Australia
Price, physical size and weight may be a factor.

Again just one RF 70-300mm.
The size, weight and zoom range of the 70-300mm L works very well for me (on my 80D and 7D).
I bought it soon after it was available, and I love that lens. My copy has great optics.

Being so portable makes it such a great lens for a variety of purposes. A similar RF model would serve me well when I move to mirrorless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dolina

blackcoffee17

EOS 80D
Sep 17, 2014
195
170
I think it's likely.

The current EF 75-300 is a horrible lens, but it's cheap and already designed. These days there are far better options, 55-250 for crop and 70-300 for FF.

The EF 70-300 IS II USM is an amazing lens at a reasonable price. The EF 70-300L is a bit of an oddball, and these days I don't think it makes sense compared to the amazing 100-400L II.
If you don't need the 300-400mm focal lengths, the 70-300 is so much smaller and lighter. Even worth getting both and only take the heavier 100-400 when you really need it
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,517
325
Germany
Huh, interesting construction. The BF actually decreases when you zoom in. ...
Indeed! I wasn't expecting something like that. But I am no lens designer ;)

So with the RF compared to the EF 70-300 IS II USM (+44mm EF flange) you'd get the following length:
  • At 70 mm:
    RF: 179.52mm
    EF: 189,5 mm
  • At 300 mm:
    RF: 250.81mm
    EF: ~ 262 mm (measured from picture as I have no exact values available)
So on both ends the new lens is about 1 cm smaller than the EF pendant.

Just one 70-300, please. ...
I could live with two of them: one "non-L" and one "L".
First one comparable to the EF 70-300 IS II USM, maybe with STM if that works well.
Second one with better mechanical built, sealings, USM, more complex optical formula and therefore better IQ.
So everybody could get what they can afford.
Otherwise agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random Orbits

Flamingtree

I'm New Here
Dec 13, 2015
21
2
I
If you don't need the 300-400mm focal lengths, the 70-300 is so much smaller and lighter. Even worth getting both and only take the heavier 100-400 when you really need it
I agree. The 70-300L is great for taking on a trip etc. then something (not obscenely) expensive that gives you 400 to 600 for wildlife would be kind of cool.