Patent: Lots of optical formula lens patents for the RF mount

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,589
402
Germany
why so many designs / patents ? Patent everything and release"1%" Is this how canon is going to beat competition ? feels like patent trolls.
You always protect your knowledge and developments with patents.
And you only release those that have a chance of profit in the market.
That's the way business goes - and no trolls.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,617
311
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
It think the RF mount is finally going to get some smaller and lighter lenses. While all the uber fast primes and f2.8 zoomsters are a top end pre-requisite....there's a big market for general use / travel zooms that are f4/5.6...wide focal range...light and neat. I covered a lot of family vacations with a 28-135 IS. Something like this on an RF mount makes a lot of sense.
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,086
260
It will be interesting what Canon picks in the end. Will it just be 16-35 F4 and F2.8 and 17-40 F4.
Going wider tends to make the lens big and bulky.
I think the RP will be popular as a travel camera so F4 lens are suited to that. A 16-70 F4 and 70-200 F4 would be ideal companions.
16-70 must be very difficult to achieve
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
833
120
It will be interesting what Canon picks in the end. Will it just be 16-35 F4 and F2.8 and 17-40 F4.
Going wider tends to make the lens big and bulky.
I think Canon will make an RF 16-35mm f/4, so as not to make owners of the existing EF 16-35mm f/4L go longer when moving to RF, and it probably will be smaller than the EF version. I doubt photographers would upgrade the EF 16-35mm f/4L to an RF 16-35mm f/2.8 due to price, size, and weight.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
300
116
In the 90s-00s, the "trinity zooms" were f/2.8 because

-- AF systems needed that to work
-- viewfinder brightness
-- allow short enough exposures to avoid camera motion.

But these days the EOS R AF is great even at smaller apertures. The electronic viewfinder is as bright as needed. The excellent low-noise of the sensors and IBIS (coming soon I feel to EOS R system) gives us motion-free exposures.

To the above you can add:

-- bokeh, or the ability to make the subject pop out from the background.

But for wide-angle zooms that's not really going to happen.

So I think f/4 trinity zooms are the way forward, and more-so for the wide-angle than the rest. The reason I'm cheering a 14-40mm f/4 isn't because I hate f/2.8 at all (or even f/1.4, which was bandied about in some rumors). It's because in this focal range, I'd rather have 1) extended range, 2) sharpness, 3) portability and price and only dead last 4) big aperture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,060
So I think f/4 trinity zooms are the way forward, and more-so for the wide-angle than the rest. The reason I'm cheering a 14-40mm f/4 isn't because I hate f/2.8 at all (or even f/1.4, which was bandied about in some rumors). It's because in this focal range, I'd rather have 1) extended range, 2) sharpness, 3) portability and price and only dead last 4) big aperture.
Agreed, and that’s why I have a 16-35mm f/4L IS and someone else now has my 16-35mm f/2.8L II. But at the longer end, I still prefer my 70-200/2.8 for portraits.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
300
116
Agreed, and that’s why I have a 16-35mm f/4L IS and someone else now has my 16-35mm f/2.8L II. But at the longer end, I still prefer my 70-200/2.8 for portraits.
Agreed, the 70-200/2.8 still makes total sense as 70mm f/2.8 really lets your subject pop out from the background, and you soon get into a lot of bokeh. I have the EF135/2 and it's been my fav lens since, gosh, 1996. Portraiture is contrived enough that you can walk around to get your shot in a way you can't in other genres.

Ultimately I think I'd rather have a lighter f/4 zoom, or a 75-300/4, and have the 135/2 in my mothership, same way I have the 24-105/4 but also the 50/1.2.
 

navastronia

5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
182
207
Agreed, the 70-200/2.8 still makes total sense as 70mm f/2.8 really lets your subject pop out from the background, and you soon get into a lot of bokeh. I have the EF135/2 and it's been my fav lens since, gosh, 1996. Portraiture is contrived enough that you can walk around to get your shot in a way you can't in other genres.

Ultimately I think I'd rather have a lighter f/4 zoom, or a 75-300/4, and have the 135/2 in my mothership, same way I have the 24-105/4 but also the 50/1.2.
While we're posting requests, my "someday" setup is a pro (1DX level) R body, an RF 85/1.2 (for portraits), an RF 75-300/4 (for weddings/events/sports) and an RF 35/1.2 or 1.4 (for me ;))
 
  • Love
Reactions: SwissFrank

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
300
116
While we're posting requests, my "someday" setup is a pro (1DX level) R body, an RF 85/1.2 (for portraits), an RF 75-300/4 (for weddings/events/sports) and an RF 35/1.2 or 1.4 (for me ;))
If I could just dial up a dream outfit it'd have exactly what you write as its core. But if we're dreaming why not add a couple more. This is in rough order of need:

  • 24-105/4IS: the RF seems perfect. I went from shooting primes to 28-70/2.8 to 24-70/2.8 but since 2011 I've literally not touched my 24-70.
  • 35/1.4: I use an old Leica that is very good sharpness and very pretty images, AND super-portable
  • 85/1.2: portrait etc. and I'm excited about the apodization filter variant. I "invented" this idea myself back in the 90s and made my own such filters out of CD case covers and black spray paint.
  • 75-300/4IS or even 100-300/4IS. These would still get as much bokeh as the 70-200/2.8 and be about the same size. 75mm front element.
  • 14-35/4, I don't even need 40, but I do need 14. (I had a 14 with the 20-35, then 17-35, then sold the 14 when I got the 16-35, but had to buy another 14.)
  • 50/1.8 and/or 35/2 that sticks out no farther than the grip, for portability, but also that brings an aperture to the table an f/2.8 zoom wouldn't. Note to Canon: make as sharp as you can within that size restriction, but don't exceed that size.
  • 135/2, 1.8, or can I say it, 1.4. That'd be a 100mm front element, same as the 200/2. And the practical use may not be shooting wide-open, but rather stopping down to f2 and getting perfectly round highlights from center to corner. It'd have a perfectly circular (or apodization) aperture.
  • 50/1.2: I wouldn't need it if I had the 35/1.4, 50/2, and 85/1.2, but I already have it and the RF 50/1.2 is the most exciting lens I've gotten since the 135/2. I don't think even the 600/4 was such a thrill.
I'd keep using my 135/2, 180/3.5Mac and 600/4. I don't think these telephotos will be improved any by the shorter film/flange distance of the R's, and the 135 and 180 are by far the sharpest black lenses in the EF line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

SUNDOG04

EOS T7i
Mar 1, 2015
64
9
Ha, I thought the same! Thats an incredible usefull focal lense! For weddings and travel this would be the shit! I love the Tamron 15-30, especialy for travel. But I always miss a little bit more focal lenght for some "normal" portraits or something. 14-40 sounds awesome. f2,8 would be even more awesome, but I guess that would have increased the weight and size to much. =)
The Nikon 14-30 f4S is compact, although shorter range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

felipeolveram

I'm New Here
Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L
  • Focal distance 15.30mm 24.20mm 34.00mm
  • F number 2.91 2.91 2.91
  • Field angle 54.73° 41.80° 32.47°
  • Image height 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
  • Whole length of the lens 135.05mm 125.84mm 125.33mm
  • BF 13.00mm 22.20mm 32.26mm
What do the different "Whole length of the lens" mean? There are three different lengths.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,060
What do the different "Whole length of the lens" mean? There are three different lengths.
The length changes as you zoom the lens. In the case of the 15-35, the front element will move slightly behind the plane of the filter threads, as current UWA zooms do.