Patent: Lower cost RF mount prime and zoom lenses, including an RF 16-35mm f/4

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,745
369
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Canon obviously needs some “affordable” prime and zoom lenses for the RF mount, and a few JPO patent applications seem to suggest we’re getting closer to that being a reality.
Canon RF 20mm f/2

Focal length: 20.50
F number: 2.06
Half angle of view: 46.54
Image height: 21.64
Lens length: 90.13
Back focus: 13.50

Canon RF 35mm f/1.8

Focal length: 35.60
F number: 1.85
Half angle of view: 31.22
Image height: 21.64
Lens length: 81.87
Back focus: 13.49

Canon RF 35mm f/2

Focal length: 35.91
F number: 2.06
Half angle of view: 31.07
Image height: 21.64
Lens length: 50.50
Back focus: 15.05

Canon RF 35mm f/2.8

Focal length: 35.70
F number: 2.88
Half angle of view: 31.22
Image height: 21.64
Lens length: 60.00
Back focus: 13.15

Canon RF 45mm f/2.8

Focal length: 44.70
F number: 2.85
Half angle of view: 25.83
Image height: 21.64
Lens length: 62.63
Back focus: 13.13

Canon RF 16-35mm f/4

Focal length: 16.48 24.02 33.75
F number: 4.12
Half angle of...
Continue reading...
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
864
135
Some of those look familiar, specifically the September rumor mentions 20mm f/2, 35mm f/2, and a 16-35mm f/4.

IMHO, Canon will release some of those lenses. E.g. Canon hasn't released a 20mm lens since '92, but I don't see it leaving a hole at this focal length in the RF mount.
 

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
15
24
An RF 16-35 f4 makes a lot of sense and not just from an affordability standpoint. If you aren't an event shooter chances are you may never use those focal lengths and anything wider than f8, and if so the extra weight and cost of the f2.8 is a waste.

The f4 ultrawide has always been a popular lens with landscapers since the introduction of the 17-40 and continued with the much better 16-35 f4 IS, and so will this RF version when ultimately released.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,650
464
Germany
... Lower cost RF ... “affordable” ...
*ROTFL*

I know, good glass costs good money - sometimes even more - but...

Okay, let's wait and see what will hit the market and when.

But right now nothing but a big lottery win would draw me into R/RF system.
And as I payed attention in probability calculation I don't play gambling games.
 
Last edited:

Mars1954

Canon 5D Mark IV
Jan 24, 2015
9
1
www.marinelliphotography.com
An RF 16-35 f4 makes a lot of sense and not just from an affordability standpoint. If you aren't an event shooter chances are you may never use those focal lengths and anything wider than f8, and if so the extra weight and cost of the f2.8 is a waste.

The f4 ultrawide has always been a popular lens with landscapers since the introduction of the 17-40 and continued with the much better 16-35 f4 IS, and so will this RF version when ultimately released.
!6-35 f/4 has also been a favorite of real estate photographers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IcyBergs

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
251
126
That 35mm f/2 is practically a pancake when you subtract the flange distance.
Not quite at 50mm but still a good size. I'd snap up an RF pancake ...

Edit, but as pointed: out 50mm - flange distance. I would probably buy it as a walk around lens for the EOS R.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Andy Westwood

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
369
288
Hamburg, Germany
Why is 35/2.8 so long? A macro lens?
Not quite at 50mm but still a good size. I'd snap up an RF pancake ...
No pancake
Did you guys forget to subtract the flange distance? Total lens length of 50mm means 30mm sticking out past the mount. The EF 40mm 2.8 is 23 mm long and it definitely is a pancake.

In my eyes, those 7 mm make no difference. That lens is tiny!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,408
786
Perhaps it's a sign they will offer a few high-IQ f/2.8 L primes similar to the Fujifilm GF f/2.8 lenses for the GFX.
GF are lenses with a larger image circle. Fuji makes them 2.8 just not to make them too expensive.

Did you guys forget to subtract the flange distance?
Subtract or not, how do you explain that the 35/2.8 is a centimeter longer than the 35/2.0?