Patent: Multiple small RF prime lens optical formulas

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,658
473
Germany
Reaction was mixed in part because Canon introduced the trio of lenses at a substantial price premium over their non-IS predecessors. After about two years they announced substantial price cuts on all three, bringing them much more into line with their actual value. ...
This!

I just bought my second one of those three for less than 40% of the initial release price.
They are great performers but were totally overpriced at the start.


 

David

I'm New Here
Sep 28, 2013
19
2
I wonder why L lenses must be fast and heavy. How gladly would I pay a premium for a small and light F2 L lens with all the benefits of the L line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Etienne

JoTomOz

EOS T7i
Nov 21, 2018
56
34
www.flickr.com
The interest in a 20mm prime on this thread gives me hope! For some reason 24mm doesn’t do much for me as a focal length. Glad the patent is for f2- for me it’s harder to justify primes for most focal lengths unless they are f2 or faster. Been thinking about that rf mount designed for mirrorless laowa 15mm f2- even though it is manual focus.
 

Fran Decatta

EOS R
Mar 6, 2019
25
21
The EF version was about $1,200 at introduction. I would guess the R version will be at least that much at introduction.
I know, but this one seems to lack of IS, may be this can put a cheap price tag. Anyways, I never purchase any of those items at introduction price, I feel no hurry :)
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,153
390
Why do you think that only the zoom will be coming? Why bother to patent all of those lenses, which are perfect for the less expensive R series bodies if Canon isn’t going to produce them? It seems that these are the lenses people have been complaining aren’t here.
There already is the RF 35, which seems to be the key lens in meeting the demand for smallish, moderately priced high quality primes with an RF mount. There are also a bunch of third party manufacturers who may or may not be able to back engineers RF compatible small, or at least moderately priced, primes, as well as a bunch of Canon EF primes that easily adapt to the RF mount, along with third party EF primes. So, we shall see how Canon puts together a plan for dealing with this situation
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,153
390
This!

I just bought my second one of those three for less than 40% of the initial release price.
They are great performers but were totally overpriced at the start.
I've always suspected that the exchange rate had something to do with the initial pricing.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
I don’t get the desire for f4 lenses. For an inexpensive zoom, yes, but otherwise, no. 2,8 is small and inexpensive enough.
Let me guess...you’re a body-building billionaire.

At 5” long, 1.85 lbs and $2300, the RF 15-35/2.8L IS lens is neither small nor inexpensive.
At 5” long, 2 lbs, and $2300, the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is neither small nor inexpensive.

Nice try, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterT

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
414
219
Let me guess...you’re a body-building billionaire.

At 5” long, 1.85 lbs and $2300, the RF 15-35/2.8L IS lens is neither small nor inexpensive.
At 5” long, 2 lbs, and $2300, the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is neither small nor inexpensive.

Nice try, though.
Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? I said that for an inexpensive zoom, yes, f4. So why did you point out large, expensive zooms? Mostly, there were prime lenses in that list—just one zoom. One could easily have realized that I was otherwise referring to those primes Canon got patents for.
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
347
298
Canada
www.canonnews.com
Reaction was mixed in part because Canon introduced the trio of lenses at a substantial price premium over their non-IS predecessors. After about two years they announced substantial price cuts on all three, bringing them much more into line with their actual value.
To be fair. Canon launched these lenses when the Yen at as a historic high. So the USD prices were inflated because of it.

Canon didn't reduce the price because of the market, because the yen dropped back down, there was price adjustments across the board during that period of time, up down, left right and sideways. it was a mess for all vendors.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,212
733
Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? I said that for an inexpensive zoom, yes, f4. So why did you point out large, expensive zooms? Mostly, there were prime lenses in that list—just one zoom. One could easily have realized that I was otherwise referring to those primes Canon got patents for.
I read his reply as referencing RF lenses currently available, basically Mel, keeping in context. I had no idea while reading your post we must be thinking outside the blurred lines of what you wrote.
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
414
219
I read his reply as referencing RF lenses currently available, basically Mel, keeping in context. I had no idea while reading your post we must be thinking outside the blurred lines of what you wrote.
I thought it was very clear. I don’t see how anyone could have confused it. I said that for an inexpensive zoom, f4 was ok, but for other lenses, obviously not zooms, since I just mentioned an inexpensive zoom, that f2.8 was better. Since we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be, I just can’t see how someone could be confused about what I was referring to.
 

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
391
258
I thought it was very clear. I don’t see how anyone could have confused it. I said that for an inexpensive zoom, f4 was ok, but for other lenses, obviously not zooms, since I just mentioned an inexpensive zoom, that f2.8 was better. Since we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be, I just can’t see how someone could be confused about what I was referring to.

The sense I got was that you thought f/4 primes were pretty much pointless. So I shared your reaction at someone perceiving you to be jumping on 4.0 zooms.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? I said that for an inexpensive zoom, yes, f4. So why did you point out large, expensive zooms? Mostly, there were prime lenses in that list—just one zoom. One could easily have realized that I was otherwise referring to those primes Canon got patents for.
I don’t think you actually read what you wrote. Let’s revisit that, shall we?

The f/4 trinity is a much better fit for the R and the RP.
I don’t get the desire for f4 lenses. For an inexpensive zoom, yes, but otherwise, no. 2,8 is small and inexpensive enough.
You replied to a post about the “f/4 trinity,” stating that f/4 is ok for a cheap zoom but otherwise f/2.8 is small and inexpensive enough. One could easily realize that you were referring to primes only if one was aware of an ‘f/4 trinity’ of prime lenses. I’m not aware of any such trinity...are you? **

You quoted a reply that was obviously referring to zoom lenses, then you referred to zoom lenses. But somehow it should be evident that your main point was about prime lenses?

It certainly wasn’t, to me at least. Thus my listing of f/2.8 zooms that are neither small nor inexpensive.


** Well, there is the 400 DO / 500L / 600L trinity of primes, so maybe that’s what you meant. And in that case, the 300/2.8 is comparatively smaller and less expensive. Somehow, I doubt that’s what you meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterT

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
I thought it was very clear. I don’t see how anyone could have confused it. I said that for an inexpensive zoom, f4 was ok, but for other lenses, obviously not zooms, since I just mentioned an inexpensive zoom, that f2.8 was better.
So your logic here is that lenses that are not ‘inexpensive zooms’ must be primes?

Since we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be, I just can’t see how someone could be confused about what I was referring to.
Because your reply quoted a post referring to an ‘f/4 trinity’. Convention is that if you quote a post, your reply is to that post.

There’s this concept called context, and it’s pretty important to keep in mind if you want to have an intelligent discussion.

The post which you quoted was obviously referring to the fact that the patent includes a 16-35/4, one of the three lenses in Canon’s EF f/4 trinity (16-35, 24-70, 70-200). The RF lineup now has a matching f/2.8 trinity (or will once the announced RF 70-200/2.8 is launched) which corresponds to the EF f/2.8 trinity. The poster stated that an f/4 trinity is better suited to the R series, and you replied that f/2.8 is small and inexpensive enough. Context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana