Patent: RF mount super telephoto lenses

Aug 1, 2017
286
166
Hmm, I dunno... you have to think with a corporate group-mind. If the market isn't adopting a New Shiny Thing, that means, in corp-think, that the market is stupid and lazy and needs to be beaten into doing the Right Thing. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if lens-mount interoperability began to 'deteriorate'; maybe IBIS will only work with RF lenses, due to the communication data-rate needed...
Brilliant!!!

I don't know why I didn't think of that. I guess that's why I don't work in marketing. Lens IS only working in conjuction with IBIS on RF lenses would be a classic "special feature" of the new mount. IBIS not working at all with EF lenses would be even better.

A highly desirable feature with a plausible and defensible explanation for why it can't work with "obsolete" lenses. No competent marketing manager would pass on an opportunity like that.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
185
142
117
Williamsport, PA
To compare lens lengths, one should instead subtract 20mm from the RF patent length. Doing so based on the above measurements indicates the lenses are essentially the same length.

Still not seeing the purported ‘benefits of the RF mount’.
When you are dealing with long telephoto probably not much advantage. But in shorter lenses it can be quite substantial. The shorter distance with the Canon large diameter mount allows for wider lenses to not require such a huge front optic for the same aperture value. Also allowing for a lens with less weight up front.
I am not an optical engineer but reading the options and capabilities with the shorter distance and large diameter opening does allow for things that never could be done with a mirror box in the way.
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,068
1,288
When you are dealing with long telephoto probably not much advantage. But in shorter lenses it can be quite substantial. The shorter distance with the Canon large diameter mount allows for wider lenses to not require such a huge front optic for the same aperture value. Also allowing for a lens with less weight up front.
I am not an optical engineer but reading the options and capabilities with the shorter distance and large diameter opening does allow for things that never could be done with a mirror box in the way.
Possibly. The RF UWA patents all indicate lenses similar to the current EF 16-35/17-40 in length. The RF diagrams are consistent with a smaller front element, but overall there are more elements and many are thicker, suggesting the overall weight reduction will not be significant (and in a 4“ long lens, moving the center of mass is unlikely to have a big impact on balance).

As I’ve said, even if the potential is there (jury is still out on that) the practical examples we’ve seen so far do not support the claim of significant benefit from the RF mount (lens communication notwithstanding).
 
Reactions: Architect1776

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
185
142
117
Williamsport, PA
Possibly. The RF UWA patents all indicate lenses similar to the current EF 16-35/17-40 in length. The RF diagrams are consistent with a smaller front element, but overall there are more elements and many are thicker, suggesting the overall weight reduction will not be significant (and in a 4“ long lens, moving the center of mass is unlikely to have a big impact on balance).

As I’ve said, even if the potential is there (jury is still out on that) the practical examples we’ve seen so far do not support the claim of significant benefit from the RF mount (lens communication notwithstanding).
One thing we have seen are lenses geared for the gods. Us mere mortals , it seems, will have to wait for more down to earth lenses that will likely show that they can be smaller and lighter. Also if IBIS is introduced universally from now on all that mechanism can be taken out of many if not most designs. Thus a definite size and weight reduction would be possible. That is what I am looking for.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,398
249
UK
www.flickr.com
Sadly, there are always people who will believe in conspiracies rather than accept a reality that conflicts with their uninformed view of the world.

I've seen this all my life. As a kid growing up in the 60s I had classmates that insisted there was a secret carburetor that could get 100 miles to the gallon, but Detroit and the oil industry had conspired to keep it off the market. I also grew up in an era when people seriously suggested that fluoridated water was a Russian plot to poison American children.

Today we have people who put other people's children at risk by refusing to have their own children vaccinated.

So, when I read some of the ridiculous theories floated on this forum, I cringe, but know that no amount of logic or common sense will change their minds.
I mean in general I agree with you, and certainly the idea the Canon conspires against camera buyers (for whatever reason) is absurd, but corporate conspiracies do sometimes occur - e.g. the emissions scandal (was it Volkswagen?).
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
I mean in general I agree with you, and certainly the idea the Canon conspires against camera buyers (for whatever reason) is absurd, but corporate conspiracies do sometimes occur - e.g. the emissions scandal (was it Volkswagen?).
I guess I draw a distinction between grand conspiracies and cheating. Certainly some companies cheat. Heck, look at Yongnuo and their blatant theft of Canon technology. The U.S. is in a trade war with China because their government has built an economy that relies on cheating. W. Eugene Smith's final and possibly greatest documentary project, Minamata, focused on a Japanese company's environmental cheating and the devastating effect it had on people. Cheaters often conspire to conceal their cheating and that type of conspiracy is all too common.

But, I reject silly conspiracy theories that have no basis in logic. My post was in agreement with another forum participant's observation that it is silly to suggest that Canon would purposely alienate customers as some sort of bizarre strategy to trick people.

So yeah, your point is well taken.
 
Reactions: scyrene

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,197
790
Irving, Texas
I guess I draw a distinction between grand conspiracies and cheating. Certainly some companies cheat. Heck, look at Yongnuo and their blatant theft of Canon technology. The U.S. is in a trade war with China because their government has built an economy that relies on cheating. W. Eugene Smith's final and possibly greatest documentary project, Minamata, focused on a Japanese company's environmental cheating and the devastating effect it had on people. Cheaters often conspire to conceal their cheating and that type of conspiracy is all too common.

But, I reject silly conspiracy theories that have no basis in logic. My post was in agreement with another forum participant's observation that it is silly to suggest that Canon would purposely alienate customers as some sort of bizarre strategy to trick people.

So yeah, your point is well taken.
Actually, we are in a trade war because our President is an economics illiterate with no sense of history. Governments don't pay tariffs, the end users of products do. The only people the tariffs on Chinese or Mexican imports hurt are U.S. consumers of Chinese and Mexican goods. The United States government is now having to bail out our pork industry (with taxpayer dollars) thanks to retaliatory tariffs by China. The Chinese have turned to Mexico and Canada for those pork products, and have seized 40% of what used to be our market (a yuge market!). While I agree that China reverse engineers products and produces things based on the theft of intellectual property (NOT the reason we are in a trade war), a trade war is just plain stupid, especially when the federal government is in so much bond debt to China... who have financed so much of our money printing.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,993
1,744
I mean in general I agree with you, and certainly the idea the Canon conspires against camera buyers (for whatever reason) is absurd, but corporate conspiracies do sometimes occur - e.g. the emissions scandal (was it Volkswagen?).
Sometimes? Off the top of my head: exchange rate rigging; subprime mortgages; PPI; pharmaceutical price fixing; opioid drugs; automotive parts; and the US has anti-trust laws that have been famously served with success on Kodak, Microsoft, Standard Oil and AT & T to name a few.
 

wsmith96

Advancing Amateur
Aug 17, 2012
907
4
Texas
i guess this is going to sound snarky and I'm saying this generally rather than to a specific poster. "Did anybody really expect to?"

The true benefit of the new mount is that Canon, one way or another, is going to find a way to get RF mount users to buy "improved" versions of all their existing EF lenses. Regardless of whether they're any better.
Another consideration is that with so many ef lenses available on the second hand market, canon is positioning to make them obsolete and force cash flow back to them directly. Once you have an r mount camera, will you consider purchasing more ef lenses?