RF Pancakes?

[killswitch]

Ok, this might be a silly question (forgive my limited understanding of the technical limitation and possibilities of the RF mount). I am curious if RF mount based pancake lenses are technically possible to design with larger than 2.8 aperture? I love the EF 40mm pancake on my EOS R, it just makes the body even more fun to work with (with adapter on ofcourse). I can't imagine how awesome it can feel to use with a native RF mount pancakes on the R bodies. Even if its 2.8 aperture I would buy them right away just because of the compactness suited for travel, photowalks, hiking, etc.

Was there ever a mention of such type of lenses by Canon or even in leaked patents (granted not all patents ends up being made, still) ?

 

[andrei1989]

sure it's possible...they made the EF-M 22mm f2
when, on the other hand, is another topic..although in my mind canon should bring out cheap lenses for the cheap body (soon to be more than one?)

 

[Maximilian]

...
Was there ever a mention of such type of lenses by Canon or even in leaked patents (granted not all patents ends up being made, still) ?

AFAIK not yet.
For sure it is possible and I would really like to see such lenses.
Small primes with decent apertures at about f/2.0 to 2.8 would be really something for small bodies like the RP.
Gimme such lenses and it'll draw me much faster into EOS R system than those also wonderful lenses already available.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Not mentioned yet, but I'm intrigued if the short flange distance means that RF pancakes can be f/2 like the EF-M instead of f/2.8 like the EF/ EF-S ones.

 

[Maximilian]

... if the short flange distance means that RF pancakes can be f/2 like the EF-M instead of f/2.8 like the EF/ EF-S ones.

I am no optical engineer but AFA my understanding goes it is not so much the flange distance but the sensor size and the needed image circle that is limiting the the max aperture.
If the flange distance is shorter and therefore the aperture blades are probably Closer to the sensor then the light rays have to be spread wider afterwards. To acheive this there would be trade offs in IQ, CA and distortion.
So maybe the shorter flange distance makes it even more difficult.

But I hope, Canon starts soon with the release of decent midprice primes, pancake or not.
Then we could see what is possible.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

I am no optical engineer but AFA my understanding goes it is not so much the flange distance but the sensor size and the needed image circle that is limiting the the max aperture.

That makes sense in a vacuum, but we have three Canon pancakes:

EF-M 22/2
EF-S 24/2.8
EF 40/2.8

The odd one out is the EF-M, being both for a mirrorless mount and a stop faster than the other two. Your understanding would make sense if the EF-S 24 were also f/2, but that doesn't match our (admittedly small) data set. With the current pancakes, the predictor of speed is mirrorless vs SLR, not image circle size.

 

[Maximilian]

That makes sense in a vacuum, but we have three Canon pancakes:

EF-M 22/2
EF-S 24/2.8
EF 40/2.8

The odd one out is the EF-M, being both for a mirrorless mount and a stop faster than the other two. Your understanding would make sense if the EF-S 24 were also f/2, but that doesn't match our (admittedly small) data set. With the current pancakes, the predictor of speed is mirrorless vs SLR, not image circle size.

Yepp! I'm with you, but surely not in your personal vacuum.
I am in no vacuum as I can breath fine

My argumentation was coming from an APS-C and EF-M 22/2 whilst the OP was longing for a FULL FRAME pancace with f/2.0 or "with larger than 2.8 aperture".
And can you agree with me that a FF image circle is bigger than an APS-C?

So my arumentation was that making an RF 40/2.0 might be much more difficult than an RF 40/2.8.
And you might (!) not gain any advantage from the shorter flange distance.

AFAIK the EF-S 24 pancake was more or less an APS-C spin-off of the EF40.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Yepp! I'm with you, but surely not in your personal vacuum.
I am in no vacuum as I can breath fine

My argumentation was coming from an APS-C and EF-M 22/2 whilst the OP was longing for a FULL FRAME pancace with f/2.0 or "with larger than 2.8 aperture".
And can you agree with me that a FF image circle is bigger than an APS-C?

So my arumentation was that making an RF 40/2.0 might be much more difficult than an RF 40/2.8.
And you might (!) not gain any advantage from the shorter flange distance.

AFAIK the EF-S 24 pancake was more or less an APS-C spin-off of the EF40.

Of course I can agree with you that an FF image circle is bigger than a crop one. That's a trivially-true statement.

My argumentation was coming from the fact that for the three current Canon pancakes, speed is not correlated with image circle. For the three current Canon pancakes, speed is correlated with mirrorless vs SLR. In absence of any other evidence (a metaphorical "vacuum", to clear that up), I'm going to make predictions based on the information we have. You're free to speculate as you wish.

 

[Don Haines]

I’m sure that they could go F2 or even faster on a pancake lens, but what effect would that have on sharpness?

I’m sure that a 40F2.8 could be easily done, and probably an F2.0, but I would be VERY surprised to see something faster than that.

 

[slclick]

Damn it Canon, don't make any RF pancakes or I might have to buy a new body. I love pancakes, the 40 is my baby and I have owned a couple Voigtlanders back when I could see better (14 years ago at <40)

 

[Maximilian]

....
My argumentation was coming from the fact that for the three current Canon pancakes, speed is not correlated with image circle. For the three current Canon pancakes, speed is correlated with mirrorless vs SLR. ...

I would never argue based just on two „measurements“. You have the EF-S and the EF-M pancake for APS-C image circle. And the 40/2.8 stands alone.
For sure f/2.0 was possible for FF.
But with high risk of impact on IQ, etc.

 

[killswitch]

Intriguing conversation. Just after I started this thread we saw patents to mid level primes the 28 and 50 mil 1.8. I like how Canon is pushing lenses for the RF mount, and hopefully they will work out some of the button layout for R bodies in a generation or two.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

They will come. Its just a matter of time. First will be the bread and butter lenses, the ones most buyers want. With a limited number of design teams, Canon has already said they pulled people from R&D to work on lens designs but don't expect to see very many new ones each year.

 

[fizzle]

waiting for an rf pancake real hard

 

[navastronia]

waiting for an rf pancake real hard

Would love to have a stealthy little setup with autofocus capability that I could take into venues, etc, without attracting attention (RP + pancake)

 

[rosw]

Yes, i am dying for a RF Pancake, 20 / 24mm (F2.8/F4) , that would be so sweet

just curious, do you think this pancake will come with IS ? or not possible with the technology

cos if this bad boy come with IS , Canon R will be the utlimate vlogging camera ;-)

 

[Optics Patent]

The 22mm length benefit of the 40mm is lost on a 24mm long adapter (46mm total). My model is the

Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8

Maybe 30mm protrusion and reasonable diameter.
I used on on my Nikon Z6 on a Techart adapter.

 

[mangobutter]

sure it's possible...they made the EF-M 22mm f2
when, on the other hand, is another topic..although in my mind canon should bring out cheap lenses for the cheap body (soon to be more than one?)

He's talking full frame, I think. You can't compare an APS-C F2 to a full frame F2. Completely different. Scaled up, the full frame equivalent pancake would be a 35mm f/2.8. So an F2, while possibly possible, would be a lot bigger. I'm a day 1 EF-M 22/2/EOS M user since launch day. Very familiar. Over 50,000 photos shot on that little beast.

Day 1 5D user too.

If you want to know (roughly) what pancakes are possible, look at what other established (Sony) mirrorless full frame cameras have. If nothing, then it seems its hard to make due to the particular flange distance of a full frame mirrorless. The pupil entrance and exit and close distance makes things a little harder to make compact from what I understand. Still hopeful though. I really want an RF pancake. a 50 F2.8 would be great. Or even 35 2.8. Yes faster would be even better if possible.

 

[mangobutter]

also--An F2 pancake with IS and f/2 (or similar) aperture already exists... sort of. It's called the RF 35. While compact, it's hardly a pancake. So you guys want an idea what a wide angle F2 lens is size wise, we already have it. Make it a stop slower and drop the IS, and you may be able to get a pancake. Get it now? With a compact pancake like we all want (the EF 40 2.8) there has to be compromises. and i'm totally fine with it. i want as small of a pancake as possible. I want tiny tiny tiny.

 

[Optics Patent]

IBIS would seem to help the market for a pancake. For me, it's about size, and IQ needs only to be adequate. I'd be happy with an equivalent to the Sony 35 2.8 that gives up nothing in IQ