Patent: Canon RF 120-700mm f/4.5-8 optical formula

[Canon Rumors]

Northlight has uncovered a patent showing optical formulas for more super-telephoto zoom lenses for the RF mount. The Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM will be officially announced soon, but does Canon have plans for an even longer zoom lens for the EOS R system?
Canon RF 100-600mm f/4.5-7.1

Focal Length: 103mm – 248mm – 600mm
F-Number: 4.6 – 5.8 – 6.8
Half Angle of View: 11.86° – 4.98° – 2.07°
Image Height: 21.64mm – 21.64mm – 21.64mm
Lens Length: 241mm – 305mm – 331mm
Backfocus: 17mm – 37mm – 97mm

Canon RF 120-700mm f/4.5-8

Focal Length: 123mm – 293mm – 700mm
F-Number: 4.6 – 5.8 – 8.0
Half Angle of View: 9.98° – 4.22° – 1.77°
Image Height: 21.64mm – 21.64mm – 21.64mm
Lens Length: 246mm – 322mm – 370mm
Backfocus: 14mm – 44mm – 107mm

Continue reading...

 

[Doug7131]

That would be an awesome lens. Would be up against the 150-600 lenses that Sigma and others make. Although based on how angry some pople got about the 100-500 being f7.1 they may actually explode seeing this is f8.

 

[Madtoffel]

I would love to have a supertelefoto zoom lens for the RF mount that is comparable or better than the Sony 200-600. I hope it comes for less than $2000 and is under 2,5kg.

 

[AlanF]

f/8 at 700mm is very acceptable to me as a compromise between aperture/focal length and size/weight. It should take a 95mm filter and be just under 2kg in weight, and most likely f/5.6 at 400mm. I'd go for this like a shot if the IQ is up to current 100-400mm IQ.

 

[Del Paso]

Provided the IQ is "RF like", this lens will be on my "buy quick" list !

 

[pj1974]

I'm loving these RF supertele options.... I mean, the 100-500mm was tempting enough... but similar options extended to 600mm and even 700mm....

Though obviously not confirmed if the above-mentioned-spec-lenses will ever see the production-light-of-day.... if they do... I would have to seriously consult my normal cash-flow situation and consider cuts to non-essentials like food and toilet-paper in order to buy one of these babies!

 

[degos]

Seems odd to start the zoom range at 120 instead of 200 or even 300. If I'm going long then I generally don't need a short end.

And as for RF mount; it's only Canon's decision that such OEM lenses weren't available on EF, not a technical restriction. Other than AF at f/8, which the later APS-C DSLRs could actually do.

 

[Whowe]

f/8 at 700mm is very acceptable to me as a compromise between aperture/focal length and size/weight. It should take a 95mm filter and be just under 2kg in weight, and most likely f/5.6 at 400mm. I'd go for this like a shot if the IQ is up to current 100-400mm IQ.

I don't think it will be f/5.6 at 400mm. The tables seem to indicate f/5.8 at 248mm and 293mm for the 600 and 700, respectively.

 

[Whowe]

f/8 should not be considered a problem. A 1.4x on a 100-400 only gives us 560mm at f/8! The R series does not have the focus limitations of f/8 that previous generations of DSLRs had.

Sigma and Tamron go to 600mm with only a 1/3 stop increase (f/6.3) but they suffer from slower focus and reportedly the IQ is not as sharp as the 100-400 ii. Maybe this slight increase in aperture will be balanced by a reduction in weight!

 

[bbasiaga]

oh man this would be sweet...what do you guys think:

2000-3000$ or 10k+ like the 200-400EF lens?

-Brian

 

[AlanF]

Seems odd to start the zoom range at 120 instead of 200 or even 300. If I'm going long then I generally don't need a short end.

And as for RF mount; it's only Canon's decision that such OEM lenses weren't available on EF, not a technical restriction. Other than AF at f/8, which the later APS-C DSLRs could actually do.

If you don't need a short end, then a prime is best.

 

[Ozarker]

oh man this would be sweet...what do you guys think:

2000-3000$ or 10k+ like the 200-400EF lens?

-Brian

The 200-400mm is a constant aperture lens, which I think is what makes it so expensive. I don't think this lens will be in the $10k range.

 

[Deleted member 378085]

we'll after shooting with the original 100-400, the 300 f/4 and then finally the 100-400ii over the last 20 years I finally moved to a 300 2.8ii with 1.4 TC. Although the price is premium I've found myself with the shooting I do to need at least no less then F/4 or lower to get steady shots.

These new lenses will be great in good light for most but I find the light gathering a bit low for my needs. I am really happy with my decision, a 420mm f/4 combo is seriously impressive even compared to my 100-400ii which was a great lens. This combo is sitll hand hold able all day for me atleast. The results makes the cost of switching to it less painful lol.

 

[Bert63]

Come to me my little naked petunia...

 

[magarity]

Patents that don't get turned into products or licensed to someone else to make into a product are just legal tools to prevent anyone from making that product at all.

 

[6degrees]

I guess this will be too huge to carry around.

 

[flip314]

I'm waiting for the Canon 16-1600mm f/8-800

 

[PureClassA]

These small apertures should mate and lower speed be offset nicely with with IBIS! (Provided of course your SUBJECT is pretty stationary)

 

[jolyonralph]

These look likely to have been patented on the path to the development of the RF 100-500 - can't see any chance that either of the lenses on this patent will see it to market so soon after the 100-500.

 

[The3o5FlyGuy]

Hopefully, these will maybe be more "budget Lenses" for the RF super-telephoto line. Because I can def thnk a 200-400 F/4 RF Lens or a new 200-600 RF lens being more of the premium super-telephoto zoom lens