Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

[Canon Rumors]

Yesterday I posted a patent showing the optical formulas for both an RF 15-35mm f/4L and an RF 16-35mm f/4L. I noted that an RF 14-35mm f/4L is rumored to be coming in 2021, and I did wonder aloud if that was a type, but it appears Canon is definitely working on an RF 14-35mm f/4L optical formula.
It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom and will likely have IS as well.
Japan Patent Application 2020-190696






Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L

Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L...

Continue reading...

 

[Mr.Burberry]

Well.. good news get even better!

 

[xwxw]

244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.

 

[Tangent]

244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.

Good point... but maybe that length pertains to the underwater housing mentioned in the OP?

 

[jolyonralph]

RF 15-32 f4-4.5 though! Not that it makes much difference, but I'd prefer they were honest about this.

 

[Deleted member 388000]

"It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom."

If true, it is already better than the Nikon Z 14-30 F4 S.

 

[Maximilian]

If this is continuing the increase in preformance/IQ compared to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM I'll raise my hat to Canon for their R&D department.

 

[padam]

If this is continuing the increase in preformance/IQ compared to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM I'll raise my hat to Canon for their R&D department.

If it is only just as sharp at equivalent focal lengths while being wider as well as lighter and more compact, it is a big advancement.
They will also take care of of some other minor flaws, namely flaring, and the noisy AF during video recording.

But it's also going to cost twice as much compared to the EF lens, so it won't be as popular. But due to all camera sales continually decreasing, it's not designed to be anyway.

 

[Joules]

Wow, what a gigantic lens! What ever happened to mirrorless being all about making wide lenses smaller?

 

[Canon Rumors]

244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.

There are weird lens lengths in patents from time to time. I wouldn't read too much into it.

 

[xwxw]

You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be? I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.

 

[LensFungus]

You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be? I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.



View attachment 194188

D looks like the cannonball from Super Mario.

 

[KirkD]

I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm. It would be more honest to call it a 15-34 zoom when one looks at the actual numbers.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm.

I also have mathematical issues. Canon's cripple rounding.

 

[Bahrd]

I also have mathematical issues. Canon's cripple* rounding.

* When a distribution is skewed, such a rounding can produce a proper outcome...

PS
I wouldn't blame Canon (yet) anyway... There is no direct designation of the lens' parameters in the patent. The headlines seem to rather be our host's (and the CN guy) translation/interpretation.

 

[sanj]

I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm. It would be more honest to call it a 15-34 zoom when one looks at the actual numbers.

It would be prudent to hold the judgement until after the launch. This is just a rumour.

 

[Ale_F]

"It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom."

If true, it is already better than the Nikon Z 14-30 F4 S.

Despite the two RF70-200 are compact, I prefer the internal zoom like the EF17-40 and others.

 

[davidcl0nel]

The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.

 

[Joules]

we can move to an f/4 trinity. 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 in three lenses

A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though. What does that have to do with the points you made before and after about cheaper or lighter?

 

[jolyonralph]

A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though. What does that have to do with the points you made before and after about cheaper or lighter?

I read it as I think it was intended. f/4 or slower lenses.