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

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,903
1,666
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
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...


 
Nov 3, 2020
6
8
244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.
 

fred

I'm New Here
Oct 9, 2020
21
18
"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

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,228
1,482
Germany
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,149
763
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian
Nov 3, 2020
6
8
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.



1606511572915.png
 

LensFungus

EOS 90D
Apr 8, 2017
121
510
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.
 

Bahrd

Red herrings...
Jun 30, 2013
113
75
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

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,684
552
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surab

Ale_F

6D - 7D
Nov 22, 2018
77
52
"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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fred

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
490
227
I used to shoot with the f/2.8 trinity 17-200mm, then f/5.6 out to 400mm with a TC or two. Then I'd have f/1.4 primes for special shots.

With the advent in IS, relatively clean shots at high ISO, AF that doesn't need big apertures, and viewfinders that don't need big apertures for brightness, now I think we can move to an f/4 trinity. 14-35/4, 24-105/4, and 100-500/4.5-7.1 in three lenses with no TC seems like a general improvement: lighter, cheaper, longer rand wide to narrow, perhaps a bit less lens-changing. (Really, f/2.8 even when you got it in focus was not that deep of focus, so I have lots of suboptimal photos thanks to that.) Then we can increase the primes a half-stop or more: 35/1.2, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/1.4. I expect a 24/1.2 as well. So when you want bokeh and to separate out your subject from the background, you can do moreso now with the bigger primes. When that's not your goal, you still have more convenient shooting with the f/4.

But to the extent you found 70mm f/2.8 to be bokeh-ish, that's due to a 25mm aperture. 100mm at f/4 is actually a 26.5mm aperture, and the background is yet more magnified so it's easier to slightly change angles and get a background you want. So even though the f-stop is 4 not 2.8, the bokeh is the same or better. Likewise 500mm at f/7.1 is a 70.5mm aperture, very similar to a 200mm at 2.8, 280mm at f/4, or 400mm at f/5.6. So you still have the bokeh power (or more) of the f/2.8 trinity with this new trinity.
 
Last edited:
<-- start Taboola -->