Patent: Canon RF 180mm f/3.5L Macro and Canon RF 200mm f/4L Macro

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,314
2,079
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
It looks like Canon is working on another macro lens for the RF mount, with the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM having been released, there is likely a niche need for a longer focal length macro lens. Canon didn’t sell a ton of EF 180mm f/3.5L USM lenses, but the people that did need it loved it.
Canon RF 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro

Focal length 174.43mm
F-number 3.50
Half angle of view: 7.07°
Image height 21.64mm
Length of lens: 189.49mm
BF 13.73mm

Canon RF 200mm f/4L USM Macro

Focal length 194.00mm
F-number 4.00
Half angle of view: 6.36°
Image height 21.64mm
Length of lens: 202.49mm
BF 39.36mm

Continue reading...
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
660
371
Sigh, no, this is not a patent on any particular lens spec, neither 180mm nor 200mm nor RF nor f/3.5 nor f/4.0.

This is a patent on a general macro lens architecture or design that is meant to minimize fluctuations of aberrations.

There are seven examples in the patent, from 140mm to 194mm, f/3.5 to f/4, back focuses from 13 to 49mm, but the patent isn't about any of these examples, but rather the general lens formula. It specifically mentions (all their patents do, I think) "imaging device such as a digital still camera, a video camera, a surveillance camera, and an in-vehicle camera."

I've mentioned several times that this website is being misleading by claiming that patents of formula or designs are somehow really patents of the examples. I've asked if anyone can point to any production lens specific design actually being first mentioned as an example in a patent application and no-one's pointed out a single case to me. I also haven't seen such a case myself. I'm sure it must happen from time to time but I'm still waiting for someone to point such a case out. Until we have a good record of many or even most new lenses being mentioned in patents as examples of their respected general architecture or designs, though, I think it'd be premature to hope that this particular design would be built. (And I'm not even sure it would be, as some aberrations are pretty high.) My takeaway is that if anything it might be a lot LIGHTER than the EF 180mm, and maybe CHEAPER, but the figures don't necessarily look BETTER.
 

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
598
516
Sigh, no, this is not a patent on any particular lens spec, neither 180mm nor 200mm nor RF nor f/3.5 nor f/4.0.

This is a patent on a general macro lens architecture or design that is meant to minimize fluctuations of aberrations.

There are seven examples in the patent, from 140mm to 194mm, f/3.5 to f/4, back focuses from 13 to 49mm, but the patent isn't about any of these examples, but rather the general lens formula. It specifically mentions (all their patents do, I think) "imaging device such as a digital still camera, a video camera, a surveillance camera, and an in-vehicle camera."

I've mentioned several times that this website is being misleading by claiming that patents of formula or designs are somehow really patents of the examples. I've asked if anyone can point to any production lens specific design actually being first mentioned as an example in a patent application and no-one's pointed out a single case to me. I also haven't seen such a case myself. I'm sure it must happen from time to time but I'm still waiting for someone to point such a case out. Until we have a good record of many or even most new lenses being mentioned in patents as examples of their respected general architecture or designs, though, I think it'd be premature to hope that this particular design would be built. (And I'm not even sure it would be, as some aberrations are pretty high.) My takeaway is that if anything it might be a lot LIGHTER than the EF 180mm, and maybe CHEAPER, but the figures don't necessarily look BETTER.
correct it's a patent not yet a CR rating, but I am hopeful.

The image quality on the 180mm is superb, but it is a heavy lens and the autofocus is useless (always flip to manual). So those two reasons alone would make it a worthy lens if they keep the IQ similar or slightly better. Always been intrigued with the MP65 too, but haven't used it. I went with 180 because it gives range to not spook the subjects away.


posted already in another channel, but this was handheld with only a LED light (not particularly powerful) on my R5 and 180L.. had to do some denoise work (cloudy day 5000 ISO), but as usual, the 180 gives some sweet results.

8U4A0848 1.jpg
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,136
4,747
I've mentioned several times that this website is being misleading by claiming that patents of formula or designs are somehow really patents of the examples. I've asked if anyone can point to any production lens specific design actually being first mentioned as an example in a patent application and no-one's pointed out a single case to me. I also haven't seen such a case myself.
How many examples would you like? I didn't bother going back too far.



 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,920
1,861
correct it's a patent not yet a CR rating, but I am hopeful.

The image quality on the 180mm is superb, but it is a heavy lens and the autofocus is useless (always flip to manual). So those two reasons alone would make it a worthy lens if they keep the IQ similar or slightly better. Always been intrigued with the MP65 too, but haven't used it. I went with 180 because it gives range to not spook the subjects away. [..]
Judging from the focus motors in the RF100L and RF100-500L, an RF180mm-ish macro will be huge improvement over the EF180L. Likely enough for me to trade in EF180mm and sell a kidney to get the RF version.

As for the MP-E, get a twin flash or a well engineered diffuser, it really needs lots and lots of soft light for reaching its potential. And if you're going to be using it in the field, get the metal lenshood (JJC makes a good, cheaper variant) as well.
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
470
542
USA
I specialize in Food images and the 100LIS is my main tool but a 180 and 200 seems to similar and redundant.
Being patents only I think we are unlikely to see both of these brought to the market as actual products. That happens a lot with these - they patent a number of things that are similar, and later decide what to actually produce. I'm sure there are good reasons for doing that - to protect as much of their development work as possible I assume.

It may be more fun to speculate which we will see.....in RF so far they seem to have tried to do a little extra vs. the EF equivalents. So maybe the 200 is what we will see. But the DLSR like back focus distance makes me wonder.

Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
449
548
Northeastern US
It would be interesting if Canon could make such a lens with DO optics to reduce the overall length and weight so it could be closer in size to the 100 mm macro, but maybe DO elements do not work well for macro photography. Pure speculation on my part.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,136
4,747
But the DLSR like back focus distance makes me wonder.
Since the back focus is the distance between the rear element and the sensor, the extra 19mm beyond the flange distance means free space between the mount and the rear element.

That suggests an RF 200/4 macro with such a design would be compatible with the RF extenders…which would be awesome.
 

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
598
516
Since the back focus is the distance between the rear element and the sensor, the extra 19mm beyond the flange distance means free space between the mount and the rear element.

That suggests an RF 200/4 macro with such a design would be compatible with the RF extenders…which would be awesome.
Sure would be. The EF 180L can use extenders, but Holy cow the DOF is hard to work with.

Yep recognize the RF extenders have created further limitations (70-200 comes to mind)
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
477
531
UK
The EF 180mm macro is an absolutely fabulous optic, although a little slow to focus in AF mode, and difficult to hand hold steadily for insect photography in the field.

So I can absolutely guarantee that I’d buy a stabilised RF version -

But, I hope that IF a stabilised RF 180mm macro comes to fruition that it will be limited to F4 or even F5.6, to keep the cost and weight/size within reasonable bounds. It is handy to have apertures of F2.8 or F3.5 to allow for a bright viewfinder image with a DSLR, but with a mirrorless I see little if any need for an aperture wider than F4 on a long focal length macro.

Personally I don’t want or need aspherical aberration control (as per RF 100mm macro). It’s more important IMO to create a design with minimal focus breathing, for better alignment of focus-stacked images.
 

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
598
516
Try the MP-E 65mm (especially with the 2x TC). :)
Pretty much why I haven't gone in that direction.. gorgeous results, but seems to need studio level light and stacking. I prefer to get stuff in field :-/ but sure impressive with right conditions
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
85
55
Nice! The long awaited long macro update! If it will have the same IQ as the RF100mm, hopefully with x1.4 mag too, hopefully without the SA control - that would be fantastic! Release and take my money, Canon! :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,136
4,747
Pretty much why I haven't gone in that direction.. gorgeous results, but seems to need studio level light and stacking. I prefer to get stuff in field :-/ but sure impressive with right conditions
I typically use it in the field, but the twin flash is pretty much a requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB