Patent: Canon RF 70-240mm f/4 IS and RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

[Canon Rumors]

Canon is obviously busy developing new lenses for the RF mount, and we expect a lot of new lenses next year. We also expect some more affordable offerings for the RF mount.
In the latest round of patents, we see optical formulas for both an RF 70-240mm f/4 IS and an RF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.
Canon RF 70-240mm f/4 IS USM:

Focal length 72.10mm 131.78mm 242.00mm
F-number 4.10 4.10 4.10
Half angle of view 16.70° 9.32° 5.11°
Image height 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
Total lens length 147.22mm 176.39mm 210.90mm
BF 12.95mm 25.54mm 36.63mm

Canon RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM:

Focal length 72.10mm 144.31mm 289.00mm
F-number 4.60 5.68 5.88
Half angle of view 16.70° 8.53° 4.28°
Image height 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
Total lens length 136.41mm 169.48mm 201.14mm
BF 12.95mm 28.75mm 42.22mm

Continue reading...

 

[aquagene]

That RF 70-300 has been the one I'm really looking forward to. Using the EF 70-300 Nano USM with adapter right now for wildife photography and it's pretty unwieldy at times. This new design at 137mm (5.4 inches) closed will be amazing.

Interesting to see a 70-240 F4. I'm guessing that's probably just a design patent that might not turn into a lens.

 

[Architect1776]

Looks like Canon is getting serious about a good range of lenses for the RF mount. What is exciting is most all of them are eminently usable. Not like a what do you do with it, $9,000, f.95 manual focus lens.

 

[Ozarker]

I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300. What will be the crying be about today?

 

[shakedong93]

IS???????

 

[Architect1776]

I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300. What will be the crying be about today?

The trolls will find something else in order to make their poor choices be justified in their minds.

 

[SteveC]

I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300. What will be the crying be about today?

Well, it's worth a try.

Canon won't make an M5 II!!! Waaaaaaah!!!!!!

 

[melgross]

A 70-240 f4 that’s not an L version. How odd. An f4-6.3 that’s not an L, I would understand.

 

[windsorc]

not making a 400mm f5.6, I'll cry about that

 

[Tom W]

I think it'd be kind of nice to see a 100-300 f/4 zoom, a good companion to the 24-105. Throw on a 1.4X and you have a nice 140-420 f/5.6 zoom which is also useful.

Then again, the 100-400 II covers this pretty nicely.

 

[Tom W]

Well, it's worth a try.

Canon won't make an M5 II!!! Waaaaaaah!!!!!!

LOL - yes they will. They started making it yesterday, right after I received my M6 II.

 

[SteveC]

LOL - yes they will. They started making it yesterday, right after I received my M6 II.

You only THINK that's a joke...

According to Canon News there's a patent that looks like a new version of the 11-22mm M series lens.

I just bought mine yesterday.

 

[Loswr]

A 70-240 f4 that’s not an L version. How odd. An f4-6.3 that’s not an L, I would understand.

What makes you think it’s not an L?

 

[melgross]

What makes you think it’s not an L?

I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.

i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.

 

[Pape]

Well, it's worth a try.

Canon won't make an M5 II!!! Waaaaaaah!!!!!!

They make it when getting digic 9 and can do full video with 32mpix sensor

 

[Loswr]

I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.

i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.

Compared to lenses like the RF 50, 85 and 28-70, a lens priced like the EF 70-200/4L IS would be ‘affordable’

 

[BillB]

I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.

i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.

Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?

 

[SteveC]

Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?

If not, I'd check the patent for the presence of fluorite elements. If I understand correctly those usually are present in Ls and usually not present in non-Ls.

 

[melgross]

Compared to lenses like the RF 50, 85 and 28-70, a lens priced like the EF 70-200/4L IS would be ‘affordable’

I guess it means different things to different people. What’s affordable to us may be very expensive to others.

 

[melgross]

Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?

Considering that the L lenses are their own designs, then whatever the design would be would be in the patent. As far as The L goes, that’s a trademark.