Patent: Canon RF 80mm f/2.8 Macro

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,507
1,229
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
A dedicated macro lens for the RF mount is definitely needed and is obviously on the roadmap. Here we have an optical formula for an RF 80mm f/2.8 1:1 macro lens.
I doubt we’ll see an 80mm macro, but there will be multiple different macro optical formulas until we see a consumer product.






Patent: Canon RF 80mm f/2.8 Macro





Focal length

80.45mm



F value

2.90...
Continue reading...


 

Bishop80

EOS M50
Jan 4, 2014
35
32
Why does Canon go to the time and expense of designing lenses in some particular focal length, when they jolly-well know they will not be actually producing that lens?
Believe it or not, you don't actually have to make even one of the thing you claim in the patent. This lens could exist entirely in CAD but still receive a design or process patent.

Many companies offer employee incentives to produce patents. For example, a cash bonus per patent, with an extra bonus for first patent filed, and other bonuses for plateaus reached (x number of patents). Invention disclosures that don't get a patent (for whatever reason) can still be publicly disclosed so that prior art now exists, preventing another company from cashing in on the protections and benefits of a patent themselves (unless, of course, they have evidence of designing said thing themselves before the other guy).

Canon could also decide to patent a design (which does cost money and resource for the full legal process) to prevent another company from designing and selling the same lens themselves, even if they themselves never intend to sell it; or to get royalties from other companies wanting to use the design.

Companies also get bragging rights for being Patent leaders in their industry. This even extends to the depts. inside a company, where the Widget Dept. can brag about generating more patents per capita than all other departments in the company.
 

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
277
282
UK
If I’m to move over to the RF system then a true macro is a must!

No doubt this’ll be like £2500 or something stupid though.. :rolleyes:
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
63
27
www.len-lex.com
What the idea of such lens? Too close to a classic 100mm, which they will release, I'm sure. Not short enough to be the 100mm for (the rumored) APS-C R. Any ways, I would be much more tempted by 150-180mm true-macro lens. Did Canon patent something true-macro-long?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nigel95

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
343
269
Companies also get bragging rights for being Patent leaders in their industry.
Frankly I think bragging rights go to companies that actually produce interesting lenses instead of just patenting them.

So Canon can patent dozens of configurations but when it comes to a new 50mm 1.8 they just warm-over the existing EF design. Not very braggable...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,441
1,235
What the idea of such lens? Too close to a classic 100mm, which they will release, I'm sure. Not short enough to be the 100mm for (the rumored) APS-C R. Any ways, I would be much more tempted by 150-180mm true-macro lens. Did Canon patent something true-macro-long?
FWIW, both 100mm macro lenses from Canon are 70-ish mm at MFD, lots of focus breathing with those designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
927
940
FWIW, both 100mm macro lenses from Canon are 70-ish mm at MFD, lots of focus breathing with those designs.
And not that sharp (mine?) at infinity setting on the sides and corners...
If you don't believe me: OpticalLimits review...or, on TDP, compare it with the 90mm f2,8 TSE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SUNDOG04

Drainpipe

It's all about the little things.
Aug 30, 2014
96
24
www.instagram.com
I really do hope that Canon has a 2:1 for the RF mount. I've been using the Laowa 100mm which goes to 2:1 mag, and it's incredible.

If I could have my dream macro, it'd be a 150mm f/2.8L 3:1 macro. I can dream :)
 
  • Love
Reactions: pj1974

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
453
375
www.flickr.com
Virtually (not the 24-105mm) all the rf lenses bring something new to the table vs their ef version. I am happy to keep my ef100mmL ... used it tonight for a 6 day old newborn shoot :) but if the rf version is 2:1 then I would migrate at some stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

samh004

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
12
6
Gold Coast, Australia
Virtually (not the 24-105mm) all the rf lenses bring something new to the table vs their ef version.
Exactly. My thinking is that 2:1 and/or something better than f/2.8 would be the differentiator. Even better if it was both, say a f/1.8 that can do 2:1, 1:1 and also operate to infinity :)

I'll need to buy another pelican case if so, as my gear will increase substantially.
 

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
640
483
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
And not that sharp (mine?) at infinity setting on the sides and corners...
If you don't believe me: OpticalLimits review...or, on TDP, compare it with the 90mm f2,8 TSE.
The 100mm L macro was released right at the beginning of the coatings revolution - one of the main factors for increased resolution development in the last decade. It was also released right when IS was going from a (realistically) 2-stop capacity to a 3-3.5 stop capacity. So it was a bonkers lens at the time. The first (and only) "hybrid" IS system Canon ever released. It added a whole new axis of IS.

That said, in a decade, some similarly-focal-lengthed lenses have come out that are sharper. A large number of 85mm options in particular. But I don't know of any lens that is macro and has decent IS at macro use that is as sharp as this lens. For hand-held macro, it's still unbeatable. I know because I continue to waste money buying alternatives, trying them, and selling them.

When I shot Sony, I found that adapting the Canon 100 L was the best option, even with super sharp lenses such as the Sigma (AF was pretty bad).

All that said, the Laowa/Venus stuff that has been coming out has been fantastic. The probe lens; the 15mm macro; etc. Totally innovative and useful stuff. But not a 100mm with as-good IS or AF.

When Canon does settle on a design, it'll sell a boat-load. When they launch a super-high-resolution body, that might be an auspicious time.

One last thing: I think the communication between lens and camera that allows canon to get 7+ IS stops is going to really be remarkable in the macro use case. Eager to see. -tig
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrunRad

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,188
3,410
120
The 100mm L macro was released right at the beginning of the coatings revolution - one of the main factors for increased resolution development in the last decade. It was also released right when IS was going from a (realistically) 2-stop capacity to a 3-3.5 stop capacity. So it was a bonkers lens at the time. The first (and only) "hybrid" IS system Canon ever released. It added a whole new axis of IS.

That said, in a decade, some similarly-focal-lengthed lenses have come out that are sharper. A large number of 85mm options in particular. But I don't know of any lens that is macro and has decent IS at macro use that is as sharp as this lens. For hand-held macro, it's still unbeatable. I know because I continue to waste money buying alternatives, trying them, and selling them.

When I shot Sony, I found that adapting the Canon 100 L was the best option, even with super sharp lenses such as the Sigma (AF was pretty bad).

All that said, the Laowa/Venus stuff that has been coming out has been fantastic. The probe lens; the 15mm macro; etc. Totally innovative and useful stuff. But not a 100mm with as-good IS or AF.

When Canon does settle on a design, it'll sell a boat-load. When they launch a super-high-resolution body, that might be an auspicious time.

One last thing: I think the communication between lens and camera that allows canon to get 7+ IS stops is going to really be remarkable in the macro use case. Eager to see. -tig
But the 100 L macro doesn’t resolve any better than the ancient pre L 100 macro and at F5.6 even the 50 F1.4 out resolves it. Both of which seem to suggest the coatings are not as effective as you think they are.

I’m not saying the 100 L macro isn’t a good lens, it is nice enough, but just not a particularly special one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC