Patent: Canon RF mount Big White Lenses

[PiezoSwitch]

The layout of the lens elements is similar to the design of the current 400/2.8L IS III so the RF version should be very similar in weight.

 

[tron]

I'll guess they'll be designed for faster fps.

I believe the EF big whites are designed for fast fps given that they work with 1DxIII.

 

[Jordan23]

I believe the EF big whites are designed for fast fps given that they work with 1DxIII.

But how fast can the AF-unit keep up? Now when cameras are hitting 20+ fps the AF-units must be able to make adjustments at the same speed. Maybe the 400/600 mk3 are able to make AF-adjustments at 16 fps or even 20 fps. That a lens work is not the same as it can make AF-adjustments that quick. On the R5 you get 20 fps with even older versions of the big whites, but I don't expect the AF-unit to be able to keep up at that speed.

 

[tron]

But how fast can the AF-unit keep up? Now when cameras are hitting 20+ fps the AF-units must be able to make adjustments at the same speed. Maybe the 400/600 mk3 are able to make AF-adjustments at 16 fps or even 20 fps. That a lens work is not the same as it can make AF-adjustments that quick. On the R5 you get 20 fps with even older versions of the big whites, but I don't expect the AF-unit to be able to keep up at that speed.

Obviously they can with 1DxIII. And 1DxIII has a battery that can drive big whites faster.

 

[risto0]

I wonder what benefits might RF 600mm F4 have over EF 600mm F4 III. (using EF-RF adapter is not a concern therefore mount difference does not matter here).

was just comparing 600mm f4 v II and v III --> How RF 600 f4 could improve is to bring back the sharpness of v II lens but keep the weight and chomatic aberration control from v III.

 

[risto0]

Continue reading...

why is this rumor under EOS Bodies?

 

[Antono Refa]

The lenses needn't be profitable if they're "halo models."

A 135/1, for instance, would have the front element size of a 400/2.8, but otherwise not be especially long, and even the MkII 600/4's are really light weight so a fairly short lens even without such a big front element would be hand-holdable.

As Nikon made a 300mm f/2 four decades ago, I doubt the market would see an RF 300mm f/2 as a halo model.

Otherwise, I wouldn't bet on what halo lenses Canon would, or wouldn't, make.

 

[AlanF]

why is this rumor under EOS Bodies?

Because the Title is "Patent: Canon RF mount..." and the RF mount is on an EOS body. It's the OP's site and he can choose which of his forums to post it in.

 

[mpmark]

No DO design plus the latest big whites have superb IQ. I will pass. Automatically I will be saving huge amount of money.
Of course if someone starts from scratch that is a different story.

Same, I have the 3002.8ll, I use it with the 1.4xlll and it works amazing on my R5, absolutely no reason to upgrade, the IQ is ridiculous!

 

[Dragon]

Interesting that they all are listed as longer than the EF mount versions?

I'm guessing that the design for telephoto lenses stays pretty similar except that they basically have a built in RF adapter to bridge the extra backfocus, but I'm sure there's not much Canon can do about that in those designs

Yep, the only way they get shorter is with DO and no sign of that here.

 

[Dragon]

I would not be so sure. Canon's MTF charts certainly don't show that comparing the effects of the 1.4xTCIII on the 100-400mm II with the RF 1.4x on the 100-500mm. Also, the new designs for the big whites have Canon's new method of reducing weight by replacing the heavy big elements at the front behind the front element with smaller ones further back. This slightly lowers the IQ of the 600mm f/4 L according to TDP https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=748&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 and Canon's MTF chart for the old 400mm f/2.8 II (right) is better than for the version III (left).

View attachment 195761View attachment 195762

The III versions of the 400 and 600 with a 2x extender are a bit better in the periphery, but noticeably worse center and mid frame. I specifically asked Brian at TDP about the test shots and he said they were very careful the get the best focus possible. The EF 500 II still shows the best extender performance of any of the big whites - probably why (along with weight) it is so popular with birders. I will stick with my EF 800L. It seems to work just fine with the R5 and a dedicated adapter falls into the chicken feed category when you are talking big whites .

 

[Fischer]

I have, too bad you seem to be stuck in the past. Already the old 300 is only 2.3kg, so hardly a stretch to achieve 2kg with the new lightweight magnesium alloys and redesigned optics. I'll bet you also dismissed the idea of a 400 f/2.8 under 3kg too. LOL

Time will tell...

 

[Fischer]

The layout of the lens elements is similar to the design of the current 400/2.8L IS III so the RF version should be very similar in weight.

Yup. Can see I'm not the only one "living in the past".

 

[Kiton]

Interesting that they all are listed as longer than the EF mount versions?

I'm guessing that the design for telephoto lenses stays pretty similar except that they basically have a built in RF adapter to bridge the extra backfocus, but I'm sure there's not much Canon can do about that in those designs

I scrapped a 300 2.8 last week, sent it to Canon Canada for repairs, they said it was a write off. When they do that, they normally give you a small discount on a replacement. I asked about getting a 300 f4 for now and waiting until the 2.8 RF is here, they said the 4 is discontinued and there are stock issues with the 2.8. I can't help but wonder if that means they will wind down the EF mounts too. I think it is way too soon for that, but what the hell do I know. ‍

 

[privatebydesign]

I scrapped a 300 2.8 last week, sent it to Canon Canada for repairs, they said it was a write off. When they do that, they normally give you a small discount on a replacement. I asked about getting a 300 f4 for now and waiting until the 2.8 RF is here, they said the 4 is discontinued and there are stock issues with the 2.8. I can't help but wonder if that means they will wind down the EF mounts too. I think it is way too soon for that, but what the hell do I know. ‍

They make all the big whites in batches as they use the same production lines and equipment to do it. This means they can be out of stock for a while of one or more of the big whites if they underestimated demand or if they didn't schedule a new batch soon enough. I suspect with all the other production issues they have had it is just a case of the latter.

 

[GoldWing]

If The R1 is equal to the R5 in resolution, I will be happy to buy all new Big Whites and assorted lenses. If not, we will stick with our OVF based 1DXMKII's and approx $60,000 in lenses.

Just like Canon under delivered with the 1DXMKIII I'm sure none of us will be spending $70K per shooter when the R1 comes out. It won't equal the resolution of the R5 or SONY'S A1.

 

[tron]

Keep in mind that you have to subtract the 20 mm flange distance from the total lens lenght figure in the patents, and also add 24 mm to the length of any EF lens to account for the adapter.

If you want to compare lengths you have to compare the real length of the RF lens to the real length of the EF lens plus the adapter. These are the only combination that get in front of the same camera (R, R6, etc).

If you want to compare the RF combo to the EF/DSLR combo you have to compare the real length of the RF lens + mirrorless camera depth to the real EF lens length plus DSLR camera length ( about the 20mm flange distance difference).

In ALL cases you should either take into account one or the other.

 

[Joules]

If you want to compare lengths you have to compare the real length of the RF lens to the real length of the EF lens plus the adapter. These are the only combination that get in front of the same camera (R, R6, etc).

That's exactly what I said.

If you want to compare the RF combo to the EF/DSLR combo you have to compare the real length of the RF lens + mirrorless camera depth to the real EF lens length plus DSLR camera length ( about the 20mm flange distance difference).

In ALL cases you should either take into account one or the other.

In case you missed it: The total lens length figure in the patents is not the physical length of the lenses - instead, it includes the flange distance of 20 mm. So that has to be substracted in order to get what you call the real lens length. But since you can't mount an RF lens to an EF body, the only relevant comparison is when both are mounted to an RF body - so you have to add the 24 mm adapter length to the EF lenses real length. It is not a one or the other consideration.

 

[tron]

That's exactly what I said.

In case you missed it: The total lens length figure in the patents is not the physical length of the lenses - instead, it includes the flange distance of 20 mm. So that has to be substracted in order to get what you call the real lens length. But since you can't mount an RF lens to an EF body, the only relevant comparison is when both are mounted to an RF body - so you have to add the 24 mm adapter length to the EF lenses real length. It is not a one or the other consideration.

OK! In that case both are equal:

29.25cm -2cm +R5 depth = 27.25 cm + R5 depth

vs

24.8 + 2.4 + R5 depth = 27.20cm + R5 depth

Same total length. I guess unless some DO technology is involved we cannot get length savings.

 

[scyrene]

The EF 500 II still shows the best extender performance of any of the big whites - probably why (along with weight) it is so popular with birders.

And price!