Patent: Lots of fast RF prime lens optical formulas

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,533
1,244
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Keith over at Northlight Images has uncovered a patent at the USPTO that shows Canon working on a lot of fast RF prime lenses.
The optical formulas in this patent include:

Canon RF 50mm f/1.8
Canon RF 80mm f/1.4
Canon RF 85mm f/1.4
Canon RF 85mm f/1.8
Canon RF 100mm f/2
Canon RF 135mm f/2
Canon RF 300mm f/2.8

These obviously won’t all become consumer products, but I think it shows Canon is working on longer fast primes for the RF mount.
Continue reading...


 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

marathonman

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Aug 29, 2016
127
644
Doomed unless that 300mm is f/1.4 and only weighs 64g. It also needs to be smaller than the 40mm pancake. I've seen a few YouTube videos about The Bridge over the River Kwai, so I know a thing or too about engineering. If Canon don't do this, then it's clear they are simply trying to protect the feelings sales of their bigger white lenses....
 

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,217
642
Eastern Shore
Doomed unless that 300mm is f/1.4 and only weighs 64g. It also needs to be smaller than the 40mm pancake. I've seen a few YouTube videos about The Bridge over the River Kwai, so I know a thing or too about engineering. If Canon don't do this, then it's clear they are simply trying to protect the feelings sales of their bigger white lenses....
With their new blue diamond material front element, I think they can accommodate you. :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: marathonman

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,879
1,737
Doomed unless that 300mm is f/1.4 and only weighs 64g. It also needs to be smaller than the 40mm pancake. I've seen a few YouTube videos about The Bridge over the River Kwai, so I know a thing or too about engineering. If Canon don't do this, then it's clear they are simply trying to protect the feelings sales of their bigger white lenses....
We know they're holding back on the 1-1000mm f/1.0 superzoom that fits in the unused card slot when not in use, you know, to protect their other lenses.
 

Codebunny

EOS R1
Sep 5, 2018
648
631
Canon RF 300mm f/2.8 , could this be the first of the big one whites for wildlife? Want to see the 400mm F2.8 and 500mm F4
I am expecting the RF 300 and 500 at the same time. 300 is lovely for some wildlife but I always need to crop in with mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
473
690
One may argue that a $1800 85/1.4 L lens could sell a tad better than a much larger and heavier $3000 85/1.2? :)
I'd preorder a 85mm f/1.4 on day one if it was smaller and cheaper than the 85 1.2. I love the EF 85 F/1.4, and was so close to buying one when the RF mount was announced and decided against it to start moving towards RF lenses.

I am half tempted to get the 85 1.2, but I think I would get more use out of a 1.4. A lot of my portraits with flash are stopped down anyway, but I'd still like something a little faster than the F/2 for lowlight. Portraits aren't my main source of income and I often use a 70-200 or 24-70, so it'd hard to justify the 1.2.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,370
766
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
In terms of which of these might actually become products in the near(ish) future I'll say:


Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 - Obviously yes
Canon RF 80mm f/1.4 - Nope
Canon RF 85mm f/1.4 - Nope
Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 - More Nope
Canon RF 100mm f/2 - I'm going to say no
Canon RF 135mm f/2 - Maybe
Canon RF 300mm f/2.8 - Yes

I know some people want a 135mm f/1.8 or 1.4 but the EF 135 2.0 has always been a spectacular lens, and part of this is due to the relatively small size and low weight. Not sure I'd want a more expensive and heavier version.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,879
1,737
Perhaps, but we don’t usually see that aperture on non L lenses.
My first thought was, wait a minute, I have one of those, it can't be uncommon.

Then I realized I was thinking of my 50 mm f/1.4, which of course is distinctly NOT an 85mm. And it's certainly not like my 85mm f/1.8; similar logic. (See "A is A" for further explanation. :D ) Yes, an 85mm f/1.4 is probably too close to the f/1.2 to make much sense...unless it really is some sort of new mid-range option (oh, say about $1000-1200); even then, it might not be distinct enough.

So yeah, never mind what I said. :)