Patent: Some crazy fast RF mount prime lenses, including an RF 18mm f/1.0L

[bks54]

The distance between the sensor and the last lens element, if I'm not mistaken. With the RF flange distance being 20mm, this means the lens sticks out beyond the mount quite a bit, which might mean this is not a practical design.

It's practical enough that Canon has done it before. Since there is no mirror with R series cameras, lens designs that project close to the image plane are possible, just as they were for rangefinders. Canon's 19mm f3.5 was a 1960s rangefinder ultra-wide angle lens that projected deep into the body beyond the mount. See https://www.canonrangefinder.org/Canon_19mm.htm The new patent shows optical features with some similarities to these early "symmetrical" designs.

 

[Tom W]

I can easily conceive of the 24/1.2 coming to fruition, and maybe the 16 f/1.4. But an 18 f/1.0 is kind of crazy. Possible, maybe, but kind of crazy.

 

[Maximilian]

Somehow I really enjoy those "crazy" patents, especially if they come alive in a product.

But if Canon wants "normal enthusiasts" like me to get into the R system, they need to make such less "crazy" and much less expensive products like a native RF mount 85/1.8 or a f/4 WA zoom for reasonable prices like we already see in the EF lineup.
If I was to buy into the RF system there would be exactly two lenses I could justify for me: the 24-105 and the 35/1.8.
Otherwise RF is just a desirable but too big, too heavy, too expensive and too much specialized "freak show" to me.

And before someone gets this wrong I really enjoy the pics taken with the RF 50 and 85 f/1.2, but I could not justify them for me.
Please keep posting

Edit: Not to forget some small f/2.8 pancakes to join the RP

 

[Sharlin]

i wonder if canon have explored the feasibility of there great whites being faster than f2.8/ f4
imagine a 400 f2.0, i suspect its doable at a price £$

Sure it's doable. But I doubt you'll find many buyers for a lens with a >20 cm front element. The price would likely be in the high five figures or low six figures, like the EF 1200mm f/5.6 which has a similar aperture size.

 

[jvillain]

I wonder if the more recent explosion in popularity for ultra-wide angle lenses on smartphones is encouraging them to look into these design options. Smartphone photography, being so ubiquitous, could easily be shaping trends.

Sounds like a compelling reason to shoot tight.

 

[dwilz]

The distance between the sensor and the last lens element, if I'm not mistaken. With the RF flange distance being 20mm, this means the lens sticks out beyond the mount quite a bit, which might mean this is not a practical design.

Does no one google anymore? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/back focus

 

[Tom W]

Somehow I really enjoy those "crazy" patents, especially if they come alive in a product.

But if Canon wants "normal enthusiasts" like me to get into the R system, they need to make such less "crazy" and much less expensive products like a native RF mount 85/1.8 or a f/4 WA zoom for reasonable prices like we already see in the EF lineup.
If I was to buy into the RF system there would be exactly two lenses I could justify for me: the 24-1056 and the 35/1.8.
Otherwise RF is just a desirable but too big, too heavy, too expensive and too much specialized "freak show" to me.

And before someone gets this wrong I really enjoy the pics taken with the RF 50 and 85 f/1.2, but I could not justify them for me.
Please keep posting

Yeah, I agree. They really need a set of f/4 zooms (the 24-105 being one), and some f/1.8-2.8 range small primes. I say 2.8 because getting into the 20 mm range, it will make a big difference in size/cost, I would think.

My thinking - a 15-35 f/4 IS and a 70-200 f/4 IS to go with the 24-105. And, a 20/2.8, a 24/2, a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2 to go with the 35/1.8. IS on all or most of them.

 

[justawriter]

i wonder if canon have explored the feasibility of there great whites being faster than f2.8/ f4
imagine a 400 f2.0, i suspect its doable at a price £$

It exists! As many as four in existence according to this article.

 

[Larsskv]

I am eagerly awaiting the 24 f1.2, but I find it troubling that according to the patent, the lens is set to be 129mm long. That is 12mm longer than the RF 85 f1.2, which I own, and I find is too big.

Sony released their 24 f1.4 GM lens, which seems great optically, and yet reasonably sized. I really do hope Canon priorities size and weight over the last percent of optical perfection.

 

[Architect1776]

The RFs are extremely expensive I will continue to use EFs until maybe RFs go down in price or get refurbs.

Of course all but 2 RF lenses are L lenses thus far.
EF has a wide range of non-L lenses.

 

[Architect1776]

And this is like "5 kg" lens. Old farts will never go to gym, in order to handle those lens. So we will no see those lens.

My understanding the RF mount allows for a smaller front element thus actually making for a lighter lens than can be made if the rear mount were a smaller diameter. Also the distance being shortened favors this. Yes Canon has made big RF lenses but look at the absolute wild designs to show what can be done. These will not be monsters as we know them from the days of DSLR mount being larger in distance or others with small diameter opening at camera which again requires very large front elements.

 

[Architect1776]

Somehow I really enjoy those "crazy" patents, especially if they come alive in a product.

But if Canon wants "normal enthusiasts" like me to get into the R system, they need to make such less "crazy" and much less expensive products like a native RF mount 85/1.8 or a f/4 WA zoom for reasonable prices like we already see in the EF lineup.
If I was to buy into the RF system there would be exactly two lenses I could justify for me: the 24-105 and the 35/1.8.
Otherwise RF is just a desirable but too big, too heavy, too expensive and too much specialized "freak show" to me.

And before someone gets this wrong I really enjoy the pics taken with the RF 50 and 85 f/1.2, but I could not justify them for me.
Please keep posting

You are right. I believe Canon has a great stable of EF lenses and here at first they are flexing their optical muscle in the RF mount to generate a sense of wow what a great system, I cannot afford it but when the more human level lenses come there will be the thought that some day perhaps. And also remember if you really need to use a far superior lens to all others there is always places like Lens Rentals ready to let you explore those exotic lenses for a few days on your RF system and impress your girlfriend, (Just be careful with your wife finding out about her ).

 

[Ozarker]

Just give me a 70-135 f/2L and I will be happy. My life would be complete.

 

[melgross]

The distance between the sensor and the last lens element, if I'm not mistaken. With the RF flange distance being 20mm, this means the lens sticks out beyond the mount quite a bit, which might mean this is not a practical design.

You mean, like a number of Leica M lenses do?

 

[Del Paso]

That's exactly what Leica has been demonstrating for decades, with no mirror in the path of light, you can develop astonishing wide-angles!

 

[navastronia]

Just give me a 70-135 f/2L and I will be happy. My life would be complete.

Hahahah, I was waiting for you to post this

 

[RPF]

The 18/1.0 back focus is too short that can not be employed as an interchangable lens. 24/1.2 is the one who most possible to be continued.

 

[SecureGSM]

At what size and weight though? Seriously.....

 

[CJudge]

Sounds like a compelling reason to shoot tight.

If you want to stand out form the crowd, yes. But there are certain "looks" that come in and out of popularity, and will be sought out for that reason. Food photography was all about shallow depth of field, when lighting constraints meant that shooting at a wide aperture was necessary. Then smartphones came along, without any ability to limit DOF, and suddenly the "on trend" look is flat-lay. So even pros with expensive glass were almost overnight being requested to photograph in the same style, because it's now popular.

Being different isn't always the goal in commercial photography.

 

[CJudge]

Smartphones don't even begin to compare with the light gathering ability of these lenses on an FF mount. If offering an alternative to a smartphone would be the goal here, I imagine these lenses would be f4 and focused on small size, instead of being so bright.

Seems to me like Canon wants to have camera system with truly leading low light performance. People mention all the time that they want an improvement in this regard, even though they sensor technology is basically as good as it will get in this regard. Faster glass, however, yields actual improvements.

I completely agree that Canon is aiming at being the low-light lens champion, it would be foolish to think otherwise with these apertures. But I also think that 4 UWA lens patents for a new camera system is pretty unusual, given that long teles have traditionally been the gatekeeper for "professional" photography. Remember how long Sony's mirrorless system was being balked at for not having enough compelling telephoto lens options.

I'm not suggesting that Canon are trying to offer an alternative to smartphones, the price tag alone will put these lenses out of reach for most low-cost RP consumers. I'm suggesting that the next 5 years of photographic trends may very well be influenced by the advent of UWA lenses on smartphones. If the general public come to expect a certain look, brands will be clamouring all over themselves to give it to them until they become bored and move on to the next trend. And by offering the best in class for UWA lenses, professionals shooting for those brands will jump on these.