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

[Ozarker]

Hahahah, I was waiting for you to post this

At least I know a 135 will come along one day.

 

[Richard CR]

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.

hahaha I was just about the write the same analogy.

 

[melgross]

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.

Canon has plenty of excellent teles. Sony had pretty much none. And those they did have were pretty old, from the film era. Using an adapter on a tele has much less of an effect on weight, length and balance than using one on normalish and wides. I think Canon can coast for a while on the strength of that excellent tele line-up. A 70-200 is different, and is why the new one.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

16mm f1.4 must be perfect for astroscapes. Unfortunately, the lens isn't out yet and there's no suitable (for me) camera yet. So it's all about imaginary gear at the moment.

 

[mclaren777]

14-28mm f/2

Make it happen and you'll get my money!

 

[Antono Refa]

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 £$

Once upon a time, Nikon made 300mm f/2 lens. Canon made 300mm f/1.8 lens for horse races photo finish. I guess those lenses are too expensive to sell in sufficient numbers to become a commercial product.

 

[Bennymiata]

Once upon a time, Nikon made 300mm f/2 lens. Canon made 300mm f/1.8 lens for horse races photo finish. I guess those lenses are too expensive to sell in sufficient numbers to become a commercial product.

They'd need to supply a forklift with them too.

 

[Pape]

My opinion about wide angles is if you want distort world its cheaper eat magic mushrooms
just make that RF 85 1,8 and RF 300 f4 .

 

[Mr Majestyk]

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

So far I had no interest in RF lenses since the cameras suck, but was looking the other day at the new 24-70 and 15-35, and fell off my chair, $1K dearer and around $3.7K in Australia. Insane pricing way beyond the 24-70L II's and 16-35L III pricing at release and I couldn't care less about IS in them. The holy trinity would run $11K in Australia alone. Highly doubt I'll be investing Canon's mirrorless. I used to think Sony's pricing was absurd which is why I'm still mainly using Canon glass with their bodies. I just hope the new Sigma 24-70 DN is a ripper.

 

[unfocused]

So far I had no interest in RF lenses since the cameras suck, but was looking the other day at the new 24-70 and 15-35, and fell off my chair, $1K dearer and around $3.7K in Australia. Insane pricing way beyond the 24-70L II's and 16-35L III pricing at release and I couldn't care less about IS in them. The holy trinity would run $11K in Australia alone. Highly doubt I'll be investing Canon's mirrorless. I used to think Sony's pricing was absurd which is why I'm still mainly using Canon glass with their bodies. I just hope the new Sigma 24-70 DN is a ripper.

Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.

 

[Maximilian]

... 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 ).

I've never known a woman being impressed by a big or white lens.
With one exception:
One wedding photog on a friends reception. She seemed to be a little bit jealous on my equipment. Esp. on the 5D3 as she "only" had a 5D2.

 

[Joules]

Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.

Obviously, they "suck" the money out of your wallet because of those irresistible RF lenses

 

[BurningPlatform]

Obviously, they "suck" the money out of your wallet because of those irresistible RF lenses

I have been a happy EOS R user for about a month now. I am happy to say that the camera does not suck at all. Quite on the contrary, it has blown new life into my photography (well, that probably does not amount to much, as I am probably the worst "semi-serious" photography hobbyist I know, but anyway, this is my subjective feeling). Now saving money to buy some of the marvellous lenses they have.

 

[MartinF.]

Canon is doing it right. RF Lenses - especially high-end lenses before more RF cameras. I am impressed by the speed they are building op, an RF range of lenses.
Canon (and Nikon) might came late into mirrorless but especially Canon is showing their strength and muscles.

In the meanwhile I plan for staying with my 6D and EF-lenses for a while, and probably even investing in the upcoming 5DmkV.
So "R-series" and RF glass is 10+ years down the road for me.

 

[zonoskar]

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.

The lens is 129mm, but due to the short backfocus, it extends a bit into the camera, so the lens is only 122mm from the mount. Still way to big

 

[Sharlin]

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.

The lens is 129mm, but due to the short backfocus, it extends a bit into the camera, so the lens is only 122mm from the mount. Still way to big

129mm is the total length of the optical system, from the front element to the image plane. To get an idea of the size of a physical implementation of a lens design, subtract the flange distance, in this case 20mm.

 

[Larsskv]

129mm is the total length of the optical system, from the front element to the image plane. To get an idea of the size of a physical implementation of a lens design, subtract the flange distance, in this case 20mm.

I do hope you are right, but I see that it is stated that the lens length of the RF 24 F1.2 is 129mm.The RF 85 F1.2 is 117mm long according to BHPhoto. In any case, if the 24 F1.2 is significantly larger than the 85, I will have to think at least twice before buying it.

 

[Ozarker]

Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.

I love my horrible R. Best camera I ever owned. And the lenses, OMG! I may end up with another body in a few years, but the lenses are forever.

 

[Del Paso]

Oh great and wise sir, would you like to enlighten us poor fools as to how the R “sucks?” Especially since I doubt you’ve ever even used one.

Oh my God!
I bought a camera that sucks, I really must be a poor fool.
And I'm even extremely happy with it, what a shame!

 

[Maximilian]

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.

The lens is 129mm, but due to the short backfocus, it extends a bit into the camera, so the lens is only 122mm from the mount. Still way to big

129mm is the total length of the optical system, from the front element to the image plane. To get an idea of the size of a physical implementation of a lens design, subtract the flange distance, in this case 20mm.

Hi Guys!

Sorry, but neither of you is fully correct.
Relevant data of the RF 24mm f/1.2 patent:

• Total lens length 129.01mm
• BF 13.57mm
• flange distance 20mm

This means the mechanical length of the lens from front to rear element is: 115,44 mm (=129,01 mm -13,57 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
This would be the space needed in your bag, as the lens will protrude into the body by 6,43 mm (=20 mm - 13,57 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
The mechanical length from front element to flange is 109,01 mm (=129,01 mm -20 mm; at least, plus mechanical parts)
This would be the space in front of the camera when mounted.

Have a nice weekend