Our earlier report of a new ultra wide angle RF L lens coming in the first half of 2023 gets a related patent application for a similar optical formula, along with others.

asobinet found and first reported on this patent.

Canon RF 10-20mm f/4

  • Focal length: 10.30mm – 19.40mm
  • F-number: 4.12
  • Half angle of view: 62.03° – 48.12°
  • Image Height: 19.40mm – 21.64mm
  • Length: 129.14mm – 132.69mm
  • Back Focus: 15.09mm

Canon RF 9-18mm f/4

  • Focal length: 9.27mm-17.46mm
  • F-number: 4.12
  • Half angle of view: 64.34° – 51.10°
  • Height: 19.30mm – 21.64mm
  • Length: 124.52mm – 125.00mm
  • Back Focus: 15.37mm

Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L USM

  • Focal length: 11.33mm-23.28mm
  • F-number: 4.12
  • Half angle of view: 59.58° – 42.90°
  • Height: 19.30mm – 21.64mm
  • Length: 130.00mm – 131.90mm
  • Back Focus: 16.34mm

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Go to discussion...

18 comments

  1. Interesting. Comparing the block diagrams of the EF 11-24/4L vs the 11-24 in the patent, they are very different. It looks like a completely new design, with full advantage being taken of the very short back focus.

    Unfortunately the EF 11-24 was very expensive when launched, and the RF lens will no doubt follow in its footsteps and then some.
    • 0
  2. To me, f/5.6 would be awesome if that allowed for a front filter thread.

    Would the RF mount specs and f/5.6 slow enough to allow for a front filter on such a zoom?
    • 0
  3. To me, f/5.6 would be awesome if that allowed for a front filter thread.

    Would the RF mount specs and f/5.6 slow enough to allow for a front filter on such a zoom?
    Looking at the bulbous front elements in the patent examples, I doubt it.
    • 0
  4. ...how effective is the IBIS when the R5 is mated to the adapted EF 11-24?

    I presume that none of the wide angle lenses included in the patent incorporate (in-lens) IS...

    I have found the IS feature present in the EF-M 11-22 to be invaluable for a wide variety of travel photography situations...and in general, this stabilized EF-M lens has (for me) replaced the (non IS) EF 17-40mm f4 for many uses.

    So I have long wondered about the IBIS capabilities of the R5, particularly for wide-angled non-stabilized EF (and now for the upcoming RF) lenses.
    • 0
  5. ...how effective is the IBIS when the R5 is mated to the adapted EF 11-24?

    I presume that none of the wide angle lenses included in the patent incorporate (in-lens) IS...

    I have found the IS feature present in the EF-M 11-22 to be invaluable for a wide variety of travel photography situations...and in general, this stabilized EF-M lens has (for me) replaced the (non IS) EF 17-40mm f4 for many uses.

    So I have long wondered about the IBIS capabilities of the R5, particularly for wide-angled non-stabilized EF (and now for the upcoming RF) lenses.
    I find the IBIS on my R3 to be very effective with my EF 11-24/4. That's what one would expect given that body stabilization is more effective at shorter focal lengths while lens stabilization is more effective at longer focal lengths.

    Screenshot 2023-01-18 at 12.15.08 PM.png
    • 0
  6. The big question is...is it going to have drop in filters? Currently the Ef mount version has a huge advantage because there are ef-R mount adapters that allow a single drop in filter (ND or polariser). This is a lot more preferable then messing with gels on the rear mount slider.
    • 0
  7. The big question is...is it going to have drop in filters? Currently the Ef mount version has a huge advantage because there are ef-R mount adapters that allow a single drop in filter (ND or polariser). This is a lot more preferable then messing with gels on the rear mount slider.
    No room for that in the designs.

    Screenshot 2023-01-18 at 12.51.53 PM.png
    • 0
  8. I think astro shooters were probably hoping for something faster.
    I guess Astro shooters are hoping for a very fast UWA prime. Even if the rumored 14-28mm F2 (or something similar) will see the light of day, a lot of people rather have an F1.4 or F1.8 prime. So even if the 11-24mm was F2.8, it wouldn't attract any astro shooters and would into an enormous lens into gigantic one.
    • 0
  9. Canon might go for a halo lens like the 9-18mm f/4L so it could brag it has the widest lens with AF, or some such. Problem would be price. People might opt for an EF 11-24mm f/4L + adapter with drop in filter, esp for those who already bought a wide EF lens (EF 11-24mm, tilt shift, etc).

    Loosing sales to the adapter (or worse, 3rd party adapter it would make no money on) would be an incentive to make a lens with drop in adapter. On the other hand, Canon will probably prefer to go for a lens that gives customers a choice they don't have.
    • 0
  10. Our earlier report of a new ultra wide angle RF L lens coming in the first half of 2023 gets a related patent application for a similar optical formula, along with others. asobinet found and first reported on this patent. Canon RF 10-20mm f/4 Canon RF 9-18mm f/4 Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L USM

    See full article...
    Are these RF or RF-S lenses ?
    • 0
  11. I would be interested in a RF replacement for the EF 11-24 F4 lens. 10mm would be cool and the ability to accommodate a drop in filter would be a must. I used to have the Panoflex filters for the front of the 11-24mm and they are so unwieldy. The adapter with drop in filter is such a great alternative. This range is so much fun for dramatic landscapes with compelling foreground elements. I will take the F4 especially if the patented fast UWA RF lenses come to fruition.

    Bob
    • 0
  12. I am looking forward to RF 35 1.2 (for portraits and nudes), but for wider focal lengths I will prefer EF lenses (Sigma 20 1.4, Sigma 14 1.8, ...) with the option to use a drop in filter.
    • 0
  13. I am one of the minority who are awaiting a fisheye lens. The EF 8-15mm f4/0 L is still a very competent lens but I am hoping that they are working on that need for RF.
    • 0
  14. Interesting. Comparing the block diagrams of the EF 11-24/4L vs the 11-24 in the patent, they are very different. It looks like a completely new design, with full advantage being taken of the very short back focus.

    Unfortunately the EF 11-24 was very expensive when launched, and the RF lens will no doubt follow in its footsteps and then some.
    I hope that the RF version is as rectilinear corrected as the current EF version. Looking at the recent horrendous barrel distortion on the RF 14-35 f4 and the RF 15-35...I'm not too hopeful.
    • 0
  15. I hope that the RF version is as rectilinear corrected as the current EF version. Looking at the recent horrendous barrel distortion on the RF 14-35 f4 and the RF 15-35...I'm not too hopeful.
    Have you compared the RF 14-35/4 output at 14mm to the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm? I have, and despite the horrendous barrel distortion of the RF 14-35 vs the nearly zero barrel distortion of the EF 11-24 at 14mm (better rectilinear correction and not at the end of its zoom range), the sharpness in the extreme corners is essentially indistinguishable.

    That doesn't mean an RF 11-24/4 that requires correction of barrel distortion at the wide end will perform as well as the RF 14-35/4 after correction, but it does give reason to hope...
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment