Canon Patents

Patent: Canon RF 12mm f/2.8, RF 14mm f/2.8 and RF 20mm f/2.8

This site contains affiliate links to products and services. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

A new optical formula patent showing off some ultra-wide prime lenses for the RF mount has been uncovered by Canon News.

An ultra-wide prime lens would obviously be a big seller for Canon, and I expect we’ll see this missing lens for the RF lineup sometime in the next year or so.

Canon RF 12mm f/2.8
Focal Length 12.35mm
F-Number 2.88
Half Angle of View 60.28°
Image Height 21.64mm
Lens Total Length 80.22mm
Backfocus 16.54mm
Canon RF 14mm f/2.8
Focal Length 14.42mm
F-Number 2.88
Half Angle of View 56.32°
Image Height 21.64mm
Lens Total Length 91.61mm
Backfocus 17.29mm
Canon RF 20mm f/2.8
Focal Length 19.48mm
F-Number 2.88
Half Angle of View 48.02°
Image Height 21.64mm
Lens Total Length 90.74mm
Backfocus 19.35mm

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,244
403
A 14mm f/2.8 is standard in many manufacturers' lines. As Canon has no zoom that covers that focal length, I'm sure an RF 14mm f/2.8 will be released sooner or later.

Canon didn't bother upgrading the EF 20mm f/2.8. Its covered by the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, and I'm not sure Canon can make an RF 20mm f/2.8 for a competitive price. I wouldn't bet either way.

An RF 12mm f/2.8 might be shadowed between the rumored RF 10-24mm f/4 and an RF 14mm f/2.8. Seems more likely than an RF 20mm f/2.8, but I wouldn't bet either way either.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
489
226
12mm and 14mm might make sense if they're low-coma formula good for astro?

20/2.8 I don't get though, being trinity-zoom territory. The only reason for a prime overlapping what the zooms can do is if they're seriously compact, as a walk-around or street-photog lens, and even then who uses 20? 24/2.8 28/2.8 or 35/2.8 might make sense if they're SERIOUSLY compact and sharp into the corners, but I'd never grab a 20/2.8 if I was just headed out to meet some friends. I thought for a second of interior photographers (21mm captures a 90 degree field of vision and thus a whole room) if it were super-low distortion (because, architecture!) but now the camera software can adjust that for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobbieHat

Exploreshootshare

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 31, 2020
86
94
I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production.
- trinity zoom territory
- too close to the 24mm
- Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.

I think one of the 14mm or 12mm will make into production. Imho, I can see Canon opting for the 12mm since the trinity zoom now covers 15mm (F4 might cover 14mm) as well and they could go ahead and widen their UWA prima as well. Also, it's a selling point compared to the Sigma 14mm F1.8, which would be a strong competition at 14mm.

If it was 12mm F2 this lense would be a killer astro lense, F2.8 seems lo leave something to wish for.


Anybody have an idea about pricing on 14mm or 12mm? I don't how much the EF 14mm costs (or sold for when it was introduced), so I can't calculate with the 40% RF Mark-up
 

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
2,121
315
Can you tell from the formulas that these are not L lenses?
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,672
4,165
A 14mm f/2.8 is standard in many manufacturers' lines. As Canon has no zoom that covers that focal length, I'm sure an RF 14mm f/2.8 will be released sooner or later.

Canon didn't bother upgrading the EF 20mm f/2.8. Its covered by the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, and I'm not sure Canon can make an RF 20mm f/2.8 for a competitive price. I wouldn't bet either way.

An RF 12mm f/2.8 might be shadowed between the rumored RF 10-24mm f/4 and an RF 14mm f/2.8. Seems more likely than an RF 20mm f/2.8, but I wouldn't bet either way either.
Personally I doubt the use case for an RF 14 f2.8 prime. There is already a very good 15-35 f2.8 zoom And the people that need 14 and can’t use 15 simply aren’t a large enough group to cater to. I would expect a 10 or 11 to 25 or 30 f4.

A 12 f2.8 sits comfortably wider than the 15-35 f2.8 so that might appear.
 

Craven

EOS R5
Mar 26, 2021
1
0
First post here. Joined after years of reading. The R was my first camera; Now I have the R5 and want to do some astro. I've been looking for news about that RF 14-21mm f/1.4L that I thought was 'in the hands of testers'. Better check if that post was on April 1st. Any news? Cheers!
 
Last edited:

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,244
403
First post here. Joined after years of reading. The R was my first camera and now I have the R5 and want to do some astro. I've been looking for news about that RF 14-21mm f/1.4L that I thought was 'in the hands of testers'. Better check if that post was on April 1st. Any news? Cheers!
It was last September.

Sigma makes a 14mm f/1.8 lens for 3 years, and none of the competitors responded. Not even Zeiss, which has a similar prime for the PL mount, IIRC 14mm T/2. My guess is between the market size, production costs, and limited production resources, its not worth making such a lens, not even for the halo effect.
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,485
359
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
If these lenses will see the light - would give lots of people great options, not only for photography but for the C70 and future RF mount cinema cameras.
The 20mm would be roughly a 30 mm on APS-C/Super 35 and make a good alternative to a 24mm lens on FF.

Another great thing: Canon tends to use lots of lens elements but minimizes the number of groups systematically (this is my opinion) which reduces glass air surfaces and increases contrast. 14(12 for 20mm) elements but only 9 groups is great and similar to the EF-M 32 which has 14 elements (!) and only 8 groups - EF-M 32 is a dream lens if you combine the optical properties and features (like f/1.4, compact design and 1:4 max. reproduction ratio).
 
Last edited:

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
82
117
Houston
I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production.
- trinity zoom territory
- too close to the 24mm
- Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.

I think one of the 14mm or 12mm will make into production. Imho, I can see Canon opting for the 12mm since the trinity zoom now covers 15mm (F4 might cover 14mm) as well and they could go ahead and widen their UWA prima as well. Also, it's a selling point compared to the Sigma 14mm F1.8, which would be a strong competition at 14mm.

If it was 12mm F2 this lense would be a killer astro lense, F2.8 seems lo leave something to wish for.


Anybody have an idea about pricing on 14mm or 12mm? I don't how much the EF 14mm costs (or sold for when it was introduced), so I can't calculate with the 40% RF Mark-up
The price will depend on whether it is an L lens or not (my guess: L for the 12 and 14, non-L for the 20). The EF 14 L is $2100 list, so either the RF 12 or RF 14 would be dangerously close to the divorce line for most buyers. It will be a long time before Canon can pry from my camera bag the EF 11-24L, heavy and bulky as it is, it is hard to beat, and although an RF 10-24, hopefully more compact thanks to the RF mount, may be appealing the expected price tag well north of $3,000 will put off a trade-in for a long time. The patent mentioned some time ago for a TS-R 14mm or the RF 14-35 may have more versatility to justify mortgaging the homestead.
 

fussy III

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2013
99
1
I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production.
- trinity zoom territory
- too close to the 24mm
- Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.
This lens (RF 20/2.8) is for me. I love it. And I already own a Sigma 20/1.4.

here is why I want a 20/2.8:

I love the Sigma 20/1.4 for people shots and isolation in very environmental shots, weddings, reportage etc.

However when I am hiking in the mountains for nature and landscape photography I need something light like a 18/2.8 or 20/2.8. Such a lens covers wide angle below the standard Zoom starting at 24mm without adding too much weight to the combo. I would never carry a "trinity" of ANY given max. f-stop in the mountains.

So far in the mountains I am doing all my nature-photography with FF-Sony because they have the lightest lenses: 200-600mm/5.6, 28-60mm/4.0-5.6, Pentax close-up Diopter, Meike extension tubes, Samyang 18mm/2.8
This covers most of my needs and weighs a fraction of what I'd have to carry if I was to plan on using Canon-equipment.

With an excellent 20/2.8 (which btw was long overdue in the EF-System - the old modell was terrible), Canon might win me back when it comes to photography in the mountains. Just wished, Canon made an execellent lightweight FF-Standardzoom, similar to Sony's 28-60mm.

BTW: When I am doing landscape shots in flat terrain or relying on a car as transport, I still prefer the flexibility of my 16-35/4.0mm

In any case, the 15-35/2.8 is not for me - it either does not offer enough isolation for people photography or is too expensive and heavy for the landscape photography I do.

Thanks, Canon, for finally planning on some lightweight RF glass!
Keep it comin'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exploreshootshare

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
82
117
Houston
This lens (RF 20/2.8) is for me. I love it. And I already own a Sigma 20/1.4.

here is why I want a 20/2.8:

I love the Sigma 20/1.4 for people shots and isolation in very environmental shots, weddings, reportage etc.

However when I am hiking in the mountains for nature and landscape photography I need something light like a 18/2.8 or 20/2.8. Such a lens covers wide angle below the standard Zoom starting at 24mm without adding too much weight to the combo. I would never carry a "trinity" of ANY given max. f-stop in the mountains.

So far in the mountains I am doing all my nature-photography with FF-Sony because they have the lightest lenses: 200-600mm/5.6, 28-60mm/4.0-5.6, Pentax close-up Diopter, Meike extension tubes, Samyang 18mm/2.8
This covers most of my needs and weighs a fraction of what I'd have to carry if I was to plan on using Canon-equipment.

With an excellent 20/2.8 (which btw was long overdue in the EF-System - the old modell was terrible), Canon might win me back when it comes to photography in the mountains. Just wished, Canon made an execellent lightweight FF-Standardzoom, similar to Sony's 28-60mm.

BTW: When I am doing landscape shots in flat terrain or relying on a car as transport, I still prefer the flexibility of my 16-35/4.0mm

In any case, the 15-35/2.8 is not for me - it either does not offer enough isolation for people photography or is too expensive and heavy for the landscape photography I do.

Thanks, Canon, for finally planning on some lightweight RF glass!
Keep it comin'.
On the theme of "old lenses never replaced" I had the FD 17mm f:4 SSC for a long time, the perfect ultra wide in a very compact form factor and allowing 72mm filters. Back then it was all primes - 24, 35, 85, 135, 300 - but nowadays such a lens would complement a 24-105 + 100-500 combo without taking up much room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fussy III

fussy III

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2013
99
1
On the theme of "old lenses never replaced" I had the FD 17mm f:4 SSC for a long time, the perfect ultra wide in a very compact form factor and allowing 72mm filters. Back then it was all primes - 24, 35, 85, 135, 300 - but nowadays such a lens would complement a 24-105 + 100-500 combo without taking up much room.
Thanks, I was not aware of this FD 17mm. But I found a review on the web stating "Yes, on full frame fall off (vignetting) is quite obvious when shooting wide open, edges are softish and suffer from CA, but put it on S35 camera and most of that gets cropped out!"

If however you have the impression that the review is not nailing it (and that the FD 17mm is really good in the cormers at say f10 on fullframe), let us know, please!

I still own the 17mm/3.5 Tokina for camera-trapping but corners even on APS-C are much worse than even EF-S 18-55 STM at 18mm.
;)
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
82
117
Houston
Regretfully I sold all my FD lenses (11 if I recall correctly) and my 2 F-1n bodies plus a ton of accessories, focusing screens, motor drives, the whole 9 yards in 2004. This funded my first EF equipment (somehow I missed out on EOS pre-digital). The 17mm was a 1971 design, so probably not stellar by today's standards and the less so if using hi-res digital sensors, our expectations from glass back then were much lower than today. I have scanned all my slide collection and am busy putting the more relevant stuff online, take a look at https://www.lamanchatx.com/Travel-Photography/ScanProject-2/India-1979-80/ as I know I had the lens with me on that trip, architecture was either the 17mm or the 35 TS. Scanning done 28 years later so some loss in the film her time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zim

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
575
640
I don´t believe the RF 20mm F2.8 will make it into production.
- trinity zoom territory
- too close to the 24mm
- Sigma 20mm F1.4 would seriously hurt Canons sales on a 20mm F2.8, especially if the figure out to produce it as a true RF mount lense.

I think one of the 14mm or 12mm will make into production. Imho, I can see Canon opting for the 12mm since the trinity zoom now covers 15mm (F4 might cover 14mm) as well and they could go ahead and widen their UWA prima as well. Also, it's a selling point compared to the Sigma 14mm F1.8, which would be a strong competition at 14mm.

If it was 12mm F2 this lense would be a killer astro lense, F2.8 seems lo leave something to wish for.


Anybody have an idea about pricing on 14mm or 12mm? I don't how much the EF 14mm costs (or sold for when it was introduced), so I can't calculate with the 40% RF Mark-up

A 20 2.8 is still much wider than 24mm. It would make sense IF the size would be very small with good image quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlee13