Close Menu

    Patent: Canon RF 130mm f/1.4L USM and other fast primes

    By Updated:28 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents
    patent130f14 - Patent: Canon RF 130mm f/1.4L USM and other fast primes

    Keith at Northlight has uncovered a patent showing optical formulas for three fast prime lenses, most notably a Canon RF 130mm f/1.4L USM. On my roadmap for Canon, we do have an RF 135mm f/1.4L USM listed, so this patent could potentially be related.

    Canon RF 130mm f/1.4L USM

    • Focal length: 131.00mm
    • F-number: 1.41
    • Angle of view: 9.38°
    • Image height: 21.64mm
    • Lens length: 182.28mm
    • Backfocus: 13.87mm

    The following optical design has a really strange backfocus distance of 54,12mm according to the patent literature.

    Canon 135mm f/2L USM

    • Focal length: 133.50mm
    • F-number: 2.06
    • Angle of view: 9.21°
    • Image height: 21.64mm
    • Lens length: 155.12mm
    • Backfocus: 54.12mm

    The following optical design also has an unusual backfocus distance.

    Canon 24mm f/1.4L USM

    • Focal length: 24.55mm
    • F-nurnber: 1.45
    • Angle of view: 41.39°
    • Image height: 21.64mm
    • Lens length: 119.13mm
    • Backfocus: 38.01mm
    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    28 comments

    1. A RF 135mm f1.4L would be a great lens to offer, but I wonder just how big, heavy & expensive it would be? I'd probably prefer a 135 f1.8L to get the size & weight down to a more reasonable level, but this is obviously aiming for much higher levels (not to mention strong arms & big wallets :sneaky: ). Also, I wonder what the max magnification would be with it? I'm guessing it will be relatively small as that's usually not the goal of such a wide aperture lens.

      The 135 f2L would be the best choice for me, as it's probably the perfect size/weight I'd like. It's probably also got a bigger max. magnification than the f1.4L since a smaller aperture usually allows for designs with bigger max magnification. I assume that the much longer back focus length of 54mm is designed so that you can use a RF TC on it.

      None of the lenses mention IS. I'd hope the 135 f2L had IS. But the RF 800 f11 patent didn't indicate IS ability yet it was there in production, so hopefully one or more of these lenses will have IS as well.
    2. Also, I wonder what the max magnification would be with it? I'm guessing it will be relatively small as that's usually not the goal of such a wide angle lens.
      I guess you're talking about that 24 mm design... 135 mm is a bit much to be considered wide angle :LOL:

      But the size of this looks really substantial. Nonetheless, this paired with a high res R could cover quite a lot of use cases.
    3. Rf 135mm f:2L, at last (I loved the EF 135mm f2L, despite its very old, never updated design), but where is the IS for the new lens? Or is this a subliminal way of saying "if you can afford L glass, we expect you to buy an R5 or R6 with IBIS". Lens IS is no longer a priority.
    5. I will buy the 24mm if come for 1,699 or less. If it come for 2299 i prefer to buy a Rf 24-70
      A bit the same feeling r.e. the 135. If the 135 f2 has no IS, then the (soon to come) RF 70-135 f:2 (most probably sans IS) makes just as much sense (apart from a probable doubling of the price)
    6. I guess you're talking about that 24 mm design... 135 mm is a bit much to be considered wide angle :LOL:

      But the size of this looks really substantial. Nonetheless, this paired with a high res R could cover quite a lot of use cases.
      Doh! - I meant to type "aperture" instead of "angle". (I've corrected my post - thanks, Joules!)
      After considering the 135 f1.4L vs f2L, I'm sure I'd prefer the f2L. Let's hope it's got IS and a reasonably large max magnification.
    7. A RF 135mm f1.4L would be a great lens to offer, but I wonder just how big, heavy & expensive it would be? I'd probably prefer a 135 f1.8L to get the size & weight down to a more reasonable level, but this is
      According to tpe picture above the front element would be about 95-100mm in diameter.
    8. According to tpe picture above the front element would be about 95-100mm in diameter.
      Yes, the picture seems to indicate that a full round f1.4 image bundle only applies to the very center of the image, and the image bundle would turn into a much smaller football shape as you move away from center, also resulting in significant vignetting in the corners. But I suppose that's fairly common in such fast aperture designs to keep the size & weight down.
    11. Argh sad thin times for my bank account coming :cry:

      I've pre-ordered the 100 2.8L macro. I am waiting for a 35 1.2L and a 130/135 1.4L would be something to salivate after (135 is a great fl for kids photography).

      I need more space for my camera stuff... and new ways to smuggle new toys under my wife's nose :cool:

      Seriously though, quite happy with the way Canon is fleshing out the RF lens stable
    13. Have you yet contemplated the pointless of having a spare kidney?

      If not, it isn't serious yet.
      Not yet but never say never :unsure:
      Although I'd argue my medium format rig puts me squarely in crazy territory already :eek::ROFLMAO:
    14. I guess you're talking about that 24 mm design... 135 mm is a bit much to be considered wide angle :LOL:

      But the size of this looks really substantial. Nonetheless, this paired with a high res R could cover quite a lot of use cases.
      Maybe wide angle on an 8x10? ;)
    16. I love my EF 135 even more with my R5 and IBIS.. Stable, good and lightweight. If somebody say, its old, than he don't know about the capability of this lens.
      I don't want a 1,5kg lens for 4000€. (price of RF85 + IS). Its good for marketing ok, but not for me. But ok, build it...
    17. Doh! - I meant to type "aperture" instead of "angle". (I've corrected my post - thanks, Joules!)
      After considering the 135 f1.4L vs f2L, I'm sure I'd prefer the f2L. Let's hope it's got IS and a reasonably large max magnification.
      It will probably closely match the 0.25x magnification of the Sony 135 GM, I would not expect any better and I would not expect IS either, none of the RF L primes have it, they aim for maximum image quality with a suitably fast AF speed.
      Regarding pricing, it will be over 3000$.
    18. Is there any indication if a TC will fit on it?
      The Back Focus is 14mm for the 130 f1.4L and 54mm for the 135 f2L.
      Therefore I predict that that the 130 f1.4L can NOT use a TC, while the 135 f2L CAN use a TC.
      (but time will tell)
    19. I recently bought the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 EF mount for my RP and while it is big and heavy, I love the rendering and quality of the images. A 130 f/1.4 would be amazing, but I would only replace my Sigma if the RF Canon version is optically near-perfect wide open as the other RF primes have been so far. That means bigger and heavier. I’m ok with that, and let’s be honest we all need the exercise.

      I’m still more compelled by a potential 70-135 f/2, and especially so if that lens is compatible with teleconverters. If the 135 f/2 is small, lightweight and compatible wit teleconverters that would also be something I might consider...

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment