Close Menu

    Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

    By 37 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents
    rf1535png 728x462 - Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

    Yesterday I posted a patent showing the optical formulas for both an RF 15-35mm f/4L and an RF 16-35mm f/4L. I noted that an RF 14-35mm f/4L is rumored to be coming in 2021, and I did wonder aloud if that was a type, but it appears Canon is definitely working on an RF 14-35mm f/4L optical formula.

    It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom and will likely have IS as well.

    Japan Patent Application 2020-190696

    [wpdatatable id=9 table_view=regular]

    While this patent pertains to underwater housings for the optical formulas in the patent, the formula for this lens is quite detailed. Canon News discovered this patent that also shows some rather large RF prime lenses, which you can read about at Canon News.

    Note: The image for this post is the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM

    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

    37 comments

    3. 244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.

      Good point... but maybe that length pertains to the underwater housing mentioned in the OP?
    7. If this is continuing the increase in preformance/IQ compared to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM I'll raise my hat to Canon for their R&D department.
      If it is only just as sharp at equivalent focal lengths while being wider as well as lighter and more compact, it is a big advancement.
      They will also take care of of some other minor flaws, namely flaring, and the noisy AF during video recording.

      But it's also going to cost twice as much compared to the EF lens, so it won't be as popular. But due to all camera sales continually decreasing, it's not designed to be anyway.
    9. 244.83mm? Even deducting the 20m flange, that would be 224mm long, putting this past the RF 100-500 which is only 208mm.

      There are weird lens lengths in patents from time to time. I wouldn't read too much into it.
    10. You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be? ;) I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.



      1606511572915.png
    11. You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be? ;) I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.



      View attachment 194188
      D looks like the cannonball from Super Mario.
    12. I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm. It would be more honest to call it a 15-34 zoom when one looks at the actual numbers.
    14. I also have mathematical issues. Canon's cripple* rounding.

      * When a distribution is skewed, such a rounding can produce a proper outcome... ;)

      PS
      I wouldn't blame Canon (yet) anyway... There is no direct designation of the lens' parameters in the patent. The headlines seem to rather be our host's (and the CN guy) translation/interpretation.
    15. I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm. It would be more honest to call it a 15-34 zoom when one looks at the actual numbers.
      It would be prudent to hold the judgement until after the launch. This is just a rumour.
    16. "It looks like this design of an RF 14-35mm f/4L has an internal zoom."

      If true, it is already better than the Nikon Z 14-30 F4 S.
      Despite the two RF70-200 are compact, I prefer the internal zoom like the EF17-40 and others.
    18. we can move to an f/4 trinity. 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 in three lenses
      A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though. What does that have to do with the points you made before and after about cheaper or lighter?
    19. A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though. What does that have to do with the points you made before and after about cheaper or lighter?

      I read it as I think it was intended. f/4 or slower lenses.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment