Close Menu

    Patent: Canon RF 17-70mm f/4-5.6 BR

    By Updated:34 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents
    patentrf1770 - Patent: Canon RF 17-70mm f/4-5.6 BR

    Canon News has uncovered a patent for a Canon RF 17-70mm f/4-5.6 BR optical formula. This is a pretty detailed patent, and kind of interesting with the inclusion of a BR lens element. A BR element can help in reducing the size required for such a lens.

    One drawback as pointed out by Canon News is that this design requires image stretching from 17mm to about 28mm.

    This sort of lens design would be a great kit lens for an APS-C RF mount camera that would also work on your full-frame RF mount camera. Which I think is the route Canon will go whenever they announce an APS-C RF mount camera body.

    Canon RF 17-70mm F4-5.6 BR

    • Focal length 17.50 28.00 58.00
    • F value 4.10 4.50 5.70
    • Angle of view (°) 51.50 38.16 20.77
    • Maximum image height 22.00 22.00 22.00
    • Real image height 19.47 20.98 21.94
    • Total length 108.50 114.27 158.50
    • BF 21.38 33.45 49.01
    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

    34 comments

    1. I hope that patents like this is pointing towards more consumer/enthusiast focused products.
      Though the IQ and performance of L lenses is great and impressing I suppose to keep the camera market alive Canon will have to address people more that don't want to spend too much money but want more than the EOS M system. And we haven't seen much news there.
    2. I hope that patents like this is pointing towards more consumer/enthusiast focused products.
      Though the IQ and performance of L lenses is great and impressing I suppose to keep the camera market alive Canon will have to address people more that don't want to spend too much money but want more than the EOS M system. And we haven't seen much news there.
      I'm still waiting for delivery of the RF16mm which I think is to dress those people.
      More to come ....
    3. I immediately thought 'APS-C RF kit lens' - but if so, it would say that the APS-C body is likely to be consumer grade rather than an R-series successor to the 7D. Still, I'm never sure what to read into patents.
    4. I immediately thought 'APS-C RF kit lens' - but if so, it would say that the APS-C body is likely to be consumer grade rather than an R-series successor to the 7D. Still, I'm never sure what to read into patents.
      I think thats what the 16mm is algo going to be geared towards. That 16mm on APC will be about 24mm... and I can tell you after filming with it in crop mode , which is 24mm that is the sweet spot for that lens. We also have now seen them drop the price of the 35mm to $399. The 16/35/50 all fit nicely into the APC-C RF platform. You can get all 4 of those for about $1000
    5. I immediately thought 'APS-C RF kit lens' - but if so, it would say that the APS-C body is likely to be consumer grade rather than an R-series successor to the 7D. Still, I'm never sure what to read into patents.
      If Canon decides to go the APS-C R system route, I would think that there will be more than one body. I would think there first priority if they go Crop-R, would be an entry level camera to go for the next generation Rebel user. I think if that camera is a reasonable success, then they might consider a higher end model. I seriously doubt they would develop only one Crop-R camera for only the 7D users.

      But, of course, I have no idea what Canon is considering.
    7. Canon already has most everything in place they need to launch a crop sensor R camera: a solid lineup (and still growing) of outstanding RF L lenses, and very good/affordable non-L zooms from 24 to 400mm along wth affordable 16, 35, 50, 85, 600 and 800 mm primes. An RF 17-70 might be kit lens. The only thing I see missing is a superwide RF version of the very good and cheap EF-S 10-18. My guess is that we’ll see a Canon R crop sensor camera during 2022, beginning with something closer to an R6.
    8. Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. It is good to distinguish themselves from other manufacturers like Sony. Unfortunately that is often leaving out the excellent mid-priced lenses often with either very fast, very high quality, but overpriced lenses or cheaper, lower resolution lens. Canon knows the market and what they are doing, but that leaves me stuck in he middle and I would think, a lot of serious but not professional photographers also stuck in the middle. I mean hell, there is the cheap 50 1.8 or 50 1.2. Just gimme a goddam quality 50mm lens like Nikon's 50 1.8. Then there is the issue of the R6. Yes, it is excellent, but for $100 more I could get a Nikon Z6II with 24-70 f/4. Canon has better focus and overall is better, but as one interested in landscape and general nature photography (I don't do video) I could give a rats ass about the better autofocus. I cringe when I see these reviewers running at you and darting from side to side to test the autofocus. To quote John Shaw in his book...John Shaw's Focus on Nature: "Not Once have my lenses gone out and taken a photograph." I don't intend on switching from Canon. It has served me extremely well and I am sure should I go to mirrorless I would still have equipment capable of excellent photos even going with the cheaper lenses, but won't settle for any lens numerically higher than f4, unless something like a 500mm f/5.6, but I won't hold my breath on that one.
    9. It's looks like Canon are using some more computational photography then the EF system (Vignetting, Distortion) with the entry level R lenses to keep lens sizes smaller and lighter.

      Hopefully they will include a remote cable release port on an entry level APS-C R body unlike the M50, in my opinion the good old fashioned wired cable is just easier to use.
    10. Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. [...]
      Same here! It is always good to have (not too much) options - leave out the options not fitting your need.
      I bought the EOS RP with the 1.8 35 IS MACRO two years ago and I must say, the this lens is a gorgeous package.
      Hoped for a 1.4 (or 1.8) 50 IS MACRO but they gave us the non-IS non-MACRO ...
      Hoped for a well corrected RF 2.8 16 but they gave us a fisheye lens defished in camera ...

      I really like my (basic, simple) camera gear which gives me lots of options with all these great old(er) EF/EF-S lenses but I HATE, really HATE designing "bad" lenses and correct them in camera (that is JUST MY OWN OPINION).

      For the 50mm IS MACRO lens: I use mainly my two M50s (maybe add a third one) and enjoy the 1.4 32 lens as "50mm replacement" without IS but with good close focus (60 x 90mm image field is close to 1:2 macro in FF).
      For the 16mm 2.8 RF lens: I think strongly about buying an EF 4.0 16-35 IS for the 16mm option which is compatible to all my cameras. And it is open to video with maybe the EF-EOS R variable ND filter adapter or the focal reducer with the C70 if I need better video ...
    11. Long ago, Canon would have ordered from Tamron those lenses that he produces for Sonya and Fuji, there would be no need to take a steam bath! What's wrong with, for example, 11-20 / 2.8, 17-70 / 2.8 and 18-300 / 3.5-6.3? For most amateurs, others are no longer needed!
    12. It's looks like Canon are using some more computational photography then the EF system (Vignetting, Distortion) with the entry level R lenses to keep lens sizes smaller and lighter.

      Hopefully they will include a remote cable release port on an entry level APS-C R body unlike the M50, in my opinion the good old fashioned wired cable is just easier to use.
      My thoughts also. I really like my EF 16-35 f4, but if I went to mirrorless I would use my lens even though it would take an adapter to do so. The reviews of the RF 14-35 were disappointing because of the the vignetting and distortion. Maybe using it and with the correction software, I would think differently. There again, starting from scratch, the Nikon 14-30 Z looks, at least on paper, more desirable.
    13. Not faulting Canon for trying new directions with RF lenses. It is good to distinguish themselves from other manufacturers like Sony. Unfortunately that is often leaving out the excellent mid-priced lenses often with either very fast, very high quality, but overpriced lenses or cheaper, lower resolution lens. Canon knows the market and what they are doing, but that leaves me stuck in he middle and I would think, a lot of serious but not professional photographers also stuck in the middle. I mean hell, there is the cheap 50 1.8 or 50 1.2. Just gimme a goddam quality 50mm lens like Nikon's 50 1.8. Then there is the issue of the R6. Yes, it is excellent, but for $100 more I could get a Nikon Z6II with 24-70 f/4. Canon has better focus and overall is better, but as one interested in landscape and general nature photography (I don't do video) I could give a rats ass about the better autofocus. I cringe when I see these reviewers running at you and darting from side to side to test the autofocus. To quote John Shaw in his book...John Shaw's Focus on Nature: "Not Once have my lenses gone out and taken a photograph." I don't intend on switching from Canon. It has served me extremely well and I am sure should I go to mirrorless I would still have equipment capable of excellent photos even going with the cheaper lenses, but won't settle for any lens numerically higher than f4, unless something like a 500mm f/5.6, but I won't hold my breath on that one.
      If your primary interest is landscape and you aren't concerned about AF, then you should probably be looking at - and comparing - the Canon R, not the R6, to the Nikon Z6. But I understand your thoughts. Earlier this year, I switched to Nikon because their mirrorless cameras seemed a much better deal. The Z5, in fact, would be great choice for anyone on a budget as it has pretty much everything the Z6 does. I bought mine for $899 refurbished. The Nikon Z lenses I bought were fantastic. Dare I say, as goor or even better than similar Canon offerings - but also quite expensive. For the money, if you don't need the high FPS and the more sophisticated AF that Canon offers with their latest mirrorless cameras, Nikon seems a great bargain. Their 14-30mm f/4 is a very good lens, equal in quality and slightly wider than the Canon 16-35 f/4, but why spend over $1000 to switch if you already have the Canon?

      Alas, after 25 years or so shooting Canon, I ended up switching back to Canon and did buy an R6 about a month ago. I came back for the Canon color. I know many folks don't notice, or don't care, or might even like the Nikon colors better, but I did not. But if that was not an issue, I would have had no problem saying bye to Canon and going with Nikon for the foreseeable future. They make excellent cameras and lenses as far as I can tell.

      One advantage to sticking with Canon , however, would be that you don't need to buy any RF lenses. Since you don't seem to be satisfied with what is offered so far, just use the EF lenses you have now - or even buy additional EF lenses used for relatively inexpensive. If , as you say, you won't buy any lenses slower than f/4, however, I think you are going to find mirrorless lenses in that category are going to be in whatever systems "pro" category and expensive.
    14. love the extended focal range for aps-c. although a minimum focal range tighter than 24mm is going to be a hard sell for vloggers
      Thats why the 16mm came out. Ive said in a few different post here when the 16mm came out that canon was gearing it towards the unreleased APS-C body. They want to have a nice assortment of cheap lenses ready to go when that body hits the shelves.
    15. I hope that this isn't a kit lens for APSC. Trying to use FF ultrawides as crop standard lenses reminds me of 2006 or thereabouts when people were buying 17-40/4L lenses for their 300Ds and 20Ds. I thought we were past that.
      I think this would be a cool walk-around lens for cityscapes and such.
    16. 17-70mm on APS-C would be equivalent to 28-112mm on full frame, which is a slightly odd and unexpected range.

      For APS-C I would have expected either 17-85mm (circa 28-135mm on FF), or 15-65mm (circa 24-105mm on FF).

      So I think this formula is more likely to be a compact budget full frame lens, a contender for a new ultra-cheap FF model below the RP.
    17. I’m picturing this as an L lens, like a 24-70/4 where you get 7mm on the wide end but give up a stop on the long end. Sort of like the 28-70/2 gains a stop but gives up 4mm on the wide end.

      AFAIK, the only lenses so far with a BR elements are L (EF 35/1.4L II and both RF 85/1.2L).
    18. I’m picturing this as an L lens, like a 24-70/4 where you get 7mm on the wide end but give up a stop on the long end. Sort of like the 28-70/2 gains a stop but gives up 4mm on the wide end.

      AFAIK, the only lenses so far with a BR elements are L (EF 35/1.4L II and both RF 85/1.2L).
      With a maximum aperture of F4-5.6, and considering the focal length range, I can't honestly see this being an L lens, but I agree that the use of a highly specialised BR element does reduce the likelihood of it being a budget lens.

      However, the current trend with Canon is to expand their range of small aperture lower-cost lenses, as per 600/F11, 800/F11, 100-400/F5.6-8, and I expect further lenses in this category to be added, especially if they have a mind (as you've suggested in the past) to bang out a really cheap entry-level FF body.

      One thing for sure, as demonstrated by the dual fish-eye, is that Canon are thinking outside the box and testing the market with non-traditional lens designs.
    19. Had to look up Canon's website for more info on BR lens elements.

      It's worth taking a look at their web page, which shows how effectively the BR lens reduces CA in the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM compared to the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

      hk.canon

      BR Lens

      Canon has developed BR optics, delivering anomalous dispersion characteristics equal to or surpassing fluorite.
      hk.canon hk.canon

      "This color fringing – called chromatic aberration – has long been the Achilles heel of lens performance. As part of ongoing efforts to correct chromatic aberration, Canon successively developed and implemented fluorite, UD, and Super UD lenses. Now, aiming to achieve ideal correction of chromatic aberration, Canon has developed BR (Blue Spectrum Refractive) optics, delivering anomalous dispersion characteristics equal to or surpassing fluorite."



      "BR optics is based on a new organic optical material, developed by reexamining lens material from its molecular structure. This new lens material features unique anomalous dispersion characteristics that are capable of greatly refracting blue light (short wavelengths spectrum), which has traditionally been difficult to focus on a single point."

      The second paragraph includes an interesting point "BR optics is based on a new organic optical material", which is a fancy way of saying that they're using an optical plastic lens element, that they've sandwiched between two glass elements.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment