svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Patent: Canon RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6

    Patent: Canon RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6

    By 12 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents

    Canon continues to develop optical formulas for an RF mount superzoom, something that we'll likely see sooner than later. This patent shows an optical formula for an RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6. It's hard to say if this is an L lens, as they tend to be larger than their non-L counterparts.

    Canon RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6 embodiement:

    • Focal length: 24.72mm 90.83mm 290.86mm
    • F-number: 4.12 5.00 5.88
    • Angle of view: 41.19° 13.40° 4.25°
    • Image height: 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
    • Total lens length: 165.57mm 210.57mm 255.57mm
    • BF: 14.37mm 32.56mm 30.89mm

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    12 comments

    4. As if the 24-240 wasn't bad enough.

      I haven't read the reviews of the RF 24-240mm and EF 28-300mm side by side, but IIRC the later's IQ justifies the 2.7x price difference. The later is an upgrade of the EF 35-350mm, so apparently it makes a profit, and might make one on RF as well.
    5. When traveling with checked baggage I bring my RF 24-105 and my EF 100-400 II (and the 1.4x extender), but when I am limited to carry-on only I just go with the smaller lens. The IQ and durability limitations of the 24-240 have kept it off my list so far. If this one deals effectively with both of those concerns while providing some additional reach, it could be a serious consideration for one-bag travel.
    6. When traveling with checked baggage I bring my RF 24-105 and my EF 100-400 II (and the 1.4x extender), but when I am limited to carry-on only I just go with the smaller lens. The IQ and durability limitations of the 24-240 have kept it off my list so far. If this one deals effectively with both of those concerns while providing some additional reach, it could be a serious consideration for one-bag travel.

      My thoughts as well. This would be a great one lens solution for landscape photography when I have to lug gear for miles in a backpack.
    8. I wish the superzoom concept would go more the other way, ie something like an RF 15-85 f/4. That would be a more useful travel lens for me than a 24-xxx
      I guess it depends on what do you mean by "travel". I was doing a three-days backpacking trip in August with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens. I really would have loved to have the 24-270mm lens when we ran into the grizzly mama bear, with three cubs...
    9. I guess it depends on what do you mean by "travel". I was doing a three-days backpacking trip in August with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens. I really would have loved to have the 24-270mm lens when we ran into the grizzly mama bear, with three cubs...
      I agree. I would take extra reach over wider angle of view on any and all conceivable trips. If I want a really wide shot I prefer to shoot a panorama at a narrower focal length as it has a much more natural look.
    10. I wish the superzoom concept would go more the other way, ie something like an RF 15-85 f/4. That would be a more useful travel lens for me than a 24-xxx

      I would love such a lens, but wonder what chances there for such a lens.

      IIRC, the experts on this site explained there are physical obstacles to designing zooms that cross the normal from wide to tele. Possibly it's easier to design one for a MILC?
    11. I wish the superzoom concept would go more the other way, ie something like an RF 15-85 f/4. That would be a more useful travel lens for me than a 24-xxx

      I would settle for an RF 15-70 f/4 (and an RF 100-400).
    12. I used to be a superzoom fan but the RF 70-200 does the job with one pocket-sized wide prime like the RF 35mm 1.8. Or as wide as needed.

      The 24-240 cost $500 as kit lens with RP and gets little use unless light is good and lens changing isn’t desired.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment