Canon Patents

Patent: Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Canon’s new RF mount is going to be at the forefront of R&D going forward, and that should bring us a lot of optical formula patents for new RF lenses.

A new patent application shows Canon possibility bringing the 24-70mm f/4L IS to the RF mount.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM:

Focal Length: 24.71 – 39.93 – 67.99
F-number: 4.12 – 4.12 – 4.12
Half Angle of Field: 41.20 – 28.45 – 17.65
Image Height: 21.64 – 21.64 – 21.64
Overall Lens Length: 99.36 – 108.69- 132.25
BF: 13.50 – 24.36 – 42.60

We wouldn’t be surprised to see this come in the form of a kit lens for future EOS R cameras.

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,393
449
Canada
#2
This should be a (semi) affordable lens. The EF version is a great lens, if this one is better ( and I can't see how it wouldn't be) it would make the perfect kit lens. This will be an interesting few years as we see what new R lenses roll out and when.
 

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
934
61
#3
I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.

Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 6D Mark II
Mar 14, 2012
2,136
55
#5
This should be a (semi) affordable lens. The EF version is a great lens, if this one is better ( and I can't see how it wouldn't be) it would make the perfect kit lens. This will be an interesting few years as we see what new R lenses roll out and when.
I hope it comes out with a more reasonable price? Didn't the EF version first sell near 1500?!
 

YuengLinger

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
2,089
116
Southeastern USA
#7
I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.

Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.
What if they keep the macro AND provide better IQ overall? Isn't this the promised potential of the new mount? Macro type MFD is useful and fun for a walkaround or event lens. (Still, I'm surprised the RF 24-105mm wasn't significantly better than its mediocre EF counterpart.)
 
Likes: Del Paso
Sep 26, 2017
81
38
Madison, WI
#8
What if they keep the macro AND provide better IQ overall? Isn't this the promised potential of the new mount? Macro type MFD is useful and fun for a walkaround or event lens. (Still, I'm surprised the RF 24-105mm wasn't significantly better than its mediocre EF counterpart.)
The more time passes the more I wonder if the R was just rushed out the door so that they'd have something to show against Nikon's z6/z7. The new lenses for the RF mount are all spectacular, except for that one. It also seems to be the only one out of the bunch that seems to be truly just adapted for the close distance on the mount instead of being re-engineered or designed fresh for RF. I'm wondering if the new, cheaper RF mount camera will be what they really wanted to R to be, followed closely (or even at the same time) by a higher more pro body.

I'm afraid Canon underestimated the want for mirrorless full frame and decided to put together something fairly quick. The lenses that Canon produces are second to none. But everyone else is catching up quick, especially Sigma which can be had for all mounts. If they don't produce on the software/hardware side their market dominance will start sliding pretty quick, especially with the new sensor improvements coming soon from sony sensor based cameras.
 
#9
If you look on the same Northlight page just below the lens info, there is a huge swathe of Canon US patent applications all dealing with mount communications/design and the electronic communications for adapters of all sorts (inc. with lenses). Read through most of them putting the list together and there is probably stuff I missed (it is tedious after the first 5-6)

The key is that there are high speed comms capabilities for the adapters and lenses , all running through the RF mount. I see this as a lot of future proofing for smart stuff using RF mount.

The follow on from that is that smart stuff is not going to be using EF...
 
Likes: Del Paso

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
80
49
117
Williamsport, PA
#10
I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.

Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.
I disagree about the 24-105. I chose it primarily because of the greater range. 24-70 doesn't cut it. In fact I would really prefer the 24-120 that Nikon has for my general purpose lens.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,212
113
Germany
#11
This should be a (semi) affordable lens. The EF version is a great lens, if this one is better ( and I can't see how it wouldn't be) it would make the perfect kit lens. This will be an interesting few years as we see what new R lenses roll out and when.
So true! Esp. the last sentence.
I am so glad that I am well equipped with gear and have no need to act now.
If I was to jump into a system today I'd be a little bit confused ;)
 

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
934
61
#12
What if they keep the macro AND provide better IQ overall? Isn't this the promised potential of the new mount? Macro type MFD is useful and fun for a walkaround or event lens. (Still, I'm surprised the RF 24-105mm wasn't significantly better than its mediocre EF counterpart.)
If that is optically achievable then sure. But I’d rather not have any design compromises as I’m assuming one had to be made to allow the lens to focus at macro distance.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,393
449
Canada
#13
So true! Esp. the last sentence.
I am so glad that I am well equipped with gear and have no need to act now.
If I was to jump into a system today I'd be a little bit confused ;)
same here.

I expect that I will eventually jump to R, but only when I see a killer feature/spec that isn't covered by my existing cameras, and at that point I will be looking at lenses that compliment my existing ones.
 

Act444

EOS Rebel T7i
May 4, 2011
934
61
#14
I disagree about the 24-105. I chose it primarily because of the greater range. 24-70 doesn't cut it. In fact I would really prefer the 24-120 that Nikon has for my general purpose lens.
I don’t doubt that the 24-105 can make a good “one lens fits all” travel package. However I still see ML as a smaller alternative to a DSLR setup. The R and 24-105, while smaller than, say, a 5D, is still a substantial and conspicuous camera. I think smaller lenses like the 35 1.8 are better suited to the R’s size, and if a high-quality 24-70 f4 can be made (like what Nikon has for the Z system) then, IMO, it could help make the R series a better complement to a 5D/1D rig.
 
Likes: 4fun
#15
The more time passes the more I wonder if the R was just rushed out the door so that they'd have something to show against Nikon's z6/z7.
I agree that the R is not entirely ironed-out, but Canon really did put an exceptional amount of thought into it. They completely re-thought the control layout. Seems like they took cues from smart phones that understand which actions go with which tasks and take away the rest. Nikon has all the same old buttons scattered around the body and has packed their viewfinder with every possible little icon. Canon has all that clutter available if you want it, but you can also clear out all but the essentials. And the dials and buttons and top display all do multiple tasks, but not all at once. I really find it refreshing. I want to take photos, not surf menus. Not that it's been a perfect transition! I've damn near thrown the thing at a wall trying to figure it out!

And I've never seen any mention of the focus aid for manual focusing—this is sheer genius! My eyes are accelerating into old age—this feature alone will keep me in business another ten years!

OK I'm rambling…...
 

YuengLinger

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
2,089
116
Southeastern USA
#16
The "same old buttons" and dials work just as well now as ever, especially for locking in Av/Tv/M/B. I still haven't heard a positive word about the M. Fn. strip along the top of the back. I'd rather smartphone users learn standardized buttons than experienced photographers learn to use a FF camera like a smartphone.

Nice that the viewfinder can be decluttered. A "focus aid" sounds promising.

Now for a body that boasts tried and true ergonomics.
 
Likes: 4fun
#17
"Act444 said:
I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.

Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner."

I disagree about the 24-105. I chose it primarily because of the greater range. 24-70 doesn't cut it. In fact I would really prefer the 24-120 that Nikon has for my general purpose lens.
You're both right!

Which is why both lenses and the ability to choose between them exist.
 
Dec 20, 2012
260
6
#19
I love it, it feels like ever post about a new lens for the R mount. Someone complains about it not coming for the EF mount or EF mount is dead. There isn't many holes in the EF line up (expect for a 50mm f1.4). They are making new revision of EF lenses with a different white paint. I don't want 24-70 m3 with a new blacker paint. ha ha. Granted Canon could put out more lenses for the EF line up and I would be happy but I am pretty happy with there coverage from 11mm - 800mm.
 
Likes: Aaron D