A patent showing a couple of higher-end Canon EOS R kit lenses has made its way to the public eye. One of the optical formulas in this parent is for an RF 24-105 f/4L IS, which we obviously already have.

The second embodiment is for an RF 24-80mm f/4L IS. This is a smaller lens and makes some sense as a second and less expensive L kit lenses for RF mount cameras.

Japan Patent Application 2019-012243

Canon RF 24-80mm f/4L IS

  • Focal length 24.72 48.09 82.45
  • F number 4.12 4.12 4.12
  • Half angle of view 41.19 24.22 14.70
  • Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
  • Lens overall length 119.50 134.52 149.55
  • BF 13.50 18.71 22.73

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS

  • Focal distance 24.72 63.46 131.00
  • F number 4.12 4.12 4.12
  • half field angle (degree) — 41.19 18.83 9.38
  • Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
  • length of the lens 137.50 168.92 200.33
  • BF 13.50 24.03 28.27
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.

18 comments

  1. This would be a fantastic travel lens--I've used the EF 24-70 f4 for years and love it. But I'm really liking the idea of a 2.8. Making the decision worse is that I don't need 2.8 for my paid work (architectural) but only for my playing around stuff. I'm really itching to have a native RF lens instead of a chunky adapted lens and this waiting to see is driving me nuts. Maybe I should just make do with the 28-70 f2…...
  2. I think they could make the 24-70 2.8 replacement have a wider range too.

    How about a 22-70 f/2.8 or a 24-85 f/2.8

    Actually, I'd probably wager Canon would not release a plain 24-70 RF lens to avoid confusion with the 28-70, a 24-75 at the very least.
  3. I think they could make the 24-70 2.8 replacement have a wider range too.

    How about a 22-70 f/2.8 or a 24-85 f/2.8

    Actually, I'd probably wager Canon would not release a plain 24-70 RF lens to avoid confusion with the 28-70, a 24-75 at the very least.

    I'm hoping they leave it as a 24-70 and put IS or minimize its size. Leaving it as a 24-70 should not cause confusion, as there are already EF 24-70 f/2.8 and f/4 variants and 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 variants. If anything, it would be confusing to have a 28-70 f/2, 22-70 f/2.8, 24-80 f/4 and a 24-105 f/4. I can see why Canon left the 28-70 as a 28. The thing is already large and heavy.
  4. LOL, the 28-70 is a very heavy lens - i've love one for events, but not as a walk around one.

    Yeah, I wish I could justify the price. I wouldn't mind dragging one around if I had to! Same with the 50 f1.2. I don't even have a 50 and couldn't justify it, though I' love to…..
  5. 24 - 80 f/4 would be a good move and combined with existing 70-200 or 100-400: the overlap / gap isn't that cruel. If it is light & has good close focus capabilities a winner for highly flexible lenses.
    And a charm with the RF 80-400 f/4.0-5.6 which starts to exist in my dreams about a versatile 2-lens-setup!
  6. I've always thought 70 was a weird focal length. Neither here nor there. 24-80, or 24-85 2.8 would be a dream. With so many of the Wides going to 35mm I'd happily even lose some mm off the wide end to get some fast mm at the long end.
  7. This would be a fantastic travel lens--I've used the EF 24-70 f4 for years and love it. But I'm really liking the idea of a 2.8. Making the decision worse is that I don't need 2.8 for my paid work (architectural) but only for my playing around stuff. I'm really itching to have a native RF lens instead of a chunky adapted lens and this waiting to see is driving me nuts. Maybe I should just make do with the 28-70 f2…...
    I own RF28-70 and it is fantastic, you won’t regret of owning it
  8. Not a word on other L primes for RF?
    Patents don't tell you if the lens is a "L" or a consumer construction. You can usually guess at which it would be though. I've seen a lot of RF lens patents on CR, but there are no actual lenses that I've read of in the pipeline. Canon has stated that more are coming, so expect to see a assortment this year. I'm thinking of getting the 24-105L, a 24-80 just does not have the zoom range I'd like, and IQ will be so close that it doesn't matter. It would be nice to have a bit wider zoom range, 20-70 would be better than 24-80 to me.
  9. I'm thinking of getting the 24-105L, a 24-80 just does not have the zoom range I'd like, and IQ will be so close that it doesn't matter.

    Historically that's never been the case, the Canon 24-105 lenses have always suffered in IQ compared to the shorter range. I don't know why, since the Sigma 24-105 Art is reportedly excellent.

    My Canon Mk I was disappointing and was quickly offloaded. Maybe it's because the 24-105 is setup for larger-scale production for inclusion in FF kits, it has always been considered a barely-L. Appropriately enough the red-ring often fell off.

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment