Canon Patents

Patent: Canon RF 70-240mm f/4 IS and RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

This site contains affiliate links to products and services. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

Canon is obviously busy developing new lenses for the RF mount, and we expect a lot of new lenses next year. We also expect some more affordable offerings for the RF mount.

In the latest round of patents, we see optical formulas for both an RF 70-240mm f/4 IS and an RF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.

Canon RF 70-240mm f/4 IS USM:

  • Focal length 72.10mm 131.78mm 242.00mm
  • F-number 4.10 4.10 4.10
  • Half angle of view 16.70° 9.32° 5.11°
  • Image height 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
  • Total lens length 147.22mm 176.39mm 210.90mm
  • BF 12.95mm 25.54mm 36.63mm

Canon RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM:

  • Focal length 72.10mm 144.31mm 289.00mm
  • F-number 4.60 5.68 5.88
  • Half angle of view 16.70° 8.53° 4.28°
  • Image height 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
  • Total lens length 136.41mm 169.48mm 201.14mm
  • BF 12.95mm 28.75mm 42.22mm

aquagene

EOS R and SL2
Apr 19, 2019
7
14
That RF 70-300 has been the one I'm really looking forward to. Using the EF 70-300 Nano USM with adapter right now for wildife photography and it's pretty unwieldy at times. This new design at 137mm (5.4 inches) closed will be amazing.

Interesting to see a 70-240 F4. I'm guessing that's probably just a design patent that might not turn into a lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
582
571
120
Williamsport, PA
Looks like Canon is getting serious about a good range of lenses for the RF mount. What is exciting is most all of them are eminently usable. Not like a what do you do with it, $9,000, f.95 manual focus lens. :ROFLMAO:
 

Ozarker

Planet FUBAR.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,727
4,156
The Ozarks
I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300. :ROFLMAO: What will be the crying be about today? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
582
571
120
Williamsport, PA
I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300. :ROFLMAO: What will be the crying be about today? ;)

The trolls will find something else in order to make their poor choices be justified in their minds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,568
2,473
I think it was just yesterday I read an uproar railing against Canon for not making a RF 70-300. :ROFLMAO: What will be the crying be about today? ;)

Well, it's worth a try.

Canon won't make an M5 II!!! Waaaaaaah!!!!!!
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 user

melgross

EOS R
Nov 2, 2016
807
589
A 70-240 f4 that’s not an L version. How odd. An f4-6.3 that’s not an L, I would understand.
 

Tom W

EOS R5
Sep 5, 2012
321
303
I think it'd be kind of nice to see a 100-300 f/4 zoom, a good companion to the 24-105. Throw on a 1.4X and you have a nice 140-420 f/5.6 zoom which is also useful.

Then again, the 100-400 II covers this pretty nicely.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,568
2,473
LOL - yes they will. They started making it yesterday, right after I received my M6 II. :)

You only THINK that's a joke...

According to Canon News there's a patent that looks like a new version of the 11-22mm M series lens.

I just bought mine yesterday.
 

melgross

EOS R
Nov 2, 2016
807
589
What makes you think it’s not an L?

I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.

i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,245
6,774
I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.

i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.
Compared to lenses like the RF 50, 85 and 28-70, a lens priced like the EF 70-200/4L IS would be ‘affordable’
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
I'm just going by the designation given here. If he suspected it might be an L, he would have said so. He usually expresses skepticism at things he thinks are suspicious. He also said “affordable offerings”. It seems as though these two lenses are some of those.

i hope this is an affordable f4. That would be something.
Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,568
2,473
Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?

If not, I'd check the patent for the presence of fluorite elements. If I understand correctly those usually are present in Ls and usually not present in non-Ls.
 

melgross

EOS R
Nov 2, 2016
807
589
Compared to lenses like the RF 50, 85 and 28-70, a lens priced like the EF 70-200/4L IS would be ‘affordable’
I guess it means different things to different people. What’s affordable to us may be very expensive to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

melgross

EOS R
Nov 2, 2016
807
589
Would the L designation necessarily be included in a patent application?
Considering that the L lenses are their own designs, then whatever the design would be would be in the patent. As far as The L goes, that’s a trademark.