Canon Patents

Patent: Canon RF 80mm f/2.8 Macro

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

A dedicated macro lens for the RF mount is definitely needed and is obviously on the roadmap. Here we have an optical formula for an RF 80mm f/2.8 1:1 macro lens.

I doubt we’ll see an 80mm macro, but there will be multiple different macro optical formulas until we see a consumer product.

Patent: Canon RF 80mm f/2.8 Macro
Focal length 80.45mm
F value 2.90
Half angle of view 15.05°
Image height 21.64mm
Lens length 123.69mm
Backfocus 13.72mm

StevenA

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jul 8, 2020
104
202
Canon stop messing around and announce the 100mm 2.8 macro for RF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,112
Why does Canon go to the time and expense of designing lenses in some particular focal length, when they jolly-well know they will not be actually producing that lens?
Patents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Bishop80

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 4, 2014
79
84
Why does Canon go to the time and expense of designing lenses in some particular focal length, when they jolly-well know they will not be actually producing that lens?
Believe it or not, you don't actually have to make even one of the thing you claim in the patent. This lens could exist entirely in CAD but still receive a design or process patent.

Many companies offer employee incentives to produce patents. For example, a cash bonus per patent, with an extra bonus for first patent filed, and other bonuses for plateaus reached (x number of patents). Invention disclosures that don't get a patent (for whatever reason) can still be publicly disclosed so that prior art now exists, preventing another company from cashing in on the protections and benefits of a patent themselves (unless, of course, they have evidence of designing said thing themselves before the other guy).

Canon could also decide to patent a design (which does cost money and resource for the full legal process) to prevent another company from designing and selling the same lens themselves, even if they themselves never intend to sell it; or to get royalties from other companies wanting to use the design.

Companies also get bragging rights for being Patent leaders in their industry. This even extends to the depts. inside a company, where the Widget Dept. can brag about generating more patents per capita than all other departments in the company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,819
2,124
Still hoping for a 50mm macro lens ... it would complement my "light" hiking kit consisting of 16-35 and 100-400, and replace my Zeiss Makro Planar 50mm (heavy and no AF or IS or 1:1).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Feb 7, 2019
409
475
UK
If I’m to move over to the RF system then a true macro is a must!

No doubt this’ll be like £2500 or something stupid though.. :rolleyes:
 

lexptr

Photograph the nature while it exists...
Aug 8, 2014
85
55
What the idea of such lens? Too close to a classic 100mm, which they will release, I'm sure. Not short enough to be the 100mm for (the rumored) APS-C R. Any ways, I would be much more tempted by 150-180mm true-macro lens. Did Canon patent something true-macro-long?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
428
371
Companies also get bragging rights for being Patent leaders in their industry.

Frankly I think bragging rights go to companies that actually produce interesting lenses instead of just patenting them.

So Canon can patent dozens of configurations but when it comes to a new 50mm 1.8 they just warm-over the existing EF design. Not very braggable...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,216
2,279
What the idea of such lens? Too close to a classic 100mm, which they will release, I'm sure. Not short enough to be the 100mm for (the rumored) APS-C R. Any ways, I would be much more tempted by 150-180mm true-macro lens. Did Canon patent something true-macro-long?

FWIW, both 100mm macro lenses from Canon are 70-ish mm at MFD, lots of focus breathing with those designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,819
2,124
FWIW, both 100mm macro lenses from Canon are 70-ish mm at MFD, lots of focus breathing with those designs.
And not that sharp (mine?) at infinity setting on the sides and corners...
If you don't believe me: OpticalLimits review...or, on TDP, compare it with the 90mm f2,8 TSE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Drainpipe

It's all about the little things.
Aug 30, 2014
96
25
www.instagram.com
I really do hope that Canon has a 2:1 for the RF mount. I've been using the Laowa 100mm which goes to 2:1 mag, and it's incredible.

If I could have my dream macro, it'd be a 150mm f/2.8L 3:1 macro. I can dream :)
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,423
1,187
www.flickr.com
Virtually (not the 24-105mm) all the rf lenses bring something new to the table vs their ef version. I am happy to keep my ef100mmL ... used it tonight for a 6 day old newborn shoot :) but if the rf version is 2:1 then I would migrate at some stage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

samh004

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
14
11
Gold Coast, Australia
Virtually (not the 24-105mm) all the rf lenses bring something new to the table vs their ef version.
Exactly. My thinking is that 2:1 and/or something better than f/2.8 would be the differentiator. Even better if it was both, say a f/1.8 that can do 2:1, 1:1 and also operate to infinity :)

I'll need to buy another pelican case if so, as my gear will increase substantially.
 

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
849
855
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
And not that sharp (mine?) at infinity setting on the sides and corners...
If you don't believe me: OpticalLimits review...or, on TDP, compare it with the 90mm f2,8 TSE.

The 100mm L macro was released right at the beginning of the coatings revolution - one of the main factors for increased resolution development in the last decade. It was also released right when IS was going from a (realistically) 2-stop capacity to a 3-3.5 stop capacity. So it was a bonkers lens at the time. The first (and only) "hybrid" IS system Canon ever released. It added a whole new axis of IS.

That said, in a decade, some similarly-focal-lengthed lenses have come out that are sharper. A large number of 85mm options in particular. But I don't know of any lens that is macro and has decent IS at macro use that is as sharp as this lens. For hand-held macro, it's still unbeatable. I know because I continue to waste money buying alternatives, trying them, and selling them.

When I shot Sony, I found that adapting the Canon 100 L was the best option, even with super sharp lenses such as the Sigma (AF was pretty bad).

All that said, the Laowa/Venus stuff that has been coming out has been fantastic. The probe lens; the 15mm macro; etc. Totally innovative and useful stuff. But not a 100mm with as-good IS or AF.

When Canon does settle on a design, it'll sell a boat-load. When they launch a super-high-resolution body, that might be an auspicious time.

One last thing: I think the communication between lens and camera that allows canon to get 7+ IS stops is going to really be remarkable in the macro use case. Eager to see. -tig
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,112
The 100mm L macro was released right at the beginning of the coatings revolution - one of the main factors for increased resolution development in the last decade. It was also released right when IS was going from a (realistically) 2-stop capacity to a 3-3.5 stop capacity. So it was a bonkers lens at the time. The first (and only) "hybrid" IS system Canon ever released. It added a whole new axis of IS.

That said, in a decade, some similarly-focal-lengthed lenses have come out that are sharper. A large number of 85mm options in particular. But I don't know of any lens that is macro and has decent IS at macro use that is as sharp as this lens. For hand-held macro, it's still unbeatable. I know because I continue to waste money buying alternatives, trying them, and selling them.

When I shot Sony, I found that adapting the Canon 100 L was the best option, even with super sharp lenses such as the Sigma (AF was pretty bad).

All that said, the Laowa/Venus stuff that has been coming out has been fantastic. The probe lens; the 15mm macro; etc. Totally innovative and useful stuff. But not a 100mm with as-good IS or AF.

When Canon does settle on a design, it'll sell a boat-load. When they launch a super-high-resolution body, that might be an auspicious time.

One last thing: I think the communication between lens and camera that allows canon to get 7+ IS stops is going to really be remarkable in the macro use case. Eager to see. -tig
But the 100 L macro doesn’t resolve any better than the ancient pre L 100 macro and at F5.6 even the 50 F1.4 out resolves it. Both of which seem to suggest the coatings are not as effective as you think they are.

I’m not saying the 100 L macro isn’t a good lens, it is nice enough, but just not a particularly special one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,577
2,475
But the 100 L macro doesn’t resolve any better than the ancient pre L 100 macro and at F5.6 even the 50 F1.4 out resolves it.

Just curious (being the happy owner of an "ancient pre L 100 macro"): what, then is the point to the 100L? Other than image stabilization?

And I find it ironic/humorous that you mention f/5.6 since that's what I usually run it at!