Patent: Canon RF 85mm f/1.8 Macro, Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 & Canon EF-M 100mm f/2

The EF-M 100f/2 would be great. This together with my M5 wouldn't exceed the load limit of the NN3 MK3 Mecha panorama head as it currently does with the M5 with EF adaptor and EF100 f/2,8 L Macro. I like doing panos with such focal length as it will give very detailed endresults.

Frank

I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?

Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.

Rivermist said:

Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.

Click to expand...

I thought I would mind the difference as well, but then I realized I'm using my EF85mm f/1.8 mostly at f/2.5 to get better IQ. So if f/2 will be better than f2.5 on the EF I'm OK with that. It's only for taking pictures of my family, so I can't make up a decent excuse to get the f/1.2

No more info on Rf 100-500?

koenkooi said:

I thought I would mind the difference as well, but then I realized I'm using my EF85mm f/1.8 mostly at f/2.5 to get better IQ. So if f/2 will be better than f2.5 on the EF I'm OK with that. It's only for taking pictures of my family, so I can't make up a decent excuse to get the f/1.2

Click to expand...

Actually the 85mm 1.8 patent does not mention IS, would the line-up have both a 1.8 non-IS and a 2.0 IS?

SV said:

I wonder if the RF 100 f/2.8 is macro?

Click to expand...

I can’t imagine it’s not.

Too many patents and announcements. I wish they’d actually release something that I’m in no position to buy. So I can read product reviews and drool over specs and sample images.

Rivermist said:

Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps one is a pancake and the other a traditional prime?

This does look like RF versions of existing EF lenses. I'm not familiar with the whole EF lineup, but I own two of those lenses (and know of the third) in EF.

If these are actually brought out it's a strong signal that they expect the future to be in RF and that they expect EF will eventually die on the vine as more people leave it.

Rivermist said:

Confusing (slightly), yesterday there was a rumor of an RF 85mm f:2.0 IS STM, and here we see RF 85mm f:1.8 IS (USM?). Obviously 1.8 preferred to 2.0 if size / weight / price are not disproportionate.

Click to expand...

Yesterday was a rumor (CR1), probability of being a real product we'll eventually see...idk 25% maybe?

Today we have a patent, probability of being a real product we'll eventually see....50/50 maybe?

Neither one of these reports is anything to bank on. But the reassuring thing about them is that the higher quantity and frequency of the various bits of information circulating means we will eventually see some from of this product.

The pictured lens is a double-Gauss, right? That's typical of all the EF 50s and 85s, I think. In contrast the RF 50 and 85 seem to be totally new with no echoes of previous generations. Since the new formulas are so much sharper, I'm glad they're doing them, but since the old ones are like 1/3 the size, I'm glad they're making that available too.

SteveC said:

If these are actually brought out it's a strong signal that they expect the future to be in RF and that they expect EF will eventually die on the vine as more people leave it.

Click to expand...

This already seemed absolutely obvious to me. The one clear benefit I see to SLRs is for nature photogs who can look through the finder for hours without consuming battery. Other than that I think the MILFs have far better AF, are more compact for any given ability level, and the shorter film-flange distance allows for much better lenses at least wider than 100mm or 135mm. Better meaning: sharper AND/OR speccier AND/OR more compact/light. Canon's reduced, what is it, 10 RF lenses in the last 15 months, vs. zero for the EF? This includes things that any EF shooter would love, whether f/2 zooms, 10x resolution on the 50/1.2, more compact 35mm, IS on the wide and normal trinity zooms, and and and.

85/1.8 or 85/2.0...
Whatever Canon decides to release, bring it on. I want to see the lens that could draw me into R systzem the most (..or not).
Would prefer an 85/1.8, of course.
The displayed optical formula seems to be about 1.5 cm shorter than the old EF design. The mechanical lens could be longer because of flange distance, of course. But this together with an RP or R6 body... *yummy

By the way:
Quick dive but couldn't find the optical formula of the old EF 85/1.8. Does anybody have a link? Thanks

SwissFrank said:

This already seemed absolutely obvious to me.

Click to expand...

Myself as well, really. You've mentioned battery power and long term use of the viewfinder. That's not quite the only disadvantage, but it's the only one I can't see any way around and that isn't subjective. The other SLR benefits (so far) is less lag in the viewfinder, less "blank" time after taking a picture, and so on--I'm sure I'm missing a few. But those are all things that are improving, they aren't inherent to mirrorless, just aspects of something still in its early development. What's left? There are those who simply hate using an EVF. (Whether they are justified or not, the hate is there.)

I'm all-in on mirrorless, personally, though I won't spurn EF lenses. They will continue to serve one very useful role for the foreseeable future--they can be used on ALL Canon mirrorless cameras-- M and RF. How long that will impel Canon to continue to make them (not develop, but make) is another question entirely.

Maximilian said:

Whatever Canon decides to release, bring it on. I want to see the lens that could draw me into R systzem the most (..or not).
Would prefer an 85/1.8, of course.

Click to expand...

I want to see the lenses, not just the one which make me change...

dancan said:

I want to see the lenses, not just the one which make me change...

Click to expand...

I want to see lenses that I would use, not only what is possible.
An f/2.0-zoom is a brilliant piece of engineering, but not in reach for my budget.
Right now I see only 2 RF lenses that I would be willing to buy, if I had the will to get there: the 35 and the 24-105. Maybe the 70-200, too.

I'm a very big supporter of the EOS-M cameras and lenses, but I really don't understand the need for a 160mm equivalent lens in the lineup. That's a really odd focal length that's a little too long for traditional portraits and a little too short to be of much use for wild life or sports...so it's just strange.

It would be nice to see Canon tackle the more pressing needs like a fast ultra-wide or a super-telephoto lens. We've all been asking for a 15mm f/2 small prime or something longer and faster than 200mm f/6.3. Would it be too much of a challenge to get a native 300mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/5.6 lens? I take my M6 Mark II out with me almost every day when I walk my dog by the lake and love it for bird photography. The 55-200 is not a good lens for this, sadly. So I will typically use the 55-250 or 70-300.

Canon has been in the top 5 in numbers of US patents for over 30 years or so. Odds are none of these will ever be produced in their current form. It's just forum fodder...