svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQ3OCcgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - Patent: Canon RF kit zoom lenses

    Patent: Canon RF kit zoom lenses

    By Updated:15 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents

    CanonNews discovered another patent detailing some interesting kit zooms that start off at the ultra wide-angle.  It's unknown if Canon would ever make such a lens, but the zoom range is very intriguing.

    It's also a lens that could double for a standard lens for APS-C.  However, it would bigger than it would need to be since it's designed to cover the full frame image circle.

    This is the second patent found with these lenses, indicating to me at least, that there is active interest inside of Canon for this type of lens.

    Canon RF 17-70 F3.5-F5.6

    focal length        17.40  35.02  68.69
F-number             3.57   4.18   5.85
half-field angle    51.19  31.71  17.48
Image height        21.64  21.64  21.64
total lens length  149.59 133.68 150.50
BF                  13.43  27.63  57.99

    Canon RF 18-80 F3.5-F5.6

    focal length        18.70  37.55  77.50
F-number             3.57   4.18   5.85
half-field angle    49.16  29.95  15.60
Image height        21.64  21.64  21.64
total lens length  146.50 128.90 147.50
BF                  15.19  27.72  59.84

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    15 comments

    3. Yep, as I've said before, the'll do lenses that are perfectly fine for an APS-C RF body but a bit meh on full frame, at least at the edges, but they will work.

      Like how they did full frame kit lenses back in the 35mm days, but with the benefit of modern technology.

      Perhaps a 7D-class camera is expected? I don't quite think they're ready to kill of EF-M yet though.
    4. Both of these lenses seem to suggest an APS-C RF body at some point. Possibly.
      Not necessarily with the new rf mount has the ability to make ultra wide zooms without loosing performance look at all the patients they have released. I think it would be a very versatile ff everyday lens for the masses.
    5. Not necessarily with the new rf mount has the ability to make ultra wide zooms without loosing performance look at all the patients they have released. I think it would be a very versatile ff everyday lens for the masses.

      yeah, on a full frame camera, those lenses even though they are consumer, they are very much "shut up and take my money" lenses for me.
    7. Not necessarily with the new rf mount has the ability to make ultra wide zooms without loosing performance look at all the patients they have released. I think it would be a very versatile ff everyday lens for the masses.
      I'm thinking, also, would be quite useful with the present R and RP and their cropped 4K.
    9. Image height is - if memory serves well - compatible for full frame.

      I would prefer the 17-70 because I like the 70-200+x range much more. A 17-70 would be a convenient lens for all those situations where I need "wide" or ultrawide. Only one caveat: I would like a 17-70 5.6-3.5 lens because narrow aperture is o.k. for 17mm but wider aperture very welcome for longer focal lengths.

      In the next days I will test FD 17mm with the RP for IQ if ... my RP will be delivered after some odyssey through Germany.
    10. yeah, on a full frame camera, those lenses even though they are consumer, they are very much "shut up and take my money" lenses for me.

      This. 18-80 / whatever on a RP II (future state) for travel.
    11. Both of these lenses seem to suggest an APS-C RF body at some point. Possibly.

      The image height of 21.64mm seems to indicate FF lenses. Double checked with an AOV calculator, and 17mm on FF gives 104deg, so the half angle of view (51.19deg) fits as well.
    12. The image height of 21.64mm seems to indicate FF lenses. Double checked with an AOV calculator, and 17mm on FF gives 104deg, so the half angle of view (51.19deg) fits as well.

      I know that, but the focal length range suggests an APS-C “normal” zoom lens. That is, the FF equivalent of something in the neighborhood of a 24-105 or 28-135 type of lens. Would be a rather interesting zoom range on FF, Ultra-wide to short tele though.
    15. Aren't full frame sensors 36mm x 24mm? Is "image height" a half frame measurement without being designated as such? AoV is always designated as "Half AoV" or assumed to be full width.
      My understanding is that image height should really be called image circle radius, because that's what it is. At 21.64 mm radius the FF sensor diagonal of 43,27 is being covered almost exactly.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment