svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQ2MicgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - Patent: Impressive super telephoto L zoom lenses for the RF mount

    Patent: Impressive super telephoto L zoom lenses for the RF mount

    By Updated:101 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents

    It was inevitable that Canon would be bringing at least one big super telephoto zoom lens like the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x to the RF mount lineup, and this patent unearthed by Keith at Northlight Images shows Canon is working away at such lenses.

    USPTO Patent US20220035144 shows the following optical formulas.

    • Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L
    • Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L
    • Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L
    • Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L

    The designs contain a lot of elements, so these are definitely “big whites” and not more affordable lenses.

    I could definitely see Canon releasing more than one of these types of lenses in the future, perhaps alongside the Canon EOS R1.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    101 comments

    3. An L-series 150-600 would be much appreciated. I envy both Sony E and (soon) Nikon Z shooters for that option (in both cases: 200-600). There is more than one occasion, when I don't wanna bring my big white prime, e. g. when I go for a long hike or gonna shoot in really crowded places. Right now, there is nothing in the Canon lineup that fills the gap. The 100-500 is outstandingly sharp, but does not offer enough reach for me and has this ridiculous tc issue. And the 600/800 f/11 are great little lenses but aren't weather-sealed.

      A sharp and reasonably lightweight (between 3 and 3.5 kg) 200-500 f/4 with an inbuilt TC would be a dream lens for many wildlife shooters. In fact, it is for me. Very versatile even at close range or for very large subjects, such as puffins or bison, and - with a flick of a lever - enough reach for smaller birds or birds in flight. And no faffing with attaching or detaching converters in wind, dust, rain or snow - when nature photography gets most interesting! Only the price is gonna be hefty. I assume around 15.000 USD - should we ever see this lens getting produced in the first place.
    4. Interested in seeing what the Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L can do. I have the sigma version but its so horribly built that it broke easily after one trip. I'd love it if Canon finally made one but faster at focusing and with much better quality... Terrified about that price though
    5. I'd love the Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L but I have the much older, and probably HEAVER sigma version, and it's served me well. The canon at f/8 will probably focus just as fast as the sigma at f/5.6, but Canon will probably be lighter.
    6. The 200-500 f/4 has been a long held dream lens, preferably but not necessarily with a 1.4x TC. I always wondered why Sigma made a 120-300 f/2.8 and a 300-800 f/5.6 but not the lens in the middle. (The 200-500 f/2.8 is in another class of lenses. It apparently was an obsession of the current Sigma CEO's father.)
    8. I will probably trade in my Sigma 150-600 the day the Canon one comes out.
      It will be interesting to see the price since the 100-500 costs so much.
      I do not want to imagine how much the other lenses will cost.
    9. I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?

      Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
      Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
      Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L. A lot more speed (nearly two stops), and a decently wide zoom range. But the 100-500 is still appealing to carry along and handhold.
      Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L. Like with a TC plus some speed.

      The real answer for one with a 100-500 seeling real differentiations: a 400 f2.8 for serious speed (or 600 f4 if length is preferred).
    10. I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?

      Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
      Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
      Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L. A lot more speed (nearly two stops), and a decently wide zoom range. But the 100-500 is still appealing to carry along and handhold.
      Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L. Like with a TC plus some speed.

      The real answer for one with a 100-500 seeling real differentiations: a 400 f2.8 for serious speed (or 600 f4 is length is preferred).
      - Problem no. 1: 500/7.1 + 1.4 TC = 700/10. So you might as well grab the 800/11 for a quarter of the price instead.
      - Problem no. 2: The 100-500 needs to be extended past 300 mm to accept the teleconverter. Below this, the rear element of the lens collides with the tc itself. That makes the process more faff than you could bear in the field.
      - Problem no 3: Attaching a teleconverter in the field is slow and sometimes difficult. Try it with heavy gloves in a snowstorm or while it is raining giraffes and elephants. Either you manage to get serious amounts of grime into your camera/lens or whatever you wanted to photograph is gone by the time you finally attached the tc.

      This whole "add a teleconverter" thing is something that usually only non nature photographers say lightly. You can do it and it can bail you out in certain moments, but it is by no means a panacea. An inbuilt tc is a different beast of course, but besides wishful thinking (including my own), only three lenses sport one as of today and all three are far north of 10,000 USD in price.

      A 150-600 would be seriously helpful and more practical for wildlife photography than the 100-500 (and a tc). Because "I don't need that much reach" said no wildlife photographer never. Same goes of course for a 200-500/4 with an inbuilt tc, but such a lens is gonna cost around 13 to 15k, where I deem an 150-600 L somewhere around 3 grand. The 100-500 on the other hand is by all practical means more like a 100-400 on steroids than a real supertelephoto zoom.
    12. - Problem no. 1: 500/7.1 + 1.4 TC = 700/10. So you might as well grab the 800/11 for a quarter of the price instead.
      I have both, and only use the 800/11 for shaking the dust off it. The 100-500 is nx better for BIF, focussing at less than 6m, and outresolves it with the 2xTC, as well as zooming.

      - Problem no. 2: The 100-500 needs to be extended past 300 mm to accept the teleconverter. Below this, the rear element of the lens collides with the tc itself. That makes the process more faff than you could bear in the field.
      A minor over-exaggerated defect.
      - Problem no 3: Attaching a teleconverter in the field is slow and sometimes difficult. Try it with heavy gloves in a snowstorm or while it is raining giraffes
      It's fast for me and I don't go out with heavy gloves in a snow storm as I find the snowflakes get in between me and whatever wild-life is mad enough to be out.
      and elephants. Either you manage to get serious amounts of grime into your camera/lens or whatever you wanted to photograph is gone by the time you finally attached the tc.
      I have never got dust on my sensor in 10 years of using extenders.
      This whole "add a teleconverter" thing is something that usually only non nature photographers say lightly. You can do it and it can bail you out in certain moments, but it is by no means a panacea. An inbuilt tc is a different beast of course, but besides wishful thinking (including my own), only three lenses sport one as of today and all three are far north of 10,000 USD in price.

      A 150-600 would be seriously helpful and more practical for wildlife photography than the 100-500 (and a tc). Because "I don't need that much reach" said no wildlife photographer never. Same goes of course for a 200-500/4 with an inbuilt tc, but such a lens is gonna cost around 13 to 15k, where I deem an 150-600 L somewhere around 3 grand. The 100-500 on the other hand is by all practical means more like a 100-400 on steroids than a real supertelephoto zoom.
      It would not be seriously helpful etc for everyone.
    13. This whole "add a teleconverter" thing is something that usually only non nature photographers say lightly. You can do it and it can bail you out in certain moments, but it is by no means a panacea.

      "I don't need that much reach" said no wildlife photographer never.
      My usual means of 'adding a teleconverter' to a great white is to put the 1.4x behind my 600/4 so I have an 800/5.6, attach the camera and then go out shooting. I 'subtract the teleconverter' when I get home.

      Ok, sometimes I do bring the 2x along and swap them but generally that's when I'm shooting winter raptors with the lens on a tripod/gimbal. When I'm out walking around and shooting shorebirds or passerines, I don't want to juggle a $13K lens and a $6K camera to swap out a TC.

      However, now having the R3, RF 100-500 and both RF TCs, I can easily manage the 'juggling' and I expect I'll be swapping TCs with reasonable frequency when using that lens+body combo.
    14. I'd be more willing to buy an internal zooming RF 200-500mm f4 L than I would be buying a 200-400mm. Once I got my 100-500mm, getting to 560 at f5.6 with an 8lbs lens didn't become as impressive. I briefly considered selling all my Canon gear for the Z9 and their 400mm f2.8 with a built-in 1.4x TC because I am just so jealous of that lens. I'm still waiting to see what the RF 500mm f4 is going to weigh before I make my final decision on investing on a big white though.
    15. I have both, and only use the 800/11 for shaking the dust off it. The 100-500 is nx better for BIF, focussing at less than 6m, and outresolves it with the 2xTC, as well as zooming.
      Most other people who I know that have both use both.
    16. I briefly considered selling all my Canon gear for the Z9 and their 400mm f2.8 with a built-in 1.4x TC because I am just so jealous of that lens
      I hope Canon makes a similar lens.
      It is not like they can't.
    17. I'd be very interested in a 300-800 F8L lens. I can imagine the beautiful images they could get at a long distance. I assume it'd be TC compatible, but you never know till it's out.
    18. I'd be very interested in a 300-800 F8L lens. I can imagine the beautiful images they could get at a long distance. I assume it'd be TC compatible, but you never know till it's out.
      That is a safe assumption.
      I would never do it but I do not like the fact that the RF teleconverters can't be stacked.
      Hopefully, a third party will make versions that can be.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment