Close Menu

    Patent: Lower cost RF mount prime and zoom lenses, including an RF 16-35mm f/4

    By 35 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents
    rfmountcheapprime - Patent: Lower cost RF mount prime and zoom lenses, including an RF 16-35mm f/4

    Canon obviously needs some “affordable” prime and zoom lenses for the RF mount, and a few JPO patent applications seem to suggest we're getting closer to that being a reality.

    Canon RF 20mm f/2

    • Focal length: 20.50
    • F number: 2.06
    • Half angle of view: 46.54
    • Image height: 21.64
    • Lens length: 90.13
    • Back focus: 13.50

    Canon RF 35mm f/1.8

    • Focal length: 35.60
    • F number: 1.85
    • Half angle of view: 31.22
    • Image height: 21.64
    • Lens length: 81.87
    • Back focus: 13.49

    Canon RF 35mm f/2

    • Focal length: 35.91
    • F number: 2.06
    • Half angle of view: 31.07
    • Image height: 21.64
    • Lens length: 50.50
    • Back focus: 15.05

    Canon RF 35mm f/2.8

    • Focal length: 35.70
    • F number: 2.88
    • Half angle of view: 31.22
    • Image height: 21.64
    • Lens length: 60.00
    • Back focus: 13.15

    Canon RF 45mm f/2.8

    • Focal length: 44.70
    • F number: 2.85
    • Half angle of view: 25.83
    • Image height: 21.64
    • Lens length: 62.63
    • Back focus: 13.13

    Canon RF 16-35mm f/4

    • Focal length: 16.48 24.02 33.75
    • F number: 4.12
    • Half angle of view: 52.70 42.01 32.66
    • Image height: 21.64
    • Lens length: 117.64 109.16 110.13
    • Back focus: 11.50 19.17 29.63
    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    35 comments

    1. Some of those look familiar, specifically the September rumor mentions 20mm f/2, 35mm f/2, and a 16-35mm f/4.

      IMHO, Canon will release some of those lenses. E.g. Canon hasn't released a 20mm lens since '92, but I don't see it leaving a hole at this focal length in the RF mount.
    6. Yes indeed, some more accessible lenses would be of interest. Zooms and a few niche primes. I'd rather Canon released theirs before the 3rd party MFGs beat them to it. ( +1 for the 16 to 35 f4)
    9. An RF 16-35 f4 makes a lot of sense and not just from an affordability standpoint. If you aren't an event shooter chances are you may never use those focal lengths and anything wider than f8, and if so the extra weight and cost of the f2.8 is a waste.

      The f4 ultrawide has always been a popular lens with landscapers since the introduction of the 17-40 and continued with the much better 16-35 f4 IS, and so will this RF version when ultimately released.
    10. ... Lower cost RF ... “affordable” ...
      *ROTFL*

      I know, good glass costs good money - sometimes even more - but...

      Okay, let's wait and see what will hit the market and when.

      But right now nothing but a big lottery win would draw me into R/RF system.
      And as I payed attention in probability calculation I don't play gambling games.
    11. An RF 16-35 f4 makes a lot of sense and not just from an affordability standpoint. If you aren't an event shooter chances are you may never use those focal lengths and anything wider than f8, and if so the extra weight and cost of the f2.8 is a waste.

      The f4 ultrawide has always been a popular lens with landscapers since the introduction of the 17-40 and continued with the much better 16-35 f4 IS, and so will this RF version when ultimately released.
      !6-35 f/4 has also been a favorite of real estate photographers!
    13. That 35mm f/2 is practically a pancake when you subtract the flange distance.
      Not quite at 50mm but still a good size. I'd snap up an RF pancake ...

      Edit, but as pointed: out 50mm - flange distance. I would probably buy it as a walk around lens for the EOS R.
    17. Why is 35/2.8 so long? A macro lens?
      Not quite at 50mm but still a good size. I'd snap up an RF pancake ...
      No pancake
      Did you guys forget to subtract the flange distance? Total lens length of 50mm means 30mm sticking out past the mount. The EF 40mm 2.8 is 23 mm long and it definitely is a pancake.

      In my eyes, those 7 mm make no difference. That lens is tiny!
    18. Perhaps it's a sign they will offer a few high-IQ f/2.8 L primes similar to the Fujifilm GF f/2.8 lenses for the GFX.
      GF are lenses with a larger image circle. Fuji makes them 2.8 just not to make them too expensive.

      Did you guys forget to subtract the flange distance?
      Subtract or not, how do you explain that the 35/2.8 is a centimeter longer than the 35/2.0?

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment