Canon News has uncovered a patent for various super zoom optical formulas, and they're all for the RF mount except for one that appears to be for EF-S.
Canon RF 28-135mm f/4:
- Focal length: 28.84mm 80.09mm 135.75mm
- F-number: 4.12 4.12 4.12
- Half angle of view: 33.13° 15.12° 9.06°
- Image height: 18.82mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
- Total lens length: 167.97mm 167.97mm 167.97mm
- BF: 27.78mm 27.78mm 27.78mm
Canon RF 24-170mm f/4:
- Focal length: 24.72mm 99.78mm 166.47mm
- F-number: 4.12 4.12 4.12
- Half angle of view: 37.29° 12.23° 7.40°
- Image height: 18.82mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
- Total lens length: 236.70mm 236.70mm 236.70mm
- BF: 23.98mm 23.98mm 23.98mm
Canon RF 28-280mm f/2.8:
- Focal length: 27.81mm 146.83mm 269.60mm
- F-number: 2.88 2.88 2.88
- Half angle of view: 34.09° 8.38° 4.59°
- Image height: 18.82mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
- Total lens length: 340.47mm 340.47mm 340.47mm
- BF: 32.97mm 32.97mm 32.97mm
Canon EF-S 17-170mm f/3.5:
- Focal length: 17.51mm 83.09mm 169.77mm
- F-number: 3.61 3.60 3.61
- Half angle of view: 36.33° 10.10° 4.98°
- Image height: 12.88mm 14.80mm 14.80mm
- Total lens length: 248.91mm 248.91mm 248.91 mm
- BF: 40.40mm 40.40mm 40.40mm
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.
I honestly could imagine this lens becoming a reality at some point, no joke. Imagine the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses of other companies but able to go all the way out to 28mm. That would be an *absolutely* killer sports lens, and the size wouldn't be an issue as the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses are already 297.6mm in length, so only 40mm shorter.
I know not all patents become a reality, but I definitely think there's a market for this in sports/wildlife/news that would turn this into a big deal. 28-200mm f/2.8 would be great on its own, but I think Canon having this go out to 280mm makes it a lot more likely people would deal with the extra weight.
yes. Craig didn't copy that over from my site, but yes, all these lenses have stretching happening on the wide end.
I can imagine though that these will make the EOS R* system a cash cow for Canon... in the middle of the shrinking market. ;)
I have mixed feelings about the "stretching" method. On the one hand, if you rarely use the wide end and just want to grab the occasional snapshot with it, then maybe it's acceptable. But it is a lossy method. How much is lost, I don't know. Simple distortion correction does eat up a little resolution too, but it's an acceptable amount of loss.
Is it giving us that much more over the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is stm or 55-250mm f/4-5.6 is stm? The constant aperture is nice, no question. It is two stops brighter on the long end. I could definitely see myself getting one. But... are we really hurting on the general purpose travel/telephoto end?
We'd be better off with a refresh of the 17-55mm f2.8 with improved IQ, five stops of IS, and get it down to f1.8 to really breathe new life into EF-S/APS-C. Come on, Canon, the market wants it, your superb lens team can deliver it, JUST DO IT.
So much that it would be unusable on an optical view finder, and Canon had to adjust camera firmware to do the adjustments for the EVF as well.
Frank
I would truly not get your hopes up for the rumored EF/RF body, yet.
7. Vignetting
Ultra-wide aperture lenses usually produce heavy vignetting, and the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM exhibits around 3.3 stops of light falloff at f/1.2.
Canon EOS R + RF50mm F1.2 L USM @ 50mm, ISO 100, 1/8000, f/1.2
Things improve at f/1.6, where vignetting is only about 2.2 stops, better than many wide-aperture lenses on the market. By f/2, vignetting is easily correctable (about 1.5 stops) – and it is a non-issue at f/2.8, totaling only one stop. Beyond that, the RF 50mm f/1.2 exhibits less than a stop of vignetting, which is negligible in real-world images.
Canon EOS R + RF50mm F1.2 L USM @ 50mm, ISO 100, 1/1600, f/2.8
Then there's this: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=1