Close Menu

    Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM spotted in new patent application

    By Updated:11 Comments Canon Patents 3 Mins Read

    In this patent application (2024-152941) Canon is researching some super telephoto zooms that are most likely some L’s. All these designs have internal zoom mechanisms and seem very well balanced, with most of the optical elements near the center or rear.

    Canon RF 200-500mm F4L IS USM

    This lens looks interesting and is certainly feasible for Canon to manufacture. We know that there is a lens that is “something” like this in future lens releases. Could this be it? It’s hard to say, but with the amount of elements, and complexity – I can’t help but think this would be an L-level zoom. There’s no mention of IS, but Canon has the flexibility to use almost any element grouping that isn’t part of the focus as the IS assembly. With a 53mm back focus distance, this would easily accept any tele-extender.

    WideMediumTelephoto
    Focal length 206.00 316.02 485.01
    F-number4.09 4.10 4.10
    Half angle (°) 6.00 3.92 2.55
    Image height21.64 21.64 21.64
    Lens length486.99 486.99 486.99
    Back Focus53.96 53.96 53.96

    Canon RF 200-400mm F4 IS USM

    This would be a very traditional lens for Canon to develop, and the observant ones out there may notice that I dropped the “L”. Part of me thinks so because this seems to be a very simplistic optical design, and that usually favours non-L lenses. However, it is a constant 4.0 aperture and those usually are “L” lenses. As with the other examples, this lens with a nearly 44mm back focus distance, could easily accept a tele-extender.

    WideMediumTelephoto
    Focal length 205.00 282.75 390.00  
    F-number4.104.10 4.10
    Half angle (°) 6.02 4.38 3.18  
    Image height21.64 21.64 21.64
    Lens length367.09 367.09 367.09
    Back Focus46.68 46.68 46.68

    Canon RF 300-800mm F8L IS USM

    This lens I think is very intriguing. An internal zoom lens with a 300-800 range in a compact form factor. However, with Canon already releasing the Canon RF 300-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM already existing this would be a difficult lens to sell especially when the Canon RF-800mm is very new. As with the other designs, it’s internal zooming, and also a very long back focus distance that would readily accept tele-extenders.

    WideMediumTelephoto
    Focal length 305.00 485.95 774.99  
    F-number8.09 8.10 8.10
    Half angle (°) 4.062.55 1.60  
    Image height21.64 21.64 21.64
    Lens length489.78 489.78 489.78
    Back Focus100.04 100.04 100.04

    As with all patent applications, this is a look into Canon’s research. These products are embodiments that Canon may or may not develop in the future.

    Japan Patent Application 2024-152941

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    11 comments

    2. 200-400 F4 non-L, of the quality similar to the 28-70 2.8, or 200-800? BRING IT ON!
      I think if the long end is a 400mm f/4, then I suspect it will not be cheap. All superteles from Canikony that have >= 100mm front filters are pricey and are L, GM, or S lenses.
    3. I think if the long end is a 400mm f/4, then I suspect it will not be cheap. All superteles from Canikony that have >= 100mm front filters are pricey and are L, GM, or S lenses.
      The 200-800 front element is not quite that large, but is still reasonable cost wise. It may be a pipe dream, as I've always lusted after the EF 200-400, but if they could land it in the 3-5k range they might have a winner. Even at half the price of a 200-500w/tc, there may be a market, though that would still make it (i'm guessing) $6-8k

      Brian
    4. The 200-800 front element is not quite that large, but is still reasonable cost wise. It may be a pipe dream, as I've always lusted after the EF 200-400, but if they could land it in the 3-5k range they might have a winner. Even at half the price of a 200-500w/tc, there may be a market, though that would still make it (i'm guessing) $6-8k

      Brian
      Yeah the split happens at exactly 100mm.

      Below that you have reasonably priced options like the RF 200-800/6.3-9, Sigma 500/5.6, Nikon 600/6.3, Sony 200-600/6.3 all with 95mm front filter sizes. Beyond that the options become expensive at $5k and up (RF 100-300, Sony 300GM, Nikon 800/6.3).

      I also suspect instead of making a dedicated 200-400/4, Canon would rather you just buy a 100-300 and a 1.4x TC for a 140-420 f/4.
    5. Yeah the split happens at exactly 100mm.

      Below that you have reasonably priced options like the RF 200-800/6.3-9, Sigma 500/5.6, Nikon 600/6.3, Sony 200-600/6.3 all with 95mm front filter sizes. Beyond that the options become expensive at $5k and up (RF 100-300, Sony 300GM, Nikon 800/6.3).

      I also suspect instead of making a dedicated 200-400/4, Canon would rather you just buy a 100-300 and a 1.4x TC for a 140-420 f/4.
      I measured the diameter of the front lens of the EF 400mm f/4 DOii some years ago. I can't remember the precise number but it was actually slightly under 100mm. (The true f-number of the lens is ~ 4.2 I recall, and the focal length a bit less than 400mm.)
    6. Found my old post from Feb 2019:
      I had measured the diameter of the DO II and found only 95mm. On checking the patent for the lens, I found the focal length is actually 392.12mm and the f-number 4.12, which squares with diameter.
    7. I measured the diameter of the front lens of the EF 400mm f/4 DOii some years ago. I can't remember the precise number but it was actually slightly under 100mm. (The true f-number of the lens is ~ 4.2 I recall, and the focal length a bit less than 400mm.)
      That might still count as 100mm since theoretically it is 100mm even if the lens design is not quite 400/4 on the dot :p In any case, a zoom will likely need a somewhat larger diameter front element than a prime.
    8. I also suspect instead of making a dedicated 200-400/4, Canon would rather you just buy a 100-300 and a 1.4x TC for a 140-420 f/4.
      Canon would probably want you to buy both, but I will say that the 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x makes a great 140-420/4.
    9. If I win the lottery, or figure out I had a long lost uncle who leave me big money, I'd have a 100-300 with TC for sure. That lens looks great. Truth is I'm getting to the end of my soccer shooting, as my daughter is in high school now, and only has a max of 3 seasons to play, and those mostly being half seasons since she is a club player and there are highschool sports association rules that basically prevent them from playing during the highschool sports season. So the time to get my money's worth out of a lens like that was a few years ago, but I didn't have the cash.

      The 100-400vII i bought instead has been awesome though. And its small enough that I'll bring it on a hiking trip. The 100-300 is a bit beefier...

      Brian
    10. Yeah the split happens at exactly 100mm.

      Below that you have reasonably priced options like the RF 200-800/6.3-9, Sigma 500/5.6, Nikon 600/6.3, Sony 200-600/6.3 all with 95mm front filter sizes. Beyond that the options become expensive at $5k and up (RF 100-300, Sony 300GM, Nikon 800/6.3).

      I also suspect instead of making a dedicated 200-400/4, Canon would rather you just buy a 100-300 and a 1.4x TC for a 140-420 f/4.
      I am guessing that Canon's current production equipment caps out at ~100mm for front elements and that anything larger needs to go through their manual process hence the big cost increase.
    11. An internally-zooming 300-800mm F8 would be very interesting in the "Z" series – as a more portable and affordable alternative to the CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9.

      Tbh I've been a bit jealous of (the idea of) Sony's 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 given its internal zoom mechanism (which is much preferred for video).

      If Canon could put out a Full Frame 300-800 zoom with internal zoom and a servo option, I'd absolutely snap one up for ~$3k or less. (Although I'd prefer a range of 200-600 if I could choose, so as to pick up where the 70-200 leaves off.)

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment