In this patent application (2024-166408), Canon looks to be investigating making some small power zoom kit lenses. Sony popularized this, and it would be interesting to see if Canon follows suit. The patent application intriguingly has both APS-C and full-frame lenses.
If you notice that none of the embodiments have the image height. So if you are curious on how we determined if it was APS-C or full frame, we went by the angle of view which of course is different for each focal length when you compare APS-C and full frame.
Also of interesting note is that these are small power zooms, it’s very likely that Canon will move away from it’s needing of a crazily expensive accessory for power zoom and have it directly in the lens.
Canon RF-S 14-30mm F4-6.3 PZ
In this lens is a very short zoom range APS-C lens that is also really slow. It has an internal zoom and a lens length of around 55mm, so quite compact (you have to subtract the focal plane distance of 20mm from the numbers below). That being said, I can’t see a 2.1x zoom doing well in this focal range.
| Wide Angle | Medium | Telephoto | |
| Focal Length | 14.40 | 20.07 | 29.10 |
| F-Number | 4.10 | 5.05 | 6.40 |
| Half Angle of View | 43.4 | 31.7 | 25.1 |
| Lens Total Length | 75.06 | 75.06 | 75.06 |
| Back Focus Distance | 11.78 | 11.78 | 11.78 |
Canon RF-S 12-30mm F4-6.3 PZ
This is another APS-C lens with a slightly wider focal length of 12mm. While it’s better than the prior embodiment – this would leave me wanting for just a little more on the wide end. But it’s pretty close to the 17-40mm focal that we used to have, so it would certainly some utility.
| Wide Angle | Medium | Telephoto | |
| Focal Length | 12.40 | 18.70 | 29.10 |
| F-Number | 4.10 | 5.13 | 6.40 |
| Half Angle of View | 47.9 | 34.5 | 25.2 |
| Lens Total Length | 82.67 | 82.67 | 82.67 |
| Back Focus Distance | 11.71 | 11.71 | 11.71 |
Canon RF 20-50mm F4-5.6 PZ
This is a lens I could certainly see Canon doing, as a replacement for its Canon RF 24-50mm RF lens f/4-5.6 that already exists. This lens is just a little wider, faster and has power zoom. Sounds like a good Mark II to me.
| Wide Angle | Medium | Telephoto | |
| Focal Length | 20.60 | 31.11 | 48.50 |
| F-Number | 4.10 | 5.20 | 5.88 |
| Half Angle of View | 46.4 | 33.2 | 24.2 |
| Lens Total Length | 106.52 | 106.52 | 106.52 |
| Back Focus Distance | 19.41 | 19.41 | 19.41 |
As with all patent applications, this is a look into Canon’s research and may not end up as an actual product.
Source: Japan Patent Office 2024-166408
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
The FF PZ lenses have a constant aperture so far, I´d hope for the same with APS-C lenses.
Edit: just noticed there’s no IS, really hoping they can squeeze IS in for us R10 and R50 users!
These are about size, they're tiny. A 6cm lens on an M style APS-C body would do quite well.
Nikon really appeals to me with lenses like the NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S !!!
I was thinking of a 400mm F4 DO or a 600mm F4 DO, a high quality lenses... I am not interested in lenses designed for everyone who knows nothing about photography.
Regards.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that many people who are excellent photographers simply cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for a 'great white' supertele lens.
Looking back, I see that you've already stated you would be unable to handhold the current 600/4, and a DO version of that lens would likely be smaller but not significantly lighter. So when Canon gives you what you want, you still can complain about the 600/4 DO. Yay.
The lenses you mentioned above certainly have a correct sharpness, but selling lenses at F11 is making fun of your customers... and only amateurs can be fooled and buy such equipment. At F11 you need a lot of light to take pictures and since wildlife photography requires high shutter speeds this really won't work well.
In my opinion it is better to save a little more and buy a higher end lens than to get ripped off by buying a lens at F11. Canon is really taking its customers for fools and /or cash cows if you prefer this metaphor.
The great whites are very expensive but you can find them second hand at a better price.
The 400mm DO great whites with EF mount is priced between a high-end zoom and a wide-aperture great whites. Used, you can find some very good deals. This is the type of lens that would potentially interest me in RF mount, if possible a 600 F4 DO like the prototype they made just a few years ago in EF mount but which sadly was never marketed...
Unfortunately, telephoto lenses are sold at prohibitive prices... Paradoxically, they would sell in much larger volumes if they were cheaper and not reserved for a "rich" elite, I totally agree. Photography is not "haute couture" or any other luxury item!!! And it is to the manufacturers that I would advise you to address yourself if you are frustrated, they are the ones who make the market and do not care about you...
No, I don’t have one of the f/11 supertele lenses. I do have the RF 100-400, which has been similarly bashed as ‘unusably slow’ but punches well above its weight optically. It’s excellent for travel. For birds, I typically shoot at 840mm f/5.6 (600/4 II + 1.4xIII). I sometimes stop down to f/8 or f/11 for sufficient DoF with larger, closer subjects. Oh, wait…840mm f/11. I guess I don’t know anything about photography, because according to you that’s ‘unusable’.
There are plenty of examples of great images by excellent photographers here using the RF 800/11 or the RF 200-800 that is only 2/3-stop slower at the long end. To state that such lenses are bought by people being fooled by Canon is asinine at best. A good photographer understands the limits and use cases for a piece of gear.
Sometimes that limit is budget (I’m fortunate to not have significant limits, there). Other times, it’s weight. I know a couple of retirees, one of whom was a pro photographer, that used to shoot with Canon or Nikon 600/4 lenses on a DSLR, then switched to Fuji for the lighter system when carrying a 600/4 became impossible. They’ve now switched back to Canon specifically for the RF 800/11 and 200-800 along with a 6-series MILC. The better high ISO performance compared to their old FF DSLRs and the crop Fuji sensors goes a long way to make up for the loss of light, but they needed to lose the light anyway for lenses they could carry.
If you can’t use a lens like the 800/11 or 200-800 to take great pictures, the problem isn’t the gear.
For Australia, they have a longer rebate window
https://www.canon.com.au/products/specials/summer-cash-back-2024
Good pricing for R5ii at the moment post-rebate eg USD3040 + 10%GST (including 5 year warranty).
Especially as I paid USD3800 (+GST) for my pre-ordered R5.
Using an F11 aperture when you have the choice of the aperture to use is one thing. Having a minimum aperture of F11 is another problem, it is extremely handicapping you know it very well!! To listen to you you should sell your 600 F4 for a 600 F11... the equipment does not make the photographer but it contributes very largely, even more so nowadays.
In any case, when we see what Nikon offers with its Z 800mm f/6.3 PF, we can only note that Canon has absolutely nothing to oppose it... apart from the prototype of the EF 600mm F4 DO which was never marketed.
I leave you alone to your thoughts, I will not respond to your reminders any more.
Greetings.
I am not arguing the role of gear. I am simply pointing out that by offering f/11 lenses in 600mm and 800mm focal lengths that cost under $1000, Canon is not fooling or bamboozling customers. You are claiming they are, and also that anyone who buys such a lens knows nothing about photography. Both claims are asinine...and in keeping with that, making them makes you look like an ass.
Sure, we can note that. Only Canon can do something about it. A recently published patent including examples of a 500/5.6 and 600/6.3 suggests they are considering producing such lenses. Time will tell.
In the meantime, Canon offers very expensive and relatively inexpensive supertele primes. We could also note that Nikon has absolutely nothing to oppose Canon's 600/11 and 800/11, and note that Canon continues to dominate the market while Nikon went from a close second to a distant third, which has a logical implication in terms of which company is better at gauging the needs/wants of their user base.
Thanks David. Yeah me being just a peon has to go through a convoluted series of steps to link comments. So i get lazy and dont' do it as much as I should.