It would seem that traditionally john of patmos and the apostle john were thought of to be the same person. But more recently that they are probably not.
Beale in his short commentary on revelation says it was most likely john the apostle due to the authors authority in the church and that it was highly unlikely that any other could john could have written it.
However Leonard Thompson in his book of revelation commentary states that early thinkers such as Dionysus of Alexandria states that it cannot be john the apostle due to his stylistic and linguistic changes compared to the gospel.
Essentially what im asking is if there is any kind of consensus about the authorship of the book of revelations
No, there's no consensus, but the theories are much less complicated than for other New Testament books. They boil down to perhaps 4:
View 4 is popular for some other biblical texts, but not widely held for Revelation. Beckwith's classic 1919 The Apocalypse of John surveys compositional views of the 19th and early 20th century. A more recent advocate of a compositional view would be someone like J. Massyngberde Ford who sees it as a product of a circle of followers originally associated with John the Baptist.
View 3, that the work is pseudonymous, runs into all the usual arguments over pseudepigraphical writings. It's argued against by another classic commentary, R.H. Charles The Revelation of St. John (1920). There are good grounds for continuing to reject pseudonymity - unlike other apocalypses, the author claims no ancient figure to give authority to their text, indeed they simply self-identify as "John". Calling oneself "John" if, say, one's name was actually "James", doesn't serve any purpose. You'd expect a pseudonymous text to identify himself at least as John the Apostle or some other authoritative figure.
In essence, view 3 is problematic because it doesn't tell you anything. If someone unknown whose name isn't John writes a book under the name "John", this differs very little from some unknown person whose name is John.
That brings us back to 1 and 2. It's important to remember that the text doesn't identify the author as John the Apostle. And, it's important to recognise two other factors - (1) the author of the fourth gospel never self-identifies as John the Apostle either, and (2) even if you decided that John the Apostle wrote Revelation, that doesn't necessitate that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John either.
A typical contender for another John, at least a known 'John', is 'John the Elder', mentioned by Papias in a fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39. But it's not even certain that Papias was trying to distinguish between two Johns. In effect, attributing it to John the Elder is based on a very thin slice of data.
Thompson is quite write that as early as Dionysius of Alexandria in the mid-3rd century there were questions about the style. Revelation's Greek is quite different from the Gospel of John, and in itself it's very odd (and the subject of its own set of debates - was the author a second-language speaker, does he make grammatical errors on purpose, etc.). That said, Dionysius was also trying to demote the book because it was being used by his theological opponents in the local area. Anyway, everyone recognises that stylistically there are significant differences between Revelation and GJohn, though there are other aspects of similarity (the Exodus-Moses motif, christological titles and patterns, and certain vocabulary items prominent in both books).
Who wrote it? We don't know and there's no consensus. The majority of scholars, I'd say, settle into a position that is "someone named John", which is what the text of the book tells you anyway.
I recommend that you ask this question on /r/AcademicBiblical, where you will get a good intro to the (rather uncertain) modern theories on its authorship and dating. It's a bit on the basic intro side, but they tend to welcome those kinds of questions.
It would seem that traditionally john of patmos and the apostle john were thought of to be the same person. But more recently that they are probably not.
I just wanted to chime in to say that, while it is traditional to identify John of Patmos and the Apostle John, it would be a mistake to say that it's a modern thing to doubt this identification.
Indeed, during the first centuries the identity of the two authors was seriously disputed. Part of this dispute is that several early Christians (before the solidification of the canon) didn't think that the Apocalypse was an inspired text - and these Christians obviously, believing the text to be apocryphal, had no issue in pronouncing the author to be either an impostor, or a name whose name happened to be John by pure coincidence.
There's examples found, and I'll mention two that come from Eusebius' Church History.
In the first, he's relating the writings of Dyonisus of Alexandria, a Bishop-Pope of Alexandria, Book 7 chapter 25.
"Some before us have set aside and rejected the book [of Revelation] altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a vail of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. [...] But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem.
At this point Dyonisus analyses the Apocalypse, to conclude that:
Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written. For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle. [...] Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. [...] I do not deny that [the writer of the Apocalypse] saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. "
Whether you accept Dyonisus' method and conclusion or not (it's worth reading if you are interested.), this letter documents two sort of ancient attitudes on the Apocalypse: those who thought it was an entire fraud (whom Dyonisus disagrees with) and those who accept the text as holy, but don't accept John as the author (Dyonisus himself).
In the second example, Eusebius is relating the words of Papias. In his writings, Papias mentions two different Johns - the apostle, and "Presbyter John" (John the Elder). Eusebius picks on that and says:
It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. [...] This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.
In a rather convoluted way, Eusebius relates the two Johns in Papias to two tombs in Ephesus (which were also discussed by Dyonisus, and it is no coincidence), and that while the first John is the evangelist, the second John is the presbyter: and that one might "not be willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Apocalypse".
So, anyway, there has been controversy about the book of the Apocalypse... basically ever since the Apocalypse was written. It was a minoritarian view, but there were Church fathers who weren't at all convinced by the argument that Apocalypse John and Gospel John were the same.