Canon Lens Patents Review *UPDATED*
*UPDATE*
I updated some confusing English on my part. :)
Patents, Patents, Patents!
We have 3 confirmed lens patents from Canon. I am not a pro at reading and understanding patents 100%. If a focal length or other information shows the below isn’t true, please let me know.
14-24 f/2.8L
Canon 14-24 f/2.8L Patent Diagram
Read the Patent: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=lbTIAAAAEBAJ
60mm f/2.8 IS Macro
EF-S(?) 60 f/2.8 IS Macro
Read The Patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0251589.html
70-200 f/2.8L IS II
70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Read The Patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0296231.html
CR’s Take
That’s all that seems to be out there right now. I’ve reported on facebook before that there would be a new lens coming that isn’t a replacement to anything currently in the lineup. I’m going to assume that will be the 14-24.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and please don’t take it as fact. There’s an obvious lens that would complete the trifecta of new zooms.
EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS II
Still searching for a patent. It would be nice to see all 3 launched at once. Canon’s recent history seems to show they max out at launching 2 L’s at a time. Correct me if I’m wrong.
2010 may be a good year for Canon zoom fans.
cr
December 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Im struggling to see how a 14-24 may be useful, isn’t a 16-35 near enough?
Reply
Sebastian Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Well, the 4/17-40 sure isn’t “short” enough for my 1D, so I’d really enjoy a 2.8/14-24. However, since the 2.8/16-35 II is “only” roughly as good as the 4/17-40 in respect to IQ, I’m afraid that a 14-24 would also not be the ultimate lens when it comes to sharpness and so on.
Reply
Craig Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The 1.3x crop factor on the 1D might have something to do with the 17-40mm not seeming wide enough. :)
Reply
Sebastian Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
You don’t say… ;-)
But since I’m probably not the only one owning a 1D body, also other people might experience the need of a shorter wide angle lens – which answers Martyn’s question why one would need such an extreme focal length.
Reply
Lawliet Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 8:42 am
With the border performance of the 17-40 one could argue it was made exactly with the 1D in mind! ;)
Reply
Blake Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
This may sound slightly crazy, but give the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 a try on your 1D. I’ve got a friend with a 1DIIn and he borrowed it for a while & was very happy with it.
It may be an APS-C image circle at 11mm, but it’s still a normal EF mount and works just fine without significant vignetting at 16mm on my film EOS 1n. On your APS-H camera you should be able to go down to at least 14mm without more than a stop or so of light loss in the corners.
It could serve you as a sub-$600 14mm f/2.8. Stop it down to f/4 and it shines.
Reply
Glass Man Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
There is a considerable difference between 14 and 16mm. 14mm takes you into a zone that is almost surreal, and if you do your job right (get close) the results can be stunning. With Canon’s new generation of L glass, I don’t think sharpness will be a concern.
Crossing my fingers the rumors are true that a fast zoom in the mid range is also in the works, a 50-150 f2 IS and this new 14-24 f2.8L would be a very sweet combo.
Reply
Glass Man Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
PS: A full-frame sensor is a must to make the most of an ultra-wide. Bring on the 3D!
Reply
Justin Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
This is true. But there are good full frame options right now. Used 1Ds and if you don’t need blazing AF and FPS, then 5D2 is excellent.
Reply
J-Man Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:04 am
I agree, 16-35LII seems to be the last of the old generation, I think the 14-24 will be as good as the 16-35LII if not better. I may actually have a reason to upgrade mine.
I think we are at the begining of a wave of some amazing glass.
Reply
icelava Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
well it looks like it continues from the 24-70mm without any overlap. 14mm vs 16mm or 17mm sounds pretty fine to me.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The 70-200mm lens actually reads 72-194mm F:.2.9 in the patent.
Reply
Scott Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
That’s so Canon of late.
Reply
frankchn Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Not surprising. They use computer-aided/computer-driven optimization algorithms and found that those parameters with that design yielded the sharpest results.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I had a short look at the patent and couldn’t find any infos about the focal length. If I’m right this lens could also be a 12-24 f4. This would open a very interesting view-angle (90°+) to the 1D-using Photojournalists around – and would fit into the range. So, correct me if I’m wrong.
Reply
YellowAlien Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I enjoy using the sigma 12-24 on my 5D. It is well corrected for distortion, only waek point is chromatic aberration.
If this new Canon lens is indeed a 12-24 f/4, I really hope it is as sharp and well corrected as the Sigma, but lacks the chromatic aberrations of the Sigma.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
For the wide angle lens, they publish data as follows, (as best I can determine).
Numerical Example 1, pg14 —- a 14mm F:/2.9 prime lens
Numerical Example 2, pg 15 — a 17mm F:/4.2 prime lens
Numerical Example 3, pg 16 — a 14mm-18mm F:/4 zoom lens
Numerical Example 4, pg 18 — a 20-24mm F:/4 zoom lens
This may be the short zoom lens rumored, but it is definitely not F2.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Ahhh. That’s why Canon UK have been shifting dozens of 60mm F2.8 macro lenses via their eBay UK outlet store…
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
For the 60mm Macro IS lens, there are 7 numerical examples. i did not dig out if all of these are EF-S, or if some are EF examples.
1. 57.6 mm F:/2.8
2. 57.7 mm F:/2.8
3. 61.3 mm F:/2.9
4. 65.0 mm F:/2.9
5. 55.0 mm F:/2.9
6. 63.0 mm F:/2.9
7. 58.9 mm F:/2.9
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Why this site has to be filled with tons of fake e-shop’s advertising? The last one is selling a Canon 7D at about 550 euros… :(
Reply
Canon Rumors Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I try to stop them.. it’s a never ending battle. I don’t see regional ads so I cannot remove them. The site is served by Google. Please use common sense when seeing ads like that.
Reply
Andrea Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Ok, tnx for the answer! ;)
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Ouch, my head hurts.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Is it possible for them to make a UWA without the bulbous protruding front lense element? I really want to be able to add a protective UV filter on the front, and having the bug-eyed lens front really isn’t helping. Also, I don’t like using gel-filters either.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Does anyone know the time frame from when we see patents to when things get released?
Reply
Scalesusa Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Only a tiny fraction of the patents ever become a released product. Sometimes it takes years, sometimes a month or two. So the folks who review patents have selected just those that appear to have a higher than normal chance of actually happening, however, don’t count on it.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
[quote]“There’s an obvious lens missing here to complete the trilogy Nikon users have been enjoying…
EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS II[/quote]
Minor quibble, the Nikon 24-70 doesn’t have VR, so if ever Canon releases a 24-70 Mk.II w/ IS, that would be a first for this range and a clear advantage over the Nikon version.
Reply
max Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
i think that quote was for the 14-24… but that might be me.
The only lens i would want released is a 24 70 f/2.8 IS
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Choosing between the 70-200 2.8IS II and a 14-24 will be a chore. A FUN chore, but a chore no less. I guess for me the 70-200 would get more use, but the 14-24 would be totally new, and if it can match or exceed the Nikon equivalent, then Canon will have a real winner, and potential game changer for wide angle Canon photography. It would be really great if Canon can make a 14 mm lens without a protruding and bulbous front element so we could get a filter on there.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Why would they update the EF-S 60mm macro. Doesn’t seem like a very popular lens to begin with. Or is that the point?
I’d much rather see some normal prime EF-S lenses.
Reply
Craig Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Maybe this one isn’t EF-S? Could be they’re thinking of this as a replacement for the EF 50mm f/2.5 macro.
Reply
neuroanatomist Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 6:10 am
It does appear to be an EF lens, not EF-S. I’m basing that on the scale diagram – the rear elements of the lens appear to be similarly far from the image plane (IP) as the other patent diagrams. That would mean this lens does not have a short back focus and is not an EF-S lens.
Reply
Scalesusa Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
This lens has IS. It is probably the EF-S equivalent to the 100mm IS Macro.
Reply
Mark Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Simple. Just to increase the price. Did you check the price of 100mm macro IS?
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Could the 14-24mm F2.8 possibly be an EF-S lens? That makes more sense to me.
Reply
Justin Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Why would that make more sense to you? There is a 10-22 already. Also a 15-85. These of course aren’t fixed aperture lenses, but still, the 14mm or close range is pretty well covered in the ef-s mount.
Reply
Andrew Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
NO! That would not be a good idea! Nikon users would just have a blast laughing at Canon users then.
My wife uses the 14-24 on a D700 and it is AMAZING.
Reply
Craig Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Canon already has an EF-S 10-22mm, and there are competing APS-C lenses from Tokina at 11-16mm f/2.8 and 12-24mm f/4, and Canon just recently released the EF-S 15-85mm zoom as well. 14-24mm doesn’t make sense to me against all that.
As a full-frame lens it makes sense. 14mm is significantly wider than 16-35mm, and it’s equal to Canon’s widest EF prime (the 14mm). Ending at 24mm means it meets up to the 24-70mm without any overlap.
Reply
Scalesusa Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
The patent is for a 14-18mm F:/4 and a 20-24mm F:/4. Nothing in it about 14-24 F2.8.
Reply
Mark Daams Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Well, since the Tokina f2.8 lens seems to be so popular I thought a wide angle Canon f2.8 EF-S lens would make sense. But, I forgot about the new EF-S 15-85, the f3.5 on it’s short end is pretty close to f2.8.
Reply
Blake Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
14mm isn’t exactly ultrawide on aps-c…
Reply
Glass Man Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
No way it will be an EF-S – this baby will be sporting a red stripe and along the same lines as Nikon’s, with the built-in bikini hood and crystal ball element. It’s going to be awesome.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
ok so all this taken in to account – wont all these new versions of existing L lenses be way more expensive anyway for a small gain..
say i can get a second hand 70-200 2.8 IS now for 900UKP would it be worth waiting for a ISII – its likely be double that?
also the 24-70 2.8L IS wont it be loads more than the cost of the existing model?
Reply
Justin Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Depends on what you value. I personally have a hard time justifying a $1800US lens that isn’t very sharp at 2.8. Plus it’s heavy. I’d rather use the f/4IS and when I can’t I rely on a fast prime. But if Canon improves the IS, makes it sharp, particularly in the corners at 2.8, makes it resolve at at least the levels of the f/4 IS and keeps flare low I think they will have a winner. It will depend on the difference in msrp, but I think many people will happily pay more for a superior product.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I’m looking for:
12-24 2.8 if you use 1.3 crop (12×1.3=16mm FF)But I doubt will make it.
14-24 2.8 most likely
24-70 2.8 IS I would buy this
100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II (Canon should make the new version faster than the old maybe 3.8-4.5)
200-400 4.0 ya bigger and more expensive but needed
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Dear Jebus
So, a Mk IV, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200
Next year is going to be EXPENsive.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
What about a 400mm or 500mm f/5.6 L IS ?
What about a 400mm f/2.8 L IS mk II @ 4kg (similar to the 800mm f/5.6) ?
I’ll keep on dreaming
Reply
caps18 Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 10:01 am
As long as you are dreaming, I would like a 600mm f/5.6 L IS
that is under $3000.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
In patent 7589905 (first patent) – Fig 3 and Fig 4 shows a lens with a 65.26mm image circle – which is much more than needed for a typical FF lens. Cross-referencing the data given in Numerical Example 2, we can see that the lens shown is a 17mm f/4 design. This might be a variant of the 17mm f/4L TSE lens design which is not used in the end.
Figure 8 and 9 in the same patent shows a zoom lens with an 58.4mm image circle with 20mm-24mm zoom range in f/4 to f/4.5. So this could be a TS-E zoom lens?
For patent application 20090251589, the lens described seems to be a full-frame lens of 60mm f/2.8, so probably a EF 60mm f/2.8 Macro?
Reply
Patentreader Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 5:45 am
YOU GOT THE POINT!
For me this patent shows the already available 2.8/14 and the TS-E 17mm. Small variants are always possible, because the exact definition of a lens is not necessary. Canon can use small changes to the patent figures! Also this patent was filed last year (with additional older referneces), but only published now.
The 2 zoom lenses are related to a 4-4.8/14-18 and a 4-4.8/20-24, but the second features a big image circle, so possibly a TS-E Zoom! But these figures must not be the end product, they are descritpions. Changes are possible.
But this inforamtions are interesting for the future….
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
i just got my 2nd 16-35 II .. at least useable with filters and overall sharp at f/11
the 14-24 and 24-70 is are lenses i want too :/
next year will be expensive…
Reply
Min Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
what kind of filter do you recommend?
I just bought 16-35 II too.
Reply
caps18 Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I use the B&W slim filter and haven’t had any problems.
Reply
December 6th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Well, together with their recent surge in market share against Nikon, it appears Canon may dominate the DSLR scene once again. I only want to get the Canon 100 HIS macro + Tokina 10-17 fisheye lenses. Then, I will be done with my gear purchase.
Reply
December 7th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Why canon is not offering distorsion chats they added to the patent document at the internet to the public?
Reply
December 7th, 2009 at 9:35 am
It can’t be a 60mm Macro. The diagram shows a retrofocus design, so it will be a wide angle lens with floating element. Could be a 35mm Macro instead…
Reply
December 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Forget about what I said, it’s a 57mm lens.
Reply
Scalesusa Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
And, it also says its a macro.
Reply
December 7th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Does anyone know if there’s a typical amount of time in between a patent filing and product release for Canon’s lenses?
I admit…I’m just hungry for some rumors (and am a bit disappointed that there wasn’t a filing for a 24-70 IS).
Reply
December 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I can certainly see the flexibility & convenience of an ultrawide FF zoom being nice (I have one for APS-C), but how many people really use the long end & prefer the extra reach vs. the extra size, weight, & cost? The 14mm f/2.8L II is a mighty fine optic, and I’ve always got my 24-105L with me anyway, as I imagine most folks would (or a 24-70L).
Reply
December 8th, 2009 at 3:12 am
The Nikkor AF-S 14-24 2,8G ED is one of the best lenses on the market – without any real competitor. It is really superb. Canon should not waist any more time to loose market share on lenses like this.
Another perfect lens is the AF-S 200-400 4G ED VR. There again is no adequate Canon alternative, the EF 100-400 4,5-5,6L can´t hold a candle against the Nikkor.
The rest of the premier lineup is more or less the equivalent like the 24-70 and the 70-200. But with those two lenses mentioned above Canon really has to fill a gap. I´m considering to make the move to Nikon. Not only because of the lenses, but also because of the cameras. The EOS 5D II has a poor AF, the 1D IV is not a full format, also the 7D which is a fine camera by the way and the 1Ds IV will be very expensive… Nikon will redo their D700 soon and then there will be no real competitor from Canon. They´ll have to bring out a 3D.
Reply
December 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
These are patents!
They refer to zoom lenses!
Could be any one!
How did you come to the conclusions about the 70-200 for example!!! Where is it mentioned?
Reply
Yury Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 6:05 am
Harry, it’s a lens with 21 elements as I see. Do you have any other ideas about that scheme?
Reply