October 22, 2014, 10:11:51 AM

Author Topic: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others  (Read 5371 times)

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2014, 11:46:07 AM »
Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?
Cost alone is the reason a lot of people go for the 17-40 vs the 16-35 right now; unless you really need the f/2.8, then it isnt worth the extra money. I'd say size and weight are lower priorities, though they certainly add up for landscapers who take long hikes, etc.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2014, 11:46:07 AM »

LuCoOc

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2014, 12:09:06 PM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

How about this source of imagination:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=538

7D - BG
3 Ls - 1 EF - 2 EF-s - 2 M42s
430EX II - YN560-III

jhanken

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2014, 12:26:54 PM »
When did anyone last see a patent for a large aperture lens from Canon?  This is more of an issue with primes, but the idea that they are looking at a 16-35MM F/4 is odd but fits with the trend we have seen in smaller aperture primes.

I am not big on conspiracy theories, but it makes sense that Canon is pursuing smaller apertures and throwing in gew-gaws like IS on wide angle lenses because the real cost is in the glass, and Canon needs to boost margins where they can, given the crazy collapse that seems to be occurring in the photo equipment market.

Interesting that Sigma is going in the opposite direction and pushing the envelope on lens development.

And yes, I did notice that not all of the patents listed represented a shrinking of aperture.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 12:28:52 PM by jhanken »
5DIII, 60D, 24-105mm f/4 L, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4A, Jupiter-9 85mm f/2

endiendo

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
    • personal web
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2014, 12:58:19 PM »
I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.
photo amateur since 2004.
Canon 5d mark iii, canon 24-105 f4 L, canon 100 mm f2.8 macro L, canon 17-40 f4 L, sigma 120-300 f2.8 dg os hsm

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2014, 01:05:25 PM »
I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.
So the big question then is? How much sharp 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4 are at the corners at say f/8?
Also, 2.8 is useful for astrophotography. But then the lenses must be coma free and both Canon ultra wide angle zoom lenses have plenty...

rs

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 665
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2014, 01:08:57 PM »
But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.
Events (plus of course other examples like astrophotography mentioned above). Sometimes you need a wider angle of view than 24mm, and sometimes light levels are too for the subject movement, and flashes aren't always appropriate. While bodies are getting better and better at high ISO's, adding a whole stop of light gathering with the lens is quite attractive.

Yes, landscape, architecture and many other uses for an ultrawide rectilinear lens don't go hand in hand with a fast aperture, but just because it isn't for you doesn't mean not for anyone.
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

BL

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2014, 01:27:13 PM »
It's a shame these patents don't offer IS...

How long will Canon's 11-22mm M zoom be it's only UWA zoom offering with IS?
M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2014, 01:27:13 PM »

docsmith

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2014, 01:39:10 PM »
But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

As has been pointed out, astrophotography, and events, in particular, think of a wedding inside a church.  Wide angles are often used to get the entire "scene," even indoors.  But, understandably so, many often only associate these lenses with UWA, but f/2.8 at 24-35 mm can be very beneficial.  These are not exclusively landscape lenses. 

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2014, 02:14:41 PM »
No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.
Actually if any of these turn out to have really well controlled distortion with excellent corners I would probably like to have one, the Sigma 18-35 works but to have something made for full frame would be a big improvement on architecture shots.
-100% RAW-

MichaelHodges

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2014, 02:40:08 PM »
I'm a huge fan of the 17-40L.  Mine had to go into Canon twice, though, and they still couldn't get it right. Luckily, micro adjust saved the day.

I've always been thrilled with the colors from this lens, even compared to other L's. I have no actual hard data to verify why I feel this way, but I do. It's especially pleasing with a good CP.

For me to upgrade, I'd need to see a 16-40 IS, or a 12-24 2.8.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 02:47:07 PM by MichaelHodges »

BL

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Great gear is good. Good technique is better.
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2014, 02:41:44 PM »
No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.

Are you being serious?  Any idea how expensive or cumbersome said lens would be?
M, 5Dc, 1Dx, some lenses, a few lights

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2014, 03:19:42 PM »

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.



I'd like my 8-15L f4 to be a 2.8.  iso 3200 vs. 6400.  Big difference.
| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100/2.8 | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2014, 03:20:12 PM »
I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.

Group Shots or wide social shots, especially for wedding work

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2014, 03:20:12 PM »

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

MichaelHodges

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 368
    • View Profile
Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2014, 03:45:53 PM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

Not everyone wants to hike with a tripod. I do a lot of forest hikes where I go minimalistic on the equipment. Forest environments were tailored for UWA lenses. Having IS would be great.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2014, 03:45:53 PM »