Canon 18-45 f/3.5-5.6 Kit Lens for APS-C Mirrorless Patent

[lol]

Angle of view is generally specified for the diagonal...not in halves.

And a rear of the lens element sitting 1/2 millimeter from the sensor? just imagine the manufacturing tolerances that would be needed to prevent the lens from hitting the sensor...

Sorry, folks are still grasping at straws....wanting their desires to come true! There's nothing wrong with that, but I am still calling this lens posting as bogus...

Patent speak is a language of its own, combine that with this probably being in lens designer speak, they may express things differently than photographers expect. Using half of the angle of view would be comparable to MTF charts which show performance with distance from the centre. That it is doing the same in the other direction is redundant. I don't know if there is precedent of this in other patents though, so that might be one to check if anyone has time.

The (lack of) back focus distance may be a bit different for an interchangeable lens system, but could it also be a fixed lens in a G1 X like camera?

[maxxevv]

Ok, managed to find the patent file for the Panasonic 45-190mm for m4/3.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2011-05-14

Its shortest back-focus is ~22mm. And its flange distance is 20mm.

The Olympus 10mm  f/2.8  back focus is ~15mm

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2011-10-21

I doubt Canon will have a flange distance of less than 10~15mm for practical reasons. But a back focus of 0.5mm seems like a serious attempt at bringing the lens as close as possible to the sensor so as to reduce the size of the lens glass.  If its indeed so, I think we'll see really small (comparatively) lenses for this class of mirrorless lenses that Canon is working on !

Exciting times indeed ! 

[Rocky]

I doubt Canon will have a flange distance of less than 10~15mm for practical reasons. But a back focus of 0.5mm seems like a serious attempt at bringing the lens as close as possible to the sensor so as to reduce the size of the lens glass.  If its indeed so, I think we'll see really small (comparatively) lenses for this class of mirrorless lenses that Canon is working on !

Exciting times indeed ! 

just the opposite. The back element of the lens will be BIGGER than the sensor for the 0.5mm back focus to work. You are right about the lens will be pushed way into the camera body to reduce the total volume of the lens and camera. In fact, this particular lens is a very interesting and the only lens that I know have 0.5 mm back focus.

[dr croubie]

I doubt Canon will have a flange distance of less than 10~15mm for practical reasons. But a back focus of 0.5mm seems like a serious attempt at bringing the lens as close as possible to the sensor so as to reduce the size of the lens glass.  If its indeed so, I think we'll see really small (comparatively) lenses for this class of mirrorless lenses that Canon is working on !

Exciting times indeed ! 

just the opposite. The back element of the lens will be BIGGER than the sensor for the 0.5mm back focus to work. You are right about the lens will be pushed way into the camera body to reduce the total volume of the lens and camera. In fact, this particular lens is a very interesting and the only lens that I know have 0.5 mm back focus.

The rear element of my EFs 15-85 is only 10-15mm or so. I've got a FF wide-angle prime where the rear element is only 10mm wide. That works because the light rays have about 40-50mm to travel and diverge back out so that it hits the sensor.
Having a back focus of 0.5mm, you're right, the lens would pretty much have to be the exact size of the image circle. That's a 42mm diameter rear-element for a FF sensor, or 29mm for APS-C. The throat diameter of this lens mount is going to be as big, if not bigger than, EF (if it's an FF system eventually), even if the 'flange' is up to 10, 15, 20mm away...

[Rocky]

I doubt Canon will have a flange distance of less than 10~15mm for practical reasons. But a back focus of 0.5mm seems like a serious attempt at bringing the lens as close as possible to the sensor so as to reduce the size of the lens glass.  If its indeed so, I think we'll see really small (comparatively) lenses for this class of mirrorless lenses that Canon is working on !

Exciting times indeed ! 

just the opposite. The back element of the lens will be BIGGER than the sensor for the 0.5mm back focus to work. You are right about the lens will be pushed way into the camera body to reduce the total volume of the lens and camera. In fact, this particular lens is a very interesting and the only lens that I know have 0.5 mm back focus.

The rear element of my EFs 15-85 is only 10-15mm or so. I've got a FF wide-angle prime where the rear element is only 10mm wide. That works because the light rays have about 40-50mm to travel and diverge back out so that it hits the sensor.
Having a back focus of 0.5mm, you're right, the lens would pretty much have to be the exact size of the image circle. That's a 42mm diameter rear-element for a FF sensor, or 29mm for APS-C. The throat diameter of this lens mount is going to be as big, if not bigger than, EF (if it's an FF system eventually), even if the 'flange' is up to 10, 15, 20mm away...

The "throat diameter" of EF mount is about 45mm. Therefore there is more than enough room for the large rear element. In fact, Canon will make the mount larger than EF such that an EF adapter can be used .

[jpustin]

if they bring out a digital canonet I will seriously sell everything I have to get my hands on that piece of genius.

[moreorless]

Does a short back focus distance merely reduce the size of the lens infront of the flange by the same amount or is there an extra benefit in lens size/IQ aswell?

Either way kit lens size does seem like its going to become one of the key battlegrounds for mirrorless, if Canon can bring a smaller one to the party along with the other innovations rivals have come up with then holding off release may proove to be a smart move. Collapsible zooms are one way to reduce size but only when the camera isnt in use and you lose the ability to manually zoom.

The problem with FF mirrorless is I'd guess that FF users are going to demand a much larger range of lenses, look at the problems Sony had with there FF DSLR in that reguard. With an ASPC mirrorless you really only need a normal zoom and a pancake prime to keep 95% of the market happy.

[ecka]

...
The problem with FF mirrorless is I'd guess that FF users are going to demand a much larger range of lenses, look at the problems Sony had with there FF DSLR in that reguard. With an ASPC mirrorless you really only need a normal zoom and a pancake prime to keep 95% of the market happy.

There would be no problem with FF mirrorless if they'd make an OEM adapter for EF lenses and even FD/FL. + I'm sure that someone would produce Leica M adapters for such system.

[briansquibb]

if they bring out a digital canonet I will seriously sell everything I have to get my hands on that piece of genius.

A Canonet D - the replacement for the G series

[moreorless]

...
The problem with FF mirrorless is I'd guess that FF users are going to demand a much larger range of lenses, look at the problems Sony had with there FF DSLR in that reguard. With an ASPC mirrorless you really only need a normal zoom and a pancake prime to keep 95% of the market happy.

There would be no problem with FF mirrorless if they'd make an OEM adapter for EF lenses and even FD/FL. + I'm sure that someone would produce Leica M adapters for such system.

EF lenses are not going to provide the size savings people expect from wide/normal lenses though and would make them even longer, useful for macro/long tele/TSE perhaps but not the basis of a system.

Added to that are large appature AF zooms ever going to be compact enough to balance a mirrorless system? without them your dealing with a very different market, one that only currently exists in the very small/prenium M9.

Not saying such a market doesnt potentially exist but its clearly much more risky than mirrorless ASPC

[ecka]

...
The problem with FF mirrorless is I'd guess that FF users are going to demand a much larger range of lenses, look at the problems Sony had with there FF DSLR in that reguard. With an ASPC mirrorless you really only need a normal zoom and a pancake prime to keep 95% of the market happy.

There would be no problem with FF mirrorless if they'd make an OEM adapter for EF lenses and even FD/FL. + I'm sure that someone would produce Leica M adapters for such system.

EF lenses are not going to provide the size savings people expect from wide/normal lenses though and would make them even longer, useful for macro/long tele/TSE perhaps but not the basis of a system.

Added to that are large appature AF zooms ever going to be compact enough to balance a mirrorless system? without them your dealing with a very different market, one that only currently exists in the very small/prenium M9.

Not saying such a market doesnt potentially exist but its clearly much more risky than mirrorless ASPC

... and here we go again . Don't you think that full frame mirrorless doesn't have to be a small camera? I mean, why should it be? "Compact large aperture AF zooms" ... why would you need such lens for a mirrorless camera? It makes no sense. Just buy a DSLR if you want it all balanced.

[moreorless]

... and here we go again . Don't you think that full frame mirrorless doesn't have to be a small camera? I mean, why should it be? "Compact large aperture AF zooms" ...

Size reduction has thus far been the key selling point of all mirrorless systems, it doesnt mean the camera needs to be tiny like the NEX but I'd guessing most potential users wouldnt want something much larger than an M9.

why would you need such lens for a mirrorless camera?

For exactly the same reasons you'd want one on a DSLR.

It makes no sense. Just buy a DSLR if you want it all balanced.

..and if the the vast majority of users do deside they want that balance and get a DSLR instead such a mirrorless system is not going to be very sucessful is it?

I'm just pointing out that a FF mirrorless is a much riskier move than an ASPC one because it would be unable to target an existing large market with a smaller system. The majority of ASPC users are happy with an already small kit zoom  lens and maybe a small fast prime and/or a slowish tele zoom. FF users on the other hand have gotten used to many larger lenses that are going to be more difficult to balance with a smaller mirrorless system.

[ecka]

... and here we go again . Don't you think that full frame mirrorless doesn't have to be a small camera? I mean, why should it be? "Compact large aperture AF zooms" ...

Size reduction has thus far been the key selling point of all mirrorless systems, it doesnt mean the camera needs to be tiny like the NEX but I'd guessing most potential users wouldnt want something much larger than an M9.

Yes, M9 is big enough, but I would like a better grip.

why would you need such lens for a mirrorless camera?

For exactly the same reasons you'd want one on a DSLR.

Is there any non-FF mirrorless system which has such lens to offer?

It makes no sense. Just buy a DSLR if you want it all balanced.

..and if the the vast majority of users do deside they want that balance and get a DSLR instead such a mirrorless system is not going to be very sucessful is it?

I'm just pointing out that a FF mirrorless is a much riskier move than an ASPC one because it would be unable to target an existing large market with a smaller system. The majority of ASPC users are happy with an already small kit zoom  lens and maybe a small fast prime and/or a slowish tele zoom. FF users on the other hand have gotten used to many larger lenses that are going to be more difficult to balance with a smaller mirrorless system.

and the vast majority of users are using crop DSLRs for telephoto because getting the same reach with FF camera would be too big, too heavy, too expensive.
You are right, FF mirrorless is not for everybody, just like any FF DSLR. However, I think that it would be very successful.

[Rocky]

Added to that are large appature AF zooms ever going to be compact enough to balance a mirrorless system? without them your dealing with a very different market, one that only currently exists in the very small/prenium M9.

Not saying such a market doesnt potentially exist but its clearly much more risky than mirrorless ASPC

" Large aperture", "Zoom" "Compact", "AF"  are mutually exclusive.  It is just physically impossible to make it even for APS-C,  let alone FF.
M9 is not very small 5.5" in length  while the T3i is 5.2" in length.
There is actually an optional grip available for M9, that will make the size even larger.