*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
Read the Patent: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=lbTIAAAAEBAJ
60mm f/2.8 IS Macro
Read The Patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0251589.html
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
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
63 Comments
Im struggling to see how a 14-24 may be useful, isn’t a 16-35 near enough?
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.
The 70-200mm lens actually reads 72-194mm F:.2.9 in the patent.
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.
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.
Ahhh. That’s why Canon UK have been shifting dozens of 60mm F2.8 macro lenses via their eBay UK outlet store…
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
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… :(
Ouch, my head hurts.
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone know the time frame from when we see patents to when things get released?
PS: A full-frame sensor is a must to make the most of an ultra-wide. Bring on the 3D!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could the 14-24mm F2.8 possibly be an EF-S lens? That makes more sense to me.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
The 1.3x crop factor on the 1D might have something to do with the 17-40mm not seeming wide enough. :)
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.
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
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.
That’s so Canon of late.
Dear Jebus
So, a Mk IV, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200
Next year is going to be EXPENsive.
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.
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
Not surprising. They use computer-aided/computer-driven optimization algorithms and found that those parameters with that design yielded the sharpest results.
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?
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.
This lens has IS. It is probably the EF-S equivalent to the 100mm IS Macro.
The patent is for a 14-18mm F:/4 and a 20-24mm F:/4. Nothing in it about 14-24 F2.8.
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…
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.
well it looks like it continues from the 24-70mm without any overlap. 14mm vs 16mm or 17mm sounds pretty fine to me.
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.
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.
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….
Why canon is not offering distorsion chats they added to the patent document at the internet to the public?
With the border performance of the 17-40 one could argue it was made exactly with the 1D in mind! ;)
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…
Forget about what I said, it’s a 57mm lens.
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.
what kind of filter do you recommend?
I just bought 16-35 II too.
And, it also says its a macro.
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.
Ok, tnx for the answer! ;)
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).
Simple. Just to increase the price. Did you check the price of 100mm macro IS?
14mm isn’t exactly ultrawide on aps-c…
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).
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.
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.
As long as you are dreaming, I would like a 600mm f/5.6 L IS
that is under $3000.
I use the B&W slim filter and haven’t had any problems.
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?
Harry, it’s a lens with 21 elements as I see. Do you have any other ideas about that scheme?