Canon files thousands of patent applications per year, they have been in the top ten companies in terms of that for over four decades. They release <10 lenses per year. So very unlikely to be a ‘distraction’, as you suggest.
I wouldn’t like to say, but what I can say is that the optical performance of the RF 28/2.8 is really quite impressive, with superb clarity. So called ‘micro contrast’ doesn’t seem to suffer from the resin elements, there’s not a lot not to like.
Sigh. Because physics. Wide and standard lens designs are limited by the image circle diameter, telephoto designs are not. There is no point in a telephoto lens ‘for crop cameras’ since such a lens would work fine on FF. That’s why there are no such lenses.
On the schematic of the 24-45, the transmission path of the edge rays do not go through the entire width of the central elements. Is this the constraint of the image circle at the focus plane?
Well, I'm not the author of that comment but come on: Each of us has HIS preferred lenses (and of course Canon knows best which lenses will give them the most profit). And we are most interested to get the lenses we are dreaming of. Me too!
The ray diagram is going to 'stop' at the edges of the diagrammatic 'sensor' by convention, even though that's technically the image plane and is thus a 2D surface.
Of course...we can all wish for lenses and hope that Canon makes them. But there's a significant difference between hoping for a lens and claiming that Canon not making the lens one hopes for will have negative consequences for their business. The former is quite reasonable, the latter (which is what @swingman did) is asinine.Well, I'm not the author of that comment but come on: Each of us has HIS preferred lenses (and of course Canon knows best which lenses will give them the most profit). And we are most interested to get the lenses we are dreaming of. Me too!
