Patent: Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, yes…. f/1.4

[mirage]

Just to be clear - I'd like to see an RF 16-35mm f/2.8 before either an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L or an RF 12-20mm f/2L (I expect both to be too expensive for me) too, but it didn't sound like what you were saying.

sorry if my writing was not clear. Exactly same opinion as you!
And yes, it is "a patent only" right now. No problem with Canon patenting all sorts of stuff. As long as they MAKE and SELL the very products I am interested in.

 

[mirage]

To my knowledge, no other company makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS which is either
* Smaller/lighter than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8
* Has higher IQ than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8 (IIRC, I've read repeated complaints to the reverse)
* significantly less expensive than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8

So I disagree such a lens would be ordinary.

Yes. I agree. That's why i would call an RF 24-70/2.8 IS with one or more of the above properties "innovative". If it lacks any of those features, I would have called it "ordinary".

 

[privatebydesign]

I think Canon does not make lenses it expects to lose money on, so "art for art's sake" is off the menu.

I'm not saying profit is Canon's only consideration, nor that Canon makes a profit on every lens it makes. I'm saying Canon would not make a lens expecting to lose money on it.

No that isn't true, they made the 50 f1.0L, and the 200 f1.8L and didn't expect to make the money back, some would argue they will never sell enough TS-E 17's to recoup the investment in making them, but, the promotional value of those lenses is what makes them worth making.

Systems require a system, back in the day Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax all vied for the most complete macro systems as that was where the interest was, now macro seems to have wained somewhat but Canon rule with the MP-E6; Canon also stand head and shoulders above everybody for tilt and shift lenses. Most people will never use these lenses at the extremes of the system, some have to buy a body based on them, but several of those lenses will never turn in a profit for Canon.

 

[nchoh]

That's exactly my thoughts also.

Imagine that there are people out there which find the EOS R interesting and would consider to buy it. But if these are people who are willing to switch from another system or want to start with a mirrorless FF without having any camera gear so far. Would they really buy into the R system seeing which lenses are already here and which are rumoured to come along next? Besides the 35 f/1.8 and the 24-105 f/4 these are all very expensive L lenses. To get such people on the Canon EOS R ship Canon should start with more affordable RF-lenses. I for one wouldn't buy EF glass for the time being when I was new to the Canon EOS R eco system.

A zoom of that ability does not exist yet does it

IMHO. Canon is firing a shot over the bow of their competitors. They are telling pro users that the can create spectacular lenses that Sony, Nikon and Fufi cannot match because they have the better mount and lens design and building ability.

They are also probably delaying the release of more pedestrian lenses to wait for the existing stock of EF lenses to whittle down before releasing RF for the massas.

 

[mirage]

I think they sold enough copies of the TS-E 17/4 to get a handsome profit from that lens model. 50/1.0 is questionable though.

 

[Architect1776]

Continue reading...

Just a thought.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2018/11/02/the-canon-eos-r-camera-review-i-switched-to-canon-for-this/

 

[Antono Refa]

No that isn't true, they made the 50 f1.0L, and the 200 f1.8L and didn't expect to make the money back, some would argue they will never sell enough TS-E 17's to recoup the investment in making them, but, the promotional value of those lenses is what makes them worth making.

I would love to know what your claim is based on.

Both Canon & Nikon make a 200mm f/2, and I doubt they keep on losing money on it just for the promotional value. I doubt the fraction of an f stop made the difference between profit and loss, and rumor has it manufacturing was stopped due to dangerous materials in the glass (lead? some radioactive element?)

 

[privatebydesign]

I would love to know what your claim is based on.

Both Canon & Nikon make a 200mm f/2, and I doubt they keep on losing money on it just for the promotional value. I doubt the fraction of an f stop made the difference between profit and loss, and rumor has it manufacturing was stopped due to dangerous materials in the glass (lead? some radioactive element?)

It is based on Canon articles and interviews I have read over the past 30 years, many not online. Do the research yourself if you want to, older versions of Canon's Lens Work book would be a reasonable starting place.

The 200 f1.8 was a loss leader that was an attempt to push photographers into the EF (auto focus) system from the FD (manual focus) system, they got so much pushback from pro's that they made a very limited number of manual focus FD 200 f1.8's after the first EF versions.

 

[Jethro]

Individual lenses might not be 'profitable' in themselves (in terms of amortising development time etc), but they exist because they (help) entice especially pro shooters to the Canon System, within which they will end up buying lots of extremely profitable lenses (and replacement bodies) over time. I haven't noticed them selling exotic lenses cheaply (in any sense) so they are presumably recovering the costs of actually producing them (and maybe the holding costs of keeping a decent inventory so they are actually available in territory now and not in multiple months time), but they would probably not be recovering the full cost of the individual lens - except in the price of other lenses / bodies.

 

[Franklyok]

This is a solution for croped 4K video. idk is this good or not... canon is not going to have ff 4k video sooner - that is the message

 

[Don Haines]

So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....

 

[tron]

Oh, I admit the mistake. It's just not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

But I never said I do not agree about Canon innovating. I mentioned that I already have the 11-24 and the TS-E 17 after all. I just pointed out the 24 - 28 difference. Nothing more. Even the 3 out of 4 points anyway proved Canon innovation already. And the new lenses (as well as the white ones) keep them on top lens position.

 

[BeenThere]

So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....

Agree. What this means is that a full line of R mount bodies are coming ... from entry level to top of the line pro. However, we don’t have a Canon roadmap so resort to guessing the timing.

 

[Ozarker]

While I get what you're saying, it's kind of disingenuous. Are they really delivering or innovating? Sure, especially in lenses. In bodies they're a lot iffier.

I tend to disagree, but the lens is a bigger deal anyway.

 

[Ozarker]

So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....

Yup. I'm just glad that Ramen and eggs are still inexpensive. I don't spend money on anything much besides camera gear. I go out to eat exclusively during football season for a plate of nachos and diet coke once a week (and I save for that during the off season). I live very frugally for the sake of my photography hobby. That is my luxury. The RF lenses, so far, have me very intrigued. If I ever bought an R body it would be for the lenses. Period. Whatever the sensor, whatever the fps, none of that matters to me. The body will be just fine for what I do. The lenses will be sublime. I'm all about the lenses. I don't care how big or heavy they are. The lens is where 10% of the magic is. Camera = 2%. Photographer = 88%... just to pull numbers out of dark places. You get my point.

 

[mirage]

So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....

still a strange mismatch. mainly "fancy jigh-end lenses", but only a "pedestrian camera". Canon would have created more of a stir with either a hi-rez body clearly better than Nikon Z7/Sony A7R 3 and/or a "sports machine gun" better than Sony A9. Fancy glass would then have bern the icing on the cake ...

it all confirms to me, that Canon is not yet able to launch hi-end, hi-rez or hi-speed R bodies.

but i am sure EOS R is not a mere "hi-end system", but will supplant EF at all levels. there will be a few fancy/fast lenses and lots and lots of "less ambitious" RF lenses too.

until then i will just not buy into R system. no problem for me, only for Canon.

 

[mirage]

The lens is where 10% of the magic is. Camera = 2%. Photographer = 88%...

88% or 99% for photog is fine with me.

The other percentages however may have been like that back in analogue times when cameras not much more than "film holders". In digital imaging, camera with sensor, processing/imaging pipeline (hard- and software) and AF system plus post processing (software and skills) are key to get image as desired in the first place and have it look as desired. Lenses are still important, but with ever diminishing weighting.
T
hanks to computational photography we will (hopefully) be freed entirely from having to buy and carry big, heavy expensive ground glass shards in the not too distant future. Writing's clearly on the wall already. R and Z are basically CaNikons last ditch efforts to sell expensive cameras with big, expensive lenses ... before it is game over. Yes, still a few years to go, but not too many.

One of the reasons why I want more modest, compact, decent IQ [not "stellar" or "fancy"], affordable lenses. Not inclined to spend lots of money on big, expensive glass that will serve as nice paperweights soon enough.

 

[jedy]

Yet another huge lens that’s going to be very expensive. Is it really necessary to have f1.4 in an ultra wide angle zoom lens? Also, when are Canon going to start giving EOS R customers decent, native (and affordable) non-L prime lenses?

 

[privatebydesign]

Yet another huge lens that’s going to be very expensive. Is it really necessary to have f1.4 in an ultra wide angle zoom lens? Also, when are Canon going to start giving EOS R customers decent, native (and affordable) non-L prime lenses?

No it isn't really necessary, but to stand out Canon have to do something markedly different from the competition and lenses is where they shine, there are an awful lot of images out there that are easiest shot on a Canon, why wouldn't they leverage the size and weight gains from the bodies into the lenses?

As for the non L R lenses, I don't think there will be many for quite a while, I'd think Canon's attitude would be if you want slow get an M and maximize the size weight and cost savings that an APS sensor can realize.

 

[3kramd5]

Also, when are Canon going to start giving EOS R customers decent, native (and affordable) non-L prime lenses?

Never.

They will probably eventually start selling them, though, once they march though the current roadmap which appears intended to showcase lens configurations uniquely available on the new platform (the only selling point of the EOS-R, in my opinion).