Patent: Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L and Canon RF 8-24mm f/4L Fisheye

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Likely possible from an optical standpoint. In this case, that ‘open space’ in the middle is where the front group retracts during zooming (the diagram shows the lens at its most extended, which for this design is 11 mm).

Also, from a practical standpoint that location on the barrel is where you find things like the zoom and focus rings. Seems unlikely that Canon would make a zoom ring or focus ring really skinny to accommodate a drop in filter.

This patent design may not be the one to become a product. But if it is, it won’t feature a drop in filter. You seem insistent on highlighting the possibility of including one. I’m not disputing the possibility, I’m just saying this patent design is not going to give you what you hope for.
Just interested in learning ;)

It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Hi all- I own a Canon R5 and several RF lenses including the RF 15-35mm F2,8 (which I use for landscape and astrophotography/Milky Way) and many more RF lenses....
However I have found out that when I use this EF fisheye lens as 15 degree, I get similar view as the RF 15-35. When I move to the 12-8mm area, the image get distorted (which is what I like) BUT I also get a lot "crap"/unwanted things at the edges... In essence the lens get part of the edges of the lens within the image itself, which is of course horrible.

I guess the reason is because this lens works best on APSC sensor, while with full frames you do not get real and clean 180 degree image. Am I correct???
What ‘crap/unwanted things/lens parts are you seeing? Posting a pic would help.

At 8mm on FF you should get a clean 180° circular fisheye image. That’s the point of the lens – it’s a circular fisheye at 8mm and a frame-filling fisheye at 14-15mm. This is 8mm from the TDP review:

39AF4732-84A0-4896-AE44-46D0E8FCD4C1.jpeg
2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???
At 10-12mm, you’ll get a partial fisheye image with the top and bottom of the circle cut off.

The patented 8-24mm fisheye will behave just like the EF 8-15mm from 8-15mm, and from 15-24mm it will just be less ‘fishy’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Just interested in learning ;)

It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.
Agreed, which is why I think a 10-24 mm sounded more likely. The RF version of an 11-24 looks like it would be narrow in diameter and lighter, but it’s still going to be a relatively heavy lens with a bulbous front element.

Maybe it will simply be the same cost as the EF version. In general, the RF lenses offered one or more new features and came with a hefty price increase. The exception so far has been the 24-105/4, which was essentially the same lens and launched at the same price as the EF version.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Wouldn't be IS a new feature as the patent shows?

I do not own or ever used a 11-24, but a friend. And I think he misses a tripod colar more then IS.
Yes! I totally missed that. That means Canon can charge lots more than the EF, lol. But I wonder how many stops IBIS will deliver.

I usually use my 11-24 on a tripod, as well.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
I've come to expect and live with the vignetting at this point...But is it the lens design or the camera body that is causing it? If the EF version of the 11-24 has less vignetting than the RF version, what is causing it? Same question goes for other RF lenses that have EF counterparts.
Lens design. By relying on digital correction, Canon can reduce optical correction and that saves on size/weight (slightly) and more importantly (to Canon) on production costs (with those savings not being passed on to buyers).
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
I've come to expect and live with the vignetting at this point...But is it the lens design or the camera body that is causing it? If the EF version of the 11-24 has less vignetting than the RF version, what is causing it? Same question goes for other RF lenses that have EF counterparts.
The angle of the light hitting the sensor is the problem.
If it is too steep the pixels do not get the light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Just interested in learning ;)

It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.
Or they might simply reduce availability of the EF lens, leaving people with no choice but to get the RF version.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
So (again) in essence, would the 8-24mm RF lens provide better image than the EF 8-15 in terms of:
1. vignetting,
2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???
This is a lens patent. The lens may or may not be produced. Impossible to know what the optical qualities might be, since the lens does not exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
So (again) in essence, would the 8-24mm RF lens provide better image than the EF 8-15 in terms of:
1. vignetting,
2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???
1. We won’t know until the lens comes out. If it does.
2. So (again): The patented 8-24mm fisheye will behave just like the EF 8-15mm from 8-15mm, and from 15-24mm it will just be less ‘fishy’.

This is normal for a lens of this design:
02B6234A-FB84-4781-98A3-F1F7FBCF4504.jpeg

It’s the intermediate zone between a circular fisheye lens and a full-coverage fisheye lens. If you can’t stand it, get a circular fisheye prime (there are 3rd party versions for Canon like the Sigma 8mm…8mm, like the wide end of the 8-15mm) and a full-coverage fisheye prime (like Canon’s 15/2.8 fisheye…15mm, like the narrow end of the 8-15mm), and switch between them. With a fisheye zoom lens starting at a circular 8mm, you’re always going to see a partial circle in the intermediate focal length range.

If the partial circle as shown above is what you’re referring to as, “crap/unwanted things at the edges... In essence the lens get part of the edges of the lens within the image itself, which is of course horrible,” then you’re out of luck. The RF fisheye zoom will have it, too. Because that’s how a fisheye zoom works. If you’re actually seeing parts of the lens, your EF version may be defective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,751
2,269
USA
The angle of the light hitting the sensor is the problem.
If it is too steep the pixels do not get the light.
To an extent I think you are right--the mirrorless mount's distance from the sensor comes into play. Just using an extender for distance doesn't fix things because the edge of the mount is so close to the edge of the sensor, creating a sort of overhang effect when wider angle lenses are used.

I see more vignetting with my EF 35mm 1.4L II on my R5 than I did on my 5DIV--but I can't do a side-by-side comparison because I no longer have a 5DIV.

It would be interesting to see such a comparison for curiosity's sake.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
To an extent I think you are right. I see more vignetting with my EF 35mm 1.4L II on my R5 than I did on my 5DIV--but I can't do a side-by-side comparison because I no longer have a 5DIV.

It would be interesting to see such a comparison for curiosity's sake.
The angle should be the same because the EF-R adapter puts the EF lens the same distance from the R sensor as it was from the DSLR sensor. But, the lower Mpx sensor will have wider pixels so more light will reach the bottom of the well.
 
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,751
2,269
USA
The angle should be the same because the EF-R adapter puts the EF lens the same distance from the R sensor as it was from the DSLR sensor. But, the lower Mpx sensor will have wider pixels so more light will reach the bottom of the well.
I didn't edit my previous post quickly enough--I said I think the mount comes into play also because it is positioned relatively close to the sensor.

If what you are saying is correct, does the 5Ds R show more vignetting than other 5D bodies?
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
I didn't edit my previous post quickly enough--I said I think the mount comes into play also because it is positioned relatively close to the sensor.

If what you are saying is correct, does the 5Ds R show more vignetting than other 5D bodies?
Good question. All things being equal, it should do. Other factors come in like the nature of the microlenses and the thickness of the IR/UV/AA-filters in front of the sensels (the 5DS R does have self-cancelling AA not absence).
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Or they might simply reduce availability of the EF lens, leaving people with no choice but to get the RF version.
Absolutely - I'm sure they'd love to offload all their existing EF stock, and get us all to pay a fortune for RF versions. But let's give them some credit - almost every RF lens announced so far has brought valuable new features or improved specs to the table, as well as extra sharpness. Not to mention the RF bodies, which are all dramatically better in almost every respect compared to the EF models they replace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I do not see the point of that lens.
Hey Sanj, there's a point to *every* lens! I can think of plenty of lenses that don't appeal to me personally for my genres of photography, but you can bet that there'll be plenty of creative people who can put a 14-28mm F2 to good use.

We all have different use cases and preferences - e.g. some of us like to only use primes, but that doesn't mean that there's no "point" to zooms. Some people only shoot sport, but does that mean there's "no point" to macros?

As for the 14-28mm F2 suggested by navastronia, 14-28mm seems like a pretty desirable range for landscape work, and a max of F2 would be handy in low light or when you want to isolate a subject from the background (which is difficult ordinarily with ultra-wides, which inherently have masses of depth of field). Wide apertures also give the AF system more light, and mean less "hunting" for focus.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0