Patent: Canon presents some interesting fast zoom lens optical formulas

[unfocused]

People might need a reminder that patents are not product announcements.

 

[Etienne]

I'm so glad that Canon finally moved into the mirrorless market so that we can enjoy the benefits of small, lightweight gear.

 

[asingleredcactus@h]

All jolly exciting I'm sure, but I really do wish Canon and certain other manufacturers would get over their obsession with ridiculously wide aperture lenses. With one or two exceptions (e.g. 70-200mm F4), we only have two choices - either ludicrously expensive ultra-wide aperture L lenses, or cheapo budget lenses with barely usable apertures such as the RF 600mm and 800mm F11. It's one extreme or the other. Whatever happened to high quality middle-of-the-road lenses with modest maximum apertures?

Are you kidding right now? Aside from the RF 50mm f/1.8, all of Canon's cheaper lenses seem to actually be really good, sharp, affordable options.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The patent for the RF 300mm f/2.8 has it as 292.53mm f/2.9. Are you still going to pre-order?

If there is an optical formula for 292.53mm, shouldn't it be possible to adjust it to exactly 300mm by changing some distances or curvatures of lenses? The only problem is that it might no longer fit into a specific filter thread size. So the worst that could happen it that you need the next bigger filter thread.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If there is an optical formula for 292.53mm, shouldn't it be possible to adjust it to exactly 300mm by changing some distances or curvatures of lenses? The only problem is that it might no longer fit into a specific filter thread size. So the worst that could happen it that you need the next bigger filter thread.

Of course it’s possible. This type of lens doesn’t take front filters, though, so that’s irrelevant. The worst that could happen from Canon’s perspective is that more materials would be required to make a 300mm lens than a 292.53mm lens, and that would eat into their profits.

 

[entoman]

Are you kidding right now? Aside from the RF 50mm f/1.8, all of Canon's cheaper lenses seem to actually be really good, sharp, affordable options.

No, I'm not kidding at all. Most (but NOT all) of the budget lenses are sharp (I actually have the affordable RF 800mm F11) - the problem is that there are very few middle-of-the-road lenses. Not everyone wants or needs ultra-wide apertures, and few can afford them. Likewise, not everyone wants to settle for the opposite end of the scale, with limited maximum apertures and lack of weather-sealing. Canon caters well for pros and rich amateurs with it's big white primes and wide-aperture wide-angles. Fine and dandy. Canon caters well for novices and those on bottom-end budget. Again, fine and dandy. But I think there are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority of enthusiasts, who would rather have e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens. There's no middle ground.

 

[AlanF]

If there is an optical formula for 292.53mm, shouldn't it be possible to adjust it to exactly 300mm by changing some distances or curvatures of lenses? The only problem is that it might no longer fit into a specific filter thread size. So the worst that could happen it that you need the next bigger filter thread.

These big whites don't have front filter threads, they have a drop-in rear 52mm so that's not relevant. What is relevant is the size of the front element canon has to make and its cost. A true 300mm f/2.8 would have a front lens diameter of 107.1mm. I wonder if someone measures their current 300mm f/2.8 II it would be closer to 100mm, which is about what a 292.53mm f/ 2.9 needs.

 

[AlanF]

Of course it’s possible. This type of lens doesn’t take front filters, though, so that’s irrelevant. The worst that could happen from Canon’s perspective is that more materials would be required to make a 300mm lens than a 292.53mm lens, and that would eat into their profits.

Sorry neuro, I replied the same before reading yours as I picked it up as reply to my post.

 

[unfocused]

Are you kidding right now? Aside from the RF 50mm f/1.8, all of Canon's cheaper lenses seem to actually be really good, sharp, affordable options.

No, I'm not kidding at all. Most (but NOT all) of the budget lenses are sharp (I actually have the affordable RF 800mm F11) - the problem is that there are very few middle-of-the-road lenses. Not everyone wants or needs ultra-wide apertures, and few can afford them. Likewise, not everyone wants to settle for the opposite end of the scale, with limited maximum apertures and lack of weather-sealing. Canon caters well for pros and rich amateurs with it's big white primes and wide-aperture wide-angles. Fine and dandy. Canon caters well for novices and those on bottom-end budget. Again, fine and dandy. But I think there are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority of enthusiasts, who would rather have e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens. There's no middle ground.

F4 14-35 L; f4 24-105 L; f4 70-200 L. What's missing?

 

[neuroanatomist]

No, I'm not kidding at all. Most (but NOT all) of the budget lenses are sharp (I actually have the affordable RF 800mm F11) - the problem is that there are very few middle-of-the-road lenses. Not everyone wants or needs ultra-wide apertures, and few can afford them. Likewise, not everyone wants to settle for the opposite end of the scale, with limited maximum apertures and lack of weather-sealing. Canon caters well for pros and rich amateurs with it's big white primes and wide-aperture wide-angles. Fine and dandy. Canon caters well for novices and those on bottom-end budget. Again, fine and dandy. But I think there are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority of enthusiasts, who would rather have e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens. There's no middle ground.

Any time someone makes claims such as, "There are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority who want [fill in the blank]," I have to wonder...who knows more about the market – the manufacturer that dominates it, or the individual claiming to know what 'a hell of a lot of people' want?

If Canon is making lenses for entry-level consumers and for wealthy enthusiasts and pros, and not much in between, why would they be leaving all that money on the table from the 'majority of enthusiasts' who want something in between? Could it be that they know more about the market than you? (That’s rhetorical, obviously.)

If you look at the RF lineup, there is a good spread for the ‘common’ lens types, IMO. Four FF standard zooms from $40 to $3100. Three FF UWA zooms from $550 to $2400. Four telephoto zooms from $650 to $2900. Fewer prime options, but zooms were Canon’s priority for obvious reasons.

When you say ‘e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens,’ it sounds like you’re hoping for cheap L-series lenses or weather sealed non-L lenses. I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for either.

 

[entoman]

F4 14-35 L; f4 24-105 L; f4 70-200 L. What's missing?

Primes with modest apertures and L build quality/durability/weather-sealing.

RF 24mm F2.8L - not everyone wants or needs F1.4 or F2
RF 35mm F2.8L - ditto
RF 85mm F2.8L - ditto
RF 100mm F4L macro - who shoots 100mm macro at 2.8 on mirrorless?
RF 180mm F5.6L macro - who shoots 180mm unstabilised macro at F3.5 on mirrorless?
RF 300mm F4L - not everyone wants to lug a F2.8 monster or to pay the cost
RF 400mm F5.6L - ditto

and zooms such as:

RF 70-300mm F4-5.6L - oddly missing from the range

to name just a few.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Primes with modest apertures and L build quality/durability/weather-sealing.

So, slow L-series primes without the L moniker. Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[entoman]

So, slow L-series primes without the L moniker. Yeah, good luck with that.

No, what I want are true L lenses, just lighter, more affordable and with smaller maximum apertures. I don't think that is too much to ask, and I firmly believe there would be a viable market for such lenses. Examples - Canon made an EF 300mm F4L - not replaced with RF. Likewise they made an excellent EF 70-300mm that hasn't been replaced. Both were popular lenses (no I don't have the sales figures and neither do you, but I see them in regular use).

And as I suggested - who the hell wants or needs macro lenses with F2 or F2.8 apertures anymore? Such wide apertures were needed on DSLR lenses to ensure a bright OVF, but they ain't needed on mirrorless which will produce a bright EVF even at F16. I'd guess that 98% of macro shooters NEVER shoot wider than F5.6, even if focus-stacking.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No, what I want are true L lenses, just lighter, more affordable and with smaller maximum apertures. I don't think that is too much to ask, and I firmly believe there would be a viable market for such lenses.

What matters is whether or not Canon believes it. Given the dearth of such lenses in both the EF and RF mounts, evidence suggests they don’t.

Examples - Canon made an EF 300mm F4L - not replaced with RF.

Not updated since it launched late in the last millennium, to be accurate…a >2-decade span of time that included the heyday of DSLRs. It’s no coincidence that the 400/5.6 and 300/4 were not updated after the 100-400L launched, and that the 100-400 saw a MkII and early conversion to RF as the 100-500L. I highly doubt we’ll ever see an RF 300/4 or 400/5.6.

Likewise they made an excellent EF 70-300mm that hasn't been replaced. Both were popular lenses (no I don't have the sales figures and neither do you, but I see them in regular use).

We might see an RF 70-300L or similar at some point. I had one, it was a decent lens but the IQ was mediocre for an L lens, similar to the 24-105/4. Given the higher MP counts, one could argue that the RF 70-200/4 and some cropping is an effective replacement for the EF 70-300L.

And as I suggested - who the hell wants or needs macro lenses with F2 or F2.8 apertures anymore? Such wide apertures were needed on DSLR lenses to ensure a bright OVF, but they ain't needed on mirrorless which will produce a bright EVF even at F16. I'd guess that 98% of macro shooters NEVER shoot wider than F5.6, even if focus-stacking.

Given your focus, perhaps you’re ignoring the fact that macro lenses have other uses. The RF 85/2 is an excellent portrait prime, as are the 100/2.8 Macro lenses. The RF wide, fast(ish) primes with macro are just that – wide primes that also shoot macro.

The 180/3.5L was more of a dedicated macro lens. It’s 26 years old and was never updated, just like the MP-E 65 from 23 years ago.

So, we have dedicated macro lenses that languish, and multipurpose lenses with macro capability that are much more frequently updated and released in multiple mounts (EF, EF-S, EF-M and RF). It appears that dedicated macro lenses aren't especially popular, but rather that the market prefers macro as more of a beneficial add-on. As an ENTOman, I suspect you’re biased in favor of the macro-specific use case.

 

[unfocused]

Primes with modest apertures and L build quality/durability/weather-sealing.

RF 24mm F2.8L - not everyone wants or needs F1.4 or F2
RF 35mm F2.8L - ditto
RF 85mm F2.8L - ditto
RF 100mm F4L macro - who shoots 100mm macro at 2.8 on mirrorless?
RF 180mm F5.6L macro - who shoots 180mm unstabilised macro at F3.5 on mirrorless?
RF 300mm F4L - not everyone wants to lug a F2.8 monster or to pay the cost
RF 400mm F5.6L - ditto

and zooms such as:

RF 70-300mm F4-5.6L - oddly missing from the range

to name just a few.

Composed this while @neuroanatomist was responding. He covered most of what I would say.

But, expanding on some of his points: Canon already makes faster, lower cost versions of several of your dream lenses. Who is going to pay more for a slower lens just because it has a red ring on it?

Today's zooms are as good as primes. First you said you wanted f4 lenses. But, when I listed the f4 zooms, you switched to f2.8. Moving the goal posts are we?

You seem unduly concerned about the "L" designation. You are complaining about the cost of RF lenses and at the same time turning up your nose at the lower cost RF lenses, which are generally good lenses. The "L" designation is mostly a marketing tool by Canon that has no consistent definition. It's whatever they want it to be.

 

[mb66energy]

Canon 21-80 f/1.5​

One lens to rule them all, one lens to find them, one lens to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!

EDIT: not gonna lie, I would pay 4K for this if it included a zoom lock switch

A one year membership in a fitness center is also included.
Just doing my workout with the 100-400 EF lens ...

 

[entoman]

What matters is whether or not Canon believes it. Given the dearth of such lenses in both the EF and RF mounts, evidence suggests they don’t.


Not updated since it launched late in the last millennium, to be accurate…a >2-decade span of time that included the heyday of DSLRs. It’s no coincidence that the 400/5.6 and 300/4 were not updated after the 100-400L launched, and that the 100-400 saw a MkII and early conversion to RF as the 100-500L. I highly doubt we’ll ever see an RF 300/4 or 400/5.6.


We might see an RF 70-300L or similar at some point. I had one, it was a decent lens but the IQ was mediocre for an L lens, similar to the 24-105/4. Given the higher MP counts, one could argue that the RF 70-200/4 and some cropping is an effective replacement for the EF 70-300L.


Given your focus, perhaps you’re ignoring the fact that macro lenses have other uses. The RF 85/2 is an excellent portrait prime, as are the 100/2.8 Macro lenses. The RF wide, fast(ish) primes with macro are just that – wide primes that also shoot macro.

The 180/3.5L was more of a dedicated macro lens. It’s 26 years old and was never updated, just like the MP-E 65 from 23 years ago.

So, we have dedicated macro lenses that languish, and multipurpose lenses with macro capability that are much more frequently updated and released in multiple mounts (EF, EF-S, EF-M and RF). It appears that dedicated macro lenses aren't especially popular, but rather that the market prefers macro as more of a beneficial add-on. As an ENTOman, I suspect you’re biased in favor of the macro-specific use case.

Yep, I accept all those points neuro, but it still doesn't alter the fact that I *want* some of those "missing" middle-of-the-road optics. Canon are in business to make money and they are pretty good at knowing what will sell and what won't sell. Same with Apple, who have a very similar "we know what you want" philosophy. But sometimes they don't know what we want, or what will sell, unless we tell them, and that was the point of my original post.

 

[entoman]

Who is going to pay more for a slower lens just because it has a red ring on it?

You seem unduly concerned about the "L" designation. You are complaining about the cost of RF lenses and at the same time turning up your nose at the lower cost RF lenses, which are generally good lenses. The "L" designation is mostly a marketing tool by Canon that has no consistent definition. It's whatever they want it to be.

Me. I'd pay more (compared to a budget non-L lens) for a really good L lens, even if it had a limited maximum aperture. Why? - Because I want a more compact and lightweight lens than the wide-aperture exotica. And I want L build quality because I use my gear in adverse conditions and want it to last a few years. Of course the red ring and L designations are marketing tools, but they also tell me that I'm getting the sharpest glass, the fastest AF motors and the best build quality that Canon can offer.

 

[AlanF]

A one year membership in a fitness center is also included.
Just doing my workout with the 100-400 EF lens ...

A 21-80 f/1.5 would be of very similar size to a 105-400mm f/7.5, considerably lighter than the EF 100-400mm and hardly more than the RF 100-400mm f/8 lightweight!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yep, I accept all those points neuro, but it still doesn't alter the fact that I *want* some of those "missing" middle-of-the-road optics. Canon are in business to make money and they are pretty good at knowing what will sell and what won't sell. Same with Apple, who have a very similar "we know what you want" philosophy. But sometimes they don't know what we want, or what will sell, unless we tell them, and that was the point of my original post.

I see. So we’ve gone from ‘a majority of enthusiasts want…’ to ‘I want…’.

I trust you’ve been around here long enough to know that posting here isn’t telling Canon anything. That pretty much obviates the point of your original post.