Patent: 8-15mm fisheye zoom for mirrorless

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,450
251
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
An optical formula patent application for an 8-15mm fisheye zoom lens has appeared at the USPTO.
The patent covers both the APS-C (EF-M) and full-frame (RF) mirrorless mounts as the backfocus for each embodiment is well shorter than the EF’s 44mm.
APS-C embodiment:
Focal length: 5.30mm  – 9.51mm
F-number: 3.50   3.50
Angle of view: 181.00° 182.00°
Image height: 7.50mm  13.50mm
Total lens length: 77.28mm  – 69.52mm
BF: 11.09mm  16.77mm
Full-frame embodiment:
Focal length: 8.01mm  15.30mm
F-number: 3.78   4.60
Angle of view: 177.30° – 183.10°
Image height: 11.15mm  21.64mm
Total lens length: 105.23mm – 103.57mm
BF: 12.00mm  28.46mm
Continue reading...


 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,419
228
Germany
EF 8-15mm 1:4L lenght: 83 mm
This means the RF lens would be about 2 cm shorter on EOS R bodies (103.57 mm -20 mm=83.57 mm, same length, but w/o 20 mm adapter).
Impressing.
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,120
30
I am keen on the EF-M 5.30-9.51mm f/3.5 fisheye lens as long as it's cheap and lightweight.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,569
264
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
EF 8-15mm 1:4L lenght: 83 mm
This means the RF lens would be about 2 cm shorter on EOS R bodies (103.57 mm -20 mm=83.57 mm, same length, but w/o 20 mm adapter).
Impressing.
The current ef 8-15L isn't exactly large, in fact it's a tiny lens, not that size would be a deciding factor in the purchase of this lens. The 2cm shorter length is really just the lack of the adapter....It's nice to have a native Rf version for sure but there's not a lot of benefit here.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
529
183
The current ef 8-15L isn't exactly large, in fact it's a tiny lens, not that size would be a deciding factor in the purchase of this lens. The 2cm shorter length is really just the lack of the adapter....It's nice to have a native Rf version for sure but there's not a lot of benefit here.
It's not about the size, it's about being ready for even higher resolution, more megapixels = more CA and bigger difference between central area and the edges. But of course the EF 8-15L is not bad by any means.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,569
264
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
It's not about the size, it's about being ready for even higher resolution, more megapixels = more CA and bigger difference between central area and the edges. But of course the EF 8-15L is not bad by any means.
Yes I hear you and I'm aware of the lens design brief that Canon have announced for the Rf mount. Ironically, fisheye lenses suffer the least from retro focus design complications than any other type of wide lens. I'm surprised that Canon haven't announced a range of pancake primes for Rf mount yet...those would be a sweet addition to the Rf mount. It's a lens design very much suited to the benefits of the Mirror-less mount...more so than a fisheye zoom.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
529
183
Yes I hear you and I'm aware of the lens design brief that Canon have announced for the Rf mount. Ironically, fisheye lenses suffer the least from retro focus design complications than any other type of wide lens. I'm surprised that Canon haven't announced a range of pancake primes for Rf mount yet...those would be a sweet addition to the Rf mount. It's a lens design very much suited to the benefits of the Mirror-less mount...more so than a fisheye zoom.
Looking at Fuji's recent 16mm f2.8 release (which is ~ a 24mm f4 equivalent) for 500$ it is clear that these smaller lenses wouldn't necessarily be very cheap or fast, so they might not be able sell a lot of them. Of course there is a handful of people wanting that for their RP, just not sure if they would be willing to pay the price for them. So maybe it is up to 3rd party manufacturers to crack the RF code, Samyang has a 24/2.8 and a 35/2.8 FE maybe those could be converted and produced for cheap.
For now, releasing those zooms and two versions of the 85/1.2 should keep them busy for now, and I think a pricey but sharp RF 100-400/3.5-5.6L IS zoom would sell well and make some profit for them as well.
 

proutprout

EOS M50
Nov 25, 2018
29
25
Yes I hear you and I'm aware of the lens design brief that Canon have announced for the Rf mount. Ironically, fisheye lenses suffer the least from retro focus design complications than any other type of wide lens. I'm surprised that Canon haven't announced a range of pancake primes for Rf mount yet...those would be a sweet addition to the Rf mount. It's a lens design very much suited to the benefits of the Mirror-less mount...more so than a fisheye zoom.
Canon scheduled pankake lenses it’s just that they plan to release a R pro-body first. So it’ll be ready, you just have to wait 8 to 11 years.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
247
92
I'm surprised that Canon haven't announced a range of pancake primes for Rf mount yet...those would be a sweet addition to the Rf mount. It's a lens design very much suited to the benefits of the Mirror-less mount
First, I think that some portion of EF-M bodies are sold to people heretofore using EF FF SLRs, and Canon wants such people to continue buying EF-M bodies even after switching to much more compact RF MILFFs. If they had pancakes available for the RF, that would tend to allow people to do without an EF-M body entirely going forward. Likewise, if RF cameras could mount EF-M lenses, you may choose to forego an EF-M body. (In fact they made the RF film-flange distance 2mm longer than EF-M. I can't think of why, except to keep you from doing this.) If I'm wrong, we'll see a truly compact RF lens or two soon. But my guess is not. (The 35/1.8 is pretty big for a mirrorless 35mm of modest aperture, thx to IS and macro capability.)

Second, I don't think a pancake is an ideal size when the handgrip already extends past the body front as far as it does. For practical purposes, a pancake doesn't make the camera any less deep than a lens sticking out as far as that handgrip. Further, I have no interest in a pancake lens with f/2.8, which would be perhaps portable at times, but bring no extra capability when you have your trinity zooms at hand. Any small portable lens should still expand the envelope in some interesting way, optically, so I'd be much more interested in a 50/1.8, 35/2, 28/2 or some such.

In the meantime I'm using a Leica 35/1.4 ASPH on the R and have taken more shots with it than with the RF lenses, since I always have the R and Leica lens with me.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,419
228
Germany
The current ef 8-15L isn't exactly large, in fact it's a tiny lens, not that size would be a deciding factor ...
And Canon managed to make it's optical formula even smaller! That's what I find impressing.

...It's nice to have a native Rf version for sure but there's not a lot of benefit here.
It is not only nice to have a native RF lens it will be also interesting, what the different optical formula (still 2 cm shorter) will deliver.

Interesting times.
 
Reactions: SwissFrank
Jan 20, 2019
6
8
I'm all about more RF lenses but I think I'll stick with my adapted ef 8-15. The adapter I got allows for drop in filters useful from 8-800mm which is a beautiful thing to me. Now the RF 16-35mm I am eagerly awaiting...