Patent: Canon EF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
traveller said:
I think people here are again missing the point that there are a lot of people for whom $1000 for the 16-35 f/4L IS USM is simply stretching their photography budget too far, especially after they've blown (rightly or wrongly) their camera budget on a full-frame body -remember that you can now pick up the original 6D for $1200.

A 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would give Canon a complete 'budget' zoom line-up, like Nikon currently has (latest versions only)
someone gets it.. ;)
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
819
198
Turku, Finland
Wow. I only now realized that Canon currently offers no non-L UWA lenses for full frame. I don't understand what people are crying about—yeah, this might be "boring" but if competitively priced, it definitely seems to have a place in the EF lens selection. I guess it's just the standard self-absorbed entitlement that's so widespread here.
 

criscokkat

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2017
185
158
Madison, WI
rrcphoto said:
criscokkat said:
I'm sure this is being developed with the full frame mirrorless market in mind.
probably zero bearing. it also has a EF registration distance.
I suspect full frame mirrorless from canon will not be a significantly smaller body. If you want a small body and lenses to match, you go with the ef-m system. The extra room this provides will not be entirely unwasted. By having a larger area to work with the thermal management systems can be much more robust, allowing the processing chipsets to operate at higher clockspeeds and allowing the EVF to run longer and faster refreshing. They'd even have room for a larger battery if they so chose.

Canon also puts much more emphasis on the handling and ergonomics than sony. There is a thing with being too small, especially since the glass needed to resolve a full frame sensor is not going to be any smaller.

Edit: This recent patent shows a bit of intrusion into the grip and around the mount for a heatsink: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4235960
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,052
317
Vancouver, BC
I'm happy for this lens. I personally don't need it, because I purchased a 16-35/4, but if I didn't already own one, I'd definitely consider this, because:

1. I almost never shoot below 24mm anyways, because I don't do landscapes, my animal subjects are too small, and there are few stills that I shoot where I need me to go that wide. Number of landscapes, lakes, sunsets I shoot in an average year = 0.

2. For the longest time, I simply used a 10-18 on a 80D for the same task. In fact, the only reason that I purchased a 16-35 was because the price was good, and to have access to that wider focal length without packing an 80D on a trip.

3. For the incredibly rare times that I want to shoot that wide (a sunset on a hotel balcony, for example), and I want a good exposure (as opposed to just snapping something from my smartphone to record a memory), a STM lens that's sub-$500 would be wonderful. Plus, it is probably going to be half the size of the L.

This falls into the same reason to build a 24-105 STM or EF 70-300 (nano) or 100/2.8 macro (non-L) -- some people just shoot these FL's so rarely that they have a hard time justifying $1000 lenses in the "tier 2" L collection (like f4 L zooms). Because most photography is just a hobby for me, I buy the best I can afford for the stuff I really like shooting, which ends up being macro and wildlife, midrange for the stuff I photograph occasionally, and, where there's a low cost solution, "something" for the things I shoot rarely.
 
Nov 7, 2016
6
0
Basically I can't wait for this lens. It is the FF EF-S 10-18 STM, the GOD lens for vlogging. Noise-less for Movie Servo AF.

This lens will be day one purchase for me.
 

blobmonster

I'm New Here
Nov 4, 2017
12
0
If it's decent,small,light and cheap enough versus a used 17-40, I'll be tempted. I would prefer a 20mm f2.8 IS but a pocketable ultrawide like this would still be very welcome.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,052
317
Vancouver, BC
Sharlin said:
Wow. I only now realized that Canon currently offers no non-L UWA lenses for full frame. I don't understand what people are crying about—yeah, this might be "boring" but if competitively priced, it definitely seems to have a place in the EF lens selection. I guess it's just the standard self-absorbed entitlement that's so widespread here.
First, I agree with you; at the right price, this lens is well-positioned. If it had been around, I would have probably bought it instead of 16-35, because I hardly ever shoot ultra wide angle (below 24).

I think that this one is very rare; Canon seems to develop very few EF lenses that are STM now (and everything not STM seems to be L in newly developed lenses). The last EF non L lens I remember is 70-300... and that was hardly super exciting, except that it was a cosmetically beautiful lens. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

But there ARE cheaper alternatives for getting wide angle in the Canon system:

- EF 20mm/2.8 USM is about $500 new / $250 used.
- EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 is very cheap used
- EF 17-40/4 L might be an L lens, but it's pretty cheap: As low as $625 new during rebates, or $450-ish used

Or go APSC where the EFS 10-18 is awesomely cheap for its image quality and focal range... as long as you don't mind a kind of cheap, toyish-looking lens.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,075
275
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Sharlin said:
Wow. I only now realized that Canon currently offers no non-L UWA lenses for full frame. I don't understand what people are crying about—yeah, this might be "boring" but if competitively priced, it definitely seems to have a place in the EF lens selection. I guess it's just the standard self-absorbed entitlement that's so widespread here.
Well, actually they do in a way.

The EF-S 10-22 works as a perfectly good 15-22 lens on full-frame cameras if you pull the plastic insert out of the back of the lens (and yes, it does fit on the EF mount then)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,172
1,441
jolyonralph said:
The EF-S 10-22 works as a perfectly good 15-22 lens on full-frame cameras if you pull the plastic insert out of the back of the lens (and yes, it does fit on the EF mount then)
If the 10-22mm is mounted on a FF camera and set to 10mm, does the mirror contact the back of the lens? If so, do you consider potential damage to the mirror assembly ‘perfectly good’?
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,075
275
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
neuroanatomist said:
If the 10-22mm is mounted on a FF camera and set to 10mm, does the mirror contact the back of the lens? If so, do you consider potential damage to the mirror assembly ‘perfectly good’?
Clearly you have to be careful :)

There are some tips here on how to avoid dinging your mirror, but when I tried it out I managed not to break anything.

Also, works great on a full frame mirrorless :)
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
819
198
Turku, Finland
jolyonralph said:
Also, works great on a full frame mirrorless :)
Apropos this, I wonder how much people use third-party crop EF lenses, or modified EF-S lenses, with Canon EF-mount Super 35 cameras. Any extra vignetting should be pretty minimal. Will probably be popular if that non-C EF Super35 body ever materializes...