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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

We’ve heard some chatter that Canon would continue to develop it’s non-L zoom lenses for full frame camera lineup and this patent for an EF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS would seem to fit into that segment.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patents-a-17-35-is-4-56">Canon News</a>, a new leader in patent tracking found this one.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Optical Formula</strong></p>


<ul>
<li><strong>Focal distance:</strong> 17.50  25.12  34.09</li>
<li><strong>F number:</strong> 4.00 4.85   5.88</li>
<li><strong>A half field angle (degree):</strong> 51.03  40.73  32.40</li>
<li><strong>Image height:</strong> 21.64  21.64  21.64</li>
<li><strong>Whole length of the lens:</strong> 130.88 128.52 134.05</li>
<li><strong>BF:</strong> 37.60  49.75  64.06</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Japan patent application 2017-161568</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[scyrene]

I'm sorry but it's *its.

 

[transpo1]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

 

[rrcphoto]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

not everyone wants an L.

the nikkor 18-35 seems to be doing well, perhaps your lack of interest bears little in the way of the market.

 

[magarity]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

This focal length sells for $1K and up in the 'L' series so some people must be interested in it.

 

[Antono Refa]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

It might be a patent for IP protection's sake. Alternatively, it might be for videographers.

 

[Antono Refa]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

This focal length sells for $1K and up in the 'L' series so some people must be interested in it.

His point is there already is an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM, so a slower longer lens doesn't sound interesting.

Then again, Canon doesn't patent stuff to pique its customers.

 

[Woody]

I have abandoned the full-frame world until the size and weight of the system can be reduced significantly.

 

[transpo1]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

It might be a patent for IP protection's sake. Alternatively, it might be for videographers.

If it’s for IP, I understand. If for videographers, that’s even worse- no true videographer wants a variable speed zoom if they can help it.

 

[transpo1]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

This focal length sells for $1K and up in the 'L' series so some people must be interested in it.

His point is there already is an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM, so a slower longer lens doesn't sound interesting.

Then again, Canon doesn't patent stuff to pique its customers.

Thank you- yes, that was my point- the combination of focal length and speed sounds terribly uninteresting. However, let’s see how cheap and light they can make it. Right now, the 17-40/4 L is $749 at B&H. if they are trying to sell a $500 or less lens to folks who bought a 6DII, maybe they can sell a few. Still, this is very boring for the rest of us.

 

[jd7]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

This focal length sells for $1K and up in the 'L' series so some people must be interested in it.

His point is there already is an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM, so a slower longer lens doesn't sound interesting.

Then again, Canon doesn't patent stuff to pique its customers.

Well, I might be interested in it. I don't think I would use wider than 24mm very often, and when I did it would be for landscapes, or inside buildings like cathedrals/churches when traveling, so I could probably live with the aperture - I'd want to be shooting stopped own anyway (yes, I know faster could still be good indoors). I know the 16-35 f/4L IS is excellent and it's reasonably priced, and a reasonable size/weight, for what it is, but every time I think about getting one I hesitate because I think I'd use it so rarely. If Canon brings out a non-L and the IQ is still decent (something like an UWA mate to the 70-300 IS II) and the price is right, and the lens is relatively small and light (which I'm assuming it would be), it might get me across the line.

 

[sowlow]

Cool! It is the 10-18 of the FF

 

[jolyonralph]

Seems sensible for Canon to produce a cheaper (for them to make, if not for you to buy) replacement for the 17-40 at the low-end of the wide-angle FF lenses.

Perhaps we'll see a 24-70 f/3.5-5.6 to complete the unholy trinity of cheap FF lenses, 17-35, 24-70 and 70-300 II.

 

[mb66energy]

With 11 elements / 8 groups it may be in the 500 $/€ region and is much more affordable than the other options. If it is compact: another plus. And 8 groups - if proper coating with the proper coatings is done - promise a near flare-less high contrast optics.

But for me: If I would use that focal range I would go for the 16-35 4.0 or would like to buy a 17 4.0 IS USM with very high correction + compact design which is small enough to be used as moderate wide angle on an APS-C body too.

 

[-1]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

This focal length sells for $1K and up in the 'L' series so some people must be interested in it.

His point is there already is an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM, so a slower longer lens doesn't sound interesting.

Then again, Canon doesn't patent stuff to pique its customers.

The price sensitive masses might want a cheaper zoom and the STM AF motor could be more home movie friendly than the USM... The fact is that the L series has turned into two: "Pro" and "Pro Premium" and that further diversification of the product line could be warranted and thus this low end alternatives to the EF-S line.

 

[traveller]

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):

Budget: Canon: EF 17-35 f/4-5.6 IS STM EF 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS II USM Nikon: AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G ED VR AF-P 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR Mid-range: Canon: EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM Nikon: AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR High-end: Canon: EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM III EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II Nikon: AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S 24-70mm f2.8E ED VR AF-S 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED VR [We could debate where the EF 11-24mm f4L USM and EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM or the many older but 'still current' lenses fit into this scheme, but I believe it's pretty close to both companies' thinking on the topic].

 

[criscokkat]

I'm sure this is being developed with the full frame mirrorless market in mind. All signs so far point to them keeping the EF mount for full frame, and developing budget full frame lenses points to a 'pro-sumer' budgeted camera as one of the models. I wouldn't be surprised if they priced a new full frame mirrorless a bit more aggressively to get customers to lock in, something around the same price as the flagship aps-c camera, the 7d (mkIII by then).Just thinking of a kit with the 24-70 for around $1700, which would make it competitive with the forthcoming a7III that is supposed to be around the same price in kit form.

 

[ashmadux]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

not everyone wants an L.

the nikkor 18-35 seems to be doing well, perhaps your lack of interest bears little in the way of the market.

No, you're wrong, and he's quite right in his opinion. Your market quip doesn't quite stand for much either.

That said, this is the epitome of a boring, uninteresting lens design, for a non L.

Like...blech.

PS- Yeah yeah, someone can use it but who cares. It's BORING.

 

[rrcphoto]

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.

not everyone wants an L.

the nikkor 18-35 seems to be doing well, perhaps your lack of interest bears little in the way of the market.

No, you're wrong, and he's quite right in his opinion. Your market quip doesn't quite stand for much either.

That said, this is the epitome of a boring, uninteresting lens design, for a non L.

Like...blech.

PS- Yeah yeah, someone can use it but who cares. It's BORING.

not every lens in the stable is going to be exciting.

however the STM's are a valued part of the APS-C lineup so it stands to reason it's necessary for full frame as well.

You know there's such a thing called a market and segmentation. right?

also if it's much lighter than the UWA's that are out there for L's or much cheaper, then it's quite an interesting lens of optically it's good.

for a UWA, who the F cares about a variable aperture anyways?

 

[rrcphoto]

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.