Patent: Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, yes…. f/1.4

Aaron D

EOS 80D
Jul 21, 2016
144
109
Kansas City
www.aarondougherty.com
I love that Canon is really pushing the frontier with RF lens design, however, when I use ultra-wide angle, it's mainly for landscapes where I want all the depth of field I can get .... typically at least f5.6. I would be perfectly happy with a f2.8 BUT with outstanding optics (resolution, contrast, very low vignetting, etc.)
Yeah, likewise, or f4 even...
 

bdbender4

EOS M50
Jan 19, 2017
33
20
Isn't the Canon RF 1.8 35mm IS Macro for lousy 500 bucks a practical lens?
Yeah, it's practical, but I already had the 28mm EF-M Macro, for a lousy 300 bucks, little more than half the price. (Strange focal lengths for macro, both of them.) I used it mostly as a regular prime, although a slow one. Now I have the 32mm I gave the short 28mm macro to a friend of mine who is a dentist and has an M camera. She loves it! Uses it to take pictures of teeth for insurance claims.

But back on topic: this thread is about yet another yeeh-hah show-off lens for Canon RF. Nikon gets regularly trashed for their lousy marketing, deservedly so, but I think in the case of FF mirrorless they have done better than Canon by releasing two bodies and a promise of a whole corral full of practical lenses. Canon is being very coy about both future bodies and lenses, basically just saying "trust us, we're committed to a full line-up". In these times I don't think that's good enough. Especially not when what actually still does leak is fantasy concept patents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MayaTlab

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
869
249
On Canon News, the image height for all three variations is 21.64mm. That implies to me that the lenses are for Super 35 cinema models.
Had the same initial reaction. However, after playing with the math, 21.64 mm is the half height from the sensor center to the corner.

Just playing with a^2 + b^2 = c^2 or 24*24 + 36*36 = c2, c = 43.3 mm. Divide that to get the distance from the image sensor to the corner, and 21.65 cm.

These are FF lenses.

wow.
 

Mika

EOS T7i
May 5, 2012
74
1
21.6 mm image height refers to half-diagonal length, as does the field of view angle (typically). So it's 43.2 mm diagonal, and thus full frame.

The Embodiment 1 design is F/1.55, so it's closer to F/1.6 than F/1.4. There's quite a number of surfaces right there. There's quite a number of moving groups too there.

The lens length is given as 191 mm, fixed length objective. Front element (glass) diameter is about 86 mm.

EDIT: Personally, I'm not sure what Canon is aiming to do with these objectives, unless it's just to build fences around their market area with patents. Clearly shorter back focal length allows to improve the performance of ultra-wides significantly, allowing either better MTFs (mostly sensor limited) or faster objectives. But the cost is the weight, and I really am not sure if I even wanted to go with that lens. Sigma 12-24/4.0 Art is 125 mm long (lens only), and it's not a small lens, and it already is pushing what I want to carry around. This would be close to the length of EF 70-200 / 2.8L.

With mirrorless full frame camera, I'd be looking at more moderate aperture F/2.0 ... F/2.8 objectives as those would be lighter and smaller, and I'd try to increase the maximum magnification to 0.3x for more general imaging tool. I thought mirrorless was supposed to be lighter?
 
Last edited:

masterpix

EOS 80D
Jun 29, 2016
146
100
The only problem I see with the 1.2/1.4 or even 1.8 zooms is their size and weight. The fact that there is no mirror allow wider glass in the rear of the lenses, but it comes with two main "faults" size/weight for one and unfortunately also price. One of the aims of mirror-less cameras is reducing size and weight of both camera and lenses, unfortunately, I don't see it happen here.

On the other hand, there are so much interest in the mirror-less camera that I wonder when we will see the new 7Dmk3, the D90 or a new 1Dxmk3?
 

CandySpan

I'm New Here
Oct 23, 2018
14
9
The EOS R feels much better than the Nikon’s, plus you get Canon’s lenses that behave natively on a mirrorless body. It’s a win, win. Don’t be fooled for a second that Fuji comes anywhere close to its performance. I’ve used it in tandem with my 5D IV and it’s actually a better experience. It also focuses in complete darkness with a fast lens. Seriously. The poeple who are complaining haven’t really used it, or just like complaining. Lolz :)
 

CandySpan

I'm New Here
Oct 23, 2018
14
9
The only problem I see with the 1.2/1.4 or even 1.8 zooms is their size and weight. The fact that there is no mirror allow wider glass in the rear of the lenses, but it comes with two main "faults" size/weight for one and unfortunately also price. One of the aims of mirror-less cameras is reducing size and weight of both camera and lenses, unfortunately, I don't see it happen here.

On the other hand, there are so much interest in the mirror-less camera that I wonder when we will see the new 7Dmk3, the D90 or a new 1Dxmk3?
I think most people see much more advantage to a mirrorless system than size. Panasonic used size to its advantage with M43 with the GH5 being able to shoot unlimited 4K video without overheating, etc. There are smaller systems out there, Sony for instance with horrible ergonomics, m43 with low-ish image quality. Or, shoot fast manual glass a la Leica. I really like the R and what it brings to the table!
 

CandySpan

I'm New Here
Oct 23, 2018
14
9
Which companies have delivered a...

A) 11-24mm f/4 zoom lens
B) 17mm f/4 tilt shift lens
C) 8-15mm f/4 fisheye zoom lens
D) 24-70mm f/2 zoom lens

On the way, could you also check how often do other companies' patents actually come out, and after how long? IIRC, it took Nikon ~7 years to come out with an ultra wide perspective control lens, and it isn't as wide as Canon's.
I’m just waiting for that 24-70 f2, I don’t believe people understand how big of a deal that lens is! I think part of Canon’s strategy is making this a high end mirrorless system, with few compromises. There’s also already a ton of used L glass that performs way better than those consumer grade Nikon lenses, for instance, that perform natively in the R with an adapter. The body also isn’t very expensive!
 

timmy_650

EOS RP
Dec 20, 2012
277
15
The EOS-R fits pretty much everything I need and I am shooting a 6D and it is about time to upgrade but I worry lenses that I will pay for will be a long time out. I am not sure now long it will take other companies to start making R mount lenses. That is a cool lens but I don't care to drop $3000 for a lens. I find $1000 is a stretch for me and feel like there is many others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Photorex

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
869
249
21.6 mm image height refers to half-diagonal length, as does the field of view angle (typically). So it's 43.2 mm diagonal, and thus full frame.

The Embodiment 1 design is F/1.55, so it's closer to F/1.6 than F/1.4. There's quite a number of surfaces right there. There's quite a number of moving groups too there.

The lens length is given as 191 mm, fixed length objective. Front element (glass) diameter is about 86 mm.

EDIT: Personally, I'm not sure what Canon is aiming to do with these objectives, unless it's just to build fences around their market area with patents. Clearly shorter back focal length allows to improve the performance of ultra-wides significantly, allowing either better MTFs (mostly sensor limited) or faster objectives. But the cost is the weight, and I really am not sure if I even wanted to go with that lens. Sigma 12-24/4.0 Art is 125 mm long (lens only), and it's not a small lens, and it already is pushing what I want to carry around. This would be close to the length of EF 70-200 / 2.8L.

With mirrorless full frame camera, I'd be looking at more moderate aperture F/2.0 ... F/2.8 objectives as those would be lighter and smaller, and I'd try to increase the maximum magnification to 0.3x for more general imaging tool. I thought mirrorless was supposed to be lighter?
BTW...you probably were responding to my initial post that I deleted and then reposted after running some numbers...

As for what Canon is doing...absolutely, defensive patents are real. I would expect a lot of optical design patents to come to protect themselves. While big, these exotic lenses do a couple of things: 1) show what can be done with the shorter flange distance, and 2) differentiate themselves not only from Sony/Nikon...but really differentiate MILC from phones.

Bottom line, in a shrinking market, you figure out what market niches will need you in the future and cater to those markets.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
Looks like an interesting lens. Great if it is sharp in the corners at F1.4
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
390
81
52
And sub $4K too - like around $2,100USD as this range is less extreme than the 11-24mm f4.0L.

I wish Canon were more conservative and and not so risk-taking. More like Sony and Nikon.

Seriously though, an f4.0 version of exactly this range would be perfect for my work, which is all on tripod and none of it 'subject isolating'—so that blinding fast aperture is wasted on me. Trade the f1.4 for perfect distortion control in a slower, sub-6-pound lens!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron D

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
390
81
52
Similar in weight to Sigma's 105mm f1.4 would be my guess - albeit with a much smaller "exit pupil"... ;-)
This would be a beast of a lens but would also be a lot of fun for astrophotography and landscape (don't need the wide aperture). I can only imagine how much this will weigh, cost and what the filter system will be for it.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
This sounds like a wonderful lens that I will drool over and never buy, because of a combination of the price tag and my limited use. But sounds great -- I'm glad that Canon is coming out with eyebrow-raising RF glass on the high end.
 

Mika

EOS T7i
May 5, 2012
74
1
I think it is a printing error. Should be 14-21mm F4.
It's not. The patent states F/1.55 in all its zoom settings. The front lens diameter matches with wide angles, but the patented embodiment is significantly longer. It's genuinely about the size of EF 70-200/2.8

The real meat would probably be the 16-35/2.8 in Embodiment 2. The issue with that too is that the current EF 16-35/2.8 III is about 128 mm in length. Embodiment 2 is close to 191 mm.

It's hard for me to believe it's these lenses that would arrive on the market, the objective lengths seem a bit off to me.

EDIT: apparently, there's some amount of the EF35/1.4 II ish Blue Goo indicated in the patent too. The gap between the last two lens elements may be filled with some interesting sh... stuff
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tiggy@mac.com

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
292
57
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
Hasn't Canon's USP always been its amazing & capable lens range, so isn't this just them re stamping their dominance in this field - an amazing collection of desirable glass that keeps us amateurs always looking for an upgrade.
With lenses like this there will be a whole new image area of flashless evening/event photographs that were not possible before with these fast lenses on hi ISO sensors. Want, Want, Want.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
248
89
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
Always interesting when a new lens or patent is announced, the conversation invariably becomes about other lenses that should have been. More RF mount lenses will come. Bigger lenses, smaller lenses, faster and slower lenses.

I think it's amazing that they have come up with the formula for this lens. I won't be able to afford it, and I'm just a hobbyist anyway, but it looks like it could be pretty cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
501
192
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
apparently, there's some amount of the EF35/1.4 II ish Blue Goo indicated in the patent too. The gap between the last two lens elements may be filled with some interesting sh... stuff
Glad to see the Blue Goo make an appearance one more. I've always suspected that it was present between elements of additional lenses since, but Canon was shy about promoting it after we made so much fun of the way they marketed it the first time. If you'll recall, they were so unspecific about it ("organic compound") that instead of leveling the "plastic" label on them, the forum just reacted with Seussian satire. I considered it a proud moment for the forums at the time.