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

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,166
1,737
Irving, Texas
I guess the spraying of patents for EOS R mount could be a way to deter photogs from staying put with the EOS EF one. Understandably since the EOS R don't seem to be such an atractive camera compared to the the similar priced 5D4... Good luck with the Rs, RX or whatever though...
Most photographers have no idea what the new patents are, so it is not a case of Canon using them to keep people around. Canon gets patents to protect new designs from being encroached.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
460
271
Frankfurt, Germany
Based on the absurdity of an RF 28-70mm F/2L, I'd say an RF 14-21mm F/1.4L is very feasible, albeit, very expensive. Lenses like these are what the EOS R system was designed for. Now if Canon could just deliver an EOS R camera body worthy of their glass... Hopefully I won't have to wait too long.
I don't agree that the RF 28-70mm F/2 is an absurdity, in contrast, for me it is really attractive because I can imagine settings in which I really could use it wide open (more in the 40-70mm range I guess).

But I never will understand the need for such a fast ultra-wide angle zoom lens. When I use wide angle lenses, I personally nearly always want more than less depth of field. Okay, I can imagine some useful settings in arts stills and videography - plus in night sky photography, because stars are far away and will appear sharp even shot wide open with such a lens (if atmospheric blur doesn't disturb too much). But for me personally this wouldn't justify an investment in such an UWA monster.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I'm wondering what it's filter options would be. EF to RF lenses get the massive bonus of using a drop in filter mount. So my TSe-17L, 8-15L fisheye or 11-24L can now be used with CPL or ND filters. That's a massive boon for landscape work, possibly a game changer.
But this lens would be a native RF lens...if it doesn't have a drop in slot...then it's negating that ef to rf benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,297
205
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
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.
I think it is a non-fair comparison: 28mm f/3.5 @ 300 bucks APS-C versus 35mm f/1.8 @ 500 bucks FullFrame! 2 stops better & larger image circle are a difference! 35mm equiv is a strange macro focal length but I see the RF 35 as a 35mm wide angle as a "low-light-and-no-limit-for-close-shots"-lens. (EDIT: I think Canon has seen the attractive Tamron 1.8 35 VC with similar close-up capability and reacted with same general parameters at smaller size and much lower weight. And it is a test ballon for an upcoming 1.8 xyzmm IS STM lens series)

About Nikons road map: I have never seen a Canon roadmap of something so I expect products being announced shortly before market release in non-homeopathic doses.

About your decision to buy the EF-M 32: I skipped the EF-M 28 macro due to small max aperture and bought the EF-M 32 two weeks ago. A stunning lens which is very practical not only because of the 1:4 closeup capability. This lens will serve as a good tranquilizer until -- maybe -- I will jump onto the roadmap-free EOS R FF boat :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Treyarnon

EOS T7i
Jan 11, 2018
62
36
Cornwall, UK
Visit site
I'm wondering what it's filter options would be. EF to RF lenses get the massive bonus of using a drop in filter mount. So my TSe-17L, 8-15L fisheye or 11-24L can now be used with CPL or ND filters. That's a massive boon for landscape work, possibly a game changer.
But this lens would be a native RF lens...if it doesn't have a drop in slot...then it's negating that ef to rf benefit.
It could be really cool if Canon could incorporate the same drop in filters into the rear of some of the larger R series lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and Dantana

Yasko

EOS 80D
Jun 9, 2017
114
18
New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:

These new lenses are very expensive...
In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.

What I want to say is: Lenses are nerdy and great but still very expensive when such apertures are featured and these apertures are not that much needed anymore as they were back in the day. I would also want to see a move forward on the camera body side :).

I like the EOS R, but as an enthusiast the costs go through the ceiling, although yeah, I can still use my EF glass (y)(y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mb66energy
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:

These new lenses are very expensive...
In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.

What I want to say is: Lenses are nerdy and great but still very expensive when such apertures are featured and these apertures are not that much needed anymore as they were back in the day. I would also want to see a move forward on the camera body side :).

I like the EOS R, but as an enthusiast the costs go through the ceiling, although yeah, I can still use my EF glass (y)(y)
That because you are trying to compete against professionals. L lenses are pro intended....with a price to suit.
For most domestic use...one or two consumer grade lenses are more than adequate. Delve in to pro level imagery and it's a different league in terms of capability, cost, size, weight and erm...Image Quality. A low iso image shot with f1.2 /f1.4 apertures will usually look far better and have a wide dynamic range than anything shot at a slower aperture and higher iso. Everyone has their tipping point where their quality vs cost occurs. It's why terms like "sharp" is very relative to each opinion of each photographer.
 

Treyarnon

EOS T7i
Jan 11, 2018
62
36
Cornwall, UK
Visit site
New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:

These new lenses are very expensive...
In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.

What I want to say is: Lenses are nerdy and great but still very expensive when such apertures are featured and these apertures are not that much needed anymore as they were back in the day. I would also want to see a move forward on the camera body side :).

I like the EOS R, but as an enthusiast the costs go through the ceiling, although yeah, I can still use my EF glass (y)(y)
Slower lenses are already out there. With a mature market, you look for the niches - and yes this would be a niche lens, but one which could still be an interesting creative tool.

Also - I really don't get this 'expensive kit is only for pros' outlook. As if all pro photographers are rich!! Truth is the *majority* of full time pros are scratching out a living, and its the enthusiasts who are FAR, FAR more likely to have more disposable income. I genuinely see way more 1DX's plus big whites in the hands of amateurs then I see with pros.

Also - lens rentals.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,080
376
That makes more sense but I think I Canon is showing off what they can do w/ the R mount
This is very likely. At the same time usually people shoot at the ends of the zoom (not saying that this is right, merely stating a fact) and whoever gets those zooms most probably checks first for the widest angle part. Altough with proper IQ (sharpness, lack of coma) this lens would shine for astrophotography the cost would be ebormous and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 would be a fantastic closest match alternative for much much less. I got it for astrophotography and I didnt't regret it :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeenThere
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Slower lenses are already out there. With a mature market, you look for the niches - and yes this would be a niche lens, but one which could still be an interesting creative tool.

Also - I really don't get this 'expensive kit is only for pros' outlook. As if all pro photographers are rich!! Truth is the *majority* of full time pros are scratching out a living, and its the enthusiasts who are FAR, FAR more likely to have more disposable income. I genuinely see way more 1DX's plus big whites in the hands of amateurs then I see with pros.

Also - lens rentals.
Yes I largely agree, but pro photogs in specific niches usually go for very specific top gear. When I went over to a Pair of 5DIII's (which I bought one year apart. One at launch) I knew that I was moving to a 5 year life span for the cams. So I'm pretty close to renewal on one of my 5DIII's. A lot of guys I know who went for the 1Dx went for a 6 year renewal. Lenses are a far better investment, The Canon L's just last a lot longer than anything else out there. Lenses...some of mine are over 15 year sold. I have a lens budget every year that I set aside. If I want something exotic or large...I have to wait for a few years. My ef 400mm f2.8 LIS is old...but it still produces stunning images. The only tangible benefit in the mkII or MkIII for me is weight. But optically...it's well paid for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
501
192
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
It could be really cool if Canon could incorporate the same drop in filters into the rear of some of the larger R series lenses.
Putting a filter between the camera and the lens would negate the benefits of the short flange distance. Essentially, EF lenses have already made this compromise, by having the long flange back, which prevented crazy lens design concepts like the RF 50 L f/1.2. As a result, putting a filter in the adapter - which is a glorified 2 cm extension tube - doesn't harm anything. But to design such a filter in the camera-end of a new RF lens would throw away the benefits of the reason they switched mounts in the first place.

But this does give rise to an alternate idea...

When lens designers were figuring out where to put the IS system between elements, the natural place was always where the light crossed over, where the beam was at its thinnest in the lens design. (Imagine light coming in from above top of the lens, and light coming in from below the bottom of the lens. Those beams enter the lens and get bent by the various lens elements, usually crossing somewhere around the middle and winding up hitting the sensor on the opposite side from where they entered. That cross-over point provides a small section where the light is compressed into a small area.) This place was most useful because the IS element could be at its smallest, and therefor it could be jiggled with a smaller motor, etc. This is also, according to Canon engineers, why Canon didn't put IS systems in large aperture lenses in the past, because even with the smaller surface area that needed to be covered, large aperture lenses required IS elements and motors that would be too large or would not be effective enough. By way of example, the new Canon 85mm 1.4 monster has to employ the IS system of one of the big whites.

Enter mirrorless. Most manufacturers have been relying on IBIS for stabilization, moving all that hardware into the camera and out of the lens, which now provides a lens design opportunity to put a removable filter element in the *center* of the lens. There may be good reasons why no one has done this yet, but I think this sounds feasible. It might be difficult to use a standard-sized system, so that such filters could be used among multiple lenses, as they tend to be diverse in girth.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,360
156
Ottawa Ontario
I'm glad the Canon designers are having fun, but I wonder about the size and weight of such a lens. I'm a Canon M5 user, but if I were to go to full frame mirrorless I think right now Nikon is much more appealing. Practical lenses, and a Fuji style lens roadmap. In comparison, Canon seems to be sort of in left field, with large heavy expensive show-off lenses, no lens roadmap, and strange-for-strange-sake controls on the EOS R body. I had a Fuji system plus a Canon EF system, but recently sold all that and am just using the M5 at the moment. So I could choose either the EOS R or Z6 without wanting the adapters for legacy lenses. Buying into the respective new systems, the Z6 plus 24-70 kit lens is $800 less (!?) than the EOS R with 24-105 kit lens. I don't get that at all. Plus, personally, I would want the smaller lighter Nikon setup.

Just got the new 32mm f/1.4 EF-M lens. Sticking with the M5 for now, until full frame things settle down.
I have the 32 f/1.4 too. It's very sharp, I like it quite a lot on my M6
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
246
89
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
That because you are trying to compete against professionals. L lenses are pro intended....with a price to suit.
For most domestic use...one or two consumer grade lenses are more than adequate. Delve in to pro level imagery and it's a different league in terms of capability, cost, size, weight and erm...Image Quality. A low iso image shot with f1.2 /f1.4 apertures will usually look far better and have a wide dynamic range than anything shot at a slower aperture and higher iso. Everyone has their tipping point where their quality vs cost occurs. It's why terms like "sharp" is very relative to each opinion of each photographer.
Yes

Plus, faster lenses also give you more options.

There is nothing keeping you from shooting a large aperture lens at a smaller aperture if that's the effect you want for a specific shot, but the reverse isn't true. It's impossible to open a lens up more than it's max aperture.

It's all about choices and compromises, like everything else. What is more important? Speed, size, cost, flexibility, something else...

This is a new system and the lenses (and patents) will keep rolling out. I'm looking forward to seeing it happen, though I think I am a ways off from buying into the R system right now. I still get good results from my gear even though I like to look at the new toys.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,166
1,737
Irving, Texas
I don't agree that the RF 28-70mm F/2 is an absurdity, in contrast, for me it is really attractive because I can imagine settings in which I really could use it wide open (more in the 40-70mm range I guess).

But I never will understand the need for such a fast ultra-wide angle zoom lens. When I use wide angle lenses, I personally nearly always want more than less depth of field. Okay, I can imagine some useful settings in arts stills and videography - plus in night sky photography, because stars are far away and will appear sharp even shot wide open with such a lens (if atmospheric blur doesn't disturb too much). But for me personally this wouldn't justify an investment in such an UWA monster.
I agree. The 24-70 f/2 isn't absurd at all. The price is reasonable too, if one considers the EF 200mm f/2L is $5600. I know, apples and oranges, but still a bargain. *If* I ever get an R the 24-70 f/2 would be the first lens I'd buy. Personally, I would love a 24-70 f/1.4... I don't care how heavy. 4 lbs. would be just fine with me. Same with a 70-200 (5.5-6.5 lbs?). I'd only have to have two lenses, nothing more.