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

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
858
187
For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
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.
I don't think 70-200/1.4 is possible in any form that we could use, but 70-200/f2 would be a magical lens for me :) I'd probably buy a body for it, and it would never get taken off the mount, lol.

Since 200/2 is a 5.5 lb/8"+ lens, I assume it would not be smaller or lighter, but I would work out or get a cybernetic arm or something to figure out a way to shoot with it, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,152
1,712
Irving, Texas
For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.
I don't know about that so much. I have the 35mm f/1.4L II and will probably buy the EF 24mm f/1.4L II one of these days (after I get an 85mm). Would I ever buy an RF 14-21mm f/1.4? Sure! Why not? But only after a 28-70 and 70-200. A body and those two lenses alone would take me 3-4 years to acquire.

That aside, I am not sure I get your point. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,152
1,712
Irving, Texas
I don't think 70-200/1.4 is possible in any form that we could use, but 70-200/f2 would be a magical lens for me :) I'd probably buy a body for it, and it would never get taken off the mount, lol.

Since 200/2 is a 5.5 lb/8"+ lens, I assume it would not be smaller or lighter, but I would work out or get a cybernetic arm or something to figure out a way to shoot with it, lol.
I'd settle for a 70-135 or 70-150 f/1.4. 150mm is plenty long for what I do. :) Heck, I'd even go for an 85-135 f/1.4. I'd love the hell out of that.
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
858
187
I don't know about that so much. I have the 35mm f/1.4L II and will probably buy the EF 24mm f/1.4L II one of these days (after I get an 85mm). Would I ever buy an RF 14-21mm f/1.4? Sure! Why not? But only after a 28-70 and 70-200. A body and those two lenses alone would take me 3-4 years to acquire.

That aside, I am not sure I get your point. :)
My point is that I see members saying how great it would be to have this lens when they don’t currently shoot at this aperture or focal length. If it is something they need, just saying they would likely already have a prime of similar focal length and aperture. Otherwise, not much credibility there. I know some members do, but not very many.
 

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
208
113
Calgary
For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.
Isn't the 24mm f1.4 the ONLY Canon lens that is "full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider"?

That being the case, you are saying that that is the only target audience? A 14~21mm FF lens is extremely flexible, giving you a big range of FOV. And you only need one set of filter than if you were to get 2 prime lenses, possibly. I would think it would be a tempting wide angle lens... oops, I don't qualify to comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
485
483
www.flickr.com
My point is that I see members saying how great it would be to have this lens when they don’t currently shoot at this aperture or focal length. If it is something they need, just saying they would likely already have a prime of similar focal length and aperture. Otherwise, not much credibility there. I know some members do, but not very many.
I like to think I would consider one of these depending on the filter thread (if there is one). I regularly shoot wide and open for astro-landscapes and dusk/dawn long exposures using a Lee filter system. Right now I carry both a Rokinon 14 f/2.8 and a 16-35 f/4L to suit both daytime and night time shooting, and I'm often camping in somewhat remote locations meaning everything gets carried, sometimes farther distances than comfortable. I would love an alternative lens which can perform the duties of both (reducing my weight/pack size). Doubt I would open up to 1.4 that frequently, but 1.8 or 2 would get used certainly. At 14mm, however, I think a traditional filter thread is out of the question. Although, I thought I had read here that wide angle lenses could become a fair bit smaller with a reduced distance between the lens and the sensor? I can't help but wonder how big this thing is going to be.

With that said, I do think 14mm at f/1.4 could be functional for landscape astrophotography - I think focusing between 4 and 5m out would have sharp focus from 2.3m in front of the camera to infinity. That could work for some applications.
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
858
187
Isn't the 24mm f1.4 the ONLY Canon lens that is "full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider"?

That being the case, you are saying that that is the only target audience? A 14~21mm FF lens is extremely flexible, giving you a big range of FOV. And you only need one set of filter than if you were to get 2 prime lenses, possibly. I would think it would be a tempting wide angle lens... oops, I don't qualify to comment.
Why limit to Canon lenses. Any full frame EF lens will do. Sure, not many examples out there, but my point is that if you really needed one, you would have gotten one. I have the Sigma 24mm f1.4 that I only use for Astro. But, I would never pay $4k for the proposed zoom. The 24mm and a 14mm are sufficient at less than half the cost.
 
Last edited:

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
208
113
Calgary
Why limit to Canon lenses. Any full frame EF lens will do. Sure, not many examples out there, but my point is that if you really needed one, you would have gotten one. I have the Sigma 24mm f1.4 that I only use for Astro. But, I would never pay $4k for the proposed zoom. The 24mm and a 14mm are sufficient at less than half the cost.
So you are limiting everyone to the one purpose that you use it for?

..." if you really needed one, you would have gotten one" a prime or a zoom? A zoom of that ability does not exist yet does it? A person might find a 14mm F1.4 of too limited use and be reluctant to buy it, but might find a 14-21mm versatile enough to put down some hard cold cash.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,152
1,712
Irving, Texas
My point is that I see members saying how great it would be to have this lens when they don’t currently shoot at this aperture or focal length. If it is something they need, just saying they would likely already have a prime of similar focal length and aperture. Otherwise, not much credibility there. I know some members do, but not very many.
True, but this is also a zoom, not a prime... so far more useful, right?

Anyway, I fail to see what credibility has to do with saying, "it would be great to have" a particular lens. It just seems strange that one would challenge the credibility of somebody's desire for something. However, this forum is lopsided to the high end user anyway, so who knows.
 

Bob Howland

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 25, 2012
443
46
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.
Not that I disbelieve you, but what you're describing might better be called the "image radius".
 

Bob Howland

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 25, 2012
443
46
For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.
24 f/1.4, first generation, from when I photographed bands in rather dimly lit clubs. I don't do that any more after realizing how much hearing I had lost.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,152
1,712
Irving, Texas
Why limit to Canon lenses. Any full frame EF lens will do. Sure, not many examples out there, but my point is that if you really needed one, you would have gotten one. I have the Sigma 24mm f1.4 that I only use for Astro. But, I would never pay $4k for the proposed zoom. The 24mm and a 14mm are sufficient at less than half the cost.
For me, need has nothing to do with any of it. I don't "need" a camera at all. This is a hobby for me.

I had Tamron's 15-30 f/2.8. Great lens, but it seemed a little slow for astro and I lived in the desert at the time. Usefulness there was pretty limited. Now I live in the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex. The proposed lens would be very useful to me. I currently use 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm Takumars for my wide shots. They are old and slow. If the distortion is well controlled on this zoom and I've already got the body and other lenses? I'll buy. Not high on my list, but on the list just the same. But my EF glass will work well on an R anyway. I had my heart set on an EF 11-24 f/4L... but I might have to change my mind now.
 

AJ

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 11, 2010
621
25
Dear Canon. Fast rectilinears are okay for astro photography, but I prefer fisheye. The old 15/2.8 has been discontinued and all we have now is an f/4 zoom. That's pretty slow. Can we have a 15/2 please, or better yet a 15/1.4 This would be awesome for milky way shots, star trails, aurora, and so on. Thank you for listening.
 

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
869
249
Not that I disbelieve you, but what you're describing might better be called the "image radius".
Agreed. I am not usually looking at the optical formulas in patents at depth and originally thought image height might be the vertical height of the frame. But, that is when I started looking at a few other patents and the "image height" was always much smaller than expected. That is when I started playing with the math and a couple of things pointed to the conclusion, but, as an engineer, it really is image radius.
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
344
296
Canada
www.canonnews.com
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.
Actually the lens is incredibly well balanced on an EOS RF, you hardly notice the weight. you DO however feel the torque of AF motor when you focus :) Picking up just the lens, or reading the specs really doesn't do that lens justice.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
356
186
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.
24-70 F2 and 70-130 F2. I would just own these two lens and an ultra wide lens. 4lbs would be no problem. It's the price I'm concern about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

sfeinsmith

EOS M50
Aug 23, 2016
25
17
Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people showed excited about RF lenses. They did not realize the prices that they cannot afford it. Canon tries to increase the cost for the RF lenses. The RF lenses were all junk and worthless because it limited to mirrorless Canon R camera bodies.

Canon will abandon EF lenses and hope that they can find a way to terminate it as much as like they did in 1987/1989 against world most reliable lenses as known as FD and FDn included older lenses, R and FL.

These lenses are reliable, long-life constructed. Also, it is repairable easy. Canon decided to cease replacement parts available for FD and FDn as well as against tanks like constructed Canon A and F series camera bodies. That is why they ceased it due lack of profitability.

Be smart, DO NOT BUY RF lenses and R camera series until Canon announce that they will put EF lenses and EF based cameras as primary in the market. Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.

The difference was no autofocus and stabilizer features on FD or FDn lenses. Everything is manual control and more fun to use it. It is same as Carl Zeiss ZF lenses for EOS camera bodies as 100% manual setting. My 45 years old Canon F-1 with FD and FDn lenses included accessories such as motor drive, Servo EE finder, Booster T finder, and an external battery pack are all 100% functional. Only that I always wish to have digital back available for this camera as much as like Hasselblad. Unfortunately, Canon abandoned and ran away from it to work with EF based EOS system. I also have 44 years old Canon A-1 is still working flawlessly.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,152
1,712
Irving, Texas
Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people showed excited about RF lenses. They did not realize the prices that they cannot afford it. Canon tries to increase the cost for the RF lenses. The RF lenses were all junk and worthless because it limited to mirrorless Canon R camera bodies.

Canon will abandon EF lenses and hope that they can find a way to terminate it as much as like they did in 1987/1989 against world most reliable lenses as known as FD and FDn included older lenses, R and FL.

These lenses are reliable, long-life constructed. Also, it is repairable easy. Canon decided to cease replacement parts available for FD and FDn as well as against tanks like constructed Canon A and F series camera bodies. That is why they ceased it due lack of profitability.

Be smart, DO NOT BUY RF lenses and R camera series until Canon announce that they will put EF lenses and EF based cameras as primary in the market. Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.

The difference was no autofocus and stabilizer features on FD or FDn lenses. Everything is manual control and more fun to use it. It is same as Carl Zeiss ZF lenses for EOS camera bodies as 100% manual setting. My 45 years old Canon F-1 with FD and FDn lenses included accessories such as motor drive, Servo EE finder, Booster T finder, and an external battery pack are all 100% functional. Only that I always wish to have digital back available for this camera as much as like Hasselblad. Unfortunately, Canon abandoned and ran away from it to work with EF based EOS system. I also have 44 years old Canon A-1 is still working flawlessly.
As a guy that works with a lot of vintage lenses I can tell you that I do not adapt a single FD lens to my EOS digital camera. Why? Because the adapter for those lenses adds another glass element to the mix and image quality suffers, a lot. FD are manual focus. Most people don't want that. They are not very popular. It is a very small niche market. The FD platform is long dead. It would not be cost effective to keep making replacement parts 31 years down the road. I understand your nostalgia. I also have a Canon A-1, two Mamiya film cameras, a Voigtlander, and a Yashica. The thing is that most people don't want to pay $6 for a single roll of film and then $14 to process it or buy the equipment needed to process it themselves. I wish I could still buy a 1968 Ford Fairlane GT and that Ford would keep making parts. It will never happen.

The difference between 1987 and now is that EF lenses work just as well on the R as they do on the DSLR. Canon was smart with that.

While you and I might like fooling around with manual focus lenses, most do not. Yes, some were built well. I have a single FD lens (50mm f/1.8) for my Canon A-1. It is not built well. It is mostly cheap plastic. My Takumars, on the other hand, are all metal and built to last.