Patent: Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, yes…. f/1.4
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Meanwhile they talk about a 14-21 f/1.4L zoom lens but they have not provided us with a 16-35 f/2.8L IS zoom 
This would replace my 16-35 f/2.8L III and 16-35 f/4L IS zoom lenses (I like them both and I cannot get rid either...)
EDIT: And they haven't talked about a 16-35 f/2L...
This would replace my 16-35 f/2.8L III and 16-35 f/4L IS zoom lenses (I like them both and I cannot get rid either...)
EDIT: And they haven't talked about a 16-35 f/2L...
Last edited:
Likes:
dcm
Meanwhile they talk about a 14-21 f/1.4L zoom lens but they have not provided us with a 16-35 f/2.8L IS zoom
This would replace my 16-35 f/2.8L III and 16-35 f/4L IS zoom lenses (I like them both and I cannot get rid either...)
EDIT: And they haven't talked about a 16-35 f/2L...
This would replace my 16-35 f/2.8L III and 16-35 f/4L IS zoom lenses (I like them both and I cannot get rid either...)
EDIT: And they haven't talked about a 16-35 f/2L...
Yes...it''s an obvious set piece...a stunt lens. It's inclusion in the rumours of early RF lenses is to tie off all of the forum trolls who comment on any new wide lens as being poor for astro-photography. Even though it's an extremely narrow niche. this lens is going to be big, heavy and expensive...maybe more than the illustrious 11-24L. Canon have no intention of making any profit with this lens...but will milk the cache or qudos of making it to silence a very vocal niche. Ironically, the best wide for astro work that I've used is the Canon 8-15L fisheye....but that's another story.
The RF mount offers the capability of rear mounted filters as a working solution. I would prefer a two slot solution...and the ability to use a range of solid NDs. My experience with vari-ND's hasn't been good as they use a pair of polarisers and it's easy to get dark swirls in the frame with ultra wides. But....Canon may have done their home work and the vari-ND's might work. Ironically....the touch screen AF would really work well for landscape work when mounted on a tripod. Which I'm sure wasn't the intention of a mirrorless / Range Finder inspired camera system.
The RF mount offers the capability of rear mounted filters as a working solution. I would prefer a two slot solution...and the ability to use a range of solid NDs. My experience with vari-ND's hasn't been good as they use a pair of polarisers and it's easy to get dark swirls in the frame with ultra wides. But....Canon may have done their home work and the vari-ND's might work. Ironically....the touch screen AF would really work well for landscape work when mounted on a tripod. Which I'm sure wasn't the intention of a mirrorless / Range Finder inspired camera system.
If you want a coma free wide lens...then try the Canon 8-15L fisheye lens. Fisheyes are naturally coma free due to the lack of rectilinear correction (image stretching to make it fit in the corners). Circles stay circular with a fish, where as on a rectilinear corrected lens...they go egg shaped and a bit wonky towards the corners. It's apart of the lens design that causes this. There is no such thing as a fully "corrected lens". A designer can either correct the straights...or the circles....but not both.
It doesn't need to be completely coma free but there is a distance between having some coma and having horrible coma. Remember I wrote also: or almost no coma. Well a little coma is not a problem but horrible coma like the one of Canon 24mm 1.4L II is not acceptable.
Likes:
chrysoberyl
Hilarious. Very, very, very few people search patent applications. Very, very few... in my opinion. I don't personally think applying for patents to keep people around as customers is a business strategy. It is a business necessity to protect intellectual property. This is the only forum I belong to that looks at them. I have not personally ever taken a patent application into account when looking towards purchasing a new item. If I did that, then I'd be "paused" for decades (at times) waiting for something that might never come to fruition. So, respectfully, I strongly disagree.
Likes:
stevelee