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

Aug 29, 2018
5
3
I just want a 20-50mm f/2 L IS. It will cover 99.99% of my photographic needs. And I will gladly pay $3000 for it. :)
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
291
Bigger 5han the aforementioned zoom?
Good question! If they made a 14mm 1.2L with good IQ and no coma (or almost no coma) they would tempt me but for the price!

For now Sigma 14mm 1.8 made me reduce ISO a lot (from the days I was using a 14 2.8 lens)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BeenThere

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
291
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 :rolleyes:
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:
  • Like
Reactions: dcm

mirage

EOS RP
Jul 31, 2018
297
111
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 :rolleyes:
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...
well Canon hinted at "f/2.8" RF zooms ... RF 24-70/2.8 IS for sure, but I'd also expect an RF 16-35/2.8 L ... IS !?
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
291
well Canon hinted at "f/2.8" RF zooms ... RF 24-70/2.8 IS for sure, but I'd also expect an RF 16-35/2.8 L ... IS !?
Because they cannot make it in EF right? Oh wait Tamron could....
But I guess you are right about Canon being able and intending to introduce RF f/2.8 lenses...
 
Last edited:

Tom W

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2012
185
117
Personally, a 14-28 f/2 zoom would be a great companion to the 28-70. And, a 70-150 or so f/2 tele zoom would complete the set of a new f/2 holy trinity.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
291
Personally, a 14-28 f/2 zoom would be a great companion to the 28-70. And, a 70-150 or so f/2 tele zoom would complete the set of a new f/2 holy trinity.
Neither of the three would tempt me but I agree they would make a new trinity and that some pros would like them. I stil prefer the old fashioned set of f/2.8 ones though.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,592
296
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
f/1.4 is incredible for a zoom like this, but who is it for. It could be a fantastic Astro lens, but I would not plunk $4k down for it.
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.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,592
296
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Good question! If they made a 14mm 1.2L with good IQ and no coma (or almost no coma) they would tempt me but for the price!

For now Sigma 14mm 1.8 made me reduce ISO a lot (from the days I was using a 14 2.8 lens)
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.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
291
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrysoberyl

-1

EOS 80D
Dec 18, 2014
187
2
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.
Most people think that a patent means that product might be in the pipeline soo it is a way to keep folks around...
 

beachcolonist

I'm New Here
Nov 22, 2017
11
1
N.E.
Such a thing is a boutique product with marginal added utility and a user base of either the very wealthy or the few with the actual need to have it make income. So it's not a big deal. A big deal with be 25% lower prices all over the range of L lenses or new R lenses.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,519
1,122
Irving, Texas
Most people think that a patent means that product might be in the pipeline soo it is a way to keep folks around...
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. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee