Patent: Canon RF 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
422
486
If it were to be an APS-C lens, I would have expected the lens to be faster than f/3.5-5.6 probably closer to the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4...and for that reason I believe this is going to be a FF lens.
I disagree. Canon's EF-S 18-55 (perhaps the most popular EF-mount kit lens ever produced) is a 3.5-5.6.
 
Last edited:

Tom W

5D Mk IV
Sep 5, 2012
259
208
I'm kind of stuck with the 24-105 on the R, but I can see this lens being a great wide kit lens too.

As noted before, it opens the door to a crop sensor in an R body. Just in case Canon goes down that road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
93
59
That would be a great lens if it covers FF sensors. It's ultra-wide at 17mm, and reasonably fast at f/3.5 on the wide end. It's an affordable option that would be good for architecture & landscape shots, selfies & vlogging
 

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
296
59
Austria
www.flickr.com
What I find noteworthy in this lens design is that it is an internal zoom lens, which is a nice feature for me, but on the other hand it is a very long lens, about 50% longer than the 24-105 for example.
So I think this feature set will not make it likely this interesting design will be turned into a real product...
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,444
702
With the 1535 & 2470, you don’t need that consumer zoom:cool:
It cannot replace them in low light situations. But when shooting in external places and you cannot carry a lot (or you also carry another set like when birding) it is a very flexible lens.
 

Inspired

I'm New Here
Jun 21, 2017
19
3
Caribbean
I know they would prob be huge, but what would peak my interest is a 17-70 2.8 IS and a 24-105 2.8 IS, they would be worth their weight in gold lol.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,444
702
I know they would prob be huge, but what would peak my interest is a 17-70 2.8 IS and a 24-105 2.8 IS, they would be worth their weight in gold lol.
Except that the existing monster zoom RF28-70 f/2 does not have IS. And the 15-35 2.8L IS and 24-70 2.8L IS are already big!
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
439
24
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
I’m in. Been desperately wanting a little more than 18-55 for the M for years.
I caved and bought the 11-22. Thought I would be in love.

Barely use it, I miss the internal zooming of the 11-22 efs. Zooming on the tiny size is very annoying.

My m50 has pretty severe shutter slap, so its all been on the shelf for months. disappointing.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,915
1,049
oh, I just made a mistake. it isn't an internal zoom lens, it seems to contract a tad bit in the middle focal range, but only a small amount.
Similar to the way the front elements of the 17-40 and 16-35s contract inside the lens barrel without changing the total length of the lens.
 

Eagle Eye

EOS 80D
Jul 5, 2011
180
7
Virginia
This with a 70-300/70-400 with the same filter size would be the perfect backpacking landscape setup. I’d replace my M6 Mark II, EF-M 11-22, and EF-M 18-150 immediately with that setup.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,915
1,049
Yea, with a front protective filter I consider my 16-35 an "internal zoom lens". :cool:
With a front protective filter I consider my EF 17-40mm f/4 L a "flare/ghosting monster." It's bad enough in that respect even with no filter.

But then I use it under the lights at night for wide angle shots of sports. I've shot with it in moderate rain with no filter and no ill effects. (I rarely have the pretty much useless hood for it with me, though I never use any of my other zoom lenses without a hood.)