Patent: Zoom tilt-shift lenses

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,069
1,288
The advantage is that people have an irrational hatred of adapters, even when they work flawlessly.
Roger Cicala is certainly not irrational, and he has shown that adapters do not necessarily work flawlessly from an optical standpoint (even if there are no overt electronic issues, which with OEM there aren’t).
 
Reactions: LDS and uri.raz

Famateur

EOS 7D MK II
Oct 9, 2012
757
55
I actually think it's kinda smart to create these in EF mount.

First, they'll work equally well on both EF- and RF-mount bodies -- including the 1DX III (if it's an EF mount DSLR, as it's rumored to be). This means anyone with a full-frame Canon body or even an EF/EF-S crop DSLR can use the lens. That makes great sense from a business perspective because it keeps the potential market much larger. Pros who are happy with their current EF kit...but would drool over a TS-E zoom don't have to move to a new body and lens mount to get it.

Second, given that you can get an EF-to-RF adapter with built-in ND filter, it seems like an advantage to have these lenses in EF mount for use on an R platform. No need for big external filter systems that have to be swapped from lens to lens. Less to pack around, easier to use, no vignetting, etc -- seems splendid to me!

The only trade-off to an EF-to-RF adapter is that it's a separate piece of gear and makes the lens a little longer. I think that's a small sacrifice -- if you have both EF and RF bodies, and/or if you plan to use ND filters on your lenses.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
The advantage is that people have an irrational hatred of adapters, even when they work flawlessly.
Of course.

Not wanting to beat the dead horse any more, but...

...Whether dislike for adapters is rational or irrational, Canon has no doubt looked at how many sales would be lost from R owners who don't want to use an adapter with a tilt-shift lens, versus how many sales to DSLR and M users will be lost if the lens is only available in R mount. They know which version will sell better. I'm speculating that a highly specialized lens that works on all Canon bodies will be more profitable than one that works only on a tiny share of bodies. (A niche within a niche).
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
309
108
What would be the advantages? EF mount would still work perfectly with the Canon R series, while also working with existing DLSRs and even M bodies. If the lenses are RF, they can only work on R bodies, which means no sales beyond the small percentage of Canon users who have an R body.
The wider lenses, including supposed zooms, would benefit from the thinner mount. That’s one of the benefits of mirrorless, you may have heard. Higher quality lenses then otherwise practical. The lenses could be smaller. And lighter.

I think you are under the misconception that Canon thinks that the R mount won’t have high Rez, high priced bodies, and that the future lies with the DSLR.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,069
1,288
The wider lenses, including supposed zooms, would benefit from the thinner mount. That’s one of the benefits of mirrorless, you may have heard. Higher quality lenses then otherwise practical. The lenses could be smaller. And lighter.
I’m still waiting for any actual evidence of this. Not things you may have heard. Facts. So far, the facts in evidence are:
  • The patent designs for RF UWA zooms (15-35, 16-35, 17-35, including some with variable aperture) are all larger than the EF 17-40
  • The RF24-105 is essentially identical to the EF version
  • The RF 35/1.8 is larger than the EF 35/2
  • The RF 50/1.2 is bigger than the EF 50/1.2
  • The RF 85/1.2 is bigger than the EF 85/1.2
You may have heard that the earth is flat. Not everything you hear is correct.
 
Reactions: unfocused

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
The wider lenses, including supposed zooms, would benefit from the thinner mount. That’s one of the benefits of mirrorless, you may have heard. Higher quality lenses then otherwise practical. The lenses could be smaller. And lighter.

I think you are under the misconception that Canon thinks that the R mount won’t have high Rez, high priced bodies, and that the future lies with the DSLR.
I see. You think tiny differences in image quality determine Canon's development strategy. I think Canon is driven more by sales potential.

I don't know what Canon is going to do, but I would guess that a high resolution R body is in the near future. (CR rumors also indicate that). Mirrorless is probably a better format for high resolution than DSLR. But, at the end of the day it comes down to how many lenses Canon can sell and right now, I believe they can sell more niche market lenses with a universal to Canon EF mount than with a proprietary to one line R mount.

Frankly, I'm not sure what set you off here. Someone complained about the lenses being an R mount and I simply pointed out that the original post indicated they were EF mount lenses. CR Guy speculated they would instead be R mounts and I speculated they would be EF, just as the source indicated.
 

flip314

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2018
122
124
Roger Cicala is certainly not irrational, and he has shown that adapters do not necessarily work flawlessly from an optical standpoint (even if there are no overt electronic issues, which with OEM there aren’t).
OK, but I don't think that argument will hold up when it comes to tilt-shift lenses... You'll almost certainly have more error from the tilt/shift mechanism than from the adapter, even with everything locked in the "neutral" position. And if it isn't, well, good luck setting your tilt and axis angle accurately enough to where manufacturing tolerances in the adapter are going to matter.
 

maves

24mm TS-e ii is life!
Sep 21, 2017
14
10
Tasmania
A 24-100mm tilst shift is an interesting concept, but one that I'm not sure who the market is. I shoot architecture with Canon's superb 17 and 24mm tilt shift lenses. I often wish I had a 35mm TS-e but can't justify going to 50mm. The 45/50mm TS-e users are usually product and some specialist portrait photographers where the long end (85-135) is generally macro and product. Plus this lens will be massive! Basically a medium format 4x Zoom. These are also genres of photography where absolute image quality is critical and canon competes with the likes of PhaseOne. If you want any architecture shooters to look twice it has to be perfect and distortion free (Correction profiles don't work on TS lenses) like the current 24mm and if you want the product/macro photography crowd to look at it it has to be razor sharp at all local lengths, corner to corner - both of these points are weaknesses of zooms.

I'm sure that there are a couple of people who find this is really appealing, and maybe there's a market that I have underestimated, but I just think it's not wide enough for the architecture/Landscape crowd and not long enough for the product/macro crowd. If Canon produce it to the level of quality that satisfies all of the above then I will be more than happy to be wrong.
 
Reactions: navastronia

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,194
141
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
I’m still waiting for any actual evidence of this. Not things you may have heard. Facts. So far, the facts in evidence are:
  • The patent designs for RF UWA zooms (15-35, 16-35, 17-35, including some with variable aperture) are all larger than the EF 17-40
  • The RF24-105 is essentially identical to the EF version
  • The RF 35/1.8 is larger than the EF 35/2
  • The RF 50/1.2 is bigger than the EF 50/1.2
  • The RF 85/1.2 is bigger than the EF 85/1.2
You may have heard that the earth is flat. Not everything you hear is correct.
I was a little bit confused about that statement and checked the data:
RF variant: diameter 74.4 x 62.8mm, approx. 305g
EF variant: diameter 77.9 x 62.6mm, 335g
(from usa.canon.com)

So they have a very similar weight and size but the EF is 1.8 + has better max. reprod. ratio.
On the camera the smaller flange distance of the RF system makes the RF variant ~20 mm shorter
when it comes to overall dimensions of the body-lens combo. Not dramatic but sometimes very
helpful.

While the RF 50/80 mm variants are bigger and heavier they play in another league if it comes to
contrast and resolution so this comparison is a little bit of chicken egg and ostrich egg :)

But I see that the advantages of the RF lead to larger ultra high quality lenses primarily but
there is no vast amount of high quality lenses with compact footprint.
Maybe it will be the 2nd large phase of introducing the RF system:

RF bodies -------------------------------High end RF bodies ---------------------------------------------------------------------
RF high end lenses ----------------------------------------------- RF compact standard series (2.8 20 / 1.8 85 / 2.8 200)
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
104
55
A 24-100mm tilst shift is an interesting concept, but one that I'm not sure who the market is. I shoot architecture with Canon's superb 17 and 24mm tilt shift lenses. I often wish I had a 35mm TS-e but can't justify going to 50mm.
Canon had a 35mm tilt-shift lens for the FD mount, I wonder why it never made it to the EF mount.

Possibly Canon knows most customers would rather buy a TS-E 24mm + EF 1.4x extender, leaving no profit in a TS-E 35mm.
 

keithcooper

EOS 7D MK II
What would be the advantages? EF mount would still work perfectly with the Canon R series, while also working with existing DLSRs and even M bodies. If the lenses are RF, they can only work on R bodies, which means no sales beyond the small percentage of Canon users who have an R body.
Yes I'm sure Canon see a distinct market niche for Zoom T/S lenses amongst EOS M users... ;-)

There is a common feeling that RF is mainly about the shorter BF distance - looking at what Canon has written and many lens patents, one of the key factors is the increased communications bandwidth and other electrical/electronic issues. The mechanical side is heavily influenced by EF design experience over the years, whilst being able to eliminate some 20th Century features and add in some new bits/features not known back when the EF was developed.

Have a look at the actual patent - it has plenty about all the calculations and control data required. This design (if ever a product) is likely aimed at a time when EF is almost in 'Legacy support'. I do not expect the replacements for the TS-E17 and TS-E24 mk2 to be EF mount - I'd note that just because a lens design has a long back focus it doesn't have to be EF rather than RF.

I'd also suggest that these patent design examples are simply not at product level - much of what's in the patent is about how these features are designed and patenting different aspects.

Of course it's natural to conflate the patent info with 'who will buy it' but they are two very different areas.
 

ozturert

EOS M50
Jan 16, 2019
36
35
The post says these are EF lens mount. Canon Rumors Guy is speculating that they could become RF, but that's just his opinion. Tilt-shift is a niche market. Keeping these lenses EF, which means they could be mounted on any Canon body makes more sense.
God I missed that! Thanks for correction.
 

ozturert

EOS M50
Jan 16, 2019
36
35
The advantage is that people have an irrational hatred of adapters, even when they work flawlessly.
Not entirely irrational. An additional interface between lens and the body is always prone to errors and other issues. And you have one more gadget to carry, store, that may be broken or have faults. I am happy with my adapter but given the options I'll always choose native lenses.
 
Reactions: LDS

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,069
1,288
I was a little bit confused about that statement and checked the data:
RF variant: diameter 74.4 x 62.8mm, approx. 305g
EF variant: diameter 77.9 x 62.6mm, 335g
(from usa.canon.com)

So they have a very similar weight and size but the EF is 1.8 + has better max. reprod. ratio.
Thanks for the correction. So the RF version is similar in size. It’s also similar in optical quality, though as you say it focuses closer. Still not seeing RF leading to smaller and better lenses in this case.

On the camera the smaller flange distance of the RF system makes the RF variant ~20 mm shorter when it comes to overall dimensions of the body-lens combo. Not dramatic but sometimes very helpful.
True but irrelevant.

While the RF 50/80 mm variants are bigger and heavier they play in another league if it comes to
contrast and resolution so this comparison is a little bit of chicken egg and ostrich egg :)
But I see that the advantages of the RF lead to larger ultra high quality lenses primarily
Yes, the larger/heavier/non-double gauss RF 50/85 play in another league...the league of the larger/heavier/non-double gauss Zeiss Otus lenses...which come in an EF mount. Still not evidence that the better optical quality requires a shorter flange distance.

there is no vast amount of high quality lenses with compact footprint.
Maybe it will be the 2nd large phase of introducing the RF system:
Sure sure. In the future we’ll have better/smaller RF lenses, self-flying cars, and world peace.

But today, considering the RF35 and RF24-105 (similar in size and quality to EF), and the RF 50/85 (larger and heavier than EF but with better IQ that’s in the class of larger/heavier lenses for the EF mount), the only conclusion supported by the evidence is that larger/heavier lenses can have better IQ, independent of flange distance. Despite many claims of ‘the benefits of the RF mount’, including your own, there is still no evidence to suppprt that conclusion.
 

Joules

EOS 80D
Jul 16, 2017
155
76
Hamburg, Germany
Thanks for the correction. So the RF version is similar in size. It’s also similar in optical quality, though as you say it focuses closer. Still not seeing RF leading to smaller and better lenses in this case.
What's up with the crusade against the notion that some lenses can be made smaller with a smaller flange distance? With a diameter of 60.9 and length of 56.5 the EF-M 32mm 1.4 is a good bit smaller than both 35mm lenses, while still beeing a good bit faster. Doesn't that already prove the point? After all, it is a statement that only needs to be true for some and not all lenses. And the RF 35mm 1.8 beeing smaller than the EF 35mm 2.0 despite being faster and having more capabilities maybe just irrelevant to you, but I'd see that as a nice sign that there's more room to play with for the lens designers with RF lenses.

But I feel like Canon simply don't see the need for FF Mirrorless to be all tiny and light weight. If reducing the flange distance gives more efficiency in space to quality tradeoff, you can keep the quality the same and make a lens smaller or keep the size the same and turn up the quality, for example. As I see it, Canon took both paths and took an extra step in each direction with the M system beeing tiny, but not high enough quality for some folks and the R system beeing top notch quality, but not small (and cheap) enough for some.

Canon not tapping into the potential for smaller RF lenses doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe there are just way fewer people in the market for small FF gear (seemingly a contradiction anyway) to make that a priority for Canon.
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
104
55
There is a common feeling that RF is mainly about the shorter BF distance - looking at what Canon has written and many lens patents, one of the key factors is the increased communications bandwidth and other electrical/electronic issues. The mechanical side is heavily influenced by EF design experience over the years, whilst being able to eliminate some 20th Century features and add in some new bits/features not known back when the EF was developed.
Yes, RF mount isn't just about the shorter BF distance, but why make it shorter at all? Just to make the body ~1" shallower?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,069
1,288
What's up with the crusade against the notion that some lenses can be made smaller with a smaller flange distance? With a diameter of 60.9 and length of 56.5 the EF-M 32mm 1.4 is a good bit smaller than both 35mm lenses, while still beeing a good bit faster. Doesn't that already prove the point? After all, it is a statement that only needs to be true for some and not all lenses. And the RF 35mm 1.8 beeing smaller than the EF 35mm 2.0 despite being faster and having more capabilities maybe just irrelevant to you, but I'd see that as a nice sign that there's more room to play with for the lens designers with RF lenses.

But I feel like Canon simply don't see the need for FF Mirrorless to be all tiny and light weight. If reducing the flange distance gives more efficiency in space to quality tradeoff, you can keep the quality the same and make a lens smaller or keep the size the same and turn up the quality, for example. As I see it, Canon took both paths and took an extra step in each direction with the M system beeing tiny, but not high enough quality for some folks and the R system beeing top notch quality, but not small (and cheap) enough for some.

Canon not tapping into the potential for smaller RF lenses doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe there are just way fewer people in the market for small FF gear (seemingly a contradiction anyway) to make that a priority for Canon.
Why the belief in claims not supported by evidence? Do you also believe the earth is flat? Does it bother you that someone would ask for facts or data to support a claim? That’s all I’m asking...show me evidence that the RF mount allows FF lenses to be (significantly) smaller or of better quality. The EF-M 32/1.4 shows that a smaller image circle allows smaller lenses, but there’s already ample evidence for that.

It’s certainly possible that Canon is simply not exploiting the potential of the RF mount. But whereas you are obviously willing to accept and even repeat that claimed potential, I prefer to see evidence before I believe a claim.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
309
108
I’m still waiting for any actual evidence of this. Not things you may have heard. Facts. So far, the facts in evidence are:
  • The patent designs for RF UWA zooms (15-35, 16-35, 17-35, including some with variable aperture) are all larger than the EF 17-40
  • The RF24-105 is essentially identical to the EF version
  • The RF 35/1.8 is larger than the EF 35/2
  • The RF 50/1.2 is bigger than the EF 50/1.2
  • The RF 85/1.2 is bigger than the EF 85/1.2
You may have heard that the earth is flat. Not everything you hear is correct.
That’s funny. You do know that Canon has been on a binge to come up with far more complex lenses that are of much higher quality. That’s why those are larger and heavier. All manufacturers are going this way. But Canon has said that these new designs wouldn’t be possible on the older cameras. If they tried, they would be even larger and heavier.

Don’t be so simplistic in your assessments.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
309
108
I see. You think tiny differences in image quality determine Canon's development strategy. I think Canon is driven more by sales potential.

I don't know what Canon is going to do, but I would guess that a high resolution R body is in the near future. (CR rumors also indicate that). Mirrorless is probably a better format for high resolution than DSLR. But, at the end of the day it comes down to how many lenses Canon can sell and right now, I believe they can sell more niche market lenses with a universal to Canon EF mount than with a proprietary to one line R mount.

Frankly, I'm not sure what set you off here. Someone complained about the lenses being an R mount and I simply pointed out that the original post indicated they were EF mount lenses. CR Guy speculated they would instead be R mounts and I speculated they would be EF, just as the source indicated.
Canon’s new lenses are significantly better, not a tiny bit better. Show me another 28-70 f2 zoom anywhere. And show me a 28-70 f2.8 zoom with anywhere the same IQ.

High quality always results in more sales potential. If it didn’t, manufacturers wouldn’t bother. It’s called ROI.

It didn’t “set me off”. It’s a discussion, isn’t it?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,069
1,288
That’s funny. You do know that Canon has been on a binge to come up with far more complex lenses that are of much higher quality. That’s why those are larger and heavier. All manufacturers are going this way. But Canon has said that these new designs wouldn’t be possible on the older cameras. If they tried, they would be even larger and heavier.

Don’t be so simplistic in your assessments.
That’s funny. Something that hasn’t happened doesn’t comprise evidence. There are larger, heavier lenses for the EF mount that are of much higher quality. As for Canon’s statement, they’re correct, technically – a lens design with <30mm back focus distance would not be possible for an EF mount.

Don’t be so gullible in your assessment of marketing statements.