The upcoming RF mount wide angle f/2.8L zoom will be wider than 16mm [CR2]

Aug 26, 2015
308
67
#21
The original 16-35/2.8L takes 77 mm filters, and one of the characteristics Canon has talked about for wide/normal RF lenses is smaller front elements and larger rear elements. This is because they are not so strongly retrofocal so they don't need such extreme negative elements in the front group which are large and inclined to be bulbous in a DSLR lens.

So maybe an RF 14-35/2.8L could have a 77 mm filter thread?
Maybe I've missed something, but so far we haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8 with an actual filter thread. If I saw it right, all three RF wide-angle lens design patents showed a bulbous front element. Also, maybe the zoom range has be narrower, like 14-28mm f/2.8 or 15-30mm f/2.8, that sounds much more realistic.
Or it has to be reduced to f/4 like with the Nikon.
 
Dec 25, 2012
396
27
#22
Although both would be interesting to shoot in my real estate photography business, my guess is that my most used focal lengths (16-20) would remain the same.
I find I have been shooting a LOT of views at 11mm since I got my 11-24. They don't look weird and they are sharper than my 17TS-E.
Agents be crazy for wide.
 
Likes: Del Paso
Aug 1, 2014
160
11
#23
Maybe I've missed something, but so far we haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8 with an actual filter thread. If I saw it right, all three RF wide-angle lens design patents showed a bulbous front element. Also, maybe the zoom range has be narrower, like 14-28mm f/2.8 or 15-30mm f/2.8, that sounds much more realistic.
Or it has to be reduced to f/4 like with the Nikon.
Yes, but RF allows designs which were not possible for the EF mount. The whole point of what I was saying was that a 14-35/2.8 with a less bulbous front element and a 77 mm filter thread might now become possible.
 
Aug 26, 2015
308
67
#24
Yes, but RF allows designs which were not possible for the EF mount. The whole point of what I was saying was that a 14-35/2.8 with a less bulbous front element and a 77 mm filter thread might now become possible.
Yes, they do make it possible, but that does not mean that the lens is going to be that much smaller with that angle and maximum aperture at least compared to the EF 16-35/2.8 III it's just not going to be as big as the Tamron 15-30/2.8 or it will have a narrower range, the first patent that was leaked was this one:
https://www.dailycameranews.com/201...lens-patent-for-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/
And it might be pushed a bit wider but as you can see, it is unlikely to come with a front filter thread (it might still have one at the rear).
 
Aug 1, 2014
160
11
#25
Yes, they do make it possible, but that does not mean that the lens is going to be that much smaller with that angle and maximum aperture at least compared to the EF 16-35/2.8 III it's just not going to be as big as the Tamron 15-30/2.8 or it will have a narrower range, the first patent that was leaked was this one:
https://www.dailycameranews.com/201...lens-patent-for-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/
And it might be pushed a bit wider but as you can see, it is unlikely to come with a front filter thread (it might still have one at the rear).
The strange thing is, that has a much more bulbous front element than any version of the EF16-35/2.8. <shrug> It's just a patent, maybe a different design will be the basis for the actual RF ultrawide zoom, when it comes.
 
Aug 26, 2015
308
67
#26
The strange thing is, that has a much more bulbous front element than any version of the EF16-35/2.8. <shrug> It's just a patent, maybe a different design will be the basis for the actual RF ultrawide zoom, when it comes.
I think the reason for that is that the geometric distortion and vignetting will be greatly reduced compared to the EF 16-35/2.8 III
 
Sep 4, 2012
746
119
#28
Just a thought....... A lot of the current ultra wide angle EF lenses have the large bulbous front element making it a pain to use graduated NDs. With the R system and availability of adapters it would be possible for some enterprising company to offer a line of drop in graduated filters with the line (blend region) at say 1/2 and 1/3 the way down on the filter. These blends would pretty well cover my needs. Because of the small diameters they could be made inexpensively. This approach would double the number of filters needed, but would take up less room in the bag because of size and would be applicable to all your lenses, so no need for multiple filter holders. Thoughts?
 
Likes: Michael Clark
Apr 3, 2018
148
55
Calgary
#29
Maybe I've missed something, but so far we haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8 with an actual filter thread. If I saw it right, all three RF wide-angle lens design patents showed a bulbous front element. Also, maybe the zoom range has be narrower, like 14-28mm f/2.8 or 15-30mm f/2.8, that sounds much more realistic.
Or it has to be reduced to f/4 like with the Nikon.
You "haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8..." because the R mount is only a couple of months old? Perhaps?
 

hmatthes

EOS-R, RF and EF Lenses of all types.
#30
Ultrawide RF lenses would be even greater if Canon built the filter adapters into their base, just like the EF filter adapter uses. That way you could use your 11-24 EF today, then buy a RF replacement using the same filters.
Just received my RF 35/1.8 and am comparing it to my EF 35/1.4 -- these new designs have much smaller front elements and half the bulk. Yes, front elements on 1.4 are bigger than 1.8 but wowza this is a great new small lens with IS and macro as well!
10800576912_HM_R4080.JPG
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,959
214
Vancouver, BC
#31
Ultrawide RF lenses would be even greater if Canon built the filter adapters into their base, just like the EF filter adapter uses. That way you could use your 11-24 EF today, then buy a RF replacement using the same filters.
Just received my RF 35/1.8 and am comparing it to my EF 35/1.4 -- these new designs have much smaller front elements and half the bulk. Yes, front elements on 1.4 are bigger than 1.8 but wowza this is a great new small lens with IS and macro as well! View attachment 181678
I agree. I was with a friend who is a Nikon shooter the other day, and she is considering an EOS R specifically to use the RF filter adapter + wide angle EF lens, specifically to be able to use rear filters. As a Z7 owner, she was very jealous at how well EOS R worked with EF16-35L4.

It also got me thinking, why make native RF wide angle lens smaller? I mean, who complains that their 16-35 is too big a lens, right? So just take an EF lens, add a control ring, build the adapter into it with the ability to put in a rear filter, and call it a day.

For that matter... I wish they would do it with some of the other lenses too. It would just so great to invest once in a full set of rear filters instead of endlessly buying front ones. I wouldn't hesitate to spend $300 each on the best quality of a few of my favorite rear filters, if I knew I could use them on every lens I bought in the future.
 
May 20, 2013
357
4
#32
Well, depending on price, and whether it comes out in an f/4 flavor later on, that could be exciting. I just don't use wide angle enough to buy a $3,000 or more flagship wide zoom.
Yes f/4 is plenty fast enough for me, if a RF 12-35mm f/4 L or RF 14-35mm f/4 L is released for a similar price as the EF 16-35mm f/4 it would be the first lens i'd purchase after switching to mirrorless.
 
Aug 26, 2015
308
67
#33
You "haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8..." because the R mount is only a couple of months old? Perhaps?
Please link the whole sentence, it was referred to having an actual filter thread on the front. Maybe you just like cropping too much? :)
 
Likes: nchoh
Aug 26, 2015
308
67
#34
Yes f/4 is plenty fast enough for me, if a RF 12-35mm f/4 L or RF 14-35mm f/4 L is released for a similar price as the EF 16-35mm f/4 it would be the first lens i'd purchase after switching to mirrorless.
Sorry to ruin your day, but this new mount means newer, better, but also more expensive lenses, even at the same aperture (let alone shorter starter focal lengths or ones with a faster aperture, which are at a higher priority it seems).
And it also looks like that we won't be seeing native RF lenses from other manufacturers either.

I agree. I was with a friend who is a Nikon shooter the other day, and she is considering an EOS R specifically to use the RF filter adapter + wide angle EF lens, specifically to be able to use rear filters. As a Z7 owner, she was very jealous at how well EOS R worked with EF16-35L4.

It also got me thinking, why make native RF wide angle lens smaller? I mean, who complains that their 16-35 is too big a lens, right? So just take an EF lens, add a control ring, build the adapter into it with the ability to put in a rear filter, and call it a day.

For that matter... I wish they would do it with some of the other lenses too. It would just so great to invest once in a full set of rear filters instead of endlessly buying front ones. I wouldn't hesitate to spend $300 each on the best quality of a few of my favorite rear filters, if I knew I could use them on every lens I bought in the future.
Their design priority is to make 'better' lenses. That means taking full advantage of the shorter flange with the wide mount diameter (especially for wide-angle lenses), so there is actual glass where the filter could go, it would be way too big of a compromise to the optical formula (while also adding even more to the costs and potential problems).
So again, it is just a non-feasible option unlike with the super telephotos. And the option to use the older EF lenses will always remain if one really cares about these adapters with the rear filters. Re-modeling old EF glass makes the least amount of sense(they are not designed to be focus by wire like these newest ones), and while not ideal, step-down rings also do exist for the front ones as well.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Del Paso
May 20, 2013
357
4
#38
Sorry to ruin your day, but this new mount means newer, better, but also more expensive lenses, even at the same aperture (let alone shorter starter focal lengths or ones with a faster aperture, which are at a higher priority it seems).
And it also looks like that we won't be seeing native RF lenses from other manufacturers either.
Time and market forces will tell, the fact that a f/4 lens (Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM) has already been launched at a similar release price as it's EF equivalent here in the UK gives me hope. As does the fact that Canon are heavily discounting a large proportion of their L range on this side of the pond. I never thought I'd ever see an affordable L lens with £350 ($450) cash back, £439 ($565) from reputable retailers in the UK for the 24-70mm f/4 is an amazing deal.
 
Last edited:
Aug 26, 2015
308
67
#39
Time and market forces will tell, the fact that a f/4 lens (Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM) has already been launched at a similar release price as it's EF equivalent here in the UK gives me hope. As does the fact that Canon are heavily discounting a large proportion of their L range on this side of the pond. I never thought I'd ever see an affordable L lens with £350 ($450) cash back, £439 ($565) from reputable retailers in the UK for the 24-70mm f/4 is an amazing deal.
Hopefully there will be more reasonably priced lenses as well, I just don't think we will see it at the wide-angle front, especially if they do manage to set new standards in optical quality, the "cheap" option will be to stick with using an EF version with an adapter (it's actually pretty hard to top this in terms of price/performance)
So they might not even bother making a cheaper RF 16-35mm f/4 version any time soon, something like a 15-30mm f/2.8 is more likely and another more similar to an 12-24mm f/4 or so and neither of these is going to be cheap.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
240
43
#40
It certainly will be easier for Canon to develop a higher quality wide angle zoom due to the shorter distance bayonet to lens , no need for retrofocus design. This has often been demonstrated by Leica with their superb M rangefinder lenses.
So, I expect some very exciting new wide angle lenses (zooms or primes). This being in my opinion the main advantage of mirrorless, no gains with tele lenses.
Since the R mount has a registration distance of 20mm, anything wider than 20mm (more practically, around 24mm or so) would still need to use a retrofocus design.