Canon files a patent for a wide-angle RF-S zoom

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Correction: These optical formulas are for full-frame sensors.

See full article...

 

[Stig Nygaard]

We know that an RF-S wide angle zoom lens is coming later in 2023 to take the place of the EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM and EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. A much needed type of lens for any crop sensor camera. There are two optical formulas covered in this patent, and it’s nice to

See full article...

I would love too see an 9-18mm lens for APS-C, but the image height quoted on these patents, doesn't that points towards lenses for fullframe format?

 

[Toamelicious]

I would love too see an 9-18mm lens for APS-C, but the image height quoted on these patents, doesn't that points towards lenses for fullframe format?

Full frame is about 24mm in height isn't it?
Lenses always cover a greater area than ultimately needed for the respective format, so this looks in line with apsc

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Full frame is about 24mm in height isn't it?
Lenses always cover a greater area than ultimately needed for the respective format, so this looks in line with apsc

21.64 is full-frame.
Wide-angle lenses are sometimes a little less and use image stretching.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I would love too see an 9-18mm lens for APS-C, but the image height quoted on these patents, doesn't that points towards lenses for fullframe format?

They are also fixed aperture f/4

 

[Maximilian]

21.64 is full-frame.
Wide-angle lenses are sometimes a little less and use image stretching.

The patent is going down towards 19 mm at the wide end. Looks like another "streched" FF lens.
But still much more than the about 13.4 mm a Canon APS-C sensor would need.

They are also fixed aperture f/4

Fixed aperture would normally point towards FF and L lens, wouldn't it?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The patent is going down towards 19 mm at the wide end. Looks like another "streched" FF lens.
But still much more than the about 13.4 mm a Canon APS-C sensor would need.

Fixed aperture would normally point towards FF and L lens, wouldn't it?

In total, yes.
Canon has had fixed aperture APS-C zooms before like the EF-s 17-50 f/2.8 IS and also the legendary super 35 CN-E 18-80mm T4.4 and CNE 70-200 T4.4 hybrid cine lenses with AF and IS.
The lens formulas in the patents are quite clearly full-frame though

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Full frame is about 24mm in height isn't it?
Lenses always cover a greater area than ultimately needed for the respective format, so this looks in line with apsc

The image-height in patents ain't measured the way you instinctually would measure it. I saw it explained once, but can't remember the details. BUT I'm pretty sure 21.64mm is for fullframe. And then some optical correction is needed in the wider ends where image-heights are lower (as Canon is making a habit in new wide zoom-designs :-/ ).

 

[Maximilian]

The image-height in patents ain't measured the way you instinctually would measure it. I saw it explained once, but can't remember the details. BUT I'm pretty sure 21.64mm is for fullframe.

The maths behind it is the that the diameter of the Image circle must be at least as large as the sensor diagonal.
The Image height is the radius and therefore half the diameter.
For FF, the sensor dimensions are 26x24 mm. The diagonal is 43.27 mm. the Radius 21.633 mm, so better take 21.64 mm
Maybe this quick drawing can help.

 

[vangelismm]

apsc constant aperture? too good to be true

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

I corrected the post. A third party wrote the article as I am on vacation.

 

[AcaPixus]

I never quite understood why anyone think it is so great to have constant aperture in these days of automatic cameras?
It only comes at the expense of a more favorable f-number at the wide end!
So i.e. a 9-18 mm f/4.0 constant aperture might as well have been 9-18 mm f/2.8-4.0.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I corrected the post. A third party wrote the article as I am on vacation.

Enjoy your vacation Hope you find some time to go out and shoot some pics

 

[Maximilian]

... as I am on vacation.

Yep, as @Exploreshootshare said, ...

Enjoy your vacation Hope you find some time to go out and shoot some pics

Personally, I don't blame you or CR or third party for misinterpreting the patent, but having fun in discussing the technical details

 

[Maximilian]

apsc constant aperture? too good to be true

Has been already corrected - by the users as well as by Craig (@Canon Rumors Guy )
Sorry!

 

[Deepboy]

I never quite understood why anyone think it is so great to have constant aperture in these days of automatic cameras?
It only comes at the expense of a more favorable f-number at the wide end!
So i.e. a 9-18 mm f/4.0 constant aperture might as well have been 9-18 mm f/2.8-4.0.

Because when you shoot manual with wide open aperture you don't want the exposure changing while zooming in (getting darker) and back out (getting brighter again).

For example, I really do look forward to the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 coming in RF mount as it would be the perfect do-it-all wedding lens instead of having two bodies with a 24-70 and a 70-200; but if that will come, I would directly use it as a f2.8 constant aperture, because I don't want to mess with changing exposure constantly.
I actually do have a variable aperture lens, the 28-105 f3.5-4-5 which is my emergency back up wedding lens if the 24-70 dies unsuspectedly, and my holiday/backpacking lens; when I use it, I directly set it at the minimum common brightest aperture (f4.5) because it's easier to work with. SO even if I can get f3.5 at the wide end and f4 around the 35mm/50mm mark, I never exploit it, for me it's just a f4.5 constant lens (which for only 50€ is btw just 1/3rd stop darker then the 24-105 L's, so perfectly able to do a wedding in emergency; and no, it doesn't suck, I have an incredibly blessed copy which is as sharp as the 24-70 L II /24-105 L II at comparable apertures, while it's much better then both Mk I versions).

 

[AcaPixus]

Because when you shoot manual with wide open aperture you don't want the exposure changing while zooming in (getting darker) and back out (getting brighter again).

For example, I really do look forward to the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 coming in RF mount as it would be the perfect do-it-all wedding lens instead of having two bodies with a 24-70 and a 70-200; but if that will come, I would directly use it as a f2.8 constant aperture, because I don't want to mess with changing exposure constantly.
I actually do have a variable aperture lens, the 28-105 f3.5-4-5 which is my emergency back up wedding lens if the 24-70 dies unsuspectedly, and my holiday/backpacking lens; when I use it, I directly set it at the minimum common brightest aperture (f4.5) because it's easier to work with. SO even if I can get f3.5 at the wide end and f4 around the 35mm/50mm mark, I never exploit it, for me it's just a f4.5 constant lens (which for only 50€ is btw just 1/3rd stop darker then the 24-105 L's, so perfectly able to do a wedding in emergency; and no, it doesn't suck, I have an incredibly blessed copy which is as sharp as the 24-70 L II /24-105 L II at comparable apertures, while it's much better then both Mk I versions).

You could just dial in f/4.0 aperture for you manual exposure and the camera should make sure you get that no matter what focal length you zoom to.
I am pretty sure there are more people who would prefer the perfectly useful wider aperture at the wide end, than there are people wanting to pay extra to get rid of it.

 

[Deepboy]

I am pretty sure there are more people who would prefer the perfectly useful wider aperture at the wide end, than there are people wanting to pay extra to get rid of it.

No professional would "want to pay extra to get rid of it", if get rid is transforming a f2.8-4 lens in a constant f4 lens; a professional would pay extra to buy a lens that is directly constant f2.8 and get rid of the f4

The way I work (and I'm pretty sure it's the way most professionals work) is "a lens is as good as its darkest base aperture"; I would never buy a lens thinking "well, it's f4 on the long end but hey, I can get f2.8 at the wide end so it's somewhat an f2.8 lens in some way".

If I need an f2.8 aperture, I buy f2.8 lens, if I'm ok with f4 aperture, I buy f4 lens; THEN, if I need an f4 lens, and there's an f2.8-4 lens that is as good (or better) then the f4 and cost same (or less), THEN I'll buy it of course, and I'll know that there's an "emergency f2.8 setting at the wide end", but I would still consider it a constant f4 lens for the purposes of my work.
If I need to count on that f2.8 then the entire lens must be f2.8 all the way

 

[neuroanatomist]

I never quite understood why anyone think it is so great to have constant aperture in these days of automatic cameras?
It only comes at the expense of a more favorable f-number at the wide end!
So i.e. a 9-18 mm f/4.0 constant aperture might as well have been 9-18 mm f/2.8-4.0.

I think it comes down to conflation, from a practical standpoint. At least as far as Canon lenses, constant aperture typically means relatively fast, and variable aperture typically means relatively slow.

In other words, I suspect people would be fine with an f/2.8-4 zoom, and would prefer that over a constant f/5.6 zoom. But neither of those are real options from Canon, where constant = fast and variable = slow…i.e., real options are f/2.8 or f/4 vs. e.g. f/4.5-7.1.

Because when you shoot manual with wide open aperture you don't want the exposure changing while zooming in (getting darker) and back out (getting brighter again).

That behavior can be easily controlled with the custom function settings.

 

[Deepboy]

That behavior can be easily controlled with the custom function settings.

Which one? Never heard of that! (I believe you; I just never ever heard, or found, a related C-Fn on my cameras)

EDIT: found it for R6 on user manual. I don't think it's there for the RP, as the camera has come last week so I just configured, and don't remember that, but I'll also look there.