Patent: A new 16-35 f/2.8 or Faster Concept?

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9382"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9382" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9382"></a></div>
<strong>Improved Canon ultrawide for full frame?


</strong>The world is waiting for Canon to release a top end performing ultra wide lens for full frame cameras. While I think the 17-40 f/4L is a bargain of a workhorse and the 16-35 f/2.8L II is a very solid performer, I think the line is still lacking that standout ultra wide zoom lens. I have heard numerous photographers say they’d pay “anything” for a top notch lens in that segment.</p>
<p>Below are 3 patented optical formulas for new ultrawide angle lenses for Canon.</p>
<p>A 16-35 f/2.8, a 17-35 f/2.8-4 and a 16-35 f/2-2.8. There seems to be a decent amount of f/2 patents appearing on zoom lenses from Canon, it could be time for such a lens to make it to market.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2012-63568</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2012.3.29 Release Date</li>
<li>2010.9.16 filing date</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 2</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.06</li>
<li>24.00 – - 33.95mm f = 16.48 focal length</li>
<li>Fno 2.90 – 2.90 – 2.91</li>
<li>42.03 – - 32.51deg 52.70 angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>170.87 – - 172.62mm 178.10 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 40.00 – 48.45 – 61.71mm</li>
<li>Lens Construction 12 group 17 sheets</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD lens sheet</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 1.94</li>
<li>24.01 – - 33.98mm f = 17.51 ​​focal length</li>
<li>Fno 2.91 – 3.21 – 3.86</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>174.18 – - 175.92mm 178.81 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 41.60 – 48.49 – 60.70mm</li>
<li>Lens Construction 12 group 17 sheets</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD lens sheet</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 6</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.06</li>
<li>24.02 – - 33.99mm f = 16.49 focal length</li>
<li>Fno 2.15 – 2.46 – 2.94</li>
<li>42.02 – - 32.48deg 52.69 angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>171.08 – - 172.88mm 176.23 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 39.26 – 46.99 58.75mm</li>
<li>18 sheets 13 group lens configuration</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD lens sheet</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Canon’s patent</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>4-group zoom lens of a positive negative positive and negative</li>
<li>Inner Focus</li>
<li>Optimized so as to reduce the field curvature of the wide-angle side</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-03-30" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r </strong></p>

 

[dr croubie]

No patent for a 14-24 f/4?

I think most would agree that the important number in that is the 14mm, not the f/2-2.8

I'd guess a (12- or) 13-24 f/5.6 would probably sell more than even a 16-35 f/2.0 constant-aperture...

 

[wickidwombat]

I think i would run around like a school girl at a justin beiber concert screaming if they released a constant aperture f2.0 16-35

 

[The_Shadow_Knows]

I will most certainly buy a 16-35 II with or without f2 if its corner to corner is as sharp as the Nikon 14-24. I don't want a 14-24 from Canon because it will add more weight, price, and most likely will not support filters.

 

[lonelywhitelights]

I would much prefer a wider lens than an updated, faster 16-35. The 14-24mm people talk about would be great but as someone has already pointed out - would it support filters? the Nikon 14-24mm (that's been around since 2007!) doesn't support screw on filters but is this something that Canon could develop? who knows. I think 16-35 is all we're going to see for a while

 

[Norkusa]

I'd normally be excited about a new 16-35 f2.8 but Canon's pricing of the new 24-70 II makes me think it'll be too expensive.

 

[dirtcastle]

Am I the only one who is more turned off by distortion of the 16-35mm than anything else? I know... you say I can "correct" it in post. BUT correcting it in post means a 16mm shot is effectively an 18-20mm shot after cropping. And some shots are kinda hard to correct in post.

 

[briansquibb]

I have heard numerous photographers say they’d pay “anything” for a top notch lens in that segment.

... providing it is under $1000, has IS and has a built in 1.4 ...... ;D ;D ;D

 

[Gcon]

16-35 f/2.8 - happy with that. Make it punchy and sharp like the 24-70 f/2.8L II, and keep the 82mm thread.

17-35 f/2.8-4 - God no! No variable aperture please!

16-35 f/2-2.8 - See above although this one is nicer than 17-35 f/2.8-4.

high-ISO abilities of the 5D3 negate the need for this wide apertures somewhat for faster shutter speeds, and I'd rather be stopped down a bit so focus isn't as hard to nail.

This is good news in any case. Looking forward to the 16-35mm f/2.8L III. Third time's a charm!

 

[Doodah]

Quite obviously Canon needs a corner-to-corner sharp ultrawide lens to salvage their reputation. Seriously. They are also lagging behind competition in other key areas: low ISO dynamic range and fast contrast based AF for cameras like the G1X.

If the 24-70 f/2.8 Mk2 lens is as good as the initial word of mouth, then all they need is a competitive uber-sharp ultrawide lens to complete their holy f/2.8 trinity.

 

[Heidrun]

Dont want a new 16-35 . I want a 14-24 or even wider. If Canon dont come up with a super ultra wide lens. I might consider swapping over to Nikon

 

[maxxevv]

I would much prefer a wider lens than an updated, faster 16-35. The 14-24mm people talk about would be great but as someone has already pointed out - would it support filters? the Nikon 14-24mm (that's been around since 2007!) doesn't support screw on filters but is this something that Canon could develop? who knows. I think 16-35 is all we're going to see for a while

If you're prepared to pay for filters with at least 128mm diameter of clear glass area ?!! If not, then its not even an idea to start with ...

 

[briansquibb]

Dont want a new 16-35 . I want a 14-24 or even wider. If Canon dont come up with a super ultra wide lens. I might consider swapping over to Nikon

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[pwp]

Am I the only one who is more turned off by distortion of the 16-35mm than anything else? I know... you say I can "correct" it in post. BUT correcting it in post means a 16mm shot is effectively an 18-20mm shot after cropping. And some shots are kinda hard to correct in post.

The distortion in just about any lens can be corrected without ANY intervention from you if you set Lightroom import up to correct lens distortion on Import. It's set & forget for every time you import into Lightroom.

These patents definitely look interesting. The 16-35 should be yummy if the improvements are anything like the promised improvements on the 24-70 f/2.8II.

Paul Wright

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I'd love an ultra-wide zoom with f/2 at the wide side, but I'd probably have to sell a kidney to buy it.

So I would settle for a reasonably priced 14-24mm f/4 with good IQ - theres a 14mm f/2.8 & 16-35mm f/2.8 for those who want fast.

 

[JR]

My vote is either improve on the current 2.8 or get a f2 with good sharpness out there. I have been olding on getting a wide zoom because I find the current line-up is not optiomal (at least not compared to some of the Nikon equivalent).

 

[JR]

I think i would run around like a school girl at a justin beiber concert screaming if they released a constant aperture f2.0 16-35

I would like to see that!

 

[Dan Jurak]

Wait. Wait. Wait. As a long time Canon user, I bought an adapter to use the Nikon 14-24 and haven't looked back. I am more and more disappointed with Canon. They've had a long time to catch up to Nikon and their wide angle zoom. It's not a little bit better than Canon's it's a LOT better.

I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.

 

[Heidrun]

Wait. Wait. Wait. As a long time Canon user, I bought an adapter to use the Nikon 14-24 and haven't looked back. I am more and more disappointed with Canon. They've had a long time to catch up to Nikon and their wide angle zoom. It's not a little bit better than Canon's it's a LOT better.

I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.

But you loose aotofocus and the electronic aperture dont you ig you use an adapter

 

[Heidrun]

Wait. Wait. Wait. As a long time Canon user, I bought an adapter to use the Nikon 14-24 and haven't looked back. I am more and more disappointed with Canon. They've had a long time to catch up to Nikon and their wide angle zoom. It's not a little bit better than Canon's it's a LOT better.

I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.

But you loose autofocus and the electronic aperture if you use an adapter