Patent: A zoom teleconverter, 1.0x-1.5x-2.0x

styoda

I'm New Here
Dec 15, 2017
12
7
UK
Is that 4 elements and 2 groups ? isn't that insane if it is, not a lot of glass compared to the current converters ?
jpa-502197580_i_000011.jpg
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,686
11,696
I regularly switch from native to 1.4 to 2xTC during the course of shooting in a day. This TC would be convenient but with the drawback that at 1x it would degrade the IQ of the bare lens without any advantage at the native focal length because of the extra elements. Still, I suppose you would put it on only when you want a longer focal length but have the opportunity to zoom out quickly.
 

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
279
161
Sony never innovated with lenses outright. They improved function, speed and delivered unquestionably good quality (consistency between copies may have lacked) but never accomplished anything new or pushed the boundaries of optical design. Canon is doing this right out of the gate (with some costs), so many optical tricks to bring versatility and use-cases to the new bodies. Not just mirrorless for mirrorless sake. I'd love to know when canon actually pulled the trigger on R&D for the RF platform or if they just had it in the background for a long time, tweaking, patenting and refining.
 
Last edited:

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,326
434
Not exactly. Those can be optimized to their magnification. A zoom can’t. The IQ will always be lower.

Question is how much IQ is traded for size, price, and convenience. Personally, I find the possibility of having a TC for the RF 70-200mm is good news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
415
298
This is [only] brilliant [if they can pull it off without degrading IQ at 1x]!

Legend: Read without brackets for my first impression and then again with text in brackets included for the thought that immediately followed.

I don't believe 1x will be free (absolutely no loss), however if there is no appreciable IQ loss I think most will find that acceptable... as the use case from flipping 1x to 1.5x to 2x and back w/o a lens change is worth it.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
767
516
Is that 4 elements and 2 groups ? isn't that insane if it is, not a lot of glass compared to the current converters ?
jpa-502197580_i_000011.jpg
Yes. And that’s something that bothered me. This seems to be just too simple. I would have expected an 8 element design, if not more.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
767
516
Question is how much IQ is traded for size, price, and convenience. Personally, I find the possibility of having a TC for the RF 70-200mm is good news.
Sure, if the IQ was good. But even Canon;s regular converters drop IQ by differing amounts depending on the lens and on the length of the lens. A zoom converter will be worse. Sometimes it’s just better to crop.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,326
434
Is that 4 elements and 2 groups ? isn't that insane if it is, not a lot of glass compared to the current converters ?

My impression from the images and the auto translation to English is the patent is about the mechanics of the adapter, not the optics.

E.g. the "problem to be solved" is "to provide an adapter device advantageous for moving an optical element in a direction of an optical axis, for example", and "patent document 1 has a built-in ND filter, discloses an adapter device having a function of adjusting the amount of light". The text mentions possibilities of having different mounts at each side, and the connected lens' power of coverage differing from the camera's sensor size.

The patent might be generalized to cover more ground (a vari extender that's also a mount adapter), but I still get the impression the optics & their functionality is an example of what the patented mechanics could be used for.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
767
516
Sony never innovated with lenses outright. They improved function, speed and delivered unquestionably good quality (consistency between copies may have lacked) but never accomplished anything new or pushed the boundaries of optical design. Canon is doing this right out of the gate (with some costs), so many optical tricks to bring versatility and use-cases to the new bodies. Not just mirrorless for mirrorless sake. I'd love to know when canon actually pulled the trigger on R&D for the RF platform or if they just had it in the background for a long time, tweaking, patenting and refining.
When Canon went to the EOS mount in the mid 1980’s, it took them three years to decide on the feature set and the exact physical design. I imagine this took a similar path to fruition.
 

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
279
161
When Canon went to the EOS mount in the mid 1980’s, it took them three years to decide on the feature set and the exact physical design. I imagine this took a similar path to fruition.
It's almost as if the registration distance, mount and then lenses were well developed while the sensor and DPAF tech caught up. Canon's full frame mirrorless decision may have pre-dated Nikon's.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
767
516
It's almost as if the registration distance, mount and then lenses were well developed while the sensor and DPAF tech caught up. Canon's full frame mirrorless decision may have pre-dated Nikon's.
It’s possible. I don’t think any of this. Alters though. What matters is how good it is once it gets here, and it’s all pretty good indeed.
 

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
279
161
It’s possible. I don’t think any of this. Alters though. What matters is how good it is once it gets here, and it’s all pretty good indeed.
Agreed. It is good, so good that I bought 2 RF lenses without an R body in hand. It was worth it.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
767
516
Agreed. It is good, so good that I bought 2 RF lenses without an R body in hand. It was worth it.
That’s funny, because I was thinking the same thing. But I had a detached retina in my left eye, and I’m left eyed. I’m still working on that eye, which has problems. So I haven’t decided to lay maybe $10,000 down on something until I’m sure it won’t be a problem. Using my right eye is so distracting, it’s impossible to do it without thinking.
 

Dpickup

R5
Jul 9, 2012
19
2
UK
Id buy one in a heartbeat - if i can get full zoom range back on my 100-500 would be worth it for me.
using on other lenses would be a bonus
 

analoggrotto

EOS RP
Aug 27, 2016
279
161
That’s funny, because I was thinking the same thing. But I had a detached retina in my left eye, and I’m left eyed. I’m still working on that eye, which has problems. So I haven’t decided to lay maybe $10,000 down on something until I’m sure it won’t be a problem. Using my right eye is so distracting, it’s impossible to do it without thinking.
My coworker had this happen to his son from an unseen tackle. Sorry for your ailing. I am down 4 and 5 diopeters, wearing contacts finally put my eye into the viewfinder and I started to take pictures at last. I am left eye dominant (yet right handed) so I'd prefer to use my left eye for some compositions but then my nose starts messing with the touch screen focus ... oii.
 
Aug 31, 2021
1
1
Hi,
Any news about this zoom / converter ?
Definitely, that should be a real benefit to RF zoom like RF 100-500 (without mounting problems with actual RF extenders ...).
Dom
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry