• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens

HTML:
<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/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/patent-canon-11-24mm-f4-lens/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-25" title="Egami" target="_blank">Egami</a> has shown that Canon has filed a patent for an ultra-wide angle zoom:</p>
<p>(Translated)</p>
<p>Description and self-interpretation of the patent literature</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2014-10286</strong>
</p>
<li>Publication date 2014.1.20</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.6.29</li>
<p>
</p>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong>
</p>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.06</li>
<li>Focal length f = 11.30-18.00-23.30mm</li>
<li>Fno. 4.10</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 62.42-50.24-42.88mm</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64mm</li>
<li>172.19-161.28-162.86mm overall length of the lens</li>
<li>BF 38.82-52.31-63.15mm</li>
<p>
</p>
<p>Canon users have been left out in this focal range for quite some time. With Nikon and their legendary 14-24mm f/2.8G ED and  other third party offerings filling up the gap in the market. Can Canon produce an optically superior lens that also has such a shallow depth of field? Until they do, the only wide-angle zooms that Canon makes that come close are the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/" title="16-35mm review" target="_blank">16-35 f/2.8 L II</a> or the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-8-15-f4l-fisheye/" title="8-15mm review" target="_blank">8-15mm f/4L Fisheye</a>.</p>
<p>[<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-01-25" title="Egami" target="_blank">Egami</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
 
friedrice1212 said:
"Image height Y = 21.64mm"

This is for APS-C sensors, no? Replacement for EF-S 11-22mm 4-5.6 maybe?

How did you figure that?
The patents for the 85, 100 & 135 all had "Image height Y = 21.635mm"

You're saying that 0.005mm difference is all that is needed between a EF & EF-S lens?
 
Upvote 0
lol said:
"image height" would give the radius of the image circle. Double that is enough to cover the diagonal of a full frame sensor.

Thank you! It's unusual for me, but I decided to withhold my opinion until I learned what "Y" was. :)

Yes, if it's full frame and of good quality, I would be wanting this lens badly! Heck, I could use it on the cropper also.
 
Upvote 0
If they released this, it would be the ultimate landscape zoom assuming the optics are good...

A perfect fit between the more effect-driven 8-15mm f/4 fisheye and the event-oriented 16-35mm f/2.8...

Hope this one comes out! Given Canon's current lineup, it makes more sense than a 14-24 f/2.8.
 
Upvote 0
ewg963 said:
I wish it was f/2.8...

Just out of curiousity, why? I mean, practically, and not just because you want a collection of f/2.8 or faster lenses :)

24mm is too wide for events & people (where you might want the speed) due to the distortion, so odds are 99% of the use of this will be for landscape. Landscape is f/8+ most of the time... And the wide side we already have the 16-35mm f/2.8 for events & people - whose focal length is actually long enough to shoot people without unflattering distortion.

It is possible the f/4 design might reduce cost, size, weight, and actually improve image quality at smaller apertures where this would be used 99% of the time.
 
Upvote 0
willis said:
Cool patent, but just make it F2.8 ::)
Would be amazing landscape lens and for star photography.

Comparing the 16-35 f/2.8 and 17-40 f/4, the 17-40 actually performs better at small apertures than the 16-35 f/2.8. Small apertures is where most of landscape work is done, thus the f/4 may actually be preferable to f/2.8 for landscape.

In terms of star photography, it is doubtful you are going to get anything better than the 8-15mm fisheye, 24mm f/1.4, or 24-70 f/2.8 II - all great existing options for stars.

This lens would likely fill the hole in ultrawide rectilinear zoom while preserving quality at small apertures for landscape which an f/2.8 lens might not be able to do as well.
 
Upvote 0
Zv said:
It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change.

11mm? How would that work I wonder while keeping it rectilinear? Intresting.

It's possible. Anything where the diagonal sees less than 180' is possible. Just difficult. A rectilinear lens will need the corners stretching out loads to keep straight lines straight, and being such an extreme wide angle, expect huge stretching from such a lens. Clouds in the sky will take on a whole new lens created shape.

http://www.canon.com/bctv/calculator/calculator1.html will give you an idea about the AoV of such a lens.

The Sigma 12-24 is the nearest match that currently exists.
 
Upvote 0