Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens

[ewg963]

I wish it was f/2.8...

The price might go near $3000 for that...

I understand that.

 

[J.R.]

I wish it was f/2.8...

The price might go near $3000 for that...

I understand that.

I don't really understand that, but I expect that ... even if it is f/4 ;D

 

[ewg963]

I wish it was f/2.8...

The price might go near $3000 for that...

I understand that.

I don't really understand that, but I expect that ... even if it is f/4 ;D

I know that type of glass won't cheap but I'll settle for the f/4

 

[ewg963]

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.

I've used the Nikon 14-24mm for events and people. I hoping was that Canon make a zoom similiar to that..yeah yeah the 16-35 good glass but the Nikon outshines it. The 16-35 mm I've tried it and "meh". I agree it would be used mostly for landscape. I have a streak of creativity.... I'm buying it regardless anyhow if this glass become reality. ;D

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

Sigma did with their 12-24mm mk I. It was a full frame, fully corrected rectilinear lens...with almost zero distortion. It was quite an amazing lens, dogged by poor QC from Sigma.

 

[Viggo]

Absolutely agree with 16-35 for portraits and people shots. Not every portrait is a headshot.

Did they make it f4 to keep a smaller front element to make use of normal screw in filters perhaps ?

 

[rs]

Did they make it f4 to keep a smaller front element to make use of normal screw in filters perhaps ?

Not likely - look at the shape of the front element on the patent:

I don't think there's one lens with such a wide angle of view (or even close) and f2.8

 

[Rudeofus]

I don't think there's one lens with such a wide angle of view (or even close) and f2.8

Look at this lens here: Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 fisheye lens

 

[fish_shooter]

I wish it was f/2.8...

The price might go near $3000 for that...

I understand that.

I don't really understand that, but I expect that ... even if it is f/4 ;D

I know that type of glass won't cheap but I'll settle for the f/4

I would not be surprised if this f/4 lens went for $3K given the size of the first few lens elements!

 

[fish_shooter]

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.

125 degrees angle of view based on doubling the half angle stated in the patent.

 

[ewg963]

I wish it was f/2.8...

The price might go near $3000 for that...

I understand that.

+1 Fish nothing surprises me these days.


I don't really understand that, but I expect that ... even if it is f/4 ;D

I know that type of glass won't cheap but I'll settle for the f/4

I would not be surprised if this f/4 lens went for $3K given the size of the first few lens elements!

 

[ewg963]

I wish it was f/2.8...

The price might go near $3000 for that...

I understand that.

I don't really understand that, but I expect that ... even if it is f/4 ;D

I know that type of glass won't cheap but I'll settle for the f/4

I would not be surprised if this f/4 lens went for $3K given the size of the first few lens elements!

=+1 Fish...nothing surprises me these days.

 

[Etienne]

Full-frame, rectilinear, sharp, contrasty and flare resistant .. . save one for me!

 

[traveller]

I find myself agreeing with Dilbert (God forbid ) on this one: fix the bread and butter lenses first before moving on to exotica.

 

[hendrik-sg]

compared with the 17mm TS 11mm FF seems possible. if the image from the TS would be compresst to normal FF Image circle, there would result a 11mm 2.8 lens. Considering, that this patant is a zoom 11mm f 4.0 seems believable

comparing the angle of view mentioned in the patent with the calculator linked here, it seems to be a Full Frame lens. Not clear is, why the image high is less than 24mm, wich would be the hight of a FF sensor.

 

[fotoray]

This lens not identified as L lens. Does it make sense that it should be an L lens, or can you get high quality optics at this focal length without L design standards?

 

[rs]

This lens not identified as L lens. Does it make sense that it should be an L lens, or can you get high quality optics at this focal length without L design standards?

The product name of the proposed lens is never in the patent. However, without wanting to get myself proved wrong again, I'm not aware of any Canon full frame zoom lenses with a constant aperture which aren't L lenses.

I don't think there's one lens with such a wide angle of view (or even close) and f2.8

Look at this lens here: Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 fisheye lens

OK, I walked into that one :

 

[fish_shooter]

compared with the 17mm TS 11mm FF seems possible. if the image from the TS would be compresst to normal FF Image circle, there would result a 11mm 2.8 lens. Considering, that this patant is a zoom 11mm f 4.0 seems believable

comparing the angle of view mentioned in the patent with the calculator linked here, it seems to be a Full Frame lens. Not clear is, why the image high is less than 24mm, wich would be the hight of a FF sensor.

Image height refers to the distance of the image measured from the optical axis; also used for the X-axis in MTF graphs. http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/reading_MTF_charts.shtml
Maximum image height equals half the diagonal distance of the format; so 2x that equals the diagonal of the format. Recall this is about 43mm.

 

[tianxiaozhang]

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.

Why does everyone assume a wide angle is perfect for landscape?

FWIW, I've watched professionals use the 16-35 when shooting models...

Because land is bigger than models...........

11mm might be a bit wide for most fashion work..
24~28mm works great..

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I wish it was f/2.8...

personally I'd prefer f/4: smaller, lighter, less expensive, perhaps better optically