Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4

[Canon Rumors]

<p>A <a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-23" target="_blank">patent for a 16-40mm f/4</a> has appeared. This could be a sign that the EF 17-40mm f/4L may be on its way out. We have been told that there was a possibility that the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II replacement could be wider, maybe the information was the EF 17-40 f/4L replacement instead.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-206976 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.11.19</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.4.23</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.36</li>
<li>Focal length 16.48 24.40 38.90</li>
<li>F-number 4.12 4.12 4.12</li>
<li>Half angle (in degrees) 52.70 41.56 29.08</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 177.74 162.40 159.73</li>
<li>BF 38.00 45.51 63.40</li>
</ul>
<p>One thing that stick out to us about this patent is the size of the lens and the fact that it’s not an internal zoom design like the current EF 17-40mm f/4L, the ‘new’ lens is also looks to be larger. Canon has increased the size of a lens recently with the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. The original was 3.4″ inches long and the new one comes in at just over 4.1″ (Canon spec), though it <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">measures at 4.43″ according to TDP</a>.</p>
<p>There has been a flurry of patent activity on optical formulas lately. We could be in for another good year of new lenses releases.</p>
<p><em>Note: We removed the “L” from our original post, we put it there out of habit. The patent makes no mention of a red ring.</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Sabaki]

Re: Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4L

I'm wondering if the extra millimeters on the wide side is an indication that Canon has gained massive confidence in designing and manufacturing wide angle lenses.

17-40 becomes 16-40 and let's be conservative and say the next flagship turns out to be a 15-35mm.

I'd love 15mm on the wide side but I'm not technically inclined enough to understand whether that means a bulbous front element too.

 

[bseitz234]

Re: Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4L

I had kind of assumed the 16-35 f/4 IS L had been the replacement for the 17-40, and they were just being slow to discontinue the latter (kind of like they did with 5d2 and 5d3, not that bodies and lenses are the same...) I'd think this would make for a very crowded ultrawide-L-zoom lineup:
11-24 f/4
16-35 f/2.8 (v2 and/or v3 or whatever is rumored)
16-35 f/4 IS
16-40 f/4

Seems like a lot of overlap... and with the 16-35 already being so sharp and cheap, any 16-40 would have to be a lot cheaper to make any sort of sense... and then we're probably talking cheaper than any other L lens, right?

 

[Vivid Color]

Re: Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4L

I had kind of assumed the 16-35 f/4 IS L had been the replacement for the 17-40, and they were just being slow to discontinue the latter (kind of like they did with 5d2 and 5d3, not that bodies and lenses are the same...) I'd think this would make for a very crowded ultrawide-L-zoom lineup:
11-24 f/4
16-35 f/2.8 (v2 and/or v3 or whatever is rumored)
16-35 f/4 IS
16-40 f/4

Seems like a lot of overlap... and with the 16-35 already being so sharp and cheap, any 16-40 would have to be a lot cheaper to make any sort of sense... and then we're probably talking cheaper than any other L lens, right?

I agree that this lens would join a crowded field. The only way it makes sense to me is if it were a non-L lens, perhaps with STM.

 

[infared]

Re: Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4L

I had kind of assumed the 16-35 f/4 IS L had been the replacement for the 17-40, and they were just being slow to discontinue the latter (kind of like they did with 5d2 and 5d3, not that bodies and lenses are the same...) I'd think this would make for a very crowded ultrawide-L-zoom lineup:
11-24 f/4
16-35 f/2.8 (v2 and/or v3 or whatever is rumored)
16-35 f/4 IS
16-40 f/4

Seems like a lot of overlap... and with the 16-35 already being so sharp and cheap, any 16-40 would have to be a lot cheaper to make any sort of sense... and then we're probably talking cheaper than any other L lens, right?

I am scratching my head a little on that, too. A 16-40mm f/4 would have to be super reasonably priced to make sense...if even that makes sense with the 16-35mm f/4L IS lens on the market. ....hmmmmm......

 

[insanitybeard]

Re: Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4L

I had kind of assumed the 16-35 f/4 IS L had been the replacement for the 17-40, and they were just being slow to discontinue the latter

Likewise, that's why I replaced my 17-40 with the 16-35 IS! As you say, it seems like there would be a lot of overlap, and why release a 16-40 f4 when the 16-35 IS is as good as it is and has already dropped in price to a level where it's not that much more than the old 17-40? Ok, 5mm on the long end can make a bit of a difference but other than that surely they're too similar to justify manufacturing and marketing both?

 

[Talley]

Guys...

This will be a MSRP of $799 and be an L lens.

This will be for people who don't want/need IS in an ultrawide and alot don't because they are exclusive to tripods. This is a cheaper alternative. Street pricing will fall around 650ish.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Canon loves overlap

24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
24-105 f/4L IS
24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

 

[Sabaki]

Canon loves overlap

24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
24-105 f/4L IS
24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

I get the feeling you enjoyed this post ;D

 

[bseitz234]

Canon loves overlap

24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
24-105 f/4L IS
24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

but then, has anyone really understood the 24-70 f/4L IS?

 

[Canon Rumors]

I've also updated the post to show that this new lens design doesn't appear to be an internal style zoom (if i remember correctly, it zooms externally within the barrel) like the current EF 17-40 f/4L.

 

[Mancubus]

Another one of those overlapping range for a dark no-is lens patent that i couldnt care less about.

Come on, i want to see replacements for 50 and 85mm primes, or an affordable super telephoto zoom like nikon just did. Not more of these damn wide zooms, my 16-35 f4IS is already pretty much all i wanted except for the aperture.

 

[Zv]

The 17-40L is already a good budget FF lens why replace it? It's a pretty decent lens and I don't think it needs replaced especially since the 16-35 f/4L IS already exists. Part of the appeal of the 17-40L is its small size and weight. This talk of making a longer lens without internal zoom is the exact opposite of that aspect.

What might work is a FF STM version of the EF-S 10-18 without IS and with variable aperture that's made of plastic and comes in at around $499 tops. A counterpart for the 24-105 non L? But who would buy that over the 17-40L?

I don't see this one materializing.

 

[PureClassA]

Canon loves overlap

24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
24-105 f/4L IS
24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

Still dont get it. An $800 L wide thats the same focal range and aperture as their $1199 L lens they just made?! No, doesn't make sense unless they release it LOWER priced than the current version at $699.

 

[unfocused]

The 17-40L is already a good budget FF lens why replace it? It's a pretty decent lens and I don't think it needs replaced especially since the 16-35 f/4L IS already exists. Part of the appeal of the 17-40L is its small size and weight. This talk of making a longer lens without internal zoom is the exact opposite of that aspect...

...I don't see this one materializing.

I agree. This looks like one of those patents that gets filed just because they want to protect their options.

 

[Luds34]

I've also updated the post to show that this new lens design doesn't appear to be an internal style zoom (if i remember correctly, it zooms externally within the barrel) like the current EF 17-40 f/4L.

As the 16-35 f/4 IS as well if I recall. Which isn't a bad design, especially if one seals it with a front filter. Then it is virtually the same as a completely sealed, internally zooming lens.

 

[StudentOfLight]

With the success of the 16-35/4 IS and 17-40/4 presumably discontinued, Canon might need a new fighting grade ultrawide full frame zoom. My guess is Canon EF 16-40mm f/4 STM. (So this could be non-L, non-IS, non-weather sealed)

So entry-level, single-lens-kit:
6D with 24-105 STM

Potential entry-level, two-lens-kit:
6D with "16-40 STM" + "55-200 STM"

Potential entry-level, three-lens-kit:
6D with "16-40 STM" + 50 STM + "55-200 STM"

 

[quiquae]

Hmmm. Look at that graph. The astigmatism on the wide end doesn't look so hot, does it?

One way this could be useful is as the kit zoom for 7D2. In case you haven't noticed yet, there is still no weather-sealed APS-C standard zoom to go with the weather-sealed 7D2! Canon does sell the 24-70F4L as a kit zoom with the 7D2, but 24mm is just not wide enough on APS-C for all-around use. 16-40 would be a much more reasonable range, though still a bit short; it'd still be more convenient than the best choice we have today, which is 16-35F4L.

Other than that, though...nah, I don't see much point either.

 

[jeffa4444]

As a "for profit" company Canon must think this lens will sell along side the other lenses that begin at 16mm. Owning the EF 17-40mm f4L and the EF 16-35mm f4I IS lenses the newer latter lens is far superior optically & mechanically and the 17-40mm is not worthy of the L designation at 17mm any longer it needs replacing.

 

[Zv]

As a "for profit" company Canon must think this lens will sell along side the other lenses that begin at 16mm. Owning the EF 17-40mm f4L and the EF 16-35mm f4I IS lenses the newer latter lens is far superior optically & mechanically and the 17-40mm is not worthy of the L designation at 17mm any longer it needs replacing.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it doesn't deserve the red ring. Build quality is superb, AF is fast and accurate and it's a workhorse that's served me very well over the years. There could be some copy variation; mine is pretty decent stopped down.

16-35 f/4L IS rocks though so it's gotta go! And hopefully I sell it before a replacement actually does materialize!