Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4

[Wizardly]

One thing that would be nice is to compare the distortion graphs between existing lens designs and the new ones.
I might be mistaken, but I believe Japanese application 2001-085215 is embodied by the original 16-35mm f/2.8 L.

 

[Loswr]

No, I'm not referring to the size of the entire lens unit, just the optical system. In the text of the patents, the "lens length" is the optical system, not the length of the entire unit.

Of course. Your statements that the lens retracts/contracts is what I was questioning.

Overall the 2 mm retraction to 6 mm extension are very minor. A static-length outer barrel could still be feasible.

Yes...just like the EF 17-35/2.8L, EF 16-35/2.8L, EF 17-40/4L, EF-S 10-22, EF 16-35/L IS, EF-S 10-18, etc. Nothing surprising.

 

[Canon Rumors]

If you look at past patents as they're presented here, the length is actually the physical length of the lens and tells us if it's internal zoom or not from what I can see from the examples below, if anyone cares.

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/ (Length doesn't change, internal zoom)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090296231.pdf EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (Length doesn't change, internal zoom)

http://www.canonrumors.com/another-ef-100-400-patent/ (Length changes, not internal zoom)

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-patent/ (Length changes, not internal zoom)

 

[RGF]

If canon widens the 16-35 to 14-xx what will the xx be? To outdo Nikon, they might stick with 35 or go to 28.

A 14-24 would be too much of copy cat lens and overlap with the 11-24 too much, even if a stop faster.

Now an 11-24 F2.8 would be very interesting if they could hold optical quality.

 

[Canon Rumors]

If canon widens the 16-35 to 14-xx what will the xx be? To outdo Nikon, they might stick with 35 or go to 28.

A 14-24 would be too much of copy cat lens and overlap with the 11-24 too much, even if a stop faster.

Now an 11-24 F2.8 would be very interesting if they could hold optical quality.

An 11-24 f/2.8... i'm not sure who'd want a 5lbs ultra wide.

 

[TeT]

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

Best 24 70 out there behind the 2.8 II L... unless you need 2.8, then its the canon mark II or lesser IQ for another..

 

[Loswr]

If you look at past patents as they're presented here, the length is actually the physical length of the lens and tells us if it's internal zoom or not from what I can see from the examples below, if anyone cares.

Sort of...the length in a patent is the physical length of the optical formula, which is the distance from the front element to the sensor. The physical length of the lens will be close to the patent 'overall length' minus the flange focal distance of 44 mm (close because the lens itself usually extends a bit beyond the front element). When you posted the patent for the 35/1.4L II, there was some initial surprise and dismay at the length of the lens, until it was clarified that some people were thinking the lens would be 44 mm / 1.75" longer than the patent really meant.

If the patent overall length of a zoom changes with focal length, it means the front element moves during zooming. In most cases, that means an extending zoom like the 24-70 or 100-400. However, in the case of ultrawide zooms with their retrofocal design, the front element doesn't really move all that far – Canon has designed those lenses so the front element is in an inner barrel which moves with zooming, but that movement is entirely behind the front of the outer barrel (the filter threads are on that outer barrel). So for the UWA zooms, even though the front element moves and therefore the patent shows a changing length for the optical formula, the outer barrel is fixed so the physical length of the production lens doesn't change.

As I pointed out before, it's only those lenses where there is an inner barrel moving within/behind a fixed-length outer barrel that Canon states require a front filter for sealing – that's the UWA zooms where the inner barrel moves with zooming, and the 50/1.2L where the inner barrel moves with focusing.

 

[ahsanford]

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

That lens is a joy to use. Relatively small, light, sealed, IS, sharper than the 24-105 and it packs an unheard of 0.7x max mag. It's a 24-70 and a macro rolled into one and it does both jobs very well. I cherish that lens.

- A

 

[JohanCruyff]

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"

Replace "6D" with "6D Mark II DPAF" and it sounds better.

 

[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"

Replace "6D" with "6D Mark II DPAF" and it sounds better.

... or EOS 6D-M (DPAF)