Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4

[The Supplanter]

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.

I'm not sure it will be marketed as an APS-C kit lens as it is an EF patent. But I like your idea!

This lens just doesn't make sense to me. I have to believe others in that this is a patent to protect their ideas.

 

[ahsanford]

Fascinating development with this patent. Per my attached chart, the gap Canon has is at the ground floor price point for UWA zooms, not the mid-level.

One would think a 'de-L-ification' of this particular lens would be in order. That would allow Canon to pull some features like constant max aperture and USM -- just like they did with the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM -- to keep the costs down.

But the choice to go with constant max aperture might imply a 17-40L II (in spirit, technically this would be a 16-40L I) is more likely where they are headed.

But I noticed the L was yanked from the CR Admins in the patent announcement: has Canon ever offered a non-L constant max aperture zoom?

- A

 

[mclaren777]

I just wish we knew something concrete about the replacement for the 16-35mm f/2.8 II because I'm tempted to buy a 14mm f/2.8 II now, but I don't want to regret my purchase if Canon makes a 14-24mm f/2.8 or something equally tantalizing.

Grrr!!

 

[infared]

I never liked the 17-40mm LOL!!!..I got one from B&H...and the short zoom "throw" on the wide end was just something I could not deal with, (its sooooo abrupt)..plus the lens was just was not that sharp. I sent it right back...got the 16-35mm f/2.8L II (far from great..but better) and then when the 16-35mm f/4L IS came out...I ditched the 16-35mm f/2.8 and bought one. THEN I finally had a sharp, light reasonably priced UW zoom. .. That is REALLY a great lens. I am still in shock that Canon introduced it at such a reasonable price point.
I definitely don't see the need for another 17-40mm unless, like everyone says, it's dirt cheap.

 

[ahsanford]

I just wish we knew something concrete about the replacement for the 16-35mm f/2.8 II because I'm tempted to buy a 14mm f/2.8 II now, but I don't want to regret my purchase if Canon makes a 14-24mm f/2.8 or something equally tantalizing.

Grrr!!

All conventional wisdom and rumors to date point to a 16-35 f/2.8L III coming as the next L UWA zoom. That's a staple professional lens and the current one is miles behind the 16-35 f/4L IS and 11-24 f/4L for IQ. It makes sense to go with that next.

That Canon should change that staple event/sports lens for a 14-24 f/2.8L would likely eliminate front filtering. Further, Canon already epically scratched the 'wider rectilinear zoom than 16mm' itch with the 11-24, so I don't see them going there again anytime soon.

I am no expert at new product development predictions, but I see Canon being conservative here and simply making a new, sharper 16-35 f/2.8 and calling it good.

- A

 

[NancyP]

STM kit zoom.

 

[ahsanford]

STM kit zoom.

Kit = crop, you mean?

The FL range makes sense, but why go EF on a crop kit zoom? That's something a smart person (planning for the future) might do. Canon doesn't want us to plan for the future -- they want us to buy more stuff! :

- A

 

[unfocused]

STM kit zoom.

I don't read Japanese, but this is pretty easy to understand on the original source: "embodiment1: EF 16-40mm f/4 USM" (emphasis added)

 

[The Supplanter]

Kit = crop, you mean?

The FL range makes sense, but why go EF on a crop kit zoom? That's something a smart person (planning for the future) might do. Canon doesn't want us to plan for the future -- they want us to buy more stuff! :

- A

You're right. This makes sense with the 7DII, but Canon won't market it as such.

 

[rs]

has Canon ever offered a non-L constant max aperture zoom?

- A

Here are the non L EF constant aperture zooms I'm aware of:

EF 100-300/5.6 (1987)
EF 70-210/5.6 (1987)
EF 100-200/4.5 (1988)
EF-S 17-55/2.8 (2006)

If you ignore the EF-S zoom (which isn't L for obvious reasons), nothing L since 1988.

 

[ahsanford]

has Canon ever offered a non-L constant max aperture zoom?

- A

Here are the non L EF constant aperture zooms I'm aware of:

EF 100-300/5.6 (1987)
EF 70-210/5.6 (1987)
EF 100-200/4.5 (1988)
EF-S 17-55/2.8 (2006)

If you ignore the EF-S zoom (which isn't L for obvious reasons), nothing L since 1988.

[Hand to face] How on earth did I forget the 17-55? (Talk about a lens that needs a refresh!)

Thanks,
A

 

[RGF]

I just wish we knew something concrete about the replacement for the 16-35mm f/2.8 II because I'm tempted to buy a 14mm f/2.8 II now, but I don't want to regret my purchase if Canon makes a 14-24mm f/2.8 or something equally tantalizing.

Grrr!!

Like to see the 14 F2.8 replaced with faster (and better for astro photography) version. Perhaps F2.0 or even F1.4 (not likely but F2.0 might be possible).

 

[RGF]

Fascinating development with this patent. Per my attached chart, the gap Canon has is at the ground floor price point for UWA zooms, not the mid-level.

One would think a 'de-L-ification' of this particular lens would be in order. That would allow Canon to pull some features like constant max aperture and USM -- just like they did with the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM -- to keep the costs down.

But the choice to go with constant max aperture might imply a 17-40L II (in spirit, technically this would be a 16-40L I) is more likely where they are headed.

But I noticed the L was yanked from the CR Admins in the patent announcement: has Canon ever offered a non-L constant max aperture zoom?

- A

wonder what the 70-200 F2.8 IS III would be delivery?

You don't have specialty lenses on this. 45 and 90 TS-E need to replaced as does the 180 macro.

It would nice if Canon partnered with Zeiss to allow them to make their lenses AF and co-brand them Super-L or perhaps Z versions with a different colored ring (not red and not gold - perhaps platinum colored)

 

[Loswr]

It would nice if Canon partnered with Zeiss to allow them to make their lenses AF and co-brand them Super-L or perhaps Z versions with a different colored ring (not red and not gold - perhaps platinum colored)

Platinum wouldn't work, looks too close to silver. Way back in 1999 when Canon added one to the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, they stated, "The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch." Wouldn't want anyone confusing a 'Zeiss Uber-L' lens with an old $200 consumer zoom or any of the more recent EF-S lenses which also have that 'luxury touch'.

 

[Wizardly]

Working example 1:
FL: 16.48 / 23.6 / 33.95 mm (16-35mm nominal)
Fno: 2.9 (f/2.8 nominal)
Half angle: 52.7 / 42.51 / 32.51°
Image Height: 21.64 mm (135-format)
Length: 177.02 / 161.56 / 156.44 mm
BF: 38 / 44.49 / 56.64 mm

Lens contracts and retracts slightly as it zooms in. 16-35mm f/2.8 lens seems redundant, but interesting if this is non-L.

Working example 2:
FL: 16.48 / 24.15 / 33.95 mm (16-35mm nominal)
Fno: 4.10 (f/4 nominal)
Half angle: 52.70 / 41.86 / 32.51°
Image height: 21.64 mm (135-format)
Lens Length: 173.42 / 158.56 / 156.35 mm
BF: 38 / 46.50 / 56.92 mm

Lens contracts but extends slightly.

Working example 3:
FL: 16.48 / 23.60 / 33.95 mm (16-35mm nominal)
Fno: 2.89 / 2.88 / 2.90 (f/2.8 nominal)
Half Angle: 52.70 / 42.51 / 32.51°
Image height: 21.64mm
Length: 177.06 / 161.89 / 158.29mm
BF: 38 / 45.63 / 60.17 mm

Lens contracts as it zooms in.

Working example 4:
FL: 16.48 / 24.40 / 38.90 (16-40mm nominal)
Fno: 4.12 (f/4 nominal)
Half angle: 52.70 / 41.56 / 29.08°
Image height: 21.64 mm
Lens length: 177.74 / 162.40/ 159.73 mm
BF: 38 / 45.51 / 63.40 mm

Lens contracts as it zooms in.

All of the examples have 2 aspherical elements.

 

[Loswr]

Length: 177.06 / 161.89 / 158.29mm
BF: 38 / 45.63 / 60.17 mm

Lens contracts as it zooms in.

If you're thinking a reverse zoom like the original 24-70/2.8 L (and its predecessor), unlikely. The lenses will almost certainly not change length, per se. The design specs for the current 16-35 II and 17-40 would look similar – there's in inner barrel in those lenses which retracts with zooming, but the outer barrel is fixed. That inner barrel is why those L lenses require a front filter to complete the weather/dust sealing.

 

[ahsanford]

Length: 177.06 / 161.89 / 158.29mm
BF: 38 / 45.63 / 60.17 mm

Lens contracts as it zooms in.

If you're thinking a reverse zoom like the original 24-70/2.8 L (and its predecessor), unlikely. The lenses will almost certainly not change length, per se. The design specs for the current 16-35 II and 17-40 would look similar – there's in inner barrel in those lenses which retracts with zooming, but the outer barrel is fixed. That inner barrel is why those L lenses require a front filter to complete the weather/dust sealing.

+1.

With ultrawides, the FL range is sufficiently small that there isn't a major space-in-your-bag savings for a telescoping internal barrel that clears the outer barrel (like virtually all 24-something zooms).

So just like Neuro said, zooming should be contained in the outer housing -- for naked lens shooters who don't filters for whatever reason, that's clearly better than a 24-something dust ingress situation.

- A

 

[Wizardly]

Length: 177.06 / 161.89 / 158.29mm
BF: 38 / 45.63 / 60.17 mm

Lens contracts as it zooms in.

If you're thinking a reverse zoom like the original 24-70/2.8 L (and its predecessor), unlikely. The lenses will almost certainly not change length, per se. The design specs for the current 16-35 II and 17-40 would look similar – there's in inner barrel in those lenses which retracts with zooming, but the outer barrel is fixed. That inner barrel is why those L lenses require a front filter to complete the weather/dust sealing.

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. It's not hard to discern the how this contraction would occur. In WE1, the total length of the optical system contracts 20.58 mm while the back-focus expands by 18.64 mm; the front element must move inward by the difference, 1.94 mm. However, this is not a substantial amount.

A moving inner barrel is what I was envisioning in this patent as well.

In going through the numbers, WE1 extends slightly while contracting, WE2 retracts slightly while contracting, WE3 and 4 both extend while contracting. These extensions/retractions are still small enough for a fixed lens unit length.

 

[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. I guess I didn't see the point in calling it out, since current UWA zooms behave the same way.

 

[Wizardly]

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.