Patent: Canon EF 24-300mm f/4-5.6

[George D.]

A compromise IQ lens as well put: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx . And that's for the existing 28-300. A bold move by Canon not to just improve but to extend down to 24mm. I'm not interested in such a lens but what I see lately is a growing confidence by Canon. View to 1DX2 and 5D4.

 

[AvTvM]

Current as in still produced, not discontinued.

Yes, and it's from 2005, use your brain. You think Canon is going to update it a decade later with a slower aperture?

No, better check the facts before you attack other people. the current EF 28-300/3.5-5.6 L IS was launched in June 2004, succeeding the previous EF 35-300/3.5-5.6 L released in 1993. so it would be perfectly in line if Canon were to bring a successor sometime soon, that is again wider on the short end. Difference between f/4.0 vs. F/3.5 for maybe the first 10mm of focal length range is pretty much irrelevant in real life.

Facts? Here: http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/ef377.html

 

[PhotographyFirst]

I am confused by how anyone could think the IQ from the current 28-300 is "bad"?

I think it looks really damn good across all focal ranges and apertures, especially considering it is a super zoom. Seems much better than anything Nikon or Sigma have.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=734&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As mentioned already in this thread, such a lens would be critical for use in conditions where lens changes are not going to happen. I would be more than happy to use that thing for professional use.

If the new one does even better, hopefully lighter weight, then cool! I know of a few people who have the 28-300 pretty much welded onto their camera. They freaking love it!

 

[siegsAR]

I am confused by how anyone could think the IQ from the current 28-300 is "bad"?

I think it looks really damn good across all focal ranges and apertures, especially considering it is a super zoom. Seems much better than anything Nikon or Sigma have.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=734&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As mentioned already in this thread, such a lens would be critical for use in conditions where lens changes are not going to happen. I would be more than happy to use that thing for professional use.

If the new one does even better, hopefully lighter weight, then cool! I know of a few people who have the 28-300 pretty much welded onto their camera. They freaking love it!

Ditto. If not for the weight, I'd trade my 24-105 and 70-200 f4 for this in a heartbeat. I'm patiently waiting for a definite mk2 though I'm not really positive about weight reduction.

Looks like this patent is of a non L superzoom, like the newer 24-105.

 

[AvTvM]

Looks like this patent is of a non L superzoom, like the newer 24-105.

What exactly in the patent info leads you to this conclusion?

 

[Chris Jankowski]

Thinking of the market for such lens, I think that Canon would be much better off (i.e. sell more copies) of a 24-120 F4 L IS USM lens or perhaps 24-200 F4-5.6 L IS USM lens or something in between - 24-135 or 24-150 or 24-180.

Either would be a great travel or walkabout lens. They would be able to maintain reasonable size and weight.

With increased sensitivity of sensors and better IS, there is simply no longer such a strong need for brighter lenses unless for sport or portrait, which is not what a travel lens is for.

However, with ever higher resolution of sensors there is a great need for the lens to have excellent image quality. This is why we lug these huge DSLR bodies around, don't we. Also, high resolutin of the sensor and high IQ give better scope for cropping.

I think that the patented design for 24-300 F4-5.6 is just way too large to consider it a universal travel lens.

Chris

 

[TeT]

I think it to be a direct replacement for the 28 300 L, just as that replaced the 35 350 L... It will be well received. Especially the 24 v the 28.

I am assuming that this will be an L lens....

A non L 24 300 lens would sell better and would not take much to be best in the economy super zoom class.

 

[afonsoclj]

I'd love a 24-200mm f/4 with size/weight of a 70-200 2.8.

 

[George D.]

I am confused by how anyone could think the IQ from the current 28-300 is "bad"?

I think it looks really damn good across all focal ranges and apertures, especially considering it is a super zoom. Seems much better than anything Nikon or Sigma have.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=734&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As mentioned already in this thread, such a lens would be critical for use in conditions where lens changes are not going to happen. I would be more than happy to use that thing for professional use.

If the new one does even better, hopefully lighter weight, then cool! I know of a few people who have the 28-300 pretty much welded onto their camera. They freaking love it!

From that same review:
"This is a super-zoom lens. Creating such a lens with perfect image quality in a package that is affordable and carryable by mortals is proven impossible as of this review date. If you want all of those focal lengths in one lens, you must accept a compromise. And as of this date, the 28-300 L is as good as it gets. And as good as it gets in this case is quite good".

Since when "quite good" translates into "bad". I totally agree with the reviewer that when you have a lot of elements there is light loss and a compromise, that's basic rule in optics. From what I count in the patent image (below) the 24-300 comes in 22 elements in 5 groups (L5) as compared to 22/16 of the 28-300. If Canon even gets the same performance with the 28-300 having added 24mm (and at comparable price) it's an improvement. If it's even better that's an achievement.


PS: Right now, sympathy for the events in Paris.

 

[lol]

While I'm sure this lens in L version would be great, the price would be a major problem. Personally I'd rather see a non-L version to keep costs reasonable. It could be very handy for those "I don't intend to take serious photos but want to take a decent camera with me" trips.

 

[TeT]

While I'm sure this lens in L version would be great, the price would be a major problem. Personally I'd rather see a non-L version to keep costs reasonable. It could be very handy for those "I don't intend to take serious photos but want to take a decent camera with me" trips.

a better (non L or SP or ART) super zoom would be appreciated. The recent Tamron review shows very good results. I would hope that a non L from Canon would be better than that.

Photo Journalists will eat up a 24 300 L with better IQ (from technological advances if nothing else).

The patent diagram is all greek to me...

 

[scyrene]

Put some stm and dpaf compatibility and make it 2.8 constant don't care if it's a L lens or not with IS and I'm down for it

You're 'down for' a lens that would be over 12" long, weigh >6 lbs and cost >$10,000?? Don't hold your breath (or better yet...do).

I see your still acting like a know it all canon expert and or engineer hmm "ignore mode activated"

What did he say that was wrong? Or do you just dislike realism?

 

[scyrene]

I'd like a do-it-(almost)-all lens for those occasions I'm not feeling like taking several, or carrying a lot. Although tbh I'd probably never be able to afford to prioritise something like this. Still, nice to have options.

 

[Loswr]

From what I count in the patent image (below) the 24-300 comes in 22 elements in 5 groups (L5) as compared to 22/16 of the 28-300.

The lens units (L1, L2, etc.) in patent diagrams are not synonymous with element groups in a spec list. In the diagram you posted, L1 is two groups and L5 is three groups. For another example, in the previous M70-400mm lens patent, it's evident that L3 comprises four groups and six elements.

I suspect the design of the 24-300 will have around the same 16 groups as the 28-300L.

 

[Haydn1971]

A non L 24 300 lens would sell better and would not take much to be best in the economy super zoom class.

Where's the kudos for Canon - Tamron make an economy super zoom - no one else makes a professional grade super zoom - this will be an L lens, Canon will sell it for a much higher margin than Tamron sells theirs - volume doesn't always mean profit.

 

[RAW]

The history behind CANON EF 28-300MM 3.5-5.6 L IS USM was that it was made by request from press guys.
So they didnt need to change lens in the heat of the moment, and it is a stanard item in most press gear to day.

It looks like that Canon are upgrading all there push-pull zooms, so this patent smells like a nice an upgrade
of the 28-300 and press guys world over will for sure line up for a 24-300 f4-5.6 L USM and me also ;o)

So i think it safe to say that there is a solid marked for this lens, so thats why ;o)

 

[TeT]

A non L 24 300 lens would sell better and would not take much to be best in the economy super zoom class.

Where's the kudos for Canon - Tamron make an economy super zoom - no one else makes a professional grade super zoom - this will be an L lens, Canon will sell it for a much higher margin than Tamron sells theirs - volume doesn't always mean profit.

Agree and agreed... for me personally... I hope for the one I would use & buy which is the best in class economy super zoom not the L... (btw: economy in this case will be $500 to $800)

 

[AvTvM]

.. I hope for the one I would use & buy which is the best in class economy super zoom not the L... (btw: economy in this case will be $500 to $800)

A full-frame Canon EF 24-300/4.0-300 IS in that price range (500-800) is "rather unlikely" to happen. Tamron 28-300 VC is the only ticket in this price class. However, Canon did bring the EF 24-105 IS STM at a really attractive price and performance is decent. Because they wanted a "cheap" 6D kit-zoom. I seriously doubt Canon would be willing to launch a similarly positioned, "mega-value mega-zoom". But who knows? A non L 24-300 would certainly be attractive to many even at 999 or 1299. there seems to be a not insignificant niche of DSLR users who don't want to change lenses - in specific situations or at all.

 

[TeT]

Was thinking upon the 24 105 non L for construction and performance comparison... my 500 to 800 may well be optimistic...