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

[Canon Rumors]

<p>We’ve <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/superzoom-development-mentioned-again-cr2/">posted recently</a> that Canon has been working on a new superzoom lens, and sure enough a patent for an EF 24-300 f/4-5.6 has appeared.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-200870 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.11.12</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.3.31</li>
<li>Example 1</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 12.14</li>
<li>Focal length 24.30 99.98 294.95</li>
<li>F-number 4.10 5.76 5.88</li>
<li>Half angle (in degrees) 41.68 12.21 4.20</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 197.38 245.98 298.53</li>
<li>BF 38.90 91.95 92.55</li>
</ul>

 

[Loswr]

L or not, I wonder...

 

[Ian_of_glos]

What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.

 

[Loswr]

What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.

Travel. Convenience. Do you know of any fixed lens cameras with a superzoom range and a FF sensor?

 

[TAF]

Make it an L with IS and decent weather sealing, and I would be interested.

 

[ignomini]

I'm sure there would be some market for this, but how about a 24-105 replacement. If ever there was a Canon lens screaming for replacement, that's it. If they gave it a similar quality upgrade to the 100-400 II, I'd buy it right now.

 

[Adelino]

I'd buy it. I like convenience to each out own. It would not be my main lens by any mean but for some things (hiking, travel, a day trip of non critical photo shooting) I would love it.

 

[sjprg]

My 28-300 is one of MY favorites but it is getting long in the tooth with lot of hikes under its belt. The 24-300 sound like just the thing for its replacement.

 

[stochasticmotions]

This type of lens can be very useful in conditions that you do not want to expose the sensor to change lenses (very high humidity, salt water shoots, dusty areas). We do a lot of shots from a boat for sail boats (catamarans in particular). It is very difficult to carry 2 cameras on a dingy splashing in the ocean waves, so I camera/lens combo often needs to do the whole shoot. We used to carry the 7D with the sigma 18-250 for this type of work....don't have anything now that we no longer have any 1.6 crop canon cameras. Would likely have to go with the Sony combo of A7RII and 24-240 (don't have that lens now), or sony a6000 with something like the 18-200.

There are definite trade offs, the current 28-300 is an interesting lens. I actually love the push-pull style but the cost is pretty high for the number of times we might have needed it. An improved lens in image quality and possibly a decrease in weight would make me rethink the cost/usefulness of the lens. It would also be a pretty good all round travel lens for full frame.

 

[bholliman]

If this is an L or even high quality consumer lens I would probably be interested for travel. Would save space and weight and would avoid a bunch of lens changes when traveling with the family. A good 24-300 along with a smaller prime like the 35 f/2 IS for low light and shallow DOF up close would cover most of my travel needs.

 

[Nininini]

L or not, I wonder...

nope EF-S

 

[King Eyre]

This type of lens can be very useful in conditions that you do not want to expose the sensor to change lenses (very high humidity, salt water shoots, dusty areas). We do a lot of shots from a boat for sail boats (catamarans in particular). It is very difficult to carry 2 cameras on a dingy splashing in the ocean waves, so I camera/lens combo often needs to do the whole shoot. We used to carry the 7D with the sigma 18-250 for this type of work....don't have anything now that we no longer have any 1.6 crop canon cameras. Would likely have to go with the Sony combo of A7RII and 24-240 (don't have that lens now), or sony a6000 with something like the 18-200.

There are definite trade offs, the current 28-300 is an interesting lens. I actually love the push-pull style but the cost is pretty high for the number of times we might have needed it. An improved lens in image quality and possibly a decrease in weight would make me rethink the cost/usefulness of the lens. It would also be a pretty good all round travel lens for full frame.

I'd agree completely, I had the old non IS 35-350 and for it's time, it was a very useful lens.
Never got the replacement with IS, but with the new lens technology, it'd probably have a decent IQ although obviously not up to the 3X zooms. Very useful safari lens, though for the reasons mentioned above, particularly the dust factor.

 

[Nininini]

What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.

You answered your own question, to cover the whole range with one lens.

Bridge and P&S have much smaller sensors and aren't nearly as comfortable to hold as a DSLR.

Besides, most people like options, not everyone uses their superzoom lens all the time. Many people who use superzooms have multiple lenses.

I have an 18-200. I don't use it all the time, but it's super handy to have it if I only want to carry one lens. That doesn't mean I should be using a smaller sensor sized P&S or Bridge camera without the option to use any other lens.

 

[King Eyre]

L or not, I wonder...

nope EF-S

Did I miss something?

 

[Loswr]

L or not, I wonder...

nope EF-S

The stated image height is 21.64mm, which means an image circle for a full frame sensor (image height is the radius of the image circle). Why do you believe it's an EF-S lens?

 

[Monchoon]

What do you think would be the price point of this lens if either a L or non L?

And who would be the target market?

 

[Nininini]

L or not, I wonder...

nope EF-S

The stated image height is 21.64mm, which means an image circle for a full frame sensor (image height is the radius of the image circle). Why do you believe it's an EF-S lens?

A f/4-5.6 24-300mm L lens? Come on, get real.

 

[Monchoon]

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

What?

 

[Loswr]

L or not, I wonder...

nope EF-S

The stated image height is 21.64mm, which means an image circle for a full frame sensor (image height is the radius of the image circle). Why do you believe it's an EF-S lens?

A f/4-5.6 24-300mm L lens? Come on, get real.

In other words, you cannot back up your assertion that it's an EF-S lens with any facts. Instead, the facts clearly indicate it's an EF lens, not EF-S (i.e. small image circle).

Perhaps you missed the existence of the current 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens? Perhaps you're blind to the fact that an EF-S superzoom starting at 24mm (i.e. not a wide angle) is basically a non-starter and that other superzooms for APS-C are 18mm-xxx lenses? Get real, indeed. :

 

[preppyak]

I'm sure there would be some market for this, but how about a 24-105 replacement. If ever there was a Canon lens screaming for replacement, that's it. If they gave it a similar quality upgrade to the 100-400 II, I'd buy it right now.

They've already made two replacements for it. The 24-70 f/4L IS was the intended kit replacement (and has come down greatly in price), and the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is the cheaper replacement. I cant imagine what you could possibly want differently in that range. You've got two <$600 options (f/4L or STM) and an $800ish option that does macro.

Why would you want to pay $1200-1300 for an updated f/4L (its original price)?

A f/4-5.6 24-300mm L lens? Come on, get real.

It already exists...basically: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-28-300mm-f-35-56l-is-usm

If they can find a big weight saving by making f/4-f/5.6 instead of f/3.5, then that is easily worth it. Problem is, I cant see the 24-300 being light enough to actually be a convenient travel option (like the ef-s super zooms are). Or cheap enough. But, I guess we may see