Patent: Canon EF 28-560mm f/2.8-5.6

[Canon Rumors]

A patent for a super zoom optical formula from Canon has appeared. We heard a few months ago that Canon was <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-superzoom-development-cr1/">working on a replacement</a> for the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS. This optical formula is for a truly impressive EF 28-560mm f/2.8-5.6 super zoom. The likelihood of such a product? I’m not sure, as the lens would be quite large in size.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-80973 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.5.16</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.10.21</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 18.78</li>
<li>Focal length 28.80 139.49 540.91</li>
<li>F-number 2.88 4.77 5.88</li>
<li>Half angle of view (degrees) 36.91 8.82 2.29</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>The total lens length 298.13 341.13 398.13</li>
<li>BF 44.99 76.94 116.58</li>
</ul>
<p>I looked a few times to make sure this idea wasn’t for a smaller sensor PowerShot camera, which it isn’t. This is for a full frame DSLR.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[East Wind Photography]

I would love something like this for video use. I use a sigma lens now but only works on aps-c cameras. I could use one of these for my 1dx mark ii. If it makes it to production, i hope its L standard.

 

[Maui5150]

Now this would be a fab lens if performance was even somewhat decent. Love the 2.8 on the short end

 

[chrysoberyl]

There is no built-in extender? Sorry, I can't interpret optical patents well.

 

[j-nord]

Talk about zoom ratio

Is this the super zoom we've been hearing about? Are they really going to produce competitive IQ with that zoom ratio for under $2k?

 

[Maximilian]

Looks like a very challenging optical formula. I wouldn't expect this to be great or decent over the whole FL.
But if it was, it would be interesting for some out there. But also big and heavy.

There is no built-in extender? Sorry, I can't interpret optical patents well.

No, no extender mentioned or included.
Here's my try to help you in interpretation (I hope, I don't blame myself too much )

• Focal length 28.80 139.49 540.91 ==> focal length in mm at min., max. and somewhere in between
• F-number 2.88 4.77 5.88 ==> apertuere at min., max. and in between
• Half angle of view (degrees) 36.91 8.82 2.29 ==> field of view at min., max. and somwhere in between
• Image height 21.64 ==> height/radius of the image on image plane, showing if FF or APS-C or else 21.xy = FF and I think 16.xy = APS-C
• The total lens length 298.13 341.13 398.13 ==> mechanical length of the optical formula, from front element to image plane including flange distance
• BF 44.99 76.94 116.58 ==> back focus from rearmost optical element to image plane

So this lens will have a minimal mechanical length somewhere about 25 cm (298 - 45 mm).
And I suppose, it will be 30 to 50 % heavier than the recent 28-300L, so north 2 kg.
And aperture and focal length values are normally rounded, so f/5.88 will become f/5.6.

 

[Fleetie]

Entrance pupil would have to be 560mm/5.6 = 100mm.

Doesn't that maybe slightly defeat the purpose of a super-zoom, whose raison d'etre is to be portable?

Don't get me wrong; I think I'd quite like such a lens.

 

[Loswr]

Size of a 300/2.8 when retracted, extends another 4" at full zoom. I think this one won't happen.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Size of a 300/2.8 when retracted, extends another 4" at full zoom. I think this one won't happen.

I think with the introduction of 4k video, Canon needs to introduce a superzoom that doesnt cost more than the 1dx mark ii. I really hope they can swing this for ar least the video market...and as such maybe doesnt have to have IQ close to the 600 f4L II.

There are not many lenses out there that have a decent range for video production. They are either for aps-c or cost above and beyond all reasonable sanity.

 

[slclick]

Three Lenses for the Portrait-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Studio-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to EF-S,
One for the Dark Lord on his D5,
In the Land of DR where the Shadows lie.
One Lens to rule them all, One Ring USM to find them,
One Lens to bring them all and in the darkness push them
In the Land of Canon where the Red Rings lie.

 

[sjprg]

This is a lens I would buy. My 28-300 practically stays glued to my 5DSR. My only wish is that it could be 24mm on the wide end.

 

[ahsanford]

.

 

[ahsanford]

This one -- if it ever is built -- screams video more than anything else to me. A FF 20x zoom? Who on earth would use this for stills?

Even the reach obsessed folks screaming for first-party 500mm+ options (other than a teleconverter or a trip to the bank for superwhite money) would not buy this. The IQ would be wretched, wouldn't it?

- A

 

[Besisika]

I would love something like this for video use. I use a sigma lens now but only works on aps-c cameras. I could use one of these for my 1dx mark ii. If it makes it to production, i hope its L standard.

I had the same thing in mind.
And then everybody will be intimidated when you point that thing at them.

I shot a concert once, the artist stopped in the middle of the song and asked everybody to applause the guy with a big white thing pointing at him. That was me with the 200 2.0

 

[unfocused]

...Are they really going to produce competitive IQ with that zoom ratio for under $2k?

No.

 

[East Wind Photography]

...Are they really going to produce competitive IQ with that zoom ratio for under $2k?

No.

Maybe for 8MP(4k) use, it doesnt have to have the same IQ. We lived without it for years before high mp sensors came out.

 

[ahsanford]

...Are they really going to produce competitive IQ with that zoom ratio for under $2k?

No.

J-nord, again, refer to my prior meme with Obi-Wan. The under-$2k long supertele we expect to see will be in the vein of the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR for the amateur wildlife/birding crowd. Many threads have beaten up how Canon might do this, and the math and the money just gets thorny:

• Zooming up to 600mm coupled with Canon's insistence on f/5.6 at the slowest (for the EF mount) kind of blows up the low-cost + front-filterable option. 600 / 5.6 = a very large entrance pupil.
  
  
• Only going up to 500mm like Nikon did (wise for cost + filterability) may be passed over by the market for the three Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm options.
  
  
  
• Given the cost of the 100-400L II, it's hard to see a 200-500 f/5.6L IS coming in under $2k, and I'm not convinced Canon will pull the L moniker off of the product and go plasticky/STM to keep it cheap. So I see more of a $3k lens than a $2k lens here. (I'm still waiting for proper reviews of the 200-500 Nikon to see what corners the designers cut to get that down to $1,400 -- at present, it seems like they are practically giving the lens away at cost to land-grab amateur birders all in a tizzy about the D500 ).

- A

 

[Jack Douglas]

This thread has been great for a laugh. Love the humourists!

We live in exciting times, indeed.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

It's true!

It really exists!

It has been field tested in Tokyo with a green covering to help disguise it.

Code name: GODZILLA!!!!!

 

[ahsanford]

It's true!

It really exists!

It has been field tested in Tokyo with a green covering to help disguise it.

Code name: GODZILLA!!!!!

Waaaaaay ahead of you...