Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Is Canon working on a replacement to the very good EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5? By the looks of this patent they are. I’d expect any replacement to have STM and maybe a bit better build quality, though the current one is about as reliable as they come.</p>
<p><strong>Example 3</strong> (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.07</li>
<li>Focal length 11.61-15.50-24.07mm</li>
<li>Fno. 3.63-3.96-4.69</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 49.64-41.38-29.58 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 13.66mm</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 133.0-129.1-133.3mm</li>
<li>BF 3.26mm</li>
<li>Negative positive and negative positive 4-group zoom</li>
<li>Inner focus (Lf part of the first group)</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-11-18" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[siegsAR]

For STM, there's the new 10-18 for that, and IS too.

If only it says f/2.8, but still. If this was just an EF lens.

 

[pwp]

If only it says f/2.8, but still. If this was just an EF lens....

...then the retail price would be comfortably north of $3k.

-pw

 

[Steve Balcombe]

An 11-24 would make no sense at all. Why throw away one of the great features of the 10-22 - i.e. 10 mm - in exchange for 2 mm more overlap with your standard lens? I'm all in favour of a useful long end as it means less lens swapping, but losing several degrees of AoV at the wide end is too high a price to pay.

 

[Coldhands]

I agree it seems odd to degrade the wide end. It would be difficult to sell an 11-24mm as an upgrade over the existing 10-22 without something like an f/2.8 aperture or IS.

I think it might be possible that Canon has discovered an optical formula that works well and has patented it as a defensive measure against other companies using it to produce a competitive lens.

As an aside, does anyone know if there are any rules that lens makers have to abide by with respect to nominal focal length vs actual? Can Canon label a lens 11-24mm when it is actually closer to 12-24? (11.61 obviously rounds to 12)

 

[Woody]

Canon must be crazy to have so many iterations of their EF-S ultrawide lenses.

It may make sense if this is an EF-M lens.

Still, as rightly pointed out by others, I'll rather adapt an EF-S 10-22 or 10-18 to the EOS-M due to the extra 2 mm at the wide end.

 

[AvTvM]

Canon must be crazy to have so many iterations of their EF-S ultrawide lenses.
It may make sense if this is an EF-M lens.
...

not really ... EF-M 11-22/4.0-5.6 IS STM does exist. Very compact, very good and affordable.

 

[Marsu42]

Is Canon working on a replacement to the very good EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5? By the looks of this patent they are.

To be honest, I don't see the connection. There have been so many patents without a product, and issuing a patent can simply mean they want to protect their ip before the competition gets the same idea.

Now I realize with Canon's announcement policy, a rumor site is no fun to produce news for ... but for potential buyers of this lens it might be a good idea not to get too excited. For Canon to issue or update a lens, there have to be very good reasons (more profit, filling a blatant gap in the lineup, adapting lenses to new camera tech like more mp or better af, ...).

 

[Coldhands]

As an aside, does anyone know if there are any rules that lens makers have to abide by with respect to nominal focal length vs actual? Can Canon label a lens 11-24mm when it is actually closer to 12-24? (11.61 obviously rounds to 12)

Hah! You should look at the many other zoom lenses - or even primes.

E.g. look at this:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-patent-published/

70-300 is actually 72.21 – 299.52
24-70 is actually 24.74 – 67.50
55-200 is actually 55.60 – 203.11 (I think it being labeled 55-200 is just wrong)

http://www.canonrumors.com/tag/ef-70-300-f4-5-5-6-do-is/
100-400 is actually 103.00-200.00-388.94
70-300 is actually 72.50-135.00-289.99

And so on.

Cheeky buggers. I figured they would take some liberties with naming lenses but a few of those seem a bit...aspirational.

 

[Marsu42]

Cheeky buggers. I figured they would take some liberties with naming lenses but a few of those seem a bit...aspirational.

In that case, never look at the actual optical props vs. marketing of many 3rd party zooms (esp. far end on tele), or you'll go into a state of shock and might never recover :->. And on the wide end, even 1mm less is a huge difference, for example Canon's wider 24-70L mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron.

 

[zim]

So now two 11-24s ?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/did-canon-leak-the-ef-11-24mm-f4l/

Wonder if both these rumours could be connected, would it be EF-S or EF though?

 

[infared]

Cheeky buggers. I figured they would take some liberties with naming lenses but a few of those seem a bit...aspirational.

In that case, never look at the actual optical props vs. marketing of many 3rd party zooms (esp. far end on tele), or you'll go into a state of shock and might never recover :->. And on the wide end, even 1mm less is a huge difference, for example Canon's wider 24-70L mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron.

Can you give the actual zoom ranges for these for the 24-70mm zooms?
mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron
(I would never by a Tamron product...but hey ..its good to know what is out there

 

[e17paul]

This would make no senses as an STM, there is the 10-18 already. As a USM with a distance scale, and better IQ than both the old 10-22 and bargain 10-18 it would appeal to me when I get a crop body.

On the other hand, it maybe one of many options Canon explored, before deciding on the 10-18.

 

[CaptainZero]

Yeah, I'd be very interested if it's EF. I use my 10-22 almost every day, and wouldn't be at all interested in losing anything off the wide end.

 

[Zv]

I used to have the EF-S 10-22 and I don't think it needs an update, does it? Works perfectly fine and has a solid build.

For the cheaper option Canon already brought out the EF-S 10-18 so I doubt we'll see another UWA EF-S lens so soon. I'm glad they're still developing EF-S lenses though. They've got some really good lenses such as the 17-55 and the 10-22, and the quality of the recent ones has been stellar too.

 

[rs]

Yeah, I'd be very interested if it's EF. I use my 10-22 almost every day, and wouldn't be at all interested in losing anything off the wide end.

If you want EF 11-24, there's the rumoured upcoming EF 11-24/4L that you should keep a look out for.

This is definitely not EF. The image height (radius of imaging circle, half the diagonal) in this patent is 13.66mm. It is enough for a 1.6x crop with its 27mm diagonal, but not enough for a 1.0x sensor with its 43.3mm diagonal.

Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.

This appears to be an EF-M lens.

 

[ahsanford]

For STM, there's the new 10-18 for that, and IS too.

If only it says f/2.8, but still. If this was just an EF lens.

USM trumps STM for focusing speed -- if you don't shoot video, USM is the way to go.

11-24 would equal something like a 17-40 FF lens, right? (Okay, 17.6 - 38.4mm) Why walk away from the 10-22 (i.e. 16-35 equivalent) they currently have?

- A

 

[Woody]

Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.

This appears to be an EF-M lens.

Exactly my prediction.

 

[lintoni]

Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.

This appears to be an EF-M lens.

+1 I don't think it's a coincidence that this patent coincides with rumours of a new EOS-M.

 

[ashmadux]

Those optics could definitely be better. L class is not. Ive owned it for years.

works well with an M though, it is perfectly weighted to it