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

[ahsanford]

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 respectfully disagree. Make it sharper/lighter/more accurate focusing/better build quality and people will buy the 'same' lens. I don't see why a 10-22 "II" wouldn't sell. Canon has sold their pants off with Mark II versions of lenses with the same FL, aperture, and IS (or no-IS) specs.

Of course, Canon needs to deliver or folks won't buy it, but it can be done. And I think they have ample room to improve. The 10-22 is loved for it's focal length -- not for it's sharpness.

If the recent 16-35 F/4L IS is delivering sharper performance in a FF corner than the 10-22 delivers in a crop corner, it tells me that Canon can up their game in this focal length, and I think people would pay for it if they did.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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?

Apples and oranges -- a coincidence of numbers, nothing more. If both rumors are true, the EF 11-24 will look like a completely different lens than an EF-S or EF-M 11-24, and their optical design would be quite different.

Designs can vary a bit, but I'm guessing an EF-S/EF-M 11-24 would resemble one of the three crop ultrawides they sell today (EF-S 10-18, EF-S 10-22, EF-M 11-22), but an 11-24 full frame EF lens would look like some altogether new hybrid of a fish and an ultrawide zoom. Unless they'd want a flat leading element the size of a teacup saucer, you'd expect the leading element of the EF lens to be exceptionally bulbous and almost certainly lack the ability to be front-filtered.

I think you can loosely compare the 10-22s of the crop world to the 16-35s & 17-40 of the FF world. But once you get down under 16mm, FF lenses get bulbous very quickly and the similarities fall away.

- A

 

[Marsu42]

Can you give the actual zoom ranges for these for the 24-70mm zooms?
mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron

Sorry, I don't have the exact data here right now so you have to google for yourself ... but as far as I remember the Canon mk2 is not as wide as the mk1 which made comparisons on the "wide end" a bit biased towards the mk2. The Tamron seems to be also very wide when zoomed out and thus very flexible apart from the massive vignetting wide open.

 

[ahsanford]

Can you give the actual zoom ranges for these for the 24-70mm zooms?
mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron

Sorry, I don't have the exact data here right now so you have to google for yourself ... but as far as I remember the Canon mk2 is not as wide as the mk1 which made comparisons on the "wide end" a bit biased towards the mk2. The Tamron seems to be also very wide when zoomed out and thus very flexible apart from the massive vignetting wide open.

On standard zooms, they aren't terribly far apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.

- A

 

[Marsu42]

On standard zooms, they aren't terribly part apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.

Speaking in mm focal length this is correct, but the effect of +-1 mm on a wide angle lens has much more impact than 10 or 20mm on a tele zoom. You can always crop in a little, but you cannot restore data if your lens wasn't wide enough. That's why I'm currently happy with my 17-40L, even though you might say the 17-24 range isn't such a big deal in objective terms.

 

[ahsanford]

On standard zooms, they aren't terribly part apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.

Speaking in mm focal length this is correct, but the effect of +-1 mm on a wide angle lens has much more impact than 10 or 20mm on a tele zoom. You can always crop in a little, but you cannot restore data if your lens wasn't wide enough. That's why I'm currently happy with my 17-40L, even though you might say the 17-24 range isn't such a big deal in objective terms.

Yeah, agree. On the wide end, 2mm is a huge deal. Many people prefer the slower 15-85 EF-S lens over the quicker 17-55 EF-S solely because of that key extra width. And a number of landscape guys still haven't forgiven Canon for yet offering another 16-35 when they were screaming for a 14-24.

- A

 

[TeT]

On standard zooms, they aren't terribly part apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.

Speaking in mm focal length this is correct, but the effect of +-1 mm on a wide angle lens has much more impact than 10 or 20mm on a tele zoom. You can always crop in a little, but you cannot restore data if your lens wasn't wide enough. That's why I'm currently happy with my 17-40L, even though you might say the 17-24 range isn't such a big deal in objective terms.

Yeah, agree. On the wide end, 2mm is a huge deal. Many people prefer the slower 15-85 EF-S lens over the quicker 17-55 EF-S solely because of that key extra width. And a number of landscape guys still haven't forgiven Canon for yet offering another 16-35 when they were screaming for a 14-24.

- A

The extra 2 + the extra 30 + I think its better glass... on the other end the you can work around 2.8 on an all purpose zoom

 

[mackguyver]

I have a strong feeling that this lens is going to destroy my finances! I still regret selling my Sigma 12-24 II, and was about to buy another when I saw the German CPS leak. I hope it comes soon as I'm stuck at 16mm right now unless I shift/stitch my TS-E 17. These crazy wide lenses are a challenge to use, but when you nail the shot, it's amazing.

 

[grey4]

I love my 10-22. the only thing that would make it better would be a consistent f/4 aperture through the zoom.The corners are also a little weird at 10mm but that's expected.

 

[Marsu42]

I have a strong feeling that this lens is going to destroy my finances! I still regret selling my Sigma 12-24 II, and was about to buy another when I saw the German CPS leak. I hope it comes soon as I'm stuck at 16mm right now unless I shift/stitch my TS-E 17. These crazy wide lenses are a challenge to use, but when you nail the shot, it's amazing.

Your finances can rejoice, this rumored lens is ef-s for crop :-> ... stay tuned for further [CR1] on the ongoing quest for a "wider than 16mm uwa" for full frame sensors.

 

[mackguyver]

Your finances can rejoice, this rumored lens is ef-s for crop :-> ... stay tuned for further [CR1] on the ongoing quest for a "wider than 16mm uwa" for full frame sensors.

Oops, wrong thread... :-[...maybe I'm still too busy to rejoin the CR discussions

 

[cellomaster27]

This is a confusing patent.. but then imo, I think it would be nice to see an update to the 10-22mm to compliment the 7D2. In making it more "L" quality in terms of build and add weathersealing. Maybe add IS but that isn't a deal-maker or breaker at this focal length. A constant f4 aperture would be a winner as well, esp for video. But I hope they don't kill the focal length to 11mm... 10mm and 11mm is quite significant.

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

kind of moronic because there's already an exceptional 11-22mm EF-M out there.

 

[c.d.embrey]

I'd prefer an 8.75mm - 17.5 mm (= 14-28mm Full Frame). f/3.5-4.5 is OK on my 10-22mm.

BTW Olympus has a NEW 7-14mm f/2.8 lens coming (= 14-28mm FF) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1031586-REG/olympus_7_14mm_f2_8_pro_m.html

 

[slclick]

What is it about EF-S rumors that makes a segment of folks here at CR extrapolate and wish it was an EF?




but back to reality....I loved my 10-22, possibly my favorite crop lens when I shot that format and the only things I would imagine being improved are slight flare, distortion at the wide end and sharpness. Still, these are minor nigglings as it is a very good performer and I only recently found a worthy FF successor in the 16-35 f4IS. (I have owned 2 copies of the 17-40 and one of the 16-35 2.8)

 

[ahsanford]

I'd prefer an 8.75mm - 17.5 mm (= 14-28mm Full Frame). f/3.5-4.5 is OK on my 10-22mm.

BTW Olympus has a NEW 7-14mm f/2.8 lens coming (= 14-28mm FF) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1031586-REG/olympus_7_14mm_f2_8_pro_m.html

That lens (sort of) exists, doesn't it?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732107-USA/Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye.html

- A

 

[Woody]

kind of moronic because there's already an exceptional 11-22mm EF-M out there.

Ya... was wondering about that too.

Canon is now giving users multiple choices for ultrawide zooms:
EF - 16-35 f/2.8L USM II vs 16-35 f/4L IS USM vs 17-40 f/4L USM
EF-S - 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM vs 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
EF-M - 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM vs maybe 11-24 f/3.5-4.5?

Apart from 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/4L whose performances are somewhat controversial, all the other ultrawide lenses have top notch optical quality. Perhaps, they are trying to prove they are just as good in the ultrawide world as their telephoto stuff.

 

[pj1974]

On standard zooms, they aren't terribly part apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.

Speaking in mm focal length this is correct, but the effect of +-1 mm on a wide angle lens has much more impact than 10 or 20mm on a tele zoom. You can always crop in a little, but you cannot restore data if your lens wasn't wide enough. That's why I'm currently happy with my 17-40L, even though you might say the 17-24 range isn't such a big deal in objective terms.

Yeah, agree. On the wide end, 2mm is a huge deal. Many people prefer the slower 15-85 EF-S lens over the quicker 17-55 EF-S solely because of that key extra width. And a number of landscape guys still haven't forgiven Canon for yet offering another 16-35 when they were screaming for a 14-24.

- A

The extra 2 + the extra 30 + I think its better glass... on the other end the you can work around 2.8 on an all purpose zoom

The reason I bought the Canon 15-85mm, is that for my style of photography it is a great balance in a useful focal length zoom, while retaining high image quality. I find the 17-50/55mm or the 18-55mm lenses just miss the mark in terms of what I like for a walk-around zoom. Plus when I want ‘fast glass’ – I don’t want f/2.8 (I consider that ‘moderately fast’) – I need to go for f/1.4 – f/2.

In terms of this rumour of an UWA EF-S 11-24 from Canon – I just can’t see how it ‘fits’. The EF-S 10-22mm USM continues to be a well performing, decent selling UWA. Then the recent 10-18mm IS STM is a great budget option (with superb bang for one’s $!). And the EF-M 11-22mm IS well, that’s proven to be a great lens for EOS-M.

Yes, I love UWA… and that’s why I upgraded from to the Sigma 8-16mm HSM… it’s an awesome lens for APS-C cameras. The only real ‘handy’ improvement would be to add OS (stabilisation). But the difference from 10mm (which I was previously limited to) to 8mm really makes a big difference, (cf the difference from 12.8mm to 16mm in FF format).

While we’ve got great choice in UWA’s for APS-C already, here’s hoping more great quality UWAs are in the pipeline from various manufacturers!

 

[distant.star]

.
Why is a lens rumor in the EOS Bodies section??

 

[c.d.embrey]

That lens (sort of) exists, doesn't it?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732107-USA/Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye.html

- A

No, no, no! The EF 8-15mm f/4 L is a Fisheye Zoom. A Fisheye is NOT a substitute for a Rectilinear lens like the existing EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, the rumored EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5 or my proposed 8.75-17.5mm lens.