Patent: Canon Reversible Mount Lens

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,300
2,072
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
A patent showing a lens design from that shows the ability to reverse mount for greater macro magnification has appeared.</p>
<p>Patent publication number 2016-206568 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Release date 2016.12.8</li>
<li>Application date 2015.4.28</li>
<li>Reversibly attachable lenses</li>
<li>Reverse attachment detection switch</li>
<li>Switch control according to installation position</li>
</ul>
<p>There have been a few adaptors over the years that would allow you to reverse mount certain lenses for macro usage.</p>
<p><a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-12-12">Egami suggest</a> that this patent may have been part of the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro lens development.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants. Canon, if you want to sell variations of lenses, sell them in IS versions.
 

Chaitanya

EOS R
Jun 27, 2013
1,487
671
35
Pune
As long as I can control aperture of the lens it can be useful for macro. I was wondering when Canon would provide a solution similar to Novoflex reverse ring for Ef mount.
 

lw

EOS RP
Oct 9, 2013
265
0
Canon Rumors said:
Egami suggest that this patent may have been part of the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro lens development.

Ah. I can see the idea now.
Reversable lenses with EF-M at one end and EF at the other. No need for mount adaptor. ;)
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
douglaurent said:
Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants.

+1 exactly

IF anything, then Canon should come up with a native/"original Canon" reverse mount adapter with tight tolerances and guaranteed lens-mount-protocol functionality.
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
263
183
Looks like I'm going against the flow but I think this is an intriguing idea. The one real shortcoming of the MP-E65 is the 1:1 minimum magnification, but if this could be eliminated in a future replacement by having a normal macro range and an extreme macro range depending which end was attached, that could be a fascinating prospect.

The execution would have to be good - once attached it would have to feel like using a normal lens.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
AvTvM said:
douglaurent said:
Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants.

+1 exactly

IF anything, then Canon should come up with a native/"original Canon" reverse mount adapter with tight tolerances and guaranteed lens-mount-protocol functionality.

Yeah, we know, we've heard it from your crew incessantly. Canon is ******* because they fail to innovate. Canon is ******* because they innovate, but not in the way that you think they should. Canon is *******. CHWAC.

The EF-M 28mm Macro is a pretty innovative lens. Compact, built in ring light, good IQ...but it's still another lens to carry, and the point of a MILC system (for some) is the small size of the kit. Consider the application of this patent – an EF-M 11-22mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or an EF-M 22mm f/2 IS, where you reverse the lens and it becomes a macro lens. One lens to carry, two lenses worth of functionality. But it doesn't fit in with your petty, private little world views of what products Canon should make just for you…so it's a bad idea.

And for you two in particular, it's amusing how one of you wants Canon to never make another dSLR, and the other wants Canon to make new versions of all of them and update just about every EF lens in the current lineup. Both of you claim Canon is ******* if they don't follow your advice, and your advice is at opposite ends of the spectrum. What a joke you guys are! CHWAC.
 

mnclayshooter

I love shooting - clay pigeons and photos!
Oct 28, 2013
314
0
Minnesota, USA
CHWAC.
[/quote]

Neuro - you lost me on that one.

Coalition of Hispanic Women Against Cancer? (from Google)

Campers High Without Any Cannabis?

Comments Having Wavy Artistic Characters?

Chefs Holding Waffles Against Canon?
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Only you are stating "Canon is *******" ... in this thread.

EF-M 28 Macro is a fine lens, integrated LED light is a (modestly) innovative approach.

Topic of this thread is that patent for a reversible mount lens, which was not implemented with EF-M 28. Probably for good reason, since in most lenses the front lens is a much larger element than the rear lens. Putting an EF(-M) mount on both ends of a lens would certainly limit lens design options.

But m ost importantly - and that's what douglaurent has pointed out in his post - it is a solution seeking a problem. Simple reverse adaptors are already invented and a much better solution. Works when needed, does not impede lens design, are small and inexpensive. They are not bound to only one single lens.

Canon does have no shortage of areas where resources and money would be much better spent.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
I find this a clever idea. Condense two lenses to one without needing a complicated integral macro close-focusing. I took a moment to think out if a lens with two lens mount caps would work in a changeout to a traditional EF lens, and I believe it would work (you wouldn't run out of mount caps or lens caps).

But it would be somewhat tricky to implement:

  • Marking instructions on this lens will need to be intuitive in either orientation or kept to a minimum to avoid confusion. I recognize this is far more likely for a kit lens than an L lens, so things like a distance scale and a bank of switches may not be in the picture, but the focus ring markings would need to be carefully thought through.

  • Hood attachment would be straight forward (use the mount cap attachment), but I have no idea what they would do for filter threads. They could make some hybrid of a mount cap and a step-up ring, I suppose, but that would likely not play well with the hood I just mentioned. Could they actually cut threads on the inside of the metal lens mount? (That'd be a tiny diameter filter!)

  • Unless this is for a new lens mount altogether, the 'entrance pupil' of this lens could be no bigger than the rear opening of an EF lens today, which is not huge. One would think that would limit the max aperture of these lenses.

Clever, simple idea. 100% worthy of the patent, but I'm far less confident that this is a product we will ever see in real life.

- A
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
AvTvM said:
Only you are stating "Canon is *******" ... in this thread.

It's the CHWAC mantra...I think you chant it to yourself every night as you go to sleep. ;)


AvTvM said:
Topic of this thread is that patent for a reversible mount lens, which was not implemented with EF-M 28. Probably for good reason, since in most lenses the front lens is a much larger element than the rear lens. Putting an EF(-M) mount on both ends of a lens would certainly limit lens design options.

Most likely it would be a wide prime like the 22/2 that would be reversible. Tiny front element. How about a 22/2 IS pancake reversible macro? You know you'd buy it... :p


AvTvM said:
But m ost importantly - and that's what douglaurent has pointed out in his post - it is a solution seeking a problem. Simple reverse adaptors are already invented and a much better solution. Works when needed, does not impede lens design, are small and inexpensive. They are not bound to only one single lens.

Most importantly, Canon would probably much prefer people to buy two lenses rather than one dual-purpose lens...more revenue that way. A good idea...but not an ideal product. That's why it's a patent, and not a product. Smart Canon.


AvTvM said:
Canon does have no shortage of areas where resources and money would be much better spent.

And you have no shortage of guidance on how they should spend it. Remind us again why Canon hasn't retained you as a consultant? ::)
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
neuroanatomist said:
AvTvM said:
douglaurent said:
Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants.

+1 exactly

IF anything, then Canon should come up with a native/"original Canon" reverse mount adapter with tight tolerances and guaranteed lens-mount-protocol functionality.

Yeah, we know, we've heard it from your crew incessantly. Canon is ******* because they fail to innovate. Canon is ******* because they innovate, but not in the way that you think they should. Canon is *******. CHWAC.

The EF-M 28mm Macro is a pretty innovative lens. Compact, built in ring light, good IQ...but it's still another lens to carry, and the point of a MILC system (for some) is the small size of the kit. Consider the application of this patent – an EF-M 11-22mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or an EF-M 22mm f/2 IS, where you reverse the lens and it becomes a macro lens. One lens to carry, two lenses worth of functionality. But it doesn't fit in with your petty, private little world views of what products Canon should make just for you…so it's a bad idea.

And for you two in particular, it's amusing how one of you wants Canon to never make another dSLR, and the other wants Canon to make new versions of all of them and update just about every EF lens in the current lineup. Both of you claim Canon is ******* if they don't follow your advice, and your advice is at opposite ends of the spectrum. What a joke you guys are! CHWAC.

Maybe you just stop repeating the "Canon is *******" phrase I never wrote hundreds of times, and explain in detail why a lens with a macro reverse front mount is better than a dedicated external macro adapter that could be used on any existing lens, like the one from Novoflex.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,350
552
douglaurent said:
Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants. Canon, if you want to sell variations of lenses, sell them in IS versions.

This is a patent. IS in an existing lens would not need a patent.
Patent is statement of ideas, not that they are making it, not even that they are designing it. Companies like Canon have whole department looking at all their research and all their new ideas, looking for potential applications of those ideas and research and patenting them in case they are needed.

So what are you getting all so worried about? Stop worrying your pretty, precious little brain cells because I think you have more serious thing on which to predict the demise of Canon.

Besides, would this not add one more to your collection of lenses so widening your knowledge of camera designs and functionality?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
douglaurent said:
Maybe you just stop repeating the "Canon is *******" phrase I never wrote...

Is your memory so poor? Or is your metacognition so inadequate that you fail to comprehend the meaning of your own words?

douglaurent said:
By 2017 Sony will have destroyed their business if they don't wake up and come around with some better specs as well.


douglaurent said:
...explain in detail why a lens with a macro reverse front mount is better than a dedicated external macro adapter that could be used on any existing lens, like the one from Novoflex.

Why have a ring light built into a macro lens like the EF-M 28mm, when there are dedicated external ring lights from both Canon and 3rd parties that can be used on any existing lens? Less to carry around. Plus it's just pretty darn cool.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,714
1,686
I have a eos reverse mount adapter that works for manual aperture lenses. They are cheap and easy to find,

I doubt that we will ever see this, it might have been considered, but its unlikely to happen soon.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
neuroanatomist said:
Less to carry around. Plus it's just pretty darn cool.

Nutty idea -- why even remount it?

Like we've said, this will likely be a short FL / not huge aperture lens, so why not just give it a taller outer housing and rotate the optical internals 180 degrees inside of the lens housing with a knob on the side of the lens?

For a shorter crop macro, I don't imagine such a design would be that big, perhaps 1.5x a hockey puck standing on edge.

- A
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
ahsanford said:
neuroanatomist said:
Less to carry around. Plus it's just pretty darn cool.

Nutty idea -- why even remount it?

Like we've said, this will likely be a short FL / not huge aperture lens, so why not just give it a taller outer housing and rotate the optical internals 180 degrees inside of the lens housing with a knob on the side of the lens?

For a shorter crop macro, I don't imagine such a design would be that big, perhaps 1.5x a hockey puck standing on edge.

You may need this...

Utility-Patent-Application-Transmittal-Form-Free-Download.jpg


Or go here: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered

;D
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
neuroanatomist said:
You may need this...

Or go here: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered

;D

Ha! I actually have a decent number of patents, but I've never actually populated these forms myself. I don't know how this doesn't sound super-bougie and privileged, but we have people that take care of that. [hand to face, I know, I know, shoosh, I said good day sir]

I, like many enthusiasts here I would presume, am an engineer who designs things for a living. But ideating is sooooo much more fun than actually writing up the hot lava you just conceived.

- A
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
As one who also 'has people for that', I must say that you sound neither bourgeois nor pompous. With all due respect to those folks in IP departments, I think I'd club myself to death with my 600/4 if that was my day job. Ok, maybe a little pompous. ;)
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
douglaurent said:
Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants. Canon, if you want to sell variations of lenses, sell them in IS versions.

can't be much worse than the most useless post ever.