Patent: Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L and Canon RF 8-24mm f/4L Fisheye

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
188
52
Berlin
www.flickr.com
We all have different use cases and preferences - e.g. some of us like to only use primes, but that doesn't mean that there's no "point" to zooms. s.
Yes, then use a zoom lens. But is a 14-28 a zoom range you would say its a zoom? A 11-16 Tokina is for me nearly a prime lens... the zoom range just don't work much on my 60D (those were the days)...
After that I use prime wide angle with full frame I have no desire for any zoom, I use 17mm (and crop) and 35mm and this is ok. Now the tiny 16mm 2.8 is a very good lens too.
But every can decide what they want, of course. But I don't get these small zoom ranges even if they are using a good aperture like the Sigma ART. Comeon, use a prime and you even get one more step and don't "stuck" with "only" f/2. (which is stellar for a zoom i know).
 

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
52
84
I would be interested in a canon 10-24 f5.6 or even f6.3 if it means we can get a small and light with sharp optics and front filter threads. It would be more practical than a big heavy f4 with huge front bulb.

And then give us a 12mm f1.8 prime for the astro users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
977
1,158
UK
Yes, then use a zoom lens. But is a 14-28 a zoom range you would say its a zoom? A 11-16 Tokina is for me nearly a prime lens... the zoom range just don't work much on my 60D (those were the days)...
After that I use prime wide angle with full frame I have no desire for any zoom, I use 17mm (and crop) and 35mm and this is ok. Now the tiny 16mm 2.8 is a very good lens too.
But every can decide what they want, of course. But I don't get these small zoom ranges even if they are using a good aperture like the Sigma ART. Comeon, use a prime and you even get one more step and don't "stuck" with "only" f/2. (which is stellar for a zoom i know).
14-28mm is 2x zoom, which isn't much different from the legendary and extremely popular 16-35mm, so I think a large percentage of people would find it more than adequate. Also there is the question of optical quality - the greater the zoom range, the lower the overall optical performance, especially with wide zooms (telezooms such at 70-200mm or 100-400mm seem on the whole easier to design without loss of performance).

Personally I'd favour a 14-28mm over a 16-35mm (for FF) although I have no need myself for F2 lenses - F2.8 or F4 are both adequate for my purposes, and much cheaper and lighter. But I can fully understand why some people need F2 or wider.

I use a combination of primes and zooms, according to my purpose - I currently have:

RF 24-105mm F4 - my general purpose travel lens
24mm T/S-E - mainly for landscapes
EF 100mm F2.8 macro, and EF 180mm F3.5 macro - mainly for butterflies and other insects
RF 100-500mm - for animals on safaris
RF 800mm F11 - for birding from a hide
Laowa Ultra Macro - for tiny insects.

Also a EF 100-400mm and 1.4x extender that will both be up for sale when I eventually replace my spare body (5DMkiv) with another RF backup body.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,239
1,032
www.flickr.com
What ‘crap/unwanted things/lens parts are you seeing? Posting a pic would help.

At 8mm on FF you should get a clean 180° circular fisheye image. That’s the point of the lens – it’s a circular fisheye at 8mm and a frame-filling fisheye at 14-15mm. This is 8mm from the TDP review:

View attachment 204066

At 10-12mm, you’ll get a partial fisheye image with the top and bottom of the circle cut off.

The patented 8-24mm fisheye will behave just like the EF 8-15mm from 8-15mm, and from 15-24mm it will just be less ‘fishy’.
I bought my EF8-15mm/4 second hand as I don't use it much. I find that the sharpness isn't fantastic but more than adequate for this type of lens.
I hate - what I assume is - the chromatic aberration at the edge of the 8mm circular fisheye images. I always have to edit them out in post as they are distracting and LR doesn't do it automatically
A RF version would hopefully fix this and perhaps be sharper with faster AF but virtually everything is in focus anyway.
A focal length from 8-24mm would be great for underwater shooting as 15mm can still be too wide for general usage needing a big crop.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,239
1,032
www.flickr.com
Just interested in learning ;)

It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.
Well the RF800/1200 adds fixed TCs and faster AF speed from the EF400/600 but otherwise almost the same design as EF400/600 + 2xTC at a hefty price premium
The option to further add a RF TC exists though.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,118
6,555
I believe that the UWA lenses have a rear gel option which is okay (just) for ND filter but it doesn't suit CPL or variable/grad ND
Some do. The 11-24 does, for example. The TS-E 17 does not. I do have a gelatin 10-stop ND square. The results are not stellar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,239
1,032
www.flickr.com
Some do. The 11-24 does, for example. The TS-E 17 does not. I do have a gelatin 10-stop ND square. The results are not stellar.
I forgot about the TS-E lenses. The EF8-15mm has a rear gel mount as well but I haven't ever used it.
I use it only for astro landscapes and underwater
I am going to Iceland in a couple of weeks and hope to get some over/under shots of waterfalls and icebergs with it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,118
6,555
I forgot about the TS-E lenses. The EF8-15mm has a rear gel mount as well but I haven't ever used it.
I use it only for astro landscapes and underwater
I am going to Iceland in a couple of weeks and hope to get some over/under shots of waterfalls and icebergs with it!
Have a great trip! (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
760
929
Yes, then use a zoom lens. But is a 14-28 a zoom range you would say its a zoom? A 11-16 Tokina is for me nearly a prime lens... the zoom range just don't work much on my 60D (those were the days)...
After that I use prime wide angle with full frame I have no desire for any zoom, I use 17mm (and crop) and 35mm and this is ok. Now the tiny 16mm 2.8 is a very good lens too.
But every can decide what they want, of course. But I don't get these small zoom ranges even if they are using a good aperture like the Sigma ART. Comeon, use a prime and you even get one more step and don't "stuck" with "only" f/2. (which is stellar for a zoom i know).

14-28 is a 2x zoom range and comprises wildly different perspectives.
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
545
678
USA
Just interested in learning ;)

It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.
The wider lenses are the ones that seem to benefit most from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, so it would seem likely they'd update the formula for these wider lenses. In theory they should be able to be smaller and lighter. Only time will tell.

The 800 and 1200 get a bad rap, and I'm not going to pretend to understand their insane pricing, but the telephoto lens groups are generally more straight forward since they are taking in a much narrower field of view. They don't look as complicated, as the multi group wide angles or zooms, because they aren't. And while the group at the rear has similar shaped lens elements to the external 2x Tc, they are very likely not the same exact elements. The few early returns out there on the 800mm seem to show improved contrast and sharpness over the 400 + 2x, which would imply that the elements that look like a 2x TC are in fact designed specifically for this lens. Again, time will tell how much an advantage that is, but in the end the design is probably not just a flat recycle.

Brian
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,118
6,555
The wider lenses are the ones that seem to benefit most from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, so it would seem likely they'd update the formula for these wider lenses. In theory they should be able to be smaller and lighter. Only time will tell.

The 800 and 1200 get a bad rap, and I'm not going to pretend to understand their insane pricing, but the telephoto lens groups are generally more straight forward since they are taking in a much narrower field of view. They don't look as complicated, as the multi group wide angles or zooms, because they aren't. And while the group at the rear has similar shaped lens elements to the external 2x Tc, they are very likely not the same exact elements. The few early returns out there on the 800mm seem to show improved contrast and sharpness over the 400 + 2x, which would imply that the elements that look like a 2x TC are in fact designed specifically for this lens. Again, time will tell how much an advantage that is, but in the end the design is probably not just a flat recycle.
It's clear from the MTF charts that the performance of the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are very slightly better than the 400/2.8 and 600/4 with the RF 2x TC, and therefore it appears that the 2x TC elements have been optimized for the specific lenses. Emphasis on very slightly better. It's a personal decision as to whether that benefit is worth the several thousand dollars higher cost. IMO, people who buy the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 over the 'base' lenses from which they're derived will be doing so for the ability to add extenders and achieve 1600/11 or 2400/16 lenses (which is not possible with the RF versions, although it is possible to stack two 2x TCs behind an EF 400/2.8 or 600/4).
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
977
1,158
UK
The wider lenses are the ones that seem to benefit most from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, so it would seem likely they'd update the formula for these wider lenses. In theory they should be able to be smaller and lighter. Only time will tell.

The 800 and 1200 get a bad rap, and I'm not going to pretend to understand their insane pricing, but the telephoto lens groups are generally more straight forward since they are taking in a much narrower field of view. They don't look as complicated, as the multi group wide angles or zooms, because they aren't. And while the group at the rear has similar shaped lens elements to the external 2x Tc, they are very likely not the same exact elements. The few early returns out there on the 800mm seem to show improved contrast and sharpness over the 400 + 2x, which would imply that the elements that look like a 2x TC are in fact designed specifically for this lens. Again, time will tell how much an advantage that is, but in the end the design is probably not just a flat recycle.

Brian
I should damn well hope that the 2x elements had been specially optimised, given the astronomical prices charged!

It's probably true that no one really enjoys using adaptors and extenders on the 400/2.8 and 600/4, but few will think the extra cost of the 800 and 1200 is justified.

Neuro may have a good point in that some people may choose them in order to gain even longer focal lengths - I don't think many sports or wildlife photographers would feel the need, but photojournalists and paparazzi could make use of them.
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
545
678
USA
It's clear from the MTF charts that the performance of the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are very slightly better than the 400/2.8 and 600/4 with the RF 2x TC, and therefore it appears that the 2x TC elements have been optimized for the specific lenses. Emphasis on very slightly better. It's a personal decision as to whether that benefit is worth the several thousand dollars higher cost. IMO, people who buy the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 over the 'base' lenses from which they're derived will be doing so for the ability to add extenders and achieve 1600/11 or 2400/16 lenses (which is not possible with the RF versions, although it is possible to stack two 2x TCs behind an EF 400/2.8 or 600/4).

I should damn well hope that the 2x elements had been specially optimised, given the astronomical prices charged!

It's probably true that no one really enjoys using adaptors and extenders on the 400/2.8 and 600/4, but few will think the extra cost of the 800 and 1200 is justified.

Neuro may have a good point in that some people may choose them in order to gain even longer focal lengths - I don't think many sports or wildlife photographers would feel the need, but photojournalists and paparazzi could make use of them.
Yeah, I've seen some photos side by side on other sites, and you can see a difference. But whether that difference is worth the cost is another story. Each individual has to have their own answer. I just get annoyed when people imply they just pasted in an existing element group and charged a huge premium. They are purpose built optical trains. And crazy expensive. I personally don't get it, but I can't afford the 400 or 600 at their price points either, so moot point for me personally.

Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,118
6,555
I just get annoyed when people imply they just pasted in an existing element group and charged a huge premium. They are purpose built optical trains.
Yes, but in fairness the first 80% of those trains is identical to the 400/2.8 and 600/4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
838
818
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
The EF 11-24 is a wonderful lens, often considered to buy one. I would certainly not purchase the RF-Version, because it will probably cost twice the EF and have crazy vignetting.

My thoughts went immediately to what Neuro said... It seems like a loss to use RF lens in this use case, as we can use the filter slots in the EF/RF adapter. In fact, there are some really cool filter options now from Breakthrough and others that fit into those and their own adapters.

A few years ago, Canon let me borrow the 11-24 f/4, and I compared it to the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 and the Sigma 12-24 f/4. The upshot of the results was that the Sigma 14-24 was my favorite, partly because of the wider aperture, partly for price. For all the praises sung for the 11-24, I found it to be about only the same IQ as the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8, while the 12-24 f/4 Sigma was slightly disappointing. Of course, neither of those Sigma zooms is going to get you 11 mm, and while that may seem a small difference, it really is not.

My recommendation would be to go with the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8, and an Irix 11mm f/4 prime, which together will cost you about half the price of an EF 11-24 f/4.

I use filters pretty seldomly, but when I do, it's often in landscape/water photography, which is more of a slow, considered process (at least versus frenetic wildlife/action stuff). So when I'm using filters, it's very often the wide end of the focal lengths anyways, so I prefer those to be EF mount lenses.

-tig

PS: I do use the filter adapter on my 600mm f/4 Mark II, and very, very occasionally, it affords me the opportunity to use both the Canon drop-in polarizer *together with* a variable neutral density filter in the adapter's filter slot. Which is pretty cool, seeing as Canon likely thought this impossible back in 2012 when the lens came out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,113
989
Hey Sanj, there's a point to *every* lens! I can think of plenty of lenses that don't appeal to me personally for my genres of photography, but you can bet that there'll be plenty of creative people who can put a 14-28mm F2 to good use.

We all have different use cases and preferences - e.g. some of us like to only use primes, but that doesn't mean that there's no "point" to zooms. Some people only shoot sport, but does that mean there's "no point" to macros?

As for the 14-28mm F2 suggested by navastronia, 14-28mm seems like a pretty desirable range for landscape work, and a max of F2 would be handy in low light or when you want to isolate a subject from the background (which is difficult ordinarily with ultra-wides, which inherently have masses of depth of field). Wide apertures also give the AF system more light, and mean less "hunting" for focus.
Sure sure. I was speaking for myself. :) I would use this lens for architecture and landscape where I would be mostly at f11. So prefer a lighter lens with minimal vignetting. The use of this lens would rarely, if ever, encounter focus hunting (for me).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

2 cents

I'm New Here
Jun 18, 2020
22
31
Ok I'm being picky. Am I the only one that hates odd numbers in focal lengths? Why 11-24mm? Can't they push it a bit further to 10mm? If not, just leave it at 12mm.

Also hate f7.1
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
977
1,158
UK
Ok I'm being picky. Am I the only one that hates odd numbers in focal lengths? Why 11-24mm? Can't they push it a bit further to 10mm? If not, just leave it at 12mm.

Also hate f7.1

Seems a bit odd to have a dislike of odd numbers for focal lengths - many of the traditional primes are odd-numbered - 17mm, 21mm, 35mm, 85mm etc

... and don't worry, that F7.1 is probably only worth F8 in light gathering terms :ROFLMAO: