Patent: Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L USM

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Our earlier report of a new ultra wide angle RF L lens coming in the first half of 2023 gets a related patent application for a similar optical formula, along with others. asobinet found and first reported on this patent. Canon RF 10-20mm f/4 Canon RF 9-18mm f/4 Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L USM

See full article...

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Interesting. Comparing the block diagrams of the EF 11-24/4L vs the 11-24 in the patent, they are very different. It looks like a completely new design, with full advantage being taken of the very short back focus.

Unfortunately the EF 11-24 was very expensive when launched, and the RF lens will no doubt follow in its footsteps and then some.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

10-20mm sounds Perfect 9-18mm would be crazy as well I’m interested in the specs of this lense but I’ll stay with my 14-35mm

 

[Yoms]

To me, f/5.6 would be awesome if that allowed for a front filter thread.

Would the RF mount specs and f/5.6 slow enough to allow for a front filter on such a zoom?

 

[neuroanatomist]

To me, f/5.6 would be awesome if that allowed for a front filter thread.

Would the RF mount specs and f/5.6 slow enough to allow for a front filter on such a zoom?

Looking at the bulbous front elements in the patent examples, I doubt it.

 

[AJ]

I think astro shooters were probably hoping for something faster.

 

[josephandrews222]

...how effective is the IBIS when the R5 is mated to the adapted EF 11-24?

I presume that none of the wide angle lenses included in the patent incorporate (in-lens) IS...

I have found the IS feature present in the EF-M 11-22 to be invaluable for a wide variety of travel photography situations...and in general, this stabilized EF-M lens has (for me) replaced the (non IS) EF 17-40mm f4 for many uses.

So I have long wondered about the IBIS capabilities of the R5, particularly for wide-angled non-stabilized EF (and now for the upcoming RF) lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...how effective is the IBIS when the R5 is mated to the adapted EF 11-24?

I presume that none of the wide angle lenses included in the patent incorporate (in-lens) IS...

I have found the IS feature present in the EF-M 11-22 to be invaluable for a wide variety of travel photography situations...and in general, this stabilized EF-M lens has (for me) replaced the (non IS) EF 17-40mm f4 for many uses.

So I have long wondered about the IBIS capabilities of the R5, particularly for wide-angled non-stabilized EF (and now for the upcoming RF) lenses.

I find the IBIS on my R3 to be very effective with my EF 11-24/4. That's what one would expect given that body stabilization is more effective at shorter focal lengths while lens stabilization is more effective at longer focal lengths.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The big question is...is it going to have drop in filters? Currently the Ef mount version has a huge advantage because there are ef-R mount adapters that allow a single drop in filter (ND or polariser). This is a lot more preferable then messing with gels on the rear mount slider.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The big question is...is it going to have drop in filters? Currently the Ef mount version has a huge advantage because there are ef-R mount adapters that allow a single drop in filter (ND or polariser). This is a lot more preferable then messing with gels on the rear mount slider.

No room for that in the designs.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I think astro shooters were probably hoping for something faster.

I guess Astro shooters are hoping for a very fast UWA prime. Even if the rumored 14-28mm F2 (or something similar) will see the light of day, a lot of people rather have an F1.4 or F1.8 prime. So even if the 11-24mm was F2.8, it wouldn't attract any astro shooters and would into an enormous lens into gigantic one.

 

[Antono Refa]

Canon might go for a halo lens like the 9-18mm f/4L so it could brag it has the widest lens with AF, or some such. Problem would be price. People might opt for an EF 11-24mm f/4L + adapter with drop in filter, esp for those who already bought a wide EF lens (EF 11-24mm, tilt shift, etc).

Loosing sales to the adapter (or worse, 3rd party adapter it would make no money on) would be an incentive to make a lens with drop in adapter. On the other hand, Canon will probably prefer to go for a lens that gives customers a choice they don't have.

 

[BG_]

Our earlier report of a new ultra wide angle RF L lens coming in the first half of 2023 gets a related patent application for a similar optical formula, along with others. asobinet found and first reported on this patent. Canon RF 10-20mm f/4 Canon RF 9-18mm f/4 Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L USM

See full article...

Are these RF or RF-S lenses ?

 

[danfaz]

Are these RF or RF-S lenses ?

RF.

 

[RobbieHat]

I would be interested in a RF replacement for the EF 11-24 F4 lens. 10mm would be cool and the ability to accommodate a drop in filter would be a must. I used to have the Panoflex filters for the front of the 11-24mm and they are so unwieldy. The adapter with drop in filter is such a great alternative. This range is so much fun for dramatic landscapes with compelling foreground elements. I will take the F4 especially if the patented fast UWA RF lenses come to fruition.

Bob

 

[photographer]

I am looking forward to RF 35 1.2 (for portraits and nudes), but for wider focal lengths I will prefer EF lenses (Sigma 20 1.4, Sigma 14 1.8, ...) with the option to use a drop in filter.

 

[vrpanorama]

I am one of the minority who are awaiting a fisheye lens. The EF 8-15mm f4/0 L is still a very competent lens but I am hoping that they are working on that need for RF.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Interesting. Comparing the block diagrams of the EF 11-24/4L vs the 11-24 in the patent, they are very different. It looks like a completely new design, with full advantage being taken of the very short back focus.

Unfortunately the EF 11-24 was very expensive when launched, and the RF lens will no doubt follow in its footsteps and then some.

I hope that the RF version is as rectilinear corrected as the current EF version. Looking at the recent horrendous barrel distortion on the RF 14-35 f4 and the RF 15-35...I'm not too hopeful.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I hope that the RF version is as rectilinear corrected as the current EF version. Looking at the recent horrendous barrel distortion on the RF 14-35 f4 and the RF 15-35...I'm not too hopeful.

Have you compared the RF 14-35/4 output at 14mm to the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm? I have, and despite the horrendous barrel distortion of the RF 14-35 vs the nearly zero barrel distortion of the EF 11-24 at 14mm (better rectilinear correction and not at the end of its zoom range), the sharpness in the extreme corners is essentially indistinguishable.

That doesn't mean an RF 11-24/4 that requires correction of barrel distortion at the wide end will perform as well as the RF 14-35/4 after correction, but it does give reason to hope...