Patent: Canon RF 13-21mm f/2.8L

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
129
112
We already have an ultra-wide zoom, the RF15-35, so should Canon go wider than 15mm? Well, there's a Nikon has a 14-30 f/4, a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with a bulgy front element and Canon EF 11-24 f/4, so I think Canon will probably make a super ultra-wide RF lens, but I doubt it would be f/2.8, unless the have a way to make it practical.
 

chasingrealness

RF = Requires Funding
Feb 24, 2020
47
60
Queens, NY
www.chasingrealness.com
I could see this being an interesting lens if it’s tack sharp corner to corner, doesn’t suffer from coma, chromatic aberrations or too much vignetting, is very lightweight and small-bodied, and is less than $800. They could undercut the third-party landscape/astro lens market a bit that way. Speaking of which, could this be something that’s being made with the Ra in mind?
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
926
1,982
I would love this with a EOS R5

I just bought a 16-35 F4L last summer and love the effects you can create with it. I also have a 10-22 that I've had since shooting my 40D a million years ago.

Could give a noob to wide angle some idea what you might do with such a wide lens, and why having it on the R5 might make a difference?

Not trying to be internationally obtuse but I would appreciate the insight. From anyone.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
622
410
Unless that front element is so huge it makes everything look small in proportion, I’m surprised at the small rear element. Most of the recent designs I’ve been seeing are using larger rear elements.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
622
410
We already have an ultra-wide zoom, the RF15-35, so should Canon go wider than 15mm? Well, there's a Nikon has a 14-30 f/4, a Sigma 12-24 f/4 with a bulgy front element and Canon EF 11-24 f/4, so I think Canon will probably make a super ultra-wide RF lens, but I doubt it would be f/2.8, unless the have a way to make it practical.
for the R mount, we’ve been seein a lot of lenses we’ve never seen before. The f2 28-70, a new f2 70-135, etc. the lenses seem to be squeaking just under $3,000. I figure that if the could do this for $3,000, there will be a fair chance we
ll see it, or something like it. If we get the 20-24 f4, why not a 13-21 f2.8?
 
  • Like
Reactions: addola

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,222
3,445
Irving, Texas
+!

I owned the Sigma 24-35 Art for a bit and loved it for the type of shooting I enjoyed with it. It was and still is ridiculed in the camera world.

It was like having 3 primes in one, not such a bad thing. Shorter the zoom range, more consistency across the range.
Now, now, we must remain orthodox in our focal length choices. ;) I'm even seeing the occasional complaint about a 70-135 being too short and how f/2 isn't right for a zoom. I don't mean too short for them personally, but too short for anyone to possibly want. People complained about the 28-70 not going from 24mm too. It doesn't matter that maybe a 28-70 was better as a design performance choice. I guess it is good to sometimes have the lens/camera Stazi around to keep us all in line. Can't have any anti-establishment mobs running loose.

Anyway, of the five most common setups, do you prefer single fins, twin fins, thrusters, four fins, or five fins on a surfboard? When I used to body board as a teen in my birth state of Hawaii I only ever used a single flipper for thrust. It never dawned on me at the time to excoriate my favorite fin brand (Churchill I think) for "forcing" me to buy two. Then again, the internet was still to be invented and there was no forum to vent manufactured rage. ;) Back in the old days we had to keep all that bottled up inside because there weren't armies of loonies who would listen. :p Imagine if we could have bitched to the world about board rash. :ROFLMAO:

Side note: I think Michael Jackson stole his one glove idea from the single flipper body boarders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,224
2,240
Now, now, we must remain orthodox in our focal length choices. ;) I'm even seeing the occasional complaint about a 70-135 being too short and how f/2 isn't right for a zoom. I don't mean too short for them personally, but too short for anyone to possibly want. People complained about the 28-70 not going from 24mm too. It doesn't matter that maybe a 28-70 was better as a design performance choice. I guess it is good to sometimes have the lens/camera Stazi around to keep us all in line. Can't have any anti-establishment mobs running loose.

Anyway, of the five most common setups, do you prefer single fins, twin fins, thrusters, four fins, or five fins on a surfboard? When I used to body board as a teen in my birth state of Hawaii I only ever used a single flipper for thrust. It never dawned on me at the time to excoriate my favorite fin brand (Churchill I think) for "forcing" me to buy two. Then again, the internet was still to be invented and there was no forum to vent manufactured rage. ;) Back in the old days we had to keep all that bottled up inside because there weren't armies of loonies who would listen. :p Imagine if we could have bitched to the world about board rash. :ROFLMAO:

Side note: I think Michael Jackson stole his one glove idea from the single flipper body boarders.
Ahh the 'I put too much Kahlua in my coffee' post....

I never got past riding Eggs or longboards. I had buddies who rode twins in the 80's and flipped all around like maniacs but I was more of a boogie boarder, first gen, got ours from Tom's warehouse, factory blemish 2nds. Still ride one when I visit Mother Ocean.
Back OT, I'd still own that Siggy if the AF was up to Canon levels. I just can't do third party any longer except Manual Focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,222
3,445
Irving, Texas
Ahh the 'I put too much Kahlua in my coffee' post....

I never got past riding Eggs or longboards. I had buddies who rode twins in the 80's and flipped all around like maniacs but I was more of a boogie boarder, first gen, got ours from Tom's warehouse, factory blemish 2nds. Still ride one when I visit Mother Ocean.
Back OT, I'd still own that Siggy if the AF was up to Canon levels. I just can't do third party any longer except Manual Focus.
Kahlua Wowie. :)
 
  • Love
Reactions: slclick

highdesertmesa

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
328
392
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
Now, now, we must remain orthodox in our focal length choices. ;) I'm even seeing the occasional complaint about a 70-135 being too short and how f/2 isn't right for a zoom. I don't mean too short for them personally, but too short for anyone to possibly want. People complained about the 28-70 not going from 24mm too. It doesn't matter that maybe a 28-70 was better as a design performance choice. I guess it is good to sometimes have the lens/camera Stazi around to keep us all in line. Can't have any anti-establishment mobs running loose.

Anyway, of the five most common setups, do you prefer single fins, twin fins, thrusters, four fins, or five fins on a surfboard? When I used to body board as a teen in my birth state of Hawaii I only ever used a single flipper for thrust. It never dawned on me at the time to excoriate my favorite fin brand (Churchill I think) for "forcing" me to buy two. Then again, the internet was still to be invented and there was no forum to vent manufactured rage. ;) Back in the old days we had to keep all that bottled up inside because there weren't armies of loonies who would listen. :p Imagine if we could have bitched to the world about board rash. :ROFLMAO:

Side note: I think Michael Jackson stole his one glove idea from the single flipper body boarders.
Yeah, having an army of loonies online now is better than feeling like you were the only loony writing a letter or calling to complain back then.

I may have mentioned the 70-135. I'm really glad they're making it. The 28-70 (and EOS R firmware eye-AF/drag focus update) brought me back to Canon. But I'm trying to visualize the difference between 70 and 135, which is there don't get me wrong – but it's nothing like the difference between 28 and 70 FOV. Between 28 and 70 there are at LEAST three distinct focal lengths delivering three distinct "looks" (four if you're a fan of the 35mm FOV, which I'm usually not). That said, the first samples I see, I will probably decide I have to have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
622
410
Yeah, having an army of loonies online now is better than feeling like you were the only loony writing a letter or calling to complain back then.

I may have mentioned the 70-135. I'm really glad they're making it. The 28-70 (and EOS R firmware eye-AF/drag focus update) brought me back to Canon. But I'm trying to visualize the difference between 70 and 135, which is there don't get me wrong – but it's nothing like the difference between 28 and 70 FOV. Between 28 and 70 there are at LEAST three distinct focal lengths delivering three distinct "looks" (four if you're a fan of the 35mm FOV, which I'm usually not). That said, the first samples I see, I will probably decide I have to have it.
the 70 to 135 gives an interesting slightly longer look than 50, but it also gives standard lengths of 85, 105 and 135. If shooting portraits, this makes it much easier to get the look you want.
 

highdesertmesa

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
328
392
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
the 70 to 135 gives an interesting slightly longer look than 50, but it also gives standard lengths of 85, 105 and 135. If shooting portraits, this makes it much easier to get the look you want.
I agree it has merit, I'm saying the observable differences between 28/50/70 are much greater than 70/105/135. Useful, just not AS useful for me.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
189
277
Kenosha, WI
+ does it always have to be in classic and repeated ranges? Perhaps they found a formula for excellent IQ through the range.
I mean the existing lens is 1mm less wide (which is more significant on that end, to be fair) and 11mm more telephoto, with the same aperture, with IS. I suppose a 14-24 could be smaller, but might not take regular filters as the 15-35 does (Nikon's 14-24 doesn't). I can't imagine the IQ would be significantly better than the 15-35.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,245
I mean the existing lens is 1mm less wide (which is more significant on that end, to be fair) and 11mm more telephoto, with the same aperture, with IS. I suppose a 14-24 could be smaller, but might not take regular filters as the 15-35 does (Nikon's 14-24 doesn't). I can't imagine the IQ would be significantly better than the 15-35.
I have a strange feeling that 13-21/2.8 May end up being a filterable lens...
 
  • Like
Reactions: chasingrealness

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
189
277
Kenosha, WI
I have a strange feeling that 13-21/2.8 May end up being a filterable lens...
That would be exciting. Even better if it was 72mm, but beggars can't be choosers at that point. I would shoot the hell out of that lens on a body with IBIS, and then get the 70 - 135 f/2 for portraits. Then I could carry a 28 (I prefer this to 35, already have the Sigma ART), a 50 f/1.8 (would sell my RF f/1.2), and maybe a 300mm f/2.8 and I wouldn't need anything else except a walkaround lens (and I already have the RF 24 - 105 f/4).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

highdesertmesa

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
328
392
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
The “for me” is the best point. Too often, it’s forgotten in a post.
It's strange we are taught in writing classes that saying things like "in my opinion" or "to me" are to be avoided since it's supposed to be obvious if we're writing in the first person it's our personal opinion. But casually online, I think it's important to include these disclaimers since otherwise it may come across as the writer trying to "tell everyone how things are".

To continue the conversation, though: If I were a portrait shooter who favored telephotos, the 70-135 might be a good choice over the also-rumored RF 135 f/1.4. Frankly, they both sound like amazing lenses, but having used the RF 28-70 f/2 and RF 50 f/1.2 for several months now (and loving the output), I'm thinking twice about having too many f/2 zooms and wide-aperture primes without their use being confined to anywhere I can use a camera bag with rollers on it (or shooting from near my vehicle or home). I think it's great we're getting an f/2 zoom trinity, but I also think the trinity is not designed to be all carried together in many scenarios.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,222
3,445
Irving, Texas
I think it's great we're getting an f/2 zoom trinity, but I also think the trinity is not designed to be all carried together in many scenarios.
I look at it as being less expensive, long term, than a gym membership. ;)

You are right though, I think carrying all three f/2 zooms would be a major PITA with a backpack. I carry my camera and lenses in a Pelican case. Flash gear too, though in separate cases (2). So that's three Pelican cases. Getting from the car to the shoot location can be a problem without a folding wagon because I also have to carry stands (c stands these days) and sand bags. One trip is ideal since I am usually there before my subject shows up and there usually isn't somebody there to watch my gear while making a second trip from the car. Sometimes there is 50+ yards between myself and the car. I'm fortunate when the wife comes along to keep an eye on things. I don't get to shoot creatively as often as I'd like, but when I do it is a major undertaking for me.

Side note: I use Pelican cases because there is an opening in the foam for each piece of gear. If I have an open spot in the foam, I know I haven't gathered up all my stuff. This was a problem for me when I used backpacks. I get forgetful.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: highdesertmesa

highdesertmesa

R5/Ra | GFX 50R
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
328
392
Placitas, NM
www.instagram.com
I look at it as being less expensive, long term, than a gym membership. ;)

You are right though, I think carrying all three f/2 zooms would be a major PITA with a backpack. I carry my camera and lenses in a Pelican case. Flash gear too, though in separate cases (2). So that's three Pelican cases. Getting from the car to the shoot location can be a problem without a folding wagon because I also have to carry stands (c stands these days) and sand bags. One trip is ideal since I am usually there before my subject shows up and there usually isn't somebody there to watch my gear while making a second trip from the car. Sometimes there is 50+ yards between myself and the car. I'm fortunate when the wife comes along to keep an eye on things. I don't get to shoot creatively as often as I'd like, but when I do it is a major undertaking for me.

Side note: I use Pelican cases because there is an opening in the foam for each piece of gear. If I have an open spot in the foam, I know I haven't gathered up all my stuff. This was a problem for me when I used backpacks. I get forgetful.
Let me tell you, that 28-70 is indeed a workout – unfortunately when it's all in my backpack, the workout (i.e. "pain") is focused squarely on my lower back :LOL:

I forget that some photographer's setups involve a lot more gear – setups not unlike a guitarist having to lug around guitars and amps to gigs. I'm an amateur sunset shooter with constant G.A.S. so I end up with more than I need, weight-wise. I'm still holding out hope that Canon will make an RF version of the EF 28-300L. If I had that, I'd probably leave everything else at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,224
2,240
Let me tell you, that 28-70 is indeed a workout – unfortunately when it's all in my backpack, the workout (i.e. "pain") is focused squarely on my lower back :LOL:

I forget that some photographer's setups involve a lot more gear – setups not unlike a guitarist having to lug around guitars and amps to gigs. I'm an amateur sunset shooter with constant G.A.S. so I end up with more than I need, weight-wise. I'm still holding out hope that Canon will make an RF version of the EF 28-300L. If I had that, I'd probably leave everything else at home.
I'm currently on a 10 day trip and had my bag packed with the f/4ish unholy zoom trinity (16-35, 24-105 , 100-400) and at the last moment changed bags, took off my L bracket and put one lens on the camera. The 40 pancake. Best decision I could have made.

Light bag, good semi wide/semi normal focal length (I loathe 50mm), balancing life along non shooters with photography. I'm away for 12 days next month and might do it again.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
622
410
It's strange we are taught in writing classes that saying things like "in my opinion" or "to me" are to be avoided since it's supposed to be obvious if we're writing in the first person it's our personal opinion. But casually online, I think it's important to include these disclaimers since otherwise it may come across as the writer trying to "tell everyone how things are".

To continue the conversation, though: If I were a portrait shooter who favored telephotos, the 70-135 might be a good choice over the also-rumored RF 135 f/1.4. Frankly, they both sound like amazing lenses, but having used the RF 28-70 f/2 and RF 50 f/1.2 for several months now (and loving the output), I'm thinking twice about having too many f/2 zooms and wide-aperture primes without their use being confined to anywhere I can use a camera bag with rollers on it (or shooting from near my vehicle or home). I think it's great we're getting an f/2 zoom trinity, but I also think the trinity is not designed to be all carried together in many scenarios.
I like the fact that we’re being given a distinct choice that’s less involved in our needing to agonize over quality, as both the 2.8 line and the 2 line are clearly best in class, but rather it being a much more reasonable pocketbook and weight issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highdesertmesa