Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Good point... but maybe that length pertains to the underwater housing mentioned in the OP?
RF 15-32 f4-4.5 though! Not that it makes much difference, but I'd prefer they were honest about this.
If this is continuing the increase in preformance/IQ compared to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM I'll raise my hat to Canon for their R&D department.
If it is only just as sharp at equivalent focal lengths while being wider as well as lighter and more compact, it is a big advancement.
They will also take care of of some other minor flaws, namely flaring, and the noisy AF during video recording.
But it's also going to cost twice as much compared to the EF lens, so it won't be as popular. But due to all camera sales continually decreasing, it's not designed to be anyway.
Wow, what a gigantic lens! What ever happened to mirrorless being all about making wide lenses smaller? 
There are weird lens lengths in patents from time to time. I wouldn't read too much into it.
You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be? I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.
I would guess about 120mm, which is about 10mm longer than the 16-35 F4.
D looks like the cannonball from Super Mario.You are correct. This may well be indicating the housing of the underwater unit which understandably would need to be much larger to allow the 14mm wide angle. Anyone could use your math to guess how long the lens may be?
View attachment 194188
I personally have ethical issues with Canon calling it a 14mm when it is actually 14.8mm. It would be more honest to call it a 15-34 zoom when one looks at the actual numbers.
I also have mathematical issues. Canon's cripple rounding.
* When a distribution is skewed, such a rounding can produce a proper outcome...
PS
I wouldn't blame Canon (yet) anyway... There is no direct designation of the lens' parameters in the patent. The headlines seem to rather be our host's (and the CN guy) translation/interpretation.
It would be prudent to hold the judgement until after the launch. This is just a rumour.
Despite the two RF70-200 are compact, I prefer the internal zoom like the EF17-40 and others.
I used to shoot with the f/2.8 trinity 17-200mm, then f/5.6 out to 400mm with a TC or two. Then I'd have f/1.4 primes for special shots.
With the advent in IS, relatively clean shots at high ISO, AF that doesn't need big apertures, and viewfinders that don't need big apertures for brightness, now I think we can move to an f/4 trinity. 14-35/4, 24-105/4, and 100-500/4.5-7.1 in three lenses with no TC seems like a general improvement: lighter, cheaper, longer rand wide to narrow, perhaps a bit less lens-changing. (Really, f/2.8 even when you got it in focus was not that deep of focus, so I have lots of suboptimal photos thanks to that.) Then we can increase the primes a half-stop or more: 35/1.2, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/1.4. I expect a 24/1.2 as well. So when you want bokeh and to separate out your subject from the background, you can do moreso now with the bigger primes. When that's not your goal, you still have more convenient shooting with the f/4.
But to the extent you found 70mm f/2.8 to be bokeh-ish, that's due to a 25mm aperture. 100mm at f/4 is actually a 26.5mm aperture, and the background is yet more magnified so it's easier to slightly change angles and get a background you want. So even though the f-stop is 4 not 2.8, the bokeh is the same or better. Likewise 500mm at f/7.1 is a 70.5mm aperture, very similar to a 200mm at 2.8, 280mm at f/4, or 400mm at f/5.6. So you still have the bokeh power (or more) of the f/2.8 trinity with this new trinity.
With the advent in IS, relatively clean shots at high ISO, AF that doesn't need big apertures, and viewfinders that don't need big apertures for brightness, now I think we can move to an f/4 trinity. 14-35/4, 24-105/4, and 100-500/4.5-7.1 in three lenses with no TC seems like a general improvement: lighter, cheaper, longer rand wide to narrow, perhaps a bit less lens-changing. (Really, f/2.8 even when you got it in focus was not that deep of focus, so I have lots of suboptimal photos thanks to that.) Then we can increase the primes a half-stop or more: 35/1.2, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/1.4. I expect a 24/1.2 as well. So when you want bokeh and to separate out your subject from the background, you can do moreso now with the bigger primes. When that's not your goal, you still have more convenient shooting with the f/4.
But to the extent you found 70mm f/2.8 to be bokeh-ish, that's due to a 25mm aperture. 100mm at f/4 is actually a 26.5mm aperture, and the background is yet more magnified so it's easier to slightly change angles and get a background you want. So even though the f-stop is 4 not 2.8, the bokeh is the same or better. Likewise 500mm at f/7.1 is a 70.5mm aperture, very similar to a 200mm at 2.8, 280mm at f/4, or 400mm at f/5.6. So you still have the bokeh power (or more) of the f/2.8 trinity with this new trinity.
Last edited:
davidcl0nel
Canon 5D3, 17 TSE, 35 IS, 100 L, 70-200 2.8 IS II
The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.
A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though. What does that have to do with the points you made before and after about cheaper or lighter?
Similar threads
<-- start Taboola -->