Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM

[jolyonralph]

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?

I read it as I think it was intended. f/4 or slower lenses.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I´m very glad to see this patent since I'm really hoping for an RF 14-35mm instead of a 16-35mm.

I'm not concerned about the length or the aperture being F4.5 at 32mm because this is one patent (probably of many to come...) and I'm pretty sure Canon will figure things out to get it right. Furthermore, this patent is obviously more concerned with getting it in into an underwater housing, so maybe the specs are either old or maybe altered for research purposes.

 

[Deleted member 68328]

Mmmm... 1mm extra at the wide end, internal zoom, still retaining IS and cheaper, but 1 stop slower. If I owned a R body, it would sound like a trade-off I'd be willing to take, especially for landscape and travel photography.

 

[Ale_F]

The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.

No, it's internal.

Canon U.S.A., Inc. | EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Optical coatings optimized for digital cameras Close focus to 11 inches Super UD and three Aspherical lens elements ensure superior image quality Dust- and moisture-resistant, constructed for professional use

www.usa.canon.com

 

[koenkooi]

No, it's internal.

Canon U.S.A., Inc. | EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Optical coatings optimized for digital cameras Close focus to 11 inches Super UD and three Aspherical lens elements ensure superior image quality Dust- and moisture-resistant, constructed for professional use

www.usa.canon.com

It doesn't change size on the outside, but it does move the front elelemt while zooming:

And it's also one of those L lenses which are only "weather sealed" if you screw on a front filter. I removed the filter for the video, but normally there's always one on there.

 

[Antono Refa]

There's a rumored RF 10-24mm f/4L, which the EF 11-24mm f/4L makes me believe is true. The wider the RF 1x-35mm f/4L will be, the more it will eat into the 10-24mm's sales, all the more so if it would have IS. With the 10-24mm being a niche lens that would have to compete with the EF 11-24mm f/4L w/ adapter, I think Canon would rather not add any more competition.

So I think Canon would release an RF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM to replace the EF lens, in face of Nikon's competing 14-30mm f/4

 

[Exploreshootshare]

There's a rumored RF 10-24mm f/4L, which the EF 11-24mm f/4L makes me believe is true. The wider the RF 1x-35mm f/4L will be, the more it will eat into the 10-24mm's sales, all the more so if it would have IS. With the 10-24mm being a niche lens that would have to compete with the EF 11-24mm f/4L w/ adapter, I think Canon would rather not add any more competition.

So I think Canon would release an RF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM to replace the EF lens, in face of Nikon's competing 14-30mm f/4

Surely, in theory a 14-35mm could cost a few sales regarding the 10-24mm, but there is another side to it:
Sigma has an excellent 14-24mm and an very affordable 12-24mm. As you mentioned, Nikon has a 14-30mm f4 . Keeping the UWA F4 lense at 16-35mm would probably mean more lost sales to Sigma as a third party lense manufacturer than lost sales on a 10-24mm.

Regarding new customers Nikons offer would be more intriguing as well, not even considering Sony and their 12-24 F4.

Customers requiring/ asking for a 10-14mm range are willing to pay in order not to make comprises, so in my opinion not going wider would be more costly for Canon.

Imho, Canon needs a filterable 14-35mm F4 like Nikons 14-30mm which uses a 82mm filter thread if I'm not mistaken here.

 

[SwissFrank]

A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though.

oh, sorry, I meant the f/4.5-7.1 or whatever it is.

 

[Ale_F]

It doesn't change size on the outside, but it does move the front elelemt while zooming:

And it's also one of those L lenses which are only "weather sealed" if you screw on a front filter. I removed the filter for the video, but normally there's always one on there.

Oops, I use a frontal filter so I never seen this part moving.
Broadly speaking it's an external but internal varifocal lens :-D

 

[David - Sydney]

Can someone elaborate on the underwater housing aspect for it in the patent? Normally the difference in the lens length is adjusted in the housing by changing the port extensions. There are a set number of lengths and a combination of them gets you the length you need. The dome (generally 8" or more) adjusts for the field of view for the air/water interface. 8"/curvature handles from 8mm fisheye upwards so I am not sure why the patent includes it.

 

[sanj]

There's a rumored RF 10-24mm f/4L, which the EF 11-24mm f/4L makes me believe is true. The wider the RF 1x-35mm f/4L will be, the more it will eat into the 10-24mm's sales, all the more so if it would have IS. With the 10-24mm being a niche lens that would have to compete with the EF 11-24mm f/4L w/ adapter, I think Canon would rather not add any more competition.

So I think Canon would release an RF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM to replace the EF lens, in face of Nikon's competing 14-30mm f/4

Dont think so. There is a world of difference between 10mm and 15 mm.

 

[victorshikhman]

This is an exciting lens, and just as exciting will be picking up the EF 16-35 F4 refurb for $450 when the rich kids upgrade to the $2200 lens But seriously, there's no one even close to Canon in bringing out these monsters, one after another. Even as a rumor, it's giving Nikon and Sony engineers sleepless nights. So many bought into Nikon just to use that 14-24 f2.8. This is the kind of lens that anchors a system.

 

[Michael Clark]

The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.

Yes, and all of the movement of the front element is recessed inside the outer lens barrel.

 

[melgross]

Looks more like a 15-33 mm zoom.

 

[Treyarnon]

With the 16-35 F4 being my current most used lens (by quite a large margin) - I'ld just say that for me - being able to mount filters on the front is a necessity.

 

[Antono Refa]

Surely, in theory a 14-35mm could cost a few sales regarding the 10-24mm, but there is another side to it:
Sigma has an excellent 14-24mm and an very affordable 12-24mm. As you mentioned, Nikon has a 14-30mm f4 . Keeping the UWA F4 lense at 16-35mm would probably mean more lost sales to Sigma as a third party lense manufacturer than lost sales on a 10-24mm.

I think this should be broken to three categories:

1. Nikon has no lens wider than 14mm. I can see why it would like to stretch its 16-35mm f/4 a little wider.

2. An RF 10-24mm f/4L would cover both the Sigma & Sony 12-24mm f/4 lenses.

3. Nikon has a 14-24mm f/2.8 for over a decade. Seems between the 11-24mm f/4, Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8, and Sigma 12-24mm f/4, Canon never felt a need to compete with Nikon.

Customers requiring/ asking for a 10-14mm range are willing to pay in order not to make comprises, so in my opinion not going wider would be more costly for Canon.

I have the EF 11-24mm. Sometimes I miss my EF 15mm f/2.8.

Don't think so. There is a world of difference between 10mm and 15 mm.

Yes, on the wide side every mm counts. Then, other things count as well, e.g. money.

The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L costs $2,900. An RF 10-24mm f/4L will be even more expensive. How wide can an RF 1x-35mm f/4L go before people give up because they don't use 10-1x enough, would rather shoot panos, etc?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

2. An RF 10-24mm f/4L would cover both the Sigma & Sony 12-24mm f/4 lenses.

Considering the focal you obviously right. But the price for the 11-24mm is about twoandahalf the price of the Sigma and twice the price then the Sony. So, I'd consider the RF 10-24mm to be even more expensive and due to pricing and focal range it really has a market of its own.

3. Nikon has a 14-24mm f/2.8 for over a decade. Seems between the 11-24mm f/4, Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8, and Sigma 12-24mm f/4, Canon never felt a need to compete with Nikon.

Given what I stated at No. 2, in imho the RF follow-up for the EF 16-35mm F4 is the lense that will actually compete with the Sony/ Nikon lense. Therefore, I do see a need to go wider.

The Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L costs $2,900. An RF 10-24mm f/4L will be even more expensive. How wide can an RF 1x-35mm f/4L go before people give up because they don't use 10-1x enough, would rather shoot panos, etc?

That's a question I can't answer. Canon needs to find an answer while designing those two lenses, it'll probably be a compromise something like "go wider, but not too wide" because they want to sell both lenses. Therefore, I'm expecting a 15-35 F4, but I'm still hoping for 14-35mm...

 

[millan]

What does the image height of 21.64 mm mean? I thought the image height of FF camera was 24 mm, not 21.64 mm.

 

[Joules]

What does the image height of 21.64 mm mean? I thought the image height of FF camera was 24 mm, not 21.64 mm.

image height in patents refers to die radius of the image circle. To be labeled an FF lens, this has to equal or larger than the diagonal from the center to any edge of a full frame sensor.

 

[David - Sydney]

There are weird lens lengths in patents from time to time. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Can someone elaborate on the underwater housing aspect within the patent? Normally the difference in the lens length is adjusted in the housing by changing the port extensions. There are a set number of lengths and a combination of them gets you the length you need. The dome (generally 8" or more) adjusts for the field of view for the air/water interface. 8"/curvature handles from 8mm fisheye upwards so I am not sure why the patent includes it.