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.
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?
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 usewww.usa.canon.com
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
oh, sorry, I meant the f/4.5-7.1 or whatever it is.A 100-500 mm 4.0 would be a massive lens though.
Oops, I use a frontal filter so I never seen this part moving.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.
Dont think so. There is a world of difference between 10mm and 15 mm.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
The 17-40L is no internal zoom. It extends, but only a few millimeter.
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.
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.
Don't think so. There is a world of difference between 10mm and 15 mm.
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.
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...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?
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.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.
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.There are weird lens lengths in patents from time to time. I wouldn't read too much into it.