Patent: Canon RF 15-35mm f/4L
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
1. Canon is *******.
2. I really thought they would give the F4L wide zoom some more reach.
3. bet this will be another supercompact wonder
2. I really thought they would give the F4L wide zoom some more reach.
3. bet this will be another supercompact wonder
These f/4's are nice for travel and hiking, being lighter and smaller.
The EF 16-35 f~4 is a joy to use. I will hang on to that one. Also, using the EF version permits the filter adapter to be used (Thinking NDs from Breakthrough).
Why almost every mirrorless lens is focus by wire? Is there any technical limitation for mirrorless?
The 16-35 f4L patent mentions a 10.35mm 
backfocus at max wide angle. Wow, that's sticking the lens edge half way past the mount towards the sensor. And you still have to have room for the 1st & 2nd mechanical shutter and housing mechanism! Sometimes I'm just amazed at what they can design & build.
backfocus at max wide angle. Wow, that's sticking the lens edge half way past the mount towards the sensor. And you still have to have room for the 1st & 2nd mechanical shutter and housing mechanism! Sometimes I'm just amazed at what they can design & build.
The 16-35 f4L patent mentions a 10.35mm
And an ND filter stack on the C70!
Yeah, I forgot about the ND filter stack. I wonder if there will be a restriction on the C70 (or others) regarding some R lenses with a very small back focus (eg 10mm) where the lens might hit it?
Assuming this is one of those "lost in translation" issues: "Focus by wire" is just a rotating ring with high resolution encoders that the camera sense so that it can adjust the AF mechanism accordingly. It removes the complexity of a mechanical user focus mechanism which would interfere with the latest high-tech AF mechanisms. I think "focus by wire" is the best thing you can have, provided they can make it feel smooth with proper damping/resistance with the proper range of motion from near-to-far and making it as par-focal as possible when combined with the mechanical zoom often used. It's also best (IMHO) when it's a fixed (predictable) focus range instead of a continuously spinning +/- one, but I'm sure others will prefer the other.
Last edited:
Focus by wire is usually cheaper and less mechanically complex. It also gives more freedom to use multiple focus groups in the lens without having to worry about mechanically linking them all to a single control ring. A bonus is that it (potentially) allows the user to customise how the focus ring behaves.
I too was hoping they could get down to 14mm for the f/4 version... Alas.
Side note, does anyone know why the 15-35 2.8 is backordered everywhere, and maybe when they might be back in stock?
Side note, does anyone know why the 15-35 2.8 is backordered everywhere, and maybe when they might be back in stock?
Zero reason at all to update that beauty. I use it on my Sony A7RIII and won't be swapping it for any native options.
Ok. But the RF will be lighter, smaller and slightly better overall IQ. Your decision. For me, I will buy it.
15.45 and 16.48 are suspicious numbers. It seems Canon want to be able to round down and sell them as 15mm and 16mm. I always hate cheating like that. I am not a lens engenieer, but if you have a formula for a 15.45mm lens, it should be technically possible to tweak some parameters and make it exactly 15mm. The same is true at the long end of tele lenses, where Canon often rounds up.
It is good though that Canon brings slower versions of its very expensive lenses with f/2.8. With a powerful IBIS you do not need much light and I usually chose an aperture just below the diffraction limit of the camera to get as much depth of field as possible. That's f/11 at my 18 megapixel camera. So f/2.8 for me is just something that makes a lens twice as heavy and twice as expensive and I only need it for low light hand held shots.
It is good though that Canon brings slower versions of its very expensive lenses with f/2.8. With a powerful IBIS you do not need much light and I usually chose an aperture just below the diffraction limit of the camera to get as much depth of field as possible. That's f/11 at my 18 megapixel camera. So f/2.8 for me is just something that makes a lens twice as heavy and twice as expensive and I only need it for low light hand held shots.
Similar threads
<-- start Taboola -->