Patent: Canon RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6

[Loswr]

24-70/2.8 IS lenses are available in EF mount right now.

Yes, that’s my point. People will probably still claim it as a benefit of RF because Canon doesn’t have such a lens. Much like the poster above claimed the ‘small RF 70-200’ shows the benefits of the RF mount.

I do not recall a single 85/1.2 IS lens available to date in EF Mount.
I do not recall a single x2.5 f2.0 standard zoom lens available in DSLR world. Not even in a APS-C let alone FF

If you recall an 85/1.2 IS lens available for the RF mount you may have suffered a head injury. The rest of your argument boils down to if something hasn’t been done, it’s impossible. I think that’s a sad outlook, but fortunately it’s been fully repudiated by the weight of history.

 

[SecureGSM]

If you recall an 85/1.2 IS lens available for the RF mount you may have suffered a head injury. The rest of your argument boils down to if something hasn’t been done, it’s impossible. I think that’s a sad outlook, but fortunately it’s been fully repudiated by the weight of history.

1. Well, I have. Correct. Is this a norm for you to point a neurological deficit of any kind out just like that? Not that my mental or neurological Health is deficient. Far from it. But for a Neuroscientist to be that direct... not a good practice, Neuro
2. Try to be a little more inclusive, perhaps?
3. Provide an example of any DSLR full frame x2.5 zoom lens with a constant aperture wider than F2.8

 

[Loswr]

1. Well, I have. Correct. Is this a norm for you to point a neurological deficit of any kind out just like that? Not that my mental or neurological Health is deficient. Far from it. But for a Neuroscientist to be that direct... not a good practice, Neuro
2. Try to be a little more inclusive, perhaps?
3. Provide an example of any DSLR full frame x2.5 zoom lens with constant aperture wider than F2.8

1. Provide an example of the RF 85/1.2 IS which you mentioned.
2. I’m quite inclusive, thanks.
3. Nice job crafting those criteria! Seems you’re aware of 2x range T2 zooms in EF mount. Regardless, re-read my above statement – not done doesn’t mean impossible.

 

[BillB]

Not interested in variable aperture W/A lenses. They should stick to constant aperture from the get go.

So far as I can see there is nothing forcing you to buy a variable max aperture lens if you don't want to. Others may have different preferences however.

 

[SecureGSM]

1. Provide an example of the RF 85/1.2 IS which you mentioned.
2. I’m quite inclusive, thanks.
3. Nice job crafting those criteria! Seems you’re aware of 2x range T2 zooms in EF mount. Regardless, re-read my above statement – not done doesn’t mean impossible.

1. You are referring to a reduced memory ability of some one suffered a head injury in your post directly above. Your statement is a harassment. Hence my comment about you not being inclusive. You are insulted a person publicly referring to a neurological deficit resulting in a memory loss or reduced cognitive ability.
Apologies are in order. Be a decent human being. Thank you.

1. You are not inclusive for the reason above
2. You have not answered my question regarding a x2.5 F2.8 DSLR zoom. Such a zoom does not exist.

P.S. 85/1.2 IS to read as 85/1.2 DS. Autocorrection blunder.

 

[timmy_650]

I had the same thought. Naturally a smaller focal length at the same entrance pupil makes a lower stop number. But corrections in ultrawides need large elements - why not reduce the aperture to the lower end to reduce lens aberrations (like spherical aberration).

I see 17mm as a focal length where you want depth of field and hand holding problems are reduced by shorter focal lengths - no problem with larger f-stop numbers wide open.
A 35mm f/5.6 would be next to useless for me - I would like to see f/2.8 or at least f/4.0 to have a minimum chance for blurred backgrounds at small focusing distances.

A 17-35 f/5.6 ... f2.8 would be an interesting ultra wide lens for me.

Tamron makes a 17-35 f2.8-4 which is a pretty good lens for the price.

 

[Loswr]

1. You are referring to a reduced memory ability of some one suffered a head injury in your post directly above. Your statement is a harassment. Hence my comment about you not being inclusive. You are insulted a person publicly referring to a neurological deficit resulting in a memory loss or reduced cognitive ability.
Apologies are in order. Be a decent human being. Thank you.

1. You are not inclusive for the reason above
2. You have not answered my question regarding a x2.5 F2.8 DSLR zoom. Such a zoom does not exist.

P.S. 85/1.2 IS to read as 85/1.2 DS. Autocorrection blunder.

1. First off I stated, "May have had a head injury." I could easily have stated that you, "May have blond hair." Second, if you actually think that a single statement of possibility constitutes an insult and harassment, you should immediately stop participating in internet forums and social media, as those places are certain to offend your tender sensibilities. Sorry you hurt your noggin. You're welcome. I await your sure-to-be forthcoming apology for implying that I am not a decent human being. Thank you. Do you always respond to statements of possibliity intended as humor with insults of your own? Yet another reason for you to eschew social media.

2. No such lens exists for FF. There are such lenses for APS-C-sized sensors available with an EF mount. Do you believe that because there is no such lens for a FF DSLR, that means such a lens cannot be made for a FF DSLR? There are no 800mm f/5.6 lenses for mirrorless cameras. Does that mean an RF 800/5.6 is impossible?

PS. So you mean 85/1.2 DS, fine. You stated there is no such lens available in an EF mount, fine. There is also no such lens available in an RF mount..yet. Canon hasn't explicitly stated what DS is from a technical standpoint. However, they have stated that it's a coating applied to an internal element. Do you honestly believe that such a coating would be specific to an element within an RF lens, and could not be applied to an element within an EF lens? That's asinine. Functionally, Canon has stated that the DS coating acts like an apodization element. There are DSLR lenses with apodization elements. Yet another example of a unique capability or benefit incorrectly attributed to the RF mount.

 

[SecureGSM]

Neuro, such a lens does not exist for APS-C either.there is Sigma 18-35 F1.8. But that is only x2.0 zoom not x2.5
If you think that referring to some one being mentally affected by a head injury or worse even being blonde, is acceptable then you should really consider educating yourself around equal opportunities, gender equality, racial, state of health, age and cognitive abilities inclusion. Shame on you, Sir.

I propose to conclude this awful conversation.
You have insulted a person and do not care to admit.

 

[3kramd5]

There are no 800mm f/5.6 lenses for mirrorless cameras. Does that mean an RF 800/5.6 is impossible?

Common internet pundit reasoning is that if a technology company has not done something, it can not do that thing.

Most common format: “company A offers this, why can’t company B?”

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, such a lens does not exist for APS-C either.there is Sigma 18-35 F1.8. But that is only x2.0 zoom not x2.5
If you think that referring to some one being mentally affected by a head injury or worse even being blonde, is acceptable then you should really consider educating yourself around equal opportunities, gender equality, racial, state of health, age and cognitive abilities inclusion. Shame on you, Sir.

I propose to conclude this awful conversation.
You have insulted a person and do not care to admit.

Several such lenses exist. Angénieux makes cinema zooms at T2.6 and faster with well over 2.5x zoom ranges, e.g. a 30-90mm f/1.9 with a 31mm image circle and available in EF mount. Another example is the 19.5-94mm f/2.4 – that's a 4.7x zoom. They can be mounted on any Canon APS-C DSLR and cover an APS-C sensor. Are you aware of any 3x or 5x zoom range, faster-than-f/2.8 lenses available in an RF mount? I guess you'd say that because there is no such RF mount lens, such a lens is impossible for RF, it's only possible for a DSLR mount, right?

If you think that referring to someone as not a decent human being is acceptable then you should really consider educating yourself around being inclusive. Shame on you, Sir.

 

[SecureGSM]

A person who would not apologies for his harassing behaviour can hardly can be called a descent human being. That has nothing to do with a state of your mental health, social status, gender, sexual preferences, colour of your hairs, you height complexity, cognitive abilities, age, social status, citizenship, religious believes or quantity of Canon equipment in your closet.

Read your initial comment: you refer to a possible brain damage and then to some one being blonde in your late statement.
Your statement is discriminative.
Learn from your mistakes.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Maybe use the EF 16-35 with filter adapter ... you have constant f/4.0, one filter for all EF lenses and a slightly larger combo. And the lens will work on EF, EF-S, EF-M compatible cameras.

Then I lose the control ring, and the protective elements of a front filter.

 

[Loswr]

You have not answered my question regarding a x2.5 F2.8 DSLR zoom. Such a zoom does not exist.

You have not answered my question regarding a >3x range zoom with <f/2.8 aperture for the RF (or other MILC) mount. Such a zoom does exist for APS-C DSLRs.

A person who would not apologies for his harassing behaviour can hardly can be called a descent human being. That has nothing to do with a state of your mental health, social status, gender, sexual preferences, colour of your hairs, you height complexity, cognitive abilities, age, social status, citizenship, religious believes or quantity of Canon equipment in your closet.

Read your initial comment: you refer to a possible brain damage and then to some one being blonde in your late statement.
Your statement is discriminative.
Learn from your mistakes.

Oh, please. You read my initial comment. You stated that you don’t recall ever seeing a lens which we both know doesn’t exist. I stated that IF you recalled seeing such a lens, then you MAY have had a head injury. Key points: You never said you recalled seeing an 85/1.2 IS. I never said you had a head injury.

Hypothetical:
Bert: “I don’t recall ever seeing a purple unicorn farting out rainbows and L lenses.”
Ernie: “If you did recall seeing a purple unicorn, regardless of the composition of its flatulent emissions, you’d be bat-crap crazy.”

In the above, Ernie affirms Bert’s mental acuity – not seeing things that don’t exist is good. But in your mind, Ernie called Bert crazy. Then in your version, Bert perseverates on his perception that he was insulted and harassed, and goes on to insult Ernie and demand an apology...all based on aggressive misinterpretation of an innocuous comment that was, in fact, positive.

You previously proposed to end this discussion, but instead you chose to escalate it. I’d suggest you adhere to your own advice and refrain from posting further on a matter that you’ve already blown way out of proportion and has led to your posting some truly offensive comments.

 

[SecureGSM]

This shameful conversation is officially closed. Now. Thanks for nothing. You may now proceed to harassing, discriminating and and bullying other forum members that do not adhere to your own set of rules and standards and do so at your one discretion and unchecked. As you do.

There is no even a slight sign of positivity in your particular comment I am referring to. You use form of language that is generally unacceptable. With best regards.

————- End if Conversation ——————

 

[Loswr]

This shameful conversation is officially closed. Now. Thanks for nothing. You may now proceed to harassing, discriminating and and bullying other forum members that do not adhere to your own set of rules and standards and do so at your one discretion and unchecked. As you do.

There is no even a slight sign of positivity in your particular comment I am referring to. You use form of language that is generally unacceptable. With best regards.

————- End if Conversation ——————

I understand that you are apparently unable to apologize for your offensive accusations or admit your own mistakes. Those attitudes are regrettably common on Internet forums. I’m not bothered, it’s the Internet after all, but I do hope that you’re more civil and less prone to misinterpretation and overreaction in your real-life interpersonal interactions.

 

[SecureGSM]

If you did not get it thus far, it is a safe bet that you would not get it ever. I won’t reply. Don’t bother responding.

 

[Loswr]

This shameful conversation is officially closed. Now.
<snipped out ongoing conversation>
————- End if Conversation ——————

I won’t reply.

You already did. First you propose to conclude the conversation, but you ignore your own proposal. Then you officially close and end the conversation, but you continue it anyway. Either you would like to continue the conversation after all (in which case, I suggest you start by either identifying a >3x range <f/2.8 aperture zoom for a MILC mount or admitting your mistake)...or you simply suffer from a lack of willpower.

 

[SecureGSM]

Can you stop this drivel?

 

[Loswr]

Can you stop this drivel?

So it’s that you lack willpower. Understood.

 

[SecureGSM]

So it’s that you lack willpower. Understood.

No it is my lack of intent to maintain a further communication with a person not willing to apologies for an inappropriate language form used Intentionally or non-intentionally. When we hurt someone’s feeling or even cause a confusion we do apologies.