Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/patent-ef-16-35-f4l-17-40-f4l-and-others/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/patent-ef-16-35-f4l-17-40-f4l-and-others/">Tweet</a></div>
A slew of patents showing various wide angle optical formulas has appeared. All of the lenses appear to be for full frame and could be hints of replacements for the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 17-40 f/4L</a> as well as the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 16-35 f/2.8L II</a>.</p>
<ul>
<li><span>Patent Publication No. 2014-41245</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Publication date 2014.3.6</span></li>
<li><span>Filing date 2012.8.22</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 1</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 16.49-23.55-33.95mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 4.10</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 52.68-42.57-32.51 °</span></li>
<li><span>14 pieces of 10-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 2</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 17.50-25.45-38.90mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 4.10</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 51.03-40.36-29.08 °</span></li>
<li><span>15 pieces of 11-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 4</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 17.50-24.82-38.89mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 2.88-3.25-4.10</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 51.02-41.08-29.09 °</span></li>
<li><span>15 pieces of 11-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 5</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 16.50-25.34-34.00mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 2.91</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 52.66-40.49-32.47 °</span></li>
<li><span>15 pieces of 11-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Canon</span><span> patents</span>
<ul>
<li><span>4-group zoom of positive and negative positive negative</span></li>
<li><span>Inner focus</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-03-10" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 17-40 f/4L</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Woody]

I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight.

 

[wjm]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

Would be nice on my APS-C (=25-80 (eqv) 'standard' lens) and my full frame (=wide angle). Would probably be an instant buy ...

 

[tron]

Let's not forget the obvious too: 16-35 f/2.8L III

 

[wjm]

I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight.

And half the price?

 

[tron]

I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight.

And half the price?

;D Not so Canon ... ;D

 

[Pixel]

Just give me a sharp, low distortion wide angle. That's all I ask for.

 

[Albi86]

A refresh is needed since both have pretty soft corners - which is usually an undesired feature in WA or UWA lens.

In fact a corner-to-corner sharp 16-35/2.8 would replace the need for a Nikon-like 14-24mm that Canon users sometimes feel the need for.

 

[tron]

A refresh is needed since both have pretty soft corners - which is usually an undesired feature in WA or UWA lens.

In fact a corner-to-corner sharp 16-35/2.8 would replace the need for a Nikon-like 14-24mm that Canon users sometimes feel the need for.

+1 EXACTLY!

 

[Caps18]

Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?

I like my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot and haven't noticed any problems with it.

 

[tron]

Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?

I like my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot and haven't noticed any problems with it.

Do you use it for astrophotography fully open?

 

[Woody]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

 

[Mantanuska]

The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.

You are comparing two different lenses on two different formats. It's not a reasonable comparison.
Yes, there's room for an update. But it's not a critical update. The current 17-40L and 16-35IIL are both very strong and capable performers.

 

[pedro]

Maybe the appearance of a 16-35 F/4 patent is a hint for a later 12-24 F/2.8 which would complement and complete the 24-70, 70-200 line up. Hope they'll go for it.

 

[preppyak]

Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?

Cost alone is the reason a lot of people go for the 17-40 vs the 16-35 right now; unless you really need the f/2.8, then it isnt worth the extra money. I'd say size and weight are lower priorities, though they certainly add up for landscapers who take long hikes, etc.

 

[LuCoOc]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

How about this source of imagination:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=538

 

[jhanken]

When did anyone last see a patent for a large aperture lens from Canon? This is more of an issue with primes, but the idea that they are looking at a 16-35MM F/4 is odd but fits with the trend we have seen in smaller aperture primes.

I am not big on conspiracy theories, but it makes sense that Canon is pursuing smaller apertures and throwing in gew-gaws like IS on wide angle lenses because the real cost is in the glass, and Canon needs to boost margins where they can, given the crazy collapse that seems to be occurring in the photo equipment market.

Interesting that Sigma is going in the opposite direction and pushing the envelope on lens development.

And yes, I did notice that not all of the patents listed represented a shrinking of aperture.

 

[endiendo]

I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.

 

[tron]

I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.

So the big question then is? How much sharp 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4 are at the corners at say f/8?
Also, 2.8 is useful for astrophotography. But then the lenses must be coma free and both Canon ultra wide angle zoom lenses have plenty...