Patent - EF 24 f/2.8

[Canon Rumors]

<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6574" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6574"></a></div>
<strong></p>
<div id="attachment_6575" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-6575" title="24patent" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/24patent-300x170.png" alt="" width="300" height="170" /><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 24 f/2.8</p></div>
<p>Canon patent for EF 24 f/2.8 USM</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Patent Publication No. 2011-70032</li>
<li>Published 2011.4.7</li>
<li>Filled 2009.9.25</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Specifications</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal Distance: 24.48</li>
<li>Fno: 2.86</li>
<li>Half angle of view:38.26</li>
<li>Image Height: 21.64</li>
<li>Lens Length (mm): 92</li>
<li>Back Focus (mm): 38.00</li>
<li>Aspherical: 0</li>
</ul>
<p>This patent is a bit confusing to me. Not sure I see the point of such a lens. Unless Canon is revamping all their affordable primes.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[dg28]

That's a lot of elements for a 24mm f2.8. If this lens were to actually go into production I would expect it to have no barrel distortion, no chromatic issues and be marketed as a "lens of choice" for landscape photographers and film makers.

 

[foobar]

Doesn't make much sense to me unless they make it something like f/2 (or a pancake lens - which it clearly isn't according to the patent).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't understand the comments like "doesn't make much sense"/"I don't really see the need for this.". What?!
There is insane NEED for this lens! What is there at 24mm for FF currently??
Currently:

1. you spend $1150 for a 24-105 and get horrendous 24mm performance on FF even stopped way down for landscapes. Doesn't sound so good to me.

2. you spend $375 for a 24 2.8 and get horrendous 24mm performance on FF even for landscapes. Doesn't sound great to me.

3. you spend $1700 for 24 1.4 and get great performance on FF but supposing you mostly shoot landscapes then isn't that a LOT of money for 24mm??

4. you spend $2200 for 24 T&S II and get great performance on FF and all sorts of special controls for landscape and other photography but a lot of people struggle to say the least to spend that much and it's also tougher to use for general purpose work.

So yeah I think there could be an astonishingly large need for it for the landscape/general photographer!!
It's really been one of the holy grails. Something that wide that does well on FF and doesn't cost near or over two grand.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Doesn't make much sense to me unless they make it something like f/2 (or a pancake lens - which it clearly isn't according to the patent).

Nah, how many are obsessed with pancake lenses?
Why make it f/2 and make it weigh a lot more, cost a lot and maybe even slightly compromise landscape f-stop performance, at least without raising the price even more at which point there already is the 1.4 II.
People forget that, no, not ever lens performs great at f/8 and there is no even semi-inexpensive 24mm FF landscape lens that does even half way nice job.

 

[Admin US West]

Lots of photographers need different lenses for their particular use. None of the Canon lenses are horrible, they may have weakneses, but nothing and noone is perfect.

Some of the best photographers are doing very well with Canon lenses, and some even pull down seven figure earnings.

If a lens doesn't seem to be what I want, I'm not going to worry about someone who wants it, because they probably have a good reason. I happen to have a Canon 28mm f/2.8, and for the price I paid, its pretty good. I bought it for $25.00, but even for the normal used price of $200 its a excellent lens. I've had lots worse.

Both of these were taken wide open at f/2.8.