Patent: EF-M 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6

[Canon Rumors]

A patent showing an optical formula for a new EF-M 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 lens has appeared, therefore this is for an APS-C sensor.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-118658 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.6.30</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.12.22</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.88</li>
<li>Focal length 16.51 21.00 47.49</li>
<li>F-number 3.49 3.77 5.80</li>
<li>Half angle of view (degrees) 39.61 33.04 16.05</li>
<li>Image height 13.66 13.66 13.66</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 82.00 77.35 84.14</li>
<li>BF 10.70 10.70 13.31</li>
</ul>
<p>We expect to see some EOS M related announcements before the end of the year.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Loswr]

I highly doubt we'll see this as a product, since there's already an 18-55mm and a 15-45mm in the M lineup.

 

[Bob Howland]

I highly doubt we'll see this as a product, since there's already an 18-55mm and a 15-45mm in the M lineup.

I agree. In fact, it's so redundant that I'm puzzled why Canon even bothered patenting it, unless, of course, they intend to sell the design to somebody else.

 

[scrup]

Does it specifically say its for the EF-M mount?

Maybe its for the EF-S mount

 

[Loswr]

Does it specifically say its for the EF-M mount?
Maybe its for the EF-S mount

• BF 10.70 10.70 13.31

The very short backfocus distance makes it a lens for a mirrorless camera – thus, EF-M.

 

[JMZawodny]

I highly doubt we'll see this as a product, since there's already an 18-55mm and a 15-45mm in the M lineup.

I agree. In fact, it's so redundant that I'm puzzled why Canon even bothered patenting it, unless, of course, they intend to sell the design to somebody else.

Or they are simply trying to lock up the IP behind accomplishing designs for an EF-M zoom in the focal range to keep others from entering the market.

 

[Quackator]

It is likely a spare patent from the development of the 15-45,
simply a variation of it.

 

[Ditboy]

Boy just what we didn't need, another slow general zoom. Fast primes Canon, please. I'm holding off a couple purchases of 3rd party lenses to see what you are coming out with, which is dismal.

 

[Wizardly]

I highly doubt we'll see this as a product, since there's already an 18-55mm and a 15-45mm in the M lineup.

I agree. In fact, it's so redundant that I'm puzzled why Canon even bothered patenting it, unless, of course, they intend to sell the design to somebody else.

Or they are simply trying to lock up the IP behind accomplishing designs for an EF-M zoom in the focal range to keep others from entering the market.

Anyone happen to know the patent for the existing 15-45? Would be interesting to compare them.

 

[jolyonralph]

If you look historically Canon have introduced new kit zoom lenses, or variations of such, every couple of years or so. Just look how many different 28-80 and 28-90 lenses there were in the days of EF film cameras for example.

The 15-45 lens is too slow on the 45 end (6.3) so the lens probably could do with being replaced.

Canon are playing catch-up in mirrorless against competitors who are way ahead of them. Although the EF-M 28mm macro was a genius move they also need to ensure that incremental improvement for their primary products carries on.

As much as I want an EF-M 50mm f/2 STM or whatever, I have to be realistic and accept that for Canon the key battle is in convincing people to buy the camera to begin with. And for most people that means thinking about the kit lens more than anything else.

 

[hne]

Boy just what we didn't need, another slow general zoom. Fast primes Canon, please. I'm holding off a couple purchases of 3rd party lenses to see what you are coming out with, which is dismal.

Yes please. Like Fujifilm XF23/1.4 and XF56/1.2.

The just released Fujifilm X-T2 fits my picture of perfect mirrorless camera body quite well apart from the small issue with not being compatible with my existing Canon glass. I've actually been pondering switching but switching bodies, glass and flash system at the same time for... a different shooting experience? Nah, my rational self caught up.

I still hope Canon makes a proper X-T2 contender in that rumoured enthusiast mirrorless offering. I guess I'd have to buy the 24/1.4L II to accompanying it though with the current lack of fast primes..

 

[Maximilian]

I highly doubt we'll see this as a product, since there's already an 18-55mm and a 15-45mm in the M lineup.

+1
exactly my thought when I saw it.
Presumably a residue from the 15-45mm development.

 

[Frage]

We expect to see some EOS M related announcements before the end of the year.

I hope we don't.

 

[Frodo]

Yes please. Like Fujifilm XF23/1.4 and XF56/1.2.

The just released Fujifilm X-T2 fits my picture of perfect mirrorless camera body quite well apart from the small issue with not being compatible with my existing Canon glass. I've actually been pondering switching but switching bodies, glass and flash system at the same time for... a different shooting experience? Nah, my rational self caught up.

I still hope Canon makes a proper X-T2 contender in that rumoured enthusiast mirrorless offering. I guess I'd have to buy the 24/1.4L II to accompanying it though with the current lack of fast primes..

In New Zealand the X-T2 body is almost four times the price of an M3 body. Will be difficult to get anyone to stump that sort of cash for a Canon mirrorless until there is a better range of lenses. I include myself in that.
The M3 is a nice travel camera, but can not replace my 6D.

 

[C-A430]

Isn't 15-45mm a collapsible zoom?

18-55mm is not good enough. I read somewhere that shorter the flange distance is the easier (and cheaper?) it is to make wide angle lenses. Than EF-M needs to have wide-angle-lenses as good as FF-DSLR.

Canon M4 should have 15-50mm as a kit. Wider than 18-55, longer than 24-70 f4 L, and much smaller than 18-135 STM and 24-105 f4L. Also with selfies and vlogging all kits should have much better 18mm. I hate to see a face at 18mm, but I handle it better when lens has proper optical quality.

EF-M 22 f2 beats the EF-S 24mm f2.8 in every regard. They are both Canon, STM and prime. Focal length, price and size are almost identical, yet 22 f2 is optically superior. Why not make the kits' wide side as wide as full frames 24mm?

 

[brad-man]

Isn't 15-45mm a collapsible zoom?

18-55mm is not good enough. I read somewhere that shorter the flange distance is the easier (and cheaper?) it is to make wide angle lenses. Than EF-M needs to have wide-angle-lenses as good as FF-DSLR.

Canon M4 should have 15-50mm as a kit. Wider than 18-55, longer than 24-70 f4 L, and much smaller than 18-135 STM and 24-105 f4L. Also with selfies and vlogging all kits should have much better 18mm. I hate to see a face at 18mm, but I handle it better when lens has proper optical quality.

EF-M 22 f2 beats the EF-S 24mm f2.8 in every regard. They are both Canon, STM and prime. Focal length, price and size are almost identical, yet 22 f2 is optically superior. Why not make the kits' wide side as wide as full frames 24mm?

You can wait for Canon to release a kit lens that is wide enough to suite you or you can pick up the most excellent EF-M 11-22. The optics are fantastic, even if it is a little slow.

 

[mb66energy]

Boy just what we didn't need, another slow general zoom. Fast primes Canon, please. I'm holding off a couple purchases of 3rd party lenses to see what you are coming out with, which is dismal.

A medium fast zoom like 20-60 f/4.0 in a moderately compact form factor would be interesting for me if it has good mfd for closeup / near macro photos.