Patent: EF-M 9-17mm f/3.5-5 STM

[Canon Rumors]

Another EF-M optical formula patent has appeared, this time for a EF-M 9-17mm f/3.5-5 STM. The front element on the lens is quite interesting going by the image above.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-85259 (Google translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.5.19</li>
<li>A wish day 2014.10.23</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 1.79</li>
<li>Focus distance 9.27 13.32 16.58</li>
<li>F-number 3.60 4.38 5.11</li>
<li>AOV 51.83 45.17 38.94</li>
<li>Like high 11.79 13.40 13.40</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 85.22 79.65 81.94</li>
<li>BF 14.99 16.82 15.41</li>
</ul>
<p>As with all of the EF-M patents, this is for a crop camera and we believe that the next EOS M body announced will be APS-C as well.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[wsmith96]

~14-27mm equivalent. Interesting range and would be welcomed by all of the WA shooters out there.

 

[Luds34]

~14-27mm equivalent. Interesting range and would be welcomed by all of the WA shooters out there.

I too was thinking that is quite wide and should be a big hit with the ultra wide crowd, especially if the IQ is anything like Canon's recent releases.

 

[Loswr]

I'm liking all the attention for the little M.

The front element on the lens is quite interesting going by the image above.

Front element is interesting, but is reminiscent of the M11-22:

 

[NorbR]

Is this the image height?

<li>Like high 11.79 13.40 13.40</li>

Then what do we make of the fact that it does not cover the entire APS-C diagonal at the wide end? Is this another case of stretching the corners with distorsion correction to fill the image (similar to what is done with the G7x lens)?

 

[kphoto99]

Is this the image height?

<li>Like high 11.79 13.40 13.40</li>

Then what do we make of the fact that it does not cover the entire APS-C diagonal at the wide end? Is this another case of stretching the corners with distorsion correction to fill the image (similar to what is done with the G7x lens)?

Fisheye maybe

 

[wsmith96]

I'm liking all the attention for the little M.

Definitely looks like they are all in on the M mount now. I haven't used any of the mirrorless camera's yet, but there's been quite a few patents showing up for that platform. I realize these are patents that may or may not result in an actual product, but to me it looks like there is a lot of overlap. Given that, does it imply that we may see a consumer and premium line of lens from canon for this mount?

 

[Loswr]

Fisheye maybe

With a nearly flat front element?

 

[j-nord]

Dang, if the IQ is good I could see this selling like hotcakes.

 

[HaroldC3]

This is not a lens the M series needs right now with the excellent performing 11-22mm lens. Just like the 9-18mm 3.5-4.5 rumored lens from last month. Canon seems to be out of touch with reality at the moment. The macro lens they just released is not going to get people to buy into the M system any more (except for a few niche people who take specialty photographs). Release exciting lenses and maybe people will begin to get excited about this system.

 

[koenkooi]

The macro lens they just released is not going to get people to buy into the M system any more (except for a few niche people who take specialty photographs).

As such a niche person, I am looking forward to this lens 1:1.2 combined with builtin lights is awesome. Time will tell if the lights are bright and diffuse enough and if 28mm isn't too wide.
I adore the MP-E 65mm lens which took me years to properly use, I hope this one will be easier to get used to in super-macro mode.

 

[sunnyVan]

+1 agree every word

Harold,

I'm not a macro shooter, and that lens is exciting. If you've ever tried to shoot macro, it's all about light, light, light, is the problem. You need to drop your Av for more DOF to grab textures, thus you need more light, thus drop your shutter and the IS suddenly becomes important, but oh wait, a built in light you can turn on? Add that it weighs a mere 130g and costs a mere $299. Very, very exciting. The EF-S 60mm 2.8 Macro USM? $375, refurbished, last I checked. No IS, no built in light, weighs alot more, and does 1:1

If they make this mythical beast lightweight (around the same weight as the 11-22) and cheap ($400 or less for a WA is dirt cheap) it's quite exciting at a 14mm equivalent, which is wider than the 16-35... You gotta drop to the 14mm primes, or, the King of WA, 11-24 to get that wide.

 

[Don Haines]

WOW!

I bet that if that lens comes to market, that there will be a lot of them sold to us forum members....

 

[brad-man]

This one would be quite a bit larger than the 11-22. I wonder if the reason they didn't include IS is to keep the size down or because it's so wide.

 

[TeT]

This is not a lens the M series needs right now with the excellent performing 11-22mm lens. Just like the 9-18mm 3.5-4.5 rumored lens from last month. Canon seems to be out of touch with reality at the moment. The macro lens they just released is not going to get people to buy into the M system any more (except for a few niche people who take specialty photographs). Release exciting lenses and maybe people will begin to get excited about this system.

It is a lens that Canon needs to make. My is a real estate agent, she shoots 16mm equiv on a crop... Occasionally she has to take my 6D along with the 14mm to get a shot...The 11-22 is really not wide enough for real estate... it will do nicely but 9 -17 would be much much better...

Canon is attempting to cover the entire range and Brand a complete mirrorless package.

Regarding the recently released macro.. already on another thread at least one CR member jumped on his first M just for the Macro lens...

 

[brad-man]

@brad
Probably the width; I'm told that IS gets funky on wide angles and to watch my corners even on IS as those can shift whereas the center does not on a IS wide angle. I haven't had an issue with camera shake on my 11-22 though to date... Probably because the wider you go, the less camera shake is an issue to begin with, IE you generally need 1/50 at 50mm, thus 1/20 at 20mm, and with a 14mm, 1/15. 1/15 at 3.5 is quite a bit of light mind you. Just don't expect to catch any action, but that isn't the point of the lens anyhow. That's what a FF rig and 16-35 f/2.8L is for...

Right. Currently there is no Canon lens wider than 16mm (10mm with crop) with IS. The question is will the EF-M mount with its reduced flange distance and overall smaller size be able to overcome this obstacle easier than the EF or EF-S mount can?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm liking all the attention for the little M.

The front element on the lens is quite interesting going by the image above.

Front element is interesting, but is reminiscent of the M11-22:

Here are some drawings from the patent.

There are three working examples. None of them have a IS lens group.

As usual, Egami picked one that seemed interesting to them. The first example is for a small sensor, probably a P&S. That may be the primary usage.


[Working example 1]
Unit mm

Various data
Zoom ratio 2.22
Wide angle Middle Looking far
Focal distance 3.18 5.05 7.05
F number 2.88 3.74 4.59
Field angle 47.00 37.51 28.78
Image height 3.41 3.88 3.88
Whole length of the lens 26.07 24.28 24.53
BF 4.63 4.63 4.63

 

[pj1974]

It is a lens that Canon needs to make. My is a real estate agent, she shoots 16mm equiv on a crop... Occasionally she has to take my 6D along with the 14mm to get a shot...The 11-22 is really not wide enough for real estate... it will do nicely but 9 -17 would be much much better...

Canon is attempting to cover the entire range and Brand a complete mirrorless package.

[Snip]

Yes... there is quite a bit of interest in what Canon is bringing to the EF-M lens line. Their innovation with recent lenses is good and interesting. Many people are happy with the EF-M 11-22mm STM, which is optically good and has handy IS, and STM is useful for this type of lens.

I currently do not own a mirrorless, but I am keeping my eye on developments there (both from Canon and other brands).

Several years ago I bought the Sigma 10-20mm (bought that, instead of the Canon 10-22mm because optically and practically both are very similar). Then some years ago I bought the even more amazing Sigma 8-16mm and sold my Sigma 10-20mm.

That extra 2mm translates on a Canon APS-C to the difference between 16mm and 12.8mm. That difference is significant and noticeable. I appreciate the extra width available in both my landscape as well as my real estate / property photography.

Having IS in an UWA is not as crucial as in telephoto lenses for most situations, but I have found IS to be very handy on many occasions. I would love Canon to make a 8-16mm, or an even wider (e.g. 7-15mm) for both EF-S and EF-M mounts, and IS would be a bonus. Currently I am very happy with my Sigma 8-16mm (sharp corner to corner, great contrast, low CA, decent colour, etc).

Regards

Paul

 

[TeT]

Did not know about the Sigma 8-16mm Gonna check it out... I went with the Canon 10-22 over the sigma 10-20 & 12-24 (one of the versions) because of less distortion. hopin the 9-17 has similar performace... Sharpness & IQ is fine on most all of them at f7 to f9 where they get most of their use...

 

[scyrene]

This is not a lens the M series needs right now with the excellent performing 11-22mm lens. Just like the 9-18mm 3.5-4.5 rumored lens from last month. Canon seems to be out of touch with reality at the moment. The macro lens they just released is not going to get people to buy into the M system any more (except for a few niche people who take specialty photographs). Release exciting lenses and maybe people will begin to get excited about this system.

Care to suggest some 'exciting' lenses?