Patent - EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6

[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/2013/09/patent-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6/"></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/2013/09/patent-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A new superzoom

</strong>As we <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6-is-stm-on-the-way-cr1/" target="_blank">mentioned a while back</a>, Canon is working on an EF-S 18-300 f/3.5.5.6 IS STM to replace the no-so-good EF-S 18-200 IS.</p>
<p>The 18-300 appears to be closer to happening as a patent has shown up showing the optical formula in practice.</p>
<div id="attachment_14450" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 366px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/18300.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-14450 " alt="18300" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/18300.png" width="356" height="196" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6</p></div>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-30" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<h4></h4>

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Is a 16.67x zoom really going to be that much better, IQ wise, from the EF-S 18-200mm IS?

My guess it's an attempt to compete with the Tamron 18-270mm (some stores in Israel sell pair it with Canon bodies as a kit), so I expect IQ to take the back seat to the focal range. Having the extra STM, 1/3 extra stop + 30mm at the long end, and the Canon brand name would help selling it even if IQ is about as good as the Tamron's.

 

[Don Haines]

The F5.6 will allow AF on all the Canon bodies, and considering it will zoom to 300mm, it will probably be a lot wider and heavier than the 18-200....

Personally, I doubt that the IQ will be anything to write home about.... A 16X zoom range is hard to make decent, most great zooms are 3X or less.... But it would serve as a one lens solution for the masses and would probably sell quite well. Most people don't realize how much better lenses like the 70-200's are than the kit lenses, we fanatics and gear-heads are in the minority.

 

[WoodyWindy]

As with all of these, we'll have to wait and see just what the lens is capable of. Canon has set the bar pretty high with the new kit STM lenses.

There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top. Then again, this could be shifted upscale from the 18-200, and less of a compromise image-wise, too.

I'll choose "cautiously optimistic" at this point.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

could be a nice travel zoom.

i was never interested in canons "travel" zooms but the 300mm end could make it attractive for me. when the price is right.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top.

I know Canon often introduces new features in lower-end products, e.g. dual pixel AF in the 650D then 70D, but I doubt the first parfocal lens would be a low end super zoom.

 

[WoodyWindy]

There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top.

I know Canon often introduces new features in lower-end products, e.g. dual pixel AF in the 650D then 70D, but I doubt the first parfocal lens would be a low end super zoom.

Which touches my other point - the assumption is that this is a low-end zoom. Let's not forget that Canon introduced a 28-300 L - a range that was typically dismissed as "tourist class"... This lens could be a shocker in any number of ways...or not.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

By drawing seems to have 21 optical elements. Who will carry this weight? It would be useful to have a good quality 18-200 STM. 8)

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Another option I would consider is an EF-S 85-300mm F4-5.6 IS STM. With light weight and price down to $ 350 would be a perfect match for 15-85mm, and I would buy.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The F5.6 will allow AF on all the Canon bodies, and considering it will zoom to 300mm, it will probably be a lot wider and heavier than the 18-200....

Personally, I doubt that the IQ will be anything to write home about.... A 16X zoom range is hard to make decent, most great zooms are 3X or less.... But it would serve as a one lens solution for the masses and would probably sell quite well. Most people don't realize how much better lenses like the 70-200's are than the kit lenses, we fanatics and gear-heads are in the minority.

I agree with most of your points, save the first one. Even through the Tamron has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 on the tele end, it actually doesn't cause an AF issue with any Canon bodies because it's maximum aperture on the wide end is something like f/3.5. I used the Tamron at one point for a while and it did AF just fine.

 

[jdramirez]

Most people don't realize how much better lenses like the 70-200's are than the kit lenses, we fanatics and gear-heads are in the minority.

when I was in the market for a 70-200, f2.8L, either one, someone tried to convince me that the 18-200 is all the lens I would ever need and any improvement in image quality wasn't noticeable in real world application and certainly didn't justify the price.

I just wanted to shake him. But he was so adamant...

 

[jdramirez]

Another option I would consider is an EF-S 85-300mm F4-5.6 IS STM. With light weight and price down to $ 350 would be a perfect match for 15-85mm, and I would buy.

why would it need to be stm? wouldn't a usm motor be just fine? are many people doing video at 300mm... I suppose for sports, but that would still be a challenge.

 

[Loswr]

why would it need to be stm? wouldn't a usm motor be just fine? are many people doing video at 300mm... I suppose for sports, but that would still be a challenge.

It likely won't be USM. STM is cheaper than micromotor AF, which is why we're seeing it in many new consumer lenses.

 

[unfocused]

Canon demonstrated with the 55-250 EF-S that they can make a sharp, inexpensive zoom lens. If an 18-300 EF-S could have similar sharpness it would be quite an incredible lens.

Unfortunately, it seems like getting that sharpness in a lens that goes from wide to telephoto is a lot harder than getting it from normal to telephoto.

 

[Lee Jay]

I'd trade 100mm on the long end for 3mm on the wide end - 15-200. I can't believe the only 15mm-xxx zoom is still the 15-85IS. All these 17-xx and 18-xx zooms for the EF-s mount are stupid, frankly. And, yes, that includes the 17-55/2.8 and all the third-party lenses. Even my Canon compacts all start at 24mm or 25mm equivalent, not 27mm or 29mm.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Canon demonstrated with the 55-250 EF-S that they can make a sharp, inexpensive zoom lens. If an 18-300 EF-S could have similar sharpness it would be quite an incredible lens.

Unfortunately, it seems like getting that sharpness in a lens that goes from wide to telephoto is a lot harder than getting it from normal to telephoto.

+1. That is the basic problem there. The optical compromises to accommodate both ends of the spectrum are, I suspect, near impossible to overcome. The best example I am aware of in the EF-S line is the 15-85mm, an excellent lens, but a 5x zoom ratio is far from the 16+ proposed here.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top.

I know Canon often introduces new features in lower-end products, e.g. dual pixel AF in the 650D then 70D, but I doubt the first parfocal lens would be a low end super zoom.

Which touches my other point - the assumption is that this is a low-end zoom. Let's not forget that Canon introduced a 28-300 L - a range that was typically dismissed as "tourist class"... This lens could be a shocker in any number of ways...or not.

According to rumor, it's intended "to replace the no-so-good EF-S 18-200 IS". I don't see Canon replacing a low end lens with a high end one.

 

[joshmurrah]

Interesting to see Canon finally develop this range.

I've long recommended a rebel and a Tamron 18-270 VC, to anyone who's asked me about starting with an dSLR... I rocked that combo for a few years, including Yellowstone and a Blue Angels airshow, and it was a fantastic combo, with no lens swapping decisions to make.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'd trade 100mm on the long end for 3mm on the wide end - 15-200. I can't believe the only 15mm-xxx zoom is still the 15-85IS. All these 17-xx and 18-xx zooms for the EF-s mount are stupid, frankly. And, yes, that includes the 17-55/2.8 and all the third-party lenses. Even my Canon compacts all start at 24mm or 25mm equivalent, not 27mm or 29mm.

I've given up dreaming with a 15-200mm lens with good image quality. Judging by the current 15-85mm, a hypothetical 15-200mm cost well over $ 1000 and weigh at least 1 kg. Actually I wish very much a 15-55mm F2.8 IS. :

 

[9VIII]

Canon demonstrated with the 55-250 EF-S that they can make a sharp, inexpensive zoom lens. If an 18-300 EF-S could have similar sharpness it would be quite an incredible lens.

Unfortunately, it seems like getting that sharpness in a lens that goes from wide to telephoto is a lot harder than getting it from normal to telephoto.

+1. That is the basic problem there. The optical compromises to accommodate both ends of the spectrum are, I suspect, near impossible to overcome. The best example I am aware of in the EF-S line is the 15-85mm, an excellent lens, but a 5x zoom ratio is far from the 16+ proposed here.

One can only hope they try to make one in EF-M. 18-300mm with an entirely telephoto design should be both lighter and sharper.

(Now if only someone could be bothered to make a full frame 40-200 zoom.)