Patent: New Consumer Level Zoom Lenses

[Loswr]

16-35 better under 28mm. 24-70 wide distortion is bad.

11-24 is better under 18mm. 16-35 wide distortion is bad.

 

[mirage]

Cannot see them launch any of those 2 EF lenses now that we have EOS R.

But a reasonably compact, optically decent RF 16-60 / 4.0 IS Non-L at a non-RF-bloated, "affordable price" would be very welcome.

 

[jolyonralph]

Focal length and aperture are the defining properties of a lens. Without knowing anything about them, purchasing a new lens seems impossible.

Not really, and I'm talking about personal experience, I certainly didn't have a clue what they meant when I got my first SLR back in the 90s. I knew that if I had a 35-80 lens then I needed a 75-300 to get greater reach, but I'd have thought a 50 unnecessary as my 35-80 had that covered

Still have the 35-80 and the 75-300. Dreadful lenses

 

[RunAndGun]

yeah...the sigma and tamron 150-600 are such fails...

you missed the fact (as have I) that these are FF zooms and start at 16/17mm all the way to 60/70. i'll just wait until you show us another zoom which does that

Big damn difference, IMO. Slower apertures with longer focal length zooms are a lot more acceptable, like the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 vII

You're also making the big assumption that I missed that they are designed for FF, which I didn't. Doesn't matter if that lens already exists or not. f/6.3 is damn slow at 60mm.

 

[ashmadux]

6.3.... pure garbage.

 

[mirage]

i cannot see Canon adding f/6.3 lenses to EF portfolio all of a sudden, when they have avoided this for 30 years. For good reason: AF limitations beyond f/5.6 on most EOS DSLRs.

i could imagine f/6.3 lenses for R mount, because mirrorfree EOS R series cameras will/should be able to AF to f/11.

Whether or not f/6.3 is a "desirable open aperture" at 60 or 70mm focal length is for each potential user to decide. I don't think the difference in size, weight and price between a 16-60/3.5-6.3 and a f/3.5-5.6 are so huge to make it worthwile.

this said, i currently do own and use one Canon f/6.3 lens, EF-M 55-200 and have also been considering EF-M 18-150/3.5-6.3. Nothing else available from Canon and size/weight, focal length range, price make it "borderline acceptable" to me. Although i would really prefer f/5.6, especially on APS-C.

 

[jolyonralph]

i cannot see Canon adding f/6.3 lenses to EF portfolio all of a sudden, when they have avoided this for 30 years. For good reason: AF limitations beyond f/5.6 on most EOS DSLRs.

i could imagine f/6.3 lenses for R mount, because mirrorfree EOS R series cameras will/should be able to AF to f/11.

Whether or not f/6.3 is a "desirable open aperture" at 60 or 70mm focal length is for each potential user to decide. I don't think the difference in size, weight and price between a 16-60/3.5-6.3 and a f/3.5-5.6 are so huge to make it worthwile.

this said, i currently do own and use one Canon f/6.3 lens, EF-M 55-200 and have also been considering EF-M 18-150/3.5-6.3. Nothing else available from Canon and size/weight, focal length range, price make it "borderline acceptable" to me. Although i would really prefer f/5.6, especially on APS-C.

I own all current EF-M lenses except the new 32mm. The 18-150 in particular is a super zoom lens. The 55-200 is the lens I use the least.