Patent: RF mount constant aperture superzoom lenses, including an RF 28-280mm f/2.8

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
284
423
Check this out from photography life .com I happen to like vignetting myself. I often add it. The corners, to me, are not bad at all on a well lit subject. Outdoors it is barely visible. They are far from straight up black. I should add that I never take photos of just walls and backdrops... solid color or brick. I have seen tests that give the wide open vignetting anywhere from 3 to 4 stops. I personally think that 4 stops is a real stretch and how the backdrop was lit will contribute greatly as to the test results. In camera auto correction makes it a non-issue. Then the vignette is almost gone by f/1.6.
7. Vignetting
Ultra-wide aperture lenses usually produce heavy vignetting, and the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM exhibits around 3.3 stops of light falloff at f/1.2.
RF 50mm Vignetting
Canon EOS R + RF50mm F1.2 L USM @ 50mm, ISO 100, 1/8000, f/1.2
Things improve at f/1.6, where vignetting is only about 2.2 stops, better than many wide-aperture lenses on the market. By f/2, vignetting is easily correctable (about 1.5 stops) – and it is a non-issue at f/2.8, totaling only one stop. Beyond that, the RF 50mm f/1.2 exhibits less than a stop of vignetting, which is negligible in real-world images.
RF 50mm Vignetting 1
Canon EOS R + RF50mm F1.2 L USM @ 50mm, ISO 100, 1/1600, f/2.8

Then there's this: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=1
I don't mind some slight vignetting either.

But, remember when you correct for 1.5 stops of vignetting in the corner, you're losing 1.5 stops of DR in those spots. Depending on you use case that may be an issue.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,167
3,339
Irving, Texas
I don't mind some slight vignetting either.

But, remember when you correct for 1.5 stops of vignetting in the corner, you're losing 1.5 stops of DR in those spots. Depending on you use case that may be an issue.
True. I would imagine the landscape photographers especially would not like that. Somebody wouldn't. The landscape folks usually stop down, I think.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
596
674
I hate to say "this will never happen" twice in the same thread, but why would anyone buy a 28-280 2.8 when it will weigh 10 lbs? Superzooms, which go wide (as opposed to tele zooms), should be usable for run and gun photography because they're light and handy enough to let you move and shoot quickly while not being slowed down by lens changes, etc. I don't think exchanging a bright aperture for an extremely large lens makes much sense for a superzoom.

This lens is kind of a fun idea if you don't think about it too hard, but I don't see it happening, and my complaints above don't even get into a) what it would cost, and b) what kind of image quality it would have relative to the RF 24-70 and RF 70-200, which would together both cost less and weigh less than this monstrosity.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,719
1,589
I like a bit of vignetting too. With straight up black I was referring to the 24-240mm which has an image circle that doesn't cover the entire sensor at the wide end. If you look at the image height of the patents, you'll see they also don't have a FF image circle at the wide end. Canon simply applies a profile which crops the image to effectively reduce the sensor size to something that is covered by the smaller wide angle image circle. I just don't feel good about that approach. But that's just my opinion, nothing that should matter to you. I'm not saying it is a bad move by Canon to investigate these new options!
It was worse than just vignetting. There was horrific barrel distortion too, all covered up by the firmware.

I own a couple of super zooms myself (Tamron models), but they are APS-C and given that, the worst of the barrel distortion is cropped away; what's left is probably easier to actually fix (or greatly reduce) in the optics. I've never noticed barrel distortion at 18mm...but then again, I haven't gone out of my way to shoot a brick wall to test for it, either.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
435
569
I hate to say "this will never happen" twice in the same thread, but why would anyone buy a 28-280 2.8 when it will weigh 10 lbs? Superzooms, which go wide (as opposed to tele zooms), should be usable for run and gun photography because they're light and handy enough to let you move and shoot quickly while not being slowed down by lens changes, etc. I don't think exchanging a bright aperture for an extremely large lens makes much sense for a superzoom.

This lens is kind of a fun idea if you don't think about it too hard, but I don't see it happening, and my complaints above don't even get into a) what it would cost, and b) what kind of image quality it would have relative to the RF 24-70 and RF 70-200, which would together both cost less and weigh less than this monstrosity.
Like I said in my first post, if you think of this lens in the same ballpark as the 120-300, because this is basically a 300mm 2.8 on the long end, you'll find the audience.

I wouldn't associate this with normal super zooms, but instead in the same category as a 200-400, which definitely has a big following. Weight and size are not issues to that demographic, since it'll end up on a monopod anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highdesertmesa

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
596
674
Like I said in my first post, if you think of this lens in the same ballpark as the 120-300, because this is basically a 300mm 2.8 on the long end, you'll find the audience.

I wouldn't associate this with normal super zooms, but instead in the same category as a 200-400, which definitely has a big following. Weight and size are not issues to that demographic, since it'll end up on a monopod anyway.
For sure, and reading your title, you're a photojournalist, so I trust you know what you're talking about.

I will say that to me, as someone who has done some events and sports work, I would feel fine using the proposed lens to capture distant action (as with the 120-300 2.8) and feel OK using it at wide-ish angles to capture (say) a sports arena. However, I imagine I would feel incredibly constricted swinging that lens around at around 28-50mm trying to get shots of close-up action if the ball got near me. I'd much rather reach for a second body where I'd have a fast prime ready.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H. Jones

Bennymiata

EOS R
CR Pro
Just a replacement for the ef 28-300 but specced up to f2.8 for the R.
The old 28-300 was a good seller for Canon as it handles almost every situation even if it's big and heavy.

I have a 24-240 for my R, and it defintely does have mechanical vignetting wide open at 24mm.
But you won't ever see it unless you use the bare raw files. Otherwise, it's a surprisingly good lens for what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
595
362
Is it possible that these kind of lenses are espcially meant for the combined EF/RF body with the presumably moving sensor? Would this make sense?

Frank
16 lense when compared to RF24-240mm 21 lense ,sounds plausible when thinking focus elements dropped off
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,011
1,355
I hate to say "this will never happen" twice in the same thread, but why would anyone buy a 28-280 2.8 when it will weigh 10 lbs? Superzooms, which go wide (as opposed to tele zooms), should be usable for run and gun photography because they're light and handy enough to let you move and shoot quickly while not being slowed down by lens changes, etc.
The lens can be useful when someone runs into you.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,011
1,355
Are there any super zooms or >3x zoom lenses that cross go from wide to tele that have good IQ?
Does Canon's 51x 8k broadcast lens count?

If any of those patents turn into lenses, I expect all of them to have sacrifice IQ for convenience.
I wouldn't call the need to carry a ...-280/2.8 lens "convenience". "Preparedness" might be a better term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,100
281
Does Canon's 51x 8k broadcast lens count?
Fair enough, should have limited my statement to DSLR / MILC lenses, priced a tad lower than broadcast lenses.

I wouldn't call the need to carry a ...-280/2.8 lens "convenience". "Preparedness" might be a better term.
One could be prepared with a 24-70mm f/2.8 + 70-200mm f/2.8 + 300mm f/2.8, and one could - if the patent ever makes into production - use one convenient lens that covers all the focal range without switching lenses.
 

AccipiterQ

EOS 90D
Sep 11, 2014
129
166
28-280 f2.8......my body is ready. If they pull that off with excellent IQ I'd buy an R series camera just to pair it with.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
435
569
For sure, and reading your title, you're a photojournalist, so I trust you know what you're talking about.

I will say that to me, as someone who has done some events and sports work, I would feel fine using the proposed lens to capture distant action (as with the 120-300 2.8) and feel OK using it at wide-ish angles to capture (say) a sports arena. However, I imagine I would feel incredibly constricted swinging that lens around at around 28-50mm trying to get shots of close-up action if the ball got near me. I'd much rather reach for a second body where I'd have a fast prime ready.
Appreciate it!

One of the news guys I've worked around who works Ravens games swears by the Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 for this reason. I think I would have reacted far differently to this lens before seeing how much he loves that lens, even despite it being f/4.5 at best and mostly 6.3. He posted an example the one time of where he got a shot from 600mm and then swung out to 60mm to get the celebration that happened simultaneously right next to him, and it was really impressive.

There's a lot of scenarios I've been in where I have a 24-70, 70-200, and 300 2.8 all on different cameras, and in the time I've swung up the 70-200 or 24-70 the action has either passed or has gotten too close. In that case, I find myself very rarely actually using the 24-70 to get action just because it requires me to take my eye off the action/shutter to pull the camera up quickly.

I think ideally this lens would be the kinda thing that would replace all three for when you're not too agile on the sidelines, and would let me put a fast prime like a 35mm 1.4 on a second camera for moments I need some agility, instead of using my three cameras just to cover the bare minimum range I need. Or a 16-35mm on another camera for the end of the game celebrations, while this acts a lot like the 300mm f/2.8 for the rest of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia