Patent: Ultra-wide zoom lenses for the RF mount, including an RF 9-24mm f/4

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,682
550
I'll accept.

Here is shot of the entrance to a university. The building is very close to the entrance gates. This first shot was taken at 26mm, so you could imagine what it would look like at 50mm.
View attachment 196612


The building would totally overwhelm the arch.

Instead, I wanted the arch to frame the building, so I employed a Laowa 9mm 5.6 lens on a Sony a7rIII fullframe camera.

View attachment 196613 Definitely some distortion present, but I wouldn't call it "ridiculous projection".

Here is the image after a little cleanup and cropping that I ended up using.

View attachment 196611
So for me, a 9mm has a place in my kit especially if Canon can produce one with much better edge sharpness.
Well done and thanks for the education. I also was under the impression that 9mm would be horribly distorted. Appreciate.
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,258
2,524
There are some incredibly clever images shot with circular fisheyes and even ff fisheyes, so yes, of course there will be a few killer 9mm rectilinear images, but as I have already said, not the number putting it on a volume production zoom would suggest.
OK, I would prefer to see what the different lens producers will offer to the photography community and how their offer would be accepted. How their offer is influencing their bank account: I really think it's their problem - they have the tools to predict it right (or wrong in terms of that bank account!).
But concerning the pure photography: What was less (or so...) since Tamron put on the scene their 150-600 is now a relatively blooming "niche". Why not with a 9mm zoom and the new perspectives (despite far more difficult but never underestimate the people around...)? You may see just a few "...incredibly clever images..." in the beginning but I'm sure they will increase with the time - and the number of people involved!
Whatever - if you think it's a risky move from Canon as a company - I would agree! If the images that we will see (if it happens!) in the future are just few worth of seeing NO - they will get more and more (huh - depends on the prize of the lens!)!
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
707
330
I am waiting for them to intro the 10-24 and the 15-35 f4. These are two lenses I use a lot in EF.
The EF lenses are very sharp but the RF specific versions would be lighter and hopefully smaller and sharper.

The current 1-35 f2.8 is no doubt a brilliant lens but is larger than the 24-105.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rivermist

Canfan

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 17, 2019
54
51
I’d challenge anybody to show me images shot with a rectilinear 9mm lens on a ff camera that weren’t ridiculous projection distortions of reality.

I like the lens and it very much serves a purpose, but even using 11mm is a technical challenge that most honest people who own and use it will attest to. 9mm sounds more like a headline than a useful specification, a bit like 1,000,000 iso. Yes there will be a very few people who can and will use the feature but in truth it won’t be used effectively by most people.
This lens might be intended for crop frame or a fish eye to replace the EF 8-15mm. We should reserve judgement until we know more.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,671
4,161
This lens might be intended for crop frame or a fish eye to replace the EF 8-15mm. We should reserve judgement until we know more.
If it was a fisheye zoom I doubt 9mm would give you a full circle on a ff. But sure, my point wasn’t to speculate on what it is, it was merely pointing out if it was a rectilinear design it soiunds more like a headline than a useful feature.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,671
4,161
Would anybody like to take a guess at what focal length was used for this shot? It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.

1617712182637.png
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Would anybody like to take a guess at what focal length was used for this shot? It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.

View attachment 196749
I'll take up the challenge. Although it is quite a wide angle of view in terms of the scene the size of the crazy paving slabs is not exaggerated close to the camera. There is some distortion as the camera is being pointed down but it's not that great. I don't know if the pool really slopes off into the 9' area or not. Also looking at the size of the sun loungers I suspect it's not a very large pool, and the size of the boulder features around the pool are pretty consistent in size. so I'm going to say between 24 & 28mm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
618
1,236
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
Would anybody like to take a guess at what focal length was used for this shot? It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.
Rather hard to say, because there are no straight lines (except the trees) and not comparable front and back object. Some clues are that:
(1) the photographer's shadows indicates that a rather small lens is used!
(2) Trees at the back are falling back and falling inwards, so it should be semi-wide lens.
(3) The front bottom stair is longer than the ones behind it, so again semi-wide lens.
(4) It has the look and feel of a 35mm image.
So my best guess is 35mm lens.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,671
4,161
Thanks for playing along Sporgon and bhf3737, I appreciate the engagement, it always surprises me how few people are prepared to put their observations on the line given how opinionated most of us here are (and I include myself in that!)

It was a 15mm full frame fisheye. I didn't post it to catch people out but to illustrate you can shoot hyper wide without apparent obvious distortion, but it is very tricky and rare and most of the time there are real giveaways.

It really boils down to my original post/point, I don't see a rectilinear 9mm on FF being much use to practically anybody pretty much ever, I see it more of a headline grabber than a practical tool. And given you can already get very good results with current lenses on the rare occasions that fov is needed I believe those that can do it effectively already are.

That doesn't diminish the 'artistic' aspect a 9mm lens could offer, where you can push reality and exaggerate aspects within the frame in unusual ways, but I really don't see that kind of use as anything more than an extreme style few could use to original benefit.

Maybe I'm blowing smoke, sounding old, or verging on becoming a Luddite, but it really does feel to me we have gone well beyond the point of diminishing returns with camera gear at this point and people 'want' and 'need' features not because they actually need them but because it is 1mm wider or has 20 more mp.

1617815434012.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
:giggle: Crafty Private ! So the bottom of the pool doesn't really slope off severely as it does in the picture ! It fooled me because of the (I think) 9'4" depth plate. Without this though, impressive lack of distortion.

(I guess the "small lens" is your dark glasses) :D
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,671
4,161
:giggle: Crafty Private ! So the bottom of the pool doesn't really slope off severely as it does in the picture ! It fooled me because of the (I think) 9'4" depth plate. Without this though, impressive lack of distortion.

(I guess the "small lens" is your dark glasses) :D
Hi sporgon,

I think you are looking at the depth upside down, I think it is 4’ 6”. The shadow is me handholding a 1DS MkIII and the 15mm, it was actually a scouting shoot at a resort.

With care I find the 15mm to be a superb little lens and it blew the socks off two different copies of the EF 14mm f2.8 II’s that I tried out before I got the 11-24. With decent defishing it is even more flexible, and an f2.8, and cheap.....
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Hi sporgon,

I think you are looking at the depth upside down, I think it is 4’ 6”. The shadow is me handholding a 1DS MkIII and the 15mm, it was actually a scouting shoot at a resort.

With care I find the 15mm to be a superb little lens and it blew the socks off two different copies of the EF 14mm f2.8 II’s that I tried out before I got the 11-24. With decent defishing it is even more flexible, and an f2.8,
Ah yes I should have paid more attention......

Anyway I have a bone to pick with you.............
It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.
So it was actually defished. OK so maybe a 'basic' Lightroom correction, but hardly in the spirit of the sentence. You're not a politician are you Private ? You're not running for Governor of Florida by any chance ? :)

and cheap.....
You know me so well.......;)
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,671
4,161
So it was actually defished. OK so maybe a 'basic' Lightroom correction, but hardly in the spirit of the sentence. You're not a politician are you Private ? You're not running for Governor of Florida by any chance ? :)
No, it was NOT defished.

I do use defishing, and it adds to the lenses uses, but this shot was not defished. Honestly just pushed the ‘Auto’ button in the Basic panel, lifted the shadows slightly and cropped for a levelish horizon. To be honest the horizon was the thing I thought might give it away, I was so far off level it has a curve to it, had I been better at holding the camera level it would have been even ‘better’.
 
<-- start Taboola -->