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

[cayenne]

I've got the 11-14, but I must admit MOST of my shots with it, have been concert shots....often a guitarist close to the stage where I am, front foot extended onto pedal and I get them in that kinda classic Jimi Hendrix type distorted shot with lens on the stage getting them all in the frame from the stage monitors to the top of their head.

I just like that look.

Other than concert shots to get a quick interesting look at the whole stage in one shot from the pit....not sure what else I'd be using it for.

What all do ya'll use the 11-14L lens from Canon for? I'm curious?

cayenne

 

[Peter Bergh]

Hi. I am a EOS R5 and few RF lenses
Since I need a very wide lens I purchased the EF 8-15. Do you think Canon will make soon (i.e., in about 1 year time) a similar RF lens like the RF 8-16mm? Shall i sell the EF?

"Predicting is hard, especially the future." (Yogi Berra) Do not sell the EF until you have actually seen and held the RF near-equivalent.

 

[privatebydesign]

Having just purchased the aptly named Laowa 9mm Dreamer
I will politely decline your challlenge

I applaud your honesty sir! All the best and have fun with that Laowa, they make some very interesting optics.

 

[Billybob]

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.

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.



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.

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.


So for me, a 9mm has a place in my kit especially if Canon can produce one with much better edge sharpness.

 

[privatebydesign]

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 196613Definitely 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.

I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate the fact that to get that perspective of the building clear of the gate pillars and arch that is what you had to use, but don’t you think the corners make it look like you are falling into the picture like a 60’s tv sci-fi special effect? Everything outside the brick pillars is what I am talking about.

 

[RobbieHat]

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 196613Definitely 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.

That's impressive. Love that shot through the gate at the UWA. Creates a very inviting view through the image. I struggle with my 11-24 as well and this certainly is a good example of the power of the wide end of that lens!

Bob

 

[degos]

I check this site every day hoping it will say, “50mm 1.4 L built from the ground up to be a fast and lightweight lens with perfect optics available now at your local store for $800.”

No no, SigmaRumors is that way --->

 

[Billybob]

I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate the fact that to get that perspective of the building clear of the gate pillars and arch that is what you had to use, but don’t you think the corners make it look like you are falling into the picture like a 60’s tv sci-fi special effect? Everything outside the brick pillars is what I am talking about.

Hmm, no.

What I see here is the very high softness on the edge of the frame similar but worst than what I use to get with my 17-40L. It would have been improved if stopped down to f8 or f11 but probably not completely eliminated.

I suspect that a Canon lens would not be nearly so flawed exhibiting far less falloff in sharpness than this $800 lens.

 

[Gazwas]

These sound like lenses designed with the new RF S35 cinema cameras in mind that will inevitably come.

No need for an adapter and keeps users with one line of lenses that Canon can charge even more for.

 

[SteveC]

Hmm, no.

What I see here is the very high softness on the edge of the frame similar but worst than what I use to get with my 17-40L. It would have been improved if stopped down to f8 or f11 but probably not completely eliminated.

I suspect that a Canon lens would not be nearly so flawed exhibiting far less falloff in sharpness than this $800 lens.

I'm going to agree with PBD on this one. I can't put my finger on it like he could, but there's something fake looking about the last images. It looks like in editing you did something to straighten the right wall/pillar, and the building actually ends up looking like it tapers to the bottom. Perhaps that's just an optical illusion. It does look very "skinny" one way or another.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I'm going to agree with PBD on this one. I can't put my finger on it like he could, but there's something fake looking about the last images. It looks like in editing you did something to straighten the right wall/pillar, and the building actually ends up looking like it tapers to the bottom. Perhaps that's just an optical illusion. It does look very "skinny" one way or another.

What I see is the same thing as all wider lenses, that my brain accepts but doesn't exactly thrill over - you can't keep everything straight up and down at the best of times. Isn't that why tilt/shift exists? To me it's not whether you've got reality it's more whether it's reasonably pleasing or perhaps just functional in showing more of a small room. In this shot, it accomplishes the desired purpose but certainly the building will not present that well. I can't differentiate the technical qualities like Scott does but I've never regretted having 11mm for those certain situations. I often end up cropping to a kind of panoramic format.

But what do I know!

Jack

 

[privatebydesign]

Hmm, no.

What I see here is the very high softness on the edge of the frame similar but worst than what I use to get with my 17-40L. It would have been improved if stopped down to f8 or f11 but probably not completely eliminated.

I suspect that a Canon lens would not be nearly so flawed exhibiting far less falloff in sharpness than this $800 lens.

I'm not trying to insult the image, the frame in the bottom right corner is a square? Yet it doesn't look like it. The foliage on the left and right of the pillars has a ripped and stretched appearance, not just blurred. These are not lens diistortions as in errors, it is projection distortion in that the spacial representation of straight lines in a curved space is impossible to draw on an unbroken flat surface. That is why we have globes.

For anybody that knows the building it is a gross distortion caused by perspective and projection distortions.

Now some people might have rare uses for a 9mm rectilinear, but I stand by my assertions that putting it on a volume zoom is merely a headline grabber not a more general requirement.

 

[Billybob]

What I see is the same thing as all wider lenses, that my brain accepts but doesn't exactly thrill over - you can't keep everything straight up and down at the best of times. Isn't that why tilt/shift exists? To me it's not whether you've got reality it's more whether it's reasonably pleasing or perhaps just functional in showing more of a small room. In this shot, it accomplishes the desired purpose but certainly the building will not present that well. I can't differentiate the technical qualities like Scott does but I've never regretted having 11mm for those certain situations. I often end up cropping to a kind of panoramic format.

But what do I know!

Jack

Okay, no it isn't going to look like reality. It isn't real; we don't see in UWA. The image does taper from the bottom to the top--both the building and the pillars. I think that this tends to emphasize the arch and provides a bit of a "Wizard of OZ " effect.

Thus, if you're looking for realism--as defined by what you can see with your naked eye--no, you're not getting it with an extreme UWA shot. It will be very stylized at, perhaps, the expense of straight lines. I tend to enjoy images that aren't the common everyday shot. I can understand how you might find such presentations jarring.

 

[Billybob]

I'm not trying to insult the image, the frame in the bottom right corner is a square? Yet it doesn't look like it. The foliage on the left and right of the pillars has a ripped and stretched appearance, not just blurred. These are not lens diistortions as in errors, it is projection distortion in that the spacial representation of straight lines in a curved space is impossible to draw on an unbroken flat surface. That is why we have globes.

For anybody that knows the building it is a gross distortion caused by perspective and projection distortions.

Now some people might have rare uses for a 9mm rectilinear, but I stand by my assertions that putting it on a volume zoom is merely a headline grabber not a more general requirement.

Man you have a good eye!

Yes, the placard on the lower right is more square than rectangular, and of course the building is distorted to fit in the frame. Actually, anyone who knows the building will know that it isn't that far from the gateway and find the juxtaposition from reality either jarring or intriguing, so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure.

You are indeed correct about the foilage being distorted. Cropping to get the worst of the distortion out in the upper right would help, but would not eliminate it.

So, yes, if you demand an exact representation of the structure as it exists, you won't get that with an extreme UW. There will be distortions that cannot be eliminated. Here, the foilage is problematic. However, I do find the "skinny" building as framed by the arch interesting. But clearly someone taking architectural images or real estate shots where straight lines and squared corners are mandatory would not find this image acceptable. But that was not my purpose. Instead, to enjoy this focal length one needs to embrace the distortions and, lol, avoid having foilage in the corners and edges.

 

[privatebydesign]

Man you have a good eye!

Yes, the placard on the lower right is more square than rectangular, and of course the building is distorted to fit in the frame. Actually, anyone who knows the building will know that it isn't that far from the gateway and find the juxtaposition from reality either jarring or intriguing, so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure.

You are indeed correct about the foilage being distorted. Cropping to get the worst of the distortion out in the upper right would help, but would not eliminate it.

So, yes, if you demand an exact representation of the structure as it exists, you won't get that with an extreme UW. There will be distortions that cannot be eliminated. Here, the foilage is problematic. However, I do find the "skinny" building as framed by the arch interesting. But clearly someone taking architectural images or real estate shots where straight lines and squared corners are mandatory would not find this image acceptable. But that was not my purpose. Instead, to enjoy this focal length one needs to embrace the distortions and, lol, avoid having foilage in the corners and edges.

Thanks! Though I suspect others wouldn't be so kind so seriously, thank you.

I got the 11-24 when it came out as I shoot some real estate for developers. At the time the style was ultra wide angle and make the rooms look big so I used the TS-E17 and the 11-24 almost exclusively, but over the last couple of years the style has very much fallen out of favor with the clients I have. Now I use the TS-E50 more than the 11-24 and I use the TS-E17 with a 1.4TC much more than without it. Indeed I'd happily trade the TS-E17 for a TS-E24, though I am glad I bought it when I did.

 

[stevelee]

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 196613Definitely 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.

In the cleaned up version, the building appears to be a bit over corrected. I might have tried doing that part on its own layer and straighten it separately. I wonder how a less extreme version would look, with a lens wide enough to get the building inside the arch, but less distorted. Maybe that would be less fun.

 

[stevelee]

Thanks! Though I suspect others wouldn't be so kind so seriously, thank you.

I got the 11-24 when it came out as I shoot some real estate for developers. At the time the style was ultra wide angle and make the rooms look big so I used the TS-E17 and the 11-24 almost exclusively, but over the last couple of years the style has very much fallen out of favor with the clients I have. Now I use the TS-E50 more than the 11-24 and I use the TS-E17 with a 1.4TC much more than without it. Indeed I'd happily trade the TS-E17 for a TS-E24, though I am glad I bought it when I did.

Last year I rented the 24mm to play with and then a few weeks later I got the 17mm. I never could tame the 17 for interiors. And for other purposes its more limited controls made it not as useful as the 24. If I buy or rent one again, it would definitely be the 24mm. I realize there are pros who swear by the 17, but I don’t have their experience or possibly skill.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Okay, no it isn't going to look like reality. It isn't real; we don't see in UWA. The image does taper from the bottom to the top--both the building and the pillars. I think that this tends to emphasize the arch and provides a bit of a "Wizard of OZ " effect.

Thus, if you're looking for realism--as defined by what you can see with your naked eye--no, you're not getting it with an extreme UWA shot. It will be very stylized at, perhaps, the expense of straight lines. I tend to enjoy images that aren't the common everyday shot. I can understand how you might find such presentations jarring.

I don't dislike the shot. I accept it is a wide perspective-distorted shot that is interesting and furthermore I'm no expert, just an old guy trying to catch up on learning what I should have decades ago. I think it's fun to have these kind of discussions although sometime not as much fun for the person in the lime-lite. Scott will really like this one. It was used to teach some young kids about lens focal lengths.

 

[ISv]

Thanks! Though I suspect others wouldn't be so kind so seriously, thank you.

I got the 11-24 when it came out as I shoot some real estate for developers. At the time the style was ultra wide angle and make the rooms look big so I used the TS-E17 and the 11-24 almost exclusively, but over the last couple of years the style has very much fallen out of favor with the clients I have. Now I use the TS-E50 more than the 11-24 and I use the TS-E17 with a 1.4TC much more than without it. Indeed I'd happily trade the TS-E17 for a TS-E24, though I am glad I bought it when I did.

From Billibob: "...so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure."

Well, the photography use to be an art (not that much for me, sorry - I mean I have a hard time accepting some highly prized draws -forget a photos! Every one who would check my posted photos on CR will see it!). On other hand I would accept that somebody else has a different view - why not?!!!
I mean that "stylized" doesn't means "bad" - You have the choice: "stylized" or "archival"!!! And if they are done good - no one is better (well, question of taste...)!
Honestly I like these photos (despite that personally I'm doing something very different)! I don't care if the idea is old or not (the idea of photography is old too... ). If you have to say something interesting/nice on the same idea - I would accept you!!!
If you have some other, new ideas - welcome, you are opening just one more page in the history of photography (and they are a lot but always welcome)!

 

[privatebydesign]

From Billibob: "...so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure."

Well, the photography use to be an art (not that much for me, sorry - I mean I have a hard time accepting some highly prized draws -forget a photos! Every one who would check my posted photos on CR will see it!). On other hand I would accept that somebody else has a different view - why not?!!!
I mean that "stylized" doesn't means "bad" - You have the choice: "stylized" or "archival"!!! And if they are done good - no one is better (well, question of taste...)!
Honestly I like these photos (despite that personally I'm doing something very different)! I don't care if the idea is old or not (the idea of photography is old too... ). If you have to say something interesting/nice on the same idea - I would accept you!!!
If you have some other, new ideas - welcome, you are opening just one more page in the history of photography (and they are a lot but always welcome)!

Of course artistic representations are entirely valid and need no justification. To me, however, the vast majority of ultra wide angle images (sub 14mm ff) have the same artistic quality, and will probably age as well, as early HDR composites and faded square images with faux rounded corners.

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.