svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Patent: Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L and Canon RF 8-24mm f/4L Fisheye

    Patent: Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L and Canon RF 8-24mm f/4L Fisheye

    By 65 Comments1 Min Read Canon Patents

    Keith over at Northlight Images has uncovered some optical formulat patents for lenses that are likely to arrive over the next year or so. One being an RF 11-24mm f/4L, which is definitely needed in the RF lineup. A Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L has been on our roadmap for quite some time.

    The second is a zoom fisheye lens that builds off the Canon RF 8-15mm f/4L USM. The optical formula in the patent is for a Canon RF 8-24mm f/4L USM, which sounds like a very cool lens. As with the EF version of the zoom fisheye, it will work as a circular fisheye on a full-frame sensor and as a ‘normal' fisheye on the crop sensors found in the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10.

    Canon 11-24mm f/4L USM optical formula

    • Focal Length: 11.33mm – 23.30mm
    • F-Number: 4.08
    • Half Angle of View: 59.63° – 42.88°
    • Image Height: 21.64mm
    • Entire Lens Length: 135.40mm – 130.90mm (front element to image sensor)

    Canon 8-24mm f/4L USM optical formula

    • Focal Length:
    • F-Number: 4.08
    • Half Angle of View:
    • Image Height: 21.64mm
    • Entire Lens Length:

     

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    65 comments

    1. The EF 11-24 is a wonderful lens, often considered to buy one. I would ceratainly not purchase the RF-Version, because it will probably cost twice the EF and have crazy vignetting.
    2. Adapting the EF 11-24L to an R body allows use of the drop-in CPL and vND filters. Would Canon release an RF 11-24/4 that (based on spec, at least) has no advantage over the EF version? I wouldn't buy one. In this case, the native mount seems to be a disadvantage.
    5. Unless there are dramatic improvements in lens optics, size and weight and a way to easily filter the RF version, I will stick with my EF. I was hoping for wider (10 mm) and or faster lens in the RF mount. If neither becomes a reality I will pass on this lens.

      Still hoping Canon will produce an UWA fast prime or zoom for astrophotography. 14 mm or wider and f 2.8 or faster. This has been a missing element of the Canon lens lineup forever. At least in EF mount Sigma and Rokinon filled the gap. Would be nice to have a native RF mount option. If it is not to be, I will continue to adapt my EF lenses.

      Bob
    6. Adapting the EF 11-24L to an R body allows use of the drop-in CPL and vND filters. Would Canon release an RF 11-24/4 that (based on spec, at least) has no advantage over the EF version? I wouldn't buy one. In this case, the native mount seems to be a disadvantage.
      Is it not possible that Canon could design an RF lens with a drop-in filter slot?
    7. Still hoping Canon will produce an UWA fast prime or zoom for astrophotography. 14 mm or wider and f 2.8 or faster. This has been a missing element of the Canon lens lineup forever.
      And canon should counter the Sony offering…
      So at least a 14mm F1.8 or something similar. I’m hoping for a 12mm F2. That’d be awesome. i believe tjis lens could come because the UWA zooms have become wider. I also believe the RF 10-24mm will be released and it’llweigh a lot less than it’s EF version.
    8. Is it not possible that Canon could design an RF lens with a drop-in filter slot?
      Yes, it is possible. But Canon did not design the RF lens in this patent that way. The back focus distance is 13.6 mm, so the rear element of the lens is already inside the camera body.

      The RF 11-24/4 lens in this patent, assuming it has a built-in hood like the EF version, seems to be only <1 cm shorter than the EF version. It does appear the RF lens will have smaller diameter front element groups, and since that’s a big chunk of glass the RF version will likely be much lighter.

      That also suggests some reliance on digital corrections as seen with the RF 14-35/4L.
    10. Yes, it is possible. But Canon did not design the RF lens in this patent that way. The back focus distance is 13.6 mm, so the rear element of the lens is already inside the camera body.

      The RF 11-24/4 lens in this patent, assuming it has a built-in hood like the EF version, seems to be only <1 cm shorter than the EF version. It does appear the RF lens will have smaller diameter front element groups, and since that’s a big chunk of glass the RF version will likely be much lighter.

      That also suggests some reliance on digital corrections as seen with the RF 14-35/4L.
      I know that drop-in filters are traditionally positioned at the rear of the lens, so yes, that makes sense. I'm not an expert on optical design, so is there any reason why a lens couldn't be designed to have a drop-in filter *between* the elements?
    11. I know that drop-in filters are traditionally positioned at the rear of the lens, so yes, that makes sense. I'm not an expert on optical design, so is there any reason why a lens couldn't be designed to have a drop-in filter *between* the elements?
      No idea, but I wouldn’t want a slot in the middle of a lens with no way of clearing the inevitable dust. I know dust specks don’t affect image quality but why borrow trouble?
    12. I know that drop-in filters are traditionally positioned at the rear of the lens, so yes, that makes sense. I'm not an expert on optical design, so is there any reason why a lens couldn't be designed to have a drop-in filter *between* the elements?
      Likely possible from an optical standpoint. In this case, that ‘open space’ in the middle is where the front group retracts during zooming (the diagram shows the lens at its most extended, which for this design is 11 mm).

      Also, from a practical standpoint that location on the barrel is where you find things like the zoom and focus rings. Seems unlikely that Canon would make a zoom ring or focus ring really skinny to accommodate a drop in filter.

      This patent design may not be the one to become a product. But if it is, it won’t feature a drop in filter. You seem insistent on highlighting the possibility of including one. I’m not disputing the possibility, I’m just saying this patent design is not going to give you what you hope for.
    14. Hi all- I own a Canon R5 and several RF lenses including the RF 15-35mm F2,8 (which I use for landscape and astrophotography/Milky Way) and many more RF lenses....

      I purchased the EF Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Lens because as today, there is NOT in the market a sort of real fisheye (circular effect lens) for my R5 full frame lens.
      However I have found out that when I use this EF fisheye lens as 15 degree, I get similar view as the RF 15-35. When I move to the 12-8mm area, the image get distorted (which is what I like) BUT I also get a lot "crap"/unwanted things at the edges... In essence the lens get part of the edges of the lens within the image itself, which is of course horrible.

      I guess the reason is because this lens works best on APSC sensor, while with full frames you do not get real and clean 180 degree image. Am I correct???

      Will be the RF 11-24mm f/4L able to provide a fully "clean" 180 degree image on my FF R5 without seeing any unwanted object in the image?

      For atrophotography I wish there was in the market something around 10-12mm f2,8 even manual focus as my RF 15-35mm f2,8 sometimes is not too wide)....
    15. The 8-24mm interests me as I shoot fisheye a lot. I've had the 8-15mm since it came out 10years ago, and it is a wonderful lens. One thing I liked about it was shooting on a crop camera you had a FF fisheye at 10mm and at 15, some fisheye remained but not so much that you could not correct it in photoshop with minimal loss. I imagine the 24m end working the same but on FF.

      But if I'm being honest I'd prefer more range on the wide end.
    16. I purchased the EF Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Lens because as today, there is NOT in the market a sort of real fisheye (circular effect lens) for my R5 full frame lens.

      Canon hasn't converted the FD 7.5mm f/5.6 to EF, and never made a fisheye in EF-S. Apparently fisheyes are too niche, which is why Canon covered it with one zoom lens.

      Will be the RF 11-24mm f/4L able to provide a fully "clean" 180 degree image on my FF R5 without seeing any unwanted object in the image?
      On FF, 11mm has an angle of view of 125 degrees.

      For a rectilinear lens to have a 180 degrees image, its focal length must be 0mm. Don't hold your breath waiting for one.
    17. Sorry Anton, I do not follow understood your kind feedback. In essence if I sell my EF 8-15 and buy when out the RF 8-24mm, I will a much better wide/wish eye look image on my Canon R5 than using the old EF 8-15mm? I will still get at 8mm part of the lens at the endges or not? I will almost get a real 180 or as you say 125 degree image, much wider than current RF 15-35mm f2,8? Worth to buy eventually this lens for some unique images?
    18. Sorry Anton, I do not follow understood your kind feedback. In essence if I sell my EF 8-15 and buy when out the RF 8-24mm, I will a much better wide/wish eye look image on my Canon R5 than using the old EF 8-15mm? I will still get at 8mm part of the lens at the endges or not? I will almost get a real 180 or as you say 125 degree image, much wider than current RF 15-35mm f2,8? Worth to buy eventually this lens for some unique images?
      No, 8mm circular fisheye for FF is the same regardless of mount.

      Its the 11-24mm which will have a 125 degree image.
    19. So in essence, would the 8-24mm RF lens provide better image than the EF 8-15 in terms of:
      1. vignetting,
      2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment