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

Wow, that 28-280mm f/2.8 is almost the length of a 400mm f/2.8, but it's an internal zoom.

I honestly could imagine this lens becoming a reality at some point, no joke. Imagine the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses of other companies but able to go all the way out to 28mm. That would be an *absolutely* killer sports lens, and the size wouldn't be an issue as the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses are already 297.6mm in length, so only 40mm shorter.

I know not all patents become a reality, but I definitely think there's a market for this in sports/wildlife/news that would turn this into a big deal. 28-200mm f/2.8 would be great on its own, but I think Canon having this go out to 280mm makes it a lot more likely people would deal with the extra weight.

That 28-280 f2.8, One lens to rule them all, one lens to find them, One lens to bring them all and in the darkness shoot.

I noticed that the image height is reduced at the wide end on these lenses. Does that mean that post-processing will be used to s t r e t c h the corners to match the indicated focal length?

As an APS-C shooter, the 17-170mm 3.5 would be so nice to have

H. Jones said:

Wow, that 28-280mm f/2.8 is almost the length of a 400mm f/2.8, but it's an internal zoom.

I honestly could imagine this lens becoming a reality at some point, no joke. Imagine the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses of other companies but able to go all the way out to 28mm. That would be an *absolutely* killer sports lens, and the size wouldn't be an issue as the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses are already 297.6mm in length, so only 40mm shorter.

I know not all patents become a reality, but I definitely think there's a market for this in sports/wildlife/news that would turn this into a big deal. 28-200mm f/2.8 would be great on its own, but I think Canon having this go out to 280mm makes it a lot more likely people would deal with the extra weight.

Click to expand...

Tom W said:

I noticed that the image height is reduced at the wide end on these lenses. Does that mean that post-processing will be used to s t r e t c h the corners to match the indicated focal length?

Click to expand...

yes. Craig didn't copy that over from my site, but yes, all these lenses have stretching happening on the wide end.

Looks like some very versatile lenses but honestly nothing I would expect brilliant image quality from...

I can imagine though that these will make the EOS R* system a cash cow for Canon... in the middle of the shrinking market.

canonnews said:

yes. Craig didn't copy that over from my site, but yes, all these lenses have stretching happening on the wide end.

Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about the "stretching" method. On the one hand, if you rarely use the wide end and just want to grab the occasional snapshot with it, then maybe it's acceptable. But it is a lossy method. How much is lost, I don't know. Simple distortion correction does eat up a little resolution too, but it's an acceptable amount of loss.

katinga said:

As an APS-C shooter, the 17-170mm 3.5 would be so nice to have

Click to expand...

Is it giving us that much more over the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is stm or 55-250mm f/4-5.6 is stm? The constant aperture is nice, no question. It is two stops brighter on the long end. I could definitely see myself getting one. But... are we really hurting on the general purpose travel/telephoto end?

We'd be better off with a refresh of the 17-55mm f2.8 with improved IQ, five stops of IS, and get it down to f1.8 to really breathe new life into EF-S/APS-C. Come on, Canon, the market wants it, your superb lens team can deliver it, JUST DO IT.

As I recall the 24-240 has a LOT of distortion.

So much that it would be unusable on an optical view finder, and Canon had to adjust camera firmware to do the adjustments for the EVF as well.

SteveC said:

As I recall the 24-240 has a LOT of distortion.

So much that it would be unusable on an optical view finder, and Canon had to adjust camera firmware to do the adjustments for the EVF as well.

Click to expand...

yes, the magic of mirrorless

28-240 f2.8 is a good sign that Canon is serious about a sports/action oriented R. Of course such a lens would be crazy expensive, but I can image it becoming the go-to lens for indoor sports shooters who can afford it.

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

I'd be happy with an RF 24-105 f/2.8. Although that 28-280 sounds amazing, I have looked at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 S. Reasonably priced when a used copy comes on the market

Photorex said:

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

Click to expand...

I would truly not get your hopes up for the rumored EF/RF body, yet.

It feels wrong to have lenses that force you to use a crop on a FF body. But it seems to allow pushing the Canon lens lineup into unseen before territory... I don't know. Canon are supposed to be the kings of lens development, but it also seems like they are embracing the amount of compromise they can get away with on the R system a bit too much. Like how much vignetting there is and now this trend of having essentially straight up black corners in wide angle lenses...

Joules said:

It feels wrong to have lenses that force you to use a crop on a FF body. But it seems to allow pushing the Canon lens lineup into unseen before territory... I don't know. Canon are supposed to be the kings of lens development, but it also seems like they are embracing the amount of compromise they can get away with on the R system a bit too much. Like how much vignetting there is and now this trend of having essentially straight up black corners in wide angle lenses...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

CanonFanBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Joules said:

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!

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to step on your opinion, just what others have said in other tests and from my own personal experience. Since the lenses aren't even in production yet, I assumed you were talking about what has already been manufactured. Thank you for the clarification. I know nothing about the technical side and how Canon does what Canon does. I just take photos and judge the end result.