# Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/patent-ef-16-35-f4l-17-40-f4l-and-others/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/patent-ef-16-35-f4l-17-40-f4l-and-others/">Tweet</a></div>
A slew of patents showing various wide angle optical formulas has appeared. All of the lenses appear to be for full frame and could be hints of replacements for the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 17-40 f/4L</a> as well as the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 16-35 f/2.8L II</a>.</p>
<ul>
<li><span>Patent Publication No. 2014-41245</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Publication date 2014.3.6</span></li>
<li><span>Filing date 2012.8.22</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 1</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 16.49-23.55-33.95mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 4.10</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 52.68-42.57-32.51 °</span></li>
<li><span>14 pieces of 10-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 2</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 17.50-25.45-38.90mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 4.10</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 51.03-40.36-29.08 °</span></li>
<li><span>15 pieces of 11-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 4</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 17.50-24.82-38.89mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 2.88-3.25-4.10</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 51.02-41.08-29.09 °</span></li>
<li><span>15 pieces of 11-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 5</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Focal length f = 16.50-25.34-34.00mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 2.91</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 52.66-40.49-32.47 °</span></li>
<li><span>15 pieces of 11-group lens configuration</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Canon</span><span> patents</span>
<ul>
<li><span>4-group zoom of positive and negative positive negative</span></li>
<li><span>Inner focus</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-03-10" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 17-40 f/4L</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Woody (Mar 10, 2014)

I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight.


----------



## wjm (Mar 10, 2014)

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ... 

Would be nice on my APS-C (=25-80 (eqv) 'standard' lens) and my full frame (=wide angle). Would probably be an instant buy ...


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Let's not forget the obvious too: 16-35 f/2.8L III


----------



## wjm (Mar 10, 2014)

Woody said:


> I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight.



And half the price?


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

wjm said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight.
> ...


 ;D Not so Canon ... ;D


----------



## Pixel (Mar 10, 2014)

Just give me a sharp, low distortion wide angle. That's all I ask for.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 10, 2014)

A refresh is needed since both have pretty soft corners - which is usually an undesired feature in WA or UWA lens.

In fact a corner-to-corner sharp 16-35/2.8 would replace the need for a Nikon-like 14-24mm that Canon users sometimes feel the need for.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> A refresh is needed since both have pretty soft corners - which is usually an undesired feature in WA or UWA lens.
> 
> In fact a corner-to-corner sharp 16-35/2.8 would replace the need for a Nikon-like 14-24mm that Canon users sometimes feel the need for.


+1 EXACTLY!


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 10, 2014)

Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?

I like my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot and haven't noticed any problems with it.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Caps18 said:


> Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?
> 
> I like my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot and haven't noticed any problems with it.


Do you use it for astrophotography fully open?


----------



## Woody (Mar 10, 2014)

wjm said:


> I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...



I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh


----------



## Mantanuska (Mar 10, 2014)

The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 10, 2014)

Mantanuska said:


> The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.



You are comparing two different lenses on two different formats. It's not a reasonable comparison. 
Yes, there's room for an update. But it's not a critical update. The current 17-40L and 16-35IIL are both very strong and capable performers.


----------



## pedro (Mar 10, 2014)

Maybe the appearance of a 16-35 F/4 patent is a hint for a later 12-24 F/2.8 which would complement and complete the 24-70, 70-200 line up. Hope they'll go for it.


----------



## preppyak (Mar 10, 2014)

Caps18 said:


> Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?


Cost alone is the reason a lot of people go for the 17-40 vs the 16-35 right now; unless you really need the f/2.8, then it isnt worth the extra money. I'd say size and weight are lower priorities, though they certainly add up for landscapers who take long hikes, etc.


----------



## LuCoOc (Mar 10, 2014)

Woody said:


> wjm said:
> 
> 
> > I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...
> ...



How about this source of imagination:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=538


----------



## jhanken (Mar 10, 2014)

When did anyone last see a patent for a large aperture lens from Canon? This is more of an issue with primes, but the idea that they are looking at a 16-35MM F/4 is odd but fits with the trend we have seen in smaller aperture primes.

I am not big on conspiracy theories, but it makes sense that Canon is pursuing smaller apertures and throwing in gew-gaws like IS on wide angle lenses because the real cost is in the glass, and Canon needs to boost margins where they can, given the crazy collapse that seems to be occurring in the photo equipment market.

Interesting that Sigma is going in the opposite direction and pushing the envelope on lens development.

And yes, I did notice that not all of the patents listed represented a shrinking of aperture.


----------



## endiendo (Mar 10, 2014)

I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

endiendo said:


> I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
> And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
> Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.
> 
> ...


So the big question then is? How much sharp 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4 are at the corners at say f/8?
Also, 2.8 is useful for astrophotography. But then the lenses must be coma free and both Canon ultra wide angle zoom lenses have plenty...


----------



## rs (Mar 10, 2014)

endiendo said:


> But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.
> 
> You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.


Events (plus of course other examples like astrophotography mentioned above). Sometimes you need a wider angle of view than 24mm, and sometimes light levels are too for the subject movement, and flashes aren't always appropriate. While bodies are getting better and better at high ISO's, adding a whole stop of light gathering with the lens is quite attractive.

Yes, landscape, architecture and many other uses for an ultrawide rectilinear lens don't go hand in hand with a fast aperture, but just because it isn't for you doesn't mean not for anyone.


----------



## BL (Mar 10, 2014)

It's a shame these patents don't offer IS...

How long will Canon's 11-22mm M zoom be it's only UWA zoom offering with IS?


----------



## docsmith (Mar 10, 2014)

endiendo said:


> But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.



As has been pointed out, astrophotography, and events, in particular, think of a wedding inside a church. Wide angles are often used to get the entire "scene," even indoors. But, understandably so, many often only associate these lenses with UWA, but f/2.8 at 24-35 mm can be very beneficial. These are not exclusively landscape lenses.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 10, 2014)

No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.
Actually if any of these turn out to have really well controlled distortion with excellent corners I would probably like to have one, the Sigma 18-35 works but to have something made for full frame would be a big improvement on architecture shots.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm a huge fan of the 17-40L. Mine had to go into Canon twice, though, and they still couldn't get it right. Luckily, micro adjust saved the day.

I've always been thrilled with the colors from this lens, even compared to other L's. I have no actual hard data to verify why I feel this way, but I do. It's especially pleasing with a good CP.

For me to upgrade, I'd need to see a 16-40 IS, or a 12-24 2.8.


----------



## BL (Mar 10, 2014)

9VIII said:


> No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.



Are you being serious? Any idea how expensive or cumbersome said lens would be?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 10, 2014)

endiendo said:


> But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.
> 
> You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.



I'd like my 8-15L f4 to be a 2.8. iso 3200 vs. 6400. Big difference.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 10, 2014)

endiendo said:


> I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
> And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
> Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.
> 
> ...



Group Shots or wide social shots, especially for wedding work


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 10, 2014)

Woody said:


> wjm said:
> 
> 
> > I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...
> ...



While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Mar 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > wjm said:
> ...



Not everyone wants to hike with a tripod. I do a lot of forest hikes where I go minimalistic on the equipment. Forest environments were tailored for UWA lenses. Having IS would be great.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 10, 2014)

BL said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.
> ...



Sigma makes a 20mmf1.8 that's reasonably sized, and there's 24mmf1.4 lenses all over the place, how hard could 18mmf2 really be?
I agree though, to do a proper job the Nikkor 14-24 is probably a good example of the necessary size.
People would still love it though.


----------



## BL (Mar 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.



When I travel Europe, I love to photograph castles, churches, museums, (anything dimly lit and indoors) places that never allow pods of any kind.


----------



## wjm (Mar 10, 2014)

LuCoOc said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > wjm said:
> ...



But that is a f5.6. I want a f4 

There were rumors before of a 16-50:http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=16-50+is] [url]http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=16-50+is[/url]


----------



## wjm (Mar 10, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



Yes, and even if you can bring a tripod: _if_ IS can do the job why not use it? It is both technology to help the photographer. I don't always know what position I get in and I don't want to carry a tripod all the time (IS is a lot easier).

Futhermore: IS is handy for (quick) 'creative' stills and video in general. Not all people want it but to say: "put it on a pod, end of story" ... no ...


----------



## lightthief (Mar 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > wjm said:
> ...



Yes, please travel to Rome and use your tripod inside the Basilika St. Peter - i'm sure the Switzer Guard will show you how they use guys like you, their tripods an a handfull of vaseline...

End of story.


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 10, 2014)

tron said:


> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?
> ...



I have before. Long exposures in national parks out West for instance. I carried it down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon a few years ago (with a tripod even).


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Caps18 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Caps18 said:
> ...


Well if you used it for astrophotography at 2.8 you will have seen coma in the form of stars looking like...seagulls  just like this guy:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens16-17mm.html


----------



## Mantanuska (Mar 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Mantanuska said:
> 
> 
> > The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.
> ...



FF should be sharper than APS-C all other things being equal. the fact that I had better sharpness just means that the 17-40 is just that much worse.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 10, 2014)

wow how incredibly underwhelming :


----------



## canonographer (Mar 11, 2014)

I really hope they deliver on the 16-50mm f/4 IS. That would really be something interesting and new. It would make for a nice walk-around and landscape lens. I've been building a whole new lens plan based on the idea of having one.

A super sharp 16-35mm f/4 would be okay, assuming it's priced right, but still a bit of let down. The 35mm end would still be okay for a general purpose walk-around lens, but just a bit too wide to really feel like a fun general purpose lens.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2014)

i have no idea why canon suddenly hate wide aperture lenses. :'(


----------



## BL (Mar 11, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i have no idea why canon suddenly hate wide aperture lenses. :'(



to upsell us on high ISO cameras ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i have no idea why canon suddenly hate wide aperture lenses. :'(
> ...



the only positive in this is the potential update for the 16-35 keeping f2.8 
its my most used lens i shoot it wide open as much as stopped down 
heres hoping it gets a makeover akin to the one the 24-70 got


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 11, 2014)

9VIII said:


> BL said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



How hard can it be? Surely the fact that no one has made one yet points to how hard it is. 
Wide angle zoom lenses are notoriously hard to manufacturer. The internal elements tend to be very small and need a very high level of precision compared to longer focal lengths. Plus the need to retro focus on any lens wider than 35mm due to the SLR mirror box, just adds complexity to the over all design.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i have no idea why canon suddenly hate wide aperture lenses. :'(
> ...



Some of us need the f2.8 aperture. It's not an option, I'd go fast if it was possible but currently it isn't. It's frustrating that I can go to f1.4 on a 24mm but any wider than that and the fastest I can go is f2.8. Such is life. 
I can dial in a slower shutter speed to hand hold (1/15th sec vs say 1/25th on a 24mm) but the 24mm f1.4 still has several stops advantage, allowing a darker EV at the same iso value.

An IS on a wide zoom, which is f4 wouldn't really help me. I would loose another stop compared to an f2.8. At 1/15th sec, subject movement becomes a serious issue in wedding work and landscape work. Shooting at 1/8th or 1/4 second isn't going to stop leaves blowing in the breeze or a priest moving his hand. 
F1.4 glass offers me a far higher shutter speed compared to f2.8, which is why it's called "fast glass" by pros. 
I gain 2 stops, which is 4 times the shutter speed. I can put that towards reducing my iso value for a cleaner shot or I can put it towards my shutter speed for sharp and cleanly frozen images.

These days, there are many ultralight and mini travel pods available. Sure, you can't use them in every circumstance, but a IS unit will never do the job of a pod. It can help but not replace.


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 11, 2014)

Question - is there any difference in a lens made for a mirrorless camera from what is available today? With all of these new patents, I'm wondering if canon is optimizing for a new mirrorless camera. It looks like Sony is undergoing that right now, so that made me wonder about all of Canon's patents.


----------

