# Patent: Lots of optical formula lens patents for the EF mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 25, 2019)

> Canon is full steam ahead as far as lens development goes, as a whole slew of optical formulas have appeared at patent offices.
> These are the latest EF mount optical formulas. It’s possible that these are Cinema lenses as they appear to be close to parfocal.
> *Japan Patent Application 2019-066585*
> *Canon EF 16mm f/1.4*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Equinox (Apr 25, 2019)

Would love me some a 14mm f1.4!


----------



## Kit. (Apr 25, 2019)

I wonder what is the weight of EF 22/1.2.


----------



## Equinox (Apr 25, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I wonder what is the weight of EF 22/1.2.


I'd Imagine pretty hefty!


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 25, 2019)

Funny to see an awful lot of EF ultrawide lenses - maybe the "filter EF2RF adapter" is a good argument to use these in the future? Not bad!

Only that I am missing some compact (70x70mm, 270g) 4.0 17mm STM lens @ 400 EUR with great IQ straight from f/4.0. With modern production technology this seems to be possible. But if the RF 17-70 comes true maybe this is the better (more flexibility) alternative.


----------



## Stuart (Apr 25, 2019)

Are Canon making sure that there is a decade of system change over time for EF to RF, and suggesting to Pro's that the EF is good for years yet.
Might the models even split for a while, EF work horses for big kit professionals and RF for the new feature chasing crowd?


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 25, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Funny to see an awful lot of EF ultrawide lenses - maybe the "filter EF2RF adapter" is a good argument to use these in the future? Not bad!



I doubt those patents would turn into lenses. Most patents don't, and some of the specific examples don't make a lot of sense.

E.g. Canon didn't upgrade the EF 20mm f/2.8 when sales were on the rise following the DSLR revolution, I don't see Canon releasing an EF 20mm f/1.4L now that the market is shrinking even faster than it expected.

With the 11-24mm f/4L being four years old, and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mkIII under 3 years old, I don't even see any of those patents turning into an UW zoom, like Canon did with the 10mm f/4 patent.

At most we'll see a fast UW prime for astro, or cine lenses, my bet is the patents will gather dust in Canon's IP portfolio.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 25, 2019)

I am not so much walking on the ultra wide side of photographic life, but I like to see that Canon seems to keep their EF lens line alive. That's a nice signal for us old school mirror slapper boyz and girlz


----------



## Tom W (Apr 25, 2019)

I don't know how many of these will come to fruition (or how much they'd cost), but I like the way they're going on the fast ultra-wide.
14/1.8 - Wow!
22/1.2 - Wow!

Edit - just noticed that these are EF mount. Might be more defensive patents than anything - that is, Canon locks up the formula so that nobody else can use it.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 25, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Are Canon making sure that there is a decade of system change over time for EF to RF, and suggesting to Pro's that the EF is good for years yet.
> Might the models even split for a while, EF work horses for big kit professionals and RF for the new feature chasing crowd?



I doubt we will see such a clear cut split, but I do think Canon is very much concerned about not alienating their EF user base. As another thread indicates, Canon currently has almost 50% of the market in all interchangeable lens cameras. They would like to maintain or grow that market share, even as the overall market shrinks. 

Too many on this forum think that DSLRs and Mirrorless are a binary choice. I'm not sure Canon sees it that way. They may be simply letting their lens mounts drive their lens designs – designing some lenses that work best for RF and other lenses that are more appropriate for EF. Once they have a solid selection of camera bodies and lenses in both formats, they will likely just sit back and react to the market. We don't know the economics, but I think it is reasonable to assume that a company that has 50% of the entire market worldwide can probably afford to continue offering four different formats pretty much indefinitely if they see the demand is there.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 25, 2019)

Wow I know we wont see all these lense being produced but the 16mm 1.8 floats my boat it should be a smallish and light lens and wide enough for when my RF 35MM IS Lens can fit my subject in the frame, exciting times ahead for Canon shooters

I'm hoping this is RF and not EF as the 16mm 1.8 isn't listed as either but I guess it is a EF lens, I don't think I will be buying any more EF glass now, but they are nice kt all the same


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 25, 2019)

Anything f/1.4 or faster gives me a chubby.


----------



## vangelismm (Apr 25, 2019)

How to know when the lens is parfocal with this specs?


----------



## xeppelin (Apr 25, 2019)

vangelismm said:


> How to know when the lens is parfocal with this specs?


from the 3 focal length numbers in first line (presumably at minimum, some "medium" and infinity distance) being (almost) identical.


----------



## cpreston (Apr 26, 2019)

xeppelin said:


> from the 3 focal length numbers in first line (presumably at minimum, some "medium" and infinity distance) being (almost) identical.



I'm not completely certain of the exact definitions, but I think those numbers might indicate that the lenses lack much "focus breathing". I've always understood "parfocal" to only be applicable to zoom lenses.


----------



## xeppelin (Apr 26, 2019)

cpreston said:


> I'm not completely certain of the exact definitions, but I think those numbers might indicate that the lenses lack much "focus breathing". I've always understood "parfocal" to only be applicable to zoom lenses.



excellent point! was also surprised to see the term "parfocal" used in reference to prime lenses. 

maybe crguy can comment on his use of the term here?


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 26, 2019)

[email protected],2f <3 damn! Some nice patents!


----------



## padam (Apr 26, 2019)

cpreston said:


> I'm not completely certain of the exact definitions, but I think those numbers might indicate that the lenses lack much "focus breathing". I've always understood "parfocal" to only be applicable to zoom lenses.


Those are two different things.
Parfocal means holding focus while zooming (so only applicable to zooms) while focus breathing means the image size changing depending on the focusing distance, an ideal cinema zoom lens is parfocal and also does not have focus breathing.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I doubt we will see such a clear cut split, but I do think Canon is very much concerned about not alienating their EF user base. As another thread indicates, Canon currently has almost 50% of the market in all interchangeable lens cameras. They would like to maintain or grow that market share, even as the overall market shrinks.
> 
> Too many on this forum think that DSLRs and Mirrorless are a binary choice. I'm not sure Canon sees it that way. They may be simply letting their lens mounts drive their lens designs – designing some lenses that work best for RF and other lenses that are more appropriate for EF. Once they have a solid selection of camera bodies and lenses in both formats, they will likely just sit back and react to the market. We don't know the economics, but I think it is reasonable to assume that a company that has 50% of the entire market worldwide can probably afford to continue offering four different formats pretty much indefinitely if they see the demand is there.



I'm pretty much of the same opinion as you and I have come under a lot of fire from the "binaries" or rather "RF will take over the world" forum posters. RF is a great format and a worthy inclusion into the Canon EOS world....but it's an inclusion into an existing system and not a replacement. I think there are unique benefits still in both EF and RF mounts. Both have their weaknesses too. EF...the obvious mirror box compromises (which we have all put up with for the entire DSLR journey so far). EF still has a far faster AF speed over the RF system...although there is nothing to stop Canon from fusing the two in a future DSLR. I'm sure one day Canon will crack the piss poor slow continuous AF on the EOS R...that can keep up with the astonishing 14 fps capable AF system found in the EOS 1DmkII. Or the crappy battery life that EVF's invariably bring. For all the virtues that the RF mount offers...I'm still attracted to the benefits of EF to RF. The ability to use a CPL on a TSe 17L using the EF to RF adapter with a filter slot for instance. But I can also see a lot of professional photographers not wishing to give up on a great optical view finder. Some may call me a Luddite, but it's nice to look through a real view finder. I know many other photographers who feel the same way too. I tend to compose tripodded landscapes with the optical view finder and then tweek the composition using live view (so I can see flare and depth of field). 

I can see all of the low end Canon DSLR model range migrating to the cheaper to manufacture RF / Mirrorless mount. I can see the EF-m mount becoming extinct, partly due to the EOS M. Canon will sell a budget EOS RP Junior for the same money a EOS xxD...but it will be far simpler for Canon to manufacture...thus a bigger profit margin for sure. But I suspect there will always be a market for a 5Dx and a 1Dx class of top tier DSLR cameras that still have the manufacturing budget to build a great optical viewfinder. Those sales figures although smaller than the rest of the market, they are very healthy margin for Canon...and help sell a lot of top tier EF lenses (and I'm not just talking 2.8 zooms here). At that end of the market, Nikon and Sony fail to come close to Canon's market share and it's the most profitable and stable part of the market. 

For many pros, me included, the Eos R and Rp and a curiosity. But not a serious replacement (at the moment) for the EF mount. But I can see many over lapping and dovetailing benefits that once canon release a more worthy Eos R+ of some sorts...then I would buy one to compliment and expand on my existing camera system. Although a 50+ mp mirrorless still isn't what I'm looking for...I want an Eos R that should have been launched (maybe a Eos RII).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 30, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I don't know how many of these will come to fruition (or how much they'd cost), but I like the way they're going on the fast ultra-wide.
> 14/1.8 - Wow!
> 22/1.2 - Wow!
> 
> Edit - just noticed that these are EF mount. Might be more defensive patents than anything - that is, Canon locks up the formula so that nobody else can use it.


I wouldn't have thought so. It's more likely that Canon have multiple teams working on multiple but similar lens designs and the marketing team haven't yet decided on the virtues or market penetration for each...so they aren't yet sure which one's to take to the next stage of development. I've often wondered why Canon haven't built anything f1.4 under the 24mm focal length. I regularly use a 35mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.2 for low light weddings as a 2 lens combo. I take a 3rd full frame camera body with me with a 16-35IIL as "wider" camera. I'd love to swap out the 16-35IIL for something like a 19mm or 21mm f1.4. For me it's not a depth of field choice, but the ability to shoot at higher shutter speeds in lower light levels while maintaining low iso values. 
I think that Canon kind of stopped investing in fast primes a long while back. Once upon a time, Canon owned that market and were well ahead of the competition. But now both Nikon and Sony have many very similar prime lenses to Canon portfolio. At a time when Canon really should have pushed ahead further and offered f1.2 21mm / 24mm / 35mm options and a 135 f1.8 IS too. Oh and a EF 50mm f1.2 that doesn't suck....really Canon...that lens isn't too much to ask for...really...If you can make a sharp 85mm f1.2 and a sharp 35mm....a sharp 50mm can't be that hard to make either.


----------



## uri.raz (Apr 30, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I don't know how many of these will come to fruition (or how much they'd cost), but I like the way they're going on the fast ultra-wide.
> 14/1.8 - Wow!
> 22/1.2 - Wow!
> 
> Edit - just noticed that these are EF mount. Might be more defensive patents than anything - that is, Canon locks up the formula so that nobody else can use it.



Sigma already makes a 14mm f/1.8 for EF mount. It got good good reviews, including for astro, and is only 75% the price of Canon's EF 14mm f/2.8

If I wanted to buy a 14mm prime, I'd buy either the Samyang SP 14mm f/2.4 or Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art, the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L wouldn't even be on the list. Which is why I think Canon might (not will, just might) turn this patent into a fast ultra wide lens.

[I don't shoot astro, so I bought the EF 11-24mm f/4L]


----------

