# Patent: Canon EF 10mm f/2.8



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 15, 2015)

```
Here’s an interesting wide angle prime optical formula patent from Canon. It’s a non-fisheye EF 10mm f/2.8 for full frame sensors.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-102620 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.6.4</li>
<li>Filing date 2013.11.22</li>
</ul>
<p>Example 3</p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 10.30mm</li>
<li>Fno. 2.88</li>
<li>Half angle of view ω = 64.54 °</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Lens length 124.58mm</li>
<li>BF 38.00mm</li>
</ul>
<p>I’m not sure if this would have been part of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119028-REG/canon_9520b002_ef_11_24mm_f_4l_usm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x604080" target="_blank">EF 11-24mm f/4L</a> development, or if we might actually see a 10mm f/2.8L prime one day. A replacement for the current <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/519474-USA/Canon_2045B002_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x117125" target="_blank">EF 14mm f/2.8L II</a>?</p>
```


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 15, 2015)

Wow. Now that'd be crazy to see. I've been blown away with the 11mm images coming from the 11-24 at f/4, but can you imagine a 10mm f/2.8 for astrophotography? Longer exposures without any startrails, all while at f/2.8.

I'd imagine at 10mm everything would be in focus, even at f/2.8. That'd be truly insane for sports photography, though I'm not entirely sure just yet how that'd work at such a hugely wide angle; even if you put the camera on the basket for basketball, I feel like the players would be small dots! Still, the implications of such a lens would be awesome to mess around with, if not extremely expensive.


----------



## DominoDude (Jun 15, 2015)

Interesting. The MFD could probably be very close to the front element on that one.
Target audience will have small shoe sizes, and primarily shoot with camera on a monopod (less risk the legs will be visible...).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2015)

Strategic move: release an 'inexpensive' (for FF) 6Da for astrophotography, then follow up with a lens that would be great for astro work (assuming no/minor coma issues) and charge >$3K. 8)

Sound like a cool lens, if it ever becomes a product.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 15, 2015)

Nikon has a patent for a 10mm f/4 full frame lens, Canon might be prepping to compete with it,


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Strategic move: release an 'inexpensive' (for FF) 6Da for astrophotography, then follow up with a lens that would be great for astro work (assuming no/minor coma issues) and charge >$3K. 8)
> 
> Sound like a cool lens, if it ever becomes a product.


If a 6DA was $2000, this lens could be $2000 and the combination would still only be $200 more than the D810A body all by itself


----------



## preppyak (Jun 15, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> If a 6DA was $2000


That price point is probably a pipe dream with the 60Da never really dropping off its $1499 retail price point.


----------



## geekpower (Jun 15, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Strategic move: release an 'inexpensive' (for FF) 6Da for astrophotography, then follow up with a lens that would be great for astro work (assuming no/minor coma issues) and charge >$3K. 8)
> ...



how could a 10/2.8 be cheaper than a 14/2.8?


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 15, 2015)

geekpower said:


> how could a 10/2.8 be cheaper than a 14/2.8?





preppyak said:


> That price point is probably a pipe dream with the 60Da never really dropping off its $1499 retail price point.



Sorry, I didn't mean that comment to be practical in any way. It was just meant to be a comment about the D810A's price; I think it would have made more sense to do a cheaper, lighter full frame camera for an astrophotography camera. Even if a 6DA was $2500, you could still get a 16-35mm F/2.8 II with it for the price of the D810A by itself.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 15, 2015)

EF 2.8 10 would be very impressive but an
EF 4.0 17 @ 800 $/€ with spectacular IQ, excellent flare resistance and compact build would be a welcome addition for those of us who prefer primes but do not have the biggest wallet for lenses and personnel for the transportation of the equipment ...


----------



## lol (Jun 15, 2015)

10mm on FF would give some seriously wide images, but I don't see how it would be in any way a replacement for a 14mm.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 15, 2015)

It'll be a very interesting proposal for astrophotography and buildings interiors. 
I can't imagine how impresive will be the images from a lens like that, it will bulky, heavy and veeerrryyy expensive though


----------



## zim (Jun 15, 2015)

Guess it wouldn't be an STM pancake then


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 15, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> If someone can do it, it's definitely Canon! How much diagonal FOV would 10mm be on FF? That'd be a hot cake for me, if it's below 2k $.



I'd guess it would be 3k minimum. I can't see it sell for less than the 11-24.


----------



## m (Jun 15, 2015)

zim said:


> Guess it wouldn't be an STM pancake then



More like pancake with fruit, say, half a water melon on top.


----------



## Pixel (Jun 15, 2015)

I can barely get anything usable from the 11-24 at 11mm let alone 10mm!
Just because the lens is rectilinear doesn't mean it's always going to render correctly on the edges. If there are people near the edges in your 11mm frame forget about it.


----------



## Simen1 (Jun 15, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> Wow. Now that'd be crazy to see. I've been blown away with the 11mm images coming from the 11-24 at f/4, but can you imagine a 10mm f/2.8 for astrophotography? Longer exposures without any startrails, all while at f/2.8.


If its priced similarly astronomicaly i will prefer the Samyang 8mm f/3.5 SCII without the hood mounted. I would have to accept 0,67 stop behind the Canon, fisheye and dark corners and dark short sides. If that saves me 90% i wouldn't doubt a moment. Fisheye is easily defished, at the same time that dark corners are stretched to be much less pronounced.

AF for astrophoto? On a 10mm? That must be a joke. Lets just hope the Canon pricing board didn't get inspired by Leica.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2015)

Oh no, I just got 11-24. Canon is laughing at us. Anyway I will try to use the 11-24 and see its strengths and shortcomings (including astro compared to 14 2.8 II). Anyway 10 2.8 may not be available for the next two years (or more or ever...)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 15, 2015)

A backfocus of 38mm... wouldn't that be an EF-S lens?


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2015)

Image height 21.64mm = R => D = 2*R = 43.28 = SQRT(24**2 + 36**2)

It is a Full Frame Lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 15, 2015)

Pixel said:


> I can barely get anything usable from the 11-24 at 11mm let alone 10mm!
> Just because the lens is rectilinear doesn't mean it's always going to render correctly on the edges. If there are people near the edges in your 11mm frame forget about it.



Yup...11 is already too wide for a rectilinear is a very large majority of cases. 14-16 is about my limit for rectilinear ultrawides. I often prefer slightly defished fisheye shots at 14mm and wider in full-frame rectilinear equivalent terms.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 15, 2015)

The 14mm Canon is "useless" in astrophotography due to bad Koma effects (oval Stars at the corner). The much cheaper 14mm Samyang/Rokinon/Walimex/whatever is only MF (who needs AF for Astro?), but better in Koma than the 6x more expensive Canon one.
If Canon don't think about Koma again, only for vignetting or distortion (not so important for Astro), this isn't a great deal.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2015)

davidcl0nel said:


> The 14mm Canon is "useless" in astrophotography due to bad Koma effects (oval Stars at the corner). The much cheaper 14mm Samyang/Rokinon/Walimex/whatever is only MF (who needs AF for Astro?), but better in Koma than the 6x more expensive Canon one.
> If Canon don't think about Koma again, only for vignetting or distortion (not so important for Astro), this isn't a great deal.


The version II is not useless. It has coma but it is not huge. For example it is nothing like Canon 24 1.4 II.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 15, 2015)

tron said:


> Image height 21.64mm = R => D = 2*R = 43.28 = SQRT(24**2 + 36**2)
> 
> It is a Full Frame Lens.


Sorry, I confused flange distance with backfocus. I noticed the full frame image height which added to my confusion.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 15, 2015)

Pixel said:


> I can barely get anything usable from the 11-24 at 11mm let alone 10mm!
> Just because the lens is rectilinear doesn't mean it's always going to render correctly on the edges. If there are people near the edges in your 11mm frame forget about it.


If you are using a true rectilinear lens and keep a reasonable working distance (5-6m) from people then they should remain in proportion (even at the edge of frame) regardless of the focal length you use. Of course, with using such a wide angle they will look tiny in the frame at 5m away but that is the price you pay if you want to minimize the keystone effect on them. If you want to fill the frame with the people and not have the heavy keystone effect then you probably should not be using an ultra-ultra-ultra-wide lens.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Strategic move: release an 'inexpensive' (for FF) 6Da for astrophotography, then follow up with a lens that would be great for astro work (assuming no/minor coma issues) and charge >$3K. 8)
> 
> Sound like a cool lens, if it ever becomes a product.



Cheaper than having to start with a regular 6D, modifying it, and then still needing a lens?


----------



## AJ (Jun 16, 2015)

Simen1 said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Now that'd be crazy to see. I've been blown away with the 11mm images coming from the 11-24 at f/4, but can you imagine a 10mm f/2.8 for astrophotography? Longer exposures without any startrails, all while at f/2.8.
> ...



For wideangle starshots, I prefer a fish-eye rather than a rectilinear. No need to keep lines straight when looking at starts. You're better off with an equal-area projection fisheye.

In my view, a dream astrophotography would be an f/2 diagonal fisheye. A 10/2.8 rectilinear's purpose is architecture (primarily) and landscape.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 16, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > I can barely get anything usable from the 11-24 at 11mm let alone 10mm!
> ...



At the edges, they'll be egg-heads if you use a rectilinear. If you use a fisheye, they won't.

Egg head rectilinear:






Normal head fisheye:


----------



## ecqns (Jun 17, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > I can barely get anything usable from the 11-24 at 11mm let alone 10mm!
> ...



I've been curious about the 11mm but can't see using anything wider than an effective 14mm (17mm TS-E stitched) and getting good results. That super wide exaggerated look doesn't fly on work images.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 17, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel said:
> ...


Your images were not taken from 5-6 meters away from the people.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 20, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Which, of course, is totally irrelevant to the distortion of circles in the corners of a wide rectilinear lens, only the size of those circles. Distance affects things like big noses and distant, hidden ears, but that wasn't the topic I was addressing.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


The ratio of distances of near elements and far elements is what creates a keystone effect. If the subject is 5-6m away then the ratios are essentially equalized even with an extreme ultra-wide angle lens. I recommend you try doing what I said (at 5-6 meters) and see what your kids look like at the edge of frame. I'm willing to bet that their heads will look pretty natural in shape.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2015)

Good reading for egg-heads: 

http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/tutorials/understanding-volume-deformation

DxO's volume anamorphosis correction does quite a good job.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 22, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> The ratio of distances of near elements and far elements is what creates a keystone effect.



No, it's not. The stretching in the corners of a rectilinear lens is driven by angle of view and the rectilinear projection, not subject distance.


> If the subject is 5-6m away then the ratios are essentially equalized even with an extreme ultra-wide angle lens. I recommend you try doing what I said (at 5-6 meters) and see what your kids look like at the edge of frame. I'm willing to bet that their heads will look pretty natural in shape.



You'd be wrong.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 22, 2015)

This would be a fun lens to have....now, what's the price tag going to be?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > The ratio of distances of near elements and far elements is what creates a keystone effect.
> ...


How about you prove it with a picture at 5m.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 22, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Go prove it to yourself. Take a shot of any round object (like a clock) in the corner of an ultrawide. Do it up close with a small object, and far away with a larger object, with the centers in the same place in the frame.

You'll believe it if and when you do the test yourself. I already know the answer.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I was just reading an article about that kid that shot up the people in that black church. Sad. But the article included a picture, that proves my point.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3hdxd1Wcm53YAacJbzQ1tQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2015-06-18T204016Z_1492641496_TM3EB6I19EW01_RTRMADP_3_USA-SHOOTING-SOUTH-CAROLINA.JPG.cf.jpg


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Here are two shots, camera is set exactly the same for both at 11mm on FF. back of SUV is around 6m, the blue circle is a cap off a peanut jar and is a few inches from the lens, they are both distorted the same.

Meanwhile, 'keystoning' has nothing to do with focal length and everything to do with sensor and subject being perpendicular.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Here are two shots, camera is set exactly the same for both at 11mm on FF. back of SUV is around 6m, the blue circle is a cap off a peanut jar and is a few inches from the lens, they are both distorted the same.



A very effective demonstration. 

Either StudentOfLight needs to study a bit more, or the problem is that spare tires and peanut jar caps aren't people.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 23, 2015)

ecqns said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel said:
> ...



The 17TS-E horizontally stitched gives a horizontal fov a decent bit wider than the 11-24 at 11.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Here are two shots, camera is set exactly the same for both at 11mm on FF. back of SUV is around 6m, the blue circle is a cap off a peanut jar and is a few inches from the lens, they are both distorted the same.
> ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Yes, well demonstrated. 

I apologise LJ, I was wrong. The effect is still there at larger distances. 

If the subject is smaller then the problem is still there just smaller. Attached is a 100% crop picture of me taken 8m from a wall with the Samyang 14mm, me at the edge of frame. I am looking (quite unambiguously) fat-in-the-head. :-[


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 23, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



;D


----------

