# Patent: Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, yes…. f/1.4



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 1, 2018)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent for a new super wide angle RF mount zoom and it looks extremely impressive.
> US Patent Application 20180314060 shows an optical formula for an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L. That’s correct… f/1.4!
> Both Canon News and I had to read the patent multiple times to make sure we weren’t reading it incorrectly. If Canon wants to do these “look what we can do lenses”, I have no issue just letting them do their thing.
> This patent also mentions optical formulas for an RF 16-35mm f/2.8L and an RF 12-20mm f/2L



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 1, 2018)

f/1.4 is incredible for a zoom like this, but who is it for. It could be a fantastic Astro lens, but I would not plunk $4k down for it.


----------



## sebasan (Nov 1, 2018)

Canon is not delivering, canon is not innovative....


----------



## colorblinded (Nov 1, 2018)

sebasan said:


> Canon is not delivering, canon is not innovative....


While I get what you're saying, it's kind of disingenuous. Are they really delivering or innovating? Sure, especially in lenses. In bodies they're a lot iffier.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 1, 2018)

colorblinded said:


> While I get what you're saying, it's kind of disingenuous. Are they really delivering or innovating? Sure, especially in lenses. In bodies they're a lot iffier.


The lens actually has to come out. Canon makes like a million patents and like 1% opf the stuff actually comes out then even that takes years.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 1, 2018)

sebasan said:


> Canon is not delivering, canon is not innovative....


Yes very innovative patents. I will be more impressed when the physical product is produced.....


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 1, 2018)

sebasan said:


> Canon is not delivering, canon is not innovative....


Canon is *******!!!!!!!!


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Nov 1, 2018)

Based on the absurdity of an RF 28-70mm F/2L, I'd say an RF 14-21mm F/1.4L is very feasible, albeit, very expensive. Lenses like these are what the EOS R system was designed for. Now if Canon could just deliver an EOS R camera body worthy of their glass... Hopefully I won't have to wait too long.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 1, 2018)

Control of distortion, vignetting, and sharpness; reliable and quick, accurate, AF. IS where feasible. Please Canon, put the essentials ahead of theatrics. Thank you.


----------



## bdbender4 (Nov 1, 2018)

I'm glad the Canon designers are having fun, but I wonder about the size and weight of such a lens. I'm a Canon M5 user, but if I were to go to full frame mirrorless I think right now Nikon is much more appealing. Practical lenses, and a Fuji style lens roadmap. In comparison, Canon seems to be sort of in left field, with large heavy expensive show-off lenses, no lens roadmap, and strange-for-strange-sake controls on the EOS R body. I had a Fuji system plus a Canon EF system, but recently sold all that and am just using the M5 at the moment. So I could choose either the EOS R or Z6 without wanting the adapters for legacy lenses. Buying into the respective new systems, the Z6 plus 24-70 kit lens is $800 less (!?) than the EOS R with 24-105 kit lens. I don't get that at all. Plus, personally, I would want the smaller lighter Nikon setup.

Just got the new 32mm f/1.4 EF-M lens. Sticking with the M5 for now, until full frame things settle down.


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 1, 2018)

I wish Canon were more conservative and and not so risk-taking. More like Sony and Nikon.

Seriously though, an f4.0 version of exactly this range would be perfect for my work, which is all on tripod and none of it 'subject isolating'—so that blinding fast aperture is wasted on me. Trade the f1.4 for perfect distortion control in a slower, sub-6-pound lens!


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2018)

No reason to pay exhorbitant amount of money for such a lens. Even for astro use the "here and now" belongs to Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 and to other good lenses like the f/2.4 Samyang.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 1, 2018)

bdbender4 said:


> I'm glad the Canon designers are having fun, but I wonder about the size and weight of such a lens. I'm a Canon M5 user, but if I were to go to full frame mirrorless I think right now Nikon is much more appealing. *Practical lenses*, and a Fuji style lens roadmap. In comparison, Canon seems to be sort of in left field, with large heavy expensive show-off lenses, no lens roadmap, and strange-for-strange-sake controls on the EOS R body. I had a Fuji system plus a Canon EF system, but recently sold all that and am just using the M5 at the moment. So I could choose either the EOS R or Z6 without wanting the adapters for legacy lenses. Buying into the respective new systems, the Z6 plus 24-70 kit lens is $800 less (!?) than the EOS R with 24-105 kit lens. I don't get that at all. Plus, personally, I would want the smaller lighter Nikon setup.
> 
> Just got the new 32mm f/1.4 EF-M lens. Sticking with the M5 for now, until full frame things settle down.



Isn't the Canon RF 1.8 35mm IS Macro for lousy 500 bucks a practical lens? I am sure that Canon will release some RF 1.8 lenses soon (within the next 2 years) after checking where the market goes: EOS Rprofessional or/and EOS Rottonormalverbraucher (german equivalent for joecitizen).

With the EF-M 32mm I am with you: While no (for my profile) interesting 1.4 50mm equiv solution is available I settled with this lens and I am more than satisfied: It has an awesome IQ and is very compact - the cream on top is the 1:4 closeup capability! And maybe I will stay with EF-M and a bunch of longer EF lenses for a longer while!


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2018)

... and they could add IS to their RF16-35 f/2.8L future version. Otherwise the EF16-35 f/2.8L III will be very hard to beat. It's only flaw is vignetting and NOTHING else!


----------



## -1 (Nov 1, 2018)

I guess the spraying of patents for EOS R mount could be a way to deter photogs from staying put with the EOS EF one. Understandably since the EOS R don't seem to be such an atractive camera compared to the the similar priced 5D4... Good luck with the Rs, RX or whatever though...


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 1, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> f/1.4 is incredible for a zoom like this, but who is it for. It could be a fantastic Astro lens, but I would not plunk $4k down for it.



I think this could definitely be an incredible photojournalism lens. I can't think of a single Canon-shooting news organization that doesn't have the 11-24mm, and having it at f/1.4 would be incredible.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 1, 2018)

On Canon News, the image height for all three variations is 21.64mm. That implies to me that the lenses are for Super 35 cinema models.


----------



## RobbieHat (Nov 1, 2018)

This would be a beast of a lens but would also be a lot of fun for astrophotography and landscape (don't need the wide aperture). I can only imagine how much this will weigh, cost and what the filter system will be for it.


----------



## padam (Nov 1, 2018)

Perfect for low-light vlogging.
On a more serious note, I am not sure it will actually make it into production, the f/2 zoom would be quite monstrous already. Or maybe the mirrorless design really pays dividence here.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 1, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I am so glad to see Canon flexing their muscle this way. I am sure the regular lenses are there and will be coming for us mere mortals. They are just showing, especially to Sony fanboys, that Sony can't even begin to compete with pro level lenses at Canon even if they wanted to. As far as bodies, the R is just a start. I am sure some will complain it is too little. I bet 99% of those on this site can't even begin to fully utilize what the R can do already except for pixel peep which is really showing a total lack of capability to produce great photos so they blame the camera. Well the R is great and wonderful, there will be more coming too.


----------



## simeyesky (Nov 1, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Seriously though, an f4.0 version of exactly this range would be perfect for my work, which is all on tripod and none of it 'subject isolating'—so that blinding fast aperture is wasted on me. Trade the f1.4 for perfect distortion control in a slower, sub-6-pound lens!


Arg, did you notice the 14-30mm f/4 on Nikon's roadmap (2019) ? I must admit that I am personally waiting for this lens to be released/tested before jumping to FF mirrorless. (Maybe Canon wil announce something similar by then...)


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 1, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> The lens actually has to come out. Canon makes like a million patents and like 1% opf the stuff actually comes out then even that takes years.



Which companies have delivered a...

A) 11-24mm f/4 zoom lens
B) 17mm f/4 tilt shift lens
C) 8-15mm f/4 fisheye zoom lens
D) 28-70mm f/2 zoom lens

On the way, could you also check how often do other companies' patents actually come out, and after how long? IIRC, it took Nikon ~7 years to come out with an ultra wide perspective control lens, and it isn't as wide as Canon's.


----------



## xps (Nov 1, 2018)

I would love to use it on the 5DSR with the coming built in polarizer-adapter . I would be , to use it on an R with huge filtersystems


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Which companies have delivered a...
> 
> A) 11-24mm f/4 zoom lens
> B) 17mm f/4 tilt shift lens
> ...


D)28-70 f/2 zoom lens not 24-70 and it works only on the 30Mp EOS R (for now).


----------



## mirage (Nov 1, 2018)

what? only f/1.4? why not f/1.2? I'll wait for the Nikon manual focus version with f/0.95.


----------



## mirage (Nov 1, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> Isn't the Canon RF 1.8 35mm IS Macro for lousy 500 bucks a practical lens?



no. 2:1 "macro" on a 35mm FF lens is not practical. And 500 is way too much. 299 would be more like it. For around 500 I'd rather get "a real macro lens", eg. EF 100/2.8 L IS.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 1, 2018)

tron said:


> D)28-70 f/2 zoom lens not 24-70 and it works only on the 30Mp EOS R (for now).



Miriam Webster should quote that response under "nitpicking".


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> no. 2:1 "macro" on a 35mm FF lens is not practical. And 500 is way too much. 299 would be more like it.* For around 500 I'd rather get "a real macro lens", eg. EF 100/2.8 L IS.*



Me too but it is 800 $ / EUR ... and 35 is not 100


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2018)

I suspect that both Canon and Nikon lens designers are pressing to come out with lenses they could not do before, but they also would be slow sellers, so Canon knows they need mainstream lenses for mirrorless. look for those next.


----------



## KirkD (Nov 1, 2018)

I love that Canon is really pushing the frontier with RF lens design, however, when I use ultra-wide angle, it's mainly for landscapes where I want all the depth of field I can get .... typically at least f5.6. I would be perfectly happy with a f2.8 BUT with outstanding optics (resolution, contrast, very low vignetting, etc.)


----------



## mirage (Nov 1, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Miriam Webster should quote that response under "nitpicking".


no. 24 vs 28 makes more difference in real life than f/2.0 vs f/2.8 in most use cases.


----------



## JBSF (Nov 1, 2018)

bdbender4 said:


> ...I think right now Nikon is much more appealing. Practical lenses, and a Fuji style lens roadmap. In comparison, Canon seems to be sort of in left field, with large heavy expensive show-off lenses, no lens roadmap...



I believe there are more than 100 million "practical lenses" out there which can be adapted readily to the R. And why do you think Canon has no roadmap? They don't have to share it with you.


----------



## mirage (Nov 1, 2018)

JBSF said:


> And why do you think Canon has no roadmap? They don't have to share it with you.



no. Canon does not HAVE to. But they SHOULD. In their own best interest. 

It would be smart to give existing and potential new customers a clear outlook on things to come. Folks could take better, more informed decisions. Especially, whether they should switch to/buy from another brand now or hang in for some time until Canon is able to deliver what they are waiting for.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 1, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Which companies have delivered a...
> 
> A) 11-24mm f/4 zoom lens
> B) 17mm f/4 tilt shift lens
> ...


Absolutely right.We could also mention the 135mm TSE, the world's first 200-400 zoom with integrated extender. Sony, Nikon, where are you?


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Miriam Webster should quote that response under "nitpicking".


Except there is no 24-70 f/2 up to now and in many cases the difference between 24mm and 28mm matters. Just as the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 does matter for other people.


----------



## aceflibble (Nov 1, 2018)

*Absolutely vital reminder:*
Patents do not automatically equal products which will actually be made.
Patents like this are essentially a company 'bookmarking' a theory so they get first dibs on making it _if _they later wish to.
Patents are for the business, not for the consumer.

Sometimes companies file patents purely to stop someone else from making something, even if they have no intention of making it themselves.

The vast majority of the time, patents for lens designs simply mean one or two designers sat down with a piece of paper and did the math, with absolutely no concern over whether or not such a thing _can_ actually be produced, let alone _will_. Canon's designers could draw a 12-800mm f/0.95 Macro IS with built-in 1.4x extender and file a patent with that drawing; that lens still wouldn't get made.

Patents do _not_ mean a product is definitely going to be made.
Patents do _not_ mean a product is already being made.
Patents do _not _mean a product is anywhere near release.
Products which _do_ get made rarely match their patents 100%.
When a patented lens design _does_ get made there are typically at least a couple of years—but it can be many more—between when the patent is first drawn up and filed and when working prototypes start being seriously tested, and at least another year before a successful version can be mass-produced and sold to the public.

Faster zooms are great and the 28-70 f/2 is already the thing which is selling me on the R system over any other mirrorless system; a 28-105mm f/2 has been my dream lens since as long as I can remember and the idea that f/1.4 zooms may exist within the foreseeable future is extremely exciting. However, a patent is a patent; a patent is not a product. Canon have filed hundreds of lens design patents over the years for lenses which never even had prototypes made. (The 28mm f/1.4L being my personal favourite never-to-be Canon patent.)


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 1, 2018)

14-21mm F1.4 - Wow! I guess the 4K crop in the R won't be an issue now!


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 1, 2018)

This is the first time I've read a title and verbally said "Holy Sh!t" haha Not that I believe i have any use for a lens like this, it could be the astro photographer's dream glass.


----------



## AJ (Nov 1, 2018)

First of all, does the patent say L? L implies full-frame.
The image height of all three lenses is 21.64 mm. Are these lenses APSC? Could these be lenses for an R-mount APSC camera?


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 1, 2018)

simeyesky said:


> Arg, did you notice the 14-30mm f/4 on Nikon's roadmap (2019) ? I must admit that I am personally waiting for this lens to be released/tested before jumping to FF mirrorless. (Maybe Canon wil announce something similar by then...)



I sure did, so buying an R was a leap of faith. Gotta admit I'm a little nervous. I needed a backup for my 5Div and it was either get another one of those or take a chance….


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 1, 2018)

KirkD said:


> I love that Canon is really pushing the frontier with RF lens design, however, when I use ultra-wide angle, it's mainly for landscapes where I want all the depth of field I can get .... typically at least f5.6. I would be perfectly happy with a f2.8 BUT with outstanding optics (resolution, contrast, very low vignetting, etc.)



Yeah, likewise, or f4 even...


----------



## bdbender4 (Nov 1, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> Isn't the Canon RF 1.8 35mm IS Macro for lousy 500 bucks a practical lens?


Yeah, it's practical, but I already had the 28mm EF-M Macro, for a lousy 300 bucks, little more than half the price. (Strange focal lengths for macro, both of them.) I used it mostly as a regular prime, although a slow one. Now I have the 32mm I gave the short 28mm macro to a friend of mine who is a dentist and has an M camera. She loves it! Uses it to take pictures of teeth for insurance claims. 

But back on topic: this thread is about yet another yeeh-hah show-off lens for Canon RF. Nikon gets regularly trashed for their lousy marketing, deservedly so, but I think in the case of FF mirrorless they have done better than Canon by releasing two bodies and a promise of a whole corral full of practical lenses. Canon is being very coy about both future bodies and lenses, basically just saying "trust us, we're committed to a full line-up". In these times I don't think that's good enough. Especially not when what actually still does leak is fantasy concept patents.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 1, 2018)

Wow...I'd be all over this lens....


----------



## docsmith (Nov 1, 2018)

Bob Howland said:


> On Canon News, the image height for all three variations is 21.64mm. That implies to me that the lenses are for Super 35 cinema models.


Had the same initial reaction. However, after playing with the math, 21.64 mm is the half height from the sensor center to the corner. 

Just playing with a^2 + b^2 = c^2 or 24*24 + 36*36 = c2, c = 43.3 mm. Divide that to get the distance from the image sensor to the corner, and 21.65 cm. 

These are FF lenses.

wow.


----------



## Mika (Nov 1, 2018)

21.6 mm image height refers to half-diagonal length, as does the field of view angle (typically). So it's 43.2 mm diagonal, and thus full frame.

The Embodiment 1 design is F/1.55, so it's closer to F/1.6 than F/1.4. There's quite a number of surfaces right there. There's quite a number of moving groups too there.

The lens length is given as 191 mm, fixed length objective. Front element (glass) diameter is about 86 mm.

EDIT: Personally, I'm not sure what Canon is aiming to do with these objectives, unless it's just to build fences around their market area with patents. Clearly shorter back focal length allows to improve the performance of ultra-wides significantly, allowing either better MTFs (mostly sensor limited) or faster objectives. But the cost is the weight, and I really am not sure if I even wanted to go with that lens. Sigma 12-24/4.0 Art is 125 mm long (lens only), and it's not a small lens, and it already is pushing what I want to carry around. This would be close to the length of EF 70-200 / 2.8L.

With mirrorless full frame camera, I'd be looking at more moderate aperture F/2.0 ... F/2.8 objectives as those would be lighter and smaller, and I'd try to increase the maximum magnification to 0.3x for more general imaging tool. I thought mirrorless was supposed to be lighter?


----------



## masterpix (Nov 1, 2018)

The only problem I see with the 1.2/1.4 or even 1.8 zooms is their size and weight. The fact that there is no mirror allow wider glass in the rear of the lenses, but it comes with two main "faults" size/weight for one and unfortunately also price. One of the aims of mirror-less cameras is reducing size and weight of both camera and lenses, unfortunately, I don't see it happen here.

On the other hand, there are so much interest in the mirror-less camera that I wonder when we will see the new 7Dmk3, the D90 or a new 1Dxmk3?


----------



## CandySpan (Nov 1, 2018)

The EOS R feels much better than the Nikon’s, plus you get Canon’s lenses that behave natively on a mirrorless body. It’s a win, win. Don’t be fooled for a second that Fuji comes anywhere close to its performance. I’ve used it in tandem with my 5D IV and it’s actually a better experience. It also focuses in complete darkness with a fast lens. Seriously. The poeple who are complaining haven’t really used it, or just like complaining. Lolz


----------



## CandySpan (Nov 1, 2018)

masterpix said:


> The only problem I see with the 1.2/1.4 or even 1.8 zooms is their size and weight. The fact that there is no mirror allow wider glass in the rear of the lenses, but it comes with two main "faults" size/weight for one and unfortunately also price. One of the aims of mirror-less cameras is reducing size and weight of both camera and lenses, unfortunately, I don't see it happen here.
> 
> On the other hand, there are so much interest in the mirror-less camera that I wonder when we will see the new 7Dmk3, the D90 or a new 1Dxmk3?



I think most people see much more advantage to a mirrorless system than size. Panasonic used size to its advantage with M43 with the GH5 being able to shoot unlimited 4K video without overheating, etc. There are smaller systems out there, Sony for instance with horrible ergonomics, m43 with low-ish image quality. Or, shoot fast manual glass a la Leica. I really like the R and what it brings to the table!


----------



## CandySpan (Nov 1, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Which companies have delivered a...
> 
> A) 11-24mm f/4 zoom lens
> B) 17mm f/4 tilt shift lens
> ...



I’m just waiting for that 24-70 f2, I don’t believe people understand how big of a deal that lens is! I think part of Canon’s strategy is making this a high end mirrorless system, with few compromises. There’s also already a ton of used L glass that performs way better than those consumer grade Nikon lenses, for instance, that perform natively in the R with an adapter. The body also isn’t very expensive!


----------



## timmy_650 (Nov 1, 2018)

The EOS-R fits pretty much everything I need and I am shooting a 6D and it is about time to upgrade but I worry lenses that I will pay for will be a long time out. I am not sure now long it will take other companies to start making R mount lenses. That is a cool lens but I don't care to drop $3000 for a lens. I find $1000 is a stretch for me and feel like there is many others.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 1, 2018)

Mika said:


> 21.6 mm image height refers to half-diagonal length, as does the field of view angle (typically). So it's 43.2 mm diagonal, and thus full frame.
> 
> The Embodiment 1 design is F/1.55, so it's closer to F/1.6 than F/1.4. There's quite a number of surfaces right there. There's quite a number of moving groups too there.
> 
> ...



BTW...you probably were responding to my initial post that I deleted and then reposted after running some numbers...

As for what Canon is doing...absolutely, defensive patents are real. I would expect a lot of optical design patents to come to protect themselves. While big, these exotic lenses do a couple of things: 1) show what can be done with the shorter flange distance, and 2) differentiate themselves not only from Sony/Nikon...but really differentiate MILC from phones.

Bottom line, in a shrinking market, you figure out what market niches will need you in the future and cater to those markets.


----------



## RGF (Nov 1, 2018)

Looks like an interesting lens. Great if it is sharp in the corners at F1.4


----------



## 6degrees (Nov 1, 2018)

I think it is a printing error. Should be 14-21mm F4.


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 1, 2018)

And sub $4K too - like around $2,100USD as this range is less extreme than the 11-24mm f4.0L.



Aaron D said:


> I wish Canon were more conservative and and not so risk-taking. More like Sony and Nikon.
> 
> Seriously though, an f4.0 version of exactly this range would be perfect for my work, which is all on tripod and none of it 'subject isolating'—so that blinding fast aperture is wasted on me. Trade the f1.4 for perfect distortion control in a slower, sub-6-pound lens!


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 1, 2018)

Similar in weight to Sigma's 105mm f1.4 would be my guess - albeit with a much smaller "exit pupil"... ;-)


RobbieHat said:


> This would be a beast of a lens but would also be a lot of fun for astrophotography and landscape (don't need the wide aperture). I can only imagine how much this will weigh, cost and what the filter system will be for it.


----------



## Talys (Nov 1, 2018)

This sounds like a wonderful lens that I will drool over and never buy, because of a combination of the price tag and my limited use. But sounds great -- I'm glad that Canon is coming out with eyebrow-raising RF glass on the high end.


----------



## Mika (Nov 1, 2018)

6degrees said:


> I think it is a printing error. Should be 14-21mm F4.



It's not. The patent states F/1.55 in all its zoom settings. The front lens diameter matches with wide angles, but the patented embodiment is significantly longer. It's genuinely about the size of EF 70-200/2.8

The real meat would probably be the 16-35/2.8 in Embodiment 2. The issue with that too is that the current EF 16-35/2.8 III is about 128 mm in length. Embodiment 2 is close to 191 mm.

It's hard for me to believe it's these lenses that would arrive on the market, the objective lengths seem a bit off to me.

EDIT: apparently, there's some amount of the EF35/1.4 II ish Blue Goo indicated in the patent too. The gap between the last two lens elements may be filled with some interesting sh... stuff


----------



## Stuart (Nov 1, 2018)

Hasn't Canon's USP always been its amazing & capable lens range, so isn't this just them re stamping their dominance in this field - an amazing collection of desirable glass that keeps us amateurs always looking for an upgrade. 
With lenses like this there will be a whole new image area of flashless evening/event photographs that were not possible before with these fast lenses on hi ISO sensors. Want, Want, Want.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 1, 2018)

Always interesting when a new lens or patent is announced, the conversation invariably becomes about other lenses that should have been. More RF mount lenses will come. Bigger lenses, smaller lenses, faster and slower lenses. 

I think it's amazing that they have come up with the formula for this lens. I won't be able to afford it, and I'm just a hobbyist anyway, but it looks like it could be pretty cool.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 1, 2018)

Mika said:


> apparently, there's some amount of the EF35/1.4 II ish Blue Goo indicated in the patent too. The gap between the last two lens elements may be filled with some interesting sh... stuff



Glad to see the Blue Goo make an appearance one more. I've always suspected that it was present between elements of additional lenses since, but Canon was shy about promoting it after we made so much fun of the way they marketed it the first time. If you'll recall, they were so unspecific about it ("organic compound") that instead of leveling the "plastic" label on them, the forum just reacted with Seussian satire. I considered it a proud moment for the forums at the time.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

-1 said:


> I guess the spraying of patents for EOS R mount could be a way to deter photogs from staying put with the EOS EF one. Understandably since the EOS R don't seem to be such an atractive camera compared to the the similar priced 5D4... Good luck with the Rs, RX or whatever though...


Most photographers have no idea what the new patents are, so it is not a case of Canon using them to keep people around. Canon gets patents to protect new designs from being encroached.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

xps said:


> I would love to use it on the 5DSR with the coming built in polarizer-adapter . I would be , to use it on an R with huge filtersystems


It will never be used on a 5DSr by anyone. Not compatible that direction.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 2, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It will never be used on a 5DSr by anyone. Not compatible that direction.


Unless the upcoming high MP FFM body is a RF version of the 5DS/r ...


----------



## Durf (Nov 2, 2018)

Hmmmm, I wonder if it'll be smaller than a Sigma 150-600mm Lens?????


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

Jethro said:


> Unless the upcoming high MP FFM body is a RF version of the 5DS/r ...


*sigh* It won't be a 5DSr... or version of it. You miss the point.  The RF lenses are not backwards compatible.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 2, 2018)

It's f/1.55, not f/1.4; that's beyond the kind of rounding you would normally see. Maybe a t/1.8 cine lens?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 2, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Based on the absurdity of an RF 28-70mm F/2L, I'd say an RF 14-21mm F/1.4L is very feasible, albeit, very expensive. Lenses like these are what the EOS R system was designed for. Now if Canon could just deliver an EOS R camera body worthy of their glass... Hopefully I won't have to wait too long.



I don't agree that the RF 28-70mm F/2 is an absurdity, in contrast, for me it is really attractive because I can imagine settings in which I really could use it wide open (more in the 40-70mm range I guess). 

But I never will understand the need for such a fast ultra-wide angle zoom lens. When I use wide angle lenses, I personally nearly always want more than less depth of field. Okay, I can imagine some useful settings in arts stills and videography - plus in night sky photography, because stars are far away and will appear sharp even shot wide open with such a lens (if atmospheric blur doesn't disturb too much). But for me personally this wouldn't justify an investment in such an UWA monster.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 2, 2018)

I'm wondering what it's filter options would be. EF to RF lenses get the massive bonus of using a drop in filter mount. So my TSe-17L, 8-15L fisheye or 11-24L can now be used with CPL or ND filters. That's a massive boon for landscape work, possibly a game changer. 
But this lens would be a native RF lens...if it doesn't have a drop in slot...then it's negating that ef to rf benefit.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 2, 2018)

bdbender4 said:


> Yeah, it's practical, *but I already had the 28mm EF-M Macro, for a lousy 300 bucks*, little more than half the price. (Strange focal lengths for macro, both of them.) I used it mostly as a regular prime, although a slow one. Now I have the 32mm I gave the short 28mm macro to a friend of mine who is a dentist and has an M camera. She loves it! Uses it to take pictures of teeth for insurance claims.
> 
> But back on topic: this thread is about yet another yeeh-hah show-off lens for Canon RF. Nikon gets regularly trashed for their lousy marketing, deservedly so, but I think in the case of FF mirrorless they have done better than Canon by releasing two bodies and a promise of a whole corral full of practical lenses. Canon is being very coy about both future bodies and lenses, basically just saying "trust us, we're committed to a full line-up". In these times I don't think that's good enough. Especially not when what actually still does leak is fantasy concept patents.



I think it is a non-fair comparison: 28mm f/3.5 @ 300 bucks APS-C versus 35mm f/1.8 @ 500 bucks FullFrame! 2 stops better & larger image circle are a difference! 35mm equiv is a strange macro focal length but I see the RF 35 as a 35mm wide angle as a "low-light-and-no-limit-for-close-shots"-lens. (EDIT: I think Canon has seen the attractive Tamron 1.8 35 VC with similar close-up capability and reacted with same general parameters at smaller size and much lower weight. And it is a test ballon for an upcoming 1.8 xyzmm IS STM lens series)

About Nikons road map: I have never seen a Canon roadmap of something so I expect products being announced shortly before market release in non-homeopathic doses.

About your decision to buy the EF-M 32: I skipped the EF-M 28 macro due to small max aperture and bought the EF-M 32 two weeks ago. A stunning lens which is very practical not only because of the 1:4 closeup capability. This lens will serve as a good tranquilizer until -- maybe -- I will jump onto the roadmap-free EOS R FF boat


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 2, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm wondering what it's filter options would be. EF to RF lenses get the massive bonus of using a drop in filter mount. So my TSe-17L, 8-15L fisheye or 11-24L can now be used with CPL or ND filters. That's a massive boon for landscape work, possibly a game changer.
> But this lens would be a native RF lens...if it doesn't have a drop in slot...then it's negating that ef to rf benefit.



It could be really cool if Canon could incorporate the same drop in filters into the rear of some of the larger R series lenses.


----------



## Yasko (Nov 2, 2018)

New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:

These new lenses are very expensive...
In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.

What I want to say is: Lenses are nerdy and great but still very expensive when such apertures are featured and these apertures are not that much needed anymore as they were back in the day. I would also want to see a move forward on the camera body side .

I like the EOS R, but as an enthusiast the costs go through the ceiling, although yeah, I can still use my EF glass


----------



## RGF (Nov 2, 2018)

6degrees said:


> I think it is a printing error. Should be 14-21mm F4.



That makes more sense but I think I Canon is showing off what they can do w/ the R mount


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 2, 2018)

Yasko said:


> New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:
> 
> These new lenses are very expensive...
> In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.
> ...



That because you are trying to compete against professionals. L lenses are pro intended....with a price to suit. 
For most domestic use...one or two consumer grade lenses are more than adequate. Delve in to pro level imagery and it's a different league in terms of capability, cost, size, weight and erm...Image Quality. A low iso image shot with f1.2 /f1.4 apertures will usually look far better and have a wide dynamic range than anything shot at a slower aperture and higher iso. Everyone has their tipping point where their quality vs cost occurs. It's why terms like "sharp" is very relative to each opinion of each photographer.


----------



## Treyarnon (Nov 2, 2018)

Yasko said:


> New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:
> 
> These new lenses are very expensive...
> In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.
> ...



Slower lenses are already out there. With a mature market, you look for the niches - and yes this would be a niche lens, but one which could still be an interesting creative tool. 

Also - I really don't get this 'expensive kit is only for pros' outlook. As if all pro photographers are rich!! Truth is the *majority* of full time pros are scratching out a living, and its the enthusiasts who are FAR, FAR more likely to have more disposable income. I genuinely see way more 1DX's plus big whites in the hands of amateurs then I see with pros. 

Also - lens rentals.


----------



## tron (Nov 2, 2018)

RGF said:


> That makes more sense but I think I Canon is showing off what they can do w/ the R mount


This is very likely. At the same time usually people shoot at the ends of the zoom (not saying that this is right, merely stating a fact) and whoever gets those zooms most probably checks first for the widest angle part. Altough with proper IQ (sharpness, lack of coma) this lens would shine for astrophotography the cost would be ebormous and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 would be a fantastic closest match alternative for much much less. I got it for astrophotography and I didnt't regret it


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 2, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> Slower lenses are already out there. With a mature market, you look for the niches - and yes this would be a niche lens, but one which could still be an interesting creative tool.
> 
> Also - I really don't get this 'expensive kit is only for pros' outlook. As if all pro photographers are rich!! Truth is the *majority* of full time pros are scratching out a living, and its the enthusiasts who are FAR, FAR more likely to have more disposable income. I genuinely see way more 1DX's plus big whites in the hands of amateurs then I see with pros.
> 
> Also - lens rentals.



Yes I largely agree, but pro photogs in specific niches usually go for very specific top gear. When I went over to a Pair of 5DIII's (which I bought one year apart. One at launch) I knew that I was moving to a 5 year life span for the cams. So I'm pretty close to renewal on one of my 5DIII's. A lot of guys I know who went for the 1Dx went for a 6 year renewal. Lenses are a far better investment, The Canon L's just last a lot longer than anything else out there. Lenses...some of mine are over 15 year sold. I have a lens budget every year that I set aside. If I want something exotic or large...I have to wait for a few years. My ef 400mm f2.8 LIS is old...but it still produces stunning images. The only tangible benefit in the mkII or MkIII for me is weight. But optically...it's well paid for itself.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 2, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> It could be really cool if Canon could incorporate the same drop in filters into the rear of some of the larger R series lenses.



Putting a filter between the camera and the lens would negate the benefits of the short flange distance. Essentially, EF lenses have already made this compromise, by having the long flange back, which prevented crazy lens design concepts like the RF 50 L f/1.2. As a result, putting a filter in the adapter - which is a glorified 2 cm extension tube - doesn't harm anything. But to design such a filter in the camera-end of a new RF lens would throw away the benefits of the reason they switched mounts in the first place. 

But this does give rise to an alternate idea...

When lens designers were figuring out where to put the IS system between elements, the natural place was always where the light crossed over, where the beam was at its thinnest in the lens design. (Imagine light coming in from above top of the lens, and light coming in from below the bottom of the lens. Those beams enter the lens and get bent by the various lens elements, usually crossing somewhere around the middle and winding up hitting the sensor on the opposite side from where they entered. That cross-over point provides a small section where the light is compressed into a small area.) This place was most useful because the IS element could be at its smallest, and therefor it could be jiggled with a smaller motor, etc. This is also, according to Canon engineers, why Canon didn't put IS systems in large aperture lenses in the past, because even with the smaller surface area that needed to be covered, large aperture lenses required IS elements and motors that would be too large or would not be effective enough. By way of example, the new Canon 85mm 1.4 monster has to employ the IS system of one of the big whites.

Enter mirrorless. Most manufacturers have been relying on IBIS for stabilization, moving all that hardware into the camera and out of the lens, which now provides a lens design opportunity to put a removable filter element in the *center* of the lens. There may be good reasons why no one has done this yet, but I think this sounds feasible. It might be difficult to use a standard-sized system, so that such filters could be used among multiple lenses, as they tend to be diverse in girth.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 2, 2018)

bdbender4 said:


> I'm glad the Canon designers are having fun, but I wonder about the size and weight of such a lens. I'm a Canon M5 user, but if I were to go to full frame mirrorless I think right now Nikon is much more appealing. Practical lenses, and a Fuji style lens roadmap. In comparison, Canon seems to be sort of in left field, with large heavy expensive show-off lenses, no lens roadmap, and strange-for-strange-sake controls on the EOS R body. I had a Fuji system plus a Canon EF system, but recently sold all that and am just using the M5 at the moment. So I could choose either the EOS R or Z6 without wanting the adapters for legacy lenses. Buying into the respective new systems, the Z6 plus 24-70 kit lens is $800 less (!?) than the EOS R with 24-105 kit lens. I don't get that at all. Plus, personally, I would want the smaller lighter Nikon setup.
> 
> Just got the new 32mm f/1.4 EF-M lens. Sticking with the M5 for now, until full frame things settle down.



I have the 32 f/1.4 too. It's very sharp, I like it quite a lot on my M6


----------



## Dantana (Nov 2, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> That because you are trying to compete against professionals. L lenses are pro intended....with a price to suit.
> For most domestic use...one or two consumer grade lenses are more than adequate. Delve in to pro level imagery and it's a different league in terms of capability, cost, size, weight and erm...Image Quality. A low iso image shot with f1.2 /f1.4 apertures will usually look far better and have a wide dynamic range than anything shot at a slower aperture and higher iso. Everyone has their tipping point where their quality vs cost occurs. It's why terms like "sharp" is very relative to each opinion of each photographer.



Yes

Plus, faster lenses also give you more options.

There is nothing keeping you from shooting a large aperture lens at a smaller aperture if that's the effect you want for a specific shot, but the reverse isn't true. It's impossible to open a lens up more than it's max aperture.

It's all about choices and compromises, like everything else. What is more important? Speed, size, cost, flexibility, something else...

This is a new system and the lenses (and patents) will keep rolling out. I'm looking forward to seeing it happen, though I think I am a ways off from buying into the R system right now. I still get good results from my gear even though I like to look at the new toys.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I don't agree that the RF 28-70mm F/2 is an absurdity, in contrast, for me it is really attractive because I can imagine settings in which I really could use it wide open (more in the 40-70mm range I guess).
> 
> But I never will understand the need for such a fast ultra-wide angle zoom lens. When I use wide angle lenses, I personally nearly always want more than less depth of field. Okay, I can imagine some useful settings in arts stills and videography - plus in night sky photography, because stars are far away and will appear sharp even shot wide open with such a lens (if atmospheric blur doesn't disturb too much). But for me personally this wouldn't justify an investment in such an UWA monster.


I agree. The 24-70 f/2 isn't absurd at all. The price is reasonable too, if one considers the EF 200mm f/2L is $5600. I know, apples and oranges, but still a bargain. *If* I ever get an R the 24-70 f/2 would be the first lens I'd buy. Personally, I would love a 24-70 f/1.4... I don't care how heavy. 4 lbs. would be just fine with me. Same with a 70-200 (5.5-6.5 lbs?). I'd only have to have two lenses, nothing more.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 2, 2018)

For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## Talys (Nov 2, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree. The 24-70 f/2 isn't absurd at all. The price is reasonable too, if one considers the EF 200mm f/2L is $5600. I know, apples and oranges, but still a bargain. *If* I ever get an R the 24-70 f/2 would be the first lens I'd buy. Personally, I would love a 24-70 f/1.4... I don't care how heavy. 4 lbs. would be just fine with me. Same with a 70-200 (5.5-6.5 lbs?). I'd only have to have two lenses, nothing more.


I don't think 70-200/1.4 is possible in any form that we could use, but 70-200/f2 would be a magical lens for me  I'd probably buy a body for it, and it would never get taken off the mount, lol.

Since 200/2 is a 5.5 lb/8"+ lens, I assume it would not be smaller or lighter, but I would work out or get a cybernetic arm or something to figure out a way to shoot with it, lol.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.



I don't know about that so much. I have the 35mm f/1.4L II and will probably buy the EF 24mm f/1.4L II one of these days (after I get an 85mm). Would I ever buy an RF 14-21mm f/1.4? Sure! Why not? But only after a 28-70 and 70-200. A body and those two lenses alone would take me 3-4 years to acquire. 

That aside, I am not sure I get your point.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

Talys said:


> I don't think 70-200/1.4 is possible in any form that we could use, but 70-200/f2 would be a magical lens for me  I'd probably buy a body for it, and it would never get taken off the mount, lol.
> 
> Since 200/2 is a 5.5 lb/8"+ lens, I assume it would not be smaller or lighter, but I would work out or get a cybernetic arm or something to figure out a way to shoot with it, lol.


I'd settle for a 70-135 or 70-150 f/1.4. 150mm is plenty long for what I do.  Heck, I'd even go for an 85-135 f/1.4. I'd love the hell out of that.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 2, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't know about that so much. I have the 35mm f/1.4L II and will probably buy the EF 24mm f/1.4L II one of these days (after I get an 85mm). Would I ever buy an RF 14-21mm f/1.4? Sure! Why not? But only after a 28-70 and 70-200. A body and those two lenses alone would take me 3-4 years to acquire.
> 
> That aside, I am not sure I get your point.


My point is that I see members saying how great it would be to have this lens when they don’t currently shoot at this aperture or focal length. If it is something they need, just saying they would likely already have a prime of similar focal length and aperture. Otherwise, not much credibility there. I know some members do, but not very many.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.



Isn't the 24mm f1.4 the ONLY Canon lens that is "full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider"?

That being the case, you are saying that that is the only target audience? A 14~21mm FF lens is extremely flexible, giving you a big range of FOV. And you only need one set of filter than if you were to get 2 prime lenses, possibly. I would think it would be a tempting wide angle lens... oops, I don't qualify to comment.


----------



## amorse (Nov 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> My point is that I see members saying how great it would be to have this lens when they don’t currently shoot at this aperture or focal length. If it is something they need, just saying they would likely already have a prime of similar focal length and aperture. Otherwise, not much credibility there. I know some members do, but not very many.


I like to think I would consider one of these depending on the filter thread (if there is one). I regularly shoot wide and open for astro-landscapes and dusk/dawn long exposures using a Lee filter system. Right now I carry both a Rokinon 14 f/2.8 and a 16-35 f/4L to suit both daytime and night time shooting, and I'm often camping in somewhat remote locations meaning everything gets carried, sometimes farther distances than comfortable. I would love an alternative lens which can perform the duties of both (reducing my weight/pack size). Doubt I would open up to 1.4 that frequently, but 1.8 or 2 would get used certainly. At 14mm, however, I think a traditional filter thread is out of the question. Although, I thought I had read here that wide angle lenses could become a fair bit smaller with a reduced distance between the lens and the sensor? I can't help but wonder how big this thing is going to be.

With that said, I do think 14mm at f/1.4 could be functional for landscape astrophotography - I think focusing between 4 and 5m out would have sharp focus from 2.3m in front of the camera to infinity. That could work for some applications.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 2, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Isn't the 24mm f1.4 the ONLY Canon lens that is "full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider"?
> 
> That being the case, you are saying that that is the only target audience? A 14~21mm FF lens is extremely flexible, giving you a big range of FOV. And you only need one set of filter than if you were to get 2 prime lenses, possibly. I would think it would be a tempting wide angle lens... oops, I don't qualify to comment.


Why limit to Canon lenses. Any full frame EF lens will do. Sure, not many examples out there, but my point is that if you really needed one, you would have gotten one. I have the Sigma 24mm f1.4 that I only use for Astro. But, I would never pay $4k for the proposed zoom. The 24mm and a 14mm are sufficient at less than half the cost.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Why limit to Canon lenses. Any full frame EF lens will do. Sure, not many examples out there, but my point is that if you really needed one, you would have gotten one. I have the Sigma 24mm f1.4 that I only use for Astro. But, I would never pay $4k for the proposed zoom. The 24mm and a 14mm are sufficient at less than half the cost.



So you are limiting everyone to the one purpose that you use it for?

..." if you really needed one, you would have gotten one" a prime or a zoom? A zoom of that ability does not exist yet does it? A person might find a 14mm F1.4 of too limited use and be reluctant to buy it, but might find a 14-21mm versatile enough to put down some hard cold cash.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> My point is that I see members saying how great it would be to have this lens when they don’t currently shoot at this aperture or focal length. If it is something they need, just saying they would likely already have a prime of similar focal length and aperture. Otherwise, not much credibility there. I know some members do, but not very many.



True, but this is also a zoom, not a prime... so far more useful, right?

Anyway, I fail to see what credibility has to do with saying, "it would be great to have" a particular lens. It just seems strange that one would challenge the credibility of somebody's desire for something. However, this forum is lopsided to the high end user anyway, so who knows.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Had the same initial reaction. However, after playing with the math, 21.64 mm is the half height from the sensor center to the corner.
> 
> Just playing with a^2 + b^2 = c^2 or 24*24 + 36*36 = c2, c = 43.3 mm. Divide that to get the distance from the image sensor to the corner, and 21.65 cm.
> 
> ...


Not that I disbelieve you, but what you're describing might better be called the "image radius".


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.


24 f/1.4, first generation, from when I photographed bands in rather dimly lit clubs. I don't do that any more after realizing how much hearing I had lost.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Why limit to Canon lenses. Any full frame EF lens will do. Sure, not many examples out there, but my point is that if you really needed one, you would have gotten one. I have the Sigma 24mm f1.4 that I only use for Astro. But, I would never pay $4k for the proposed zoom. The 24mm and a 14mm are sufficient at less than half the cost.



For me, need has nothing to do with any of it. I don't "need" a camera at all. This is a hobby for me.

I had Tamron's 15-30 f/2.8. Great lens, but it seemed a little slow for astro and I lived in the desert at the time. Usefulness there was pretty limited. Now I live in the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex. The proposed lens would be very useful to me. I currently use 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm Takumars for my wide shots. They are old and slow. If the distortion is well controlled on this zoom and I've already got the body and other lenses? I'll buy. Not high on my list, but on the list just the same. But my EF glass will work well on an R anyway. I had my heart set on an EF 11-24 f/4L... but I might have to change my mind now.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2018)

nchoh said:


> ... oops, I don't qualify to comment.



I must say, I question your credibility. You'd already have one if you wanted one. There's bunches of f/1.4 UWA zooms out there, but stop kidding yourself.


----------



## AJ (Nov 2, 2018)

Dear Canon. Fast rectilinears are okay for astro photography, but I prefer fisheye. The old 15/2.8 has been discontinued and all we have now is an f/4 zoom. That's pretty slow. Can we have a 15/2 please, or better yet a 15/1.4 This would be awesome for milky way shots, star trails, aurora, and so on. Thank you for listening.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 2, 2018)

Bob Howland said:


> Not that I disbelieve you, but what you're describing might better be called the "image radius".


Agreed. I am not usually looking at the optical formulas in patents at depth and originally thought image height might be the vertical height of the frame. But, that is when I started looking at a few other patents and the "image height" was always much smaller than expected. That is when I started playing with the math and a couple of things pointed to the conclusion, but, as an engineer, it really is image radius.


----------



## canonnews (Nov 2, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Based on the absurdity of an RF 28-70mm F/2L, I'd say an RF 14-21mm F/1.4L is very feasible, albeit, very expensive. Lenses like these are what the EOS R system was designed for. Now if Canon could just deliver an EOS R camera body worthy of their glass... Hopefully I won't have to wait too long.



Actually the lens is incredibly well balanced on an EOS RF, you hardly notice the weight. you DO however feel the torque of AF motor when you focus  Picking up just the lens, or reading the specs really doesn't do that lens justice.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Nov 3, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree. The 24-70 f/2 isn't absurd at all. The price is reasonable too, if one considers the EF 200mm f/2L is $5600. I know, apples and oranges, but still a bargain. *If* I ever get an R the 24-70 f/2 would be the first lens I'd buy. Personally, I would love a 24-70 f/1.4... I don't care how heavy. 4 lbs. would be just fine with me. Same with a 70-200 (5.5-6.5 lbs?). I'd only have to have two lenses, nothing more.



24-70 F2 and 70-130 F2. I would just own these two lens and an ultra wide lens. 4lbs would be no problem. It's the price I'm concern about.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Nov 3, 2018)

Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people showed excited about RF lenses. They did not realize the prices that they cannot afford it. Canon tries to increase the cost for the RF lenses. The RF lenses were all junk and worthless because it limited to mirrorless Canon R camera bodies. 

Canon will abandon EF lenses and hope that they can find a way to terminate it as much as like they did in 1987/1989 against world most reliable lenses as known as FD and FDn included older lenses, R and FL.

These lenses are reliable, long-life constructed. Also, it is repairable easy. Canon decided to cease replacement parts available for FD and FDn as well as against tanks like constructed Canon A and F series camera bodies. That is why they ceased it due lack of profitability.

Be smart, DO NOT BUY RF lenses and R camera series until Canon announce that they will put EF lenses and EF based cameras as primary in the market. Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.

The difference was no autofocus and stabilizer features on FD or FDn lenses. Everything is manual control and more fun to use it. It is same as Carl Zeiss ZF lenses for EOS camera bodies as 100% manual setting. My 45 years old Canon F-1 with FD and FDn lenses included accessories such as motor drive, Servo EE finder, Booster T finder, and an external battery pack are all 100% functional. Only that I always wish to have digital back available for this camera as much as like Hasselblad. Unfortunately, Canon abandoned and ran away from it to work with EF based EOS system. I also have 44 years old Canon A-1 is still working flawlessly.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 3, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people showed excited about RF lenses. They did not realize the prices that they cannot afford it. Canon tries to increase the cost for the RF lenses. The RF lenses were all junk and worthless because it limited to mirrorless Canon R camera bodies.
> 
> Canon will abandon EF lenses and hope that they can find a way to terminate it as much as like they did in 1987/1989 against world most reliable lenses as known as FD and FDn included older lenses, R and FL.
> 
> ...



As a guy that works with a lot of vintage lenses I can tell you that I do not adapt a single FD lens to my EOS digital camera. Why? Because the adapter for those lenses adds another glass element to the mix and image quality suffers, a lot. FD are manual focus. Most people don't want that. They are not very popular. It is a very small niche market. The FD platform is long dead. It would not be cost effective to keep making replacement parts 31 years down the road. I understand your nostalgia. I also have a Canon A-1, two Mamiya film cameras, a Voigtlander, and a Yashica. The thing is that most people don't want to pay $6 for a single roll of film and then $14 to process it or buy the equipment needed to process it themselves. I wish I could still buy a 1968 Ford Fairlane GT and that Ford would keep making parts. It will never happen.

The difference between 1987 and now is that EF lenses work just as well on the R as they do on the DSLR. Canon was smart with that.

While you and I might like fooling around with manual focus lenses, most do not. Yes, some were built well. I have a single FD lens (50mm f/1.8) for my Canon A-1. It is not built well. It is mostly cheap plastic. My Takumars, on the other hand, are all metal and built to last.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 3, 2018)

mirage said:


> no. 24 vs 28 makes more difference in real life than f/2.0 vs f/2.8 in most use cases.



Playing words won't help you:

1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.

2. You've ignored 3 of the four examples.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 3, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people showed excited about RF lenses. They did not realize the prices that they cannot afford it. Canon tries to increase the cost for the RF lenses. The RF lenses were all junk and worthless because it limited to mirrorless Canon R camera bodies.
> 
> Canon will abandon EF lenses and hope that they can find a way to terminate it as much as like they did in 1987/1989 against world most reliable lenses as known as FD and FDn included older lenses, R and FL.
> 
> ...



If you are so fascinated about FD lenses ... why don't you praise the introduction of the EOS R? Which can take FD lenses via adaptor without any crop.
I experimented a lot with FD lenses on my M and M50 and these are fine. But when it comes to flare resistance, color fringing, focus speed they are vastly behind just medium expensive EF lenses (2.8 24 (old one), 2.8 40, 2.0 100, 2.8 100 Macro non-IS ). If you like the look of the images with FD lenses - portrait might be a very good field for not too sharp lenses with very natural rendering - why not.

And while AF is not always the best focus method - with the EVF, on-sensor DPAF and good low light AF just the M50 is an AF heaven for me: I would say sth. like 99% hit rate with EF-M 32 and EF 70-200 4.0 IS in closeup, objects at moderate speed, landscape and the same for macro work and the EF 400 5.6 WITH 2x TC.

But sometimes I dream of a FF sensor for the F-1 where battery and CPU go into the film cardridge space! Ergonomically these cameras are great so I understand your "suffering"


----------



## Talys (Nov 3, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.


I'm sure that Canon is considering this in their boardroom this very moment! 

What better way to steal users from Sony and Nikon ecosystems with FD lenses!


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Playing words won't help you:
> 
> 1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.
> .



yes. i understand that. Real question for me is "what for"? Extreme lenses have extremely limited applications and serve extremely small market niches. Canon is showing off the optical design potential of the new mount. And a few people will buy (or rent) them. Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.

But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses". Not only for APS-C (EF-M) but also for FF image circle (RF). Instead of currently 2 systems (crop and FF) i want to have only one in the near future: mirrorfree, as compact size as possible, "affordable", FF image circle. and i know many others who are looking for exactly the same. 

i therefore expect the current Canon (and Nikon) "lens designers' R and Z honeymoon" to end soon and business priorities taking over again: launch of "lesser", workhorse RF lenses that make more sense for vast majority of customers and for Canon's balance sheet. 

size/weight/portability of gear is very important to me, but i also want "full frame goodness". A smaller, less expensive "R50" body (same relation to EOS R as M50 vs M5 in terms of capability, size and pricing) along with a few compact, good and affordable non-L f/4.0 zooms and f/1.8-2.8 primes will serve me fine. eg RF 12-24/4, 24-85/4, 50-150/4.0 and 24/2.0, 35/1.8 (launched already), 50/1.8, 85/2.0, 135/2.8.

i don't need imaging gear to show off. i want unspectacular, inconspicuous, compact and light equipment for my non-professional, but enthusiastic use, that allows me to capture and create images within the limits of my equally unspectacular creativity, wallet and imaging situations. 

so - f/2.0, f/1.8, f/1.4 zooms all fine and well, but "not needed here".


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 3, 2018)

mirage said:


> yes. i understand that. Real question for me is "what for"? Extreme lenses have extremely limited applications and serve extremely small market niches. Canon is showing off the optical design potential of the new mount. And a few people will buy (or rent) them. Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.
> 
> But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses". Not only for APS-C (EF-M) but also for FF image circle (RF). Instead of currently 2 systems (crop and FF) i want to have only one in the near future: mirrorfree, as compact size as possible, "affordable", FF image circle. and i know many others who are looking for exactly the same.
> 
> ...


That's exactly my thoughts also.

Imagine that there are people out there which find the EOS R interesting and would consider to buy it. But if these are people who are willing to switch from another system or want to start with a mirrorless FF without having any camera gear so far. Would they really buy into the R system seeing which lenses are already here and which are rumoured to come along next? Besides the 35 f/1.8 and the 24-105 f/4 these are all very expensive L lenses. To get such people on the Canon EOS R ship Canon should start with more affordable RF-lenses. I for one wouldn't buy EF glass for the time being when I was new to the Canon EOS R eco system.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 3, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree. The 24-70 f/2 isn't absurd at all. The price is reasonable too, if one considers the EF 200mm f/2L is $5600. I know, apples and oranges, but still a bargain. *If* I ever get an R the 24-70 f/2 would be the first lens I'd buy. Personally, I would love a 24-70 f/1.4... I don't care how heavy. 4 lbs. would be just fine with me. Same with a 70-200 (5.5-6.5 lbs?). I'd only have to have two lenses, nothing more.


Canon invented the 24-70 f2.8...but they started the revolution with the legendary 28-70 f2.8 L. So I can't help but wonder if Can have deliberately made a 28-70 f2.0L with a view to make a 24-70 f2.0L later on. I also wonder if it's the first in a new range of f2 zooms. Canon trail blazed with their F4 range a few years back.


----------



## RGF (Nov 3, 2018)

tron said:


> This is very likely. At the same time usually people shoot at the ends of the zoom (not saying that this is right, merely stating a fact) and whoever gets those zooms most probably checks first for the widest angle part. Altough with proper IQ (sharpness, lack of coma) this lens would shine for astrophotography the cost would be ebormous and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 would be a fantastic closest match alternative for much much less. I got it for astrophotography and I didnt't regret it



Do you have problems getting the foreground and stars both sharp. The F1.8 limits DOF


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Playing words won't help you:
> 
> 1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.
> 
> 2. You've ignored 3 of the four examples.


I do not think he did. He commented on the one example I corrected you. You did not like the correction but they were stating the truth just like your 3 examples.
By the way I already own the first 2 (11-24, Ts-e 17) ... examples!


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 3, 2018)

mirage said:


> yes. i understand that.



So you agree Canon makes innovative lenses in practice (that was the point, remember?), but choose to argue something else? Wonderful.



mirage said:


> Real question for me is "what for"?



I responded to you saying "Canon makes like a million patents and like 1% opf the stuff actually comes out then even that takes years", which means you're now changing the subject of the discussion.

That's your right, but lets admit this is a new discussion.



mirage said:


> Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.



1. People could have said pretty much the same back when Canon moved from 28-70mm zooms to 24-70mm zooms.

2. If Canon made just an *ordinary* 24-70mm f/2.8, you would have said Canon isn't innovative.

3. Well, the whole point of making MILC is doing things that couldn't have been done before, even if some of them are niche.



mirage said:


> But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses".



Legit, and the reason why I'm not switching to EOS-R myself. I own three lenses I think Canon can improve on in the RF mount (11-24mm f/4, 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8), when two out of three come out, so will the cash come out of my wallet.



mirage said:


> i therefore expect the current Canon (and Nikon) "lens designers' R and Z honeymoon" to end soon and business priorities taking over again: launch of "lesser", workhorse RF lenses that make more sense for vast majority of customers and for Canon's balance sheet.



My guess is Canon thinks the adapter allows it to give the workhorse lenses to take the back seat for a while. My bet is the balance sheet will wake them up soon enough.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 3, 2018)

tron said:


> I do not think he did. He commented on the one example I corrected you. You did not like the correction but they were stating the truth just like your 3 examples.
> By the way I already own the first 2 (11-24, Ts-e 17) ... examples!



In Hebrew there's a phrase that describes this situation - "he made a claim about wheat, and was answered his claim about barley is right".


----------



## tron (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> In Hebrew there's a phrase that describes this situation - "he made a claim about wheat, and was answered his claim about barley is right".


To tell the truth I do not know what this means - English is not my native language - and to tell the truth I do not really care. This is a photography forum. What I see is that you spend much more effort to say anything but acknowledge your mistake and the fact that some may care more about the 24 to 28mm difference rather than the f/2.0 to f/2.8 one.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 3, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.


Have not used a 20 F1.4 for almost 10 hours now.....

If you shoot at night, wide FAST! lenses are a must......


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 3, 2018)

Bob Howland said:


> 24 f/1.4, first generation, from when I photographed bands in rather dimly lit clubs. I don't do that any more after realizing how much hearing I had lost.


I have a baggie of ear plugs in my camera bag


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 3, 2018)

tron said:


> To tell the truth I do not know what this means - English is not my native language - and to tell the truth I do not really care. This is a photography forum. What I see is that you spend much more effort to say anything but acknowledge your mistake and the fact that some may care more about the 24 to 28mm difference rather than the f/2.0 to f/2.8 one.



Oh, I admit the mistake. It's just not relevant to the point I was trying to make.


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Have not used a 20 F1.4 for almost 10 hours now.....
> If you shoot at night, wide FAST! lenses are a must......



only if there are moving subjects in the frame (including "astro on the cheap" without using an astro tracker) and/or if you insist on shooting handheld instead of using a tripod.


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> So you agree Canon makes innovative lenses in practice (that was the point, remember?), but choose to argue something else? Wonderful.



1.) "innovative" or more "art for art's sake"? 

2.) But my main point is rather: "Canon got priorities wrong" by launching super exotic, extreme niche glass FIRST, without even a suitable hi-end/hi-rez camera available yet for those lenses. It would have been smarter to first launch lenses in line with the positioning of EOS R ("6D class" camera). Fancy "pink unicorn lenses" would have still early enough later on, along with fancy, hi-end camera bodies.


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> 2. If Canon made just an *ordinary* 24-70mm f/2.8, you would have said Canon isn't innovative.



it depends. Had Canon launched an RF 24-70/2.8 *with IS *(!) that is either 
* significantly smaller/lighter than EF 24-70 Mk. II and/or 
* significantly higher IQ and/or 
* significantly less expensive ... 
I would have said: "yes, USEFUL innovation, most potential customers will love that, not only a very few." 

Had they launched an RF 24-70 without IS that is same size, weight and IQ as the EF version, but 40% more expensive, i would have said what i am saying with regards to the RF 24-105: "not innovative. Too bad, Canon was not able or willing to leverage R mount potential and offer us meaningful advantages."


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 3, 2018)

mirage said:


> 1.) "innovative" or more "art for art's sake"?



I think Canon does not make lenses it expects to lose money on, so "art for art's sake" is off the menu.

I'm not saying profit is Canon's only consideration, nor that Canon makes a profit on every lens it makes. I'm saying Canon would not make a lens expecting to lose money on it.



mirage said:


> 2.) But my main point is rather: "Canon got priorities wrong" by launching super exotic, extreme niche glass FIRST, without even a suitable hi-end/hi-rez camera available yet for those lenses. It would have been smarter to first launch lenses in line with the positioning of EOS R ("6D class" camera). Fancy "pink unicorn lenses" would have still early enough later on, along with fancy, hi-end camera bodies.



You responded to a patent relating to ultra wide ultra fast lenses (if that's not super exotic, extreme niche glass, I don't know what is) with the claim only a small percent of Canon patents turns into lenses, and then only after a long time. Pardon me if I took it to mean you're disappointed those pink unicorn lenses aren't going to appear any time soon.

Just to be clear - I'd like to see an RF 16-35mm f/2.8 before either an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L or an RF 12-20mm f/2L (I expect both to be too expensive for me) too, but it didn't sound like what you were saying.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 3, 2018)

mirage said:


> it depends. Had Canon launched an RF 24-70/2.8 *with IS *(!) that is either
> * significantly smaller/lighter than EF 24-70 Mk. II and/or
> * significantly higher IQ and/or
> * significantly less expensive ...
> I would have said: "yes, USEFUL innovation, most potential customers will love that, not only a very few."



To my knowledge, no other company makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS which is either
* Smaller/lighter than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8
* Has higher IQ than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8 (IIRC, I've read repeated complaints to the reverse)
* significantly less expensive than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8

So I disagree such a lens would be ordinary.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 3, 2018)

Yasko said:


> New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:
> 
> These new lenses are very expensive...
> In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.
> ...



The large aperture has more to do than a fast shutter speed. It has creative value as well.


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Just to be clear - I'd like to see an RF 16-35mm f/2.8 before either an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L or an RF 12-20mm f/2L (I expect both to be too expensive for me) too, but it didn't sound like what you were saying.



sorry if my writing was not clear. Exactly same opinion as you! 
And yes, it is "a patent only" right now. No problem with Canon patenting all sorts of stuff. As long as they MAKE and SELL the very products I am interested in.


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> To my knowledge, no other company makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS which is either
> * Smaller/lighter than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8
> * Has higher IQ than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8 (IIRC, I've read repeated complaints to the reverse)
> * significantly less expensive than same company's IS-less 24-70mm f/2.8
> ...



Yes. I agree. That's why i would call an RF 24-70/2.8 IS with one or more of the above properties "innovative". If it lacks any of those features, I would have called it "ordinary".


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I think Canon does not make lenses it expects to lose money on, so "art for art's sake" is off the menu.
> 
> I'm not saying profit is Canon's only consideration, nor that Canon makes a profit on every lens it makes. I'm saying Canon would not make a lens expecting to lose money on it.



No that isn't true, they made the 50 f1.0L, and the 200 f1.8L and didn't expect to make the money back, some would argue they will never sell enough TS-E 17's to recoup the investment in making them, but, the promotional value of those lenses is what makes them worth making. 

Systems require a system, back in the day Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax all vied for the most complete macro systems as that was where the interest was, now macro seems to have wained somewhat but Canon rule with the MP-E6; Canon also stand head and shoulders above everybody for tilt and shift lenses. Most people will never use these lenses at the extremes of the system, some have to buy a body based on them, but several of those lenses will never turn in a profit for Canon.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 3, 2018)

Photorex said:


> That's exactly my thoughts also.
> 
> Imagine that there are people out there which find the EOS R interesting and would consider to buy it. But if these are people who are willing to switch from another system or want to start with a mirrorless FF without having any camera gear so far. Would they really buy into the R system seeing which lenses are already here and which are rumoured to come along next? Besides the 35 f/1.8 and the 24-105 f/4 these are all very expensive L lenses. To get such people on the Canon EOS R ship Canon should start with more affordable RF-lenses. I for one wouldn't buy EF glass for the time being when I was new to the Canon EOS R eco system.





nchoh said:


> A zoom of that ability does not exist yet does it



IMHO. Canon is firing a shot over the bow of their competitors. They are telling pro users that the can create spectacular lenses that Sony, Nikon and Fufi cannot match because they have the better mount and lens design and building ability.

They are also probably delaying the release of more pedestrian lenses to wait for the existing stock of EF lenses to whittle down before releasing RF for the massas.


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

I think they sold enough copies of the TS-E 17/4 to get a handsome profit from that lens model. 50/1.0 is questionable though.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 3, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Just a thought.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2018/11/02/the-canon-eos-r-camera-review-i-switched-to-canon-for-this/


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 3, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> No that isn't true, they made the 50 f1.0L, and the 200 f1.8L and didn't expect to make the money back, some would argue they will never sell enough TS-E 17's to recoup the investment in making them, but, the promotional value of those lenses is what makes them worth making.



I would love to know what your claim is based on.

Both Canon & Nikon make a 200mm f/2, and I doubt they keep on losing money on it just for the promotional value. I doubt the fraction of an f stop made the difference between profit and loss, and rumor has it manufacturing was stopped due to dangerous materials in the glass (lead? some radioactive element?)


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 3, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> I would love to know what your claim is based on.
> 
> Both Canon & Nikon make a 200mm f/2, and I doubt they keep on losing money on it just for the promotional value. I doubt the fraction of an f stop made the difference between profit and loss, and rumor has it manufacturing was stopped due to dangerous materials in the glass (lead? some radioactive element?)


It is based on Canon articles and interviews I have read over the past 30 years, many not online. Do the research yourself if you want to, older versions of Canon's Lens Work book would be a reasonable starting place.

The 200 f1.8 was a loss leader that was an attempt to push photographers into the EF (auto focus) system from the FD (manual focus) system, they got so much pushback from pro's that they made a very limited number of manual focus FD 200 f1.8's after the first EF versions.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 3, 2018)

Individual lenses might not be 'profitable' in themselves (in terms of amortising development time etc), but they exist because they (help) entice especially pro shooters to the Canon System, within which they will end up buying lots of extremely profitable lenses (and replacement bodies) over time. I haven't noticed them selling exotic lenses cheaply (in any sense) so they are presumably recovering the costs of actually producing them (and maybe the holding costs of keeping a decent inventory so they are actually available in territory now and not in multiple months time), but they would probably not be recovering the full cost of the individual lens - except in the price of other lenses / bodies.


----------



## Franklyok (Nov 4, 2018)

This is a solution for croped 4K video. idk is this good or not... canon is not going to have ff 4k video sooner - that is the message


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 4, 2018)

So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....


----------



## tron (Nov 4, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Oh, I admit the mistake. It's just not relevant to the point I was trying to make.


But I never said I do not agree about Canon innovating. I mentioned that I already have the 11-24 and the TS-E 17 after all. I just pointed out the 24 - 28 difference. Nothing more. Even the 3 out of 4 points anyway proved Canon innovation already. And the new lenses (as well as the white ones) keep them on top lens position.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....


Agree. What this means is that a full line of R mount bodies are coming ... from entry level to top of the line pro. However, we don’t have a Canon roadmap so resort to guessing the timing.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 4, 2018)

colorblinded said:


> While I get what you're saying, it's kind of disingenuous. Are they really delivering or innovating? Sure, especially in lenses. In bodies they're a lot iffier.


I tend to disagree, but the lens is a bigger deal anyway.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....



Yup. I'm just glad that Ramen and eggs are still inexpensive.  I don't spend money on anything much besides camera gear. I go out to eat exclusively during football season for a plate of nachos and diet coke once a week (and I save for that during the off season). I live very frugally for the sake of my photography hobby. That is my luxury. The RF lenses, so far, have me very intrigued. If I ever bought an R body it would be for the lenses. Period. Whatever the sensor, whatever the fps, none of that matters to me. The body will be just fine for what I do. The lenses will be sublime. I'm all about the lenses. I don't care how big or heavy they are. The lens is where 10% of the magic is. Camera = 2%. Photographer = 88%... just to pull numbers out of dark places. You get my point.


----------



## mirage (Nov 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> So far we have seen one body, and some fast lenses..... now we see a patent for a very fast zoom. We can argue all we want, but the preliminary evidence points to the R system being high end with lots of fast glass, but time will tell....



still a strange mismatch. mainly "fancy jigh-end lenses", but only a "pedestrian camera". Canon would have created more of a stir with either a hi-rez body clearly better than Nikon Z7/Sony A7R 3 and/or a "sports machine gun" better than Sony A9. Fancy glass would then have bern the icing on the cake ...

it all confirms to me, that Canon is not yet able to launch hi-end, hi-rez or hi-speed R bodies.

but i am sure EOS R is not a mere "hi-end system", but will supplant EF at all levels. there will be a few fancy/fast lenses and lots and lots of "less ambitious" RF lenses too. 

until then i will just not buy into R system. no problem for me, only for Canon.


----------



## mirage (Nov 4, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The lens is where 10% of the magic is. Camera = 2%. Photographer = 88%...



88% or 99% for photog is fine with me. 

The other percentages however may have been like that back in analogue times when cameras not much more than "film holders". In digital imaging, camera with sensor, processing/imaging pipeline (hard- and software) and AF system plus post processing (software and skills) are key to get image as desired in the first place and have it look as desired. Lenses are still important, but with ever diminishing weighting. 
T
hanks to computational photography we will (hopefully) be freed entirely from having to buy and carry big, heavy expensive ground glass shards in the not too distant future. Writing's clearly on the wall already. R and Z are basically CaNikons last ditch efforts to sell expensive cameras with big, expensive lenses ... before it is game over. Yes, still a few years to go, but not too many. 

One of the reasons why I want more modest, compact, decent IQ [not "stellar" or "fancy"], affordable lenses. Not inclined to spend lots of money on big, expensive glass that will serve as nice paperweights soon enough.


----------



## jedy (Nov 4, 2018)

Yet another huge lens that’s going to be very expensive. Is it really necessary to have f1.4 in an ultra wide angle zoom lens? Also, when are Canon going to start giving EOS R customers decent, native (and affordable) non-L prime lenses?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 4, 2018)

jedy said:


> Yet another huge lens that’s going to be very expensive. Is it really necessary to have f1.4 in an ultra wide angle zoom lens? Also, when are Canon going to start giving EOS R customers decent, native (and affordable) non-L prime lenses?



No it isn't really necessary, but to stand out Canon have to do something markedly different from the competition and lenses is where they shine, there are an awful lot of images out there that are easiest shot on a Canon, why wouldn't they leverage the size and weight gains from the bodies into the lenses?

As for the non L R lenses, I don't think there will be many for quite a while, I'd think Canon's attitude would be if you want slow get an M and maximize the size weight and cost savings that an APS sensor can realize.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 4, 2018)

jedy said:


> Also, when are Canon going to start giving EOS R customers decent, native (and affordable) non-L prime lenses?



Never.

They will probably eventually start selling them, though, once they march though the current roadmap which appears intended to showcase lens configurations uniquely available on the new platform (the only selling point of the EOS-R, in my opinion).


----------



## CanonGrunt (Nov 4, 2018)

I wonder what the 14mm & 20mm primes are going to he like...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2018)

CanonGrunt said:


> I wonder what the 14mm & 20mm primes are going to he like...


F1.2 ?


----------



## ketilring (Nov 5, 2018)

I just want a 20-50mm f/2 L IS. It will cover 99.99% of my photographic needs. And I will gladly pay $3000 for it.


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> F1.2 ?


If you see how big the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 is you will not believe that they will make a 14 1.2 lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2018)

tron said:


> If you see how big the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 is you will not believe that they will make a 14 1.2 lens.


Bigger than the aforementioned zoom?


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Bigger 5han the aforementioned zoom?


Good question! If they made a 14mm 1.2L with good IQ and no coma (or almost no coma) they would tempt me but for the price!

For now Sigma 14mm 1.8 made me reduce ISO a lot (from the days I was using a 14 2.8 lens)


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2018)

Meanwhile they talk about a 14-21 f/1.4L zoom lens but they have not provided us with a 16-35 f/2.8L IS zoom 
This would replace my 16-35 f/2.8L III and 16-35 f/4L IS zoom lenses (I like them both and I cannot get rid either...)

EDIT: And they haven't talked about a 16-35 f/2L...


----------



## mirage (Nov 5, 2018)

tron said:


> Meanwhile they talk about a 14-21 f/1.4L zoom lens but they have not provided us with a 16-35 f/2.8L IS zoom
> This would replace my 16-35 f/2.8L III and 16-35 f/4L IS zoom lenses (I like them both and I cannot get rid either...)
> 
> EDIT: And they haven't talked about a 16-35 f/2L...



well Canon hinted at "f/2.8" RF zooms ... RF 24-70/2.8 IS for sure, but I'd also expect an RF 16-35/2.8 L ... IS !?


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> well Canon hinted at "f/2.8" RF zooms ... RF 24-70/2.8 IS for sure, but I'd also expect an RF 16-35/2.8 L ... IS !?


Because they cannot make it in EF right? Oh wait Tamron could....
But I guess you are right about Canon being able and intending to introduce RF f/2.8 lenses...


----------



## Tom W (Nov 5, 2018)

Personally, a 14-28 f/2 zoom would be a great companion to the 28-70. And, a 70-150 or so f/2 tele zoom would complete the set of a new f/2 holy trinity.


----------



## tron (Nov 5, 2018)

Tom W said:


> Personally, a 14-28 f/2 zoom would be a great companion to the 28-70. And, a 70-150 or so f/2 tele zoom would complete the set of a new f/2 holy trinity.


Neither of the three would tempt me but I agree they would make a new trinity and that some pros would like them. I stil prefer the old fashioned set of f/2.8 ones though.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 7, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> f/1.4 is incredible for a zoom like this, but who is it for. It could be a fantastic Astro lens, but I would not plunk $4k down for it.


Yes...it''s an obvious set piece...a stunt lens. It's inclusion in the rumours of early RF lenses is to tie off all of the forum trolls who comment on any new wide lens as being poor for astro-photography. Even though it's an extremely narrow niche. this lens is going to be big, heavy and expensive...maybe more than the illustrious 11-24L. Canon have no intention of making any profit with this lens...but will milk the cache or qudos of making it to silence a very vocal niche. Ironically, the best wide for astro work that I've used is the Canon 8-15L fisheye....but that's another story. 
The RF mount offers the capability of rear mounted filters as a working solution. I would prefer a two slot solution...and the ability to use a range of solid NDs. My experience with vari-ND's hasn't been good as they use a pair of polarisers and it's easy to get dark swirls in the frame with ultra wides. But....Canon may have done their home work and the vari-ND's might work. Ironically....the touch screen AF would really work well for landscape work when mounted on a tripod. Which I'm sure wasn't the intention of a mirrorless / Range Finder inspired camera system.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 7, 2018)

tron said:


> Good question! If they made a 14mm 1.2L with good IQ and no coma (or almost no coma) they would tempt me but for the price!
> 
> For now Sigma 14mm 1.8 made me reduce ISO a lot (from the days I was using a 14 2.8 lens)



If you want a coma free wide lens...then try the Canon 8-15L fisheye lens. Fisheyes are naturally coma free due to the lack of rectilinear correction (image stretching to make it fit in the corners). Circles stay circular with a fish, where as on a rectilinear corrected lens...they go egg shaped and a bit wonky towards the corners. It's apart of the lens design that causes this. There is no such thing as a fully "corrected lens". A designer can either correct the straights...or the circles....but not both.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2018)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If you want a coma free wide lens...then try the Canon 8-15L fisheye lens. Fisheyes are naturally coma free due to the lack of rectilinear correction (image stretching to make it fit in the corners). Circles stay circular with a fish, where as on a rectilinear corrected lens...they go egg shaped and a bit wonky towards the corners. It's apart of the lens design that causes this. There is no such thing as a fully "corrected lens". A designer can either correct the straights...or the circles....but not both.


It doesn't need to be completely coma free but there is a distance between having some coma and having horrible coma. Remember I wrote also: or almost no coma. Well a little coma is not a problem but horrible coma like the one of Canon 24mm 1.4L II is not acceptable.


----------



## -1 (Nov 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Most photographers have no idea what the new patents are, so it is not a case of Canon using them to keep people around. Canon gets patents to protect new designs from being encroached.



Most people think that a patent means that product might be in the pipeline soo it is a way to keep folks around...


----------



## beachcolonist (Nov 10, 2018)

Such a thing is a boutique product with marginal added utility and a user base of either the very wealthy or the few with the actual need to have it make income. So it's not a big deal. A big deal with be 25% lower prices all over the range of L lenses or new R lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 13, 2018)

-1 said:


> Most people think that a patent means that product might be in the pipeline soo it is a way to keep folks around...


Hilarious. Very, very, very few people search patent applications. Very, very few... in my opinion. I don't personally think applying for patents to keep people around as customers is a business strategy. It is a business necessity to protect intellectual property. This is the only forum I belong to that looks at them. I have not personally ever taken a patent application into account when looking towards purchasing a new item. If I did that, then I'd be "paused" for decades (at times) waiting for something that might never come to fruition. So, respectfully, I strongly disagree.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 9, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Which companies have delivered a...
> 
> A) 11-24mm f/4 zoom lens
> B) 17mm f/4 tilt shift lens
> ...


I totally agree, the days of not so great wide lenses from Canon is a mantra from over 10 years ago and completely dispelled from the launch of the TS-e 17mm onwards. Going back the the EF lens history...Just to add to your innovation list here....Canon were in fact the first manufacturer to deliver a constant aperture 28-70 f2.8 (1993) then later a 24-70 f2.8 (2002 - pre digital). They also produced the first 80-200 f2.8 aka the magic drain pipe in 1989. it was the first constant f2.8 design. The more familiar 70-200 f2.8 (1995) and a 70-200 f2.8 LIS (2001). Both the original 24-70 f2.8 L and 70-200 f2.8 L were so revolutionary and so far ahead of the competition it look a long time for anyone else to even come close. When Nikon finally made their fantastic 24-70 f2.8 variant...it was a total rip off of Canon's novel design, although newer and sharper..but some 10 years later...what does one expect? In fact these two Canon lenses stayed in Canon's front line lens catalogue for a lot longer than any of the competition's...which point to how Canon innovates. They get it SO right...the first time.
The four lenses that you listed are still without equal. I personally own and regularly use a TSe 17mm and a 8-15mm fish and there is nothing vaguely simular from any other marque. Some of these lenses have been around for a long time now. My 8-15mm fish was bought from the first uk batch (and it cost me a lot). That was nearly 10 years ago. My TSe 17, I've owned for over 11 years.


----------

