# Patent: EF-S 15-300mm & EF 28-550mm Optical Formulas



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 18, 2017)

```
<p>A patent application covering two optical formulas for both a full frame and APS-C superzoom have surfaced in Japan.</p>

<ul>
<li>Full Frame: 28-550mm f/3.5-6.3</li>
<li>APS-C: 15-300 f/3.5-6.3</li>
</ul>
<p>I think it’s more likely that we see a replacement for the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS than a superzoom like this for a full frame DSLR. Though these formulas could be related to a completely different lens.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 18, 2017)

a 28-550mm would be awesome!

just to see the size of it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2017)

The interesting bit is f/6.3. That suggests these are for mirrorless cameras.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> The interesting bit is f/6.3. That suggests these are for mirrorless cameras.



... not necessarily - maybe some communication from the lens to the camera allows for AF with f/6.3,
just with older cameras?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 18, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The interesting bit is f/6.3. That suggests these are for mirrorless cameras.
> ...



Why would Canon throw away their proud 'feature' of near universal EOS/EF compatibility for a slow hyper zoom? I can't see Canon ever making a native EF lens slower than f5.6, heck they even forced that on the EF 1200mm years ago and deliberately dropped the built in 1.4TC when they rebodied the glass from the FD versions so it maintained f5.6 despite Nikon making a 1700mm Canon couldn't compete with because of that self imposed f5.6 limit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2017)

These are clearly lenses aimed at consumer-level buyers. PDAF on xxxD bodies requires f/5.6. Too much lost face if they have to spoof their own cameras. Game over.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 18, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The interesting bit is f/6.3. That suggests these are for mirrorless cameras.
> ...



most canon cameras nowadays work fine with greater than 5.6 lenses


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> These are clearly lenses aimed at consumer-level buyers. PDAF on xxxD bodies requires f/5.6. Too much lost face if they have to spoof their own cameras. Game over.



an easy firmware update would resolve that.

looking through patents, one thing that I notice more and more, there's a TON of canon patents that top out at f6.3.

alot more than what's being reported. try at least 5 times as many.


----------



## TAF (Nov 18, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>A patent application covering two optical formulas for both a full frame and APS-C superzoom have surfaced in Japan.</p>
> 
> <ul>
> <li>Full Frame: 28-550mm f/3.5-6.3</li>
> ...




May we assume the pistol grip, shoulder stock, and sling will all be extra cost accessories?

Of course, if it is an 'L' with 'IS', it will also be $4000 (plus another $1000 for the above mentioned necessary attachments).

Funny thing is, I would have to seriously consider one, if I can lift it.


----------



## zim (Nov 18, 2017)

Good luck walking about with a pistol grip and shoulder stock now a days!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > These are clearly lenses aimed at consumer-level buyers. PDAF on xxxD bodies requires f/5.6. Too much lost face if they have to spoof their own cameras. Game over.
> ...



Not going to open happen, EF/-S means f/5.6. There are lots of f/6.3 patents because MILC share is rising, and it will be too late to start developing them if MILCs surpass dSLRs.


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 20, 2017)

We don't need superzoom lenses. Something that is good for everything is good for nothing. We buy DSLRs with interchangeable lenses because the Image Quality of a special purpose lens (10-24, 24-70, 70-200) is far better than an all purpose one (10-200 or whatever). If you need the superzoom feature buy a point and shoot camera with superzoom (and manual control) capabilities like some of the PowerShot SX or G series.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 20, 2017)

15-300 on crop..... 28-550 on FF.....

Both lenses will sell like crazy.

Yes, I know that they will not have the IQ of a good L lens, and that superzooms are inferior to zooms with a more modest range, but for price and convenience these will kick L lens butt!. The vast majority of consumers are not going to plop down $2000 for a better quality lens.... these will end up being the best lens that they can/will afford.

F6.3? Remember that the tamron and sigma F5.6 lenses work on all the Canon bodies..... I am fairly sure that Canon has the ability to make theirs work too.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> F6.3? Remember that the tamron and sigma F5.6 lenses work on all the Canon bodies..... I am fairly sure that Canon has the ability to make theirs work too.....



Sure, and if you tape the pins of a 1.4x TC on an f/5.6 lens, the camera will (try to) AF. But Canon states a requirement for f/5.6. It's not a question of having the ability, it's a question of them saying, "We've been lying to you for years, suckahs."


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 21, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> We don't need superzoom lenses. Something that is good for everything is good for nothing. We buy DSLRs with interchangeable lenses because the Image Quality of a special purpose lens (10-24, 24-70, 70-200) is far better than an all purpose one (10-200 or whatever). If you need the superzoom feature buy a point and shoot camera with superzoom (and manual control) capabilities like some of the PowerShot SX or G series.



While Canon does sell lenses to enthusiasts, there is a huge market for superzoom lenses. Camera manufacturers make what sells.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> *We* don't need superzoom lenses. Something that is good for everything is good for nothing. *W*e buy DSLRs with interchangeable lenses because the Image Quality of a special purpose lens (10-24, 24-70, 70-200) is far better than an all purpose one (10-200 or whatever).



If you substitute "I" for "we" that's perfectly fine. But as written, your statements are ridiculous and manifestly wrong.


----------

