# Patent: Canon EF-S 100-300mm f/4-5.6 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 21, 2015)

```
A rare patent for an EF-S lens optical formula has appeared in the form of a Canon EF-S 100-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. I’m quite interested in seeing how much development Canon puts into APS-C cameras and EF-S lenses in the coming years.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-138178</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.7.30</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.1.23</li>
</ul>
<p>Example 1</p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length 102.00 195.50 291.20mm</li>
<li>F number 4.16 5.14 5.88</li>
<li>Half angle of 7.63 4.00 2.69 °</li>
<li>Positive and negative positive and negative four-group zoom</li>
<li>Anti-vibration (part of the second group)</li>
</ul>
```


----------



## Freddy (Aug 21, 2015)

Does anyone think there's a chance of a high-end EF-S tele zoom to go with the 17-55? Or am I dreaming?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 21, 2015)

Freddy said:


> Does anyone think there's a chance of a high-end EF-S tele zoom to go with the 17-55? Or am I dreaming?



I've wondered that for years, but I don't see it happening. I think the "prosumer" 7D2 users are buyers of the 70-300L and 100-400L.

I'm not sure if the 70D user buys bigger lenses, I'm out of the retail loop.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 21, 2015)

The lens of this patent seems redundant, considering the various options 70-300mm, and the good and cheap 55-250mm STM.

I also wish Canon produce more EF-S lenses of high quality. Something like 55-150mm F2.8 would be great. In fact, the current 17-55mm needs updating to remain competitive in the next generation of cameras.


----------



## Freddy (Aug 21, 2015)

Completely agree. My dream list; 8-16 3.5 or faster, (Sigma do one) 50-150 F2.8, 150-350 or thereabouts with a decent speed. I'd like these lenses because of the size advantage with APS-C. I don't see the point of compact cameras and large lenses, but I'm probably being too hopeful.


----------



## seamonster (Aug 21, 2015)

It won't even have USM. In fact I don't think they will ever release a EF-S lens with USM anymore. Not saying STM is terrible but its not USM and USM is what we are used to.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 21, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The lens of this patent seems redundant, considering the various options 70-300mm, and the good and cheap 55-250mm STM.



Yep, I wouldnt give up 55-100 just to get from 250-300, and I cant imagine a price point where this lens makes much sense. If its a replacement for the abysmal 75-300, well, then it has to be both dirt cheap ($199 retail) and it doesnt extend the previous lenses range, which is odd. Cant see it being a replacement for the 55-250 or non-L 70-300 either.

Now, if it was an EF-S 100-300 f/4, itd be more interesting. Size and weight wise it'd be much smaller than a 70-200 or 70-300 lens, but still have the option with TC to get to 400mm f/5.6.


----------



## RGF (Aug 21, 2015)

an update to the 70-300 L in the EF-S format (slightly better IQ, lower weight) would be welcomed


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> A smaller telephoto lens that would work well with an adapter on EOS M?


Judging by the diagram, I do not think more compact than the 75-300mm. The need for a EF-S 100-300mm is questionable, but can be a super-cheap lens to retire the terrible EF 75-300mm.


----------



## TeT (Aug 21, 2015)

Freddy said:


> Does anyone think there's a chance of a high-end EF-S tele zoom to go with the 17-55? Or am I dreaming?



While not high end in construction... It potentially will be extremely good optically. Think 55 - 250 which holds its own against just about anything on a crop. With STM focus, while not USM fast, it should not be a focus huntfest either.


----------



## Dfunk99 (Aug 21, 2015)

Yawn - sounds like a piece of junk to me, especially if it's an ef-s lens.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 21, 2015)

the 55-250STM is an amazing inexpensive little lens.
If they can take the same basic premise and stretch it out another 50mm, I'm all for it.

Actually I wouldn't mind if they made this a little higher end either. Give it USM and weather-sealing, maybe even an internal zoom mechanism? 300f5.6 would be a great lens for backpacking and casual use.


----------



## Markus D (Aug 21, 2015)

This is one of the reasons I have (maybe temporarily) changed from Canon to Fuji XT-1: size/weight. I have had the 100-400 version 1, 70-200 2,8 L IS and the 70 - 300 L IS with the 24-105 and they are all getting a bit too heavy. A 70D with a quality 70-300 EF-S F4L IS would hopefully be lighter or as light as my still remaining 70-200 F4L IS. I miss the Canon focusing the XT-1 has, not any speed issue but I love an optical viewfinder.

And yes please, update the excellent 17-55 2.8 and I could safely return to Canon.

As it is, I am waiting for next year now to see Fuji release their promised 100-400 to see what IQ and size that has.


----------



## The Supplanter (Aug 22, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm not sure if the 70D user buys bigger lenses, I'm out of the retail loop.



Nope. Not interested in bigger lenses.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Aug 22, 2015)

Now that Canon seems to be making excellent kit lenses, people have fewer reasons to buy their more expensive lenses. This would not be good for Canon's profits.

This lens would probably have image quality almost as good as the 70-300L. Having it start at 100mm gives more reasons to stretch for a more expensive (and higher margin) lens.


----------



## TeT (Aug 22, 2015)

Not everyone can reach a little extra for the "good" glass. For every L glass user there are umpteen Kit lens ppl out there. I have L glass, but my niece cannot afford such. You should see the images she gets with her T3i and 55 250.

As you all well know, its about proper technique and good lighting. An affordable body + affordable lens can capture amazing images.

Some of the snobbish attitudes towards affordable equipment in this thread (and this forum in general) are amusing...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 22, 2015)

TeT said:


> Not everyone can reach a little extra for the "good" glass. For every L glass user there are umpteen Kit lens ppl out there. I have L glass, but my niece cannot afford such. You should see the images she gets with her T3i and 55 250.
> 
> As you all well know, its about proper technique and good lighting. An affordable body + affordable lens can capture amazing images.
> 
> Some of the little snobbish attitudes towards affordable equipment in this thread (and this forum in general) are amusing...


I understand that most daily goers Canonrumors have "L" lenses. But we should not scorn those who seek good cheap lenses.

The new STM 10-18mm, 18-55mm, 55-250mm has image quality that is the envy users of D5300, A6000, etc. These lenses are much better than I could wish when used photographic film. There was a time that my dream was an EF 28-105mm lens, and I dreamed of a 75-300mm. As I was innocent ...

I give thanks to God that today I have at my disposal great STM kit lens, Sigma Art, Tokina, etc.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > Not everyone can reach a little extra for the "good" glass. For every L glass user there are umpteen Kit lens ppl out there. I have L glass, but my niece cannot afford such. You should see the images she gets with her T3i and 55 250.
> ...



+1

There is at times too much emphasis on the crème-a-le-crème of equipment, rather than capturing a good image, understanding light well – and making the most of equipment to hand. So many great images have been captured with ‘lesser’ equipment for many many years.

Many people have indeed captured magical moments and/or produced fantastic photos using combinations like ‘entry level DSLRs with a 55-250mm budget telezoom’. While professionals creating front-page / award winning images will often use very good / L glass (particularly in very challenging lighting / challenging AF situations) – let’s not undermine photos taken with lessor equipment.

A new EF-S 100-300mm lens would be good, though I do not necessarily see much need for it over the excellent EF-S 55-250mm STM (which I have recommended to many friends entering the Canon DSLR world).

I owned the EF 100-300mm USM before I owned the EF 70-300mm L USM IS I currently use as my tele lens. While the 100-300mm was not great wide open at tele-lengths, I still caught many good photos with it for the years I owned it (careful use of aperture and ISO, as well as some specific post-processing helped a lot). My 70-300mm L blows my old 100-300mm USM out the water in every way (apart from size/weight). I have sold the 100-300mm and I don’t see any need for me to replace my 70-300mm L anytime soon. The excellent 100-400mm II is too large for my ‘portability-travel tele-zoom criteria’.

Regards

Paul


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 24, 2015)

I would like to see such a lens. The 55-250 is a rather cheap Option, but still quite nice. The 100-300 should sit above it, with some extra Features (USM). The price should be between 1/2 to 2/3 of the 70-300L, with IQ close to it, and a lower weight. I think weight and size will play a role in such a decicion. The Sony Alphas and Fuji all have quality zoom lenses in this area, so Canon actually needs to counter, if they like to sell APS-C DSLRs.
A 100-300 would be a nice option to test the market, for such lenses. But I think such a lens would suit very well on 7D II, and many photographers would welcome such a lens in their kit. A little lower IQ (especially at the Corners), but less expensive and lighter, sounds fair.

I have the 70-200 f4 IS, which is a great lens. I actually like to switch to the 70-300L. The only thing that makes me doubt such a switch is, that in the lens comparison-tool over at The-Digital-Picture, the 70-300 is notably weaker than the 70-200. I know these are synthetic Studio shots of test Charts, and most other test say the 70-300 is very good. I'm just not sure because T-D-P is the only place where I can compare shots of lenses, and not only read test Charts, and These shots tell me, IQ wise, it will be a downgrade. Has anybody expirience with those two lenses?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 24, 2015)

aj1575 said:


> I would like to see such a lens. The 55-250 is a rather cheap Option, but still quite nice. The 100-300 should sit above it, with some extra Features (USM). The price should be between 1/2 to 2/3 of the 70-300L, with IQ close to it, and a lower weight. I think weight and size will play a role in such a decicion. The Sony Alphas and Fuji all have quality zoom lenses in this area, so Canon actually needs to counter, if they like to sell APS-C DSLRs.
> A 100-300 would be a nice option to test the market, for such lenses. But I think such a lens would suit very well on 7D II, and many photographers would welcome such a lens in their kit. A little lower IQ (especially at the Corners), but less expensive and lighter, sounds fair.
> 
> I have the 70-200 f4 IS, which is a great lens. I actually like to switch to the 70-300L. The only thing that makes me doubt such a switch is, that in the lens comparison-tool over at The-Digital-Picture, the 70-300 is notably weaker than the 70-200. I know these are synthetic Studio shots of test Charts, and most other test say the 70-300 is very good. I'm just not sure because T-D-P is the only place where I can compare shots of lenses, and not only read test Charts, and These shots tell me, IQ wise, it will be a downgrade. Has anybody expirience with those two lenses?



Just took a look at TDP and the 70-300L does look weaker than the 70-200 f/4 IS for crop at all focal lengths, but it is not true for FF. The 70-300L becomes comparable around 135mm, and is clearly ahead at longer focal lengths. I wasn't expecting such a large difference between the crop and FF results. I have only used the 70-300L on FF, and for FF, it works fine. IQ is good and is better than the 70-200s with extenders at the long end.

The thing with the 70-300L is that it seems to have more comprises that other L-lenses. 70-200s do better at the shorter ranges and the 100-400 II is a better (also heavier and larger) lens. And one of the 70-300L's strengths (compact size, and relatively low weight) does not show up on test charts. If you're looking for critical performance at all focal lengths, then the 70-300L doesn't win out. For travel, where weight and size are big factors, it is much more competitive.


----------



## e_honda (Aug 24, 2015)

I'm just curious how much this patented lens is needed.

From an IQ standpoint, it's likely to be inferior to the 70-300L. I'm guessing it falls somewhere between the 70-300L and the 70-300 non L in terms of IQ and price, and it would only work for crops sensors.

Just don't know how big a need there is for such a lens, given what's already available.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> This makes sense.
> 
> 24-105/f3.5-5.6 IS STM
> 100-300/f4-5.6 IS STM
> ...



Why would you pair this EF-S lens with an EF walkaround? Why would you bring up a hypothetical new FF body in a thread about an EF-S lens?


----------



## TeT (Aug 25, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > This makes sense.
> ...



It's Dilbert (shrug)


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 25, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> aj1575 said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see such a lens. The 55-250 is a rather cheap Option, but still quite nice. The 100-300 should sit above it, with some extra Features (USM). The price should be between 1/2 to 2/3 of the 70-300L, with IQ close to it, and a lower weight. I think weight and size will play a role in such a decicion. The Sony Alphas and Fuji all have quality zoom lenses in this area, so Canon actually needs to counter, if they like to sell APS-C DSLRs.
> ...



I for one, congratulate Canon for the range of telezoom lenses they currently offer – yet at the same time I also think having more options is usually a better thing!

In one sense, I can see a refresh for the EF 70-300mm IS non-L being the most ‘possible’ – i.e. the ‘not-true ring-type USM’ version, or ‘weak USM’ as I sometimes call it. A step up from the 55-250mm in terms of build quality and ‘handling’ (e.g. I prefer true USM, rather than STM or ‘weak USM’). 

I actually owned the 100-300mm USM (true USM) – which I really liked the handling of, but it had cons, including:
-	Not sharp above about 170mm, esp wide open
-	Poor contrast at tele settings wide open
-	No IS.
It had particularly good IQ between 100 and 150mm though, and AF was very fast, accurate and consistent! The 70-300mm L which I replaced it with, beats the 100-300mm USM in every every (except size & weight).

If Canon can offer a 100-300mm for EF-S, I see a few possible benefits in relation to size / weight compared to a new hypothetical EF 100-300mm(but not by a huge margin). However since owning the 70-300mm L, I really appreciate the 70-99mm zoom range I have at my disposal.

The difference in sharpness (MTF) between the 70-200mm f/4 IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L is really minimal. The Digital Picture IQ comparisons are very helpful, BUT need to be viewed with the understanding that:
a)	The magnification factors involved (100% viewing, etc) can give an impression of ‘lots of difference’ – when in real-world photos at normal viewing / printing dimensions, is not so apparent. This is particularly true for the APS-C comparisons, and where comparing with FF.
b)	There are a few settings where either user error (all respect to Bryan) or individual lens copy variations will not reflect the ‘average’ situation. E.g. there are a few settings where I have detected an obvious vibration (ground, mirror, tripod, camera) or AF issue contributing to less-sharp than should be situations (e.g. a few settings on the Sigma 8-16mm at set focal lengths are not nearly as sharp as f stops around it).

If Canon do build another / a new 100-300mm, (or a 70-300mm – which we haven’t seen a patent of yet) – I expect it would need to be priced and marketed around $600 - $700 USD RRP, in order to sit & remain placed comfortably between the 55-250mm and 70-300mm L. And I expect it would be around the size of the EF 100-300mm USM, (similar to the 70-300mm nonL)

I have used the 70-200mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/4 IS, as well as the 70-200mm f/2.8 II – and all of these lenses are incredibly sharp on both APS-C and FF. The 70-300mm L gives very little up in terms of sharpness, for the more compact size and variable aperture, as Random Orbits wrote above. 

The very minimal differences in between sharpness between all these lenses at comparable focal lengths and apertures is really at the pixel-peeping level. See the following lens reviews – which indicate the very close ranges of sharpness between the 70-200mm f/4 L IS and 70-300mm L IS
http://www.lenstip.com/322.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html 
http://www.lenstip.com/25.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-200_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/570-canon70300f456islff?start=1 (FF)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=1 (FF) 
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/571-canon70300f456islapsc?start=1 (APS-C)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/449-canon_70200_4is_50d?start=1 (APS-C)

It is quite clear that the SLRgear.com’s review of the 70-300mm L lens involved a decentred copy (as they themselves mention briefly in their review). My own experience (I have a great copy of the 70-300mm L), indicates the 70-300mm L is indeed plenty sharp enough. The vast majority of the following real-user experiences agree, the 70-300mm L is a fantastic sharp, handy lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/410/sort/7/cat/27/page/1 
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/ 
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1370/cat/11 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732106-USA/Canon_4426B002_EF_70_300mm_f_4_5_6L_IS.html 

The new 100-400mm II also shows Canon has achieved success again in recent times with a 4x lens telezoom possibility. All the above L telezoom lenses have great colour and micro-contrast too. We really are spoiled in this day and age. I would not go back to a lessor telezoom lens than my current 70-300mm L… it travels very well, and makes such a versatile lens option with fantastic IQ, 4-stop IS, great AF and is built like a tank. Sure, I’d like it to be around half the weight and smaller… who wouldn’t? But I can easily handhold this lens for hours, and carry it in my Lowepro shoulder bag with ease, while attached to my camera and another lens still on the side.

I mainly use the 70-300mm L on my 7D – and along with my Canon EF-S 15-85mm, makes a fantastic two-zoom lens travel combination – great IQ. I occasionally throw in a small bright prime if I need anything for low light work or for specific depth of field work (e.g. my new EF f/1.8 50mm STM, or my 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens).

Don’t hesitate to buy the 70-300mm L if that meets your zoom range, and you do not require fast(ish) aperture, i.e. f/2.8 or faster. If you’re concerned about sharpness, I hope the above has provided you with enough helpful information and resources. 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 25, 2015)

e_honda said:


> I'm just curious how much this patented lens is needed.
> 
> From an IQ standpoint, it's likely to be inferior to the 70-300L. I'm guessing it falls somewhere between the 70-300L and the 70-300 non L in terms of IQ and price, and it would only work for crops sensors.
> 
> Just don't know how big a need there is for such a lens, given what's already available.



Canon probably knows that better. I think there is market, and a quite big. There much more APS-C cameras arround, then there are FF. A FF user will most likely not buy one of the 75-300 non L lenses (why would you mount a 300$ lens on a 2000$ Body, if it is not a prime); so FF owners go for the L-glass. APS-C users have options, the cheap 55-250mm, then the 75-300, which are just okay, or the go L with 70-200 or 70-300. To me there is a gap in here; a lens that perfomres better than the 75-300, but does not cost as much as L-glass. This can be made in form of an EF-S 100-300. I think the 75-300 are outdated, mot opticaly, but spec wise. There is simply no real demand in cheap FF telephoto lenses. But on the other hand there should be a rather high demand for APS-C telephoto lens, because there are very few offerings in the range (Canons 55-250 and Sigmas 50-150 2.8, and thats about it)

I hope to see such a lens in the near future, because I plan to buy something longer than my 70-200.


----------

