# Patent - EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 30, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/patent-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/patent-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A new superzoom

</strong>As we <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6-is-stm-on-the-way-cr1/" target="_blank">mentioned a while back</a>, Canon is working on an EF-S 18-300 f/3.5.5.6 IS STM to replace the no-so-good EF-S 18-200 IS.</p>
<p>The 18-300 appears to be closer to happening as a patent has shown up showing the optical formula in practice.</p>
<div id="attachment_14450" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 366px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/18300.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-14450 " alt="18300" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/18300.png" width="356" height="196" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6</p></div>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-30" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<h4></h4>
```


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 30, 2013)

Is a 16.67x zoom really going to be that much better, IQ wise, from the EF-S 18-200mm IS?

My guess it's an attempt to compete with the Tamron 18-270mm (some stores in Israel sell pair it with Canon bodies as a kit), so I expect IQ to take the back seat to the focal range. Having the extra STM, 1/3 extra stop + 30mm at the long end, and the Canon brand name would help selling it even if IQ is about as good as the Tamron's.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2013)

The F5.6 will allow AF on all the Canon bodies, and considering it will zoom to 300mm, it will probably be a lot wider and heavier than the 18-200.... 

Personally, I doubt that the IQ will be anything to write home about.... A 16X zoom range is hard to make decent, most great zooms are 3X or less.... But it would serve as a one lens solution for the masses and would probably sell quite well. Most people don't realize how much better lenses like the 70-200's are than the kit lenses, we fanatics and gear-heads are in the minority.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Sep 30, 2013)

As with all of these, we'll have to wait and see just what the lens is capable of. Canon has set the bar pretty high with the new kit STM lenses.

There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top. Then again, this could be shifted upscale from the 18-200, and less of a compromise image-wise, too. 

I'll choose "cautiously optimistic" at this point.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Sep 30, 2013)

could be a nice travel zoom.

i was never interested in canons "travel" zooms but the 300mm end could make it attractive for me. when the price is right.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 30, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top.



I know Canon often introduces new features in lower-end products, e.g. dual pixel AF in the 650D then 70D, but I doubt the first parfocal lens would be a low end super zoom.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Sep 30, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > There could be design optimizations for video (e.g. parfocal behavior) that give it a major leg up, even if its pixel-level sharpness isn't quite tip-top.
> ...



Which touches my other point - the assumption is that this is a low-end zoom. Let's not forget that Canon introduced a 28-300 L - a range that was typically dismissed as "tourist class"... This lens could be a shocker in any number of ways...or not.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 30, 2013)

By drawing seems to have 21 optical elements.  Who will carry this weight?  It would be useful to have a good quality 18-200 STM. 8)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 30, 2013)

Another option I would consider is an EF-S 85-300mm F4-5.6 IS STM. With light weight and price down to $ 350 would be a perfect match for 15-85mm, and I would buy.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 30, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The F5.6 will allow AF on all the Canon bodies, and considering it will zoom to 300mm, it will probably be a lot wider and heavier than the 18-200....
> 
> Personally, I doubt that the IQ will be anything to write home about.... A 16X zoom range is hard to make decent, most great zooms are 3X or less.... But it would serve as a one lens solution for the masses and would probably sell quite well. Most people don't realize how much better lenses like the 70-200's are than the kit lenses, we fanatics and gear-heads are in the minority.



I agree with most of your points, save the first one. Even through the Tamron has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 on the tele end, it actually doesn't cause an AF issue with any Canon bodies because it's maximum aperture on the wide end is something like f/3.5. I used the Tamron at one point for a while and it did AF just fine.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 30, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Most people don't realize how much better lenses like the 70-200's are than the kit lenses, we fanatics and gear-heads are in the minority.


 when I was in the market for a 70-200, f2.8L, either one, someone tried to convince me that the 18-200 is all the lens I would ever need and any improvement in image quality wasn't noticeable in real world application and certainly didn't justify the price. 

I just wanted to shake him. But he was so adamant...


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 30, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Another option I would consider is an EF-S 85-300mm F4-5.6 IS STM. With light weight and price down to $ 350 would be a perfect match for 15-85mm, and I would buy.



why would it need to be stm? wouldn't a usm motor be just fine? are many people doing video at 300mm... I suppose for sports, but that would still be a challenge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> why would it need to be stm? wouldn't a usm motor be just fine? are many people doing video at 300mm... I suppose for sports, but that would still be a challenge.



It likely won't be USM. STM is cheaper than micromotor AF, which is why we're seeing it in many new consumer lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2013)

Canon demonstrated with the 55-250 EF-S that they can make a sharp, inexpensive zoom lens. If an 18-300 EF-S could have similar sharpness it would be quite an incredible lens. 

Unfortunately, it seems like getting that sharpness in a lens that goes from wide to telephoto is a lot harder than getting it from normal to telephoto.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 30, 2013)

I'd trade 100mm on the long end for 3mm on the wide end - 15-200. I can't believe the only 15mm-xxx zoom is still the 15-85IS. All these 17-xx and 18-xx zooms for the EF-s mount are stupid, frankly. And, yes, that includes the 17-55/2.8 and all the third-party lenses. Even my Canon compacts all start at 24mm or 25mm equivalent, not 27mm or 29mm.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 30, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Canon demonstrated with the 55-250 EF-S that they can make a sharp, inexpensive zoom lens. If an 18-300 EF-S could have similar sharpness it would be quite an incredible lens.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems like getting that sharpness in a lens that goes from wide to telephoto is a lot harder than getting it from normal to telephoto.



+1. That is the basic problem there. The optical compromises to accommodate both ends of the spectrum are, I suspect, near impossible to overcome. The best example I am aware of in the EF-S line is the 15-85mm, an excellent lens, but a 5x zoom ratio is far from the 16+ proposed here.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 30, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyWindy said:
> ...



According to rumor, it's intended "to replace the no-so-good EF-S 18-200 IS". I don't see Canon replacing a low end lens with a high end one.


----------



## joshmurrah (Sep 30, 2013)

Interesting to see Canon finally develop this range.

I've long recommended a rebel and a Tamron 18-270 VC, to anyone who's asked me about starting with an dSLR... I rocked that combo for a few years, including Yellowstone and a Blue Angels airshow, and it was a fantastic combo, with no lens swapping decisions to make.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 30, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd trade 100mm on the long end for 3mm on the wide end - 15-200. I can't believe the only 15mm-xxx zoom is still the 15-85IS. All these 17-xx and 18-xx zooms for the EF-s mount are stupid, frankly. And, yes, that includes the 17-55/2.8 and all the third-party lenses. Even my Canon compacts all start at 24mm or 25mm equivalent, not 27mm or 29mm.


I've given up dreaming with a 15-200mm lens with good image quality. Judging by the current 15-85mm, a hypothetical 15-200mm cost well over $ 1000 and weigh at least 1 kg. Actually I wish very much a 15-55mm F2.8 IS. :


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 30, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon demonstrated with the 55-250 EF-S that they can make a sharp, inexpensive zoom lens. If an 18-300 EF-S could have similar sharpness it would be quite an incredible lens.
> ...



One can only hope they try to make one in EF-M. 18-300mm with an entirely telephoto design should be both lighter and sharper.

(Now if only someone could be bothered to make a full frame 40-200 zoom.)


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 1, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> I'd trade 100mm on the long end for 3mm on the wide end - 15-200. I can't believe the only 15mm-xxx zoom is still the 15-85IS. All these 17-xx and 18-xx zooms for the EF-s mount are stupid, frankly. And, yes, that includes the 17-55/2.8 and all the third-party lenses. Even my Canon compacts all start at 24mm or 25mm equivalent, not 27mm or 29mm.



+1 but I want the extra 50mm on the long end. 15-250 sounds about right.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 1, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



You did already. 18-135 STM IS is much better than the previous 18-135 IS. Even the 18-55 STM IS is much better than the 18-55 IS II.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 1, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyWindy said:
> ...



Those lenses being better than their predecessors doesn't make them high end.

Furthermore, both lenses kept the same focal lengths range, which makes it easier to improve IQ.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 1, 2013)

WoodyWindy said:


> I know Canon often introduces new features in lower-end products, e.g. dual pixel AF in the 650D then 70D, but I doubt the first parfocal lens would be a low end super zoom.


Cant see them making it parfocal, simply because of the thin margin of error to make that work. It usually makes the lens a lot bulkier and heavier. And raises the price



WoodyWindy said:


> Which touches my other point - the assumption is that this is a low-end zoom. Let's not forget that Canon introduced a 28-300 L - a range that was typically dismissed as "tourist class".


The EF-S is what makes it a low-end zoom. Even the 17-55 isn't an expensive lens, by L standards. Can't imagine they are gonna drop a $1500+ super zoom that only works with APS-C cameras


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 3, 2013)

You have to look at the intended market. Super zooms are not about image quality, they are about convenience. This lens will probably cost slightly more than the 18 200... The image quality will probably be about the same. It will sell well.


----------

