# Patent: Canon RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 16, 2019)

> A new optical formula patent for a wide angle RF mount zoom has appeared. This one shows the formula for a couple of Canon RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 designs.
> The lenses in the two embodiments aren’t all that much smaller than an EF counterpart, and it looks like zooming is slightly external.
> *Canon RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (May 16, 2019)

That certainly would be a good addition to lineup.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2019)

Almost, but not quite, a standard lens for an APS-C RF body.

I think what Canon will do with APS-C on RF (if they even bother) is to produce lenses that are nominally full-frame lenses (so will work on all R bodies) but optimized for APS-C usage (ie not the best in the corners at FF - but with in-camera corrections this won't necessarily be such a problem.)


----------



## canonnews (May 16, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Almost, but not quite, a standard lens for an APS-C RF body.
> 
> I think what Canon will do with APS-C on RF (if they even bother) is to produce lenses that are nominally full-frame lenses (so will work on all R bodies) but optimized for APS-C usage (ie not the best in the corners at FF - but with in-camera corrections this won't necessarily be such a problem.)



I really doubt they'd do this.

Canon could take then 18-55 EF-M design and port it over to the RF mount in literally a new york minute, if they ever decided to make a consumer APS-C lens for the RF mount.

The way the market is dying off at the low end I really doubt you'll see Canon go into the APS-C market at all with the RF mount.


----------



## Maximilian (May 16, 2019)

canonnews said:


> I really doubt they'd do this.
> ...


Me, too.

If I was Canon going into R APS-C I'd make a real APS-C kit lens. That'll be smaller than this patent as you wouldn't need that image circle.

I've just posted a thread about Canon Germany's summer cashback. When you take a look at the last 3 or 4 cashback promotions here in Ger they focus on FF and high perf lenses.
This looks to me as they quit thinking about the APS-C (DSLR) consumer market or those products are so much striped down in profit margin that there is no more place for promotions. And I don't think the later but the former.


----------



## twoheadedboy (May 16, 2019)

Arrgh, please no variable aperture. I would like to switch to an RF wide zoom but I'm probably going to stick with my EF on the adapter if I can't get 1. IS 2. constant aperture (f/2.8 would be super but f/4 acceptable) 3. 77mm filter thread (the forthcoming holy trinity lenses don't appear to be, according to the images published). Right now everything in my bag is 77mm so I have no step-up rings or duplicate filters and I'm loving it.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 16, 2019)

twoheadedboy said:


> Arrgh, please no variable aperture. I would like to switch to an RF wide zoom but I'm probably going to stick with my EF on the adapter if I can't get 1. IS 2. constant aperture (f/2.8 would be super but f/4 acceptable) 3. 77mm filter thread (the forthcoming holy trinity lenses don't appear to be, according to the images published). Right now everything in my bag is 77mm so I have no step-up rings or duplicate filters and I'm loving it.



It's possible that, if APS-C is declining, Canon will fill out the variable-speed/STM line with an UWA, so the lines would be:


15-35/2.8 IS USM, 24-70/2.8 IS USM, 70-200/2.8 IS USM
15-35/4 IS USM, 24-70(-105)/4 IS USM, 70-200/4 IS USM
17-35/4-5.6 IS STM, 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS STM, 70-300/4.5-56 IS STM

That STM variable UWA is one they haven't made yet to my knowledge, but they could make it to match the RP and have a full line of budget FF RF lenses for the folks stepping up from crop. That's just my speculation though.


----------



## timmy_650 (May 16, 2019)

I would really really happy if they made this lens. The R-mount would be a great travel kit. 17-35 and the 24-240mm and maybe a prime lens too. It would be perfect for family trips. Good enough quality, that I could stop and take landscapes and Not be annoyed at the quality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> it looks like zooming is slightly external.


Not exactly. Movements of 2-3 mm are a common feature of pretty much all ultrawide zooms. If you look at them, you’ll see that it’s an inner barrel doing the moving, and it’s most deeply recessed in the middle of the focal range (which is exactly what you see in the lens length measurements from the patent). The outer barrel remains fixed, so all of the movement occurs behind the filter threads. That inner barrel is not weather sealed on otherwise sealed L-series UWA zooms, which is why those lenses have a statement in the instructions that a front filter is required to complete the weather/dust sealing.


----------



## flip314 (May 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not exactly. Movements of 2-3 mm are a common feature of pretty much all ultrawide zooms. If you look at them, you’ll see that it’s an inner barrel doing the moving, and it’s most deeply recessed in the middle of the focal range (which is exactly what you see in the lens length measurements from the patent). The outer barrel remains fixed, so all of the movement occurs behind the filter threads. That inner barrel is not weather sealed on otherwise sealed L-series UWA zooms, which is why those lenses have a statement in the instructions that a front filter is required to complete the weather/dust sealing.



Tony Northrup told me I can skip the filter and fix it in Photoshop later.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Tony Northrup told me I can skip the filter and fix it in Photoshop later.


Sure sure. The healing brush tool is just the thing to clone out water drops on the sensor. But heck, those only show up if you stop down the lens…and TN says real photographers always shoot wide open.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 17, 2019)

What would be the EF counterpart - the EF 17-40mm f/4L?

I would expect the combination of shorter flange distance and f-stop slower on the wide side to allow for a smaller lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> What would be the EF counterpart - the EF 17-40mm f/4L?
> 
> I would expect the combination of shorter flange distance and f-stop slower on the wide side to allow for a smaller lens.


You might expect that, but in fact the 17-40L is actually smaller than these patented RF versions.

Lots of people claim the RF mount allows substantially smaller lenses. So far, there’s no evidence to support that claim.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You might expect that, but in fact the 17-40L is actually smaller than these patented RF versions.
> 
> Lots of people claim the RF mount allows substantially smaller lenses. So far, there’s no evidence to support that claim.



Which makes me wonder...

1. Are the lenses larger because Canon had to put more glass (than shorter flange distance would save) in to improve IQ?

2. If the shorter flange doesn't help to make smaller (or better) lenses, why did Canon change it in the first place?


----------



## SecureGSM (May 17, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Which makes me wonder...
> 
> 1. Are the lenses larger because Canon had to put more glass (than shorter flange distance would save) in to improve IQ?
> 
> 2. If the shorter flange doesn't help to make smaller (or better) lenses, why did Canon change it in the first place?



It does help to make better lenses. Just look at the RF 28-70 F2.0 or a new RF 85 F1.2. These are unique and/or amazing lenses.


----------



## BillB (May 17, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Which makes me wonder...
> 
> 1. Are the lenses larger because Canon had to put more glass (than shorter flange distance would save) in to improve IQ?
> 
> 2. If the shorter flange doesn't help to make smaller (or better) lenses, why did Canon change it in the first place?


Maybe the RF lenses are designed to minimize vignetting by controlling the incidence angle of light on the sensor.


----------



## Ale_F (May 17, 2019)

Why in the patent there isa draw of a reflex camera?


----------



## Andy Westwood (May 17, 2019)

I would like to see this lens come out as F4 L IS and weighting in at under 500g as I'm finding I'm using my 17-40 F4 a lot on my EOS R and I'd love to lose the adaptor


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Which makes me wonder...
> 
> 1. Are the lenses larger because Canon had to put more glass (than shorter flange distance would save) in to improve IQ?
> 
> 2. If the shorter flange doesn't help to make smaller (or better) lenses, why did Canon change it in the first place?


I could see (1) for an L-series lens, but with a variable aperture it’s unlikely this would be an L. 

For (2), the lack of a mirror allows the body to be shallower (although it’s not a requirement, obviously). A shallower body requires either a new mount design to accommodate the shorter distance between sensor and mount, or a “snout mount“ like Sigma used.


----------



## Ale_F (May 17, 2019)

"Snout mount" are fake ML lenses. In fact they are a Reflex lenses + a tube.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> It does help to make better lenses. Just look at the RF 28-70 F2.0 or a new RF 85 F1.2. These are unique and/or amazing lenses.


Maybe. Canon has prior patents for f/2 zooms, Sigma makes one for EF (although of a much more limited zoom range). An 85/1.2 is certainly not unique to RF, nor are ‘amazing’ lenses. I’d have thought something like an 11-24/4 would be potentially unique to a shorter flange, but Canon went ahead and did it for EF. 

Obviously it’s difficult to prove a negative, but it’s not obvious that any of the current RF lenses would be impossible for EF. Similarly, the current lenses as well as the patents we’ve seen do not support the claim that RF lenses can be smaller than EF counterpart (and for the 70-200, the RF version in the patent is actually larger than the current EF).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

Ale_F said:


> "Snout mount" are fake ML lenses. In fact they are a Reflex lenses + a tube.


I was referring to the camera, not the lenses.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 17, 2019)

BillB said:


> Maybe the RF lenses are designed to minimize vignetting by controlling the incidence angle of light on the sensor.





neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe. Canon has prior patents for f/2 zooms, Sigma makes one for EF (although of a much more limited zoom range). An 85/1.2 is certainly not unique to RF, nor are ‘amazing’ lenses. I’d have thought something like an 11-24/4 would be potentially unique to a shorter flange, but Canon went ahead and did it for EF.
> 
> Obviously it’s difficult to prove a negative, but it’s not obvious that any of the current RF lenses would be impossible for EF. Similarly, the current lenses as well as the patents we’ve seen do not support the claim that RF lenses can be smaller than EF counterpart (and for the 70-200, the RF version in the patent is actually larger than the current EF).


just a couple of comments:
Sigma 24-35 F2.0 is a _very_ limited zoom range lens. 28-70/2.0 is impossible in EF variant.
Sigma’s CEO commented on number of occasions that Sigma 18-35/1.8 despite being only APS-C lens, was very difficult to design and manufacture. They nearly lost the case. Therefore 28-70/2.0 for FF camera is literary a unique lens.
On another note, Canon RF 85/1.2 is an amazing lens indeed. The MTF is so good it is rediculous 
There are other signs that lens is better than just good.


----------



## Woody (May 17, 2019)

I will be very curious about the EOS-R system once the lightweight f/4 (or slower) zoom lenses are released.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

BillB said:


> Maybe the RF lenses are designed to minimize vignetting by controlling the incidence angle of light on the sensor.


Then why do the current RF lenses have as much or more vignetting than their EF counterparts?


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe. Canon has prior patents for f/2 zooms, Sigma makes one for EF (although of a much more limited zoom range). An 85/1.2 is certainly not unique to RF, nor are ‘amazing’ lenses. I’d have thought something like an 11-24/4 would be potentially unique to a shorter flange, but Canon went ahead and did it for EF.
> 
> Obviously it’s difficult to prove a negative, but it’s not obvious that any of the current RF lenses would be impossible for EF. *Similarly, the current lenses as well as the patents we’ve seen do not support the claim that RF lenses can be smaller than EF counterpart *(and for the 70-200, the RF version in the patent is actually larger than the current EF).



Well... I'd argue that if you consider the system, the R+RF35 is smaller than the R+adapter+EF35/2IS. Not by a huge amount, but it's smaller, and they added semi-macro and a third of a stop in that moderately smaller space. Was that enabled by the RF mount? Like you say, it's hard to prove, but it's possible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> just a couple of comments:
> Sigma 24-35 F2.0 is a _very_ limited zoom range lens. 28-70/2.0 is impossible in EF variant.
> Sigma’s CEO commented on number of occasions that Sigma 18-35/1.8 despite being only APS-C lens, was very difficult to design and manufacture. They nearly lost the case. Therefore 28-70/2.0 for FF camera is literary a unique lens.


The lens itself is unique, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility of such a design for a longer flange. Sigma is also more constrained on their ability to price lenses, which certainly would have an impact on what they could design. As I said, maybe. Without the lens design experience, qualifications, and engineering/software tools of design teams across multiple manufacturers, how can you say for sure? 



SecureGSM said:


> On another note, Canon RF 85/1.2 is an amazing lens indeed. The MTF is so good it is rediculous
> There are other signs that lens is better than just good.


Sure sure. But how is that unique to the RF mount? Zeiss Otus lenses are better than just good, mirrorless mount not required.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Well... I'd argue that if you consider the system, the R+RF35 is smaller than the R+adapter+EF35/2IS. Not by a huge amount, but it's smaller, and they added semi-macro and a third of a stop in that moderately smaller space. Was that enabled by the RF mount? Like you say, it's hard to prove, but it's possible.


The (as yet unsubstantiated) claim is that the RF mount allows smaller lenses...not that the RF mount allows a smaller overall system length when adapting a lens not designed for the R camera. The RF 35/1.8 IS is 2.5” long, the EF 35/2 IS is 1.7” long. 

Thanks for catching that red herring, but please throw it back in the water, it already smells putrid.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (May 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The (as yet unsubstantiated) claim is that the RF mount allows smaller lenses...not that the RF mount allows a smaller overall system length when adapting a lens not designed for the R camera. The RF 35/1.8 IS is 2.5” long, the EF 35/2 IS is 1.7” long.
> 
> Thanks for catching that red herring, but please throw it back in the water, it already smells putrid.



I knew you'd somehow find a way to be negative about that. 

I never made such a claim, so I have nothing to defend on that front. I do care what fits where, and what I posted has a practical effect on that front. You're free to argue with other people about whatever you like.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 17, 2019)

Not interested in variable aperture W/A lenses. They should stick to constant aperture from the get go.


----------



## timmy_650 (May 18, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> Not interested in variable aperture W/A lenses. They should stick to constant aperture from the get go.



They have been. They have 24-105 f4, 24-70 f2.8 IS, 28-70 f2, 70-200 f2.8, 15-35 f2.8 either out or in production.


----------



## timmy_650 (May 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The (as yet unsubstantiated) claim is that the RF mount allows smaller lenses...not that the RF mount allows a smaller overall system length when adapting a lens not designed for the R camera.



Isn't the RF 70-200 f2.8 IS a good example of that? We have seen the lens and it is smaller.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2019)

timmy_650 said:


> Isn't the RF 70-200 f2.8 IS a good example of that? We have seen the lens and it is smaller.


Nope. It’s an extending zoom lens, so of course it’s smaller when retracted. Based on the patent, when extended it’s actually longer than the EF 70-200/2.8. Nothing unique to RF about an extending zoom design, no reason Canon couldn’t make an EF 70-200 L with an extending design like the EF 70-300 L.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The lens itself is unique, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility of such a design for a longer flange. Sigma is also more constrained on their ability to price lenses, which certainly would have an impact on what they could design. As I said, maybe. Without the lens design experience, qualifications, and engineering/software tools of design teams across multiple manufacturers, how can you say for sure?
> 
> 
> Sure sure. But how is that unique to the RF mount? Zeiss Otus lenses are better than just good, mirrorless mount not required.



Please note : “And / or “ in my original post.
RF 85/1.2 is amazing but not unique. Therefore either of us is correct.
RF 28-70/f2.0 is unique but not amazing wide open 
The rest of your statement is only partially valid  I suggest that we continue discussion offline But reality is: such a lens was impractical to manufacture for EF Mount according to multiple statements of Sigma’s CEO. I have no doubt that he knows what he is talking about.
On an unrelated note, I enjoy this conversation but let’s keep it to the point. Thank you.


----------



## degos (May 18, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> The rest of your statement is only partially valid  I suggest that we continue discussion offline But reality is: such a lens was impractical to manufacture for EF Mount according to multiple statements of Sigma’s CEO. I have no doubt that he knows what he is talking about.



Impractical, not impossible. And I'd call the RF 24-70 f2 pretty much impractical for most photographers, too, other than studio shooters or 'photodrivers' who keep it on the seat beside them and just hop out of their car to take shots of the vista they saw on Instagram. Of course they'll probably be shooting at f8 anyhow...

Sigma did the hardest part of work with the 24-35 for EF; bending the light rays into the longer flange.


----------



## mb66energy (May 18, 2019)

twoheadedboy said:


> Arrgh, please no variable aperture. I would like to switch to an RF wide zoom but I'm probably going to stick with my EF on the adapter if I can't get 1. IS 2. constant aperture (f/2.8 would be super but f/4 acceptable) 3. 77mm filter thread (the forthcoming holy trinity lenses don't appear to be, according to the images published). Right now everything in my bag is 77mm so I have no step-up rings or duplicate filters and I'm loving it.



Maybe use the EF 16-35 with filter adapter ... you have constant f/4.0, one filter for all EF lenses and a slightly larger combo. And the lens will work on EF, EF-S, EF-M compatible cameras.


----------



## mb66energy (May 18, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> What would be the EF counterpart - the EF 17-40mm f/4L?
> 
> I would expect the combination of shorter flange distance and f-stop slower on the wide side to allow for a smaller lens.


I had the same thought. Naturally a smaller focal length at the same entrance pupil makes a lower stop number. But corrections in ultrawides need large elements - why not reduce the aperture to the lower end to reduce lens aberrations (like spherical aberration).

I see 17mm as a focal length where you want depth of field and hand holding problems are reduced by shorter focal lengths - no problem with larger f-stop numbers wide open.
A 35mm f/5.6 would be next to useless for me - I would like to see f/2.8 or at least f/4.0 to have a minimum chance for blurred backgrounds at small focusing distances.

A 17-35 f/5.6 ... f2.8 would be an interesting ultra wide lens for me.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 18, 2019)

degos said:


> Impractical, not impossible. And* I'd call the RF 24-70 f2 pretty much impractical for most photographers,* too, *other* t*han studio shooters* or 'photodrivers' who keep it on the seat beside them and just hop out of their car to take shots of the vista they saw on Instagram. Of course they'll probably be shooting at f8 anyhow...
> 
> Sigma did the hardest part of work with the 24-35 for EF; bending the light rays into the longer flange.



you are not an event shooter, are you?  some venues are pretty poor lit and you have to keep you shutter speed above the certain level and you are not allowed to use flash.. dance floor, churches, some presentations where flash isn't allowed to use.. what do you do? you break out you F1.4 primes...
with F2.0 zoom I can get away and keep shooting at ISO 6400 which is a massively better than iso 12800 at F2.8

P.S. Who on earth shoots in studio wide open? stopped down to F8.0 most modern Canon zooms are amazing. You do need this lens in studio. obviously you are not a studio shooter either

P.S.2.: it is easier to bend light rays into a longer flange if you think about it


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> But reality is: such a lens was impractical to manufacture for EF Mount according to multiple statements of Sigma’s CEO. I have no doubt that he knows what he is talking about.


Did you note that I mentioned Sigma’s price constraints? Did the Sigma CEO say an f/2 zoom with more range couldn’t be done? No. Impractical could easily mean insufficient market for the necessary price. 

I wonder...if/when Canon comes out with an RF 24-70/2.8 IS, will people claim the RF mount made it possible?


----------



## SecureGSM (May 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did you note that I mentioned Sigma’s price constraints? Did the Sigma CEO say an f/2 zoom with more range couldn’t be done? No. Impractical could easily mean insufficient market for the necessary price.
> 
> I wonder...if/when Canon comes out with an RF 24-70/2.8 IS, will people claim the RF mount made it possible?


Sigma CEO said that 18-35/1.8 was a pure luck and they avoided a failure to design such a lens by a slim margin. 
24-70/2.8 IS lenses are available in EF mount right now. 

I do not recall a single 85/1.2 IS lens available to date in EF Mount. 
I do not recall a single x2.5 f2.0 standard zoom lens available in DSLR world. Not even in a APS-C let alone FF

Sigma CEO’s reaction to RF 28-70 F2.0 lens announcement was: “very impressed and a little jealous”. Quite an emotional statement for a Japanese leader.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> 24-70/2.8 IS lenses are available in EF mount right now.


Yes, that’s my point. People will probably still claim it as a benefit of RF because Canon doesn’t have such a lens. Much like the poster above claimed the ‘small RF 70-200’ shows the benefits of the RF mount. 



SecureGSM said:


> I do not recall a single 85/1.2 IS lens available to date in EF Mount.
> I do not recall a single x2.5 f2.0 standard zoom lens available in DSLR world. Not even in a APS-C let alone FF


If you recall an 85/1.2 IS lens available for the RF mount you may have suffered a head injury. The rest of your argument boils down to if something hasn’t been done, it’s impossible. I think that’s a sad outlook, but fortunately it’s been fully repudiated by the weight of history.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you recall an 85/1.2 IS lens available for the RF mount *you may have suffered a head injury. *The rest of your argument boils down to if something hasn’t been done, it’s impossible. I think that’s a sad outlook, but fortunately it’s been fully repudiated by the weight of history.




Well, I have. Correct. Is this a norm for you to point a neurological deficit of any kind out just like that? Not that my mental or neurological Health is deficient. Far from it. But for a Neuroscientist to be that direct... not a good practice, Neuro
Try to be a little more inclusive, perhaps?
Provide an example of any DSLR full frame x2.5 zoom lens with a constant aperture wider than F2.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Well, I have. Correct. Is this a norm for you to point a neurological deficit of any kind out just like that? Not that my mental or neurological Health is deficient. Far from it. But for a Neuroscientist to be that direct... not a good practice, Neuro
> Try to be a little more inclusive, perhaps?
> Provide an example of any DSLR full frame x2.5 zoom lens with constant aperture wider than F2.8



Provide an example of the RF 85/1.2 IS which you mentioned.
I’m quite inclusive, thanks.
Nice job crafting those criteria! Seems you’re aware of 2x range T2 zooms in EF mount. Regardless, re-read my above statement – not done doesn’t mean impossible.


----------



## BillB (May 18, 2019)

jeffa4444 said:


> Not interested in variable aperture W/A lenses. They should stick to constant aperture from the get go.


So far as I can see there is nothing forcing you to buy a variable max aperture lens if you don't want to. Others may have different preferences however.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Provide an example of the RF 85/1.2 IS which you mentioned.
> I’m quite inclusive, thanks.
> Nice job crafting those criteria! Seems you’re aware of 2x range T2 zooms in EF mount. Regardless, re-read my above statement – not done doesn’t mean impossible.




1. You are referring to a reduced memory ability of some one suffered a head injury in your post directly above. *Your statement is a harassment. *Hence my comment about you not being inclusive. You are insulted a person publicly referring to a neurological deficit resulting in a memory loss or reduced cognitive ability.
Apologies are in order. Be a decent human being. Thank you.

You are not inclusive for the reason above
You have not answered my question regarding a x2.5 F2.8 DSLR zoom. Such a zoom does not exist.
P.S. 85/1.2 IS to read as 85/1.2 DS. Autocorrection blunder.


----------



## timmy_650 (May 19, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> I had the same thought. Naturally a smaller focal length at the same entrance pupil makes a lower stop number. But corrections in ultrawides need large elements - why not reduce the aperture to the lower end to reduce lens aberrations (like spherical aberration).
> 
> I see 17mm as a focal length where you want depth of field and hand holding problems are reduced by shorter focal lengths - no problem with larger f-stop numbers wide open.
> A 35mm f/5.6 would be next to useless for me - I would like to see f/2.8 or at least f/4.0 to have a minimum chance for blurred backgrounds at small focusing distances.
> ...



Tamron makes a 17-35 f2.8-4 which is a pretty good lens for the price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> 1. You are referring to a reduced memory ability of some one suffered a head injury in your post directly above. *Your statement is a harassment. *Hence my comment about you not being inclusive. You are insulted a person publicly referring to a neurological deficit resulting in a memory loss or reduced cognitive ability.
> Apologies are in order. Be a decent human being. Thank you.
> 
> You are not inclusive for the reason above
> ...


1. First off I stated, "May have had a head injury." I could easily have stated that you, "May have blond hair." Second, if you actually think that a single statement of possibility constitutes an insult and harassment, you should immediately stop participating in internet forums and social media, as those places are certain to offend your tender sensibilities. Sorry you hurt your noggin. You're welcome. I await your sure-to-be forthcoming apology for implying that I am not a decent human being. Thank you. Do you always respond to statements of possibliity intended as humor with insults of your own? Yet another reason for you to eschew social media.

2. No such lens exists for FF. There are such lenses for APS-C-sized sensors available with an EF mount. Do you believe that because there is no such lens for a FF DSLR, that means such a lens cannot be made for a FF DSLR? There are no 800mm f/5.6 lenses for mirrorless cameras. Does that mean an RF 800/5.6 is impossible?

PS. So you mean 85/1.2 DS, fine. You stated there is no such lens available in an EF mount, fine. There is also no such lens available in an RF mount..yet. Canon hasn't explicitly stated what DS is from a technical standpoint. However, they have stated that it's a coating applied to an internal element. Do you honestly believe that such a coating would be specific to an element within an RF lens, and could not be applied to an element within an EF lens? That's asinine. Functionally, Canon has stated that the DS coating acts like an apodization element. There are DSLR lenses with apodization elements. Yet another example of a unique capability or benefit incorrectly attributed to the RF mount.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 19, 2019)

Neuro, such a lens does not exist for APS-C either.there is Sigma 18-35 F1.8. But that is only x2.0 zoom not x2.5
If you think that referring to some one being mentally affected by a head injury or worse even being blonde, is acceptable then you should really consider educating yourself around equal opportunities, gender equality, racial, state of health, age and cognitive abilities inclusion. Shame on you, Sir.

I propose to conclude this awful conversation.
You have insulted a person and do not care to admit.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are no 800mm f/5.6 lenses for mirrorless cameras. Does that mean an RF 800/5.6 is impossible?



Common internet pundit reasoning is that if a technology company has not done something, it can not do that thing.

Most common format: “company A offers this, why can’t company B?”


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro, such a lens does not exist for APS-C either.there is Sigma 18-35 F1.8. But that is only x2.0 zoom not x2.5
> If you think that referring to some one being mentally affected by a head injury or worse even being blonde, is acceptable then you should really consider educating yourself around equal opportunities, gender equality, racial, state of health, age and cognitive abilities inclusion. Shame on you, Sir.
> 
> I propose to conclude this awful conversation.
> You have insulted a person and do not care to admit.


Several such lenses exist. Angénieux makes cinema zooms at T2.6 and faster with well over 2.5x zoom ranges, e.g. a 30-90mm f/1.9 with a 31mm image circle and available in EF mount. Another example is the 19.5-94mm f/2.4 – that's a 4.7x zoom. They can be mounted on any Canon APS-C DSLR and cover an APS-C sensor. Are you aware of any 3x or 5x zoom range, faster-than-f/2.8 lenses available in an RF mount? I guess you'd say that because there is no such RF mount lens, such a lens is impossible for RF, it's only possible for a DSLR mount, right? 

If you think that referring to someone as not a decent human being is acceptable then you should really consider educating yourself around being inclusive. Shame on you, Sir.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 19, 2019)

A person who would not apologies for his harassing behaviour can hardly can be called a descent human being. That has nothing to do with a state of your mental health, social status, gender, sexual preferences, colour of your hairs, you height complexity, cognitive abilities, age, social status, citizenship, religious believes or quantity of Canon equipment in your closet. 

Read your initial comment: you refer to a possible brain damage and then to some one being blonde in your late statement.
Your statement is discriminative.
Learn from your mistakes.


----------



## twoheadedboy (May 19, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Maybe use the EF 16-35 with filter adapter ... you have constant f/4.0, one filter for all EF lenses and a slightly larger combo. And the lens will work on EF, EF-S, EF-M compatible cameras.



Then I lose the control ring, and the protective elements of a front filter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> You have not answered my question regarding a x2.5 F2.8 DSLR zoom. Such a zoom does not exist.


You have not answered my question regarding a >3x range zoom with <f/2.8 aperture for the RF (or other MILC) mount. Such a zoom does exist for APS-C DSLRs.



SecureGSM said:


> A person who would not apologies for his harassing behaviour can hardly can be called a descent human being. That has nothing to do with a state of your mental health, social status, gender, sexual preferences, colour of your hairs, you height complexity, cognitive abilities, age, social status, citizenship, religious believes or quantity of Canon equipment in your closet.
> 
> Read your initial comment: you refer to a possible brain damage and then to some one being blonde in your late statement.
> Your statement is discriminative.
> Learn from your mistakes.


Oh, please. _You_ read my initial comment. You stated that you don’t recall ever seeing a lens which we both know doesn’t exist. I stated that IF you recalled seeing such a lens, then you MAY have had a head injury. Key points: You never said you recalled seeing an 85/1.2 IS. I never said you had a head injury. 

Hypothetical:
*Bert*: “I don’t recall ever seeing a purple unicorn farting out rainbows and L lenses.”
*Ernie*: “If you did recall seeing a purple unicorn, regardless of the composition of its flatulent emissions, you’d be bat-crap crazy.”

In the above, Ernie affirms Bert’s mental acuity – not seeing things that don’t exist is good. But in your mind, Ernie called Bert crazy. Then in your version, Bert perseverates on his perception that he was insulted and harassed, and goes on to insult Ernie and demand an apology...all based on aggressive misinterpretation of an innocuous comment that was, in fact, positive. 

You previously proposed to end this discussion, but instead you chose to escalate it. I’d suggest you adhere to your own advice and refrain from posting further on a matter that you’ve already blown way out of proportion and has led to your posting some truly offensive comments.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 20, 2019)

This shameful conversation is officially closed. Now. Thanks for nothing. You may now proceed to harassing, discriminating and and bullying other forum members that do not adhere to your own set of rules and standards and do so at your one discretion and unchecked. As you do. 

There is no even a slight sign of positivity in your particular comment I am referring to. You use form of language that is generally unacceptable. With best regards. 

————- End if Conversation ——————


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> This shameful conversation is officially closed. Now. Thanks for nothing. You may now proceed to harassing, discriminating and and bullying other forum members that do not adhere to your own set of rules and standards and do so at your one discretion and unchecked. As you do.
> 
> There is no even a slight sign of positivity in your particular comment I am referring to. You use form of language that is generally unacceptable. With best regards.
> 
> ————- End if Conversation ——————


I understand that you are apparently unable to apologize for your offensive accusations or admit your own mistakes. Those attitudes are regrettably common on Internet forums. I’m not bothered, it’s the Internet after all, but I do hope that you’re more civil and less prone to misinterpretation and overreaction in your real-life interpersonal interactions.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 20, 2019)

If you did not get it thus far, it is a safe bet that you would not get it ever. I won’t reply. Don’t bother responding.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> This shameful conversation is officially closed. Now.
> <snipped out ongoing conversation>
> ————- End if Conversation ——————





SecureGSM said:


> I won’t reply.


You already did. First you propose to conclude the conversation, but you ignore your own proposal. Then you officially close and end the conversation, but you continue it anyway. Either you would like to continue the conversation after all (in which case, I suggest you start by either identifying a >3x range <f/2.8 aperture zoom for a MILC mount or admitting your mistake)...or you simply suffer from a lack of willpower.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 20, 2019)

Can you stop this drivel?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Can you stop this drivel?


So it’s that you lack willpower. Understood.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So it’s that you lack willpower. Understood.


No it is my lack of intent to maintain a further communication with a person not willing to apologies for an inappropriate language form used Intentionally or non-intentionally. When we hurt someone’s feeling or even cause a confusion we do apologies.


----------



## Maximilian (May 20, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > If I was Canon going into R APS-C
> ...


Hi Frank! 

What's the point quoting me here?
I didn't say Canon needs to or has to, I didn't say that this patent is an indication. 
I said it the other way around:



Maximilian said:


> ... promotions here in Ger they focus on FF and high perf lenses.
> This looks to me as they quit thinking about the APS-C (DSLR) consumer market ...


I was talking about the possible end of APS-C DSLRs (and EF-S lenses) - not about EOS-M. 

So what's the point quoting me here?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> No it is my lack of intent to maintain a further communication with a person not willing to apologies for an inappropriate language form used Intentionally or non-intentionally. When we hurt someone’s feeling or even cause a confusion we do apologies.


And yet...you keep on maintaining and furthering that communication after stating ‘end of conversation’ and ‘I won’t reply’, which clearly demonstrates your lack of willpower. Sad. 

You are also obviously unwilling to admit your mistakes, not that intransigence compensates for a lack of willpower. 

I previously stated I was sorry you’d hurt your head, I feel sorry for anyone who suffers an injury. Beyond that, there is nothing for which I should apologize. You seem to believe you were insulted by the affirmative statement that if you had seen something you stated you hadn’t, you might have had a head injury. I suspect that ‘head injury’ is some sort of trigger phrase for you, and once you read it you become unable to perceive the context in which the phrase was used. 

Your complete misunderstanding was followed by unfounded accusations. The fact that you refuse to apologize for impugning my strong belief in and practice of the principles of inclusion and diversity means that, by your own stated definition, you are less than a decent human being.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 20, 2019)

Crickets.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2019)

Pathetic.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Everyone talks about this, but what would the win be over the EF-M? EF-M's only 8 years old or so and hardly in need of being replaced, is it?


Agreed. A hypothetical win over EF-M would be lens compatibility analogous to EF lenses on an APS-C DSLR. It surprised me that Canon chose mount characteristics that preclude RF lenses mounting to EOS M cameras. I assumed they would want to facilitate APS-C to FF upgrades by allowing EOS M owners to purchase full frame lenses that mounted directly to their cameras. But Canon has ample data (millions of data points from product registrations) to know in detail the frequency at which APS-C DSLR users bought EF lenses and subsequently bought a FF DSLR.


----------



## unfocused (May 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. A hypothetical win over EF-M would be lens compatibility analogous to EF lenses on an APS-C DSLR. It surprised me that Canon chose mount characteristics that preclude RF lenses mounting to EOS M cameras. I assumed they would want to facilitate APS-C to FF upgrades by allowing EOS M owners to purchase full frame lenses that mounted directly to their cameras. But Canon has ample data (millions of data points from product registrations) to know in detail the frequency at which APS-C DSLR users bought EF lenses and subsequently bought a FF DSLR.



My pure *speculation* on this. I suspect the bulk of APS-C DSLR owners who buy EF lenses are buying telephoto lenses. Heck, Canon even kits some of the Rebels with EF telephotos. 

I'm not sure how many M users are likely to buy telephoto lenses, beyond the 55-250 travel zoom. M users are likely driven by size, wanting a compact, high-quality camera. The desire to bolt a huge lens onto an M may be minimal among M buyers. A high percentage of M users may already own a DSLR that they use for times when they want to shoot with a telephoto. 

On the other hand, maybe there was just a failure to communicate between the M division designers and the R division designers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2019)

unfocused said:


> My pure *speculation* on this. I suspect the bulk of APS-C DSLR owners who buy EF lenses are buying telephoto lenses. Heck, Canon even kits some of the Rebels with EF telephotos.
> 
> I'm not sure how many M users are likely to buy telephoto lenses, beyond the 55-250 travel zoom. M users are likely driven by size, wanting a compact, high-quality camera. The desire to bolt a huge lens onto an M may be minimal among M buyers. A high percentage of M users may already own a DSLR that they use for times when they want to shoot with a telephoto.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe there was just a failure to communicate between the M division designers and the R division designers.


I disagree with the first point for one specific reason: the nifty-fifty. I speculate that is the best-selling EF lens among APS-C DSLR owners, and that speculation is supported by the observation that a 50/1.8 has been the #1 best-seller for SLR lenses on Amazon.com for years (it was the 50/1.8 II previously, now it’s the 50/1.8 STM). I think among enthusiasts using APS-C DSLRs, the picture is different, and there are many 70-300 (mainly non-L), 100-400, and possibly even more Sig/Tam 150-600 lenses being used by that segment.

I do agree with the speculative point that for many in the M crowd, the M55-200 (or M18-150) is all the telephoto they’ll generally want in their kit.

It would sure be ‘stupid Canon’ if the design teams for M and R didn’t talk to one another. but having worked for large, R&D based companies (in Pharma, not tech), I will say that that sort of communication failure wouldn’t surprise me.


----------



## koenkooi (May 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> [..]
> It would sure be ‘stupid Canon’ if the design teams for M and R didn’t talk to one another. but having worked for large, R&D based companies (in Pharma, not tech), I will say that that sort of communication failure wouldn’t surprise me.



Having worked directly for a large silicon vendor and after that with multiple silicon vendors: It would surprise me if there was proper communication. I guess silo mentality transcends business sectors


----------



## unfocused (May 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Having worked directly for a large silicon vendor and after that with multiple silicon vendors: It would surprise me if there was proper communication. I guess silo mentality transcends business sectors



Don't forget government and academia too. We used to have a saying in one of the public information offices I worked in, "If it's news it's news to us."


----------



## Ivan Muller (May 27, 2019)

'It would sure be ‘stupid Canon’ if the design teams for M and R didn’t talk to one another. but having worked for large, R&D based companies (in Pharma, not tech), I will say that that sort of communication failure wouldn’t surprise me. '

Perhaps also at the time Canon felt that there was no future for FF mirrorless and thus did not take that into account when designing the M mount and thus concentrated on making it fully compatible with the EF mount. But Canon seems to think things trough and if it was a communication failure, then for us outside of the big corporate world, it would seem quite surprising! Anyway, I rather enjoy my R with my EF lenses and all works mostly well most of the time....


----------



## uri.raz (May 27, 2019)

unfocused said:


> My pure *speculation* on this. I suspect the bulk of APS-C DSLR owners who buy EF lenses are buying telephoto lenses. Heck, Canon even kits some of the Rebels with EF telephotos.



Other then a crappy 75-300mm?


----------

