# Patent: Canon EF 24-300mm f/4-5.6



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 13, 2015)

```
<p>We’ve <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/superzoom-development-mentioned-again-cr2/">posted recently</a> that Canon has been working on a new superzoom lens, and sure enough a patent for an EF 24-300 f/4-5.6 has appeared.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-200870 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.11.12</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.3.31</li>
<li>Example 1</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 12.14</li>
<li>Focal length 24.30 99.98 294.95</li>
<li>F-number 4.10 5.76 5.88</li>
<li>Half angle (in degrees) 41.68 12.21 4.20</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 197.38 245.98 298.53</li>
<li>BF 38.90 91.95 92.55</li>
</ul>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

*L* or not, I wonder...


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Nov 13, 2015)

What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

Ian_of_glos said:


> What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.



Travel. Convenience. Do you know of any fixed lens cameras with a superzoom range and a FF sensor?


----------



## TAF (Nov 13, 2015)

Make it an L with IS and decent weather sealing, and I would be interested.


----------



## ignomini (Nov 13, 2015)

I'm sure there would be some market for this, but how about a 24-105 replacement. If ever there was a Canon lens screaming for replacement, that's it. If they gave it a similar quality upgrade to the 100-400 II, I'd buy it right now.


----------



## Adelino (Nov 13, 2015)

I'd buy it. I like convenience to each out own. It would not be my main lens by any mean but for some things (hiking, travel, a day trip of non critical photo shooting) I would love it.


----------



## sjprg (Nov 13, 2015)

My 28-300 is one of MY favorites but it is getting long in the tooth with lot of hikes under its belt. The 24-300 sound like just the thing for its replacement.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Nov 13, 2015)

This type of lens can be very useful in conditions that you do not want to expose the sensor to change lenses (very high humidity, salt water shoots, dusty areas). We do a lot of shots from a boat for sail boats (catamarans in particular). It is very difficult to carry 2 cameras on a dingy splashing in the ocean waves, so I camera/lens combo often needs to do the whole shoot. We used to carry the 7D with the sigma 18-250 for this type of work....don't have anything now that we no longer have any 1.6 crop canon cameras. Would likely have to go with the Sony combo of A7RII and 24-240 (don't have that lens now), or sony a6000 with something like the 18-200. 

There are definite trade offs, the current 28-300 is an interesting lens. I actually love the push-pull style but the cost is pretty high for the number of times we might have needed it. An improved lens in image quality and possibly a decrease in weight would make me rethink the cost/usefulness of the lens. It would also be a pretty good all round travel lens for full frame.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 13, 2015)

If this is an L or even high quality consumer lens I would probably be interested for travel. Would save space and weight and would avoid a bunch of lens changes when traveling with the family. A good 24-300 along with a smaller prime like the 35 f/2 IS for low light and shallow DOF up close would cover most of my travel needs.


----------



## Nininini (Nov 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> *L* or not, I wonder...



nope EF-S


----------



## King Eyre (Nov 13, 2015)

stochasticmotions said:


> This type of lens can be very useful in conditions that you do not want to expose the sensor to change lenses (very high humidity, salt water shoots, dusty areas). We do a lot of shots from a boat for sail boats (catamarans in particular). It is very difficult to carry 2 cameras on a dingy splashing in the ocean waves, so I camera/lens combo often needs to do the whole shoot. We used to carry the 7D with the sigma 18-250 for this type of work....don't have anything now that we no longer have any 1.6 crop canon cameras. Would likely have to go with the Sony combo of A7RII and 24-240 (don't have that lens now), or sony a6000 with something like the 18-200.
> 
> There are definite trade offs, the current 28-300 is an interesting lens. I actually love the push-pull style but the cost is pretty high for the number of times we might have needed it. An improved lens in image quality and possibly a decrease in weight would make me rethink the cost/usefulness of the lens. It would also be a pretty good all round travel lens for full frame.



I'd agree completely, I had the old non IS 35-350 and for it's time, it was a very useful lens.
Never got the replacement with IS, but with the new lens technology, it'd probably have a decent IQ although obviously not up to the 3X zooms. Very useful safari lens, though for the reasons mentioned above, particularly the dust factor.


----------



## Nininini (Nov 13, 2015)

Ian_of_glos said:


> What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.



You answered your own question, to cover the whole range with one lens.

Bridge and P&S have much smaller sensors and aren't nearly as comfortable to hold as a DSLR.

Besides, most people like options, not everyone uses their superzoom lens all the time. Many people who use superzooms have multiple lenses.

I have an 18-200. I don't use it all the time, but it's super handy to have it if I only want to carry one lens. That doesn't mean I should be using a smaller sensor sized P&S or Bridge camera without the option to use any other lens.


----------



## King Eyre (Nov 13, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *L* or not, I wonder...
> ...



Did I miss something?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *L* or not, I wonder...
> ...



The stated image height is 21.64mm, which means an image circle for a full frame sensor (image height is the radius of the image circle). Why do you believe it's an EF-S lens?


----------



## Monchoon (Nov 13, 2015)

What do you think would be the price point of this lens if either a L or non L?

And who would be the target market?


----------



## Nininini (Nov 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



A f/4-5.6 24-300mm L lens? Come on, get real.


----------



## Monchoon (Nov 13, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> Put some stm and dpaf compatibility and make it 2.8 constant don't care if it's a L lens or not with IS and I'm down for it



What?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



In other words, you cannot back up your assertion that it's an EF-S lens with any facts. Instead, the facts clearly indicate it's an EF lens, not EF-S (i.e. small image circle). 

Perhaps you missed the existence of the current 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6*L* IS lens? Perhaps you're blind to the fact that an EF-S superzoom starting at 24mm (i.e. not a wide angle) is basically a non-starter and that other superzooms for APS-C are 18mm-xxx lenses? Get real, indeed. :


----------



## preppyak (Nov 13, 2015)

ignomini said:


> I'm sure there would be some market for this, but how about a 24-105 replacement. If ever there was a Canon lens screaming for replacement, that's it. If they gave it a similar quality upgrade to the 100-400 II, I'd buy it right now.


They've already made two replacements for it. The 24-70 f/4L IS was the intended kit replacement (and has come down greatly in price), and the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is the cheaper replacement. I cant imagine what you could possibly want differently in that range. You've got two <$600 options (f/4L or STM) and an $800ish option that does macro.

Why would you want to pay $1200-1300 for an updated f/4L (its original price)?



Nininini said:


> A f/4-5.6 24-300mm L lens? Come on, get real.


It already exists...basically: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-28-300mm-f-35-56l-is-usm

If they can find a big weight saving by making f/4-f/5.6 instead of f/3.5, then that is easily worth it. Problem is, I cant see the 24-300 being light enough to actually be a convenient travel option (like the ef-s super zooms are). Or cheap enough. But, I guess we may see


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:



> Put some stm and dpaf compatibility and make it 2.8 constant don't care if it's a L lens or not with IS and I'm down for it



You're 'down for' a lens that would be over 12" long, weigh >6 lbs and cost >$10,000?? Don't hold your breath (or better yet...do).


----------



## preppyak (Nov 13, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> Put some stm and dpaf compatibility and make it 2.8 constant don't care if it's a L lens or not with IS and I'm down for it


A 24-300 f/2.8 constant lens would cost, on a day where is feeling charitable, $30,000+. The closest thing Canon makes (which is also not fixed aperture) is their Cine 30-300, and that's a $45,000 lens


----------



## King Eyre (Nov 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Quite correct, it'll be FF and and an L most likely.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Nov 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > Put some stm and dpaf compatibility and make it 2.8 constant don't care if it's a L lens or not with IS and I'm down for it
> ...


I see your still acting like a know it all canon expert and or engineer hmm "ignore mode activated"


----------



## Tuke (Nov 13, 2015)

I'm looking something to replace my XF100. Something with better low light sensor. I'm waiting for:

A) CX10 with pro body or
B) C100 with 10x zoom lense

I NEED the 10x zoom range. Current 28-300mm has push-pull zoom that is probably bit hard to use in video. APS-C (1.5x) would be better/smaller/cheaper and with STM it would focus full time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...



I see you're (<-note the use of an apostrophe, you should try it sometime) still acting like...you. Don't worry, if Canon comes out with your fantasy lens you'll still have a good excuse for not having it – all those wannabe fake NYC photogs you talk about will snap up all the copies to shoot pics of skateboarders and whatever. That was why you couldn't get a 7DII right away, wasn't it?

Please return to your cave or go back under your bridge.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2015)

I also expect this to be the L successor to the EF 28-300 L ... twist-zoom rather than push-pull and with current 4-stop IS. I expect weight, size and price to still be "substantial". 

A bit of a surprise, I was under the impression that the 28-300 L did hardly sell any more for the last 10 years or so. Personally, I am not interested. Would also have thought, an updated 24-105/4 L IS II with similar IQ improvements and price hike  like other Mk. I to II moves - e.g. 70-200 2.8 IS, 24-70, 100-400 ... would make a lot more business sense and money for Canon. But then again, Canon is a strange beast.


----------



## Nininini (Nov 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you missed the existence of the current 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6



Current? It's a damn old lens by now.

You really think that canon would release a slower L superzoom in 2015?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you missed the existence of the current 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6
> ...



Current as in still produced, not discontinued. It's a lot newer than the 135L, isn't it? 

Still no facts, 'eh? ???


----------



## Nininini (Nov 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Current as in still produced, not discontinued.



Yes, and it's from 2005, use your brain. You think Canon is going to update it a decade later with a slower aperture?


----------



## unfocused (Nov 13, 2015)

Why would Canon see a market for this lens now? Let's see. 

Putin is trying to annex Ukraine.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are on a collision course. 

Syria is engulfed in flames, prompting one of the worst refugee crisis in recent memory.

China is aggressively asserting its territorial claims.

North Korea is...well...it's North Korea.

A premature abandonment of Iraq opened the door for ISIS

Terrorists are on the move in Africa.

And, all the while, American foreign policy is in a shambles.

No wonder Canon is expecting to see increased demand for it's combat photographers' lens. Seems like a good bet to me.


----------



## King Eyre (Nov 13, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Current as in still produced, not discontinued.
> ...



Your kind of comments are the reason I spend very little time on this forum......just plain rude, wrong, and without substance.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 13, 2015)

Video? Tough environments? Travel?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

unfocused said:


> And, all the while, American foreign policy is in a shambles.



Yeah, but The Donald will fix that right up, and the PJ market for this lens will simply evaporate.


----------



## jond (Nov 13, 2015)

This range makes a gereat walk around and travel lens. I currently use Tamron's 16-300mm for this purpose and would love to upgrade. I haven't gone with Canon's 28-300 becasue it is long in the tooth and too big for my purposes. Let's hope they do better with a replacement.


----------



## rs (Nov 13, 2015)

This appears to be no shorter than the current version - 3mm longer when retracted, and 32mm longer when extended. I guess they could use lighter materials to reduce weight, but is likely to still be a lens which doesn't blend into the background. Certainly it's not in the same category as the Tamron 28-300 VC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

rs said:


> This appears to be no shorter than the current version - 3mm longer when retracted, and 32mm longer when extended.



In fact, it's a bit shorter when retracted (>1") and when extended as well, compared to the current lens. The thing to keep in mind is that a patent isn't for a lens per se, but rather for an optical formula. So when you see 'total length of lens' that means all way back to the image plane (sensor) whereas the specs for an actual lens measure just to the back of the lens.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 13, 2015)

Ian_of_glos said:


> What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.


well in all honesty, it doesn't cover 11-24mm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point of a lens like this? I can't see why anyone would buy an interchangeable lens camera and then cover the entire range of useful focal lengths with a single lens.
> ...



Or 600/840/1200mm...


----------



## mrzero (Nov 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



OK, so we're all in agreement. The lens needs to be 11-1200mm, apparently at a constant 2.8 aperture (although 1.8 wouldn't hurt). IS, STM, and L status are all optional. Glad we got that worked out. 

Oh, and released simultaneously with the 24-105 f/4L IS II.


----------



## George D. (Nov 13, 2015)

A compromise IQ lens as well put: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx . And that's for the existing 28-300. A bold move by Canon not to just improve but to extend down to 24mm. I'm not interested in such a lens but what I see lately is a growing confidence by Canon. View to 1DX2 and 5D4.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2015)

Nininini said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Current as in still produced, not discontinued.
> ...



No, better check the facts before you attack other people. the current EF 28-300/3.5-5.6 L IS was launched in June 2004, succeeding the previous EF 35-300/3.5-5.6 L released in 1993. so it would be perfectly in line if Canon were to bring a successor sometime soon, that is again wider on the short end. Difference between f/4.0 vs. F/3.5 for maybe the first 10mm of focal length range is pretty much irrelevant in real life. 

Facts? Here: http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/ef377.html


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Nov 14, 2015)

I am confused by how anyone could think the IQ from the current 28-300 is "bad"?

I think it looks really damn good across all focal ranges and apertures, especially considering it is a super zoom. Seems much better than anything Nikon or Sigma have. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=734&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As mentioned already in this thread, such a lens would be critical for use in conditions where lens changes are not going to happen. I would be more than happy to use that thing for professional use.

If the new one does even better, hopefully lighter weight, then cool! I know of a few people who have the 28-300 pretty much welded onto their camera. They freaking love it!


----------



## siegsAR (Nov 14, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> I am confused by how anyone could think the IQ from the current 28-300 is "bad"?
> 
> I think it looks really damn good across all focal ranges and apertures, especially considering it is a super zoom. Seems much better than anything Nikon or Sigma have.
> 
> ...


Ditto. If not for the weight, I'd trade my 24-105 and 70-200 f4 for this in a heartbeat. I'm patiently waiting for a definite mk2 though I'm not really positive about weight reduction.

Looks like this patent is of a non L superzoom, like the newer 24-105.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 14, 2015)

siegsAR said:


> Looks like this patent is of a non L superzoom, like the newer 24-105.



What exactly in the patent info leads you to this conclusion?


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Nov 14, 2015)

Thinking of the market for such lens, I think that Canon would be much better off (i.e. sell more copies) of a 24-120 F4 L IS USM lens or perhaps 24-200 F4-5.6 L IS USM lens or something in between - 24-135 or 24-150 or 24-180.

Either would be a great travel or walkabout lens. They would be able to maintain reasonable size and weight.

With increased sensitivity of sensors and better IS, there is simply no longer such a strong need for brighter lenses unless for sport or portrait, which is not what a travel lens is for.

However, with ever higher resolution of sensors there is a great need for the lens to have excellent image quality. This is why we lug these huge DSLR bodies around, don't we. Also, high resolutin of the sensor and high IQ give better scope for cropping.

I think that the patented design for 24-300 F4-5.6 is just way too large to consider it a universal travel lens.

Chris


----------



## TeT (Nov 14, 2015)

I think it to be a direct replacement for the 28 300 L, just as that replaced the 35 350 L... It will be well received. Especially the 24 v the 28.

I am assuming that this will be an L lens....

A non L 24 300 lens would sell better and would not take much to be best in the economy super zoom class.


----------



## afonsoclj (Nov 14, 2015)

I'd love a 24-200mm f/4 with size/weight of a 70-200 2.8.


----------



## George D. (Nov 14, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> I am confused by how anyone could think the IQ from the current 28-300 is "bad"?
> 
> I think it looks really damn good across all focal ranges and apertures, especially considering it is a super zoom. Seems much better than anything Nikon or Sigma have.
> 
> ...




From that same review: 
"This is a super-zoom lens. Creating such a lens with perfect image quality in a package that is affordable and carryable by mortals is proven impossible as of this review date. If you want all of those focal lengths in one lens, you must accept a compromise. And as of this date, the 28-300 L is as good as it gets. And as good as it gets in this case is quite good".

Since when "quite good" translates into "bad". I totally agree with the reviewer that when you have a lot of elements there is light loss and a compromise, that's basic rule in optics. From what I count in the patent image (below) the 24-300 comes in 22 elements in 5 groups (L5) as compared to 22/16 of the 28-300. If Canon even gets the same performance with the 28-300 having added 24mm (and at comparable price) it's an improvement. If it's even better that's an achievement.


PS: Right now, sympathy for the events in Paris.


----------



## lol (Nov 14, 2015)

While I'm sure this lens in L version would be great, the price would be a major problem. Personally I'd rather see a non-L version to keep costs reasonable. It could be very handy for those "I don't intend to take serious photos but want to take a decent camera with me" trips.


----------



## TeT (Nov 14, 2015)

lol said:


> While I'm sure this lens in L version would be great, the price would be a major problem. Personally I'd rather see a non-L version to keep costs reasonable. It could be very handy for those "I don't intend to take serious photos but want to take a decent camera with me" trips.



a better (non L or SP or ART) super zoom would be appreciated. The recent Tamron review shows very good results. I would hope that a non L from Canon would be better than that.

Photo Journalists will eat up a 24 300 L with better IQ (from technological advances if nothing else).

The patent diagram is all greek to me...


----------



## scyrene (Nov 14, 2015)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...



What did he say that was wrong? Or do you just dislike realism?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 14, 2015)

I'd like a do-it-(almost)-all lens for those occasions I'm not feeling like taking several, or carrying a lot. Although tbh I'd probably never be able to afford to prioritise something like this. Still, nice to have options.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2015)

George D. said:


> From what I count in the patent image (below) the 24-300 comes in 22 elements in 5 groups (L5) as compared to 22/16 of the 28-300.



The lens units (L1, L2, etc.) in patent diagrams are not synonymous with element groups in a spec list. In the diagram you posted, L1 is two groups and L5 is three groups. For another example, in the previous M70-400mm lens patent, it's evident that L3 comprises four groups and six elements. 







I suspect the design of the 24-300 will have around the same 16 groups as the 28-300L.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Nov 14, 2015)

TeT said:


> A non L 24 300 lens would sell better and would not take much to be best in the economy super zoom class.



Where's the kudos for Canon - Tamron make an economy super zoom - no one else makes a professional grade super zoom - this will be an L lens, Canon will sell it for a much higher margin than Tamron sells theirs - volume doesn't always mean profit.


----------



## RAW (Nov 15, 2015)

The history behind CANON EF 28-300MM 3.5-5.6 L IS USM was that it was made by request from press guys.
So they didnt need to change lens in the heat of the moment, and it is a stanard item in most press gear to day.

It looks like that Canon are upgrading all there push-pull zooms, so this patent smells like a nice an upgrade
of the 28-300 and press guys world over will for sure line up for a 24-300 f4-5.6 L USM and me also ;o) 

So i think it safe to say that there is a solid marked for this lens, so thats why ;o)


----------



## TeT (Nov 15, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > A non L 24 300 lens would sell better and would not take much to be best in the economy super zoom class.
> ...



Agree and agreed... for me personally... I hope for the one I would use & buy which is the best in class economy super zoom not the L... (btw: economy in this case will be $500 to $800)


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 15, 2015)

TeT said:


> .. I hope for the one I would use & buy which is the best in class economy super zoom not the L... (btw: economy in this case will be $500 to $800)



A full-frame Canon EF 24-300/4.0-300 IS in that price range (500-800) is "rather unlikely" to happen. Tamron 28-300 VC is the only ticket in this price class. However, Canon did bring the EF 24-105 IS STM at a really attractive price and performance is decent. Because they wanted a "cheap" 6D kit-zoom. I seriously doubt Canon would be willing to launch a similarly positioned, "mega-value mega-zoom". But who knows? A non L 24-300 would certainly be attractive to many even at 999 or 1299. there seems to be a not insignificant niche of DSLR users who don't want to change lenses - in specific situations or at all.


----------



## TeT (Nov 16, 2015)

Was thinking upon the 24 105 non L for construction and performance comparison... my 500 to 800 may well be optimistic...


----------

