# New Canon 18-270mm or 16-240mm



## DuLt (May 14, 2011)

Hi everyone!
Check this link: http://photorumors.com/2011/05/13/the-latest-lens-patents-from-sony-sigma-panasonic-pentax-and-canon/#more-10132

Rumored new Canon 18-270mm or 16-240mm.

Really looking forward for the 16-240mm. 16mm is really more useful than the 270 IMO.


----------



## Admin US West (May 14, 2011)

Lenses like this will be for those who prefer the convience over ultimate quality, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. 

I expect them to be complex as well, a rear focusing design that likely has three or four lens groups moving at the same time, like the 70-300mm L??. 

I think that we will start seeing in-camera correction of distortions for lenses like these, which will be a improvement for the average user. The superzooms do sell, they are what many people want, so a Canon Model will sell even if it is higher priced.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> I think that we will start seeing in-camera correction of distortions for lenses like these, which will be a improvement for the average user.



A 15x zoom lens will need a lot of corrections... 

Also, I wouldn't say that these are 'rumored new lenses' - they are patent applications only. Canon prides themselves on their patent record. They had over 2,500 patents issued in the US last year (and many, like the one linked above, contain multiple designs) - only a _very_ small fraction of those will actually become products.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2011)

> they are patent applications only.



True, but....

Canon (and Nikon) have got to be watching the success of Tamron's super-zoom and I doubt they want to cede that market segment. There is clearly a strong consumer market for a "do-it-all" lens. It may not be of interest to "L" fetishists who frequent this forum, but for the average consumer who wants to put a lens on their SLR and leave it on (the irony, is not lost here) the super-zooms have great appeal. 

If the quality is decent, it will also appeal to serious photographers who want a single lens to take on hikes, trips, etc., when it's not practical to carry around an entire bag full of lenses. 

My gut feeling is that this patent is much more likely to be developed than many others.


----------



## DuLt (May 18, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > they are patent applications only.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do allot of hikes and camping and I was trully seduced by the 16mm wideangle (I would rather 15, but for the reach I can compromise).

I'm more and more sickened about the quality of lenses. I have some shots taken with the 18-55mm that I simply don't care about the pixel quality because the image is so powerful.


----------



## distant.star (May 18, 2011)

I'm holding out for the 8-800mm.

Word I get is it can also take you about six seconds forward in time. Good enough for shooting sports, but not quite good enough for sports betting.


----------



## John Smith (May 18, 2011)

There are plenty of people, like my brother in law (bought a 600D) and his brother (bought a 60D), who buy a DSLR with a superzoom in order to take stills & video of their kids with better quality & control than bridge camera, but with no wish (at least in present) to switch lenses for top image quality.

My guess is Tamron makes good money on the 18-270 (if it wasn't profitable, I don't think it would have been in stock, much the less upgraded), so Canon wants in on 15x as well.

Considering Canon is making 10x zooms for professionals (the 28-300mm & 35-350mm) for a very long time, I (naively ?) think 15x zooms for amatures (maybe EF-S only) is not such a long stretch.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2011)

John Smith said:


> There are plenty of people, like my brother in law (bought a 600D) and his brother (bought a 60D), who buy a DSLR with a superzoom in order to take stills & video of their kids with better quality & control than bridge camera, but with no wish (at least in present) to switch lenses for top image quality.



Agreed. I'm sure Canon sells a lot of EF-S 18-200mm lenses for just that reason, and that's the driver behind these patents. Canon certainly seems to like superlatives - the most megapixels, the fastest lenses - so making a bigger zoom seems entirely reasonable. Tamron has one, which they recently updated with their version of USM (called PZD), something Canon's 18-200mm lacks.



John Smith said:


> Considering Canon is making 10x zooms for professionals (the 28-300mm & 35-350mm) for a very long time, I (naively ?) think 15x zooms for amatures (maybe EF-S only) is not such a long stretch.



Personally, I've considered the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens on several occasions, for convenience and not having to change lenses. I have the 100-400mm, so I'm comfortable with a push-pull zoom, and unlike the 100-400, the 28-300 is weather-sealed. But every time I've come close to pulling the trigger, the optical compromises stop me. Still, the convenience remains tempting (although a 2-lens solution of 24-105mm + 70-300mm L seems more likely for me).


----------



## Flake (May 18, 2011)

Personally, I've considered the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens on several occasions, for convenience and not having to change lenses. I have the 100-400mm, so I'm comfortable with a push-pull zoom, and unlike the 100-400, the 28-300 is weather-sealed. But every time I've come close to pulling the trigger, the optical compromises stop me. Still, the convenience remains tempting (although a 2-lens solution of 24-105mm + 70-300mm L seems more likely for me).
[/quote]

The 28 - 300mm is wonderful providing you can stand reasonably still and use a monopod, and don't mind people staring at the big white lens (but you know that from the 100 - 400mm). It's particularly useful when you just don't know what focal length you'll need and there isn't the time to change lenses or swap cameras when using two bodies. One example was an old steam train, the only reasonable place was on a bridge, and with a superzoom you get the opportunity of many more shots as it comes towards you. Perfect for video where you just can't change midstream too.

Optical quality is surprisingly good, certainly as good as the 24 - 105mm and well ahead of commercial requirements. If you absolutely have to have the ultimate then it's not for you, but you'll miss so many shots acheiving it that it might not be worth it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2011)

Flake said:


> The 28 - 300mm is wonderful providing you can stand reasonably still and use a monopod, and don't mind people staring at the big white lens (but you know that from the 100 - 400mm). It's particularly useful when you just don't know what focal length you'll need and there isn't the time to change lenses or swap cameras when using two bodies. One example was an old steam train, the only reasonable place was on a bridge, and with a superzoom you get the opportunity of many more shots as it comes towards you. Perfect for video where you just can't change midstream too.
> 
> Optical quality is surprisingly good, certainly as good as the 24 - 105mm and well ahead of commercial requirements. If you absolutely have to have the ultimate then it's not for you, but you'll miss so many shots acheiving it that it might not be worth it.



Thanks for the input! I've considered he 28-300mm mostly for travel, but even there the combination of 24-105mm + 70-300mm L would deliver equal or better IQ across a slightly wider range, with faster apertures for most of that range, and a similar combined weight.


----------



## J. McCabe (May 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I've considered the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens on several occasions, for convenience and not having to change lenses. I have the 100-400mm, so I'm comfortable with a push-pull zoom, and unlike the 100-400, the 28-300 is weather-sealed. But every time I've come close to pulling the trigger, the optical compromises stop me. Still, the convenience remains tempting (although a 2-lens solution of 24-105mm + 70-300mm L seems more likely for me).



Some people are 'blind' to image quality for various reasons.

My brother in law prints [almost] everything 4x6 to the family albums, and that size is doesn't demand much in quality.

If my equipment produced some of the photos I've seen on facebook, I would have (and once did) run screaming to the lab. This includes everything from photos so soft that nothing looks sharp to photos that look like they were cut in two and glued without being properly aligned.


----------



## DuLt (May 19, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I've considered the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens on several occasions, for convenience and not having to change lenses. I have the 100-400mm, so I'm comfortable with a push-pull zoom, and unlike the 100-400, the 28-300 is weather-sealed. But every time I've come close to pulling the trigger, the optical compromises stop me. Still, the convenience remains tempting (although a 2-lens solution of 24-105mm + 70-300mm L seems more likely for me).
> ...



But one thing is to have an L lens and another is to have a "regular" lens...
I can still take good pictures with a "regular" lens.
Maybe if I print them on a quite large size i'll see the lens softness but that doesn't mean the picture's bad.
http://www.googleartproject.com/ Is a good example of that, it's not because I can see every detail (I couldn't see live) that the image's better.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 22, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> If my equipment produced some of the photos I've seen on facebook, I would have (and once did) run screaming to the lab. This includes everything from photos so soft that nothing looks sharp to photos that look like they were cut in two and glued without being properly aligned.


On film, or digital? Sounds like there was a lag on reading from the sensor in the second image...more likely to happen in a still pulled from a movie frame (especially if played back on a computer first) I'd think. Never seen that happen on a digital camera, though I could imagine it.


----------



## J. McCabe (May 22, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > If my equipment produced some of the photos I've seen on facebook, I would have (and once did) run screaming to the lab. This includes everything from photos so soft that nothing looks sharp to photos that look like they were cut in two and glued without being properly aligned.
> ...



Digital. This happened to me a few times, and the problem was in the card reader - for some reason it caused one JPEG block (16 pixels by 16 pixels) to be lost, causing the rest of the picture to be misaligned. This often caused the rest of the photo to have color problems as well.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 23, 2011)

I've seen that before. Not really fixable if you lose color information (I've seen this happen, once, with a file mistransmitted over the Internet).


----------



## DuLt (May 23, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I've seen that before. Not really fixable if you lose color information (I've seen this happen, once, with a file mistransmitted over the Internet).


Or in camera, happened to me before too.


----------



## John Smith (May 23, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I've seen that before. Not really fixable if you lose color information (I've seen this happen, once, with a file mistransmitted over the Internet).



In my case, I could inspect the images and copy them again before formatting the card, though my preferred solution was to dump the card reader and buy a new one that works fine.


----------

