# Patent: RF mount constant aperture superzoom lenses, including an RF 28-280mm f/2.8



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 5, 2019)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent for various super zoom optical formulas, and they’re all for the RF mount except for one that appears to be for EF-S.
> *Canon RF 28-135mm f/4:*
> 
> Focal length: 28.84mm 80.09mm 135.75mm
> ...


*

Continue reading...*


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 5, 2019)

Wow, that 28-280mm f/2.8 is almost the length of a 400mm f/2.8, but it's an internal zoom.

I honestly could imagine this lens becoming a reality at some point, no joke. Imagine the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses of other companies but able to go all the way out to 28mm. That would be an *absolutely* killer sports lens, and the size wouldn't be an issue as the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses are already 297.6mm in length, so only 40mm shorter. 

I know not all patents become a reality, but I definitely think there's a market for this in sports/wildlife/news that would turn this into a big deal. 28-200mm f/2.8 would be great on its own, but I think Canon having this go out to 280mm makes it a lot more likely people would deal with the extra weight.


----------



## N-VB (Dec 5, 2019)

That 28-280 f2.8, _One lens to rule them all_, _one lens _to find _them_, _One lens _to bring _them all_ and in the darkness shoot.


----------



## Tom W (Dec 5, 2019)

I noticed that the image height is reduced at the wide end on these lenses. Does that mean that post-processing will be used to s t r e t c h the corners to match the indicated focal length?


----------



## katinga (Dec 5, 2019)

As an APS-C shooter, the 17-170mm 3.5 would be so nice to have


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 5, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Wow, that 28-280mm f/2.8 is almost the length of a 400mm f/2.8, but it's an internal zoom.
> 
> I honestly could imagine this lens becoming a reality at some point, no joke. Imagine the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses of other companies but able to go all the way out to 28mm. That would be an *absolutely* killer sports lens, and the size wouldn't be an issue as the 120-300mm f/2.8 lenses are already 297.6mm in length, so only 40mm shorter.
> 
> I know not all patents become a reality, but I definitely think there's a market for this in sports/wildlife/news that would turn this into a big deal. 28-200mm f/2.8 would be great on its own, but I think Canon having this go out to 280mm makes it a lot more likely people would deal with the extra weight.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 5, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I noticed that the image height is reduced at the wide end on these lenses. Does that mean that post-processing will be used to s t r e t c h the corners to match the indicated focal length?



yes. Craig didn't copy that over from my site, but yes, all these lenses have stretching happening on the wide end.


----------



## mk0x55 (Dec 5, 2019)

Looks like some very versatile lenses but honestly nothing I would expect brilliant image quality from...

I can imagine though that these will make the EOS R* system a cash cow for Canon... in the middle of the shrinking market.


----------



## Tom W (Dec 5, 2019)

canonnews said:


> yes. Craig didn't copy that over from my site, but yes, all these lenses have stretching happening on the wide end.



I have mixed feelings about the "stretching" method. On the one hand, if you rarely use the wide end and just want to grab the occasional snapshot with it, then maybe it's acceptable. But it is a lossy method. How much is lost, I don't know. Simple distortion correction does eat up a little resolution too, but it's an acceptable amount of loss.


----------



## victorshikhman (Dec 5, 2019)

katinga said:


> As an APS-C shooter, the 17-170mm 3.5 would be so nice to have



Is it giving us that much more over the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is stm or 55-250mm f/4-5.6 is stm? The constant aperture is nice, no question. It is two stops brighter on the long end. I could definitely see myself getting one. But... are we really hurting on the general purpose travel/telephoto end?

We'd be better off with a refresh of the 17-55mm f2.8 with improved IQ, five stops of IS, and get it down to f1.8 to really breathe new life into EF-S/APS-C. Come on, Canon, the market wants it, your superb lens team can deliver it, JUST DO IT.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 5, 2019)

As I recall the 24-240 has a LOT of distortion.

So much that it would be unusable on an optical view finder, and Canon had to adjust camera firmware to do the adjustments for the EVF as well.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 5, 2019)

SteveC said:


> As I recall the 24-240 has a LOT of distortion.
> 
> So much that it would be unusable on an optical view finder, and Canon had to adjust camera firmware to do the adjustments for the EVF as well.


yes, the magic of mirrorless


----------



## unfocused (Dec 5, 2019)

28-240 f2.8 is a good sign that Canon is serious about a sports/action oriented R. Of course such a lens would be crazy expensive, but I can image it becoming the go-to lens for indoor sports shooters who can afford it.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Dec 5, 2019)

Is it possible that these kind of lenses are espcially meant for the combined EF/RF body with the presumably moving sensor? Would this make sense?

Frank


----------



## DJP (Dec 5, 2019)

I'd be happy with an RF 24-105 f/2.8. Although that 28-280 sounds amazing, I have looked at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 S. Reasonably priced when a used copy comes on the market


----------



## navastronia (Dec 5, 2019)

Photorex said:


> Is it possible that these kind of lenses are espcially meant for the combined EF/RF body with the presumably moving sensor? Would this make sense?
> 
> Frank



I would truly not get your hopes up for the rumored EF/RF body, yet.


----------



## Joules (Dec 5, 2019)

It feels wrong to have lenses that force you to use a crop on a FF body. But it seems to allow pushing the Canon lens lineup into unseen before territory... I don't know. Canon are supposed to be the kings of lens development, but it also seems like they are embracing the amount of compromise they can get away with on the R system a bit too much. Like how much vignetting there is and now this trend of having essentially straight up black corners in wide angle lenses...


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 5, 2019)

Joules said:


> It feels wrong to have lenses that force you to use a crop on a FF body. But it seems to allow pushing the Canon lens lineup into unseen before territory... I don't know. Canon are supposed to be the kings of lens development, but it also seems like they are embracing the amount of compromise they can get away with on the R system a bit too much. Like how much vignetting there is and now this trend of having essentially straight up black corners in wide angle lenses...


Check this out from photography life .com I happen to like vignetting myself. I often add it. The corners, to me, are not bad at all on a well lit subject. Outdoors it is barely visible. They are far from straight up black. I should add that I never take photos of just walls and backdrops... solid color or brick. I have seen tests that give the wide open vignetting anywhere from 3 to 4 stops. I personally think that 4 stops is a real stretch and how the backdrop was lit will contribute greatly as to the test results. In camera auto correction makes it a non-issue. Then the vignette is almost gone by f/1.6.
*7. Vignetting*
Ultra-wide aperture lenses usually produce heavy vignetting, and the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM exhibits around 3.3 stops of light falloff at f/1.2.



Canon EOS R + RF50mm F1.2 L USM @ 50mm, ISO 100, 1/8000, f/1.2
Things improve at f/1.6, where vignetting is only about 2.2 stops, better than many wide-aperture lenses on the market. By f/2, vignetting is easily correctable (about 1.5 stops) – and it is a non-issue at f/2.8, totaling only one stop. Beyond that, the RF 50mm f/1.2 exhibits less than a stop of vignetting, which is negligible in real-world images.



Canon EOS R + RF50mm F1.2 L USM @ 50mm, ISO 100, 1/1600, f/2.8

Then there's this: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=1


----------



## Joules (Dec 5, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Check this out from photography life .com I happen to like vignetting myself. I often add it. The corners, to me, are not bad at all on a well lit subject. Outdoors it is barely visible. They are far from straight up black.


I like a bit of vignetting too. With straight up black I was referring to the 24-240mm which has an image circle that doesn't cover the entire sensor at the wide end. If you look at the image height of the patents, you'll see they also don't have a FF image circle at the wide end. Canon simply applies a profile which crops the image to effectively reduce the sensor size to something that is covered by the smaller wide angle image circle. I just don't feel good about that approach. But that's just my opinion, nothing that should matter to you. I'm not saying it is a bad move by Canon to investigate these new options!


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 5, 2019)

Joules said:


> I like a bit of vignetting too. With straight up black I was referring to the 24-240mm which has an image circle that doesn't cover the entire sensor at the wide end. If you look at the image height of the patents, you'll see they also don't have a FF image circle at the wide end. Canon simply applies a profile which crops the image to effectively reduce the sensor size to something that is covered by the smaller wide angle image circle. I just don't feel good about that approach. But that's just my opinion, nothing that should matter to you. I'm not saying it is a bad move by Canon to investigate these new options!


 I wasn't trying to step on your opinion, just what others have said in other tests and from my own personal experience. Since the lenses aren't even in production yet, I assumed you were talking about what has already been manufactured. Thank you for the clarification. I know nothing about the technical side and how Canon does what Canon does. I just take photos and judge the end result.


----------



## flip314 (Dec 5, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Check this out from photography life .com I happen to like vignetting myself. I often add it. The corners, to me, are not bad at all on a well lit subject. Outdoors it is barely visible. They are far from straight up black. I should add that I never take photos of just walls and backdrops... solid color or brick. I have seen tests that give the wide open vignetting anywhere from 3 to 4 stops. I personally think that 4 stops is a real stretch and how the backdrop was lit will contribute greatly as to the test results. In camera auto correction makes it a non-issue. Then the vignette is almost gone by f/1.6.
> *7. Vignetting*
> Ultra-wide aperture lenses usually produce heavy vignetting, and the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM exhibits around 3.3 stops of light falloff at f/1.2.
> 
> ...



I don't mind some slight vignetting either.

But, remember when you correct for 1.5 stops of vignetting in the corner, you're losing 1.5 stops of DR in those spots. Depending on you use case that may be an issue.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 5, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I don't mind some slight vignetting either.
> 
> But, remember when you correct for 1.5 stops of vignetting in the corner, you're losing 1.5 stops of DR in those spots. Depending on you use case that may be an issue.


True. I would imagine the landscape photographers especially would not like that. Somebody wouldn't. The landscape folks usually stop down, I think.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 5, 2019)

I hate to say "this will never happen" twice in the same thread, but why would anyone buy a 28-280 2.8 when it will weigh 10 lbs? Superzooms, which go wide (as opposed to tele zooms), should be usable for run and gun photography because they're light and handy enough to let you move and shoot quickly while not being slowed down by lens changes, etc. I don't think exchanging a bright aperture for an extremely large lens makes much sense for a superzoom.

This lens is kind of a fun idea if you don't think about it too hard, but I don't see it happening, and my complaints above don't even get into a) what it would cost, and b) what kind of image quality it would have relative to the RF 24-70 and RF 70-200, which would together both cost less and weigh less than this monstrosity.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 5, 2019)

Joules said:


> I like a bit of vignetting too. With straight up black I was referring to the 24-240mm which has an image circle that doesn't cover the entire sensor at the wide end. If you look at the image height of the patents, you'll see they also don't have a FF image circle at the wide end. Canon simply applies a profile which crops the image to effectively reduce the sensor size to something that is covered by the smaller wide angle image circle. I just don't feel good about that approach. But that's just my opinion, nothing that should matter to you. I'm not saying it is a bad move by Canon to investigate these new options!



It was worse than just vignetting. There was horrific barrel distortion too, all covered up by the firmware.

I own a couple of super zooms myself (Tamron models), but they are APS-C and given that, the worst of the barrel distortion is cropped away; what's left is probably easier to actually fix (or greatly reduce) in the optics. I've never noticed barrel distortion at 18mm...but then again, I haven't gone out of my way to shoot a brick wall to test for it, either.


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 5, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I hate to say "this will never happen" twice in the same thread, but why would anyone buy a 28-280 2.8 when it will weigh 10 lbs? Superzooms, which go wide (as opposed to tele zooms), should be usable for run and gun photography because they're light and handy enough to let you move and shoot quickly while not being slowed down by lens changes, etc. I don't think exchanging a bright aperture for an extremely large lens makes much sense for a superzoom.
> 
> This lens is kind of a fun idea if you don't think about it too hard, but I don't see it happening, and my complaints above don't even get into a) what it would cost, and b) what kind of image quality it would have relative to the RF 24-70 and RF 70-200, which would together both cost less and weigh less than this monstrosity.



Like I said in my first post, if you think of this lens in the same ballpark as the 120-300, because this is basically a 300mm 2.8 on the long end, you'll find the audience. 

I wouldn't associate this with normal super zooms, but instead in the same category as a 200-400, which definitely has a big following. Weight and size are not issues to that demographic, since it'll end up on a monopod anyway.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 6, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Like I said in my first post, if you think of this lens in the same ballpark as the 120-300, because this is basically a 300mm 2.8 on the long end, you'll find the audience.
> 
> I wouldn't associate this with normal super zooms, but instead in the same category as a 200-400, which definitely has a big following. Weight and size are not issues to that demographic, since it'll end up on a monopod anyway.



For sure, and reading your title, you're a photojournalist, so I trust you know what you're talking about.

I will say that to me, as someone who has done some events and sports work, I would feel fine using the proposed lens to capture distant action (as with the 120-300 2.8) and feel OK using it at wide-ish angles to capture (say) a sports arena. However, I imagine I would feel incredibly constricted swinging that lens around at around 28-50mm trying to get shots of close-up action if the ball got near me. I'd much rather reach for a second body where I'd have a fast prime ready.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 6, 2019)

Just a replacement for the ef 28-300 but specced up to f2.8 for the R.
The old 28-300 was a good seller for Canon as it handles almost every situation even if it's big and heavy.

I have a 24-240 for my R, and it defintely does have mechanical vignetting wide open at 24mm.
But you won't ever see it unless you use the bare raw files. Otherwise, it's a surprisingly good lens for what it is.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 6, 2019)

28-280 f whaaaaaaatttttt????? This. This right here is why Canon. That’s utterly insane if they have built this.


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 6, 2019)

Give me that 28-280mm!


----------



## Pape (Dec 6, 2019)

Photorex said:


> Is it possible that these kind of lenses are espcially meant for the combined EF/RF body with the presumably moving sensor? Would this make sense?
> 
> Frank


16 lense when compared to RF24-240mm 21 lense ,sounds plausible when thinking focus elements dropped off


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 6, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> View attachment 187709


Oh, I suggest checking in with your bank manager first as this baby would likely be priced similar to 200-400/4 zoom lens. But hey, it is a nice lens. Right?


----------



## Kit. (Dec 6, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I hate to say "this will never happen" twice in the same thread, but why would anyone buy a 28-280 2.8 when it will weigh 10 lbs? Superzooms, which go wide (as opposed to tele zooms), should be usable for run and gun photography because they're light and handy enough to let you move and shoot quickly while not being slowed down by lens changes, etc.


The lens can be useful when someone runs into you.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 6, 2019)

LOL, 28-280 f/2.8, only around $10K and 3.5kg.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2019)

SteveC said:


> It was worse than just vignetting. There was horrific barrel distortion too, all covered up by the firmware.



Are there any super zooms or >3x zoom lenses that cross go from wide to tele that have good IQ?

If any of those patents turn into lenses, I expect all of them to have sacrifice IQ for convenience.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 6, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Are there any super zooms or >3x zoom lenses that cross go from wide to tele that have good IQ?


Does Canon's 51x 8k broadcast lens count?



Antono Refa said:


> If any of those patents turn into lenses, I expect all of them to have sacrifice IQ for convenience.


I wouldn't call the need to carry a ...-280/2.8 lens "convenience". "Preparedness" might be a better term.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Does Canon's 51x 8k broadcast lens count?



Fair enough, should have limited my statement to DSLR / MILC lenses, priced a tad lower than broadcast lenses.



Kit. said:


> I wouldn't call the need to carry a ...-280/2.8 lens "convenience". "Preparedness" might be a better term.



One could be prepared with a 24-70mm f/2.8 + 70-200mm f/2.8 + 300mm f/2.8, and one could - if the patent ever makes into production - use one convenient lens that covers all the focal range without switching lenses.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 6, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Oh, I suggest checking in with your bank manager first as this baby would likely be priced similar to 200-400/4 zoom lens. But hey, it is a nice lens. Right?


shhhhhh. let me live in my dream world.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Dec 6, 2019)

28-280 f2.8......my body is ready. If they pull that off with excellent IQ I'd buy an R series camera just to pair it with.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 6, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Fair enough, should have limited my statement to DSLR / MILC lenses, priced a tad lower than broadcast lenses.


RF 24-105 is a >4x zoom with not a bad IQ.



Antono Refa said:


> One could be prepared with a 24-70mm f/2.8 + 70-200mm f/2.8 + 300mm f/2.8,


Not one, but three. One may lose an unique shot while switching cameras.


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 6, 2019)

navastronia said:


> For sure, and reading your title, you're a photojournalist, so I trust you know what you're talking about.
> 
> I will say that to me, as someone who has done some events and sports work, I would feel fine using the proposed lens to capture distant action (as with the 120-300 2.8) and feel OK using it at wide-ish angles to capture (say) a sports arena. However, I imagine I would feel incredibly constricted swinging that lens around at around 28-50mm trying to get shots of close-up action if the ball got near me. I'd much rather reach for a second body where I'd have a fast prime ready.



Appreciate it! 

One of the news guys I've worked around who works Ravens games swears by the Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 for this reason. I think I would have reacted far differently to this lens before seeing how much he loves that lens, even despite it being f/4.5 at best and mostly 6.3. He posted an example the one time of where he got a shot from 600mm and then swung out to 60mm to get the celebration that happened simultaneously right next to him, and it was really impressive. 

There's a lot of scenarios I've been in where I have a 24-70, 70-200, and 300 2.8 all on different cameras, and in the time I've swung up the 70-200 or 24-70 the action has either passed or has gotten too close. In that case, I find myself very rarely actually using the 24-70 to get action just because it requires me to take my eye off the action/shutter to pull the camera up quickly.

I think ideally this lens would be the kinda thing that would replace all three for when you're not too agile on the sidelines, and would let me put a fast prime like a 35mm 1.4 on a second camera for moments I need some agility, instead of using my three cameras just to cover the bare minimum range I need. Or a 16-35mm on another camera for the end of the game celebrations, while this acts a lot like the 300mm f/2.8 for the rest of the game.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2019)

Kit. said:


> RF 24-105 is a >4x zoom with not a bad IQ.



It's not that good either, e.g. 3.2% pincushion distortion at the wide end and >2 stops of vignetting at both ends @f/4.

Don't get me wrong, I used the EF 24-105mm f/4L mkI on a 5Dmk2 for years. Does wonders for my family, who refuse to have photos shared with them unless down sampled to 5MP, but not really good.



Kit. said:


> Not one, but three. One may lose an unique shot while switching cameras.



Not switching lenses or cameras is very convenient.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 6, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Are there any super zooms or >3x zoom lenses that cross go from wide to tele that have good IQ?
> 
> If any of those patents turn into lenses, I expect all of them to have sacrifice IQ for convenience.



OK, here's a video:






At 6:30 you can see how bad it is.

I'm pretty sure that's worse than my Tamrons, all of which are over 10x zoom--and which, to be sure, aren't full frames.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 6, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> It's not that good either, e.g. 3.2% pincushion distortion at the wide end and >2 stops of vignetting at both ends @f/4.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I used the EF 24-105mm f/4L mkI on a 5Dmk2 for years. Does wonders for my family, who refuse to have photos shared with them unless down sampled to 5MP, but not really good.
> 
> ...


I guess it's all subjective. The quality of my 24-105 v1 on my 6D has never been a limiting factor for me and I suspect the RF version on my R won't be either.

I will say that I had a copy of the Canon 18-200 when I was on crop, and I was never impressed with it.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 6, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> It's not that good either, e.g. 3.2% pincushion distortion at the wide end and >2 stops of vignetting at both ends @f/4.


And what do you call "that good"?



Antono Refa said:


> Not switching lenses or cameras is very convenient.


Not when you are forced to operate a 28-280/2.8 lens instead. I'd rather switch cameras than try to frame wide angle shots with this monster.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2019)

Kit. said:


> And what do you call "that good"?



I'd like <2 stops of vignetting, <1.5 would be that good. I know Canon is going the other way with lenses having >3 stops of vignetting (24mm f/1.4L mkII, 11-24mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/2.8L mkIII) and heard the explanations why, lets not go down that road again.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 6, 2019)

N-VB said:


> That 28-280 f2.8, _One lens to rule them all_, _one lens _to find _them_, _One lens _to bring _them all_ and in the darkness shoot.


 that lens would be so big it wouldnt even make sense.


----------



## caffetin (Dec 6, 2019)

SteveC said:


> As I recall the 24-240 has a LOT of distortion.
> 
> So much that it would be unusable on an optical view finder, and Canon had to adjust camera firmware to do the adjustments for the EVF as well.


how do You kinow?


----------



## IcyBergs (Dec 6, 2019)

Where is the RF pancake?

RF mount already has a superzoom (albeit not a fixed aperture).


----------



## SteveC (Dec 7, 2019)

caffetin said:


> how do You kinow?



I answered that question later on, by pointing to a review that includes the image. : https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...luding-an-rf-28-280mm-f-2-8.37933/post-804264


----------



## deleteme (Dec 7, 2019)

Sign me up for the 28-135.
Useful reach and manageable size. 
Maybe even a manageable price.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 7, 2019)

Patents generally never reach production, and I don't expect a huge lens like this would make it . Reading some of the posts, some people seem to think that the patent means Canon is going to manufacture that particular example from the patent. Its not going to happem. At least, that's my prediction.


----------



## Buck (Dec 8, 2019)

a 28-280 would be interesting to try when shooting basketball, size and balance would be a key


----------



## cpreston (Dec 9, 2019)

katinga said:


> As an APS-C shooter, the 17-170mm 3.5 would be so nice to have


The 17-170mm sounds like an 8 grand CN-E Compact servo zoom lens to me. I would buy one.


----------



## Rivermist (Dec 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> I like a bit of vignetting too. With straight up black I was referring to the 24-240mm which has an image circle that doesn't cover the entire sensor at the wide end. If you look at the image height of the patents, you'll see they also don't have a FF image circle at the wide end. Canon simply applies a profile which crops the image to effectively reduce the sensor size to something that is covered by the smaller wide angle image circle. I just don't feel good about that approach. But that's just my opinion, nothing that should matter to you. I'm not saying it is a bad move by Canon to investigate these new options!


I too was skeptical, but as I was preparing for a trip where I needed equipment to be compact and ready to shoot in most situations, and for that the RP and RF 24-105L (that I love) lack the telephoto reach, so I would have to add the 70-200 4LIS or 70-300 DO to my bag and do lens changes (or schlep the 5DIII). When I saw the promotion RP + 24-240 for $1,500, I saw an opportunity to give this new approach to high range zooms a try. One RP will have that lens, the other one the EF 16-35 L 4.0 IS with adapter for the select pictures requiring very wide angle and/or high quality in the 24-35 range.
Some thoughts about the 24-240 and the use of processing to correct and upsample images: 10 years ago I was shooting weddings, portrait and travel around the world with my 5D Mk1 (12 megapixels) and loving my pictures. If the 24-35 range of the 24-240 zoom is effectively re-sampling a reduced image circle of 18 or 20 mp this is still a very acceptable resolution for my picture galleries and books. Making use of RAW in the 24-35 range is not going to be easy due to all the corrections needed, but this may be irrelevant. I find with mirrorless that I have so few poor exposure situations JPEG out of the camera is not as crazy as it would be with my prior DLSRs, where I often had to correct 1-2 EV in challenging lighting situations, making RAW indispensable.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 18, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I have mixed feelings about the "stretching" method. On the one hand, if you rarely use the wide end and just want to grab the occasional snapshot with it, then maybe it's acceptable. But it is a lossy method. How much is lost, I don't know. Simple distortion correction does eat up a little resolution too, but it's an acceptable amount of loss.



By my estimation about 9% might be lost linearly. Or about 17% of pixels. Virtually undetectable cropping that confers the effect of an undistorting lens of the promised focal length with correct composition in the viewfinder. 




__





RF 24-240mm: No full frame cover at 24mm


That’s because you are relatively new to this game and you have admitted that earlier. Have merely expressed my opinion and di not want to engage in meaningless conversation. That’s all. For someone not wanting to engage in this conversation, you sure seem determined to have the last--albeit...




www.canonrumors.com


----------

