# Patent: Canon 17-40 f/2.8-4L



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 2, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9160"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9160" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9160"></a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 17-40 f/2.8-4L Patent

</strong>Below is a patent for a new Canon wide angle zoom concept. The variable aperture is interested, if it remained as light and compact as the current 17-40 f/4L, the additional stop of light wide open would be a nice feature.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2010-42792</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2012.3.1 Release Date</li>
<li>2010.8.20 filing date</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>39.05mm – f = 17.64 focal length</li>
<li>Fno = 2.64 – 4.10</li>
<li>28.99 deg – 50.80 half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>136.70mm – 134.67 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 39.97 – 64.95mm</li>
<li>Lens Construction 12 elements in 9 groups sheet</li>
<li>4 aspherical surface</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon’s patent</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Negative lead type zoom lens of negative-positive</li>
<li>Small and light lens for focusing</li>
<li>Inner focus</li>
<li>Focusing the use (1b in the figure) part of the first lens group</li>
<li>Video support</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-03-02">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 2, 2012)

This will be... interesting...


----------



## Flake (Mar 3, 2012)

The additional stop at the wide end, a nice feature? Well only if it manages to be sharp across the frame, most if not all wide angle lenses struggle at the wide end, wide open. It's only a nice feature because stopping down will probably be better than a straight f/4


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 3, 2012)

An indication that the 16-35mm might get dropped fo a 14-24mm f2.8 perhaps ?


----------



## tss68nl (Mar 4, 2012)

Looks promising, but I'm reluctant to be happy about it. 

Lets see if the current price of the 17-40 f/4L of $800 will be doubled to $1600 with the introduction of it's successor as well


----------



## pedro (Mar 4, 2012)

this will be really interesting. how much time does it take from this stage to an announcement normally?


----------



## traveller (Mar 4, 2012)

I'd really prefer a 16-35 f/4 (like the new Nikkor) for landscape work, although I accept that there are a lot of people that would like a 14-24 f/2.8. Perhaps this is Canon's attempt at a compromise to save having to develop two lenses. I think that would be a mistake, as the two new wide angle full frame zooms that Nikon has serve two different market, just like the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 and the two 70-200s.


----------



## nesarajah (Mar 4, 2012)

not sure if if I need it that wide open at 17mm . Cant think of a reason why ?


----------



## Positron (Mar 4, 2012)

nesarajah said:


> not sure if if I need it that wide open at 17mm . Cant think of a reason why ?



Interior architecture, possibly, but I think the main thing is to allow you to stop it down to f/4 or f/5.6 for more sharpness? That is to say that it's not cause and effect, but rather, they may have made it good enough at f/4 that they can pull off f/2.8 without it being terrible.



pedro said:


> this will be really interesting. how much time does it take from this stage to an announcement normally?



I have seen no trend, and it seems like no more than 1/3 of these patents ever actually become products. In many cases they have an idea, and they patent it just so they have legal ammo in case they ever do decide to bring it to market.


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 5, 2012)

If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this


----------



## Gcon (Mar 5, 2012)

tivoboy said:


> If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this



The 17-40mm is far from perfect. I suggest learning to read an MFT chart as the first step, and then having a good look at the corners of your shots at f/4.


----------



## crasher7 (Mar 5, 2012)

Now this I like


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 5, 2012)

Gcon said:


> tivoboy said:
> 
> 
> > If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this
> ...



I've done that many times, this one is just fine thank you.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm not too sure how this variable-aperture lens would work with Canon cameras with extra-precision f/2.8-sensitive sensors. You have extra precision at wide angle and then lose it while zooming in, that's a recipe for OOF shots . And I doubt this would even be parfocal in any case. There is a reason why the old 28-80 f/2.8-4L zoom lens didn't have a successor with the same variable-max aperture...


----------



## peederj (Mar 6, 2012)

How many of Canon's lenses are parfocal as it is? It's a serious pain for video.


----------



## drummstikk (Mar 7, 2012)

Gcon said:


> I suggest learning to read an MFT chart as the first step,



I suggest learning how to spell *MTF* chart as a first step. . .


----------



## willrobb (Mar 8, 2012)

Exciting prospect. I'm really happy with my 17-40mm F4L, it's been a well used lens for ke over the last few years but sometimes Ihad wished I had the f2.8 of my 24-70L. A 2.8 at it's widest could be very useful, hopefully a fair bit cheaper than the 16-35mm as well.


----------



## Caps18 (Mar 8, 2012)

traveller said:


> I'd really prefer a 16-35 f/4 (like the new Nikkor) for landscape work, although I accept that there are a lot of people that would like a 14-24 f/2.8. Perhaps this is Canon's attempt at a compromise to save having to develop two lenses. I think that would be a mistake, as the two new wide angle full frame zooms that Nikon has serve two different market, just like the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 and the two 70-200s.



There is a 16-35 f/2.8, and I have it. It works great for landscapes.

I don't understand who they are targeting with this new 17-40? I could see a 17-50 f/2.8-4 being interesting I guess. And I could see a 17-40 f/2.8 doing well. I don't understand why I would want this 17-40 f/2.8-4 over my 16-35 unless the price was a lot less.


----------



## jimmy156 (Mar 8, 2012)

Gcon said:


> tivoboy said:
> 
> 
> > If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this
> ...



why be condescending? The 17-40L is capable of taking stunning photo's, what else is necessary?


----------



## cfai84 (Apr 22, 2012)

The price most likely will double or hit somewhere around the 1400-1600 range just like the 24-70mm; if nothing is really astonishing about it comparing to the previous one...

Any idea how long will it take since patent release?


----------



## spinworkxroy (Apr 22, 2012)

cfai84 said:


> The price most likely will double or hit somewhere around the 1400-1600 range just like the 24-70mm; if nothing is really astonishing about it comparing to the previous one...
> 
> Any idea how long will it take since patent release?



Not all patent get released..
Sometimes they patent it because they are testing it..doesn't mean they will ever release it..
Like hat many have mentioned…why the need for this lens when if you're going to pay so much more for it (i'm sure of that), just go get the 16-35 then..
It could just be one of Canon's "test" lenses that got patented and they're still deciding if they want to release it..i don't know…we might never see the light of it


----------



## Heidrun (Apr 22, 2012)

Dont need a new 17-40. I need a 12-24 or 14-24. If its not with 2,8. Then i want it with 4,0 L is


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 22, 2012)

How about a 12-40 f/4 or a 16-35 f/2 (I know next to nothing about lens construction so they probably are both impossible to build without weighing 50 pounds each)


----------



## dunkers (Apr 22, 2012)

jimmy156 said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > tivoboy said:
> ...



+1
MTF charts aren't everything. If you're happy with the photos that it produces, then it is perfect your tastes.


----------



## NWPhil (Apr 23, 2012)

dunkers said:


> jimmy156 said:
> 
> 
> > Gcon said:
> ...



+1

now about the lens:
if a constant 2.8 would allow me to obtain good IQ at f/4, would be a deal, but not with variable aperture - and like others I would rather see a 14-24 2.8.

Maybe not so much of a need during daytime; for low light conditions and nighscapes, I can see the use.
I have the 17-40, and can't even recall using it at 40mm focal, but often I get down to f/4 and find myself still pushing the iso


----------



## birdman (Apr 26, 2012)

All I know is the current 17-40 distorts pretty bad until about 19mm. My copy does at least. I would prefer wider, maybe 15-30mm, if that's even feasible, and has 77mm filter threads. 

They're gonna milk the 16-35/2.8 until sales drop A LOT. At its current price, the only reason to buy is for a tiny bit wider angle and 2.8 aperture (over the 17-40). I hope they will make a stellar UWA...and of course given their newer lens prices don't expect one for under $1,800.0


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

The 17-40 is supposed to be better on the wide end than the long end... while I would love an update i do have a few concerns... 

A) this lens sharply increasing in price, 16-35 II, 70-200 2.8 II, 5dIII, etc... 
B) like many newer updates, the lens becoming an 82mm rather than 77mm...
C) not really jiving over the variable aperture aspect of this lens... I would love a 2.8 option, but 2.8 on the wide end really isn't as much as a benefit as it is on the long end... But i dont know if it's even possible to have F4 on the 17 end and 2.8 for the 40 end... Kinda seems simpler to have a constant aperture, unless that will increase costs even more.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 2, 2012)

cfai84 said:


> The price most likely will double or hit somewhere around the 1400-1600 range just like the 24-70mm; if nothing is really astonishing about it comparing to the previous one...
> 
> Any idea how long will it take since patent release?




If the price is btw $1400-$1600.... 16-35 II seems to be a better choice<f2.8 end to end>. I would ONLY consider IF this lens has ZERO distortion at 17mm on FF.


----------



## K-amps (May 2, 2012)

jimmy156 said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > tivoboy said:
> ...



I had 2 17-40's one new and one recently used from ebay. I sold the new one unimpressed... then after a year decided due to filter sizes (77mm), it will go well with my other lenses, so I got one from ebay... 

I could not be happier. It is small, sharp, wide... and a great value for the money. It can take some amazing shots...


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

I think the 17-40 is a good bang per buck lens, but it's getting old and the optical quality seems to be hit or miss with lots of copy variation. I'm waiting for the MK II, and if it's still constant f4 that's just fine with me. I almost never set my f4-5.6 lenses wider than 5.6 anyway because I just hate having the aperture change as I zoom. And besides, the long end is where you need wider aperture.


----------

