# Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 18, 2014)

```
<p>Is Canon working on a replacement to the very good EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5? By the looks of this patent they are. I’d expect any replacement to have STM and maybe a bit better build quality, though the current one is about as reliable as they come.</p>
<p><strong>Example 3</strong> (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.07</li>
<li>Focal length 11.61-15.50-24.07mm</li>
<li>Fno. 3.63-3.96-4.69</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 49.64-41.38-29.58 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 13.66mm</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 133.0-129.1-133.3mm</li>
<li>BF 3.26mm</li>
<li>Negative positive and negative positive 4-group zoom</li>
<li>Inner focus (Lf part of the first group)</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-11-18" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## siegsAR (Nov 18, 2014)

For STM, there's the new 10-18 for that, and IS too. 

If only it says f/2.8, but still. If this was just an EF lens.


----------



## pwp (Nov 18, 2014)

siegsAR said:


> If only it says f/2.8, but still. If this was just an EF lens....


...then the retail price would be comfortably north of $3k.

-pw


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 18, 2014)

An 11-24 would make no sense at all. Why throw away one of the great features of the 10-22 - i.e. 10 mm - in exchange for 2 mm more overlap with your standard lens? I'm all in favour of a useful long end as it means less lens swapping, but losing several degrees of AoV at the wide end is too high a price to pay.


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 18, 2014)

I agree it seems odd to degrade the wide end. It would be difficult to sell an 11-24mm as an upgrade over the existing 10-22 without something like an f/2.8 aperture or IS.

I think it might be possible that Canon has discovered an optical formula that works well and has patented it as a defensive measure against other companies using it to produce a competitive lens.

As an aside, does anyone know if there are any rules that lens makers have to abide by with respect to nominal focal length vs actual? Can Canon label a lens 11-24mm when it is actually closer to 12-24? (11.61 obviously rounds to 12)


----------



## Woody (Nov 18, 2014)

Canon must be crazy to have so many iterations of their EF-S ultrawide lenses.

It may make sense if this is an EF-M lens.

Still, as rightly pointed out by others, I'll rather adapt an EF-S 10-22 or 10-18 to the EOS-M due to the extra 2 mm at the wide end.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 18, 2014)

Woody said:


> Canon must be crazy to have so many iterations of their EF-S ultrawide lenses.
> It may make sense if this is an EF-M lens.
> ...



not really ... EF-M 11-22/4.0-5.6 IS STM does exist. Very compact, very good and affordable.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 18, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Is Canon *working on* a replacement to the very good EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5? By the looks of this *patent* they are.



To be honest, I don't see the connection. There have been so many patents without a product, and issuing a patent can simply mean they want to protect their ip before the competition gets the same idea. 

Now I realize with Canon's announcement policy, a rumor site is no fun to produce news for  ... but for potential buyers of this lens it might be a good idea not to get too excited. For Canon to issue or update a lens, there have to be very good reasons (more profit, filling a blatant gap in the lineup, adapting lenses to new camera tech like more mp or better af, ...).


----------



## Coldhands (Nov 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > As an aside, does anyone know if there are any rules that lens makers have to abide by with respect to nominal focal length vs actual? Can Canon label a lens 11-24mm when it is actually closer to 12-24? (11.61 obviously rounds to 12)
> ...



Cheeky buggers. I figured they would take some liberties with naming lenses but a few of those seem a bit...aspirational.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 18, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Cheeky buggers. I figured they would take some liberties with naming lenses but a few of those seem a bit...aspirational.



In that case, never look at the actual optical props vs. marketing of many 3rd party zooms (esp. far end on tele), or you'll go into a state of shock and might never recover :->. And on the wide end, even 1mm less is a huge difference, for example Canon's wider 24-70L mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron.


----------



## zim (Nov 18, 2014)

So now two 11-24s ?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/did-canon-leak-the-ef-11-24mm-f4l/

Wonder if both these rumours could be connected, would it be EF-S or EF though?


----------



## infared (Nov 18, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > Cheeky buggers. I figured they would take some liberties with naming lenses but a few of those seem a bit...aspirational.
> ...



Can you give the actual zoom ranges for these for the 24-70mm zooms?
mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron 
(I would never by a Tamron product...but hey ..its good to know what is out there


----------



## e17paul (Nov 18, 2014)

This would make no senses as an STM, there is the 10-18 already. As a USM with a distance scale, and better IQ than both the old 10-22 and bargain 10-18 it would appeal to me when I get a crop body.

On the other hand, it maybe one of many options Canon explored, before deciding on the 10-18.


----------



## CaptainZero (Nov 18, 2014)

Yeah, I'd be very interested if it's EF. I use my 10-22 almost every day, and wouldn't be at all interested in losing anything off the wide end.


----------



## Zv (Nov 18, 2014)

I used to have the EF-S 10-22 and I don't think it needs an update, does it? Works perfectly fine and has a solid build. 

For the cheaper option Canon already brought out the EF-S 10-18 so I doubt we'll see another UWA EF-S lens so soon. I'm glad they're still developing EF-S lenses though. They've got some really good lenses such as the 17-55 and the 10-22, and the quality of the recent ones has been stellar too.


----------



## rs (Nov 18, 2014)

CaptainZero said:


> Yeah, I'd be very interested if it's EF. I use my 10-22 almost every day, and wouldn't be at all interested in losing anything off the wide end.


If you want EF 11-24, there's the rumoured upcoming EF 11-24/4L that you should keep a look out for.

This is definitely not EF. The image height (radius of imaging circle, half the diagonal) in this patent is 13.66mm. It is enough for a 1.6x crop with its 27mm diagonal, but not enough for a 1.0x sensor with its 43.3mm diagonal. 

Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.

This appears to be an EF-M lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 18, 2014)

siegsAR said:


> For STM, there's the new 10-18 for that, and IS too.
> 
> If only it says f/2.8, but still. If this was just an EF lens.



USM trumps STM for focusing speed -- if you don't shoot video, USM is the way to go.

11-24 would equal something _like_ a 17-40 FF lens, right? (Okay, 17.6 - 38.4mm) Why walk away from the 10-22 (i.e. 16-35 equivalent) they currently have?

- A


----------



## Woody (Nov 18, 2014)

rs said:


> Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.
> 
> This appears to be an EF-M lens.



Exactly my prediction.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 18, 2014)

rs said:


> Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.
> 
> This appears to be an EF-M lens.



+1 I don't think it's a coincidence that this patent coincides with rumours of a new EOS-M.


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 18, 2014)

Those optics could definitely be better. L class is not. Ive owned it for years.

works well with an M though, it is perfectly weighted to it


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 18, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> I agree it seems odd to degrade the wide end. It would be difficult to sell an 11-24mm as an upgrade over the existing 10-22 without something like an f/2.8 aperture or IS.



I respectfully disagree. Make it sharper/lighter/more accurate focusing/better build quality and people will buy the 'same' lens. I don't see why a 10-22 "II" wouldn't sell. Canon has sold their pants off with Mark II versions of lenses with the same FL, aperture, and IS (or no-IS) specs.

Of course, Canon needs to deliver or folks won't buy it, but it can be done. And I think they have ample room to improve. The 10-22 is loved for it's focal length -- not for it's sharpness. 

If the recent 16-35 F/4L IS is delivering sharper performance _in a FF corner_ than the 10-22 delivers _in a crop corner_, it tells me that Canon can up their game in this focal length, and I think people would pay for it if they did.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 18, 2014)

zim said:


> So now two 11-24s ?
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/did-canon-leak-the-ef-11-24mm-f4l/
> 
> Wonder if both these rumours could be connected, would it be EF-S or EF though?



Apples and oranges -- a coincidence of numbers, nothing more. If both rumors are true, the EF 11-24 will look like a completely different lens than an EF-S or EF-M 11-24, and their optical design would be quite different.

Designs can vary a bit, but I'm guessing an EF-S/EF-M 11-24 would resemble one of the three crop ultrawides they sell today (EF-S 10-18, EF-S 10-22, EF-M 11-22), but an 11-24 _full frame_ EF lens would look like some altogether new hybrid of a fish and an ultrawide zoom. Unless they'd want a flat leading element the size of a teacup saucer, you'd expect the leading element of the EF lens to be exceptionally bulbous and almost certainly lack the ability to be front-filtered.

I think you can loosely compare the 10-22s of the crop world to the 16-35s & 17-40 of the FF world. But once you get down under 16mm, FF lenses get bulbous very quickly and the similarities fall away.

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 18, 2014)

infared said:


> Can you give the actual zoom ranges for these for the 24-70mm zooms?
> mk1 vs. mk2 vs. Tamron



Sorry, I don't have the exact data here right now so you have to google for yourself  ... but as far as I remember the Canon mk2 is not as wide as the mk1 which made comparisons on the "wide end" a bit biased towards the mk2. The Tamron seems to be also very wide when zoomed out and thus very flexible apart from the massive vignetting wide open.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 18, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Can you give the actual zoom ranges for these for the 24-70mm zooms?
> ...



On standard zooms, they aren't terribly far apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> On standard zooms, they aren't terribly part apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.



Speaking in mm focal length this is correct, but the effect of +-1 mm on a wide angle lens has much more impact than 10 or 20mm on a tele zoom. You can always crop in a little, but you cannot restore data if your lens wasn't wide enough. That's why I'm currently happy with my 17-40L, even though you might say the 17-24 range isn't such a big deal in objective terms.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 18, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > On standard zooms, they aren't terribly part apart if memory serves, perhaps 1-2 mm or so? But on longer glass the differences can be quite pronounced.
> ...



Yeah, agree. On the wide end, 2mm is a huge deal. Many people prefer the slower 15-85 EF-S lens over the quicker 17-55 EF-S solely because of that key extra width. And a number of landscape guys still haven't forgiven Canon for yet offering another 16-35 when they were screaming for a 14-24.

- A


----------



## TeT (Nov 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The extra 2 + the extra 30 + I think its better glass... on the other end the you can work around 2.8 on an all purpose zoom


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 18, 2014)

I have a strong feeling that this lens is going to destroy my finances! I still regret selling my Sigma 12-24 II, and was about to buy another when I saw the German CPS leak. I hope it comes soon as I'm stuck at 16mm right now unless I shift/stitch my TS-E 17. These crazy wide lenses are a challenge to use, but when you nail the shot, it's amazing.


----------



## grey4 (Nov 18, 2014)

I love my 10-22. the only thing that would make it better would be a consistent f/4 aperture through the zoom.The corners are also a little weird at 10mm but that's expected.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have a strong feeling that this lens is going to destroy my finances! I still regret selling my Sigma 12-24 II, and was about to buy another when I saw the German CPS leak. I hope it comes soon as I'm stuck at 16mm right now unless I shift/stitch my TS-E 17. These crazy wide lenses are a challenge to use, but when you nail the shot, it's amazing.



Your finances can rejoice, this rumored lens is ef*-s* for crop :-> ... stay tuned for further [CR1] on the ongoing quest for a "wider than 16mm uwa" for full frame sensors.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 18, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Your finances can rejoice, this rumored lens is ef*-s* for crop :-> ... stay tuned for further [CR1] on the ongoing quest for a "wider than 16mm uwa" for full frame sensors.


Oops, wrong thread... :-[...maybe I'm still too busy to rejoin the CR discussions


----------



## cellomaster27 (Nov 18, 2014)

This is a confusing patent.. but then imo, I think it would be nice to see an update to the 10-22mm to compliment the 7D2. In making it more "L" quality in terms of build and add weathersealing. Maybe add IS but that isn't a deal-maker or breaker at this focal length. A constant f4 aperture would be a winner as well, esp for video. But I hope they don't kill the focal length to 11mm... 10mm and 11mm is quite significant.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 18, 2014)

lintoni said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Also the back focus of just 3.26mm means its not even EF-S, as that has a 44.0mm flange distance and a mirror box to clear.
> ...



kind of moronic because there's already an exceptional 11-22mm EF-M out there.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Nov 18, 2014)

I'd prefer an 8.75mm - 17.5 mm (= 14-28mm Full Frame). f/3.5-4.5 is OK on my 10-22mm.

*BTW Olympus has a NEW 7-14mm f/2.8 lens coming (= 14-28mm FF)* http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1031586-REG/olympus_7_14mm_f2_8_pro_m.html


----------



## slclick (Nov 19, 2014)

What is it about EF-S rumors that makes a segment of folks here at CR extrapolate and wish it was an EF?




but back to reality....I loved my 10-22, possibly my favorite crop lens when I shot that format and the only things I would imagine being improved are slight flare, distortion at the wide end and sharpness. Still, these are minor nigglings as it is a very good performer and I only recently found a worthy FF successor in the 16-35 f4IS. (I have owned 2 copies of the 17-40 and one of the 16-35 2.8)


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 19, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> I'd prefer an 8.75mm - 17.5 mm (= 14-28mm Full Frame). f/3.5-4.5 is OK on my 10-22mm.
> 
> *BTW Olympus has a NEW 7-14mm f/2.8 lens coming (= 14-28mm FF)* http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1031586-REG/olympus_7_14mm_f2_8_pro_m.html



That lens (sort of) exists, doesn't it?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732107-USA/Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye.html

- A


----------



## Woody (Nov 19, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> kind of moronic because there's already an exceptional 11-22mm EF-M out there.



Ya... was wondering about that too.

Canon is now giving users multiple choices for ultrawide zooms:
EF - 16-35 f/2.8L USM II vs 16-35 f/4L IS USM vs 17-40 f/4L USM
EF-S - 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM vs 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
EF-M - 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM vs maybe 11-24 f/3.5-4.5?

Apart from 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-40 f/4L whose performances are somewhat controversial, all the other ultrawide lenses have top notch optical quality. Perhaps, they are trying to prove they are just as good in the ultrawide world as their telephoto stuff.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 19, 2014)

TeT said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...




The reason I bought the Canon 15-85mm, is that for my style of photography it is a great balance in a useful focal length zoom, while retaining high image quality. I find the 17-50/55mm or the 18-55mm lenses just miss the mark in terms of what I like for a walk-around zoom. Plus when I want ‘fast glass’ – I don’t want f/2.8 (I consider that ‘moderately fast’) – I need to go for f/1.4 – f/2.

In terms of this rumour of an UWA EF-S 11-24 from Canon – I just can’t see how it ‘fits’. The EF-S 10-22mm USM continues to be a well performing, decent selling UWA. Then the recent 10-18mm IS STM is a great budget option (with superb bang for one’s $!). And the EF-M 11-22mm IS well, that’s proven to be a great lens for EOS-M.

Yes, I love UWA… and that’s why I upgraded from to the Sigma 8-16mm HSM… it’s an awesome lens for APS-C cameras. The only real ‘handy’ improvement would be to add OS (stabilisation). But the difference from 10mm (which I was previously limited to) to 8mm really makes a big difference, (cf the difference from 12.8mm to 16mm in FF format).

While we’ve got great choice in UWA’s for APS-C already, here’s hoping more great quality UWAs are in the pipeline from various manufacturers!


----------



## distant.star (Nov 19, 2014)

.
Why is a lens rumor in the EOS Bodies section??


----------



## c.d.embrey (Nov 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> That lens (sort of) exists, doesn't it?
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732107-USA/Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye.html
> 
> - A



*No, no, no!* The EF 8-15mm f/4 L is a *Fisheye Zoom*. A Fisheye is *NOT a substitute* for a Rectilinear lens like the existing EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, the rumored EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5 or my proposed 8.75-17.5mm lens.


----------



## preppyak (Nov 19, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> I think it might be possible that Canon has discovered an optical formula that works well and has patented it as a defensive measure against other companies using it to produce a competitive lens.


I think you hit the jackpot. This is one of the possibilities they came up with for the 10-18, yet despite it maybe being better, they went with the more practical choice.

If they released an EF-S 11-24 on top of the 10-18, I'd have no idea what to think.


----------



## WorkonSunday (Nov 19, 2014)

is it actually EF-S.... or could it be EF-M for EOS-M. we know there is rumor for a more serious EOS-M...perhaps this will beef up the lens line up?


----------



## lintoni (Nov 19, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...


You're right, I'd forgot about that lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 20, 2014)

preppyak said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > I think it might be possible that Canon has discovered an optical formula that works well and has patented it as a defensive measure against other companies using it to produce a competitive lens.
> ...



well the 10-22mm is getting pretty long in the tooth. now 10 years old - canon could be thinking it needs an update as well.

also it's 3.5 to 4.5 aperture - versus 4.5 to 5.6 .. 2/3's of a stop faster, a much better build quality than the 10-18 and possibly better optically than both the 10-18 and the 10-22?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> well the 10-22mm is getting pretty long in the tooth. now 10 years old - canon could be thinking it needs an update as well.



I doubt that's the way they think, esp. as the 10-22mm is a midrange ("gold") crop lens with a good reputation. Canon won't mind about the age of the lens, this only means more profit for them (development and production costs).

They won't add weather sealing (not an L lens), and doing a serious iq update would probably propel the new lens out of the market spot of the 10-22. If people want "better", it's likely Canon would like them to upgrade to ff and the 16-35L-IS or the rumored new f2.8 uwa.


----------



## rs (Nov 20, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



Moronic or not, read the patent. How can it mount onto a DSLR with that BF?

Please remember that just because there is a patent, it doesn't mean this lens will become a production reality.


----------

