# Patent: New Consumer Level Zoom Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 27, 2018)

> A couple of optical formula consumer zoom lens patents have appeared at the USPTO.
> *Canon EF 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6* (US Patent Application 20180275370)
> Focal Length     17.40    35.00   67.98
> F-Number          3.23     4.10    5.85
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Andreasb (Sep 27, 2018)

The current 15-45mm EF-M a weak point? Not my copy. It is VERY sharp, af speed could of course be faster.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 27, 2018)

would like to see that 16-60 become a reality but for EF-M and maybe not 6.3...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 27, 2018)

Remember, the first two designs are FULL FRAME.

I really doubt, especially now, that we'll ever see an f/6.3 minimum aperture point on an EF lens especially after Canon have said for so many years that won't happen.


What CR missed out of the story is that the first lens design also has IS.

I still suspect that the two designs (and obviously we'll only see one of them) are more likely as RF than EF now.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 27, 2018)

Wait, FF 17-70mm or 16-60mm? Is there any precedence for such ultrawide-to-short-tele zoom lenses? Sounds like a really novel concept.


----------



## Woody (Sep 28, 2018)

Andreasb said:


> The current 15-45mm EF-M a weak point? Not my copy. It is VERY sharp, af speed could of course be faster.



Same here. My copy is darn sharp.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I still suspect that the two designs (and obviously we'll only see one of them) are more likely as RF than EF now.


The unusual range does seem to suggest consumer-grade RF mounts - which will have to come sooner rather than later.


----------



## Talys (Sep 28, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Wait, FF 17-70mm or 16-60mm? Is there any precedence for such ultrawide-to-short-tele zoom lenses? Sounds like a really novel concept.



At the right price, it could be interesting. I own a 16-35, but rarely use it because I don't really need wider than 24mm very often, and I don't like having to switch the 24-70 back on afterwards. If it's consumer grade, it will probably be light, and that will be just fine (or preferable) for a second body that I tote around.


----------



## degos (Sep 28, 2018)

An interesting pair of EF lenses, but oddly overlapping.

I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for EF-S. It does look like Canon needs to rationalise its mounts and since few EF-S buyers ever expand their lens collection it would be relatively painless to let it lapse. The xxxxD owners will just keep using their kit lens until their camera dies and then throw the whole rig in the bin, anyway. By the time they head back to Besy Buy for a new camera EF-M and RF will have filled the EF-S space from each direction.


----------



## Ben18 (Sep 28, 2018)

The first two lens are EF mount or RF mount?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 28, 2018)

Ben18 said:


> The first two lens are EF mount or RF mount?



Yes. (It could be either)


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 28, 2018)

The EF-M lens patent doesn't mention anything specifically about IS, so I wonder if this indicates either a shift in the future towards IBIS in the EOS-M series, or more possibly for a new cost-reduced lens to go with the next low-end EOS-M (M100 replacement) .


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 28, 2018)

degos said:


> An interesting pair of EF lenses, but oddly overlapping.



These are patent applications on optical formulas, not plans to produce lenses like those. Optical patents very often include a few variations of the same basic concept. Nothing odd here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2018)

Ben18 said:


> The first two lens are EF mount or RF mount?


Likely RF based on the back focus distance.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The EF-M lens patent doesn't mention anything specifically about IS, so I wonder if this indicates either a shift in the future towards IBIS in the EOS-M series, or more possibly for a new cost-reduced lens to go with the next low-end EOS-M (M100 replacement) .



IBIS isn't a full replacement for lens based IS. Yes, IBIS is great for when you have a lens mounted that doesn't have any built-in IS. But its been proven that lens based IS is currently superior, especially for video. Now if you have IBIS working in tandem with lens based IS, then that would be an incredibly stable shooting experience even for larger focal length lenses. Like others have said, this is most likely just an optical lens patent and not what will be coming out as an actual lens. I would much rather want an EF-M 15-45mm F/4 IS USM (Nano USM) lens then something like a slightly upgraded version of the current EF-M 15-45mm lens.


----------



## RunAndGun (Sep 29, 2018)

Who in the hell would by such slow lenses? A zoom that tops out at 60mm and ramps to f/6.3? Yeah, sign me up. Said no one ever.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 29, 2018)

RunAndGun said:


> Who in the hell would by such slow lenses? A zoom that tops out at 60mm and ramps to f/6.3? Yeah, sign me up. Said no one ever.



yeah...the sigma and tamron 150-600 are such fails... 

you missed the fact (as have I) that these are FF zooms and start at 16/17mm all the way to 60/70. i'll just wait until you show us another zoom which does that


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 29, 2018)

Also, don't forget that at the lower end of the market most buyers haven't a clue what the difference between f/3.5 and f/6.3 is


----------



## Joules (Sep 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, don't forget that at the lower end of the market most buyers haven't a clue what the difference between f/3.5 and f/6.3 is


I think you are going too far there.

Focal length and aperture are the defining properties of a lens. Without knowing anything about them, purchasing a new lens seems impossible.

I mean who would ever buy a nifty fifty 50mm 1.8? Each kit lens can deliver the same field of view, and more. Clearly, Canon can't hope to ever sell a single copy of that lens, since its price and Performance are targeting the lowest end market, that doesn't know the difference between 1.8 and 5.6 - Wait


----------



## snoke (Sep 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> At the right price, it could be interesting. I own a 16-35, but rarely use it because I don't really need wider than 24mm very often


16-35 better under 28mm. 24-70 wide distortion is bad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2018)

snoke said:


> 16-35 better under 28mm. 24-70 wide distortion is bad.


11-24 is better under 18mm. 16-35 wide distortion is bad.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

Cannot see them launch any of those 2 EF lenses now that we have EOS R.

But a reasonably compact, optically decent RF 16-60 / 4.0 IS Non-L at a non-RF-bloated, "affordable price" would be very welcome.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 29, 2018)

Joules said:


> Focal length and aperture are the defining properties of a lens. Without knowing anything about them, purchasing a new lens seems impossible.



Not really, and I'm talking about personal experience, I certainly didn't have a clue what they meant when I got my first SLR back in the 90s. I knew that if I had a 35-80 lens then I needed a 75-300 to get greater reach, but I'd have thought a 50 unnecessary as my 35-80 had that covered 

Still have the 35-80 and the 75-300. Dreadful lenses


----------



## RunAndGun (Sep 30, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> yeah...the sigma and tamron 150-600 are such fails...
> 
> you missed the fact (as have I) that these are FF zooms and start at 16/17mm all the way to 60/70. i'll just wait until you show us another zoom which does that



Big damn difference, IMO. Slower apertures with longer focal length zooms are a lot more acceptable, like the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 vII

You're also making the big assumption that I missed that they are designed for FF, which I didn't. Doesn't matter if that lens already exists or not. f/6.3 is damn slow at 60mm.


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 30, 2018)

6.3.... pure garbage.


----------



## mirage (Sep 30, 2018)

i cannot see Canon adding f/6.3 lenses to EF portfolio all of a sudden, when they have avoided this for 30 years. For good reason: AF limitations beyond f/5.6 on most EOS DSLRs. 

i could imagine f/6.3 lenses for R mount, because mirrorfree EOS R series cameras will/should be able to AF to f/11. 

Whether or not f/6.3 is a "desirable open aperture" at 60 or 70mm focal length is for each potential user to decide. I don't think the difference in size, weight and price between a 16-60/3.5-6.3 and a f/3.5-5.6 are so huge to make it worthwile. 

this said, i currently do own and use one Canon f/6.3 lens, EF-M 55-200 and have also been considering EF-M 18-150/3.5-6.3. Nothing else available from Canon and size/weight, focal length range, price make it "borderline acceptable" to me. Although i would really prefer f/5.6, especially on APS-C.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> i cannot see Canon adding f/6.3 lenses to EF portfolio all of a sudden, when they have avoided this for 30 years. For good reason: AF limitations beyond f/5.6 on most EOS DSLRs.
> 
> i could imagine f/6.3 lenses for R mount, because mirrorfree EOS R series cameras will/should be able to AF to f/11.
> 
> ...



I own all current EF-M lenses except the new 32mm. The 18-150 in particular is a super zoom lens. The 55-200 is the lens I use the least.


----------

