# Patent: Canon RF 11-24mm f/4L and Canon RF 8-24mm f/4L Fisheye



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 3, 2022)

> Keith over at Northlight Images has uncovered some optical formulat patents for lenses that are likely to arrive over the next year or so. One being an RF 11-24mm f/4L, which is definitely needed in the RF lineup. A Canon RF 10-24mm f/4L has been on our roadmap for quite some time.
> The second is a zoom fisheye lens that builds off the Canon RF 8-15mm f/4L USM. The optical formula in the patent is for a Canon RF 8-24mm f/4L USM, which sounds like a very cool lens. As with the EF version of the zoom fisheye, it will work as a circular fisheye on a full-frame sensor and as a ‘normal’ fisheye on the crop sensors found in the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10...



Continue reading...


----------



## Berowne (Jun 3, 2022)

The EF 11-24 is a wonderful lens, often considered to buy one. I would ceratainly not purchase the RF-Version, because it will probably cost twice the EF and have crazy vignetting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2022)

Adapting the EF 11-24L to an R body allows use of the drop-in CPL and vND filters. Would Canon release an RF 11-24/4 that (based on spec, at least) has no advantage over the EF version? I wouldn't buy one. In this case, the native mount seems to be a disadvantage.


----------



## COBRASoft (Jun 3, 2022)

Love my EF 11-24 on my R5, with cpl adapter. I don't see how the rf version could be so much better to replace my ef one.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2022)

Trying to imagine a fisheye that zooms out to 24mm.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jun 3, 2022)

Unless there are dramatic improvements in lens optics, size and weight and a way to easily filter the RF version, I will stick with my EF. I was hoping for wider (10 mm) and or faster lens in the RF mount. If neither becomes a reality I will pass on this lens. 

Still hoping Canon will produce an UWA fast prime or zoom for astrophotography. 14 mm or wider and f 2.8 or faster. This has been a missing element of the Canon lens lineup forever. At least in EF mount Sigma and Rokinon filled the gap. Would be nice to have a native RF mount option. If it is not to be, I will continue to adapt my EF lenses. 

Bob


----------



## entoman (Jun 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Adapting the EF 11-24L to an R body allows use of the drop-in CPL and vND filters. Would Canon release an RF 11-24/4 that (based on spec, at least) has no advantage over the EF version? I wouldn't buy one. In this case, the native mount seems to be a disadvantage.


Is it not possible that Canon could design an RF lens with a drop-in filter slot?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 3, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> Still hoping Canon will produce an UWA fast prime or zoom for astrophotography. 14 mm or wider and f 2.8 or faster. This has been a missing element of the Canon lens lineup forever.


And canon should counter the Sony offering…
So at least a 14mm F1.8 or something similar. I’m hoping for a 12mm F2. That’d be awesome. i believe tjis lens could come because the UWA zooms have become wider. I also believe the RF 10-24mm will be released and it’llweigh a lot less than it’s EF version.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> Is it not possible that Canon could design an RF lens with a drop-in filter slot?


Yes, it is possible. But Canon did not design the RF lens in _this_ patent that way. The back focus distance is 13.6 mm, so the rear element of the lens is already inside the camera body.

The RF 11-24/4 lens in this patent, assuming it has a built-in hood like the EF version, seems to be only <1 cm shorter than the EF version. It does appear the RF lens will have smaller diameter front element groups, and since that’s a big chunk of glass the RF version will likely be much lighter. 

That also suggests some reliance on digital corrections as seen with the RF 14-35/4L.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 3, 2022)

Still hoping for a 14-28 f/2


----------



## entoman (Jun 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it is possible. But Canon did not design the RF lens in _this_ patent that way. The back focus distance is 13.6 mm, so the rear element of the lens is already inside the camera body.
> 
> The RF 11-24/4 lens in this patent, assuming it has a built-in hood like the EF version, seems to be only <1 cm shorter than the EF version. It does appear the RF lens will have smaller diameter front element groups, and since that’s a big chunk of glass the RF version will likely be much lighter.
> 
> That also suggests some reliance on digital corrections as seen with the RF 14-35/4L.


I know that drop-in filters are traditionally positioned at the rear of the lens, so yes, that makes sense. I'm not an expert on optical design, so is there any reason why a lens couldn't be designed to have a drop-in filter *between* the elements?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> I know that drop-in filters are traditionally positioned at the rear of the lens, so yes, that makes sense. I'm not an expert on optical design, so is there any reason why a lens couldn't be designed to have a drop-in filter *between* the elements?


No idea, but I wouldn’t want a slot in the middle of a lens with no way of clearing the inevitable dust. I know dust specks don’t affect image quality but why borrow trouble?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> I know that drop-in filters are traditionally positioned at the rear of the lens, so yes, that makes sense. I'm not an expert on optical design, so is there any reason why a lens couldn't be designed to have a drop-in filter *between* the elements?


Likely possible from an optical standpoint. In this case, that ‘open space’ in the middle is where the front group retracts during zooming (the diagram shows the lens at its most extended, which for this design is 11 mm). 

Also, from a practical standpoint that location on the barrel is where you find things like the zoom and focus rings. Seems unlikely that Canon would make a zoom ring or focus ring really skinny to accommodate a drop in filter. 

This patent design may not be the one to become a product. But if it is, it won’t feature a drop in filter. You seem insistent on highlighting the possibility of including one. I’m not disputing the possibility, I’m just saying this patent design is not going to give you what you hope for.


----------



## Nemorino (Jun 4, 2022)

Northlight Images wrote also:


> This also includes designs for 12-24mm 14-35mm, 15-35mm all f/4


Maybe we will get a non-L UWA lens.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 4, 2022)

Hi all- I own a Canon R5 and several RF lenses including the RF 15-35mm F2,8 (which I use for landscape and astrophotography/Milky Way) and many more RF lenses.... 

I purchased the EF Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Lens because as today, there is NOT in the market a sort of real fisheye (circular effect lens) for my R5 full frame lens.
However I have found out that when I use this EF fisheye lens as 15 degree, I get similar view as the RF 15-35. When I move to the 12-8mm area, the image get distorted (which is what I like) BUT I also get a lot "crap"/unwanted things at the edges... In essence the lens get part of the edges of the lens within the image itself, which is of course horrible.

I guess the reason is because this lens works best on APSC sensor, while with full frames you do not get real and clean 180 degree image. Am I correct???

Will be the RF 11-24mm f/4L able to provide a fully "clean" 180 degree image on my FF R5 without seeing any unwanted object in the image? 

For atrophotography I wish there was in the market something around 10-12mm f2,8 even manual focus as my RF 15-35mm f2,8 sometimes is not too wide)....


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 4, 2022)

The 8-24mm interests me as I shoot fisheye a lot. I've had the 8-15mm since it came out 10years ago, and it is a wonderful lens. One thing I liked about it was shooting on a crop camera you had a FF fisheye at 10mm and at 15, some fisheye remained but not so much that you could not correct it in photoshop with minimal loss. I imagine the 24m end working the same but on FF. 

But if I'm being honest I'd prefer more range on the wide end.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 4, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> I purchased the EF Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Lens because as today, there is NOT in the market a sort of real fisheye (circular effect lens) for my R5 full frame lens.



Canon hasn't converted the FD 7.5mm f/5.6 to EF, and never made a fisheye in EF-S. Apparently fisheyes are too niche, which is why Canon covered it with one zoom lens.



puffo25 said:


> Will be the RF 11-24mm f/4L able to provide a fully "clean" 180 degree image on my FF R5 without seeing any unwanted object in the image?


On FF, 11mm has an angle of view of 125 degrees.

For a rectilinear lens to have a 180 degrees image, its focal length must be 0mm. Don't hold your breath waiting for one.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 4, 2022)

Sorry Anton, I do not follow understood your kind feedback. In essence if I sell my EF 8-15 and buy when out the RF 8-24mm, I will a much better wide/wish eye look image on my Canon R5 than using the old EF 8-15mm? I will still get at 8mm part of the lens at the endges or not? I will almost get a real 180 or as you say 125 degree image, much wider than current RF 15-35mm f2,8? Worth to buy eventually this lens for some unique images?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 4, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> Sorry Anton, I do not follow understood your kind feedback. In essence if I sell my EF 8-15 and buy when out the RF 8-24mm, I will a much better wide/wish eye look image on my Canon R5 than using the old EF 8-15mm? I will still get at 8mm part of the lens at the endges or not? I will almost get a real 180 or as you say 125 degree image, much wider than current RF 15-35mm f2,8? Worth to buy eventually this lens for some unique images?


No, 8mm circular fisheye for FF is the same regardless of mount.

Its the 11-24mm which will have a 125 degree image.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 4, 2022)

So in essence, would the 8-24mm RF lens provide better image than the EF 8-15 in terms of:
1. vignetting, 
2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???


----------



## entoman (Jun 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Likely possible from an optical standpoint. In this case, that ‘open space’ in the middle is where the front group retracts during zooming (the diagram shows the lens at its most extended, which for this design is 11 mm).
> 
> Also, from a practical standpoint that location on the barrel is where you find things like the zoom and focus rings. Seems unlikely that Canon would make a zoom ring or focus ring really skinny to accommodate a drop in filter.
> 
> This patent design may not be the one to become a product. But if it is, it won’t feature a drop in filter. You seem insistent on highlighting the possibility of including one. I’m not disputing the possibility, I’m just saying this patent design is not going to give you what you hope for.


Just interested in learning 

It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all- I own a Canon R5 and several RF lenses including the RF 15-35mm F2,8 (which I use for landscape and astrophotography/Milky Way) and many more RF lenses....
> However I have found out that when I use this EF fisheye lens as 15 degree, I get similar view as the RF 15-35. When I move to the 12-8mm area, the image get distorted (which is what I like) BUT I also get a lot "crap"/unwanted things at the edges... In essence the lens get part of the edges of the lens within the image itself, which is of course horrible.
> 
> I guess the reason is because this lens works best on APSC sensor, while with full frames you do not get real and clean 180 degree image. Am I correct???


What ‘crap/unwanted things/lens parts are you seeing? Posting a pic would help. 

At 8mm on FF you should get a clean 180° circular fisheye image. That’s the point of the lens – it’s a circular fisheye at 8mm and a frame-filling fisheye at 14-15mm. This is 8mm from the TDP review:





puffo25 said:


> 2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???


At 10-12mm, you’ll get a partial fisheye image with the top and bottom of the circle cut off.

The patented 8-24mm fisheye will behave just like the EF 8-15mm from 8-15mm, and from 15-24mm it will just be less ‘fishy’.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> Just interested in learning
> 
> It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.


Agreed, which is why I think a 10-24 mm sounded more likely. The RF version of an 11-24 looks like it would be narrow in diameter and lighter, but it’s still going to be a relatively heavy lens with a bulbous front element.

Maybe it will simply be the same cost as the EF version. In general, the RF lenses offered one or more new features and came with a hefty price increase. The exception so far has been the 24-105/4, which was essentially the same lens and launched at the same price as the EF version.


----------



## Nemorino (Jun 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> In general, the RF lenses offered one or more new features


Wouldn't be IS a new feature as the patent shows?

I do not own or ever used a 11-24, but a friend. And I think he misses a tripod colar more then IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> Wouldn't be IS a new feature as the patent shows?
> 
> I do not own or ever used a 11-24, but a friend. And I think he misses a tripod colar more then IS.


Yes! I totally missed that. That means Canon can charge lots more than the EF, lol. But I wonder how many stops IBIS will deliver. 

I usually use my 11-24 on a tripod, as well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 4, 2022)

I've come to expect and live with the vignetting at this point...But is it the lens design or the camera body that is causing it? If the EF version of the 11-24 has less vignetting than the RF version, what is causing it? Same question goes for other RF lenses that have EF counterparts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2022)

YuengLinger said:


> I've come to expect and live with the vignetting at this point...But is it the lens design or the camera body that is causing it? If the EF version of the 11-24 has less vignetting than the RF version, what is causing it? Same question goes for other RF lenses that have EF counterparts.


Lens design. By relying on digital correction, Canon can reduce optical correction and that saves on size/weight (slightly) and more importantly (to Canon) on production costs (with those savings _not_ being passed on to buyers).


----------



## vangelismm (Jun 4, 2022)

YuengLinger said:


> I've come to expect and live with the vignetting at this point...But is it the lens design or the camera body that is causing it? If the EF version of the 11-24 has less vignetting than the RF version, what is causing it? Same question goes for other RF lenses that have EF counterparts.


The angle of the light hitting the sensor is the problem. 
If it is too steep the pixels do not get the light.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 4, 2022)

So (again) in essence, would the 8-24mm RF lens provide better image than the EF 8-15 in terms of:
1. vignetting, 
2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???


----------



## unfocused (Jun 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> Just interested in learning
> 
> It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.


Or they might simply reduce availability of the EF lens, leaving people with no choice but to get the RF version.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 4, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> So (again) in essence, would the 8-24mm RF lens provide better image than the EF 8-15 in terms of:
> 1. vignetting,
> 2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???


This is a lens patent. The lens may or may not be produced. Impossible to know what the optical qualities might be, since the lens does not exist.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> So (again) in essence, would the 8-24mm RF lens provide better image than the EF 8-15 in terms of:
> 1. vignetting,
> 2. NOT getting part of the circular lens at the edge of the image, when I am focal at a focal length of 10-12mm???


1. We won’t know until the lens comes out. If it does.
2. So (again): The patented 8-24mm fisheye will behave just like the EF 8-15mm from 8-15mm, and from 15-24mm it will just be less ‘fishy’.

This is normal for a lens of this design:



It’s the intermediate zone between a circular fisheye lens and a full-coverage fisheye lens. If you can’t stand it, get a circular fisheye prime (there are 3rd party versions for Canon like the Sigma 8mm…8mm, like the wide end of the 8-15mm) and a full-coverage fisheye prime (like Canon’s 15/2.8 fisheye…15mm, like the narrow end of the 8-15mm), and switch between them. With a fisheye zoom lens starting at a circular 8mm, you’re always going to see a partial circle in the intermediate focal length range.

If the partial circle as shown above is what you’re referring to as, “_crap/unwanted things at the edges... In essence the lens get part of the edges of the lens within the image itself, which is of course horrible,_” then you’re out of luck. The RF fisheye zoom will have it, too. Because that’s how a fisheye *zoom* works. If you’re actually seeing parts of the lens, your EF version may be defective.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 4, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> The angle of the light hitting the sensor is the problem.
> If it is too steep the pixels do not get the light.


To an extent I think you are right--the mirrorless mount's distance from the sensor comes into play. Just using an extender for distance doesn't fix things because the edge of the mount is so close to the edge of the sensor, creating a sort of overhang effect when wider angle lenses are used.

I see more vignetting with my EF 35mm 1.4L II on my R5 than I did on my 5DIV--but I can't do a side-by-side comparison because I no longer have a 5DIV.

It would be interesting to see such a comparison for curiosity's sake.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2022)

YuengLinger said:


> To an extent I think you are right. I see more vignetting with my EF 35mm 1.4L II on my R5 than I did on my 5DIV--but I can't do a side-by-side comparison because I no longer have a 5DIV.
> 
> It would be interesting to see such a comparison for curiosity's sake.


The angle should be the same because the EF-R adapter puts the EF lens the same distance from the R sensor as it was from the DSLR sensor. But, the lower Mpx sensor will have wider pixels so more light will reach the bottom of the well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 4, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The angle should be the same because the EF-R adapter puts the EF lens the same distance from the R sensor as it was from the DSLR sensor. But, the lower Mpx sensor will have wider pixels so more light will reach the bottom of the well.


I didn't edit my previous post quickly enough--I said I think the mount comes into play also because it is positioned relatively close to the sensor.

If what you are saying is correct, does the 5Ds R show more vignetting than other 5D bodies?


----------



## Punio (Jun 4, 2022)

24MM 1.2 and 35MM 1.2, c'mon Canon!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2022)

YuengLinger said:


> I didn't edit my previous post quickly enough--I said I think the mount comes into play also because it is positioned relatively close to the sensor.
> 
> If what you are saying is correct, does the 5Ds R show more vignetting than other 5D bodies?


Good question. All things being equal, it should do. Other factors come in like the nature of the microlenses and the thickness of the IR/UV/AA-filters in front of the sensels (the 5DS R does have self-cancelling AA not absence).


----------



## entoman (Jun 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Or they might simply reduce availability of the EF lens, leaving people with no choice but to get the RF version.


Absolutely - I'm sure they'd love to offload all their existing EF stock, and get us all to pay a fortune for RF versions. But let's give them some credit - almost every RF lens announced so far has brought valuable new features or improved specs to the table, as well as extra sharpness. Not to mention the RF bodies, which are all dramatically better in almost every respect compared to the EF models they replace.


----------



## sanj (Jun 5, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Still hoping for a 14-28 f/2


I do not see the point of that lens.


----------



## entoman (Jun 5, 2022)

sanj said:


> I do not see the point of that lens.


Hey Sanj, there's a point to *every* lens! I can think of plenty of lenses that don't appeal to me personally for my genres of photography, but you can bet that there'll be plenty of creative people who can put a 14-28mm F2 to good use.

We all have different use cases and preferences - e.g. some of us like to only use primes, but that doesn't mean that there's no "point" to zooms. Some people only shoot sport, but does that mean there's "no point" to macros?

As for the 14-28mm F2 suggested by navastronia, 14-28mm seems like a pretty desirable range for landscape work, and a max of F2 would be handy in low light or when you want to isolate a subject from the background (which is difficult ordinarily with ultra-wides, which inherently have masses of depth of field). Wide apertures also give the AF system more light, and mean less "hunting" for focus.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> We all have different use cases and preferences - e.g. some of us like to only use primes, but that doesn't mean that there's no "point" to zooms. s.


Yes, then use a zoom lens. But is a 14-28 a zoom range you would say its a zoom? A 11-16 Tokina is for me nearly a prime lens... the zoom range just don't work much on my 60D (those were the days)...
After that I use prime wide angle with full frame I have no desire for any zoom, I use 17mm (and crop) and 35mm and this is ok. Now the tiny 16mm 2.8 is a very good lens too.
But every can decide what they want, of course. But I don't get these small zoom ranges even if they are using a good aperture like the Sigma ART. Comeon, use a prime and you even get one more step and don't "stuck" with "only" f/2. (which is stellar for a zoom i know).


----------



## mxwphoto (Jun 5, 2022)

I would be interested in a canon 10-24 f5.6 or even f6.3 if it means we can get a small and light with sharp optics and front filter threads. It would be more practical than a big heavy f4 with huge front bulb.

And then give us a 12mm f1.8 prime for the astro users.


----------



## entoman (Jun 5, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Yes, then use a zoom lens. But is a 14-28 a zoom range you would say its a zoom? A 11-16 Tokina is for me nearly a prime lens... the zoom range just don't work much on my 60D (those were the days)...
> After that I use prime wide angle with full frame I have no desire for any zoom, I use 17mm (and crop) and 35mm and this is ok. Now the tiny 16mm 2.8 is a very good lens too.
> But every can decide what they want, of course. But I don't get these small zoom ranges even if they are using a good aperture like the Sigma ART. Comeon, use a prime and you even get one more step and don't "stuck" with "only" f/2. (which is stellar for a zoom i know).


14-28mm is 2x zoom, which isn't much different from the legendary and extremely popular 16-35mm, so I think a large percentage of people would find it more than adequate. Also there is the question of optical quality - the greater the zoom range, the lower the overall optical performance, especially with wide zooms (telezooms such at 70-200mm or 100-400mm seem on the whole easier to design without loss of performance).

Personally I'd favour a 14-28mm over a 16-35mm (for FF) although I have no need myself for F2 lenses - F2.8 or F4 are both adequate for my purposes, and much cheaper and lighter. But I can fully understand why some people need F2 or wider.

I use a combination of primes and zooms, according to my purpose - I currently have:

RF 24-105mm F4 - my general purpose travel lens
24mm T/S-E - mainly for landscapes
EF 100mm F2.8 macro, and EF 180mm F3.5 macro - mainly for butterflies and other insects
RF 100-500mm - for animals on safaris
RF 800mm F11 - for birding from a hide
Laowa Ultra Macro - for tiny insects.

Also a EF 100-400mm and 1.4x extender that will both be up for sale when I eventually replace my spare body (5DMkiv) with another RF backup body.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Is it not possible that Canon could design an RF lens with a drop-in filter slot?


I believe that the UWA lenses have a rear gel option which is okay (just) for ND filter but it doesn't suit CPL or variable/grad ND


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What ‘crap/unwanted things/lens parts are you seeing? Posting a pic would help.
> 
> At 8mm on FF you should get a clean 180° circular fisheye image. That’s the point of the lens – it’s a circular fisheye at 8mm and a frame-filling fisheye at 14-15mm. This is 8mm from the TDP review:
> 
> ...


I bought my EF8-15mm/4 second hand as I don't use it much. I find that the sharpness isn't fantastic but more than adequate for this type of lens. 
I hate - what I assume is - the chromatic aberration at the edge of the 8mm circular fisheye images. I always have to edit them out in post as they are distracting and LR doesn't do it automatically
A RF version would hopefully fix this and perhaps be sharper with faster AF but virtually everything is in focus anyway. 
A focal length from 8-24mm would be great for underwater shooting as 15mm can still be too wide for general usage needing a big crop.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Just interested in learning
> 
> It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.


Well the RF800/1200 adds fixed TCs and faster AF speed from the EF400/600 but otherwise almost the same design as EF400/600 + 2xTC at a hefty price premium
The option to further add a RF TC exists though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I believe that the UWA lenses have a rear gel option which is okay (just) for ND filter but it doesn't suit CPL or variable/grad ND


Some do. The 11-24 does, for example. The TS-E 17 does not. I do have a gelatin 10-stop ND square. The results are not stellar.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some do. The 11-24 does, for example. The TS-E 17 does not. I do have a gelatin 10-stop ND square. The results are not stellar.


I forgot about the TS-E lenses. The EF8-15mm has a rear gel mount as well but I haven't ever used it.
I use it only for astro landscapes and underwater
I am going to Iceland in a couple of weeks and hope to get some over/under shots of waterfalls and icebergs with it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I forgot about the TS-E lenses. The EF8-15mm has a rear gel mount as well but I haven't ever used it.
> I use it only for astro landscapes and underwater
> I am going to Iceland in a couple of weeks and hope to get some over/under shots of waterfalls and icebergs with it!


Have a great trip!


----------



## navastronia (Jun 6, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Yes, then use a zoom lens. But is a 14-28 a zoom range you would say its a zoom? A 11-16 Tokina is for me nearly a prime lens... the zoom range just don't work much on my 60D (those were the days)...
> After that I use prime wide angle with full frame I have no desire for any zoom, I use 17mm (and crop) and 35mm and this is ok. Now the tiny 16mm 2.8 is a very good lens too.
> But every can decide what they want, of course. But I don't get these small zoom ranges even if they are using a good aperture like the Sigma ART. Comeon, use a prime and you even get one more step and don't "stuck" with "only" f/2. (which is stellar for a zoom i know).



14-28 is a 2x zoom range and comprises wildly different perspectives.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 6, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> On FF, 11mm has an angle of view of 125 degrees.
> 
> For a rectilinear lens to have a 180 degrees image, its focal length must be 0mm. Don't hold your breath waiting for one.



That's what stitching is for.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> Just interested in learning
> 
> It does seem odd that Canon would introduce an RF lens with a spec that to all intents and purposes is the same as an existing EF lens, so I'm left wondering what "feature" or USP they'll use to promote it.


The wider lenses are the ones that seem to benefit most from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, so it would seem likely they'd update the formula for these wider lenses. In theory they should be able to be smaller and lighter. Only time will tell. 

The 800 and 1200 get a bad rap, and I'm not going to pretend to understand their insane pricing, but the telephoto lens groups are generally more straight forward since they are taking in a much narrower field of view. They don't look as complicated, as the multi group wide angles or zooms, because they aren't. And while the group at the rear has similar shaped lens elements to the external 2x Tc, they are very likely not the same exact elements. The few early returns out there on the 800mm seem to show improved contrast and sharpness over the 400 + 2x, which would imply that the elements that look like a 2x TC are in fact designed specifically for this lens. Again, time will tell how much an advantage that is, but in the end the design is probably not just a flat recycle. 

Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> The wider lenses are the ones that seem to benefit most from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, so it would seem likely they'd update the formula for these wider lenses. In theory they should be able to be smaller and lighter. Only time will tell.
> 
> The 800 and 1200 get a bad rap, and I'm not going to pretend to understand their insane pricing, but the telephoto lens groups are generally more straight forward since they are taking in a much narrower field of view. They don't look as complicated, as the multi group wide angles or zooms, because they aren't. And while the group at the rear has similar shaped lens elements to the external 2x Tc, they are very likely not the same exact elements. The few early returns out there on the 800mm seem to show improved contrast and sharpness over the 400 + 2x, which would imply that the elements that look like a 2x TC are in fact designed specifically for this lens. Again, time will tell how much an advantage that is, but in the end the design is probably not just a flat recycle.


It's clear from the MTF charts that the performance of the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are very slightly better than the 400/2.8 and 600/4 with the RF 2x TC, and therefore it appears that the 2x TC elements have been optimized for the specific lenses. Emphasis on _very slightly_ better. It's a personal decision as to whether that benefit is worth the several thousand dollars higher cost. IMO, people who buy the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 over the 'base' lenses from which they're derived will be doing so for the ability to add extenders and achieve 1600/11 or 2400/16 lenses (which is not possible with the RF versions, although it is possible to stack two 2x TCs behind an EF 400/2.8 or 600/4).


----------



## entoman (Jun 6, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> The wider lenses are the ones that seem to benefit most from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, so it would seem likely they'd update the formula for these wider lenses. In theory they should be able to be smaller and lighter. Only time will tell.
> 
> The 800 and 1200 get a bad rap, and I'm not going to pretend to understand their insane pricing, but the telephoto lens groups are generally more straight forward since they are taking in a much narrower field of view. They don't look as complicated, as the multi group wide angles or zooms, because they aren't. And while the group at the rear has similar shaped lens elements to the external 2x Tc, they are very likely not the same exact elements. The few early returns out there on the 800mm seem to show improved contrast and sharpness over the 400 + 2x, which would imply that the elements that look like a 2x TC are in fact designed specifically for this lens. Again, time will tell how much an advantage that is, but in the end the design is probably not just a flat recycle.
> 
> Brian


I should damn well hope that the 2x elements had been specially optimised, given the astronomical prices charged!

It's probably true that no one really enjoys using adaptors and extenders on the 400/2.8 and 600/4, but few will think the extra cost of the 800 and 1200 is justified.

Neuro may have a good point in that some people may choose them in order to gain even longer focal lengths - I don't think many sports or wildlife photographers would feel the need, but photojournalists and paparazzi could make use of them.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jun 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's clear from the MTF charts that the performance of the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are very slightly better than the 400/2.8 and 600/4 with the RF 2x TC, and therefore it appears that the 2x TC elements have been optimized for the specific lenses. Emphasis on _very slightly_ better. It's a personal decision as to whether that benefit is worth the several thousand dollars higher cost. IMO, people who buy the 800/5.6 and 1200/8 over the 'base' lenses from which they're derived will be doing so for the ability to add extenders and achieve 1600/11 or 2400/16 lenses (which is not possible with the RF versions, although it is possible to stack two 2x TCs behind an EF 400/2.8 or 600/4).





entoman said:


> I should damn well hope that the 2x elements had been specially optimised, given the astronomical prices charged!
> 
> It's probably true that no one really enjoys using adaptors and extenders on the 400/2.8 and 600/4, but few will think the extra cost of the 800 and 1200 is justified.
> 
> Neuro may have a good point in that some people may choose them in order to gain even longer focal lengths - I don't think many sports or wildlife photographers would feel the need, but photojournalists and paparazzi could make use of them.


Yeah, I've seen some photos side by side on other sites, and you can see a difference. But whether that difference is worth the cost is another story. Each individual has to have their own answer. I just get annoyed when people imply they just pasted in an existing element group and charged a huge premium. They are purpose built optical trains. And crazy expensive. I personally don't get it, but I can't afford the 400 or 600 at their price points either, so moot point for me personally. 

Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> I just get annoyed when people imply they just pasted in an existing element group and charged a huge premium. They are purpose built optical trains.


Yes, but in fairness the first 80% of those trains is identical to the 400/2.8 and 600/4.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 7, 2022)

Berowne said:


> The EF 11-24 is a wonderful lens, often considered to buy one. I would certainly not purchase the RF-Version, because it will probably cost twice the EF and have crazy vignetting.



My thoughts went immediately to what Neuro said... It seems like a loss to use RF lens in this use case, as we can use the filter slots in the EF/RF adapter. In fact, there are some really cool filter options now from Breakthrough and others that fit into those and their own adapters. 

A few years ago, Canon let me borrow the 11-24 f/4, and I compared it to the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 and the Sigma 12-24 f/4. The upshot of the results was that the Sigma 14-24 was my favorite, partly because of the wider aperture, partly for price. For all the praises sung for the 11-24, I found it to be about only the same IQ as the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8, while the 12-24 f/4 Sigma was slightly disappointing. Of course, neither of those Sigma zooms is going to get you 11 mm, and while that may seem a small difference, it really is not. 

My recommendation would be to go with the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8, and an Irix 11mm f/4 prime, which together will cost you about half the price of an EF 11-24 f/4.

I use filters pretty seldomly, but when I do, it's often in landscape/water photography, which is more of a slow, considered process (at least versus frenetic wildlife/action stuff). So when I'm using filters, it's very often the wide end of the focal lengths anyways, so I prefer those to be EF mount lenses. 

-tig

PS: I do use the filter adapter on my 600mm f/4 Mark II, and very, very occasionally, it affords me the opportunity to use both the Canon drop-in polarizer *together with* a variable neutral density filter in the adapter's filter slot. Which is pretty cool, seeing as Canon likely thought this impossible back in 2012 when the lens came out.


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> Hey Sanj, there's a point to *every* lens! I can think of plenty of lenses that don't appeal to me personally for my genres of photography, but you can bet that there'll be plenty of creative people who can put a 14-28mm F2 to good use.
> 
> We all have different use cases and preferences - e.g. some of us like to only use primes, but that doesn't mean that there's no "point" to zooms. Some people only shoot sport, but does that mean there's "no point" to macros?
> 
> As for the 14-28mm F2 suggested by navastronia, 14-28mm seems like a pretty desirable range for landscape work, and a max of F2 would be handy in low light or when you want to isolate a subject from the background (which is difficult ordinarily with ultra-wides, which inherently have masses of depth of field). Wide apertures also give the AF system more light, and mean less "hunting" for focus.


Sure sure. I was speaking for myself.  I would use this lens for architecture and landscape where I would be mostly at f11. So prefer a lighter lens with minimal vignetting. The use of this lens would rarely, if ever, encounter focus hunting (for me).


----------



## 2 cents (Jun 8, 2022)

Ok I'm being picky. Am I the only one that hates odd numbers in focal lengths? Why 11-24mm? Can't they push it a bit further to 10mm? If not, just leave it at 12mm. 

Also hate f7.1


----------



## entoman (Jun 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Ok I'm being picky. Am I the only one that hates odd numbers in focal lengths? Why 11-24mm? Can't they push it a bit further to 10mm? If not, just leave it at 12mm.
> 
> Also hate f7.1



Seems a bit odd to have a dislike of odd numbers for focal lengths - many of the traditional primes are odd-numbered - 17mm, 21mm, 35mm, 85mm etc 

... and don't worry, that F7.1 is probably only worth F8 in light gathering terms


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 8, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Ok I'm being picky. Am I the only one that hates odd numbers in focal lengths? Why 11-24mm? Can't they push it a bit further to 10mm? If not, just leave it at 12mm.
> 
> Also hate f7.1


Because the number they use is probably a lie, exaggerating the true number for marketing appeal. If it’s “11” it’s probably a 12 not a 10.


----------



## entoman (Jun 8, 2022)

sanj said:


> Sure sure. I was speaking for myself.  I would use this lens for architecture and landscape where I would be mostly at f11. So prefer a lighter lens with minimal vignetting. The use of this lens would rarely, if ever, encounter focus hunting (for me).


Have you thought about getting a tilt-shift for your landscape and architecture? Would seem much more suitable than any zoom. Sure, it's easy to correct converging verticals in post (with some loss of definition) but with a tilt-shift you can see the effect in the EVF *before* you take the photo. There are masses of mint secondhand Canon T/S-E lenses on the market at affordable prices, or there's the excellent Laowa 15mm Zero D Shift. Highly recommended.

I use the Canon 24mm T/S-E for a lot of my landscape and architecture work, but wider is better - 15mm or 17mm are ideal and you can always crop for a narrower field of view when needed. The only "drawback" of tilt-shift lenses is that they are usually completely manual, so slower to use, but for your genres of photography, slowing the pace often results in the best images


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2022)

entoman said:


> I use the Canon 24mm T/S-E for a lot of my landscape and architecture work, but wider is better - 15mm or 17mm are ideal and you can always crop for a narrower field of view when needed.


I use the TS-E 17 and 24 for architecture. I find the 17 more useful in Europe, where there is often less open space around interesting buildings.

In addition to cropping, you can also use a teleconverter with a TS lens. The 1.4x behind the TS-E 17 gives an effective TS-E 24 With very good IQ (and the loss of a stop is likely irrelevant for most TS uses).


----------



## entoman (Jun 8, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I use the TS-E 17 and 24 for architecture. I find the 17 more useful in Europe, where there is often less open space around interesting buildings.
> 
> In addition to cropping, you can also use a teleconverter with a TS lens. The 1.4x behind the TS-E 17 gives an effective TS-E 24 With very good IQ (and the loss of a stop is likely irrelevant for most TS uses).


Yes, I wish I'd bought the 17mm T/S-E instead of the 24mm. The wider lens (remembering back to when I had a 16-35mm, which was stolen) is more useful for forest scenes, mountain landscapes etc although the 24mm is wide enough most of the time. I've just bought the RF100-500mm though, so funds available for photography are a bit limited for the rest of the year - too many other priorities (mainly travel)


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 10, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> But is a 14-28 a zoom range you would say its a zoom?


A 14-28mm is a 2x zoom lens


----------



## H2Oplanet (Jun 23, 2022)

A little off-topic but can someone suggest a good, practical reference book on optics as relates to camera lenses... not looking for massive optical formulas but rather a book or document with loads of illustrations and the fundamentals... not a complete technical idiot as I am an engineer (Materials Scientist) but must have skipped the optics lessons in physics classes... always amazed at the knowledge base on this site and appreciate any input in advance...


----------

