# Patent: Canon EF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 26, 2017)

```
We’ve heard some chatter that Canon would continue to develop it’s non-L zoom lenses for full frame camera lineup and this patent for an EF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS would seem to fit into that segment.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patents-a-17-35-is-4-56">Canon News</a>, a new leader in patent tracking found this one.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Optical Formula</strong></p>


<ul>
<li><strong>Focal distance:</strong> 17.50  25.12  34.09</li>
<li><strong>F number:</strong> 4.00 4.85   5.88</li>
<li><strong>A half field angle (degree):</strong> 51.03  40.73  32.40</li>
<li><strong>Image height:</strong> 21.64  21.64  21.64</li>
<li><strong>Whole length of the lens:</strong> 130.88 128.52 134.05</li>
<li><strong>BF:</strong> 37.60  49.75  64.06</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Japan patent application 2017-161568</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2017)

I'm sorry but it's *its.


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 27, 2017)

Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 27, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.



not everyone wants an L.

the nikkor 18-35 seems to be doing well, perhaps your lack of interest bears little in the way of the market.


----------



## magarity (Dec 27, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.


This focal length sells for $1K and up in the 'L' series so some people must be interested in it.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 27, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.



It might be a patent for IP protection's sake. Alternatively, it might be for videographers.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 27, 2017)

magarity said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length *and speed* for a lens.
> ...



His point is there already is an EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM, so a slower longer lens doesn't sound interesting.

Then again, Canon doesn't patent stuff to pique its customers.


----------



## Woody (Dec 27, 2017)

I have abandoned the full-frame world until the size and weight of the system can be reduced significantly.


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 27, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.
> ...



If it’s for IP, I understand. If for videographers, that’s even worse- no true videographer wants a variable speed zoom if they can help it.


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 27, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> magarity said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



Thank you- yes, that was my point- the combination of focal length and speed sounds terribly uninteresting. However, let’s see how cheap and light they can make it. Right now, the 17-40/4 L is $749 at B&H. if they are trying to sell a $500 or less lens to folks who bought a 6DII, maybe they can sell a few. Still, this is very boring for the rest of us.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 27, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> magarity said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



Well, I might be interested in it. I don't think I would use wider than 24mm very often, and when I did it would be for landscapes, or inside buildings like cathedrals/churches when traveling, so I could probably live with the aperture - I'd want to be shooting stopped own anyway (yes, I know faster could still be good indoors). I know the 16-35 f/4L IS is excellent and it's reasonably priced, and a reasonable size/weight, for what it is, but every time I think about getting one I hesitate because I think I'd use it so rarely. If Canon brings out a non-L and the IQ is still decent (something like an UWA mate to the 70-300 IS II) and the price is right, and the lens is relatively small and light (which I'm assuming it would be), it might get me across the line.


----------



## sowlow (Dec 27, 2017)

Cool! It is the 10-18 of the FF


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 27, 2017)

Seems sensible for Canon to produce a cheaper (for them to make, if not for you to buy) replacement for the 17-40 at the low-end of the wide-angle FF lenses.

Perhaps we'll see a 24-70 f/3.5-5.6 to complete the unholy trinity of cheap FF lenses, 17-35, 24-70 and 70-300 II.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 27, 2017)

With 11 elements / 8 groups it may be in the 500 $/€ region and is much more affordable than the other options. If it is compact: another plus. And 8 groups - if proper coating with the proper coatings is done - promise a near flare-less high contrast optics.

But for me: If I would use that focal range I would go for the 16-35 4.0 or would like to buy a 17 4.0 IS USM with very high correction + compact design which is small enough to be used as moderate wide angle on an APS-C body too.


----------



## -1 (Dec 27, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> magarity said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



The price sensitive masses might want a cheaper zoom and the STM AF motor could be more home movie friendly than the USM... The fact is that the L series has turned into two: "Pro" and "Pro Premium" and that further diversification of the product line could be warranted and thus this low end alternatives to the EF-S line.


----------



## traveller (Dec 27, 2017)

I think people here are again missing the point that there are a lot of people for whom $1000 for the 16-35 f/4L IS USM is simply stretching their photography budget too far, especially after they've blown (rightly or wrongly) their camera budget on a full-frame body -remember that you can now pick up the original 6D for $1200. 

A 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would give Canon a complete 'budget' zoom line-up, like Nikon currently has (latest versions only):



Budget:

_Canon:_ 
EF 17-35 f/4-5.6 IS STM 
EF 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM 
EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS II USM _Nikon:_ 
AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED 
AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G ED VR 
AF-P 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR 



Mid-range:

_Canon:_ 
EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM 
EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM II
EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM _Nikon:_ 
AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR 
AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR 
AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR 



High-end:

_Canon:_ 
EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM III 
EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM 
EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II _Nikon:_ 
AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED 
AF-S 24-70mm f2.8E ED VR
AF-S 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED VR 

[We could debate where the EF 11-24mm f4L USM and EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM or the many older but 'still current' lenses fit into this scheme, but I believe it's pretty close to both companies' thinking on the topic].


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 27, 2017)

I'm sure this is being developed with the full frame mirrorless market in mind. All signs so far point to them keeping the EF mount for full frame, and developing budget full frame lenses points to a 'pro-sumer' budgeted camera as one of the models. I wouldn't be surprised if they priced a new full frame mirrorless a bit more aggressively to get customers to lock in, something around the same price as the flagship aps-c camera, the 7d (mkIII by then).Just thinking of a kit with the 24-70 for around $1700, which would make it competitive with the forthcoming a7III that is supposed to be around the same price in kit form.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 27, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. That is a staggeringly uninteresting focal length and speed for a lens.
> ...



No, you're wrong, and he's quite right in his opinion. Your market quip doesn't quite stand for much either.

That said, this is the epitome of a *boring, uninteresting lens design, for a non L.* 

Like...blech.

PS- Yeah yeah, someone can use it but who cares. It's BORING.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 27, 2017)

ashmadux said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



not every lens in the stable is going to be exciting.

however the STM's are a valued part of the APS-C lineup so it stands to reason it's necessary for full frame as well.

You know there's such a thing called a market and segmentation. right?

also if it's much lighter than the UWA's that are out there for L's or much cheaper, then it's quite an interesting lens of optically it's good.

for a UWA, who the F cares about a variable aperture anyways?


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 27, 2017)

criscokkat said:


> I'm sure this is being developed with the full frame mirrorless market in mind.



probably zero bearing. it also has a EF registration distance.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 27, 2017)

traveller said:


> I think people here are again missing the point that there are a lot of people for whom $1000 for the 16-35 f/4L IS USM is simply stretching their photography budget too far, especially after they've blown (rightly or wrongly) their camera budget on a full-frame body -remember that you can now pick up the original 6D for $1200.
> 
> A 17-35mm f/4-5.6 IS STM would give Canon a complete 'budget' zoom line-up, like Nikon currently has (latest versions only)



someone gets it..


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 27, 2017)

Wow. I only now realized that Canon currently offers no non-L UWA lenses for full frame. I don't understand what people are crying about—yeah, this might be "boring" but if competitively priced, it definitely seems to have a place in the EF lens selection. I guess it's just the standard self-absorbed entitlement that's so widespread here.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 27, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> criscokkat said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure this is being developed with the full frame mirrorless market in mind.
> ...



I suspect full frame mirrorless from canon will not be a significantly smaller body. If you want a small body and lenses to match, you go with the ef-m system. The extra room this provides will not be entirely unwasted. By having a larger area to work with the thermal management systems can be much more robust, allowing the processing chipsets to operate at higher clockspeeds and allowing the EVF to run longer and faster refreshing. They'd even have room for a larger battery if they so chose. 

Canon also puts much more emphasis on the handling and ergonomics than sony. There is a thing with being too small, especially since the glass needed to resolve a full frame sensor is not going to be any smaller. 

Edit: This recent patent shows a bit of intrusion into the grip and around the mount for a heatsink: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4235960


----------



## Talys (Dec 27, 2017)

I'm happy for this lens. I personally don't need it, because I purchased a 16-35/4, but if I didn't already own one, I'd definitely consider this, because:

1. I almost never shoot below 24mm anyways, because I don't do landscapes, my animal subjects are too small, and there are few stills that I shoot where I need me to go that wide. Number of landscapes, lakes, sunsets I shoot in an average year = 0.

2. For the longest time, I simply used a 10-18 on a 80D for the same task. In fact, the only reason that I purchased a 16-35 was because the price was good, and to have access to that wider focal length without packing an 80D on a trip.

3. For the incredibly rare times that I want to shoot that wide (a sunset on a hotel balcony, for example), and I want a good exposure (as opposed to just snapping something from my smartphone to record a memory), a STM lens that's sub-$500 would be wonderful. Plus, it is probably going to be half the size of the L.

This falls into the same reason to build a 24-105 STM or EF 70-300 (nano) or 100/2.8 macro (non-L) -- some people just shoot these FL's so rarely that they have a hard time justifying $1000 lenses in the "tier 2" L collection (like f4 L zooms). Because most photography is just a hobby for me, I buy the best I can afford for the stuff I really like shooting, which ends up being macro and wildlife, midrange for the stuff I photograph occasionally, and, where there's a low cost solution, "something" for the things I shoot rarely.


----------



## tungchihyu (Jan 2, 2018)

Basically I can't wait for this lens. It is the FF EF-S 10-18 STM, the GOD lens for vlogging. Noise-less for Movie Servo AF.

This lens will be day one purchase for me.


----------



## blobmonster (Jan 4, 2018)

If it's decent,small,light and cheap enough versus a used 17-40, I'll be tempted. I would prefer a 20mm f2.8 IS but a pocketable ultrawide like this would still be very welcome.


----------



## Talys (Jan 22, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Wow. I only now realized that Canon currently offers no non-L UWA lenses for full frame. I don't understand what people are crying about—yeah, this might be "boring" but if competitively priced, it definitely seems to have a place in the EF lens selection. I guess it's just the standard self-absorbed entitlement that's so widespread here.



First, I agree with you; at the right price, this lens is well-positioned. If it had been around, I would have probably bought it instead of 16-35, because I hardly ever shoot ultra wide angle (below 24).

I think that this one is very rare; Canon seems to develop very few EF lenses that are STM now (and everything not STM seems to be L in newly developed lenses). The last EF non L lens I remember is 70-300... and that was hardly super exciting, except that it was a cosmetically beautiful lens. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

But there ARE cheaper alternatives for getting wide angle in the Canon system:

- EF 20mm/2.8 USM is about $500 new / $250 used.
- EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 is very cheap used
- EF 17-40/4 L might be an L lens, but it's pretty cheap: As low as $625 new during rebates, or $450-ish used

Or go APSC where the EFS 10-18 is awesomely cheap for its image quality and focal range... as long as you don't mind a kind of cheap, toyish-looking lens.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Wow. I only now realized that Canon currently offers no non-L UWA lenses for full frame. I don't understand what people are crying about—yeah, this might be "boring" but if competitively priced, it definitely seems to have a place in the EF lens selection. I guess it's just the standard self-absorbed entitlement that's so widespread here.



Well, actually they do in a way.

The EF-S 10-22 works as a perfectly good 15-22 lens on full-frame cameras if you pull the plastic insert out of the back of the lens (and yes, it does fit on the EF mount then)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The EF-S 10-22 works as a perfectly good 15-22 lens on full-frame cameras if you pull the plastic insert out of the back of the lens (and yes, it does fit on the EF mount then)



If the 10-22mm is mounted on a FF camera and set to 10mm, does the mirror contact the back of the lens? If so, do you consider potential damage to the mirror assembly ‘perfectly good’?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> If the 10-22mm is mounted on a FF camera and set to 10mm, does the mirror contact the back of the lens? If so, do you consider potential damage to the mirror assembly ‘perfectly good’?



Clearly you have to be careful 

There are some tips here on how to avoid dinging your mirror, but when I tried it out I managed not to break anything.

Also, works great on a full frame mirrorless


----------



## Sharlin (Jan 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, works great on a full frame mirrorless



Apropos this, I wonder how much people use third-party crop EF lenses, or modified EF-S lenses, with Canon EF-mount Super 35 cameras. Any extra vignetting should be pretty minimal. Will probably be popular if that non-C EF Super35 body ever materializes...


----------

