# Patent: Ultra-wide zoom lenses for the RF mount, including an RF 9-24mm f/4



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 1, 2021)

> Keith at Northlight Images has uncovered a USPTO patent that shows off optical formulas for ultra-wide-angle zoom lenses for the Canon RF mount.
> USPTO Patent 2021 / 0096343:
> 
> Canon RF 8-16mm f/4
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## AJ (Apr 1, 2021)

Rectilinear or fisheye?


----------



## sanj (Apr 1, 2021)

6 mm cant be rectilinear. Or can it?


----------



## MrFotoFool (Apr 1, 2021)

I have a feeling this post is date specific. (As in look at your calendar and see what day it is).


----------



## LeeLuna001 (Apr 1, 2021)

This is a scam, they are trying to buy off casey from camera conspiracy with this wide angle stuff. Putting the cripple hammer to bed


----------



## Canfan (Apr 1, 2021)

As long as it’s not another F 7.1 lens then it’s good news. Don’t get all the 7.1 lately. I find 5.6 challenging at times. 
come on canon do better.
We need a 200-600mm 5.6 or no darker than 6.3
Or even a RF 500mm 5.6. Most will be happy with.


----------



## keithcooper (Apr 1, 2021)

It's definitely real ;-) Read the actual patent application. 
One of the features of it is the use of an aspherical element at the front and its part in the design.

There was another patent application I spotted as well which included
70-200 f/4 | 100-500 f/4.6-6.8 | 70-200 f/2.8 | 55-250 f/4.6-6.5 | 100-400 f/5.6-8 |100-390 f/5.6-8
Mostly RF full frame but the 55-250 is for a crop sensor


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 1, 2021)

Having owned and used the EF 11-24 since it came out I can confidently say I would not be interested in a 9-24mm.


----------



## vladk (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Having owned and used the EF 11-24 since it came out I can confidently say I would not be interested in a 9-24mm.


Because 11-24 is sufficient for you, or because you hate it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

vladk said:


> Because 11-24 is sufficient for you, or because you hate it?


I’d challenge anybody to show me images shot with a rectilinear 9mm lens on a ff camera that weren’t ridiculous projection distortions of reality.

I like the lens and it very much serves a purpose, but even using 11mm is a technical challenge that most honest people who own and use it will attest to. 9mm sounds more like a headline than a useful specification, a bit like 1,000,000 iso. Yes there will be a very few people who can and will use the feature but in truth it won’t be used effectively by most people.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Apr 2, 2021)

I check this site every day hoping it will say, “50mm 1.4 L built from the ground up to be a fast and lightweight lens with perfect optics available now at your local store for $800.”


----------



## miketcool (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’d challenge anybody to show me images shot with a rectilinear 9mm lens on a ff camera that weren’t ridiculous projection distortions of reality.
> 
> I like the lens and it very much serves a purpose, but even using 11mm is a technical challenge that most honest people who own and use it will attest to. 9mm sounds more like a headline than a useful specification, a bit like 1,000,000 iso. Yes there will be a very few people who can and will use the feature but in truth it won’t be used effectively by most people.


This would be a killer diving lens. It would completely change how we see things underwater. Close focus, large depth of field, and no fisheye distortion. It would also be welcomed in landscape and timelapse applications. It’ll be just as niche as the 11-24 is now, with an increase to the field of view. Yes, please!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

miketcool said:


> This would be a killer diving lens. It would completely change how we see things underwater. Close focus, large depth of field, and no fisheye distortion. It would also be welcomed in landscape and timelapse applications. It’ll be just as niche as the 11-24 is now, with an increase to the field of view. Yes, please!


In my experience diving with ff cameras pretty much died in the 5D II era, m4/3 and crop cameras very much took over due to price, weight and size whilst giving virtually nothing away in image quality. I stand by my earlier comment regarding landscape and time lapse applications.

So yes, a 9-24mm would be a niche within a niche that would obviously be a statement lens few could afford and even fewer will get genuine use out of.

At least you can put filters in an adapter using the EF 11-24 on R cameras, they’d better have a drop in filter slot for that RF 9-24 design!


----------



## puffo25 (Apr 2, 2021)

Hi. I am a EOS R5 and few RF lenses
Since i need a very wide lens i purcheased the EF 8-15. Do you think Canon will make soon (ie in about 1 year time) a similar RF lens like the RF 8-16mm? Shall i sell the EF?


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So yes, a 9-24mm would be a niche within a niche that would obviously be a statement lens few could afford and even fewer will get genuine use out of.


As an owner of an EF 11-24mm, I agree. I don't use the wide side of the lens enough to consider switching to a mount the Laowa 9mm f/5.6 is compatible with, much the less hold my breath for an RF 9-24mm.

And, as usual, one should consider the possibility the patent is just for IP protection, or for use in some other kind of lens. IIRC, it was mentioned in the past a patent for a 10mm prime became the 11-24mm, or maybe the TS-E 17mm.


privatebydesign said:


> At least you can put filters in an adapter using the EF 11-24 on R cameras, they’d better have a drop in filter slot for that RF 9-24 design!


True dat.


----------



## briangus (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’d challenge anybody to show me images shot with a rectilinear 9mm lens on a ff camera that weren’t ridiculous projection distortions of reality.
> 
> I like the lens and it very much serves a purpose, but even using 11mm is a technical challenge that most honest people who own and use it will attest to. 9mm sounds more like a headline than a useful specification, a bit like 1,000,000 iso. Yes there will be a very few people who can and will use the feature but in truth it won’t be used effectively by most people.


Having just purchased the aptly named Laowa 9mm Dreamer
I will politely decline your challlenge


----------



## COBRASoft (Apr 2, 2021)

I love my 11-24. It's sharp, nice color rendition,.. 
Would i be interested in wider? Not really... Most pics i took with it are in the 12-17 range. 
I have the ef-rf adapter with filter, very useful


----------



## gatabo (Apr 2, 2021)

Canon RF 8-16mm f/4 sounds good, better than the other patents starting "only" at 9 or 10mm and will fill the "gap" for some extreme/insane UWA .
It should pair well in a kit with the existing Rf 15-35mm F2.8 or the future (is it confirmed?) RF 14-35mm F4 for "normal" UWA 

If the Canon RF 1200mm F8 Canon is coming, an ultra wide angle starting at 8mm doesn't seems insane anymore, more extreme focal lengths need to be available for the RF mount, smartphones are already getting insanely wide lenses, 8mm rectilinear will put interchangeable lens cameras at the top again, Canon needs to make a number of lenses that no future smartphone camera in the next 10, 20 or even 30 years could challenge, any future customer of RF cameras will have a smartphone and if a good lens is already inside a smartphone less people will want to buy a mirrorless camera if there isn't a huge and evident advantage, the challenge is not (only) against Sony or Nikon anymore, but against Samsung or Apple smartphones, sure till now no smartphone camera is as good as any modern miorreless camera, Canon (Sony, Nikon, etc ...) need to push the boundaries to keep this advantage even with some insane lenses, just to mark the territory 

8mm is almost as impractical as 1200mm especially in a smartphone, but the few that want this kind of challenging focal lengths will love to use a proper camera to make this lenses useful for their creativity, this is the mindset that Canon engineers are probably using, also F1.2 lenses or F2 zoom are the sign of this trend, if a lens is too "extreme" to be available in a smartphone it's a good lens that will differentiate proper cameras from phone cameras.

Even if I could be happy with "just" a 15mm or 14mm wide lens and a 500mm or 600mm tele, I'll like to be able to rent or buy something much longer or extremely wider if i feel I need to expand my creativity.


----------



## Rivermist (Apr 2, 2021)

COBRASoft said:


> I love my 11-24. It's sharp, nice color rendition,..
> Would i be interested in wider? Not really... Most pics i took with it are in the 12-17 range.
> I have the ef-rf adapter with filter, very useful


Second that. I would (maybe) consider replacing the 11-24 with a native RF lens of similar range and quality if there was a serious reduction in weight and size of the front element. I do use the 11-24 range, but for many outings I will take the 16-35 L IS just to save on weight and/or to reduce the "mug me" factor the 11-24 creates. Reality check: anything of L quality in RF in this range of rare and extreme focal lengths will most probably be so cost prohibitive I will be keeping the EF glass for a long time. May be worth getting the drop-in filter adapter....


----------



## slclick (Apr 2, 2021)

Canfan said:


> As long as it’s not another F 7.1 lens then it’s good news. Don’t get all the 7.1 lately. I find 5.6 challenging at times.
> come on canon do better.
> We need a 200-600mm 5.6 or no darker than 6.3
> Or even a RF 500mm 5.6. Most will be happy with.


Millions of us 'survived' in the 'F/8 and Be There' world. You'll get by.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 2, 2021)

I've got the 11-14, but I must admit MOST of my shots with it, have been concert shots....often a guitarist close to the stage where I am, front foot extended onto pedal and I get them in that kinda classic Jimi Hendrix type distorted shot with lens on the stage getting them all in the frame from the stage monitors to the top of their head.

I just like that look.

Other than concert shots to get a quick interesting look at the whole stage in one shot from the pit....not sure what else I'd be using it for.

What all do ya'll use the 11-14L lens from Canon for? I'm curious?

cayenne


----------



## Peter Bergh (Apr 2, 2021)

puffo25 said:


> Hi. I am a EOS R5 and few RF lenses
> Since I need a very wide lens I purchased the EF 8-15. Do you think Canon will make soon (i.e., in about 1 year time) a similar RF lens like the RF 8-16mm? Shall i sell the EF?


"Predicting is hard, especially the future." (Yogi Berra) Do not sell the EF until you have actually seen and held the RF near-equivalent.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

briangus said:


> Having just purchased the aptly named Laowa 9mm Dreamer
> I will politely decline your challlenge


I applaud your honesty sir! All the best and have fun with that Laowa, they make some very interesting optics.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’d challenge anybody to show me images shot with a rectilinear 9mm lens on a ff camera that weren’t ridiculous projection distortions of reality.
> 
> I like the lens and it very much serves a purpose, but even using 11mm is a technical challenge that most honest people who own and use it will attest to. 9mm sounds more like a headline than a useful specification, a bit like 1,000,000 iso. Yes there will be a very few people who can and will use the feature but in truth it won’t be used effectively by most people.


I'll accept.

Here is shot of the entrance to a university. The building is very close to the entrance gates. This first shot was taken at 26mm, so you could imagine what it would look like at 50mm.




The building would totally overwhelm the arch.

Instead, I wanted the arch to frame the building, so I employed a Laowa 9mm 5.6 lens on a Sony a7rIII fullframe camera.


Definitely some distortion present, but I wouldn't call it "ridiculous projection".

Here is the image after a little cleanup and cropping that I ended up using.



So for me, a 9mm has a place in my kit especially if Canon can produce one with much better edge sharpness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I'll accept.
> 
> Here is shot of the entrance to a university. The building is very close to the entrance gates. This first shot was taken at 26mm, so you could imagine what it would look like at 50mm.
> View attachment 196612
> ...


I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate the fact that to get that perspective of the building clear of the gate pillars and arch that is what you had to use, but don’t you think the corners make it look like you are falling into the picture like a 60’s tv sci-fi special effect? Everything outside the brick pillars is what I am talking about.


----------



## RobbieHat (Apr 2, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I'll accept.
> 
> Here is shot of the entrance to a university. The building is very close to the entrance gates. This first shot was taken at 26mm, so you could imagine what it would look like at 50mm.
> View attachment 196612
> ...


That's impressive. Love that shot through the gate at the UWA. Creates a very inviting view through the image. I struggle with my 11-24 as well and this certainly is a good example of the power of the wide end of that lens! 

Bob


----------



## degos (Apr 2, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> I check this site every day hoping it will say, “50mm 1.4 L built from the ground up to be a fast and lightweight lens with perfect optics available now at your local store for $800.”



No no, SigmaRumors is that way --->


----------



## Billybob (Apr 2, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate the fact that to get that perspective of the building clear of the gate pillars and arch that is what you had to use, but don’t you think the corners make it look like you are falling into the picture like a 60’s tv sci-fi special effect? Everything outside the brick pillars is what I am talking about.


Hmm, no. 

What I see here is the very high softness on the edge of the frame similar but worst than what I use to get with my 17-40L. It would have been improved if stopped down to f8 or f11 but probably not completely eliminated. 

I suspect that a Canon lens would not be nearly so flawed exhibiting far less falloff in sharpness than this $800 lens.


----------



## Gazwas (Apr 2, 2021)

These sound like lenses designed with the new RF S35 cinema cameras in mind that will inevitably come.

No need for an adapter and keeps users with one line of lenses that Canon can charge even more for.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 2, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Hmm, no.
> 
> What I see here is the very high softness on the edge of the frame similar but worst than what I use to get with my 17-40L. It would have been improved if stopped down to f8 or f11 but probably not completely eliminated.
> 
> I suspect that a Canon lens would not be nearly so flawed exhibiting far less falloff in sharpness than this $800 lens.



I'm going to agree with PBD on this one. I can't put my finger on it like he could, but there's something fake looking about the last images. It looks like in editing you did something to straighten the right wall/pillar, and the building actually ends up looking like it tapers to the bottom. Perhaps that's just an optical illusion. It does look very "skinny" one way or another.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 3, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I'm going to agree with PBD on this one. I can't put my finger on it like he could, but there's something fake looking about the last images. It looks like in editing you did something to straighten the right wall/pillar, and the building actually ends up looking like it tapers to the bottom. Perhaps that's just an optical illusion. It does look very "skinny" one way or another.


What I see is the same thing as all wider lenses, that my brain accepts but doesn't exactly thrill over - you can't keep everything straight up and down at the best of times. Isn't that why tilt/shift exists? To me it's not whether you've got reality it's more whether it's reasonably pleasing or perhaps just functional in showing more of a small room. In this shot, it accomplishes the desired purpose but certainly the building will not present that well. I can't differentiate the technical qualities like Scott does but I've never regretted having 11mm for those certain situations. I often end up cropping to a kind of panoramic format.

But what do I know!

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Hmm, no.
> 
> What I see here is the very high softness on the edge of the frame similar but worst than what I use to get with my 17-40L. It would have been improved if stopped down to f8 or f11 but probably not completely eliminated.
> 
> I suspect that a Canon lens would not be nearly so flawed exhibiting far less falloff in sharpness than this $800 lens.


I'm not trying to insult the image, the frame in the bottom right corner is a square? Yet it doesn't look like it. The foliage on the left and right of the pillars has a ripped and stretched appearance, not just blurred. These are not lens diistortions as in errors, it is projection distortion in that the spacial representation of straight lines in a curved space is impossible to draw on an unbroken flat surface. That is why we have globes.

For anybody that knows the building it is a gross distortion caused by perspective and projection distortions.

Now some people might have rare uses for a 9mm rectilinear, but I stand by my assertions that putting it on a volume zoom is merely a headline grabber not a more general requirement.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 3, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> What I see is the same thing as all wider lenses, that my brain accepts but doesn't exactly thrill over - you can't keep everything straight up and down at the best of times. Isn't that why tilt/shift exists? To me it's not whether you've got reality it's more whether it's reasonably pleasing or perhaps just functional in showing more of a small room. In this shot, it accomplishes the desired purpose but certainly the building will not present that well. I can't differentiate the technical qualities like Scott does but I've never regretted having 11mm for those certain situations. I often end up cropping to a kind of panoramic format.
> 
> But what do I know!
> 
> Jack


Okay, no it isn't going to look like reality. It isn't real; we don't see in UWA. The image does taper from the bottom to the top--both the building and the pillars. I think that this tends to emphasize the arch and provides a bit of a "Wizard of OZ " effect. 

Thus, if you're looking for realism--as defined by what you can see with your naked eye--no, you're not getting it with an extreme UWA shot. It will be very stylized at, perhaps, the expense of straight lines. I tend to enjoy images that aren't the common everyday shot. I can understand how you might find such presentations jarring.


----------



## Billybob (Apr 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not trying to insult the image, the frame in the bottom right corner is a square? Yet it doesn't look like it. The foliage on the left and right of the pillars has a ripped and stretched appearance, not just blurred. These are not lens diistortions as in errors, it is projection distortion in that the spacial representation of straight lines in a curved space is impossible to draw on an unbroken flat surface. That is why we have globes.
> 
> For anybody that knows the building it is a gross distortion caused by perspective and projection distortions.
> 
> Now some people might have rare uses for a 9mm rectilinear, but I stand by my assertions that putting it on a volume zoom is merely a headline grabber not a more general requirement.


Man you have a good eye!

Yes, the placard on the lower right is more square than rectangular, and of course the building is distorted to fit in the frame. Actually, anyone who knows the building will know that it isn't that far from the gateway and find the juxtaposition from reality either jarring or intriguing, so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure. 

You are indeed correct about the foilage being distorted. Cropping to get the worst of the distortion out in the upper right would help, but would not eliminate it. 

So, yes, if you demand an exact representation of the structure as it exists, you won't get that with an extreme UW. There will be distortions that cannot be eliminated. Here, the foilage is problematic. However, I do find the "skinny" building as framed by the arch interesting. But clearly someone taking architectural images or real estate shots where straight lines and squared corners are mandatory would not find this image acceptable. But that was not my purpose. Instead, to enjoy this focal length one needs to embrace the distortions and, lol, avoid having foilage in the corners and edges.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Man you have a good eye!
> 
> Yes, the placard on the lower right is more square than rectangular, and of course the building is distorted to fit in the frame. Actually, anyone who knows the building will know that it isn't that far from the gateway and find the juxtaposition from reality either jarring or intriguing, so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure.
> 
> ...


Thanks! Though I suspect others wouldn't be so kind so seriously, thank you.

I got the 11-24 when it came out as I shoot some real estate for developers. At the time the style was ultra wide angle and make the rooms look big so I used the TS-E17 and the 11-24 almost exclusively, but over the last couple of years the style has very much fallen out of favor with the clients I have. Now I use the TS-E50 more than the 11-24 and I use the TS-E17 with a 1.4TC much more than without it. Indeed I'd happily trade the TS-E17 for a TS-E24, though I am glad I bought it when I did.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 3, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I'll accept.
> 
> Here is shot of the entrance to a university. The building is very close to the entrance gates. This first shot was taken at 26mm, so you could imagine what it would look like at 50mm.
> View attachment 196612
> ...


In the cleaned up version, the building appears to be a bit over corrected. I might have tried doing that part on its own layer and straighten it separately. I wonder how a less extreme version would look, with a lens wide enough to get the building inside the arch, but less distorted. Maybe that would be less fun.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks! Though I suspect others wouldn't be so kind so seriously, thank you.
> 
> I got the 11-24 when it came out as I shoot some real estate for developers. At the time the style was ultra wide angle and make the rooms look big so I used the TS-E17 and the 11-24 almost exclusively, but over the last couple of years the style has very much fallen out of favor with the clients I have. Now I use the TS-E50 more than the 11-24 and I use the TS-E17 with a 1.4TC much more than without it. Indeed I'd happily trade the TS-E17 for a TS-E24, though I am glad I bought it when I did.


Last year I rented the 24mm to play with and then a few weeks later I got the 17mm. I never could tame the 17 for interiors. And for other purposes its more limited controls made it not as useful as the 24. If I buy or rent one again, it would definitely be the 24mm. I realize there are pros who swear by the 17, but I don’t have their experience or possibly skill.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 3, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Okay, no it isn't going to look like reality. It isn't real; we don't see in UWA. The image does taper from the bottom to the top--both the building and the pillars. I think that this tends to emphasize the arch and provides a bit of a "Wizard of OZ " effect.
> 
> Thus, if you're looking for realism--as defined by what you can see with your naked eye--no, you're not getting it with an extreme UWA shot. It will be very stylized at, perhaps, the expense of straight lines. I tend to enjoy images that aren't the common everyday shot. I can understand how you might find such presentations jarring.


I don't dislike the shot. I accept it is a wide perspective-distorted shot that is interesting and furthermore I'm no expert, just an old guy trying to catch up on learning what I should have decades ago. I think it's fun to have these kind of discussions although sometime not as much fun for the person in the lime-lite. Scott will really like this one. It was used to teach some young kids about lens focal lengths.


----------



## ISv (Apr 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks! Though I suspect others wouldn't be so kind so seriously, thank you.
> 
> I got the 11-24 when it came out as I shoot some real estate for developers. At the time the style was ultra wide angle and make the rooms look big so I used the TS-E17 and the 11-24 almost exclusively, but over the last couple of years the style has very much fallen out of favor with the clients I have. Now I use the TS-E50 more than the 11-24 and I use the TS-E17 with a 1.4TC much more than without it. Indeed I'd happily trade the TS-E17 for a TS-E24, though I am glad I bought it when I did.


From Billibob: "...so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure."

Well, the photography use to be an art (not that much for me, sorry - I mean I have a hard time accepting some highly prized draws -forget a photos! Every one who would check my posted photos on CR will see it!). On other hand I would accept that somebody else has a different view - why not?!!!
I mean that "stylized" doesn't means "bad" - You have the choice: "stylized" or "archival"!!! And if they are done good - no one is better (well, question of taste...)!
Honestly I like these photos (despite that personally I'm doing something very different)! I don't care if the idea is old or not (the idea of photography is old too... ). If you have to say something interesting/nice on the same idea - I would accept you!!! 
If you have some other, new ideas - welcome, you are opening just one more page in the history of photography (and they are a lot but always welcome)!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 3, 2021)

ISv said:


> From Billibob: "...so yes it is stylized and not intended to be an archival representation of the structure."
> 
> Well, the photography use to be an art (not that much for me, sorry - I mean I have a hard time accepting some highly prized draws -forget a photos! Every one who would check my posted photos on CR will see it!). On other hand I would accept that somebody else has a different view - why not?!!!
> I mean that "stylized" doesn't means "bad" - You have the choice: "stylized" or "archival"!!! And if they are done good - no one is better (well, question of taste...)!
> ...


Of course artistic representations are entirely valid and need no justification. To me, however, the vast majority of ultra wide angle images (sub 14mm ff) have the same artistic quality, and will probably age as well, as early HDR composites and faded square images with faux rounded corners.

There are some incredibly clever images shot with circular fisheyes and even ff fisheyes, so yes, of course there will be a few killer 9mm rectilinear images, but as I have already said, not the number putting it on a volume production zoom would suggest.


----------



## sanj (Apr 3, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I'll accept.
> 
> Here is shot of the entrance to a university. The building is very close to the entrance gates. This first shot was taken at 26mm, so you could imagine what it would look like at 50mm.
> View attachment 196612
> ...


Well done and thanks for the education. I also was under the impression that 9mm would be horribly distorted. Appreciate.


----------



## ISv (Apr 3, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> There are some incredibly clever images shot with circular fisheyes and even ff fisheyes, so yes, of course there will be a few killer 9mm rectilinear images, but as I have already said, not the number putting it on a volume production zoom would suggest.


OK, I would prefer to see what the different lens producers will offer to the photography community and how their offer would be accepted. How their offer is influencing their bank account: I really think it's their problem - they have the tools to predict it right (or wrong in terms of that bank account!).
But concerning the pure photography: What was less (or so...) since Tamron put on the scene their 150-600 is now a relatively blooming "niche". Why not with a 9mm zoom and the new perspectives (despite far more difficult but never underestimate the people around...)? You may see just a few "...incredibly clever images..." in the beginning but I'm sure they will increase with the time - and the number of people involved!
Whatever - if you think it's a risky move from Canon as a company - I would agree! If the images that we will see (if it happens!) in the future are just few worth of seeing NO - they will get more and more (huh - depends on the prize of the lens!)!


----------



## Nemorino (Apr 3, 2021)

ISv said:


> I would prefer to see what the different lens producers will offer to the photography community and how their offer would be accepted.


Laowa has released a 9mm FF earlier this year:
https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-9mm-f-5-6-ff-rl/

Of cause not with a Canon mount only for other mirrorless mounts.


----------



## deleteme (Apr 3, 2021)

I am waiting for them to intro the 10-24 and the 15-35 f4. These are two lenses I use a lot in EF.
The EF lenses are very sharp but the RF specific versions would be lighter and hopefully smaller and sharper.

The current 1-35 f2.8 is no doubt a brilliant lens but is larger than the 24-105.


----------



## AJ (Apr 4, 2021)

Does it say anything about image height? Are these FF lenses or crop?


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Apr 4, 2021)

I will be interested in fisheye more than in ultrawide, but I am part of a minority I guess


----------



## Canfan (Apr 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’d challenge anybody to show me images shot with a rectilinear 9mm lens on a ff camera that weren’t ridiculous projection distortions of reality.
> 
> I like the lens and it very much serves a purpose, but even using 11mm is a technical challenge that most honest people who own and use it will attest to. 9mm sounds more like a headline than a useful specification, a bit like 1,000,000 iso. Yes there will be a very few people who can and will use the feature but in truth it won’t be used effectively by most people.


This lens might be intended for crop frame or a fish eye to replace the EF 8-15mm. We should reserve judgement until we know more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2021)

Canfan said:


> This lens might be intended for crop frame or a fish eye to replace the EF 8-15mm. We should reserve judgement until we know more.


If it was a fisheye zoom I doubt 9mm would give you a full circle on a ff. But sure, my point wasn’t to speculate on what it is, it was merely pointing out if it was a rectilinear design it soiunds more like a headline than a useful feature.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2021)

Would anybody like to take a guess at what focal length was used for this shot? It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Would anybody like to take a guess at what focal length was used for this shot? It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.
> 
> View attachment 196749


I'll take up the challenge. Although it is quite a wide angle of view in terms of the scene the size of the crazy paving slabs is not exaggerated close to the camera. There is some distortion as the camera is being pointed down but it's not that great. I don't know if the pool really slopes off into the 9' area or not. Also looking at the size of the sun loungers I suspect it's not a very large pool, and the size of the boulder features around the pool are pretty consistent in size. so I'm going to say between 24 & 28mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

No other guesses? Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Would anybody like to take a guess at what focal length was used for this shot? It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.


Rather hard to say, because there are no straight lines (except the trees) and not comparable front and back object. Some clues are that:
(1) the photographer's shadows indicates that a rather small lens is used!
(2) Trees at the back are falling back and falling inwards, so it should be semi-wide lens.
(3) The front bottom stair is longer than the ones behind it, so again semi-wide lens.
(4) It has the look and feel of a 35mm image.
So my best guess is 35mm lens.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 7, 2021)

bhf3737 said:


> (1) the photographer's shadows indicates that a rather small lens is used!
> (
> So my best guess is 35mm lens.


If the shadow is correct then it’s probably private and his M5 plus the 22 pancake - so 35mm equivalent. I have to say I’d be surprised if it is 35mm but the pool might be smaller than I thought.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

Thanks for playing along Sporgon and bhf3737, I appreciate the engagement, it always surprises me how few people are prepared to put their observations on the line given how opinionated most of us here are (and I include myself in that!)

It was a 15mm full frame fisheye. I didn't post it to catch people out but to illustrate you can shoot hyper wide without apparent obvious distortion, but it is very tricky and rare and most of the time there are real giveaways.

It really boils down to my original post/point, I don't see a rectilinear 9mm on FF being much use to practically anybody pretty much ever, I see it more of a headline grabber than a practical tool. And given you can already get very good results with current lenses on the rare occasions that fov is needed I believe those that can do it effectively already are.

That doesn't diminish the 'artistic' aspect a 9mm lens could offer, where you can push reality and exaggerate aspects within the frame in unusual ways, but I really don't see that kind of use as anything more than an extreme style few could use to original benefit.

Maybe I'm blowing smoke, sounding old, or verging on becoming a Luddite, but it really does feel to me we have gone well beyond the point of diminishing returns with camera gear at this point and people 'want' and 'need' features not because they actually need them but because it is 1mm wider or has 20 more mp.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 7, 2021)

Crafty Private ! So the bottom of the pool doesn't really slope off severely as it does in the picture ! It fooled me because of the (I think) 9'4" depth plate. Without this though, impressive lack of distortion.

(I guess the "small lens" is your dark glasses)


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Crafty Private ! So the bottom of the pool doesn't really slope off severely as it does in the picture ! It fooled me because of the (I think) 9'4" depth plate. Without this though, impressive lack of distortion.
> 
> (I guess the "small lens" is your dark glasses)


Hi sporgon,

I think you are looking at the depth upside down, I think it is 4’ 6”. The shadow is me handholding a 1DS MkIII and the 15mm, it was actually a scouting shoot at a resort.

With care I find the 15mm to be a superb little lens and it blew the socks off two different copies of the EF 14mm f2.8 II’s that I tried out before I got the 11-24. With decent defishing it is even more flexible, and an f2.8, and cheap.....


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Hi sporgon,
> 
> I think you are looking at the depth upside down, I think it is 4’ 6”. The shadow is me handholding a 1DS MkIII and the 15mm, it was actually a scouting shoot at a resort.
> 
> With care I find the 15mm to be a superb little lens and it blew the socks off two different copies of the EF 14mm f2.8 II’s that I tried out before I got the 11-24. With decent defishing it is even more flexible, and an f2.8,


Ah yes I should have paid more attention......

Anyway I have a bone to pick with you.............


privatebydesign said:


> It is basically out of camera, just an auto 'Basic' correction in LR and a degree or so of horizon straightening.


So it was actually defished. OK so maybe a 'basic' Lightroom correction, but hardly in the spirit of the sentence. You're not a politician are you Private ? You're not running for Governor of Florida by any chance ?  



privatebydesign said:


> and cheap.....


You know me so well.......


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> So it was actually defished. OK so maybe a 'basic' Lightroom correction, but hardly in the spirit of the sentence. You're not a politician are you Private ? You're not running for Governor of Florida by any chance ?


No, it was NOT defished. 

I do use defishing, and it adds to the lenses uses, but this shot was not defished. Honestly just pushed the ‘Auto’ button in the Basic panel, lifted the shadows slightly and cropped for a levelish horizon. To be honest the horizon was the thing I thought might give it away, I was so far off level it has a curve to it, had I been better at holding the camera level it would have been even ‘better’.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2021)

Here is the image as shot and imported. It actually took 6 degrees to correct for level, obviously one too many rum punches!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 7, 2021)

Interesting and it's remarkable how well the image has squared up. The unedited and uncrossed one looks much more ultra wide. After the crop I wonder what angle it would be ? 19 to 20mm maybe. 

I guess you were concentrating on keeping the stairs level


----------



## gatabo (Apr 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Here is the image as shot and imported. It actually took 6 degrees to correct for level, obviously one too many rum punches!
> 
> View attachment 196782


as this is a 180° 15mm fisheye before SW rectilinear correction, if you want "better" results straight out of a camera a 9-24mm or even an 8-16mm rectilinear lens with "just" 135° or 139° could be more useful than the current 11-24mm with "only" 126°


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2021)

gatabo said:


> as this is a 180° 15mm fisheye before SW rectilinear correction, if you want "better" results straight out of a camera a 9-24mm or even an 8-16mm rectilinear lens with "just" 135° or 139° could be more useful than the current 11-24mm with "only" 126°


It did not have rectilinear correction.


----------



## Ozarker (May 12, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I'll accept.
> 
> Here is shot of the entrance to a university. The building is very close to the entrance gates. This first shot was taken at 26mm, so you could imagine what it would look like at 50mm.
> View attachment 196612
> ...


Very nice!


----------

