# Patent: A new 16-35 f/2.8 or Faster Concept?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 30, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9382"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9382" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9382"></a></div>
<strong>Improved Canon ultrawide for full frame?


</strong>The world is waiting for Canon to release a top end performing ultra wide lens for full frame cameras. While I think the 17-40 f/4L is a bargain of a workhorse and the 16-35 f/2.8L II is a very solid performer, I think the line is still lacking that standout ultra wide zoom lens. I have heard numerous photographers say they’d pay “anything” for a top notch lens in that segment.</p>
<p>Below are 3 patented optical formulas for new ultrawide angle lenses for Canon.</p>
<p>A 16-35 f/2.8, a 17-35 f/2.8-4 and a 16-35 f/2-2.8. There seems to be a decent amount of f/2 patents appearing on zoom lenses from Canon, it could be time for such a lens to make it to market.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2012-63568</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2012.3.29 Release Date</li>
<li>2010.9.16 filing date</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 2</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.06</li>
<li>24.00 – - 33.95mm f = 16.48 focal length</li>
<li>Fno 2.90 – 2.90 – 2.91</li>
<li>42.03 – - 32.51deg 52.70 angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>170.87 – - 172.62mm 178.10 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 40.00 – 48.45 – 61.71mm</li>
<li>Lens Construction 12 group 17 sheets</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD lens sheet</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 1.94</li>
<li>24.01 – - 33.98mm f = 17.51 ​​focal length</li>
<li>Fno 2.91 – 3.21 – 3.86</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>174.18 – - 175.92mm 178.81 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 41.60 – 48.49 – 60.70mm</li>
<li>Lens Construction 12 group 17 sheets</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD lens sheet</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 6</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.06</li>
<li>24.02 – - 33.99mm f = 16.49 focal length</li>
<li>Fno 2.15 – 2.46 – 2.94</li>
<li>42.02 – - 32.48deg 52.69 angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>171.08 – - 172.88mm 176.23 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 39.26 – 46.99 58.75mm</li>
<li>18 sheets 13 group lens configuration</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD lens sheet</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Canon’s patent</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>4-group zoom lens of a positive negative positive and negative</li>
<li>Inner Focus</li>
<li>Optimized so as to reduce the field curvature of the wide-angle side</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-03-30" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r </strong></p>
```


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 30, 2012)

No patent for a 14-24 f/4?

I think most would agree that the important number in that is the *14*mm, not the f/*2-2.8*

I'd guess a (12- or) 13-24 f/5.6 would probably sell more than even a 16-35 f/2.0 constant-aperture...


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 30, 2012)

I think i would run around like a school girl at a justin beiber concert screaming if they released a constant aperture f2.0 16-35


----------



## The_Shadow_Knows (Mar 30, 2012)

I will most certainly buy a 16-35 II with or without f2 if its corner to corner is as sharp as the Nikon 14-24. I don't want a 14-24 from Canon because it will add more weight, price, and most likely will not support filters.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Mar 30, 2012)

I would much prefer a wider lens than an updated, faster 16-35. The 14-24mm people talk about would be great but as someone has already pointed out - would it support filters? the Nikon 14-24mm (that's been around since 2007!) doesn't support screw on filters but is this something that Canon could develop? who knows. I think 16-35 is all we're going to see for a while


----------



## Norkusa (Mar 30, 2012)

I'd normally be excited about a new 16-35 f2.8 but Canon's pricing of the new 24-70 II makes me think it'll be too expensive.


----------



## dirtcastle (Mar 30, 2012)

Am I the only one who is more turned off by distortion of the 16-35mm than anything else? I know... you say I can "correct" it in post. BUT correcting it in post means a 16mm shot is effectively an 18-20mm shot after cropping. And some shots are kinda hard to correct in post.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I have heard numerous photographers say they’d pay “anything” for a top notch lens in that segment.



... providing it is under $1000, has IS and has a built in 1.4 ...... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Gcon (Mar 30, 2012)

16-35 f/2.8 - happy with that. Make it punchy and sharp like the 24-70 f/2.8L II, and keep the 82mm thread.

17-35 f/2.8-4 - God no! No variable aperture please!

16-35 f/2-2.8 - See above although this one is nicer than 17-35 f/2.8-4.

high-ISO abilities of the 5D3 negate the need for this wide apertures somewhat for faster shutter speeds, and I'd rather be stopped down a bit so focus isn't as hard to nail.

This is good news in any case. Looking forward to the 16-35mm f/2.8L III. Third time's a charm!


----------



## Doodah (Mar 30, 2012)

Quite obviously Canon needs a corner-to-corner sharp ultrawide lens to salvage their reputation. Seriously. They are also lagging behind competition in other key areas: low ISO dynamic range and fast contrast based AF for cameras like the G1X. 

If the 24-70 f/2.8 Mk2 lens is as good as the initial word of mouth, then all they need is a competitive uber-sharp ultrawide lens to complete their holy f/2.8 trinity.


----------



## Heidrun (Mar 30, 2012)

Dont want a new 16-35 . I want a 14-24 or even wider. If Canon dont come up with a super ultra wide lens. I might consider swapping over to Nikon


----------



## maxxevv (Mar 30, 2012)

lonelywhitelights said:


> I would much prefer a wider lens than an updated, faster 16-35. The 14-24mm people talk about would be great but as someone has already pointed out - would it support filters? the Nikon 14-24mm (that's been around since 2007!) doesn't support screw on filters but is this something that Canon could develop? who knows. I think 16-35 is all we're going to see for a while



If you're prepared to pay for filters with at least 128mm diameter of clear glass area ?!! If not, then its not even an idea to start with ...


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

Heidrun said:


> Dont want a new 16-35 . I want a 14-24 or even wider. If Canon dont come up with a super ultra wide lens. I might consider swapping over to Nikon



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> Am I the only one who is more turned off by distortion of the 16-35mm than anything else? I know... you say I can "correct" it in post. BUT correcting it in post means a 16mm shot is effectively an 18-20mm shot after cropping. And some shots are kinda hard to correct in post.



The distortion in just about any lens can be corrected without ANY intervention from you if you set Lightroom import up to correct lens distortion on Import. It's set & forget for _every _time you import into Lightroom.

These patents definitely look interesting. The 16-35 should be yummy if the improvements are anything like the promised improvements on the 24-70 f/2.8II.

Paul Wright


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 30, 2012)

I'd love an ultra-wide zoom with f/2 at the wide side, but I'd probably have to sell a kidney to buy it.

So I would settle for a reasonably priced 14-24mm f/4 with good IQ - theres a 14mm f/2.8 & 16-35mm f/2.8 for those who want fast.


----------



## JR (Mar 30, 2012)

My vote is either improve on the current 2.8 or get a f2 with good sharpness out there. I have been olding on getting a wide zoom because I find the current line-up is not optiomal (at least not compared to some of the Nikon equivalent).


----------



## JR (Mar 30, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I think i would run around like a school girl at a justin beiber concert screaming if they released a constant aperture f2.0 16-35



I would like to see that!


----------



## Dan Jurak (Mar 30, 2012)

Wait. Wait. Wait. As a long time Canon user, I bought an adapter to use the Nikon 14-24 and haven't looked back. I am more and more disappointed with Canon. They've had a long time to catch up to Nikon and their wide angle zoom. It's not a little bit better than Canon's it's a LOT better. 

I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.


----------



## Heidrun (Mar 30, 2012)

Dan Jurak said:


> Wait. Wait. Wait. As a long time Canon user, I bought an adapter to use the Nikon 14-24 and haven't looked back. I am more and more disappointed with Canon. They've had a long time to catch up to Nikon and their wide angle zoom. It's not a little bit better than Canon's it's a LOT better.
> 
> I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.



But you loose aotofocus and the electronic aperture dont you ig you use an adapter


----------



## Heidrun (Mar 30, 2012)

Dan Jurak said:


> Wait. Wait. Wait. As a long time Canon user, I bought an adapter to use the Nikon 14-24 and haven't looked back. I am more and more disappointed with Canon. They've had a long time to catch up to Nikon and their wide angle zoom. It's not a little bit better than Canon's it's a LOT better.
> 
> I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.



But you loose autofocus and the electronic aperture if you use an adapter


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 30, 2012)

Dan Jurak said:


> I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.



Translating Nikon being number two from Cockney Rhyming slang is an interesting observation ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dadgummit (Mar 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> So the list is:
> 
> A 16-35/2.8 is likely to be similar in cost, weight and issues to the current one. It would also be more expensive than the 16-35/2.8 II if it fixed sharpness/field curvature.
> 
> ...



Though it would be wonderful if true I do not believe any improved lens will be even close to the current pricing. Canon has been raising the prices of their improved products by 50-75% over the old price so i would expect the 16-35 f2.8 III to cost about $2300 and if there was a f2-2.8 version that would probably be closer to $3000. Our only hope is the 17-35 f2.8-4 that may "only" cost $1600 or so but if it had good corners and distortion I would be happy to loose the stop of light on the long end.


----------



## ddewit (Mar 30, 2012)

When? Does anybody have a clue when this 16-35 2.8 or 2.0/2.8 will be here?


----------



## peederj (Mar 30, 2012)

We need a standard format for filters that go into the back or side of a lens and slide in and out. Some of the big whites have a way of doing this, at the wide side perhaps even more important due to landscapes and nd grads. Ideally, a format you can adjust for grads and polarisers. But don't patent it, make it an open standard.

Oh and btw my 16-35L II is really impressive. Do I need faster than 2.8 that wide on FF? I don't see it personally. I don't want some lame soft LOCA-ridden wider aperture just for the sake of having it.


----------



## ddewit (Mar 31, 2012)

Does anyone know when the new lens will be available? I'm thinking of buying the 16-35..


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Mar 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> A 16-35/2.8 is likely to be similar in cost, weight and issues to the current one. It would also be more expensive than the 16-35/2.8 II if it fixed sharpness/field curvature.


The cost may be more if the price increase from the 24-70mm to the 24-70mm mark II is anything to go by.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 1, 2012)

ddewit said:


> Does anyone know when the new lens will be available? I'm thinking of buying the 16-35..


Well, these are theoretical lenses, so, it's impossible to say when it will be released. It might get announced before photo shows in April, it might wait til summer, it might never get released. The 5dIII "release date" rumors trace back to fall of 2010....so, anyone who waited based on that rumor waited a year and a half for the update.

If you need a wide-angle lens, go with the best available option now. If you don't need it, well, then you have the option to wait


----------



## ddewit (Apr 1, 2012)

ok thanks.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 2, 2012)

JR said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I think i would run around like a school girl at a justin beiber concert screaming if they released a constant aperture f2.0 16-35
> ...



If they make the lens i'll video the reaction and post it on youtube


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 2, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I'd love an ultra-wide zoom with f/2 at the wide side, but I'd probably have to sell a kidney to buy it.
> 
> So I would settle for a reasonably priced 14-24mm f/4 with good IQ - theres a 14mm f/2.8 & 16-35mm f/2.8 for those who want fast.



I'd agree with this. I have the 14mm L II. I also have the 16-35 II and 24-70. Major distortion to the extent that shot sI took of a distant harbour when looking closely the cranes have 'fallen down'. I see no real need for IS at this level though


----------

