I would be happy if it was 14-24 f/4L to keep cost down, and I'm not interested in f/2.8 for UWA. Doesn't need IS at all IMO. Keep IS for the 24-70L update.
It outlines two fix-focals and two zooms, and static data for six points in these products. The primes are 14F/2.8 with an image circle of r21mm (FF), and a 17F/4 with r33 (a T/S lens?). The zooms: One is a 14-18mm zoom F/4-4.7 with r21 (FF), the other is a 20-24mm F/4-4.4 with a r29 () projection. FF has a projection circle of r21.6mm.
have you ever picked up a nikon 14-24 2.8? it ain't exactly a lightweight.
Chefdaniel wrote:
I couldn't imagine this not happening and quickly. An upgrade to the heavy and huge 24-70 would be nice as well. Nikon released its 90mm Macro patent and two weeks later it was out on the wire. Cant wait to see this one..
have you ever picked up a nikon 14-24 2.8? it ain't exactly a lightweight.
But as Tamron and Sigma have shown, it doesn't have to be as huge. They are as good optically despite their smaller sizes, especially the Tamron. It's a 28mm not 24mm, but the 28-70L isn't much smaller than the 24-70L.
jcowell - actually I do peruse the patents quite a bit. one for looking up old lenses, to learn of their design ideas. And two, to see what companies are up to recently.
theSuede - indeed, in the patent they describe several iterations of it, but interestingly really only one diagram/optical formula. they are deliberately vague in the patent too, talking about silver halide (film) camera usage, digital and/or video camera usage also. The patent reads a lot more vague and general than many of their lens patents in the past, which is somewhat odd. They seem to be hedging their bets some, or else it's a catch-all patent for some recent lenses (TSE 17?) and some forthcoming ones (zooms?). Usually patents on lenses though are for a specific lens, not a general concept.
Additionally, it specs out 5 aspherical surfaces (similar to 14-24 nikon I'd guess), which is a hell of a lot, and bound to add to cost.
Also, on lens patents, usually there are multiple iterations in a given patent - basically listing 3 or so versions of a given lens, with one being the production model. Not sure why that is usually done but it's the case often. that might explain the multiple zoom options. I highly doubt they'd actually put out a zoom from 14-18 or 20-24 (too limited, and no need for that big of a front element setup for something only 20mm focal length), so my guess is it's a combination of the two ranges, e.g. 14-24.
Even if this patent is designed to cover multiple lenses (e.g. 14L II and 17-TSE), it still doesn't explain the zoom iterations, as those don't exist (yet) as far as I can tell from comparison with existing canon lenses and their formulas. So, my guess is they still have a wide 14-24L type zoom on the horizon, most likely.
Also given the image circle radiuses, it's clearly not EF-S.
wish i had access to my optical design programs from my old work, id just pop in those lens radii and tell you what theyre making
a 14-24 would be sooo awesome
In the patent, on the cover page, I see 15 elements in 13 groups.
In Figure 1, there are 15 elements in 13 groups in the same configuration as the cover image.
In Figure 3, there are 17 elements in 14 groups.
In Figures 5 and 8, there are 14 elements in 12 groups. They are undoubtedly zooms.
EDIT: Digging deeper in the patent...
theSuede is right. The first zoom is a 14-18mm f/4-4.7 and the second is a 20-24mm f/4-4.4. The angles of view listed for the 14-18mm conform to the specs of a full frame sensor, but something is definitely up with the 20-24mm. The opening size and the angle of view would conform to...wait for it, a sensor size of approximately 49.8x33.2mm. SMALL MEDIUM FORMAT! Canon 645?!?!
Wow, witness my previous seat-of-the-pants logic utterly crash and burn. Not only that, but I should just refrain from interpreting these sorts of drawings as I am seemingly immune to correctly reading the quantity of elements
You guys seemingly really know this stuff backwards and forwards - keep the speculation coming, it's an interesting read.
When you stop down a lens, the aperture is made smaller, so less light comes in.
When less light comes in, a longer shutter duration is required to obtain a given exposure (assuming we hold ISO constant), increasing motion blur.
IS helps reduce camera shake induced motion blur
For the typical use of an UWA, IS would not allow you a long enough exposure for it to be useful. Not to mention if you want to do exposure and/or focus bracketing... or shoot multiple frames for pano. Besides, no self respecting landscape shooter would be caught dead without a tripod.
n0b0 wrote:
For the typical use of an UWA, IS would not allow you a long enough exposure for it to be useful. Not to mention if you want to do exposure and/or focus bracketing... or shoot multiple frames for pano. Besides, no self respecting landscape shooter would be caught dead without a tripod.
This is a very narrow view. There are photographers beyond landscape types who require a fast wide angle lens. When did UWA's become the sole domain of landscape photographers?
Tripods are impractical for wedding and event photographers like to drag shutters at speeds like 1/4, 1/5 etc. Being able to handhold an image at 1/5, 1/10 or 1/15 is a godsend, and subject motion is rarely an issue for those wide shots where people are tiny in them. Camera motion in absence of IS is though. If you'd like I can send you about 1000 otherwise usable 14L II photos I have that were ruined due to camera shake, at shutters like 1/15, 1/10 etc
yeah and i dont know about many of the other landscape guys out there, but the 16mm is usually to wide for normal landscape stuff. I lot of my landscape stuff at 10mm is more like nature photography than landscape
Dawei Ye wrote:
This is a very narrow view. There are photographers beyond landscape types who require a fast wide angle lens. When did UWA's become the sole domain of landscape photographers?
Tripods are impractical for wedding and event photographers like to drag shutters at speeds like 1/4, 1/5 etc. Being able to handhold an image at 1/5, 1/10 or 1/15 is a godsend, and subject motion is rarely an issue for those wide shots where people are tiny in them. Camera motion in absence of IS is though. If you'd like I can send you about 1000 otherwise usable 14L II photos I have that were ruined due to camera shake, at shutters like 1/15, 1/10 etc...Show more →
I did say "for the typical use". What do you think that phrase implies?
Mate... wedding is about the people, what's the point of shooting with a UWA where the people are so tiny that motion blur doesn't matter? And even if you do shoot with UWA, I don't think it would be very often.
How about some sample shots of that situation you just described? Or perhaps some wedding photographers here can shed some light on this matter?
It's much too large and complex for any point-and-shoot lens. Canon is not making film P&S's either really, as far as I know. (at least not any new ones).
Re: sensor size on the 20-24mm iteration - I doubt there's a Canon digital 645 in the works, that seems unlikely, since there were no patents for new cameras/sensors/etc. that would indicate something like that was afoot. Plus they'd need way more than one new lens to go with it. I'd think maybe something more along the lines of a tilt/shift zoom, possibly? I still think they (Canon) are being somewhat obtuse with the patent and rather than 2 zooms it's really 1 that is more likely, covering both ranges.
cgardner wrote:
Check out Figure 11 in the documentation for a hint at what the next camera Pro body will look like
No, the note for that one clearly screams P&S for the Myspace generation. It's going to have a projector like the recently released Nikon. For all the bitching a lot of you guys do, it's getting to the point where a lot of it is valid. It seems like Canon is making no attempt to be cutting edge anymore, and waiting for Nikon to release new stuff so they can replicate the ideas for their line.
dimitris77 wrote:
Why would you need IS on an ultra wide?
You wouldn't [except in low-light conditions, shooting hand-held] but that doesn't mean Canon won't put it there. If it means they can make a couple hundred dollars more, using existing technology, why not?
For architecture I have my absolute dream lens in the TS-E 17 now. For walk around purposes a 14-24 would be very welcome only if it does not have the large front element. You have to be so careful.
) projection. FF has a projection circle of r21.6mm.
