Lens design for UWA is already difficult enough, add extra elements and an IS system to the equation and you've complicated things even further. IMO we won't see an in lens IS system in an EF-mount UWA for a while.
I see IS coming to the 24-70 as more likely than on a uwa. If a 14-24 does come out will the 16-35 me discontinued? How about an uwa for the 1D? Like say a 11-24?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
They won't drop the 16-35, it's a less specialized tool than the 14-24 IMO and will always be popular. I think a 14-24 is your UWA for a 1.3x crop.
18.2-31.2mm equivalent wide enough?
Jos Tesseract wrote:
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?
I think Wide Angles are one class of lens that are really crying out for IS. Their very nature (to get wide encompassing scenes) means that you often have to stop them down to get DOF...meaning less light...meaning greater chance of motion blur. I think (and hope) it's only a matter of time.
Another class of lenses that need IS are things like the 24L, 35L, 85L, 135L. Those are really crying out for IS. The 85L and 135L are impaired in their low light function simply by the need to get high shutter speeds like 1/100
As identified though, there are some possible technical reasons why it is not feasible at this time to give them IS.
If we really are looking for lenses where IS is useless, I would daresay lenses like the 600L IS or 800L IS, which would be crazy to handhold...but that would be my ignorance speaking. Users of those lenses may very well utilise the IS in those lenses too!
M Vers wrote:
Lens design for UWA is already difficult enough, add extra elements and an IS system to the equation and you've complicated things even further. IMO we won't see an in lens IS system in an EF-mount UWA for a while.
I think we'll see in-body IS before IS on an ultra-wide
Adam L wrote:
I think we'll see in-body IS before IS on an ultra-wide
Unless Canon redesigns a great number of its lenses, we won't see it on a full-frame camera any time soon. Why? Because the sensor would move outside of the image circle in its attempt to correct camera shake/movement and we would have significant vignetting as a result. The 1.3 X sensor could accomodate this without trouble due to the fact that the corners of the sensor do not reach the edge of the projected image circle.
Forget about UWA IS. This is about a lens, that may or may not get built. Usually they mention IS in the patents, so given that this one is not mentioned, I'd think it's not going to be IS.
I would love a 14-24 f2.8L, to go with a new 24-70 f2.8LII IS and a new 70-200 f2.8LII IS
Craig Gowens wrote:
I 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?!?!
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon have a MF body full of Canon electronics just as a method of exploring options of new markets.
hmmm....
A $12k-$15k small MF body that can do 5fps, iso from a native 50 to 3600.
Paul Pope on DPR reckons the 1 series concept is going (1Ds IV will be the last).
Soooo.. maybe they are indeed going to ditch 35mm at the top and and start a brand new system. No more EOS? You heard it here first! Let's see how long it takes to get to CanonRumors
Craig Gowens wrote:
I 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?!?!
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon have a MF body full of Canon electronics just as a method of exploring options of new markets.
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 14mm on medium format be the equivalent to something like 9mm in an fullframe format. Am I the only one who thinks that Canon won't be launching a MF camera with a 9mm equivalent lens?
Rather than starting a new thread I figured I'd post this here. Included are what looks like patents for a 14-24/2.8 (as seen in the OP), 60/2.8 IS macro and a 70-200/2.8 IS II.
Could be something like a 14-24L zoom maybe? Hard to say but the specs suggest something along those lines. Diagram-wise its' quite close to the 14L and 17-TSE, but it doesn't match either one, and they specifically show a couple of zoom implemenations...
Something to think about...
-Ed
far LESS interesting is STILL no hint of a 24-70 IS
jcolwell wrote:
I'm hoping it will be full frame and affordable, whatever that means. OTOH, if the memory module designated as Item 23 on Figure 11 is a CF card, then it's probably for a credit card-sized P&S. Just kidding...
P.S. Ed, do you spend a lot of time browsing optical system patents?
If a 14-24 does come out will the 16-35 me discontinued? How about an uwa for the 1D? Like say a 11-24? 
