Hold on to your seats, because Canon may be gearing up to release more ridiculous lenses, as a new patent application details.
The patent application, numbered 2023170260 and originating from Japan, introduces optical formulas for a range of RF mount lenses, including:
- 70-200mm f/2-2.8 DS
- 70-135mm f/2.5 DS
- 28-70mm f/1.6-2 DS
- 80-150mm f/1.8 DS
- 35-70mm f/1.8-2 DS
What sets these lenses apart from the crowd is the incorporation of Defocus Smoothing (DS) technology, which uses apodization filters to produce particularly smooth bokeh, albeit at the expense of light transmission. Canon's patent application seeks to address the challenge of achieving a uniform and excellent apodization effect across the entire zoom range while effectively minimizing peripheral dimming.
The most jaw-dropping aspect of the proposed lenses, though, is the astonishingly wide maximum apertures featured in these zoom lenses. Such apertures would redefine what photographers can achieve in various shooting conditions with a zoom lens. I can personally attest how much owning the RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM has changed the way I shoot, and to see the company exploring an even wider option is truly insane. The exceptionally large apertures not only enable photographers to shoot in low light with remarkable clarity and reduced noise (though that ability may be diminished with the DS technology) but also offer unparalleled creative control over depth of field, making them versatile tools for a wide range of photographic applications.
Canon's patent application aims to address the challenge of a DS system for a zoom lens while also minimizing vignetting. This breakthrough could open up new creative possibilities for photographers, enabling them to capture stunning images with beautifully blurred backgrounds, regardless of their zoom setting.
While Canon has not officially confirmed its plans regarding these lenses and the DO technology, the patent application offers a tantalizing glimpse into the company's dedication to pushing the boundaries of optical innovation. Without a doubt, such lenses would be both enormous and enormously expensive, so there's no guarantee we'll see any of them make it to the market, but it's neat to see Canon continuing to push boundaries.
It is great to see Canon doing something original and innovative! 3rd party lens makers have been pushing innovation for years, and Canon usually lags very far behind, so it is encouraging to see Canon actually being at the forefront of some new lens technology.
It is also encouraging to see Canon specifically address vignetting and trying to engineer lenses that will minimize or eliminate it. I have always hated corners that are darker than the center of the frame, and just using correction software is NOT a viable workaround. We need lenses that are optically better at avoiding the evils of vignetting in the first place, and so it makes me happy and relieved to see Canon taking this seriously.
"Canon usually lags very far behind"
When and in what reality did Canon ever lag behind in lens technology? Who else has a 28-70 f/2? Do you have any idea how long it took Sony to come out with lenses faster than f/1.4? DECADES. Or are you referring to unsharp China glass with f/0.95 but less light transmission than a Canon f/1.2? People buy Canon cameras for 3 things: Their skin tones, their ease of use and their selection of absolutely fantastic glass.
I am talking about highly specialized niche lenses, such a macro probe lenses, ultra wide angle macro lenses, supertelephoto zooms, etc. 3rd party lens makers have always made these type of innovative lenses before Canon has made them, and the 3rd party designs and specs are usually much more extreme than what Canon delivers, when they finally do deliver after years of procrastination.
Honestly, the extreme specialty niche lenses will never sell very well, because very few photographers want or need such unusual lenses. I believe this is why Canon does not rush to make such things - because there will never be enough units sold to make it worth their while. Hence, Canon is not as extreme when it comes to true, radical innovation that results in extremely unusual lens designs.
Canon doesn't do a lot of niche because they're focused on making huge profit with mostly mainstream equipment. But that being said, I would say Canon has the most niche lenses from any other manufacturer, take RF 5.2mm dual fisheye for example, several EF lenses they made with an integrated macro light or several motor-zoom lenses they have.
For Chinese 3rd party manufacturers it's much easier to produce edgy equipment, because they don't have a reputation to lose.
This is great news!
I just find funny how nobody writes about quad pixel AF Canon has developed and it seems to go into R1. All is now around global shutter.
For the past few years, we just assume that any high end mirrorless camera will automatically lock in on whatever we want and keep it in perfect focus no matter what. So with perfect autofocus being taken for granted these days, it's no wonder that the technicalities of AF are not being written about.
Seems like it. How good is 120 fps shooting on global shutter when you camera can't focus right 😉
I had exact same thing going with Sigma and Tamron on Canon dslr... They may have great quality lenses, but if they don't nail the focus, why would someone buy such a lens... Could that be one of the reasons Canon is blocking RF 😉
I am not sure what you said or meant. Did you mean that you had Sigma and Tamron lenses performing less than excellent, with regards to AF?
Yes Tom. Exactly.. Sigma and Tamron was cheaper than Canons lenses, but it was always trouble... 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8... And not only AF... Color and contrast also..
"They may have great quality lenses, but if they don't nail the focus"
No, your camera doesn't nail the focus, cause its AF isn't correctly calibrated for that lens. Which happens more often on the cheaper models. On mirrorless you don't have that problem, because focusing is done on the sensor itself.
" Could that be one of the reasons Canon is blocking RF"
It's mostly Canons selfish reasons to make more profit while keeping development cost low. If there is substantial competition, they gotta come up with better lenses than a 85mm f/2 for $500.
Micro adjustment or recalibration with the sensor is not a problem, but you know more than we'll that not every lens has the same AF speed... So it's not only about the camera focusing system and speed or accuracy. I was using Canon lenses on Sony a7 iii and didn't have problem.
I very much agree. Well said!
To say third party lenses don’t nail focus is ridiculous. Tamron and Sigma produce some stunning lenses for mirrorless. Their build quality may not be as high as a GM or Canon L lens but they are also a lot, lot cheaper.
They are slower... That's it. How many expensive lenses did you try that you are trying to argue? Tamron and Sigma was always slower than native lenses. Nail focus and focus slower is two different terms... I hope you shooting sports or wildlife
Tom R. Tell me you've not tried to AF on a subject having only vertical lines with a Canon MILC without telling me you haven't. Even the R3 has issues doing it.
The wording of your question is a little confusing to me, but my answer is that I have not switched over to mirrorless yet. Still using my Canon DSLRs, 5D4, 1D4, 6D. I use both Canon L series lenses and 3rd party lenses with these DSLRs.
Yet here you are, incorrectly stating that MILCs AF perfectly when in fact they do not.
Yup, exactly!
Maybe no one is talking about quad pixel AF because Canon has not yet officially announced it? They'll be talking about it plenty once Canon confirms it's going into the next top tier model(s).
This article is about patent Canon made... What is the difference between this and patent of quad pixel AF Michael?
What is the difference between the amount of "talk" this patent has created and the amount of "talk" QPAF has created? I've heard a LOT more regarding the possibility of QPAF for the last 3-4 years than about this. More people ARE talking about QPAF than about this. Just not in the comments to this article.
Too bad Canon cannot be innovative like Sony and their amazing, for the 20th century, 300mm f2.8. Instead Canon made a 300mm f2.8 for the 21st century by adding 100-299mm f2.8 to it.
Or unlike Sony and their amazing 24-70mm f2.8, Canon decided to go 21st century with the 24-105mm f2.8 instead.
And how can we forget such unimaginative Canon lenses like the 200-800mm f6.3-9 and the 5.2mm f2.8 lenses.
We could go on and on but you get the point. Ps Sony lenses have trouble with vignetting that's well-known.
Lawrence,
Yeah I wholeheartedly agree that Sony hasn't been very innovative with their lenses, either. But Canon has only been incrementally innovative, giving us marginal improvements on what has already been standard for years. I mean, just opening up one stop on a lens that has already been around for decades isn't really exponential, earth-shattering innovation - it is just incremental improvement. 24-105 going from f4 to f2.8 - yeah that's cool and useful, but certainly not a wildly creative innovation.
I wouldn't call the 200-800mm f9 truly innovative. I have been shooting with a 300-800mm f5.6 for years and years. So Canon expands on what my Sigma offered by going down to 200mm instead of 300mm .... but they took a stop and a third away, so is that really earth-shattering innovation? Or is it just giving us something slightly different than what we have been using for decades?
Some of the 3rd party lens makers have been truly innovative, by giving us lenses like a 15mm wide angle that is also a true 1:1 macro lens! Or the 18mm, 24mm, and 28mm Macro Probe lenses! Or a 60-600mm 10x zoom supertelephoto!
I know Canon and Sony will get there some day, but how long will we have to wait for the major name-brand manufacturers to make such extreme niche specialty lenses? I am honestly concerned that I may die before they get around to it.
For those of us in our senior years, it is a legitimate concern that we may pass on before Canon, Sony, and Nikon make all of the lenses that we would like them to make. It is great to see some innovative progress, but it is taking them forever to actually do these things that some 3rd party manufacturers have already figured out years ago.
If you look at the Canon RF lenses the innovative ones far out distance even 3rd party lenses. And the ones I already are not incremental but truly groundbreaking.
Add the 600mm and 800mm small lenses that no one comes close to .
Look at the Canon list of RF lenses and you will find there are ground breaking lenses. Add the small compact 70-200mm lenses that no one comes close to having.
I am looking at Canon's list of RF lenses, but I am just not seeing what you are seeing. I am seeing a lot of good, useful lenses that have incremental improvements over the traditional lenses of the past 15 to 25 years, but I am not seeing any that are "groundbreaking", or radically different than the traditional lenses.
Incremental?
5.6mm f2.8 VR lens, 800mm f11, 600mm f11, 24-105mm f2.8, 100-300mm f2.8, 200-800mm, 70-200mm f2.8 that's incredibly compact among others that no one else even comes close to havin.
If anythin Sony is the me too copy cat of old lenses everyone else has had and Nikon not too far ahead of Sony but with a couple innovative lenses but nothing compared to Canon.
You mention Sony twice now as not being innovative. Don't you get that I agree entirely that Sony is not innovative with their lenses?
Everybody already makes a 24-105 f4. So coming out with a 24-105 f2.8, being one stop faster, is an incremental improvement. They are taking what has already existed and improved it by one increment.
How can you see the new 200-800mm f9 as being truly innovative when Sigma has already had a 300-800mm f5.6 for years and years. Canon gives an incremental 100mm extra on the wide end, but takes away far more by closing it all the way down to f9 on the long end.
800mm f11 is innovative? Huh? They have already had a wonderful 800mm f5.6 for many years. How is crippling it with an f11 aperture innovative? They just cripple it so much so that it is small, light, and cheap. That is not innovation. Dumbing something down to make it cheap isn't innovate.
Ditto for the 600mm f11.
100-300mm f2.8 is somewhat innovative over what has existed before, I'll give you that.
Do you know what I call innovative?
Laowa 15mm f4 macro shift lens is truly innovative! Yes, true macro with an actual 1:1 magnification ratio, in a wide angle. How close does Canon come to that?
Astr-Hori 18mm f8 Macro Probe is truly innovative! Its "needlenose" design lets you get it into small crevices to shoot, like between the pages of a book. And it is a true macro, capable of full 2x magnification.
Likewise the Laowa 24mm f13 Macro Probe.
The Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 is truly innovative. It is, admittedly, not useful at all, due to its humongous weight. But it surely is innovative, and was made decades ago when nothing even close was being made by anyone.
Canon did make one lens that I consider truly innovative - the 1200mm f5.6. As far as I know, nobody made anything like it at the time it was manufactured.
Until thouse days Sony users still shooting on Canon EF 200/2.0 released in 2008... And not few of them. Sony won't be as innovative if they had the same market share... I like Sony and what they do, but Canon 28-70/2.0, 10-20... Can't see that from Sony... Why?
Sony have concentrated in making excellent lenses like the 14 24 35 and 50 f1.4 along with stunning traditional zooms. I think Sony cameras are terrible to use but their lenses are stunning. All these new lenses will have three things in common , they will be big, heavy and expensive . I know a few canon shooters who would love a rf mount 35-150 Tamron .
"Sony lenses have trouble with vignetting that's well-known."
Exactly. Have and always will. Cause their mount diameter is for an APS-C camera.
Good lord these are going to be expensive, I just know it... No doubt brilliant and worth every penny to some portrait and sports photographers, but man are they going to be expensive.
Do Canon even care about making "normal" lenses anymore? 😂 Feels like every other lens is an experiment. (And I love ❤️ it TBH)
As a Sony user and former Canon user, now I can see the bigger mount paying off for Canon.
I did not know that Sony lenses yield dark corners and edges. Personally, I absolutely hate the nasty look of dark corners, and want the corners of my images to be just as bright and sharp and clear as the very middle of the frame. Damn Sony for not designing their gear to give me that! And no, using lens correction software after the fact is not a viable alternative to having captured bright, clear corners in the first place.
I thought I was going to really like shooting with Sony, but if their mount produces vignetting, then I will have to rethink my plans about switching to them. Bright edges and corners are just so important for what I shoot and the way I shoot it and what I am looking for in the final image.