# Patent: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.2-f/2.8



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 13, 2018)

> We’re likely going to see a flurry of RF mount lens patents over the next few years. EF lens development generally builds off previous designs, RF lens development, for the most part, is going to be all new. I think we’re likely to see some crazy and cool concepts over the next few years from Canon.
> This patent application is for a different 28-70mm, which doesn’t resemble the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM at all. This patent shows a 28-70mm lens that is much smaller at 155mm compared to the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM at just shy of 200mm.
> 
> *Japan Patent Application 2018-197774:*
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## ketilring (Dec 13, 2018)

Just make a RF 20-50mm f/2.8 L IS and I’m in


----------



## memoriaphoto (Dec 14, 2018)

I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens. 28-70 is a comprimise on the wide end, but if you get 2.0 all the way through then I think many can live with that. I mean...that lens is sexy.

But 2.2 - 2.8? Nah... then I would prefer 24mm wide and 2.8


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 14, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens. 28-70 is a comprimise on the wide end, but if you get 2.0 all the way through then I think many can live with that. I mean...that lens is sexy.
> 
> But 2.2 - 2.8? Nah... then I would prefer 24mm wide and 2.8


Where I live the 28-70F2 lens is $3900..... that makes it a hard sell to all but the most fanatic. A slower version of the lens means it will be a lot more affordable. Perhaps the "new way" with the R mount will be F4 for economical/physically smaller, F2.8 for those who want faster and can afford it, and F2 for theones where money and size is no object.

Lets see what happens with the 70-200 series, and lets see what is to come for wide.....


----------



## flip314 (Dec 14, 2018)

The 28-70 f2 is also a beast... I'm sure it's a great lens (and I want one!), but it sounds impractical to use as a walk around lens. If the 28-70 2.2-2.8 is significantly lighter than the f2 there could well be a market for it.

I'm still most looking forward to a great 24-70 f2.8 with IS.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 14, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens.



This is not a lens. It is a patent for an optical formula. Most patents never become products and are simply exploratory engineering or byproducts of a design that actually ends up on the shelves. CR guy himself said that it’s doubtful that this is ever productized.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Dec 14, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> This is not a lens. It is a patent for an optical formula.



OK, I don't see the point of the patent for the reasons I wrote…


----------



## memoriaphoto (Dec 14, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Where I live the 28-70F2 lens is $3900..... that makes it a hard sell to all but the most fanatic. A slower version of the lens means it will be a lot more affordable. Perhaps the "new way" with the R mount will be F4 for economical/physically smaller, F2.8 for those who want faster and can afford it, and F2 for theones where money and size is no object.
> 
> Lets see what happens with the 70-200 series, and lets see what is to come for wide.....



right, but my point was the 28mm at the wide end and how far one is willing to go to sacrifice the conventional 24mm


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 14, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> right, but my point was the 28mm at the wide end and how far one is willing to go to sacrifice the conventional 24mm


I am fairly sure that the vast majority will go for the 24-70 F2.8 or F4, but for the few who REALLY want that F2, I am equally sure they will give up those 4mm to get it.

It’s like the people shooting Astro..... they get a F 1.4 lens. That 1.4 is useless for almost everything else, but if you need it for that one task, then you need it.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Dec 15, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I am fairly sure that the vast majority will go for the 24-70 F2.8 or F4, but for the few who REALLY want that F2, I am equally sure they will give up those 4mm to get it.
> 
> It’s like the people shooting Astro..... they get a F 1.4 lens. That 1.4 is useless for almost everything else, but if you need it for that one task, then you need it.



2.0 yes. I was referring to the patent of a 28-70/2.2-2.8


----------



## JoseB (Dec 15, 2018)

I think that this is a patent for the optical formula. 
The 28-70 is an example of the formula aplication. Could be a 26-73 or so.
My thougth.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> 2.0 yes. I was referring to the patent of a 28-70/2.2-2.8


My mistake! I corrected my post to 2.2.


----------



## degos (Dec 15, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens



Conversely I don't see the point of the 24-70 f2.8 EF. If it can open to f2.8 at 70mm then it can also theoretically open to MUCH brighter than f2.8 at 24mm, but Canon cripple it to f2.8. All that extra glass is wasted at the wide end.

This new formula looks like a sensible kick in the pants for decades of fixed-at-2.8 thinking.


----------



## juststeve (Dec 15, 2018)

degos said:


> Conversely I don't see the point of the 24-70 f2.8 EF. If it can open to f2.8 at 70mm then it can also theoretically open to MUCH brighter than f2.8 at 24mm, but Canon cripple it to f2.8. All that extra glass is wasted at the wide end.
> 
> This new formula looks like a sensible kick in the pants for decades of fixed-at-2.8 thinking.


This could be a very compact lens, about the size of a 24-70/4. Notice how little the lens extends for the tele end. Notice how short it is relative to width. Back in the day, I owned the 28-80/2.8-4 L. Quality was spectacular and so was the size. With the change in lens design parameters RF vs. EF, perhaps a similarly spectacular lens could be made now but much more compactly.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 16, 2018)

28-70mm is one of those focal lengths that make no sense to me. 
24-70 has some element of wide angle capability.
I've always felt 28mm was an annoying focal length - neither here not there.
I don't think this lens will fly.


----------



## maves (Dec 17, 2018)

I've always found the long end of 24-70's to be a funny range. I would love to see them stretch a couple more MM out of the long end. 28(or even 35)-85mm f2/2.8. That would be a wedding/portrait go to. The 55-70 range is neither here nor there for me.


----------



## jonebize (Dec 17, 2018)

Wider is better than the 70mm reach. I would rather see a 24-58 honestly. But I do love the variable aperture logic. 20-50 f/2-2.8, 20-35mm f/2.0, or even 24-50 f/2-2.8 would be cool. Or 24-50/2.0. I shoot at the wider end almost the whole time when using a 24-70mm and would rather have the stop than the longer range. I hope that 28-X lenses don't become the trend.


----------



## jonebize (Dec 17, 2018)

I wish they would come up with a better pair of lenses for event shooting -- where it would make more sense to break the zoom ranges at 35 instead of 24 (or even 28). Like I said above, a 20-35mm f/2.0 would be amazing. But it would need to be paired with something like a 35-100mm lens for event shooters using two lenses. The 35-100mm could be variable aperture, moderately fast, and get the job done. I also like maves' idea of a 35-85/2.0-2.8. A 35-105mm f/2.8 would obviously be great. But even a 35-105/2.5-3.5 or f/2.8-4.0 would work well for me. But I do feel like you would need f/2.8 at 50mm.

The zoom ranges should "break" at where a person no longer considers images to be wide angle. I would say 35mm would be appropriate for that.

Obviously a Sigma 24-35/2.0 already exists. I would be happy even if there were a 35-100mm or fast 35-85mm lens somewhere on the market to complement it.


----------

