# Patent: Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 10, 2014)

```
<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=15775"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15775">Tweet</a></div>
<p>A patent for an EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS has appeared. Along with this lens is a patent for the EF 24-70 f/4L IS. I do think Canon does need a new full frame non-L zoom lens to go into less expensive kits, or for an even less expensive full frame camera down the road.</p>
<p><strong>Description and self-interpretation of the patent literature</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Patent Publication No. 2014-16464,2014-16465
<ul>
<li>Publication date 2014.1.30</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.7.9</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Example 3
<ul>
<li>Macro when in parentheses</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.84 (2.87)</li>
<li>Focal length f = 24.30-35.10-69.00mm (67.23-60.62)</li>
<li>Fno. 4.10 (5.28-5.56)</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 41.68-31.65-17.41 ° (17.84-19.64)</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64mm</li>
<li>134.65-141.04-164.94mm overall length of the lens (162.09-152.75)</li>
<li>BF 39.15-46.02-59.68mm (64.95-67.73)</li>
<li>β = -0.17 (-0.7)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Example 4
<ul>
<li>Macro when in parentheses</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 3.42 (2.84)</li>
<li>Focal length f = 24.30-35.10-82.99mm (68.22-64.03)</li>
<li>Fno. 3.58-4.42-5.89 (5.92-5.87)</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 41.68-31.65-14.61 ° (17.60-18.67)</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64mm</li>
<li>126.64-128.32-155.92mm overall length of the lens (149.57-148.58)</li>
<li>BF 39.39-49.31-64.14mm (65.59-65.96)</li>
<li>β = -0.17 (-0.6)</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Canon patents
<ul>
<li>(4, etc. as in Example 3) seven-group zoom of positive and negative positive and negative positive positive and negative</li>
<li>(4, etc. the second group, as in Example 3) inner focus</li>
<li>implement the macro function by the first group fed out to the object side</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-02-10" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## chmteacher (Feb 10, 2014)

Boring, slow, and the opposite of innovative.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 10, 2014)

Agree on the need of a consumer zoom. FF prices will fall, and as it does, there will be a market for consumer FF zooms.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 10, 2014)

chmteacher said:


> Boring, slow, and the opposite of innovative.


Eh, what can they really innovate in that spectrum? They already have the whole 24-xx spectrum covered; they just need to update the 28-135.

They'd obviously have to sell this below the street price of the 24-105 to have any chance of it selling well; it'll be interesting to see if they can release something like this for <$600.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Feb 10, 2014)

overkill. really doesn't seem necessary AT ALL imho. different thoughts? lol


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Feb 10, 2014)

At first I thought "boring". Really, a 24-70L f4? But then I thought of it as broadening their range. There's not much in the middle. You got low and high. Okay, boring but practical at least.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Feb 10, 2014)

Poor Canon. About to lose a TON of its video shooters to Panasonic with the GH4. Getting beat now by Sigma in regards to stellar optics at an affordable price. Trying to merely catch Nikon on the UWA. I really hope the "year of the lens" is more than just vari-aperture designs an IS updates to relatively slow primes.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 10, 2014)

EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS = :'(


----------



## verysimplejason (Feb 10, 2014)

It'll be useful only if it's priced significantly below the white-boxed 24-105 L lens and its IQ comparable again to the 24-105 L (at least near it).


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 10, 2014)

preppyak said:


> Eh, what can they really innovate in that spectrum? They already have the whole 24-xx spectrum covered; they just need to update the 28-135.



Not really, on both counts. This looks like Canon is trying to build some new low-end kit lenses for convincing people to switch from crop-body cameras to full-frame cameras. If you want to get the low-end consumers to move from EF-S to EF, you need a lens that will feel similar to what they're shooting with now. Lots of folks shoot with the 18–55 kit lens, which is angle-equivalent to about a 29–88. For those folks, a 24–85 lens is a pretty good match—wider at the wide end, and only slightly wider at the long end.

The big problem I see with this is that they're adding this lens into a market that already offers a better full-frame kit lens (the 24–105), with more reach, and a bigger aperture (except at the widest setting), for not a whole lot of money. If this lens costs, for example, $500, I'd expect most folks to instead pony up the extra couple hundred bucks for a white-box 24–105. The tiny bit of extra light gathering at the wide end can't make up for the loss at the other end, and the extra reach of the 24–105 gets it a lot closer to what most EF-S camera users use. The only way this lens makes sense is if it is just ridiculously cheap—we're talking shorty forty cheap.

In other words, I'm not sure why they bothered. But more than that, I really don't understand why they would produce a FF equivalent to the kit lens, but not to the step-up lenses. Of the crop-body camera owners who upgrade to a step-up lens, I'm pretty sure the majority choose either either the 15–85 or 18–135 lens, and Canon has nothing equivalent to either of those lenses. The closest they come to a FF equivalent of the 15–85 is the 28–135, which is noticeably less wide on the wide end. And Canon doesn't have anything even remotely comparable to the 18–135 unless you either include discontinued lenses or the 28–300L monstrosity.

So... I just have no idea what their marketing people are thinking. IMO, Canon *seriously* needs consumer-grade, image-stabilized 24–135 and 28–250 lenses. They sure as heck don't need a 24–85. Just my $0.02.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 10, 2014)

The idea of a Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens is nothing very fascinating. (Unlike Canon’s EF 200-400mm 1.4x f/4 L USM IS which I believe is a phenomenal lens!)
However I do see it might have merit if Canon can produce it at a price at least a couple hundred dollars lower than the 24-70mm L IS (which I believe is its current closest ‘competition’). 

Canon already have produced a 24-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM but without IS. See some reviews / user reports here:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/185-canon-ef-24-85mm-f35-45-usm-lab-test-report--review 
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/59/cat/11 
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/6/sort/7/cat/27/page/1 
It does ok, but doesn’t performing that well wide open and while it has USM, it doesn’t have IS. So, to me, it’s a new 24-85mm might be close to the same size (or even slightly smaller) than the current 24-70mm L IS, it could win if it’s a ‘budget’ option. I agree with some other posts, that the 24-105mm is still a compelling budget option too (it’s L and weather sealed, but not optically the most brilliant across the board, but it’s got decent bang for the buck).

I used to have the 28-135mm USM IS (and a decent copy of that), however I sold it after I bought an EF-S 15-85mm (much more practical zoom range for an APS-C). 
I could see some people pairing a decent (new) EF 24-85mm with a 6D, if it was priced right –and had at least decent (if not stellar) optics, especially ‘wide open’.

Let’s see what eventuates!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 10, 2014)

Makes sense, with full frame sensors moving down the line, Canon needs to reinvent the entry level full frame standard zoom. FWIW the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is no longer listed on the Canon Europe website.


----------



## dufflover (Feb 10, 2014)

They need some sort of cheap FF kit lens. They just need to remember to make it cheap.
You fixed/variable aperture snobs can go on whinging though; this never is/was about saying it's a "good" lens though good to see Canon's recent releases even down the consumer end (like the EF-S STMs) have great IQ.

This is purely for the people who are convinced to buy one because it comes with a lens that doesn't add a bucketload of cost. Better getting them a body with future possibilities of sales than not getting the body sale at all because the price shot up too much with the L-zoom.


----------



## rs (Feb 10, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Makes sense, with full frame sensors moving down the line, Canon needs to reinvent the entry level full frame standard zoom. FWIW the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is no longer listed on the Canon Europe website.


+1

While this lens isn't for me or most of the people who read this site, Canon sell a huge number of rebels with kit lenses. This is merely a FF kit lens, hopefully with a price tag, size and weight to match. Just look at the myriad of 28-80 and 28-90 kit zooms that Canon used to make to get an idea of what this lens could represent.

Let's hope that the intention of this patent at least means the the intention to make a FF rebel and/or SL1/100D to compliment this lens - not now, but a couple of years down the line when FF sensor prices drop further


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 10, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Eh, what can they really innovate in that spectrum? They already have the whole 24-xx spectrum covered; they just need to update the 28-135.
> ...



The whole point in a kit lens is for the photographer to start with something cheap so they would get a good idea what lens they want to spend good money on (wider and/or longer, faster, etc).

In other words, I doubt people would start with APS-C + 18-55mm and say "oh, I like the lens, we just want a bigger sensor", and fork the cash needed for a 6D + EF 24-85mm.

The scenarios I see are

A) APS-C + kit -> upgrade lens -> possibly buy more lenses -> upgrade to FF

B) Cheap FF w/ EF 24–85 in the kit -> upgrade lenses.

In the later case, a cheaper than the current 24-105mm kit would make it easier to buy FF as first camera, skipping APS-C cameras altogether.


----------



## verysimplejason (Feb 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So that would spell the end of the 24-105.



It will entirely depend on the IQ and price...


----------



## rs (Feb 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So that would spell the end of the 24-105.


Example 3 on this patent is quite likely the end of the 24-105.


----------



## traveller (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm not sure that this isn't just a possibility that Canon patented when it was designing full-frame macro capable standard zooms; it seems to me that what we actually got was the 24-70 f/4 IS. 

Does Canon need a lower price kit lens? That depends upon the price of the camera body; it seems that kit lenses tend to fall into the "cost ~25-33% of camera body price" bracket. Currently the 24-105 is selling for $1100/£650, which is fine for the $3200/£2300 5D Mk3, but a bit high for the $1750/£1350 6D. 

Canon are also deeply Nikon focused (and vice-versa), Nikon have a cheaper kit option with their new 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR at $2296. Whilst the 6D has the better lens, for the uninitiated $2450/£1925 is still more expensive than the Nikon kit. On top of this, I'd be willing to bet that Canon is making a lower profit margin on its 6D kit than Nikon is on their D610 kit. This would leave them vulnerable to any price cutting promotion from Nikon, so there is probably some justification for a cheaper kit lens option, however boring to forum members!


----------



## Woody (Feb 10, 2014)

Nikon has a cheap low weight (465g) 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR lens as cheap kit lens.

Canon's patent calls for 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

Hope Canon can improve on this unless Canon's version is MUCH lighter.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2014)

pj1974 said:


> However I do see it might have merit if Canon can produce it at a price at least a couple hundred dollars lower than the 24-70mm L IS (which I believe is its current closest ‘competition’).



Doesn't mean much as the 24-70L/4 is still overpriced - but probably this upcoming new lens is the reason for that, they don't want to compete with themselves but intended to leave some space below all along.



rs said:


> Example 3 on this patent is quite likely the end of the 24-105.



... and as the new lens won't be sealed Canon at least gets rid of the competitior for their 24-70L zooms, making people interested in a large zoom lens buy a 70-xyz right away :->


----------



## vscd (Feb 10, 2014)

I really liked the idea of a new 24-85. But it will depend on the price, IQ and the *size/weight*. 

The 24-105L is too big and heavy in my eyes and the 28-135 is not wide enough (and big, too). My old 24-85 is a nice small and capable lense and a *real* alltime-workhorse. Of course it's not fast or even weathersealed, but it's sharp from f5.6 on to at least f11 and the USM is fast and nearly silent. I shortly thought of replacing it with the 24-70L4, but the L was too big anyway. 

It's one of the few lenses I would never get rid of. I just wonder why the new one will be 3.5-5.6 as the old one is 3.5-4.5. But that's most likely because of the longer IS-calculation.

Example: [email protected] (straight out of a 5D) http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/24_85.jpg


----------



## TrabimanUK (Feb 10, 2014)

dufflover said:


> They need some sort of cheap FF kit lens. They just need to remember to make it cheap.
> You fixed/variable aperture snobs can go on whinging though; this never is/was about saying it's a "good" lens though good to see Canon's recent releases even down the consumer end (like the EF-S STMs) have great IQ.
> 
> This is purely for the people who are convinced to buy one because it comes with a lens that doesn't add a bucketload of cost. Better getting them a body with future possibilities of sales than not getting the body sale at all because the price shot up too much with the L-zoom.



I agree. I would add that being the 5Dc is a nice cheap entry level FF body for those wanting to dip their toe in the FF water, they then get hit with a lot of L-series expensive glass (even second hand lenses). Having a cheap FF zoom alternative to learn about FF would be realy useful and allow people to aspire to the world of L-series. 

I doubt this lens would be for the hardened user who already has a supply of L-series, but would be a good introduction or "even walk around and not get robbed" lens.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 10, 2014)

dufflover said:


> They need some sort of cheap FF kit lens. They just need to remember to make it cheap.
> You fixed/variable aperture snobs can go on whinging though; this never is/was about saying it's a "good" lens though good to see Canon's recent releases even down the consumer end (like the EF-S STMs) have great IQ.
> This is purely for the people who are convinced to buy one because it comes with a lens that doesn't add a bucketload of cost. Better getting them a body with future possibilities of sales than not getting the body sale at all because the price shot up too much with the L-zoom.


It is time to replace the mediocre 28-135mm. It makes no sense to buy 6D to use zoom low quality. Being this 24-85mm only F5.6 at tele side, needs to be lightweight and cost less than $ 500 in kit with 6D. There is also a gap to be filled with a lens 28-200mm IS.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 10, 2014)

vscd said:


> I really liked the idea of a new 24-85. But it will depend on the price, IQ and the *size/weight*.
> 
> The 24-105L is too big and heavy in my eyes and the 28-135 is not wide enough (and big, too). My old 24-85 is a nice small and capable lense and a *real* alltime-workhorse. Of course it's not fast or even weathersealed, but it's sharp from f5.6 on to at least f11 and the USM is fast and nearly silent. I shortly thought of replacing it with the 24-70L4, but the L was too big anyway.
> 
> ...



I still have my old 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 as well. I don't use it since I got my 15-85, but I would love to see a resurrection with modern optical quality and IS in the case I were to move to full frame.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 10, 2014)

WoodyWindy said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I really liked the idea of a new 24-85. But it will depend on the price, IQ and the *size/weight*.
> ...



Yes that would be good; the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 is a deliciously compact lens, but the image quality is sadly lacking.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Feb 10, 2014)

This is Canons new strategy for sure - patents.

-"What...do you NEED the lens as well? C'mon, that's just for pixelpeepers..."


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Feb 10, 2014)

Was there a previous patent published for the 24-70L f/4 IS?

The filing date of this was not long before the announcement and release of that lens. Is the embodiment described (number 3) that of the current 24-70L f/4 IS, or is there a difference?

Also, does anybody know if Japenese patent law has a provision similar to our 102(g) rule?


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Feb 10, 2014)

Canon had a 24-85 kit lens that it sold with the ill fated IX-APS series. It was a good - or a terrible - lens depending upon which physical lens you got and the variety was an insult to quality control techniques.
Then came the 28-105 with the A2/A2E series and later the 28-135IS. Ignoring the "L" lenses, Canon has
tried this range again and again (don't forget the terrible 28-90 throw-aways that came with film Rebels).
Maybe this time they'll get the lens right - but I'll bet the price will be wrong.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Maybe this time they'll get the lens right - but I'll bet the price will be wrong.



Good iq and good price at least for some time after the lens' release are mutually exclusive - it's a market system after all. If you want a good price you have to look with a product that has some flaws that you can live with but others cannot - like the 6d af system or the 17-40L's (corner) sharpness wide open.


----------

