# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2010)

```
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-5371" title="20101029_optical" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/20101029_optical.png" alt="" width="474" height="271" /></p>
<p><strong>Patent No. 2010-243636</strong>

A new patent for an EF 24-70 f/2.8L II has been published.</p>
<ul>
<li>Patent Publication No.2010-243636</li>
<li>published 2010/10/28</li>
<li>filled 2009/04/02</li>
<li>focal distance 24.54-66.07mm</li>
<li>Fno=2.91-2.92</li>
<li>angle of view 82.8-36.26Ã‚Â°</li>
<li>image circle 43.28mm</li>
<li>length 204.97-170.32mm</li>
<li>back focus 37.06mm</li>
</ul>
<p>Iâ€™m on my phone at the moment and will search for the actual patent later.</p>
<p><em>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2010-10-29-english" target="_self">egami</a>]</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;"><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></span>
```


----------



## Son of Daguerre (Oct 29, 2010)

No IS?!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2010)

Son of Daguerre said:


> No IS?!



Give up and come to grips with reality - the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is just not going to happen. Sheesh! 

(Ok, I wish that Canon will release it soon...but like my pappy used to say, wish in one hand and $h1t in the other and see which fills up fastest...)


----------



## Cyrax (Oct 29, 2010)

How does that image imply that there's no IS? Calm down; Canon has no reason not to include IS on the lens.


----------



## Son of Daguerre (Oct 29, 2010)

Cyrax said:


> How does that image imply that there's no IS? Calm down; Canon has no reason not to include IS on the lens.



Where's the IS element?


----------



## Justin (Oct 29, 2010)

Hmmm, good to see a patent. Is there such a thing as an IS element? I don't think there is anything on here to suggest there will not be an IS implementation in this focal range.


----------



## Justin (Oct 29, 2010)

Also, anyone have the existing 24-70 patent for the comparison? I'm looking and my google powers are waning...

update: found the block diagram: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_24~70_28l_usm.html?p=2


----------



## Grendel (Oct 29, 2010)

A wee bit more detail here: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2010-10-29-english


----------



## Sherwin (Oct 29, 2010)

Justin said:


> Also, anyone have the existing 24-70 patent for the comparison? I'm looking and my google powers are waning...
> 
> update: found the block diagram: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_24~70_28l_usm.html?p=2



Comparing the two diagram, it seems the major differences are: 1) the distance between L1 and L2 groups, 2) the rear elements. 

Does IS mean that there will be "floating" lens/lens group(s) in the design?


----------



## x-vision (Oct 30, 2010)

The distance doesn't matter, since these are moving groups. 

The new design differs from the old one only by the last two groups - L5 and L6. 
Other than that, the two designs are identical. 

So, the new lens will most likely be as big and heavy as the old one (unless they change the lens barrel ??).

We can't tell from the design diagram if this will be an IS lens or not. 
The L3 group seems like a good candidate for the IS unit.


----------



## Justin (Oct 30, 2010)

Right, the way i understand it the groups move so the differences between diagrams can be a function of focal length differences. I am certain this lens gets the IS treatment. just hope it gets announced in early Jan like the 70-200 did.



x-vision said:


> The distance doesn't matter, since these are moving groups.
> 
> The new design differs from the old one only by the last two groups - L5 and L6.
> Other than that, the two designs are identical.
> ...


----------



## Justin (Oct 30, 2010)

However, the optical system is considerably complicated. A lens behind is fixed, but the other lenses move by focusing and zooming. The Cam will become the considerably elaborate mechanism. The body tube must upsize.

Translation?

Sounds like a potential description of an IS "mechanism". Certainly an extending lens.


Grendel said:


> A wee bit more detail here: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2010-10-29-english


----------



## MadButcher (Oct 30, 2010)

Cyrax said:


> How does that image imply that there's no IS? Calm down; Canon has no reason not to include IS on the lens.


Filming?
Or should I buy 24-70 AND 24-105?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 30, 2010)

MadButcher said:


> Filming?


I thought Hybrid IS was starting to take the bite out of that.

IS would be nice but I guess perhaps they're trying to keep the lens affordable / cheap.


----------



## scalesusa (Oct 30, 2010)

The block diagrams sometimes identify the IS unit, but sometimes not.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef-s/ef-s15~85_35~56is_usm.html?p=2

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef-s/ef-s15~85_35~56is_usm.html?p=2

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=652485

We really need to read the patent, however, it does not appear at first glance to have a IS unit in the lens, if there were one, it would certainly be identified in the description.


----------



## Norkusa (Oct 31, 2010)

Any guesses on price? Could it be under $2k USD?


----------



## Justin (Oct 31, 2010)

Sure I guess 1999. 



Norkusa said:


> Any guesses on price? Could it be under $2k USD?


----------



## YoukY63 (Nov 1, 2010)

Anyone know if it is common for Canon to publish a patent about a product not on the market until months?
I sincerely don't know. But I don't think so (or we would not be surprised and wondering every time which will be the next new lens). 
So I guess this patent is just to protect a good formula close to their (actual) product, but does not necessarily means there next 24-70 will look like that. It is common for all the brands. My 0.02.


----------



## MCK (Nov 1, 2010)

What will be the price for such one and when is it on the marked ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2010)

YoukY63 said:


> Anyone know if it is common for Canon to publish a patent about a product not on the market until months?



Any company engaging in R&D does this. Patents are cheap (at least, a lot cheaper than having someone else infringe on your designs). Canon has hundreds of patents on lenses that were never made at all.


----------



## daniel charms (Nov 1, 2010)

YoukY63 said:


> Anyone know if it is common for Canon to publish a patent about a product not on the market until months?



Well, if you dig in the CR archives a bit, you'll find that patents related to the batch of lenses announced in September were published in Dec 2009/Jan 2010. Of course not all of those patents have materialized and for those that did materialize, the final product might be quite different from the one described in the patent; so while this patent is an indication that a new 24-70 _could _be coming, it doesn't really say much about when it will come out.


----------



## x-vision (Dec 29, 2010)

In a related news, Canon has just obtained a US patent for a 35-70/2.8 full-frame lens: 

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7859767.html

The patent has been filed on 02/17/2009, so it's a new design. 

Achieving robust image quality in a compact design seems to be the main motivation here.


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 29, 2010)

And, as always, Canon covers all the bases to protect a mirrorless design. 

"Here, it is to be noted that the present invention is similarly applicable also to a camera without a quick return mirror."


----------



## remy.brooks (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't think anyone has to worry about Canon not putting is in the new version. Canon would be stupid not to put is in the new lens. For 3 years people have been bitching about no is so if they didn't put is in the new lens no one would upgrade to it


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 17, 2011)

remy.brooks said:


> IFor 3 years people have been bitching



Vocal minority? Not that IS wouldn't be nice, but I would rather the lens be sharper overall and suffer less distortion at extreme ends then have IS. Both would be great, but I wouldn't cry if it lacked IS. It is more of a wide lens which doesn't require as much IS as larger zoom lenses.


----------



## tzalmagor (Jan 17, 2011)

UngerPhotography said:


> remy.brooks said:
> 
> 
> > IFor 3 years people have been bitching
> ...



I 2nd that.

I already have the existing 24-70, and would like to upgrade it for a newer model with better image quality and, as far as possible, less weight. IS would be nice, but improved image quality and price are more important to me.


----------



## papa-razzi (Jan 19, 2011)

MCK said:


> What will be the price for such one and when is it on the marked ?



Canon has been using new product introductions on lenses to adjust their pricing upwards. The dollar has fallen quite a bit since in the last few years, so it makes sense they will raise the price. My guess is they will price it close to $2k USD. They could also keep the current lens in the lineup as a non-IS lens if the new lens has IS.


----------



## Flake (Jan 22, 2011)

I'm not sure why a patent application for the design & construction of a lens has to have every single design point included. The IS part of a lens is already covered by patents, and new patents have to cover something new & original.

There is another point to consider - Canon offer 2 different 70 - 200mm lenses, and offer them in IS & non IS versions. There is nothing here to show that Canon can not / will not offer similar in the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 satisfying budgets and market demand.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 22, 2011)

Flake said:


> I'm not sure why a patent application for the design & construction of a lens has to have every single design point included. The IS part of a lens is already covered by patents, and new patents have to cover something new & original.
> 
> There is another point to consider - Canon offer 2 different 70 - 200mm lenses, and offer them in IS & non IS versions. There is nothing here to show that Canon can not / will not offer similar in the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 satisfying budgets and market demand.



The is unit contains optics and thus is part of the optical path being patented. It might not be identified on the patent as a IS, but it needs to be included in the optics.


----------



## Flake (Jan 22, 2011)

Canon also patented a 600mm f/5.6 with what appears to be DO optics, but there's no explicit mention of IS, it would be really surprising if a lens like this didn't have IS.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 22, 2011)

Flake said:


> Canon also patented a 600mm f/5.6 with what appears to be DO optics, but there's no explicit mention of IS, it would be really surprising if a lens like this didn't have IS.



I agree that any 600mm lens that will be produced will have IS. however, the version patented does not have IS.

Only a very few of a large number of patents make it to production.

Here is a translation of the 600mm DO patent application.

http://www4.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/Tokujitu/PAJdetail.ipdl?N0000=60&N0120=01&N2001=2&N3001=2010-145832


----------

