# Patent: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 DO



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 20, 2016)

```
<p>A patent showing another optical formula for a diffractive optics lens has appeared, this time in the form of a 70-200mm f/2.8 DO. Most of the patent seems to talk about this lens for video applications.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-80877</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.5.16</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.10.17</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.69</li>
<li>Focal length 72.15 134.00 193.98</li>
<li>F-number 2.91 2.91 2.91</li>
<li>Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>The total lens length 223.50 223.50 223.50</li>
<li>BF 45.35 45.35 45.35</li>
</ul>
<p>We expect to see new Cinema EOS announcements for IBC in September, including the Cinema EOS C700.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 20, 2016)

The optics of the current EF 70–200/2,8L IS II USM is one of the best zoom optics on the market. 
The lens is neither too big nor too heavy. 

Smaller lighter gear is always fine but I wouldn't go for that if the IQ would stay just a fraction behind.
I also see no optical reasons to change anything for a video lens. Of course AF, zoom, mechanical things, etc. I'd say would differ. 

So if this patent is really becoming a product I'd be very interested in an optical comparison to the EF 70–200/2,8L IS II USM.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 20, 2016)

Looking forward to Canon's DO technology filtering down into all their lenses. With lenses getting heavier with more elements, it's good to have a technology that will help drive the weight down.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 20, 2016)

They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 20, 2016)

K-amps said:


> They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay *twice* what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.



You spelled "eight times" wrong.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 20, 2016)

K-amps said:


> They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.



And the 70-200 f/2 IS DO would be less expensive than the 5k prime because... ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 20, 2016)

I would trade up if the formula had the 100-400's mfd.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 20, 2016)

DO and/or BR would need to go into a 70-200ii replacement otherwise I really don't see the reason for an update at this time.


----------



## kirbic (Jun 20, 2016)

- Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36

- Image height 21.64

This is an EF-S lens.


----------



## peoplemerge (Jun 20, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> I also see no optical reasons to change anything for a video lens.



The biggest difference between most still zooms and video zooms are that video zooms are parfocal, and still lenses are not. The non-IS 70-200/2.8L version is parfocal. 

Although I've heard reports of people who have a varifocal copy, I suspect either these copies are not in spec or there are multiple editions of the lens. I still own the one I bought in 1998, it's parfocal, and that is part of the reason it's been in my arsenal such a long time.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 20, 2016)

kirbic said:


> - Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36
> 
> - *Image height 21.64*
> 
> This is an EF-S lens.


Image height is the radius of the image circle. (as seen on MTF charts)
(0.5) x (36^2+24^2)^(0.5) = 21.63

So this would be a full frame lens.


----------



## TeT (Jun 20, 2016)

K-amps said:


> They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.




ooh nice.... sign me up!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 20, 2016)

This is aimed at 8K video, but, it could be used for stills if anyone wanted to spend $60K for it.

"[Problem to be solved by the invention] 
[0006] 
When it was image quality equivalent to the conventional full hi-vision (the pixel number 1920x1080, the pixel size of several micrometers), a conventional case which is described in above-mentioned patent documents was sufficient. However, about the image quality called for in the future [ of super Hi-Vision (the pixel number 8000x4000 the pixel size of around 1 micrometer) etc. ], the image formation performance of the conventional zoom lens is not sufficient. Therefore, the improvement in the further performance"


----------



## kirbic (Jun 20, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> kirbic said:
> 
> 
> > - Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36
> ...



The math does work out, yes... but how to explain the angle of view, which is dramatically smaller than FF? It actually looks like the AOV is closer to a 2x crop; I've never seen a "half angle" specified as the angle of view...


----------



## RGF (Jun 20, 2016)

K-amps said:


> They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.



Even if the lens is twice as heavy?


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 21, 2016)

RGF said:


> Even if the lens is twice as heavy?



If that is the case, it would be easier to justify costing 2x as much


----------



## ejenner (Jun 21, 2016)

Personally I wouldn't be interested. One really nice and to me important aspect of the current 2.8 is the decent bokeh. I have the 400 DO II and for that lens I'm glad to sacrifice some bokeh characteristics for size and weight, but not in a 70-200 f2.8.


----------



## Wizardly (Jun 21, 2016)

Nobody noticed the EF 100-400 mm f/4-5.6 DO also discussed in this patent? Just as exciting!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 21, 2016)

kirbic said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > kirbic said:
> ...


See the following:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-06-17


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Do we have a patent for the 70-200/f2.8 IS USM II to compare it with?
> 
> Because otherwise, this patent is for a lens that is longer (223mm) than the 70-200/f.8 IS II USM (199mm) although nothing is said of diameter/weight.
> 
> So "DO" = "smaller" does not seem to apply here.


Sorry, but wrong, dilbert! 

Because the 223 mm is the optical formula from front element to image plane. You have to subtract the flange distance (_44_ mm). 

Physical length of the lens (if EF mount) would be 223 mm - 40 _44_ mm = 183 _179_ mm  (or even less) (_edit: corrected my own math here_)
So this makes the lens about 2 cm shorter.


----------



## Fleetie (Jun 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Yes, they have said it before. I read someone saying you have to subtract the 44mm flange distance only last week on here.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Sorry again, wrong again!

You did a common failure, that I did before, too.
Just browse through the latest patent threads here. 
_Edit: or search for "flange" in the forum search. You'll find dozens of examples here.
So please don't use phrases as highlighted above. Thank you._ 


I won't post any links, for work you should have done yourself.


----------



## moreorless (Jun 21, 2016)

If its a high end video lens it could well be I spose that the DO saves more space than that as it would otherwise have been a lot larger but looking at the 70-300mm DO it does seem that the size saving with these kinds of zooms is a bit more limiting.

What I think Canon do need to respond to is Nikons 300mm F/4 PF, that's opening up a potentially new market for wildlife shooting on something like the D500 for people who wouldn't otherwise bother with that range due to the size/weight involved.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



It's only a new interpretation of poor reading comprehension that goes against your typical misunderstanding of facts. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30018.msg601035#msg601035
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29603.msg590954#msg590954
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30090.msg603167#msg603167
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28676.msg566117#msg566117
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26834.msg530239#msg530239

...and many, many other examples. 

Seriously, before you question someone else's statement of fact and claim you and 'everyone else' disagree, try actually doing a little research and fact-checking first. At the very least, avoid claiming that _your_ understanding or knowledge (= lack thereof) is shared by anyone else, let alone 'everyone else'. It _might_ help you avoid looking foolish, if you manage to do it consistently. You might even learn something.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 21, 2016)

peoplemerge said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > I also see no optical reasons to change anything for a video lens.
> ...



+1


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2016)

peoplemerge said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > I also see no optical reasons to change anything for a video lens.
> ...


Thank you for reminding me of that. 
"parfocal" is something I forget about quite often.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Maximilian said:
> ...


Nevermind! As I said, I had to learn that, too. 
And despite the fun of rumors there is always something to learn here


----------



## K-amps (Jun 22, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.
> ...



Nikon offers a 500 f/5.6 zoom for about $1750. That's a front element equivalent of 250mm F/2.8 or roughly a 90mm aperture and associated Element size. A 200mm F/2 would be a 100mm aperture etc. I am being quite generous, in willing to pay Canon $4000 for en extra 10mm in size increase. You can come up with any scaling you desire for this... I stated what I am willing to pay for it given the possibility of competitors offering such products that are quite comparable from a manufacturing cost perspective.

If this challenges your perception of what value you deserve, then understand that Nikon offers what is an equivalent of 200mm F/2.2 for $1750.



raptor3x said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay *twice* what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.
> ...



;D




RGF said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. If its DO, there will be some weight savings, even if not, then its still ok, the Prime 200mm F/2.0 is what it is and most loved despite its weight. If someone wants a lighter version, Canon will be happy to sell them an F/4 or F/2.8 variant.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 22, 2016)

K-amps said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



The front element size does not provide perfect correlation for what a lens costs, so scaling that way is not perfect. Specific technologies and materials (fluorite and DO) cost more even if the max aperture size remains constant. Marketing sets the price to maximize profit, not to provide users the most value/lowest price, so the question really is this: how often does a zoom that has a max aperture as large as a prime cost less than the prime? 70-200 II costs more than the 200 2.8 II, 24-70 f/2.8 II (no IS) costs more than 24 IS, 28 IS. 100-400 II costs more than 400 f/5.6. A lens that costs 4000 is L-lens territory, and do you really think that a zoom that goes to 200 f/2 with IS will be less expensive than the prime, which is 5k+?

By your same logic, Nikon's price for its 200 f/2 should also be closer to 2k, but it is also 5k+ like the Canon. Canon's 200-400 costs significantly more than Nikon's 200-400 + 1.4x which by your logic should be similar in price. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a 70-200 f/2 for 4k and I'd buy one too. I just don't think that it'd be 2x the 70-200, which according to CPW streets for 1700 or even 4K. It'd be higher than the f/2 prime.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 22, 2016)

Is there any evidence that Canon is serious about a DO zoom? The 70-300 DO was awful and their only attempt so far. I bet they are just doing research into the plausibility of a DO zoom rather than having plans to actually produce one anytime soon.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 23, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Is there any evidence that Canon is serious about a DO zoom?
> ...


Who knows? 

Right now I suppose that they're just about to stake their DO claim.
The 400 DO II is labeled as brilliant lens, and definitely much better than it's predecessor, see here 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=962&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
and here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

So this shows that they've improved their tech. 
And why shouldn't that trickle down to more mainstream lenses as well?
It's a question of time (and price). And until then patents protect their knowledge.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Indeed, live and learn
> 
> If I go back and look at the patent, the patent mentions the length as being "L0" (L-zero) and in the diagrams this always includes the length back to the IP (Image Plane.)
> 
> Also, the length (L0) refers to the length from the front of the first element to the image plane. *So there's probably 5mm or so extra* on most lenses for the filter thread bit however for a lens such as the 300/f4, the actual lens might even match the patent length due to the heavily recessed front element.


100% correct. This is something I didn't put into my calculation because these 2 - 5 mm for filter thread *and front element cell* didn't bother me.


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 23, 2016)

peoplemerge said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > I also see no optical reasons to change anything for a video lens.
> ...



Is that true? That the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is *not* parfocal? I guess I just sort of took for granted that a number of the higher end lenses were parfocal. I do own the f/2.8 non-IS. I also believe my other zooms are parfocal.

I mostly shoot primes but I should keep this in mind for when I shoot zooms. I'd hate to be focusing, then at the last second tweaking the zoom a bit for better composition, not realizing I'm adding a slight softness to the shot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> peoplemerge said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



Uncle Roger suggests that no photo zooms are actually parfocal, at least when considered as a group (i.e., you might get lucky and _your_ copy of a zoom happens to be parfocal...today...with your current sensor resolution...etc.).

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/mythbusting-parfocal-photo-zooms/

There's a reason cine zooms cost ~10x more than photo zooms, and parfocality is one of them.


----------



## peoplemerge (Jun 28, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Is that true? That the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is *not* parfocal? I guess I just sort of took for granted that a number of the higher end lenses were parfocal. I do own the f/2.8 non-IS. I also believe my other zooms are parfocal.
> 
> I mostly shoot primes but I should keep this in mind for when I shoot zooms. I'd hate to be focusing, then at the last second tweaking the zoom a bit for better composition, not realizing I'm adding a slight softness to the shot.



I admit I haven't tested other Canon 70-200/2.8L lenses other than mine, but it's consistent with reports I've heard. I tested it by shooting wide open on my then-Canon 5Dii at 70, 100, 135, and 200 marks wide open at closest focus and 10m distance. Subject was my living room. I focused at the 200mm position and pixel-peeped the results in center and corner. Sure seemed parfocal at 20mpx! Zoom while recording video always looked splendid at 1080P (2 megapixel FTW).

The reason I think concerns still photo history. At the dawn of the computerized lens design age http://blog.camera-wiki.org/2012/03/13/vivitar-historical-research-part-1/ when manual focus was the only game in town, the incumbent major brands Canon, Leica, Pentax, Nikon,,, made carefully-engineered zooms that were all parfocal. (Caveat: I was too young to hold a camera back then, and I'm not an optical engineer this info fits my research.) In that era, pros would zoom all the way in, focus the split image, then zoom out to compose. Challengers Vivitar, Sigma, Tamron, etc discovered by relaxing the requirements allowing varifocal and variable-aperture lenses, they could produce lighter and sharper lenses than the incumbents.

Fast forward to autofocus days, it no longer was a requirement for a lens to be parfocal since people relied demanded fast and accurate autofocus first, so little by little, they stopped making compromises required to achieve the "true zoom" (parfocal).

Most zooms from the past are slow, dim, heavy, and flawed. Pro zooms for their day produce ok images -- I'd say comparable to consumer zooms of today in IQ, but with a very different color rendition, less crisp.


----------

