# Patent: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 15, 2016)

```
A patent that is likely part of the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II development has appeared over at Egami. We expect to <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-ef-24-105-f4l-is-replacement-coming-with-5d-mark-iv-cr3/">see this lens announced alongside the EOS 5D Mark IV</a> in August of this year.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-71283</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.5.9</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.10.1</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 4.13</li>
<li>Focal length 24.70 32.04 102.11</li>
<li>F-number 4.10</li>
<li>Half angle of view (degrees) 41.22 34.03 11.96</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>The total lens length 148.96 152.86 207.64</li>
<li>BF 35.80 36.22 53.51</li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2016)

Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.


----------



## hne (Jun 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.



Really? Not mixed that up with extended length? According to Canon:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
3.3 in. x 4.2 in., 23.6 oz. / 83.5mm x 107mm, 670g (lens only)

I say we're looking at a beast of a lens, which will be longer at 105mm than the 70-200/4L


----------



## NancyP (Jun 15, 2016)

Maybe I will finally get off my duff and buy a normal zoom.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 15, 2016)

Nice - I like my current one, and I'm hoping that this will show the same improvements as the other recent mk II lenses. Time for me to start selling off some gear before the market gets flooded with used copies.


----------



## Meatcurry (Jun 15, 2016)

hne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.
> ...



Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?


----------



## midluk (Jun 15, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?


What is included in the lengths? As the patent covers the optics but not the rest of the lens, the length is likely from the sensor to the front element. So the numbers are not completely comparable. Might be interesting to compare it with the patent for the original 24-105.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 15, 2016)

midluk said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?
> ...


Of course you are right but it's quite easy!
The flange distance of a EOS camera is about 4 cm (was it 44 mm?).
So: 148.96 - 40 (or even more) = 108.96 (or even less) + maybe 3-5 mm for the cell and filter thread.
==> about the same length als the old one!


----------



## Meatcurry (Jun 15, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > Meatcurry said:
> ...



Not sure thats right, the patent has the extended length as 207mm, 207 - 44 = 163, that still bigger than the old lens by some margin


----------



## Act444 (Jun 15, 2016)

Forget the length - I want to know whether any changes have been made to the optics...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 15, 2016)

Canon is saying this patent is a way to make a shorter and smaller lens. I can't say why the lengths do not appear to line up with the current lens, even when taking the ~40mm flange to sensor distance into account. just posting what the patent claims. 

"The present invention aims at offer of the imaging device which has the small zoom lens and it from which a quick focus is easy, and it is a high zooming ratio, and high optical performance is obtained covering the object distance all the zoom ranges and at large."

"By filling a conditional expression (5a), *shortening of the whole length of the lens in telephoto end *becomes easy, attaining further size and weight reduction of lens group NF of negative refracting power. By filling a conditional expression (6a), it becomes easy to cross throughout zoom and to reduce change of the curvature of field accompanying focusing more. the axis for zooming by filling a conditional expression (7a) -- a top tone -- it becomes easy to reduce more change of aberration and change of the chromatic aberration of magnification. By filling a conditional expression (8a), it becomes easier to reduce the eccentric coma aberration which arises from lens group NF of negative refracting power."


The working examples are as follows:

1:

Various data 
Zoom ratio 4.23 
Wide angle Middle Looking far 
Focal distance 24.70 44.23 104.57 
F number 3.60 4.50 5.60 
a half field angle (degree) -- 41.22 26.07 11.69 image height 21.64 21.64 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 164.73 170.65 201.71 
BF 38.60 49.38 64.11 

2:

Various data 
Zoom ratio 4.68 
Wide angle Middle Looking far 
Focal distance 28.80 41.68 134.79 
F number 4.12 5.00 5.88 
a half field angle (degree) -- 36.92 27.43 9.12 
Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 158.46 162.93 211.19 
BF 36.97 36.95 38.38 

3:

Various data 
Zoom ratio 4.13 
Wide angle Middle Looking far 
Focal distance 24.70 32.04 102.11 
F number 4.10 4.10 4.10 
a half field angle (degree) -- 41.22 34.03 11.96 
Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 148.96 152.86 207.64 
BF 35.80 36.22 53.51 

4:

Various data 
Zoom ratio 3.84 
Wide angle Middle Looking far 
Focal distance 25.39 46.78 97.55 
F number 3.60 5.75 5.74 
a half field angle (degree) -- 40.44 24.82 12.51 
Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64 
Whole length of the lens 161.27 177.91 202.87 
BF 42.60 51.08 52.16


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 15, 2016)

Patents do not equal actual items. Very rarely does a company put in a patent which is exactly what they're going to produce. Usually it's just to 'reserve' the design so nobody else can get in there first or copy it. So there's no point trying to work out if the new lens will have revised optics, based on this patent. This patent just tells you they've come up with some ideas, and they're registering those ideas before anybody else can produce the same thing.

That said, I said months ago, on these very forums, that Canon was discontinuing the old 24-105 and revising it for the next 5D body. People said I was lying but hey, nope, here we go. Lens confirmed by multiple sources now and we've got a patent, which is unlikely to be for the exact lens produced, but is evidence that Canon has been working in that area. So, yay. At least now I know my sources were right.

In any case, it'll be nice to see a new version. The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department, and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen. If they can revise it s a mark II is as solid a performer on today's 20mp+ sensors as the first version was on the 12mp sensor, great. I like the Sigma version just fine, but a 'proper' Canon one with optimised AF and the better IS would be very welcome.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2016)

hne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.
> ...



Really. No, nothing mixed up, on my side at least. 




Meatcurry said:


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



As I stated, essentially the same _retracted_ length as the current 24-105L (within a few millimeters). The extended length would be ~20mm longer than the current 24-105L, but worth noting this 24-105/4L II patent is only ~7 mm longer when extended than the relatively new 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS STM.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 15, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


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



Sorry, Meatcurry, but the questions began after neuros comment: 


neuroanatomist said:


> Nice! Same *retracted * length as the current one.


And _retracted_ ist the opposit of _extracted_ or as you call it: _extended_.
But to most zoom users the _retracted_ length is the more important as this is the length you transport or store it.
Personally I don't care if an _extracted_ zoom is 1 or 2 cm shorter or longer, as long as it is leading to better IQ. 
I thought extracted length was more important to some who wanted to impress  :


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2016)

aceflibble said:


> ...The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department, and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen.



Others might disagree.

[quote author=The Digital Picture]
...From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. *The Canon is sharper at 105mm*. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. *Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.*

The *Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end* but shows less flare. T*he Canon has less pincushion distortion* in the mid focal lengths.

The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but* the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma*. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – *and is weather sealed.*[/quote]


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 15, 2016)

unfocused said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > ...The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department, and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen.
> ...


Me, too. 
Esp. as I am more interested in the tele than the UWA range of such a zoom.


----------



## bereninga (Jun 15, 2016)

I hope they add a lock switch to prevent lens creep.


----------



## hne (Jun 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> hne said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I stand corrected. I did not account for flange distance being part of the total lens length in the patent filing but not in canon lens spec sheets.

Might be a rather nice lens then. Perhaps even something to replace my if-all-else-fails backup lens: 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


----------



## TeT (Jun 15, 2016)

aceflibble said:


> ... The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department.... and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen.



The Sigma beats the Canon at 24mm f/4, as you get longer they pretty much even out in sharpness and both show strengths and weaknesses in different areas.

If the Canon has fallen apart since the 5D, What makes the Sigma bullet proof? It is at best marginally better than the Canon. Neither is as good optically as the Canon 70 200 4 L (another dinosaur that sees a lot of use in the real world)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2016)

hne said:


> I stand corrected. I did not account for flange distance being part of the total lens length in the patent filing but not in canon lens spec sheets.



Indeed. The other (although minor) point is that a commonly-used source for the extended length is the TDP spec comparison tool, and Bryan starts measuring from the back of the mount, while the Canon spec measures from the flange (ignoring the part that protrudes into the body).


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 16, 2016)

I think it'll be nice to see a new version. I've been pleased with the copies I have of new Canon lenses that have been coming forth. I had the original 24-105L and really liked it but I didn't ever love it, until I sold it! It was a solid performer and was on my gear quite a bit for a long time. 

After selling it, I later ended up with the new 16-35 F/4 as well as the 24-70 F/4 a little later on. Very pleased with both of them. I sometimes wish there was a need for a new 24-105 f/4 in my bag but there's really not, suppose it's just g.a.s... If I need a little more FL, I can drop on the 70-200 F/2.8 and boom, it's covered. 

Anyway, I'm certain this will be an excellent replacement lens for the old 24-105mm workhorse and look forward to seeing everyone very happy with their purchases and their image samples. I think the new version will be like most of the other new Canon offerings and be the cream of the crop for it's category until some newer lens technology with one of the other manufacturers takes it to the next level. Very happy with my Canon lens stable so far, adding next gen prime versions is my next goal.. :


----------



## Lawlzors (Jun 16, 2016)

TeT said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > ... The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department.... and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen.
> ...



As an owner of both lenses, each have their pros and cons, but I'd say the Sigma is definitely better than the Canon overall.  Not significantly better, but certainly more than marginally better.

Sigma - noticeably better sharpness wide open throughout focal range; IS is at least one stop better if not more; IS is silent.

Canon - better battery life; 77mm filter; lighter weight; zoom ring in more natural location; less vignetting.

In the end, I get better pictures from the Sigma.


----------



## siegsAR (Jun 16, 2016)

bereninga said:


> I hope they add a lock switch to prevent lens creep.



Creeping is already fixed on the later released Mk1 but yeah I get you, my latest and only 24-105 F4 which was manufactured on early 2014 still has that problem.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jun 16, 2016)

I probably wouldn't buy the kit, but I've thought for some time that a new 24-105 f4 would be the obvious and excellent match for the new 5D. Even by Canon's standards, the lens is more than ready for a refresh, and that zoom range makes a very nice walkabout lens. Modern optical technology should enable Canon to build a solid-performing lens at a reasonable price and weight. And with only an f4 design barrier to hurdle, it might even come close to the 24-70 II in IQ. Sort of an entry level L.

In fact, given the advances in sensor design and related technologies, the new combo might make even more sense than the original 5D 24-105 kit. Improvements in IS and the ability of modern bodies to shoot cleanly at much higher ISOs should make the relatively slow speed less of a handicap than it was on the original 5D.


----------



## TheJock (Jun 16, 2016)

Is it just me or does it look like Canon have dropped the BR technology that they looked ready to roll out with all upcoming L series lenses?
I thought it was an all singing all dancing new tech that would rolled out on all future/upgraded releases, and help Canon justify their normal high prices for their L lenses!
Was it just a one off gimmick?????


----------



## Meatcurry (Jun 16, 2016)

Stewart K said:


> Is it just me or does it look like Canon have dropped the BR technology that they looked ready to roll out with all upcoming L series lenses?
> I thought it was an all singing all dancing new tech that would rolled out on all future/upgraded releases, and help Canon justify their normal high prices for their L lenses!
> Was it just a one off gimmick?????


I think BR is a coating, and may not need to be on a patent


----------



## TheJock (Jun 16, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> Stewart K said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me or does it look like Canon have dropped the BR technology that they looked ready to roll out with all upcoming L series lenses?
> ...


AHH, thanks for that, makes sense!!


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 16, 2016)

Stewart K said:


> Is it just me or does it look like Canon have dropped the BR technology that they looked ready to roll out with all upcoming L series lenses?
> ...
> Was it just a one off gimmick?????


I don't think so.

I don't know how BR works in detail and _*if*_ it is possible to use it in a zoom lens. 
Maybe it must be optimized to a certain focal length and used in a zoom the advantages get so low that the higher price can not be justified. 

And as the 24-105L has been a typical kit lens - although of high quality - I'd expect Canon to make it easy to built in higher numbers and therefore less expensive. 
_*If*_ BR could be used in zoom lenses, I'd expect it to be announced with a top notch zoom like a 24-70 or 16-24 f2.8. 

If it will not be used in future primes like the anticipated 50L or 85L, then it was something like a gimmick.

And no...


Meatcurry said:


> I think BR is a coating, and may not need to be on a patent


Please check the Canon information on that. They say something like it is an "organic optical material", call it an "organic lens". Not just a thin coating.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/ef35mm_f1_4l_ii_usm.do
-> Key Technologies


----------



## Meatcurry (Jun 16, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Stewart K said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me or does it look like Canon have dropped the BR technology that they looked ready to roll out with all upcoming L series lenses?
> ...



Ok, so one of the elements is actually made from this material, I guess then it wouldn't need to state on the patent whether the lens had BR or not


----------



## midluk (Jun 16, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> I don't know how BR works in detail and _*if*_ it is possible to use it in a zoom lens.
> Maybe it must be optimized to a certain focal length and used in a zoom the advantages get so low that the higher price can not be justified.
> 
> And as the 24-105L has been a typical kit lens - although of high quality - I'd expect Canon to make it easy to built in higher numbers and therefore less expensive.
> _*If*_ BR could be used in zoom lenses, I'd expect it to be announced with a top notch zoom like a 24-70 or 16-24 f2.8.



Even if a BR element is more expensive to produce than a normal glass lens, it might still reduce overall production cost. If the BR element takes care of a large chunk of CA, it is likely possible to use less expensive glass for the other lenses, reduce lens count or have less tight manufacturing tolerances. In these cases the BR element is not used to reduce CA to a minimum but to have more options for the rest of the lens design while still having only normal levels of CA.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 16, 2016)

midluk said:


> Even if a BR element is more expensive to produce than a normal glass lens, it might still reduce overall production cost.
> ...


Maybe you're right and maybe we'll see this tech trickle down into consumer products soon. I'd like to see that.
But I sadly don't believe that.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 16, 2016)

BR optics and speculating on the tecnology

The organic material which they sandwich between concave and convex glass elements is likely made of some type of CR39 derivertive like Rav 7 which is optically clear & close to crown glass and has been treated with a nano coating that cuts blue spectrum light between 450-495nm a bit like the way IR cut filters work in principle. The optical formula relies equally on the design & placement of the two glass elements in the group but with computer modelling before a lens is ever made these kinds of design will be more previlent. 
Optics took a step back when lead was banned as lead provided great clarity and helped in the construction of moulded elements and not all the substitutes were as good or effective. 
CR39 and the much newer types have transformed our specticles as have the advancements in optical coatings and we know cheaper lenses have used CR39 type elements for some time.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 16, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> BR optics and speculating on the tecnology
> 
> The organic material which they sandwich between concave and convex glass elements is likely made of some type of CR39 derivertive like Rav 7 which is optically clear & close to crown glass and has been treated with a nano coating that cuts blue spectrum light between 450-495nm a bit like the way IR cut filters work in principle. The optical formula relies equally on the design & placement of the two glass elements in the group but with computer modelling before a lens is ever made these kinds of design will be more previlent.
> Optics took a step back when lead was banned as lead provided great clarity and helped in the construction of moulded elements and not all the substitutes were as good or effective.
> CR39 and the much newer types have transformed our specticles as have the advancements in optical coatings and we know cheaper lenses have used CR39 type elements for some time.


A Japanese chemical company Mitsui for instance makes Thiourethane based monomers the MR series with a high refractive index which can include UV and 420nm cut filtration and these can be made very thin unlike the original CR-39. These can be formed & cured into the type of shape Canon show which is not too disimilar to specticle lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> BR optics and speculating on the tecnology
> 
> The organic material which they sandwich between concave and convex glass elements is likely made of some type of CR39 derivertive like Rav 7 which is optically clear & close to crown glass and has been treated with a nano coating that cuts blue spectrum light between 450-495nm a bit like the way IR cut filters work in principle.





jeffa4444 said:


> A Japanese chemical company Mitsui for instance makes Thiourethane based monomers the MR series with a high refractive index which can include UV and 420nm cut filtration and these can be made very thin unlike the original CR-39.



While your knowledge of optical materials is appreciated, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the BR element, or of how chromatic aberration (CA) occurs, or both. Or perhaps it's as simple as misinterpreting the abbreviation – BR is blue _refractive_, not blue reflective. 

Simply put, CA occurs because different wavelengths of light are refracted ('bent') by different amounts when passing through a lens (think prism and spectrum). As a result, not all wavelengths are focused at the same point – some are behind the focal plane (sensor), others in front. Canon's BR element refracts short ('blue') wavelengths more strongly, so that they are (ideally) superimposed on the longer wavelengths, reducing CA. 







In this case, your comparison to an IR cut filter is not apt – the BR material transmits blue light (ideally without significant loss).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 16, 2016)

My bad.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 16, 2016)

Anyone determine the front element size from these patents? (I'm new to reading them so I'm not entirely sure what all the numbers/abbreviations represent). Are we looking at 77mm or 82mm filter size?


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 16, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Anyone determine the front element size from these patents? (I'm new to reading them so I'm not entirely sure what all the numbers/abbreviations represent). Are we looking at 77mm or 82mm filter size?


I did copy, resize and measure the drawing of the optical formula.
If I did measure right and my rule of three the front element has a diameter of 67 to 68 mm.
This seems to be slightly bigger than the front element of the current version. 
So I'd put my bets on 77 mm filter thread.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 16, 2016)

I think I'm possibly the only one who believes that the new lens is intended to cost less to manufacture, rather than be optically a lot better. Those resolution curves in the patent did not impress me as being a whole lot better. For a 4-1 zoom, its difficult to gain a whole lot in IQ, but since the existing lens price has dropped so much, one that costs less to build is probably where we are headed.

As for the blue refractive coating, it may affect the lens formula and the curves, so I'd think it would be mentioned.


----------



## vscd (Jun 16, 2016)

Is there any sign of a Sigma 24-70 2.8 Art out, yet? I'm really interested in a 24-105L IS II Zoom, but would be more interested in a decent Sigma Art Zoom.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 18, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think I'm possibly the only one who believes that the new lens is intended to cost less to manufacture, rather than be optically a lot better. Those resolution curves in the patent did not impress me as being a whole lot better. For a 4-1 zoom, its difficult to gain a whole lot in IQ, but since the existing lens price has dropped so much, one that costs less to build is probably where we are headed.
> 
> As for the blue refractive coating, it may affect the lens formula and the curves, so I'd think it would be mentioned.



Interesting, that puts my earlier excitement into a different perspective :-\

My 24-105 is a killer lens, it made me sell my MkI f/2.8 24-70L and remains my #1 go-to lens especially when traveling. FWIW if a replacement is better (optically but also updated IS), I will be very excited to get one.


----------



## x-vision (Jun 19, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think I'm possibly the only one who believes that the new lens is intended to cost less to manufacture, rather than be optically a lot better.



If you remember, the 24-70/4L was originally priced at $1500.
At that time, Canon seemed to have considered the 24-70/4L as a 2-in-1 lens, slotted above the 24-105/4L in the lens lineup.

In reality, the 24-70/4L was received as a slow zoom with not enough range and a macro gimmick.
Subsequently, the MSRP of the 24-70/4L had to be dropped by 30%.

Since Canon couldn't position the 24-70/4L above the 24-105/4L, I believe that they will now try the opposite and position the new 24-105/4L as the more premium lens.

And to do that, they will make the new 24-105/4L better optically (and overall), so that the new lens can avoid being discounted all the time and can keep a street price of $1000-1200 (and hopefully not more than that).


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 20, 2016)

siegsAR said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > I hope they add a lock switch to prevent lens creep.
> ...



@siegsAR: While I don't refute your claim that Canon has fixed the 24-105L's zoom creep in later released copies, I wonder how much later, since you report creep in your early 2014 copy.

Zoom creep is one of my major complaints about this lens, probably because the only other lens I own with an extending barrel is the 100-400 II, and it has a zoom lock (a.k.a. "zoom touch adjustment ring").

I tried to eliminate (or at least reduce) the zoom creep in my first 24-105L (purchased new in 12/2005), by applying some of the "fixes" I found on the web, none of which worked. I sold that copy and bought a newer one in 9/2013 out of a 6D kit. Its zoom action was tight at first, but it eventually loosened up, and so its creep is nearly as bad as its predecessor's.

I will be watching for reviews of the 24-105L II with interest, and a zoom lock mechanism of some kind would be a significant inducement for me to buy, especially if the lens' optical performance is also improved.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 20, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> siegsAR said:
> 
> 
> > bereninga said:
> ...



My copy was fine for years but has also started loosening up and creeping... A zoom lock to keep it in the wide angle position would help against the wear and tear due to the hood catching when taking the lens/camera combi out of the bag.


----------

