# Patent: Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 11, 2019)

> Northlight has uncovered a USPTO patent that shows an optical formula for an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM along with the already released RF 28-70mm f/2L USM.
> *Canon RF 24-f/2.8L USM Patent Specifications:*
> 
> Focal Length: 24.69mm 37.63mm 67.88mm
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## edoorn (Jan 11, 2019)

Seems like a logical move. That is, if a pro-oriented body is coming somewhere in '19 too. Of course this would to well on the R, but I don't consider this a typical pro body.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 11, 2019)

Maybe not the compact walkaround lens BUT I am very shure that it will give great if not spectacular IQ at a high but reasonable price. 
The back focus at 24mm of only ~13mm might exploit the "missing mirror box effect" to increase the IQ notably without gaining to much pricewise / sizewise.
If this again is without IS I see a good chance for an IBIS equipped EOS Rxyz body (and with 2 card slots!).


----------



## Foxeslink (Jan 11, 2019)

No IS!!!???


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 11, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> No IS!!!???



I don't see any labelled IS elements within the patent application.


----------



## edoorn (Jan 11, 2019)

would you think it's perhaps the target (pro?) camera will have IBIS?


----------



## bellorusso (Jan 11, 2019)

Canon took old camera and old lenses changed EF to RF and added 40% to the price.
Most innovative company in the world.


----------



## PGSanta (Jan 11, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Canon took old camera and old lenses changed EF to RF and added 40% to the price.
> Most innovative company in the world.



Don’t be a tool. This new lens will probably offer significantly better IQ vs the old EF.


----------



## Sharlin (Jan 11, 2019)

Huh. That's a _lot_ of glass in that schematic.


----------



## Pape (Jan 11, 2019)

no need make new design ,with most new materials and more advanced lens grinding methods it will be better. image stabilazing good for hobbyists, pros wont take pics for fb only


----------



## flip314 (Jan 11, 2019)

I'll be really disappointed if they release another 24-70 2.8 without IS... For me personally an RF 24-70 2.8 IS would be enough to get me into the R system, otherwise I'll probably stick with EF for now and give in and buy the Sigma.


----------



## LesC (Jan 11, 2019)

139mm long at 24mm and no IS? Unless the IQ is much better than the EF24-70 F2.8 MKII can't see that many people getting rid of their EF version...


----------



## docsmith (Jan 11, 2019)

Very odd. This is longer than the current EF 24-70 II. About 20+ mm. If this lens is released, it will negate any "size" advantage of the R camera bodies.


----------



## flip314 (Jan 11, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Very odd. This is longer than the current EF 24-70 II. About 20+ mm. If this lens is released, it will negate any "size" advantage of the R camera bodies.



I wish the whole "mirrorless needs to be smaller" notion would die. For a lot of people, the advantages of mirrorless have nothing to do with size, and we like the ergonomics of substantial bodies. I think there's a market for small mirrorless, but I don't think EVERY mirrorless body and lens needs to be smaller.

Incidentally, 20mm is about the difference in flange sizes between the mounts... So I'd imagine the entire lens+camera is the same length in either system, which is fine by me. For telephoto lenses (70mm is entering that territory), that's almost inescapable.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 11, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Very odd. This is longer than the current EF 24-70 II. About 20+ mm. If this lens is released, it will negate any "size" advantage of the R camera bodies.


Once again:
The "Total length of (zoom) lens" in a patent means the length from front element to image plane/sensor.
To get the "mechanical" length of the lens barrel you'll have to subtract the flange distance (EF:44 mm; RF: 20 mm)

Here the total length of this zoom lens (mm): 139.21mm 150.29mm 171.74mm

In 24 mm FL position this lens is (139-20=) 119 mm long. The EF lens is 113 mm long. So both about the same size.
In 70 mm FL position this lens is (172-20=) 152 mm long. For the EF lens I hve no numbers here.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 11, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Once again:
> The "Total length of (zoom) lens" in a patent means the length from front element to image plane/sensor.
> To get the "mechanical" length of the lens barrel you'll have to subtract the flange distance (EF:44 mm; RF: 20 mm)
> 
> ...



There we go...thanks...now looking at the image, it clearly goes back to the image sensor. 



flip314 said:


> I wish the whole "mirrorless needs to be smaller" notion would die. For a lot of people, the advantages of mirrorless have nothing to do with size, and we like the ergonomics of substantial bodies. I think there's a market for small mirrorless, but I don't think EVERY mirrorless body and lens needs to be smaller.
> 
> Incidentally, 20mm is about the difference in flange sizes between the mounts... So I'd imagine the entire lens+camera is the same length in either system, which is fine by me. For telephoto lenses (70mm is entering that territory), that's almost inescapable.


I didn't say it needs to be smaller. Bigger is what caught my eye. Even with the correction from Maximilian (thanks again), I would expect this RF lens if built is still just a bit longer than the EF version. Granted, in my original post I was thinking ~1" vs ~1 cm (adding a few mm for constructed length).


----------



## qudek77 (Jan 11, 2019)

There must be IS, else is useless for video...


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 12, 2019)

qudek77 said:


> There must be IS, else is useless for video...



As I said above: For me these IS-less RF lenses are a strong indication that Canon will introduce an IBIS enabled body for the EOS R system very soon. Further speculation of mine: It will be a larger pro body where heat dissipation is easier to manage by sheer mass of functional and constructive elements.

The EOS R system exploits the full advantage of having no mirror to place lenses just in front of the sensor. If I look at the above lens patent it is full of glass - no space for IS elements without sacrificing optical quality. For me it is logical that Canon optimizes the lower focal length lenses optically and adds IS with ONE body for ALL lenses. They cannot omit this essential feature for a longer period.

While I am satisfied with the APS-C near-equivalent of the RF 50 1.2, the EF-M 32 1.4, I am lusting for a modern full frame body where I can use (1) my EF lenses which have no IS except one lens, (2) my older FD lenses and (3) use them all stabilized with IBIS.
And I hope for IBIS in EOS M bodies to make use of my EF-M 32 under just lower light conditions than now.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 12, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Canon took old camera and old lenses changed EF to RF and added 40% to the price.
> Most innovative company in the world.



Troll. Canon is still decades ahead of the others in overall design and innovation. They are still trying to catch up with EF let alone RF. Sony is saddled with an APSC mount smaller than the M mount and to make a large aperture lens will require huge and heavy front elements and loss of IQ compared to the RF and for that matter the Z mount now (30 years late though).


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 12, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'll be really disappointed if they release another 24-70 2.8 without IS... For me personally an RF 24-70 2.8 IS would be enough to get me into the R system, otherwise I'll probably stick with EF for now and give in and buy the Sigma.



It looks like the future R series will have IBIS negating the need for in lens IS which will allow them to be smaller and less complex internally. I welcome this path as I know canon will do it right having looked at others failures and making the proper corrections that will not please the trolls but will be great.


----------



## lexptr (Jan 12, 2019)

Still no IS... I think it may be an evidence of IBIS in future R bodies. It should be effective for such, relatively short, focals. So a good reason to save on IS. 2019 may be a very interesting year for cannon users!


----------



## degos (Jan 15, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Canon took old camera and old lenses changed EF to RF and added 40% to the price.



Yeah, if they'd actually done something useful like push the long-end to 85mm I might have been interested. But instead it's just the n-th concurrent 24-70 in their Big Camera range. I'm not even sure how many they have because 24-70 just isn't useful to me.

Why are they so obsessed with cutting the standard zoom at 70mm? They used to go to 80 or 90mm which made them much more flexible. And in the day when Sigma can make an excellent 10x zoom, saying "zooms are hard" doesn't cut it.

Or let's see some real innovation like a 35-105. All the portrait lengths in one zoom.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 15, 2019)

degos said:


> Yeah, if they'd actually done something useful like push the long-end to 85mm I might have been interested. But instead it's just the n-th concurrent 24-70 in their Big Camera range. I'm not even sure how many they have because 24-70 just isn't useful to me.
> 
> Why are they so obsessed with cutting the standard zoom at 70mm? They used to go to 80 or 90mm which made them much more flexible. And in the day when Sigma can make an excellent 10x zoom, saying "zooms are hard" doesn't cut it.
> 
> Or let's see some real innovation like a 35-105. All the portrait lengths in one zoom.



Yup, because it is hard. There are many 24-105 f/4s out there but no one has made a 24-105 f/2.8. Longer zoom ratios require greater compromises in IQ.


----------

