# Patent - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 8, 2012)

```
<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=10600"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10600" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10600"></a></div>
<strong>You want IS?


</strong>A patent for an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS has surfaced finally, this has been a lens that has been talked about and desired for a long time.</p>
<p>We mentioned <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/a-random-roadmap-lenses-body-cr1/" target="_blank">some time back that there were 5 or 6 version</a> of the new 24-70, and one of them had IS. Canon decided against an IS version for reasons to do with weight, size and cost from what I’m told.</p>
<p>Sadly for the ones that want an IS version of this lens, I have little faith that such a lens will be coming any time soon. Patents can sometimes appear after a product has been announced, and that’s probably what has happened here.</p>
<div id="attachment_10601" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 325px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2470is.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-10601" title="2470is" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2470is.png" alt="" width="315" height="178" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS</p></div>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2012-123156</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2012.6.28 Release Date</li>
<li>2010.12.8 filing date</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.46</li>
<li>68.99mm – f = 28.00 focal length</li>
<li>Fno. 2.88</li>
<li>17.41 deg – 37.69 half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>222.38mm – 192.25 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 39.98 – 53.68</li>
<li>Effective diameter 74.47mm ball before</li>
<li>Effective diameter aperture 31.23mm</li>
<li>19 sheets 12 group lens configuration</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD glass sheet</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 2</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.86</li>
<li>68.70 – f = 24.00 focal length</li>
<li>Fno. 2.88</li>
<li>17.48 deg – 42.03 half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>224.86mm – 191.93 full-length lens</li>
<li>BF 39.85 – 55.68mm</li>
<li>Effective diameter 77.29mm ball before</li>
<li>Effective diameter aperture 32.58mm</li>
<li>Lens Construction 12 group 21 sheets</li>
<li>Three three aspherical surface</li>
<li>2 UD glass sheet</li>
<li>Five-group zoom positive and negative positive positive and negative</li>
<li>(For Focusing group 2) Inner Focus</li>
<li>(Part 1 of the fourth lens group, anti-vibration unit is L4a) image stabilization</li>
</ul>
<div>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-07-08" target="_blank">EG</a>]</div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 8, 2012)

It's good that the new one doesn't have IS. That allows me to spend the money I would have spent on it elsewhere.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 8, 2012)

Canon is just playing you.


----------



## japhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

Two possibilities.

1.) This was one of the lenses tested for the MkII of the 24-70L and it was just patented for the sake of being patented.

2.) Canon actually listens what people want and on top of that Tamron has put pressure on them with their stabilized lens, so they are bringing one out.

I'm willing to bet on the first option though...


----------



## Etienne (Jul 8, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> It's good that the new one doesn't have IS. That allows me to spend the money I would have spent on it elsewhere.



At $2300 it should come with IS ...

... and a Butler.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 8, 2012)

So they will make an overpriced V2 and then have plans for a IS version. Why didn't they just make the V2 have IS?


----------



## Ricku (Jul 9, 2012)

RayValdez360 said:


> So they will make an overpriced V2 and then have plans for a IS version. Why didn't they just make the V2 have IS?


It is quite simple really. Canon will first launch the overpriced 24-70L II, and then they will launch the 24-70L II IS at an ever higher price! (Let's call it "over overpriced"). 

The pricetag of the IS version will then make the non IS version look like a bargain!

This strategy might seem kinda strange, but do not worry - Canonites will bend over and take it deep. Both versions will sell like hotcakes, regardless of overpricing. Just look at the 5D3 sales!

These are happy days for Canon.


----------



## pwp (Jul 9, 2012)

Ricku said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > So they will make an overpriced V2 and then have plans for a IS version. Why didn't they just make the V2 have IS?
> ...



This strategy seems to have worked with both the 70-200 f/2.8 & f4. The IS versions makes the non-IS versions look like a bargain....and they probably are!

PW


----------



## dstppy (Jul 9, 2012)

OR . . . it would be so unfeasibly expensive now that they really need a bulletproof mkII run to get all of the optics right before releasing a 'just with IS' upgrade.

What was the other option, charge $2300 for a mkII that ONLY had IS and could basically churn out 'as good' pictures?

My vote goes with that this was one of the 'test iterations' out there, and it just didn't have good enough IQ to go this route vs what they are releasing . . .

Or we could complain about price more. I came to do that  but everyone else beat me to it, so I guess I have to think instead.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 9, 2012)

i hope they make it a non extending zoom like the 70-200 too


----------



## picturesbyme (Jul 9, 2012)

Smart move from Canon and now there is a lens they can charge 2500 for and people will go for it. 
Maybe they should have asked $2500 for the mk2 and 2900 for this, people would still defend it b/c it would became a status symbol like....


----------



## robbymack (Jul 9, 2012)

I know others would like a stabilized version of this but I cannot see the use in this focal range for what I shoot. That is just my $0.02. I am sure others would so I'd be fine with two versions of this lens at two price points.


----------



## Gcon (Jul 9, 2012)

Ricku said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > So they will make an overpriced V2 and then have plans for a IS version. Why didn't they just make the V2 have IS?
> ...



The IS version wouldn't be called "24-70L II IS" as this implies that there is already an IS version out there. The first IS version would be "24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM" (no "II").

I am quite happy to not have IS. Just use a flash and/or high ISO or even a tripod. Problem solved. Good job Canon.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 9, 2012)

Tamron 24-70 VC= 1000€
Canon 24-70 I = 1200€
Canon 24-70 II = 2300€

from what I gather (i do not own any of these lenses, much to the pitty), the Tamron is egual to, if not better than the Canon mkI in optical quality and is ~20% cheaper AND has VC. The Mk II is hailed to have supirior optics, but no IS and costs 2.3x the price... An IS version of MkI or MkII would be closer to 3000€ (as dilbert suggested), 3x the price of the Tamron... Seems a little overpriced!

I honestly think Canon is not in the most competative position for its standard 24-70 zooms... they are pricing themselves out of the race... 

Competition is always good, any new lens from any maker is good for all of us, directly or indirectly! I say, let canon bring an IS version out, let it be stupidly overpriced, and let them learn their lesson!


----------



## AUGS (Jul 9, 2012)

japhoto said:


> Two possibilities.
> 1.) This was one of the lenses tested for the MkII of the 24-70L and it was just patented for the sake of being patented.
> 2.) Canon actually listens what people want and on top of that Tamron has put pressure on them with their stabilized lens, so they are bringing one out.
> I'm willing to bet on the first option though...



The first option is most accurate.

The original patent filing date (Dec 2010) would have been made before they decided on which design option to release. As soon as they make the options/alternatives available for field testing they become public domain and you can lose the opportunity to patent the idea later. As such, all designs (5-6 as per CR original post) would have been patented at that time, to protect all designs they may release, and thats long before Tamron announced theirs.

Deciding to follow through and publish the patent indicates they want to protect their intellectual property in that design embodiment, but is no definite indicator they will ever produce one.

For now, I just want my 24-70 f/2.8L II......


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2012)

I've had two Tamron lenses and both broke under the riggors of professional use in less than a year. My current 24-70L, which is a good copy, has amazing build quality. It's never failed once over the last 4 years of use. It's almost bomb proof and it's performance isn't just measured in MFT charts. 
If the new version can match the old one's build quality then yes it will be a winner with professional photographers. It'll be nice to have the newer coatings and improved optics. Do I need an IS equipped 24-70L? No not really...would I like one? Well, I'd want to try one out before I'd commit. There's more to a lens then optics and Image Stabilisers. Reliability is key for this particular lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2012)

Would be AWESOME if this lens has internal zoom - like 70-200 f2.8 IS II 

My 2 cents: price tag will be $2999 and it be ready by 2014 - plenty of time for everyone to save $$$


----------



## Fatalv (Jul 9, 2012)

I would also gladly take IS and Internal Zoom even if the weight increased. As long as the weight didn't exceed the 70-200 2.8 IS II I wouldn't care. I was really hoping for both of these features would have been in the new 24-70 at a price tag of $2500.

For those that argue against IS being useful, then why does the EF-S 17-55 have it? Or even the new primes?


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 9, 2012)

The V II 24-70 might be a tad over priced (Nikon's is $1800 and doesn't have VR either). But the Tamron lens isn't an option because its a Tamron lens.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 9, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Would be AWESOME if this lens has internal zoom - like 70-200 f2.8 IS II
> 
> My 2 cents: price tag will be $2999 and it be ready by 2014 - plenty of time for everyone to save $$$



If it's internal zoom all that means is it will be, ALWAYS, nearly the length of the 24-70 II out at 70mm all the time....

I could be wrong, but I think those designs sometimes require larger amounts of exotic glass too, not sure though.


----------



## iaind (Jul 9, 2012)

Canon are just protecting their R&D costs.

Big question is how cost effective it was. It may never see production like so many other patents


----------



## Dylan (Jul 9, 2012)

I don't understand why some people whine about this lens not having IS. I can shoot my 135 2.0, handheld at 1/80 without a problem. The focal range of this lens is a no brainer to me.


----------



## Caps18 (Jul 9, 2012)

I would like to see them merge the 24-70 and the 70-200 IS to create a 35-150mm IS f/2.8 (with internal zoom). (maybe 35-135mm)

I really would like one lens that I could take with me on a walking tour of a city on vacation. It's not so much the weight as it is the swapping and having to put lots of lenses into pockets that bothers me right now.

I might still take the 16-35mm or 17mm TS-e around as well, but the 35-150mm range would be nice to be able to zoom and crop quickly.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 10, 2012)

dilbert said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > The V II 24-70 might be a tad over priced (Nikon's is $1800 and doesn't have VR either). But the Tamron lens isn't an option because its a Tamron lens.
> ...



maybe he had a dodgy tamron previously, I did and so this is my main reason for not buying one, lack of confidence in the build quality and performance. same reason i wont buy old crinkle paint sigmas. however every new generation sigma with the new finish i have tried has been amazing


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 10, 2012)

Dylan said:


> I don't understand why some people whine about this lens not having IS. I can shoot my 135 2.0, handheld at 1/80 without a problem. The focal range of this lens is a no brainer to me.



I've shot my 24-105 at 1 second hand-held, and routinely do so from 1/4 at 24mm to 1/10th at 105mm. Which would you prefer, ISO 12,800 and 1/80th or ISO 1,600 and 1/10th?

I was recently at the National Air and Space Museum (both locations) where tripods aren't allowed and more DOF is desirable (i.e. I didn't want to use my 35/1.4L or 85/1.8). IS was exceptionally valuable at getting good shots with high image quality.

That's why.


----------



## Dylan (Jul 10, 2012)

12800 : I get what you're saying and without a doubt it can be useful for a select few situations. I typically don't run that slow of a shutter to avoid subect movement, not mine. I once went to Pioneer Square in Portland OR and was told by a security officer that I couldn't use my tripod because it was considered erecting a structure.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 10, 2012)

Dylan said:


> 12800 : I get what you're saying and without a doubt it can be useful for a select few situations. I typically don't run that slow of a shutter to avoid subect movement, not mine. I once went to Pioneer Square in Portland OR and was told by a security officer that I couldn't use my tripod because it was considered erecting a structure.



When I was at the two museums, my most-used shutter speed was 1/6th, and I rarely went above 1/20th. Without IS, that wouldn't have been possible. My worst situation was 0.6 seconds at ISO 3200 and f/4 pushed two stops. That's a dark environment! I still got a solid, sharp shot. I wouldn't have minded having f/2.8 on that one because DOF wasn't a problem.

Generally, I find f/2.8 lenses are too slow when I have moving subjects in poor light. That's when I use the primes. Just the other day I was again shooting at ISO 3200 and f/1.8 at a wedding. So I consider an f/2.8 lens to be a lens primarily for stationary subjects where the IS is really helpful, or as a slow zoom where I'm going to add flash or I have good light anyway.

But oh well, I'll just keep my 24-105.


----------



## Wideopen (Jul 11, 2012)

I better start saving. Hopefully it wont costs as much as a 70-200 2.8L II


----------



## Videoshooter (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm with others here and agree this lens is not something Canon are planning to release. (Not saying they won't have a 24-70 2.8 IS anytime, just that I think this one was probably a design that they tested and then decided against in it's current form.)

Personally, I would probably pay an extra $500 for an IS version over the 24-70 II - because $500 is only a fraction of what the total cost would be anyway. However I would never buy the 24-70 II at it's current price. 

I'm looking to upgrade one of my 60D's to a used 5dmkII and I think I'll get an original 24-70 as my main lens for a few reasons - I shoot mostly video so version II's extra sharpness isn't needed for me - even for stills, the 24-70 will be sharp enough for my uses. The used price on the original will hopefully fall as people dump theirs to upgrade (if the new version ever arrives!) so the savings would be even greater compared to the version II. I also am kind of dissapointed that the new one does away with the reverse zoom mechanism - when combined with a lens hood, this feature was the next-best-thing to an internal zoom. In wet weather (which we've had a lot of here lately) the hood keeps the inner barrel dry, which prevents potential disasters!


----------



## JEAraman (Jul 17, 2012)

Videoshooter said:


> I also am kind of dissapointed that the new one does away with the reverse zoom mechanism - when combined with a lens hood, this feature was the next-best-thing to an internal zoom. In wet weather (which we've had a lot of here lately) the hood keeps the inner barrel dry, which prevents potential disasters!



++++++ Exactly my thoughts!


----------

