Comments on: Lens Patents Everywhere

By: Son of Daguerre

Son of Daguerre — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:30:13 +0000

I want an EF 600mm f/4 DO IS USM lens. Great for wildlife photography but the EF 600mm f/4L IS USM is rather heavy at 11lb.

By: fittyelle

fittyelle — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:40:55 +0000

dont get to hopeful these lenses (zooms mentioned above) might end up in a powershot.. the s90 has a f2-4something zoom.. its fun to imagine though..

By: blah

blah — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:50:40 +0000

The 28-35 reports angles of view as 46.91 degrees at 28.81 mm and 39.91 degrees at 34.43 mm. I didn’t work the math all the way out, but that’s far more consistent with a 1.6 crop factor than a 135 format lens.

By: eric-p

eric-p — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:32:13 +0000

Hello,
You don’t see the revolution in the patent with the news
400/2.8 LIS NG.Look carefully at the patent:It’s an optical revolution if they release such lenses next year!

By: J-Man

J-Man — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:15:38 +0000

This lens would match up with my 16-35LII, and possibly have better IQ than the 24-70.
Buying it will depend on the 14-24 if & when it becomes available, and it’s IQ.

By: J-Man

J-Man — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:59:15 +0000

I wonder how many they have kept through the years,
I bet it would be an interesting collection.

By: mucher

mucher — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:45:49 +0000

Wondering when will 35-70 will come alive and how big how much it will be.

By: PatentJudge

PatentJudge — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:12:47 +0000

For example, why do they mention both the 35-70/2.8IS and 28-70/2.8IS in one patent? I doubt very much that Canon would make *both* of these lenses – and why these instead of a continuation of the 24-70/2.8 as an IS?

My guess is that they’ve manufactured sample products of both, patented them (in the aforementioned patent) and then proceeded to evaluate them with testers, etc, to determine which one gets the nod and which one does not.

The patent bit protects them should a test unit fall into the wrong hands (either deliberately or not) after it leaves their R&D labs.

By: PatentJudge

PatentJudge — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:08:09 +0000

Just because something is patented does not mean that it will become a product. I expect that searching through patents for lens products is giving us an eye on what gets made internally (in trial products) and not necessarily a reflection of what gets run up as a consumer product.

It is better to patent something that might become a real product, early on, because of the length of time it takes for patents to be approved.

If you looked through the entire patent catalogue, I’m sure you will find many patents that apply to things that never saw the light of day, for one reason or another.

By: Freeze_XJ

Freeze_XJ — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:49:56 +0000

Eeeh i don’t think so… The 35 1.4 will deduct some $1500 from your bank account ;) (at least around here). Oh, and the notion that new weird-tech never comes cheap. IS still has a major price premium as well, DO is even weirder. I’d fear a price of $1000 to $1500 at least. If it’s sharp, add another 500.

By: Fireice

Fireice — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:09:12 +0000

With a shorter zoom range, the IQ would probably be very close to prime quality. If they price this one right, say $250-$350 maybe, this lens will be interesting. :)

By: Freeze_XJ

Freeze_XJ — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:00:52 +0000

It doesn’t even replace them at all… Unless ofcourse the resolution, bokeh and other specs match the primes… (the 28 1.8 isn’t exactly stellar, but the 35 1.4 certainly will put up a fight)
Oh, and it’s a very short range indeed, so what is the advantage of ‘zooming’ here? If they make it 20-50 f/2, it might be interesting, though.

By: D. Delacour

D. Delacour — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:52:02 +0000

Hi,

What about the Patent Number: 20090284847 ?
Does it mean that Canon works on a new 300mm f4 IS ?

By: Dean

Dean — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:46:58 +0000

yeah, agreed, it should be a 24(or 20)-35 but even still this would mean a MUCH larger lens