Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent?

[Norkusa]

Any guesses on price? Could it be under $2k USD?

[Justin]

Sure I guess 1999.

Any guesses on price? Could it be under $2k USD?

[YoukY63]

Anyone know if it is common for Canon to publish a patent about a product not on the market until months?
I sincerely don't know. But I don't think so (or we would not be surprised and wondering every time which will be the next new lens).
So I guess this patent is just to protect a good formula close to their (actual) product, but does not necessarily means there next 24-70 will look like that. It is common for all the brands. My 0.02.

[MCK]

What will be the price for such one and when is it on the marked ?

[neuroanatomist]

Anyone know if it is common for Canon to publish a patent about a product not on the market until months?

Any company engaging in R&D does this.  Patents are cheap (at least, a lot cheaper than having someone else infringe on your designs).  Canon has hundreds of patents on lenses that were never made at all. 

[daniel charms]

Anyone know if it is common for Canon to publish a patent about a product not on the market until months?

Well, if you dig in the CR archives a bit, you'll find that patents related to the batch of lenses announced in September were published in Dec 2009/Jan 2010. Of course not all of those patents have materialized and for those that did materialize, the final product might be quite different from the one described in the patent; so while this patent is an indication that a new 24-70 could be coming, it doesn't really say much about when it will come out.

[x-vision]

In a related news, Canon has just obtained a US patent for a 35-70/2.8 full-frame lens:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7859767.html

The patent has been filed on 02/17/2009, so it's a new design.

Achieving robust image quality in a compact design seems to be the main motivation here.

[CR Backup Admin]

And, as always, Canon covers all the bases to protect a mirrorless design. 

"Here, it is to be noted that the present invention is similarly applicable also to a camera without a quick return mirror."

[remy.brooks]

I don't think anyone has to worry about Canon not putting is in the new version. Canon would be stupid not to put is in the new lens. For 3 years people have been bitching about no is so if they didn't put is in the new lens no one would upgrade to it

[UngerPhotography]

IFor 3 years people have been bitching

Vocal minority? Not that IS wouldn't be nice, but I would rather the lens be sharper overall and suffer less distortion at extreme ends then have IS. Both would be great, but I wouldn't cry if it lacked IS. It is more of a wide lens which doesn't require as much IS as larger zoom lenses.

[tzalmagor]

IFor 3 years people have been bitching

Vocal minority? Not that IS wouldn't be nice, but I would rather the lens be sharper overall and suffer less distortion at extreme ends then have IS. Both would be great, but I wouldn't cry if it lacked IS. It is more of a wide lens which doesn't require as much IS as larger zoom lenses.

I 2nd that.

I already have the existing 24-70, and would like to upgrade it for a newer model with better image quality and, as far as possible, less weight. IS would be nice, but improved image quality and price are more important to me.

[papa-razzi]

What will be the price for such one and when is it on the marked ?

Canon has been using new product introductions on lenses to adjust their pricing upwards.  The dollar has fallen quite a bit since in the last few years, so it makes sense they will raise the price.  My guess is they will price it close to $2k USD.  They could also keep the current lens in the lineup as a non-IS lens if the new lens has IS.

[Flake]

I'm not sure why a patent application for the design & construction of a lens has to have every single design point included.  The IS part of a lens is already covered by patents, and new patents have to cover something new & original.

There is another point to consider - Canon offer 2 different 70 - 200mm lenses, and offer them in IS & non IS versions.  There is nothing here to show that Canon can not / will not offer similar in the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 satisfying budgets and market demand.

[CR Backup Admin]

I'm not sure why a patent application for the design & construction of a lens has to have every single design point included.  The IS part of a lens is already covered by patents, and new patents have to cover something new & original.

There is another point to consider - Canon offer 2 different 70 - 200mm lenses, and offer them in IS & non IS versions.  There is nothing here to show that Canon can not / will not offer similar in the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 satisfying budgets and market demand.

The is unit contains optics and thus is part of the optical path being patented.  It might not be identified on the patent as a IS, but it needs to be included in the optics.

[Flake]

Canon also patented a 600mm f/5.6 with what appears to be DO optics, but there's no explicit mention of IS, it would be really surprising if a lens like this didn't have IS.