Patent: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.2-f/2.8

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,452
252
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
We’re likely going to see a flurry of RF mount lens patents over the next few years. EF lens development generally builds off previous designs, RF lens development, for the most part, is going to be all new. I think we’re likely to see some crazy and cool concepts over the next few years from Canon.
This patent application is for a different 28-70mm, which doesn’t resemble the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM at all. This patent shows a 28-70mm lens that is much smaller at 155mm compared to the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM at just shy of 200mm.

Japan Patent Application 2018-197774:
Focal distance          28.84  44.14  67.90
F number                    2.25   2.62   2.91
a half field angle     36.88  26.11  17.67
Image height            21.64  21.64  21.64
length of the lens   146.94 157.60 175.00
BF                                   20.75  28.77  34.64
Focal distance        28.82  44.24  67.90...
Continue reading...
 
Last edited:

memoriaphoto

EOS 80D
Oct 14, 2013
120
33
I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens. 28-70 is a comprimise on the wide end, but if you get 2.0 all the way through then I think many can live with that. I mean...that lens is sexy.

But 2.2 - 2.8? Nah... then I would prefer 24mm wide and 2.8
 
Reactions: bokehmon22 and tron

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,877
1,207
Canada
I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens. 28-70 is a comprimise on the wide end, but if you get 2.0 all the way through then I think many can live with that. I mean...that lens is sexy.

But 2.2 - 2.8? Nah... then I would prefer 24mm wide and 2.8
Where I live the 28-70F2 lens is $3900..... that makes it a hard sell to all but the most fanatic. A slower version of the lens means it will be a lot more affordable. Perhaps the "new way" with the R mount will be F4 for economical/physically smaller, F2.8 for those who want faster and can afford it, and F2 for theones where money and size is no object.

Lets see what happens with the 70-200 series, and lets see what is to come for wide.....
 

flip314

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2018
117
115
The 28-70 f2 is also a beast... I'm sure it's a great lens (and I want one!), but it sounds impractical to use as a walk around lens. If the 28-70 2.2-2.8 is significantly lighter than the f2 there could well be a market for it.

I'm still most looking forward to a great 24-70 f2.8 with IS.
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
806
175
Turku, Finland
I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens.
This is not a lens. It is a patent for an optical formula. Most patents never become products and are simply exploratory engineering or byproducts of a design that actually ends up on the shelves. CR guy himself said that it’s doubtful that this is ever productized.
 
Reactions: Del Paso

memoriaphoto

EOS 80D
Oct 14, 2013
120
33
Where I live the 28-70F2 lens is $3900..... that makes it a hard sell to all but the most fanatic. A slower version of the lens means it will be a lot more affordable. Perhaps the "new way" with the R mount will be F4 for economical/physically smaller, F2.8 for those who want faster and can afford it, and F2 for theones where money and size is no object.

Lets see what happens with the 70-200 series, and lets see what is to come for wide.....
right, but my point was the 28mm at the wide end and how far one is willing to go to sacrifice the conventional 24mm
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,877
1,207
Canada
right, but my point was the 28mm at the wide end and how far one is willing to go to sacrifice the conventional 24mm
I am fairly sure that the vast majority will go for the 24-70 F2.8 or F4, but for the few who REALLY want that F2, I am equally sure they will give up those 4mm to get it.

It’s like the people shooting Astro..... they get a F 1.4 lens. That 1.4 is useless for almost everything else, but if you need it for that one task, then you need it.
 

memoriaphoto

EOS 80D
Oct 14, 2013
120
33
I am fairly sure that the vast majority will go for the 24-70 F2.8 or F4, but for the few who REALLY want that F2, I am equally sure they will give up those 4mm to get it.

It’s like the people shooting Astro..... they get a F 1.4 lens. That 1.4 is useless for almost everything else, but if you need it for that one task, then you need it.
2.0 yes. I was referring to the patent of a 28-70/2.2-2.8
 

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
158
93
I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this lens
Conversely I don't see the point of the 24-70 f2.8 EF. If it can open to f2.8 at 70mm then it can also theoretically open to MUCH brighter than f2.8 at 24mm, but Canon cripple it to f2.8. All that extra glass is wasted at the wide end.

This new formula looks like a sensible kick in the pants for decades of fixed-at-2.8 thinking.
 

juststeve

I'm New Here
Nov 29, 2018
16
22
Conversely I don't see the point of the 24-70 f2.8 EF. If it can open to f2.8 at 70mm then it can also theoretically open to MUCH brighter than f2.8 at 24mm, but Canon cripple it to f2.8. All that extra glass is wasted at the wide end.

This new formula looks like a sensible kick in the pants for decades of fixed-at-2.8 thinking.
This could be a very compact lens, about the size of a 24-70/4. Notice how little the lens extends for the tele end. Notice how short it is relative to width. Back in the day, I owned the 28-80/2.8-4 L. Quality was spectacular and so was the size. With the change in lens design parameters RF vs. EF, perhaps a similarly spectacular lens could be made now but much more compactly.
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,019
160
28-70mm is one of those focal lengths that make no sense to me.
24-70 has some element of wide angle capability.
I've always felt 28mm was an annoying focal length - neither here not there.
I don't think this lens will fly.
 

maves

24mm TS-e ii is life!
Sep 21, 2017
14
10
Tasmania
I've always found the long end of 24-70's to be a funny range. I would love to see them stretch a couple more MM out of the long end. 28(or even 35)-85mm f2/2.8. That would be a wedding/portrait go to. The 55-70 range is neither here nor there for me.
 

jonebize

I'm New Here
Dec 15, 2018
18
14
Wider is better than the 70mm reach. I would rather see a 24-58 honestly. But I do love the variable aperture logic. 20-50 f/2-2.8, 20-35mm f/2.0, or even 24-50 f/2-2.8 would be cool. Or 24-50/2.0. I shoot at the wider end almost the whole time when using a 24-70mm and would rather have the stop than the longer range. I hope that 28-X lenses don't become the trend.
 
Last edited:

jonebize

I'm New Here
Dec 15, 2018
18
14
I wish they would come up with a better pair of lenses for event shooting -- where it would make more sense to break the zoom ranges at 35 instead of 24 (or even 28). Like I said above, a 20-35mm f/2.0 would be amazing. But it would need to be paired with something like a 35-100mm lens for event shooters using two lenses. The 35-100mm could be variable aperture, moderately fast, and get the job done. I also like maves' idea of a 35-85/2.0-2.8. A 35-105mm f/2.8 would obviously be great. But even a 35-105/2.5-3.5 or f/2.8-4.0 would work well for me. But I do feel like you would need f/2.8 at 50mm.

The zoom ranges should "break" at where a person no longer considers images to be wide angle. I would say 35mm would be appropriate for that.

Obviously a Sigma 24-35/2.0 already exists. I would be happy even if there were a 35-100mm or fast 35-85mm lens somewhere on the market to complement it.
 
Last edited: