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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-5371" title="20101029_optical" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/20101029_optical.png" alt="" width="474" height="271" /></p>
<p><strong>Patent No. 2010-243636</strong>

A new patent for an EF 24-70 f/2.8L II has been published.</p>
<ul>
<li>Patent Publication No.2010-243636</li>
<li>published 2010/10/28</li>
<li>filled 2009/04/02</li>
<li>focal distance 24.54-66.07mm</li>
<li>Fno=2.91-2.92</li>
<li>angle of view 82.8-36.26°</li>
<li>image circle 43.28mm</li>
<li>length 204.97-170.32mm</li>
<li>back focus 37.06mm</li>
</ul>
<p>I’m on my phone at the moment and will search for the actual patent later.</p>
<p><em>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2010-10-29-english" target="_self">egami</a>]</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;"><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></span>

 

[Son of Daguerre]

No IS?!

 

[neuroanatomist]

No IS?!

Give up and come to grips with reality - the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is just not going to happen. Sheesh!

(Ok, I wish that Canon will release it soon...but like my pappy used to say, wish in one hand and $h1t in the other and see which fills up fastest...)

 

[Cyrax]

How does that image imply that there's no IS? Calm down; Canon has no reason not to include IS on the lens.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

How does that image imply that there's no IS? Calm down; Canon has no reason not to include IS on the lens.

Where's the IS element?

 

[Justin]

Hmmm, good to see a patent. Is there such a thing as an IS element? I don't think there is anything on here to suggest there will not be an IS implementation in this focal range.

 

[Justin]

Also, anyone have the existing 24-70 patent for the comparison? I'm looking and my google powers are waning...

update: found the block diagram: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_24~70_28l_usm.html?p=2

 

[Grendel]

A wee bit more detail here: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2010-10-29-english

 

[Sherwin]

Also, anyone have the existing 24-70 patent for the comparison? I'm looking and my google powers are waning...

update: found the block diagram: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_24~70_28l_usm.html?p=2

Comparing the two diagram, it seems the major differences are: 1) the distance between L1 and L2 groups, 2) the rear elements.

Does IS mean that there will be "floating" lens/lens group(s) in the design?

 

[x-vision]

The distance doesn't matter, since these are moving groups.

The new design differs from the old one only by the last two groups - L5 and L6.
Other than that, the two designs are identical.

So, the new lens will most likely be as big and heavy as the old one (unless they change the lens barrel ??).

We can't tell from the design diagram if this will be an IS lens or not.
The L3 group seems like a good candidate for the IS unit.

 

[Justin]

Right, the way i understand it the groups move so the differences between diagrams can be a function of focal length differences. I am certain this lens gets the IS treatment. just hope it gets announced in early Jan like the 70-200 did.

The distance doesn't matter, since these are moving groups.

The new design differs from the old one only by the last two groups - L5 and L6.
Other than that, the two designs are identical.

So, the new lens will most likely be as big and heavy as the old one (unless they change the lens barrel ??).

We can't tell from the design diagram if this will be an IS lens or not.
The L3 group seems like a good candidate for the IS unit.

 

[Justin]

However, the optical system is considerably complicated. A lens behind is fixed, but the other lenses move by focusing and zooming. The Cam will become the considerably elaborate mechanism. The body tube must upsize.

Translation?

Sounds like a potential description of an IS "mechanism". Certainly an extending lens.

A wee bit more detail here: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2010-10-29-english

 

[MadButcher]

How does that image imply that there's no IS? Calm down; Canon has no reason not to include IS on the lens.

Filming?
Or should I buy 24-70 AND 24-105?

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Filming?

I thought Hybrid IS was starting to take the bite out of that.

IS would be nice but I guess perhaps they're trying to keep the lens affordable / cheap.

 

[scalesusa]

The block diagrams sometimes identify the IS unit, but sometimes not.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef-s/ef-s15~85_35~56is_usm.html?p=2

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef-s/ef-s15~85_35~56is_usm.html?p=2

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=652485

We really need to read the patent, however, it does not appear at first glance to have a IS unit in the lens, if there were one, it would certainly be identified in the description.

 

[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.