New 65 f/2.8 & 180 f/3.5 Macro Patents

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; margin: 70px 0 0 0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7328"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 -50px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7328" 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;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7328"></a></div>
<strong>65 f/2.8 Macro</strong></p>
<p><strong></strong><strong>Patent Publication No. 2011-191743</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2011.9.29 Release Date</li>
<li>Filing date 2010.2.16</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 8</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 65.00mm</li>
<li>Fno 2.90 – 3.05 – 3.96</li>
<li>Half angle of 18.41 °</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>145.08mm Length Lens</li>
<li>Back Focus 38.20 – 47.63 – 37.80mm</li>
<li>Positive and negative lens group of positive and negative 4</li>
<li>Inner Focus + Rear Focus</li>
<li>Group 2, Group 3, Group 4 to move the focus method</li>
</ul>
<div><!--more--></div>
<p><strong>180 f/3.5 Macro / 150 f/2.8 Macro / 135 f/2.8 Macro</strong></p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2011-191743</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2011.9.29 Release Date</li>
<li>Filing date 2010.2.16</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 180.00mm</li>
<li>Fno 3.50 – 4.60 – 5.80</li>
<li>6.85 ° half angle</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>225.02mm Length Lens</li>
<li>Back Focus 64.01mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 150.00mm</li>
<li>Fno 2.80 – 4.00 – 5.00</li>
<li>8.21 ° half angle</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>206.53mm Length Lens</li>
<li>Back Focus 49.00mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 5</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 135.00mm</li>
<li>Fno 2.80 – 3.80 – 4.80</li>
<li>9.20 ° half angle</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>205.00mm Length Lens</li>
<li>Back Focus 46.50mm</li>
</ul>
<p>Four groups of positive and negative lenses accurately</p>
<p>Inner Focus</p>
<p>The combination of convex and concave lens, low dispersion and high dispersion in the most object side lens, chromatic aberration correction</p>
<p><strong>Source [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The 180mm macro design speaks for itself, and I think the 65mm macro design is for a direct replacement for the MP-E. Knock on wood, haven't bought either lens yet. I'd wished they would have increased the 180 macro's aperture a bit but the new design will probably be worth it regardless. Lots of interesting patents from Canon lately - if refreshes are your thing.

 

[rbr]

These lenses don't have IS? I don't see Canon releasing new macro lenses without the same hybrid IS in the 100L. The current 180 macro is already a great lens. I think only IS would give anyone a reason to switch to a newer model or attract new buyers.

 

[Stuart]

What are the SP & IP markers denoting?

 

[K-amps]

The 180mm macro design speaks for itself, and I think the 65mm macro design is for a direct replacement for the MP-E. Knock on wood, haven't bought either lens yet. I'd wished they would have increased the 180 macro's aperture a bit but the new design will probably be worth it regardless. Lots of interesting patents from Canon lately - if refreshes are your thing.

180mm: Good for you guys and the guy that sold me his 3 days ago... :-[

 

[lol]

What are the SP & IP markers denoting?

SP = physical aperture
IP = I think is Image Plane, or where the sensor would be.

I'd really love a shorter focal length macro with IS. And longer too. Actually, just IS everything! At least all the patents seem to be full frame lenses. I did wonder at first if the 65mm might replace the EF-S 60mm, but I guess not.

 

[J. McCabe]

I think the 65mm macro design is for a direct replacement for the MP-E

Why would Canon want to upgrade the MP-E 65mm ? It has very little competition, and (according to reviews) is an excellent lens.

 

[Loswr]

I think the 65mm macro design is for a direct replacement for the MP-E.

Makes sense, sort of. I'm not convinced the lens needs an update, as a niche lens (very niche lens!). But since most patents don't lead to products, this one likely will not see the light of day.

I'm puzzled by the designation as 'Inner Focus + Rear Focus' since the MP-E 65mm certainly extends with focusing (aka changing mag). But the lens is physically longer than the MP-E 65mm (~50% longer), so that may account for that (although the MP-E 65mm extends to over twice it's retracted length). OTOH, the statement in the patent, "Group 2, Group 3, Group 4 to move the focus method," does sound a lot like Canon's description of the MP-E 65mm, "The optics uses a 3-group floating system, which moves three lens groups independently for focusing."

What are the SP & IP markers denoting?

From a different Canon lens patent: "Reference character SP denotes an aperture stop, and reference character IP denotes an image plane (or an image surface) where an image-pickup surface of an image-pickup element (photoelectric conversion element) such as a CCD sensor or a CMOS sensor is disposed in the image pickup apparatus."

 

[lol]

In the 65mm patent if groups 2 (inner), 3+4 (rear) move that's both inner and rear focusing.

I just had a look at the MP-E 65, which focuses by "front group linear extension" as Canon describe it. I've visually confirmed at least the rear element is stationary with focus on my sample but can't quite make out which internal elements are where. If I were to redesign the MP-E65, I'd like two things: one, a longer working distance, particularly at maximum magnification. And secondly, a fixed length would help a LOT! You name it, I've stuck the MP-E65 into it one way or other. And I don't use a filter as that robs too much of the precious working distance...

One thing I find interesting about the patent is there seems to be a huge number of elements - 16 according to the translated text. Compare that to the 10 elements in the MP-E65, 12 in the EF-S 60mm and also 100mm classic, and 15 in the 100L IS.

 

[seta666]

Why would Canon want to upgrade the MP-E 65mm ? It has very little competition, and (according to reviews) is an excellent lens.

The MP-E is a wonderfull lens, optically. In my opinion has some big design flaws.
1-It has a 6-blade aperture, which gives awfull hexagonal outofocus highlights
2-Has a full sized front lens, were the glass is small. Ideally should have cone shaped tip, like Olympus auto macro 38mm and 20mm bellow lenses

This the a lens I really have been waiting for; how long can it take from a pattent being made and the lens finally released?
I will work with bellows until then

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The 180mm macro design speaks for itself, and I think the 65mm macro design is for a direct replacement for the MP-E. Knock on wood, haven't bought either lens yet. I'd wished they would have increased the 180 macro's aperture a bit but the new design will probably be worth it regardless. Lots of interesting patents from Canon lately - if refreshes are your thing.

180mm: Good for you guys and the guy that sold me his 3 days ago... :-[

Well, there's a good reason I shouldn't have written that.

First, you knew what you were doing when you bought the lens, so go use it and don't worry.

If you still are worried, why? The price of the new (and unannounced) lens won't start impacting that of the old lens for some time. Few enough people probably even know of these patents and it will take a long time (Canon or Nikon doesn't matter here) for it to roll out, even if they announced it today.

I haven't followed pricing trends before a replacement launch strongly but my belief is that lens prices of a previous version should dip most right before and right after the launch, and then stabilize after. If you're so worried about the price of the purchase (which I don't think will dip enough to really make it a "worthless" buy) then you perhaps couldn't afford it in the first place.

Your best chance for a belly laugh is to go out and make pictures that I can't since I don't have a macro lens. And even if I do get a newer version macro, it'll be more expensive and you'll still have some lead time with better pictures out now.

My final thought is this - if you go out right now and buy a camera body, how long will it take until that camera's value is reduced appreciably? Even camera bodies, which are arguably obsoleted by newer models (depending on who you ask of course) do retain some of their value, but people buy them regardless. If this were a camera body I would be more careful with my words since a lot of people's feelings get hurt about new camera bodies, but with a lens that's to be replaced by a lens that will be more expensive (partly due to inflation adjustment, partly just the cost of running newer equipment to manufacture it) I don't see the worry.

Anyway, go out there and take some pictures without worrying. You needed it, bought it, and nothing is preventing you from being happy with the investment aspect of it either. For all we know the current version will become regarded as a "classic" and people will still demand it later on.

 

[K-amps]

The 180mm macro design speaks for itself, and I think the 65mm macro design is for a direct replacement for the MP-E. Knock on wood, haven't bought either lens yet. I'd wished they would have increased the 180 macro's aperture a bit but the new design will probably be worth it regardless. Lots of interesting patents from Canon lately - if refreshes are your thing.

180mm: Good for you guys and the guy that sold me his 3 days ago... :-[

Well, there's a good reason I shouldn't have written that.

First, you knew what you were doing when you bought the lens, so go use it and don't worry.

If you still are worried, why? The price of the new (and unannounced) lens won't start impacting that of the old lens for some time. Few enough people probably even know of these patents and it will take a long time (Canon or Nikon doesn't matter here) for it to roll out, even if they announced it today.

I haven't followed pricing trends before a replacement launch strongly but my belief is that lens prices of a previous version should dip most right before and right after the launch, and then stabilize after. If you're so worried about the price of the purchase (which I don't think will dip enough to really make it a "worthless" buy) then you perhaps couldn't afford it in the first place.

Your best chance for a belly laugh is to go out and make pictures that I can't since I don't have a macro lens. And even if I do get a newer version macro, it'll be more expensive and you'll still have some lead time with better pictures out now.

My final thought is this - if you go out right now and buy a camera body, how long will it take until that camera's value is reduced appreciably? Even camera bodies, which are arguably obsoleted by newer models (depending on who you ask of course) do retain some of their value, but people buy them regardless. If this were a camera body I would be more careful with my words since a lot of people's feelings get hurt about new camera bodies, but with a lens that's to be replaced by a lens that will be more expensive (partly due to inflation adjustment, partly just the cost of running newer equipment to manufacture it) I don't see the worry.

Anyway, go out there and take some pictures without worrying. You needed it, bought it, and nothing is preventing you from being happy with the investment aspect of it either. For all we know the current version will become regarded as a "classic" and people will still demand it later on.

True... and thanks!

 

[LukieLauXD]

Just bought my MP-E 65mm 1-5x a month ago. :'( Great lens though. -.- Going to redeem myself for my great timing by buying the new camera. So excited for Tuesday ^-^

 

[pharp]

I'll bet the 65 is a replacment for the 50 [very dated, life size converter discontinued], not the MP-E. They really need an EF lens in that range that'll go to 1:1.

Even though it isn't mentioned I'll also bet the 180 will have IS.

 

[K-amps]

I'll bet the 65 is a replacment for the 50 [very dated, life size converter discontinued], not the MP-E. They really need an EF lens in that range that'll go to 1:1.

Even though it isn't mentioned I'll also bet the 180 will have IS.

Perhaps, however the lens is already pushing $1570... add IS and it could top $2000. The lens is heavy, and meant to be used on a tripod (collar comes standard): So unless they can change the size of the lens, I won't be super depressed if IS is missing. I would like to see it focussing a bit quicker though.

 

[pharp]

... add IS and it could top $2000.

Don't disagree, but Canon doesn't seem to figure that into the equation anymore.