Patent: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 DO

[Canon Rumors]

<p>A patent showing another optical formula for a diffractive optics lens has appeared, this time in the form of a 70-200mm f/2.8 DO. Most of the patent seems to talk about this lens for video applications.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-80877</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.5.16</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.10.17</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.69</li>
<li>Focal length 72.15 134.00 193.98</li>
<li>F-number 2.91 2.91 2.91</li>
<li>Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>The total lens length 223.50 223.50 223.50</li>
<li>BF 45.35 45.35 45.35</li>
</ul>
<p>We expect to see new Cinema EOS announcements for IBC in September, including the Cinema EOS C700.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Maximilian]

The optics of the current EF 70–200/2,8L IS II USM is one of the best zoom optics on the market.
The lens is neither too big nor too heavy.

Smaller lighter gear is always fine but I wouldn't go for that if the IQ would stay just a fraction behind.
I also see no optical reasons to change anything for a video lens. Of course AF, zoom, mechanical things, etc. I'd say would differ.

So if this patent is really becoming a product I'd be very interested in an optical comparison to the EF 70–200/2,8L IS II USM.

 

[Random Orbits]

Looking forward to Canon's DO technology filtering down into all their lenses. With lenses getting heavier with more elements, it's good to have a technology that will help drive the weight down.

 

[K-amps]

They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.

 

[raptor3x]

They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.

You spelled "eight times" wrong.

 

[Random Orbits]

They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.

And the 70-200 f/2 IS DO would be less expensive than the 5k prime because... ?

 

[[email protected]]

I would trade up if the formula had the 100-400's mfd.

 

[j-nord]

DO and/or BR would need to go into a 70-200ii replacement otherwise I really don't see the reason for an update at this time.

 

[kirbic]

- Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36

- Image height 21.64

This is an EF-S lens.

 

[peoplemerge]

I also see no optical reasons to change anything for a video lens.

The biggest difference between most still zooms and video zooms are that video zooms are parfocal, and still lenses are not. The non-IS 70-200/2.8L version is parfocal.

Although I've heard reports of people who have a varifocal copy, I suspect either these copies are not in spec or there are multiple editions of the lens. I still own the one I bought in 1998, it's parfocal, and that is part of the reason it's been in my arsenal such a long time.

 

[StudentOfLight]

- Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36

- Image height 21.64

This is an EF-S lens.

Image height is the radius of the image circle. (as seen on MTF charts)
(0.5) x (36^2+24^2)^(0.5) = 21.63

So this would be a full frame lens.

 

[TeT]

They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.

ooh nice.... sign me up!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is aimed at 8K video, but, it could be used for stills if anyone wanted to spend $60K for it.

"[Problem to be solved by the invention]
[0006]
When it was image quality equivalent to the conventional full hi-vision (the pixel number 1920x1080, the pixel size of several micrometers), a conventional case which is described in above-mentioned patent documents was sufficient. However, about the image quality called for in the future [ of super Hi-Vision (the pixel number 8000x4000 the pixel size of around 1 micrometer) etc. ], the image formation performance of the conventional zoom lens is not sufficient. Therefore, the improvement in the further performance"

 

[kirbic]

- Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36

- Image height 21.64

This is an EF-S lens.

Image height is the radius of the image circle. (as seen on MTF charts)
(0.5) x (36^2+24^2)^(0.5) = 21.63

So this would be a full frame lens.

The math does work out, yes... but how to explain the angle of view, which is dramatically smaller than FF? It actually looks like the AOV is closer to a 2x crop; I've never seen a "half angle" specified as the angle of view...

 

[RGF]

They need to do an 70-200mm F/2.0 IS with DO. I'd be happy to pay twice what they are asking for the F/2.8ii IS version if it is as sharp. Canon should not care if it eats into the sales of the 200 F2 if they can more than make up on volume sales of the zoom.

Even if the lens is twice as heavy?

 

[danski0224]

Even if the lens is twice as heavy?

If that is the case, it would be easier to justify costing 2x as much

 

[ejenner]

Personally I wouldn't be interested. One really nice and to me important aspect of the current 2.8 is the decent bokeh. I have the 400 DO II and for that lens I'm glad to sacrifice some bokeh characteristics for size and weight, but not in a 70-200 f2.8.

 

[Wizardly]

Nobody noticed the EF 100-400 mm f/4-5.6 DO also discussed in this patent? Just as exciting!

 

[StudentOfLight]

- Angle of view 16.69 9.17 6.36

- Image height 21.64

This is an EF-S lens.

Image height is the radius of the image circle. (as seen on MTF charts)
(0.5) x (36^2+24^2)^(0.5) = 21.63

So this would be a full frame lens.

The math does work out, yes... but how to explain the angle of view, which is dramatically smaller than FF? It actually looks like the AOV is closer to a 2x crop; I've never seen a "half angle" specified as the angle of view...

See the following:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-06-17

 

[Maximilian]

Do we have a patent for the 70-200/f2.8 IS USM II to compare it with?

Because otherwise, this patent is for a lens that is longer (223mm) than the 70-200/f.8 IS II USM (199mm) although nothing is said of diameter/weight.

So "DO" = "smaller" does not seem to apply here.

Sorry, but wrong, dilbert!

Because the 223 mm is the optical formula from front element to image plane. You have to subtract the flange distance (44 mm).

Physical length of the lens (if EF mount) would be 223 mm - 40 44 mm = 183 179 mm (or even less) (edit: corrected my own math here)
So this makes the lens about 2 cm shorter.