Patent: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II

[Canon Rumors]

A patent that is likely part of the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II development has appeared over at Egami. We expect to <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-ef-24-105-f4l-is-replacement-coming-with-5d-mark-iv-cr3/">see this lens announced alongside the EOS 5D Mark IV</a> in August of this year.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-71283</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.5.9</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.10.1</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 4.13</li>
<li>Focal length 24.70 32.04 102.11</li>
<li>F-number 4.10</li>
<li>Half angle of view (degrees) 41.22 34.03 11.96</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>The total lens length 148.96 152.86 207.64</li>
<li>BF 35.80 36.22 53.51</li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Loswr]

Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.

 

[hne]

Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.

Really? Not mixed that up with extended length? According to Canon:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
3.3 in. x 4.2 in., 23.6 oz. / 83.5mm x 107mm, 670g (lens only)

I say we're looking at a beast of a lens, which will be longer at 105mm than the 70-200/4L

 

[NancyP]

Maybe I will finally get off my duff and buy a normal zoom.

 

[wsmith96]

Nice - I like my current one, and I'm hoping that this will show the same improvements as the other recent mk II lenses. Time for me to start selling off some gear before the market gets flooded with used copies.

 

[Meatcurry]

Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.

Really? Not mixed that up with extended length? According to Canon:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
3.3 in. x 4.2 in., 23.6 oz. / 83.5mm x 107mm, 670g (lens only)

I say we're looking at a beast of a lens, which will be longer at 105mm than the 70-200/4L

Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?

 

[midluk]

Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?

What is included in the lengths? As the patent covers the optics but not the rest of the lens, the length is likely from the sensor to the front element. So the numbers are not completely comparable. Might be interesting to compare it with the patent for the original 24-105.

 

[Maximilian]

Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?

What is included in the lengths? As the patent covers the optics but not the rest of the lens, the length is likely from the sensor to the front element. So the numbers are not completely comparable. Might be interesting to compare it with the patent for the original 24-105.

Of course you are right but it's quite easy!
The flange distance of a EOS camera is about 4 cm (was it 44 mm?).
So: 148.96 - 40 (or even more) = 108.96 (or even less) + maybe 3-5 mm for the cell and filter thread.
==> about the same length als the old one!

 

[Meatcurry]

Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?

What is included in the lengths? As the patent covers the optics but not the rest of the lens, the length is likely from the sensor to the front element. So the numbers are not completely comparable. Might be interesting to compare it with the patent for the original 24-105.

Of course you are right but it's quite easy!
The flange distance of a EOS camera is about 4 cm (was it 44 mm?).
So: 148.96 - 40 (or even more) = 108.96 (or even less) + maybe 3-5 mm for the cell and filter thread.
==> about the same length als the old one!

Not sure thats right, the patent has the extended length as 207mm, 207 - 44 = 163, that still bigger than the old lens by some margin

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Forget the length - I want to know whether any changes have been made to the optics...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon is saying this patent is a way to make a shorter and smaller lens. I can't say why the lengths do not appear to line up with the current lens, even when taking the ~40mm flange to sensor distance into account. just posting what the patent claims.

"The present invention aims at offer of the imaging device which has the small zoom lens and it from which a quick focus is easy, and it is a high zooming ratio, and high optical performance is obtained covering the object distance all the zoom ranges and at large."

"By filling a conditional expression (5a), shortening of the whole length of the lens in telephoto end becomes easy, attaining further size and weight reduction of lens group NF of negative refracting power. By filling a conditional expression (6a), it becomes easy to cross throughout zoom and to reduce change of the curvature of field accompanying focusing more. the axis for zooming by filling a conditional expression (7a) -- a top tone -- it becomes easy to reduce more change of aberration and change of the chromatic aberration of magnification. By filling a conditional expression (8a), it becomes easier to reduce the eccentric coma aberration which arises from lens group NF of negative refracting power."


The working examples are as follows:

1:

Various data
Zoom ratio 4.23
Wide angle Middle Looking far
Focal distance 24.70 44.23 104.57
F number 3.60 4.50 5.60
a half field angle (degree) -- 41.22 26.07 11.69 image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
Whole length of the lens 164.73 170.65 201.71
BF 38.60 49.38 64.11

2:

Various data
Zoom ratio 4.68
Wide angle Middle Looking far
Focal distance 28.80 41.68 134.79
F number 4.12 5.00 5.88
a half field angle (degree) -- 36.92 27.43 9.12
Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
Whole length of the lens 158.46 162.93 211.19
BF 36.97 36.95 38.38

3:

Various data
Zoom ratio 4.13
Wide angle Middle Looking far
Focal distance 24.70 32.04 102.11
F number 4.10 4.10 4.10
a half field angle (degree) -- 41.22 34.03 11.96
Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
Whole length of the lens 148.96 152.86 207.64
BF 35.80 36.22 53.51

4:

Various data
Zoom ratio 3.84
Wide angle Middle Looking far
Focal distance 25.39 46.78 97.55
F number 3.60 5.75 5.74
a half field angle (degree) -- 40.44 24.82 12.51
Image height 21.64 21.64 21.64
Whole length of the lens 161.27 177.91 202.87
BF 42.60 51.08 52.16

 

[aceflibble]

Patents do not equal actual items. Very rarely does a company put in a patent which is exactly what they're going to produce. Usually it's just to 'reserve' the design so nobody else can get in there first or copy it. So there's no point trying to work out if the new lens will have revised optics, based on this patent. This patent just tells you they've come up with some ideas, and they're registering those ideas before anybody else can produce the same thing.

That said, I said months ago, on these very forums, that Canon was discontinuing the old 24-105 and revising it for the next 5D body. People said I was lying but hey, nope, here we go. Lens confirmed by multiple sources now and we've got a patent, which is unlikely to be for the exact lens produced, but is evidence that Canon has been working in that area. So, yay. At least now I know my sources were right.

In any case, it'll be nice to see a new version. The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department, and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen. If they can revise it s a mark II is as solid a performer on today's 20mp+ sensors as the first version was on the 12mp sensor, great. I like the Sigma version just fine, but a 'proper' Canon one with optimised AF and the better IS would be very welcome.

 

[Loswr]

Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.

Really? Not mixed that up with extended length?

Really. No, nothing mixed up, on my side at least.

Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?

What is included in the lengths? As the patent covers the optics but not the rest of the lens, the length is likely from the sensor to the front element. So the numbers are not completely comparable. Might be interesting to compare it with the patent for the original 24-105.

Of course you are right but it's quite easy!
The flange distance of a EOS camera is about 4 cm (was it 44 mm?).
So: 148.96 - 40 (or even more) = 108.96 (or even less) + maybe 3-5 mm for the cell and filter thread.
==> about the same length als the old one!

Not sure thats right, the patent has the extended length as 207mm, 207 - 44 = 163, that still bigger than the old lens by some margin

As I stated, essentially the same retracted length as the current 24-105L (within a few millimeters). The extended length would be ~20mm longer than the current 24-105L, but worth noting this 24-105/4L II patent is only ~7 mm longer when extended than the relatively new 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS STM.

 

[Maximilian]

Huh, this lens is huge! Am I missing suttin here?

What is included in the lengths? As the patent covers the optics but not the rest of the lens, the length is likely from the sensor to the front element. So the numbers are not completely comparable. Might be interesting to compare it with the patent for the original 24-105.

Of course you are right but it's quite easy!
The flange distance of a EOS camera is about 4 cm (was it 44 mm?).
So: 148.96 - 40 (or even more) = 108.96 (or even less) + maybe 3-5 mm for the cell and filter thread.
==> about the same length als the old one!

Not sure thats right, the patent has the extended length as 207mm, 207 - 44 = 163, that still bigger than the old lens by some margin

Sorry, Meatcurry, but the questions began after neuros comment:

Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.

And retracted ist the opposit of extracted or as you call it: extended.
But to most zoom users the retracted length is the more important as this is the length you transport or store it.
Personally I don't care if an extracted zoom is 1 or 2 cm shorter or longer, as long as it is leading to better IQ.
I thought extracted length was more important to some who wanted to impress :

 

[unfocused]

...The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department, and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen.

Others might disagree.

[quote author=The Digital Picture]
...From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. The Canon is sharper at 105mm. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.

The Sigma has slightly more light falloff at long end but shows less flare. The Canon has less pincushion distortion in the mid focal lengths.

The Sigma focuses more quietly than the Canon, but the Canon focuses a bit faster than the Sigma. The Canon has a larger and better-positioned focus ring with more rotation (122° vs. 90°). The Canon uses smaller filters (77mm vs. 82mm), but the advantage should go to the size that is already in your kit. The Canon lens is lighter and slightly smaller – and is weather sealed.[/quote]

 

[Maximilian]

...The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department, and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen.

Others might disagree.
...

Me, too.
Esp. as I am more interested in the tele than the UWA range of such a zoom.

 

[bereninga]

I hope they add a lock switch to prevent lens creep.

 

[hne]

Nice! Same retracted length as the current one.

Really? Not mixed that up with extended length?

Really. No, nothing mixed up, on my side at least.

Not sure thats right, the patent has the extended length as 207mm, 207 - 44 = 163, that still bigger than the old lens by some margin

As I stated, essentially the same retracted length as the current 24-105L (within a few millimeters). The extended length would be ~20mm longer than the current 24-105L, but worth noting this 24-105/4L II patent is only ~7 mm longer when extended than the relatively new 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS STM.

I stand corrected. I did not account for flange distance being part of the total lens length in the patent filing but not in canon lens spec sheets.

Might be a rather nice lens then. Perhaps even something to replace my if-all-else-fails backup lens: 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

 

[TeT]

... The Sigma one beats the existing Canon 24-105 in every department.... and that Canon 24-105 was really only designed for the 12mp 5D and, in my eyes, totally fallen apart since pixel density has risen.

The Sigma beats the Canon at 24mm f/4, as you get longer they pretty much even out in sharpness and both show strengths and weaknesses in different areas.

If the Canon has fallen apart since the 5D, What makes the Sigma bullet proof? It is at best marginally better than the Canon. Neither is as good optically as the Canon 70 200 4 L (another dinosaur that sees a lot of use in the real world)

 

[Loswr]

I stand corrected. I did not account for flange distance being part of the total lens length in the patent filing but not in canon lens spec sheets.

Indeed. The other (although minor) point is that a commonly-used source for the extended length is the TDP spec comparison tool, and Bryan starts measuring from the back of the mount, while the Canon spec measures from the flange (ignoring the part that protrudes into the body).