Patent: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8, with focus on a compact design

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
No one else seems to have spotted this:

The new patent refers to a lens that does not extend while zooming.​


This feature alone will have strong appeal to many users.

It sounds like a patent for a small and lightweight standard zoom. The characteristic of this optical system is that the total length is the longest at the wide-angle end and the total length becomes shorter toward the telephoto end. This is a common optical system for wide-angle lenses, but I don’t see this type of lens with standard zoom lenses, especially with large-aperture zoom lenses. If it is really put into practical use, it will be a very portable lens.
Translated from Japanese, ref: asobinet.com
 

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,016
89
No.
You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?
I was using a M50 with 15-45 ( plastic mount, no weather shielding for three day mostly with rain and snow two years ago. They are still working now. The trick is to wipe the lens and camera whenever you have a chance and put them in the poncho when you are not using it
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
158
185
No.
You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?
If I were a billionaire, I’d be buying Canon and not a $4000 camera.
You might consider the extended warranty next time you buy a body. Cheaper than spending much more just to get a rubber gasket.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
No one else seems to have spotted this:

The new patent refers to a lens that does not extend while zooming.​


This feature alone will have strong appeal to many users.

It sounds like a patent for a small and lightweight standard zoom. The characteristic of this optical system is that the total length is the longest at the wide-angle end and the total length becomes shorter toward the telephoto end. This is a common optical system for wide-angle lenses, but I don’t see this type of lens with standard zoom lenses, especially with large-aperture zoom lenses. If it is really put into practical use, it will be a very portable lens.
Translated from Japanese, ref: asobinet.com
The text you quoted does not support your conclusion that the lens does not extend while zooming. Rather, it describes a lens that is simply a reverse of the typical zoom extension. We’re used to zoom lenses that physically extend as focal length increases, the description is of a lens that physically extends as the focal length decreases.

The original source states they don’t see this type of lens with standard zooms, especially large aperture ones. That source appears unaware of the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L (MkI), which functioned in exactly that manner.

Looking at the patent, the lens is shortest somewhere in the middle of the zoom range, and that’s similar to an ultrawide zoom. However, the min and max lengths are ~2 cm different, and I suspect that’s too much of a range for an inner barrel-type zoom like a UWA zoom. So, I expect this will be an extending zoom.

Possibly Canon will use a design like the M11-22, where the lens retracts to an even more compact storage length and locks there.
 

Finn

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2021
70
47
If I were a billionaire, I’d be buying Canon and not a $4000 camera.
You might consider the extended warranty next time you buy a body. Cheaper than spending much more just to get a rubber gasket.
Just like if I was a diver I would use a dive kit.

In my experience extended warranties very often do not cover accidental water damage. Equipment insurance through PPA would cover but is expensive for worldwide coverage.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
174
107
Topic derailing into a discussion on waterproofing!

Basically, no cameras or lenses have IP ratings (https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings) which is the standardized measure of resistance to the ingress of dust or water into an enclosure.

To put it bluntly, that means that the advertising claims of water resistance don't meant squat in any objectively measurable way.

Sure, the inclusions of seals and gaskets to varying degrees reduces the likelihood of water entering, but not enough to earn them a real IP rating. For amusement, if we look at the ratings on the IEC website, most 'sealed' camera bodies or lenses, I would hazard to guess that they would embarrassingly be lucky to even rate at IP52, IP54 at best.

Realistically, if someone's out shooting wildlife or landscapes, and get caught in a sudden downpour, having seals helps as they get under cover and wipe down their gear. Unless the rain is the actual subject of the photography, it's unlikely much photography needs to be done in a downpour. If venturing out into the great outdoors with unsealed lenses or camea bodies, take a rain cover, or get a camera bag with a fold-out rain cover, and wear a raincoat too! :oops:

Now, back to the topic, what was that again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InchMetric

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
Topic derailing into a discussion on waterproofing!

Basically, no cameras or lenses have IP ratings (https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings) which is the standardized measure of resistance to the ingress of dust or water into an enclosure.

To put it bluntly, that means that the advertising claims of water resistance don't meant squat in any objectively measurable way.

Sure, the inclusions of seals and gaskets to varying degrees reduces the likelihood of water entering, but not enough to earn them a real IP rating. For amusement, if we look at the ratings on the IEC website, most 'sealed' camera bodies or lenses, I would hazard to guess that they would embarrassingly be lucky to even rate at IP52, IP54 at best.

Realistically, if someone's out shooting wildlife or landscapes, and get caught in a sudden downpour, having seals helps as they get under cover and wipe down their gear. Unless the rain is the actual subject of the photography, it's unlikely much photography needs to be done in a downpour. If venturing out into the great outdoors with unsealed lenses or camea bodies, take a rain cover, or get a camera bag with a fold-out rain cover, and wear a raincoat too! :oops:

Now, back to the topic, what was that again?
GoPro’s are rated to 33 feet underwater and I have personally used my Hero 7 at that depth on many occasions without a waterproof/dive housing.

The Olympus Tough TG-6 is rated to IPX8, so 50’ underwater.

The Canon IVY REC is rated to 2meters underwater.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LogicExtremist

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
174
107
GoPro’s are rated to 33 feet underwater and I have personally used my Hero 7 at that depth on many occasions without a waterproof/dive housing.

The Olympus Tough TG-6 is rated to IPX8, so 50’ underwater.

The Canon IVY REC is rated to 2meters underwater.
Yes, precisely! Some cameras have real IP ratings, and they can swim! :)

So can quite a few smartphones, with real IP67 and IP 68 ratings:

From Tom's Guide - The best waterproof phones in 2021
  1. iPhone 13 Pro Max, Water resistance: IP68; max 20 feet (6 meters) for 30 minutes
  2. iPhone 13, Water resistance: IP68; max 20 feet (6 meters) for 30 minutes
  3. iPhone 12, Water resistance: IP68; max 20 feet (6 meters) for 30 minutes
  4. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
  5. Samsung Galaxy S20 FE, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
  6. OnePlus 9 Pro, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
  7. Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
  8. Samsung Galaxy S21, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
  9. iPhone SE (2020), Water resistance: IP67; max 3.3 feet (1 meter) for 30 minutes
  10. Google Pixel 5, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes

Thanks
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
  • Like
Reactions: neuroanatomist

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
174
107
Seemed like a pretty extreme contradiction in logic...
Whoops, I've seen what I've done there, I failed to qualify my initial statement where I was talking about Canon cameras on a Canon forum, my mistake! :rolleyes:
The unqualified statement is contradictory, true, now you know what I meant, thanks. :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
Whoops, I've seen what I've done there, I failed to qualify my initial statement where I was talking about Canon cameras on a Canon forum, my mistake! :rolleyes:
The unqualified statement is contradictory, true, now you know what I meant, thanks. :)
IVY REC

7A382D50-43A2-40B2-B86C-54AA00E02895.jpeg
D4E2C97B-E9A0-4FD5-8F13-C7445E1612CB.jpeg


It’s a Canon camera. It has an IP68 rating.

By all means, feel free to qualify your initial statement further in another attempt to avoid simply admitting you were wrong. If you believe that’s logical.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
174
107
IVY REC

View attachment 200719 View attachment 200720

It’s a Canon camera. It has an IP68 rating.

By all means, feel free to qualify your initial statement further in another attempt to avoid simply admitting you were wrong. If you believe that’s logical.
Okay you've found an exception, so I stand corrected, and need to change "all" Canon cameras to "most"... Point still stands though regarding the cameras people argue about here. Still, no one is going to dunk their R5 with their 28-70 in the river to test its seals, so the arguments about lack of sealing on some lenses compared to others that was starting was a fairly moot point, as I explained earlier. :)

Out of curiosity, what model is this? Is this a recent camera, as I don't ever recall this one?
 

EricN

EOS 90D
Aug 10, 2021
129
227
Okay you've found an exception, so I stand corrected, and need to change "all" Canon cameras to "most"... Point still stands though regarding the cameras people argue about here. Still, no one is going to dunk their R5 with their 28-70 in the river to test its seals, so the arguments about lack of sealing on some lenses compared to others that was starting was a fairly moot point, as I explained earlier. :)

Out of curiosity, what model is this? Is this a recent camera, as I don't ever recall this one?
I have the Canon Care Pak and a river close by... isn't it covered?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,051
4,615
Okay you've found an exception, so I stand corrected, and need to change "all" Canon cameras to "most"... Point still stands though regarding the cameras people argue about here. Still, no one is going to dunk their R5 with their 28-70 in the river to test its seals, so the arguments about lack of sealing on some lenses compared to others that was starting was a fairly moot point, as I explained earlier. :)

Out of curiosity, what model is this? Is this a recent camera, as I don't ever recall this one?
The Canon IVY REC (product page link above images in my last post) launched 2 years ago.

I doubt anyone believes that water resistance equates to waterproof. Logically, even though there is no established standard, something that is designed to be dust- and water-resistant will be more likely to resist dust and water than something not so designed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LogicExtremist

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
440
477
UK
The text you quoted does not support your conclusion that the lens does not extend while zooming.
The quote and conclusion aren’t mine - I’ve just copied what is posted on CanonWatch website. They got the info from asibonet.com which is machine-translated.

Here is the full item:

"Here is a very interesting Canon patent application, once more for an RF mount lens. An RF 28-70mm f/2.8L with inner focusing and that does not extend might be in the works.

The Canon patent application spotted by asobinet.com (they did not disclose the patent number), discusses optical formulas for a RF 28-70mm f/2.8L lens. The interesting part, if I got it right from the machine translated Japanese text, is that the lens not only does all the focusing but also employs a design that is usually found on wide-angle lenses.

It sounds like a patent for a small and lightweight standard zoom. The characteristic of this optical system is that the total length is the longest at the wide-angle end and the total length becomes shorter toward the telephoto end. This is a common optical system for wide-angle lenses, but I don’t see this type of lens with standard zoom lenses, especially with large-aperture zoom lenses. If it is really put into practical use, it will be a very portable lens.



Did I get it right? The lens is indeed described to be shorter at the telephoto end (emphasis mine) in both embodiment:"
 
  • Like
Reactions: neuroanatomist

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
174
107
I have the Canon Care Pak and a river close by... isn't it covered?
Might be better to grab an ND filter as well, set the tripod up beside the river, and set it to a longer exposure, I think that's the better way to do it. For underwater shots, you can get a GoPro :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
174
107
The Canon IVY REC (product page link above images in my last post) launched 2 years ago.

I doubt anyone believes that water resistance equates to waterproof. Logically, even though there is no established standard, something that is designed to be dust- and water-resistant will be more likely to resist dust and water than something not so designed.
Thanks, looks like an interesting product, I must have missed the link. That's just a $99 toy key-ring camera, but technically you're correct.

I didn't start the discussion about waterproofing/water resistance, I was actually trying to avert a pointless discussion. As you've pointed out, and common sense would suggest, some sealing helps, and it's better than no sealing, but the typical camera gear discussed here and owned by most is not underwater gear, so it's advisable to avoid unnecessary exposure to water, dust, sand, etc. That's just sensible camera care, something people should be able to work out.

To re-address the original comment that raised this matter, if the upcoming RF 16mm f/2.8 doesn't have weather seals, then just don't get it too wet, it's that simple. Like I said earlier, if a few drops of rain fall on it when caught unprepared, move out of the rain, and wipe off the water. Use an all weather camera bag, carry a rain cover, and a compact foldable raincoat. Sure lenses and camera bodies can get a bit wet, and still survive, but why risk it, All canon cameras, with an exception or two are not IP rated like smartphones, and shouldn't be allowed to get soaked needlessly. If you have to shoot a rainy scene, either get under cover, or use a large rain deflection device, otherwise known as an big umbrella! It's not too hard really... :)
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,201
1,521
Buy five for $1500 and discard them as they get wet. You a diver?
While 16/2.8 would definitely be a great underwater lens (at least when paired with a flat port), shooting landscapes with a camera in underwater housing would not be a good idea, especially if flare is a concern.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EricN

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
749
373
And before the 28-70 came out, we were fine with 35-70. Later I went for the 35-105 instead of the 28-85. (I may be dating myself somewhat... ;))
And then we all stared/ lusted after the Nikkor 43-86 back in the day.