Patent: CN-E 70-200mm T/2.8

[Canon Rumors]

A patent has been filed for a new cinema lens, a CN-E 70-200mm t/2.8. Any announcement for new Cinema EOS products will likely come in March ahead of the NAB show in Las Vegas in April. We expect Canon to be showing their new 8K replacement for the Cinema EOS C500 along with a few lenses at the show.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2015-230449 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.12.21</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.6.6</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.86</li>
<li>Focal length 70.00 118.30 200.00</li>
<li>F-number 2.80 2.80 2.80</li>
<li>Half angle (in degrees) 12.52 7.49 4.45</li>
<li>Image height 15.55 15.55 15.55</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 277.01 277.01 277.01</li>
<li>BF 44.72 44.72 44.72</li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Wizardly]

Ex1: 70-200 mm f/2.8
Ex2: 50-142.86 mm f/2.6
Ex3: 80-228.57 mm f/3.2
Ex4: 70-200 mm f/2.8
Ex5: 70-280 mm f/3.8
Ex6: 70-200 mm f/2.8

As usual with any Egami repost on CR, it is too soon to pronounce if any / which example will be produced.

 

[RGF]

8K video sounds like a great camera for sports/wildlife. Extract 36MP still.

Of course it is undoubtedly not so simply. Cards would fill up very quickly.

 

[nicksotgiu]

Ow... MY.... God!

 

[Cochese]

With a T2.8, perhaps this means we'll be seeing a 70-200 f2.8 IS III with an actual t2.8. Not that the current 2.8II is bad or anything.

 

[privatebydesign]

8K video sounds like a great camera for sports/wildlife. Extract 36MP still.

Of course it is undoubtedly not so simply. Cards would fill up very quickly.

And subject motion would kill the image quality. Video can use much slower shutter speeds to make it look fluid, use the same shuttter speed on stills and it is just blurred garbage.

 

[RGF]

8K video sounds like a great camera for sports/wildlife. Extract 36MP still.

Of course it is undoubtedly not so simply. Cards would fill up very quickly.

And subject motion would kill the image quality. Video can use much slower shutter speeds to make it look fluid, use the same shuttter speed on stills and it is just blurred garbage.

For extracting stills, could they increase the shutter speed if need or drop it lower light?

 

[RGF]

With a T2.8, perhaps this means we'll be seeing a 70-200 f2.8 IS III with an actual t2.8. Not that the current 2.8II is bad or anything.

What is the current F stop is for this lens. The T value for the 70-200 F2.8 II IS is 3.3 (according to DXO Mark).

Perhaps this lens has an F close to 2.2 or 2.3

 

[privatebydesign]

8K video sounds like a great camera for sports/wildlife. Extract 36MP still.

Of course it is undoubtedly not so simply. Cards would fill up very quickly.

And subject motion would kill the image quality. Video can use much slower shutter speeds to make it look fluid, use the same shuttter speed on stills and it is just blurred garbage.

For extracting stills, could they increase the shutter speed if need or drop it lower light?

They could, but then the video looks jerky. At this point, and for the foreseeable future, capturing stills from video is not optimal for either format, choose one or the other as the primary, which means there will always be a need for people with the other option as that primary. Stills cameras shoot stills better than video cameras, video cameras shot video better than stills cameras, frame grabs are not a solution for high quality stills despite what Canon tried to say about the 1DC!

 

[RGF]

8K video sounds like a great camera for sports/wildlife. Extract 36MP still.

Of course it is undoubtedly not so simply. Cards would fill up very quickly.

And subject motion would kill the image quality. Video can use much slower shutter speeds to make it look fluid, use the same shuttter speed on stills and it is just blurred garbage.

For extracting stills, could they increase the shutter speed if need or drop it lower light?

They could, but then the video looks jerky. At this point, and for the foreseeable future, capturing stills from video is not optimal for either format, choose one or the other as the primary, which means there will always be a need for people with the other option as that primary. Stills cameras shoot stills better than video cameras, video cameras shot video better than stills cameras, frame grabs are not a solution for high quality stills despite what Canon tried to say about the 1DC!

Got it. But they could make a 60 FPS still camera with 36MP sensor (8K size). That would be sweet.

 

[SebastianS]

Got it. But they could make a 60 FPS still camera with 36MP sensor (8K size). That would be sweet.

wouldn't change the problem, because for cinema everybody still loves the outdated mushy 24p look (which results in ~ 1/50 ) or has to deliver for 25/30p broadcast

 

[Sabaki]

I know nothing about cinema lenses but I'm wondering how these would perform as stills lenses? Better or worse than a regular DSLR lens?

 

[Loswr]

I know nothing about cinema lenses but I'm wondering how these would perform as stills lenses? Better or worse than a regular DSLR lens?

Optically a bit better – mainly due to much lower CA, vignetting, etc. (correctable in post for stills). But they're manual focus and manual aperture, big and expensive. What you're paying for is mainly engineering – lack of focus breathing, accurate focus throws, delivering the stated amount of light, and consistency across the line (shots with different lenses will give consistent exposure and color rendering).

 

[nvsravank]

So can somebody who understands these lenses explain what are the differences between the cine lenses and the regular lenses of the same focal length? Other than the mount.

I keep seeing a T number rather than an F number? Is it very different?

I hear that the focus shift is minimal on the Cine lenses. Is that true? Is that for effective manual zooming?

Image Stabilization differences? Is it better tuned to reduce motion when using on mounted tripods moving on dollys?

 

[Loswr]

So can somebody who understands these lenses explain what are the differences between the cine lenses and the regular lenses of the same focal length? Other than the mount.

I keep seeing a T number rather than an F number? Is it very different?

I hear that the focus shift is minimal on the Cine lenses. Is that true? Is that for effective manual zooming?

Image Stabilization differences? Is it better tuned to reduce motion when using on mounted tripods moving on dollys?

F stops are calculated from focal length and aperture diameter, and don't accurately represent the amount of light the lens transmits (every air/glass interface reflects some light). T stops are actual measured light transmission.

Focus breathing is minimal/absent with cine lenses, that means the framing stays the same as you change focus. At the other end of the spectrum, consider the EF-S 55-250, which has a 250mm FoV at infinity focus, but barely over a 150mm FoV at the minimum focus distance (zoom still set to 250mm). Even some higher-end lenses breathe badly, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 at 200mm only gives ~135mm framing at the MFD. The cine zooms are also parfocal, meaning focus doesn't change as you zoom.

IS differences? Pretty significant - the cine lenses don't have IS.

 

[gsealy]

So can somebody who understands these lenses explain what are the differences between the cine lenses and the regular lenses of the same focal length? Other than the mount.

I keep seeing a T number rather than an F number? Is it very different?

I hear that the focus shift is minimal on the Cine lenses. Is that true? Is that for effective manual zooming?

Image Stabilization differences? Is it better tuned to reduce motion when using on mounted tripods moving on dollys?

F stops are calculated from focal length and aperture diameter, and don't accurately represent the amount of light the lens transmits (every air/glass interface reflects some light). T stops are actual measured light transmission.

Focus breathing is minimal/absent with cine lenses, that means the framing stays the same as you change focus. At the other end of the spectrum, consider the EF-S 55-250, which has a 250mm FoV at infinity focus, but barely over a 150mm FoV at the minimum focus distance (zoom still set to 250mm). Even some higher-end lenses breathe badly, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 at 200mm only gives ~135mm framing at the MFD. The cine zooms are also parfocal, meaning focus doesn't change as you zoom.

IS differences? Pretty significant - the cine lenses don't have IS.

The parfocal attribute is a big deal. It would be nice if more regular zoom lenses had it. There are some, I know, but it is the exception.