Patent: Optional Image Stabilization Unit

Canon Rumors

Who Dey
Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 20, 2010
12,753
5,577
279,596
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
A patent showing an optional image stabilization unit that can be put into a lens without changing its focal length has been filed.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2015-28555 (Google Translated)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.2.12</li>
<li>Filing date 2013.7.30</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1a (master lens only)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length 392.50</li>
<li>F-number 2.92</li>
<li>Half angle of 3.16</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 379.64</li>
<li>BF 41.57</li>
<li>Effective diameter of the front lens 135.72mm</li>
<li>Lens configuration 8 groups nine</li>
</ul>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>Example 1b (anti-vibration converter mounted state)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length 392.50</li>
<li>F-number 2.92</li>
<li>Half angle of 3.16</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 379.64</li>
<li>BF 41.56</li>
<li>Effective diameter of the front lens 135.72mm</li>
<li>Lens construction 12 groups 15 sheets</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon patent</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>3-group configuration of positive and negative positive</li>
<li>Inner focus (the second group)</li>
<li>The anti-vibration converter can be inserted on the object side of the third group</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-02-16" target="_blank">EG</a>] via [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<div id="adkengage_ssp_div"></div>
<script
    type="text/javascript"
    src="http://adkengage.com/pshandler.js?aid=11563&v=Rzv9QQ%2BeQKSVnAaEOwTXfA%3D%3D&dpid=6638&ru=http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-admin/post.php"
>
</script>
 
This sounds really good. Especially since I've recently been contemplating getting the 24-70 2.8L II, I was a little worried that they may release an IS version soon. But maybe if this gets released as an accessory, I may not have to worry about that afterall.
 
Upvote 0
shunsai said:
This sounds really good. Especially since I've recently been contemplating getting the 24-70 2.8L II, I was a little worried that they may release an IS version soon. But maybe if this gets released as an accessory, I may not have to worry about that afterall.

The diagram makes it look like an internal assembly, not something you add onto the lens mount.
 
Upvote 0
This does not seem likely to do much for Canon users. It may help Canon simplify production lines and design if it intends to produce IS and non-IS versions of the same lens. But how often do we think that is going to happen?

Now, if somehow an IS system could be designed like a TC, to fit between the lens and the body, that would be something. I know some folks who would love to upgrade their 135Ls with IS, not to mention 400 5.6Ls. But I don't think this patent discloses anything like that and I have some doubts about the feasibility of a system like that.
 
Upvote 0
iron-t said:
... if somehow an IS system could be designed like a TC, to fit between the lens and the body, that would be something. I know some folks who would love to upgrade their 135Ls with IS, not to mention 400 5.6Ls. But I don't think this patent discloses anything like that and I have some doubts about the feasibility of a system like that.
Hi iron-t!

I suppose you're right. And before we'll see that TC-like IS I am sure we'll see an in-body TC from Canon.
(Better idea IMHO, because you can upgrade anytime with a new body (see Olympus) but Canon would sell less lenses, cause no one needs/wants to upgrade anymore ;) )
 
Upvote 0
Hm, this is a strange thing. For this to work the IS group on its own must be "invisible", i.e. do nothing, by which I mean have zero refraction and very very little distortion, chromatic aberration etc... like that if you insert the IS group into an existing design it will not affect the light rays at all. What a waste of lenses!

Also, if you insert something like 4 lenses into an otherwise identical lens design, that got to deteriorate the optics in terms of adding reflections and reducing transmittance and so on.

I believe IS would be better be implemented by moving lenses around that actually have an effect on the light rays. But its a nice concept. And definitely worth a patent, even if never built.
 
Upvote 0
Just because it can be used in a lens without messing up a optical formula, does not mean that a lens will not have to be designed around it. It takes up space, consumes power, etc.

What this potentially does is to remove the requirement to have a totally different design for each and every IS unit, but rather have a family of IS units that a designer can select from without affecting a optical formula. Having to include optics from a IS unit in a search for optical formulas makes the process of finding a good formula much more difficult, and mass production of a few IS units rather than 50 of them can save $$$.

You are still going to have cheap ones for mass produced consumer lenses, for narrow aperture lenses, large aperture lenses, and super teles. Probably different for wide and telephoto as well. That's 5 or 6 variations at least, but it beats 50.
 
Upvote 0
erjlphoto said:
The diagram makes it look like an internal assembly, not something you add onto the lens mount.

Good point. I saw the diagram after posting and realized it probably won't be a consumer end product. It would be interesting if it was an optional service you could get Canon Service Centers to perform on your lens though, but that doesn't really sound likely at all. Oh well
 
Upvote 0
With Sony building far superior IS in body, you have to wonder where canon have been the last 3 years.
They are not going to make it are they in this race if they don't drop some of this outdated technology and start catching up.
 
Upvote 0
Seems like 1 of 2 situations

A pair of new 400mm f/2.8 lenses, 1 IS the other not. Maybe something about "optional" was lost in translation.

OR

A new 400mm f/2.8 that is the first in a series of new lenses that allow an IS unit to be inserted or removed like a drop in filter. Potentially they could offer multiple drop in IS modules matched to how you use the lens, 2 mode, 3 mode, or hybrid modules. Lenses become cheaper. IS can be upgraded without new optics. Optics can be upgraded without new IS. Eliminate lens duplication, no more 70-200, 70-200 IS. No more 24-70/24-70 IS debates. Every shooter can get what they want (need?).

The intent of patent application I is assumed to be a response to high-mix low-volume production era.

Ok, this makes it sound like option 2. Canon is preparing for a dip in overall production while the consumer demands greater diversity. Looking at the new 5D options, this makes sense.
 
Upvote 0
Lurker said:
With Sony building far superior IS in body, you have to wonder where canon have been the last 3 years.
They are not going to make it are they in this race if they don't drop some of this outdated technology and start catching up.

Yep, Sony is king that's why . . ..

King or not. In-body IS would be a transformative addition to any Canon DSLR improving each and every non-IS lens significantly. Since its been demonstrated you can have both in-body and in-lens IS at the same time the last arguments against in-body IS seem to have faded.

24L, 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L stabilised - yes please!!!!!
 
Upvote 0
Lurker said:
With Sony building far superior IS in body, you have to wonder where canon have been the last 3 years.
They are not going to make it are they in this race if they don't drop some of this outdated technology and start catching up.

Yep, Sony is king that's why . . .

Sony is no longer an electronics company

See remaining business #3. Doesn't even mention Nikon or DSLR, just iPhone sensors.

Wow, Sony is an epic fail... no wonder the fs7 isn't on Canon's radar.
 
Upvote 0