svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Patent: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8, with focus on a compact design

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

    By Updated:78 Comments2 Mins Read Canon Business General

    Canon News has uncovered a new optical formula patent for a Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8. Canon seems to have worked quite hard at reducing the size of such a design significantly. The design in this patent is actually smaller than the highly-regarded Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD for the Sony E mount.

    Canon has a couple of lenses already covering this focal length, such as the RF 28-70mm f/2L and the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, but as we saw with the EF mount, the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS was quite a popular option for people that didn't want the size, expense or speed of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

    With the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS being discontinued, there is likely a need for a smaller 24-70 type lens for the RF mount.  The lens design in this patent is only about 1cm longer than the EF EF 24-70mm f/4L IS, but has the bonus of having an extra stop of light. Could this be a less expensive non-L zoom?

    Japan Patent Application 2021-156963

    • Focal length: 28.84mm 37.17mm 67.90mm
    • F number: 2.91 2.91 2.91
    • Half angle of view: 32.65° 28.90° 17.67°
    • Image height: 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
    • Total lens length: 122.81mm 111.18mm 132.62mm
    • BF: 21.92mm 26.79mm 39.84mm

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    78 comments

    3. I guess this has to be more expensive than the RF 24-70 2.8 or more people would get this one over that one.
      I guess some people without the RF 15-35 2.8 might still prefer to start at 24mm.
    4. I guess this has to be more expensive than the RF 24-70 2.8 or more people would get this one over that one.
      I guess some people without the RF 15-35 2.8 might still prefer to start at 24mm.
      If it's a non-L design, it would be an affordable alternative to an f/4L lens. It would also be a nice design for an APS-C RF mount camera.
    5. If it's a non-L design, it would be an affordable alternative to an f/4L lens. It would also be a nice design for an APS-C RF mount camera.
      I think Canon has only made 1 non-L f/2.8 zoom in the past, the EF-S 17-55mm, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front. It would be nice to have, though.
    6. I think Canon has only made 1 non-L f/2.8 zoom in the past, the EF-S 17-55mm, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front. It would be nice to have, though.
      An APS-C f/2.8 being a non-L lens does not surprise me.
      I would be shocked by a full-frame one
    7. If it's a non-L design, it would be an affordable alternative to an f/4L lens. It would also be a nice design for an APS-C RF mount camera.
      I was wondering about that - we have already seen f/2.8 versions of the big three (15-35, 24-70, 70-200), but only f/4 versions for the 14-35 and 70-200. I almost wonder if a 24-70 f/4 is actually coming, or has the 24-105 improved enough to not really need a 24-70 f/4? Or maybe releasing a 28-70 f/2.8 fills the niche sufficiently if the price and size are small enough?
    8. I would buy this lens in a flash. Actually, I would buy the Tamron 28-75/2.8 if it came in an R mount. But, sadly, it doesn't. It seems that other manufacturers have been shut out of the R mount. If Canon eventually comes out with its own version, it'll probably be twice the price of the Tamron.
    10. I was hoping for a small, lightweight general purpose zoom for travel. f/4 would have been fine, but f/2.8, nice.
      For me, that's a 24-105mm lens. For travel, I'd really miss the 4mm on the wide end (unless I was also bringing a UWA zoom).
    11. I think Canon has only made 1 non-L f/2.8 zoom in the past, the EF-S 17-55mm, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front. It would be nice to have, though.
      I'm pretty sure one of the big marketing claims for the RF mount when it first appeared was that it would allow for larger aperture lenses/make them easier to produce.

      So maybe an f2.8 non L lens is the start of that.
    12. I guess this has to be more expensive than the RF 24-70 2.8 or more people would get this one over that one.
      I guess some people without the RF 15-35 2.8 might still prefer to start at 24mm.
      Speaking only for myself, my preferences for the zoom range of the lens on my camera have very little to do with the zoom ranges of lenses not on my camera. I'll tend to pick one lens for the mission. Loss of 24-28 is a downer that justifies a bulkier lens. Maybe. (One thing I love about the 15-35 is that the 35 is so versatilely "normal"). If one heavy lens serves without the weight and issues with a second to interchange, it's a big win. That's just me. I do like the effort to create compact performers.
    14. Speaking only for myself, my preferences for the zoom range of the lens on my camera have very little to do with the zoom ranges of lanes not on my camera. I'll tend to pick one lens for the mission. Loss of 24-28 is a downer that justifies a bulkier lens. Maybe. (One think I love about the 15-35 is that the 35 is so versatilely "normal"). If one heavy lens serves without the weight and issues with a second to interchange, it's a big win. That's just me. I do like the effort to create compact performers.
      Absolutely. I’m a one lens one mission guy as well.

      It can sometimes be problematic if I stumble across a good photo opportunity and don’t have the right lens with me.

      But the discipline of working with just one lens pays dividends because it forces me to think much harder. It also teaches me to try new approaches to the subject and composition.

      For example, I have the stunningly sharp RF 24-105mm F4L. It’s a do-everything lens that is fine when travelling. But it makes me lazy, so often I go out with just my 24mm T/S-E or with my 100mm macro - and the discipline results in much better photographs.
    15. I hate that Canon always rounds to the disbenefit of the photographer. It is a 29-68 f/2.9. If they really wanted, they could easily achieve the exact numbers. Just curve a few lenses a little differently or make them slightly bigger. That is done by computers anyway.
    16. I think there is a good market for smaller RF lenses, and this one appears to be interesting. But in an RF 28-70, I'd rather have a small F/4 IS than a small F/2.8 without IS.
    17. For me, that's a 24-105mm lens. For travel, I'd really miss the 4mm on the wide end (unless I was also bringing a UWA zoom).
      I might end up there...but the RF 24-105 is only 100 g lighter than my EF 24-70 II. The adapter doesn't yet count as all my lenses are EF, so it lives on my R5. Looking at the Sigma and Tamron 28-70 f/2.8, they are 470 g and 550 g, or 335g and 255 g lighter than the EF 24-70 II.

      If this were to be ~500 g, nice and compact, I could see it as a nice travel lens. But, you are right about that extra 4 mm, 24 mm is one of my favorite focal lengths.

      But, I like options.
    19. I think there is a good market for smaller RF lenses, and this one appears to be interesting. But in an RF 28-70, I'd rather have a small F/4 IS than a small F/2.8 without IS.
      Since the cameras have built in IB no need for it in the lens, I’ll take the wider aperture every time. Unless your on a first generation R body of course.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment