What enables the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 to be much smaller than the EF version?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








6















Canon announced the RF 70-200 f/2.8L in February 2019. This is notable for being much smaller than the equivalent EF lens, being perhaps two thirds of the length, yet maintaining the speed of the EF version - see for example the fourth picture on this page.



My perhaps naive understanding was that while the short focal plane distance of mirrorless cameras allowed for smaller retrofocal lenses, the advantage was mostly lost for telephoto lenses. Have I misunderstood this, or have Canon just optimised the RF lens for size, thus presumably giving up something else - if so, what?



(Canon have confirmed that the lens does not use diffractive optics - "We decided not to use Diffractive Optics with this lens" - so that's not the answer this time)










share|improve this question
























  • Agreed. Poring over the patent claim there seem to be just a clever stacking of alternating convergent/divergent lens groups with some tight positional relationships: when zooming, 6 lens groups are moving...

    – xenoid
    Mar 18 at 13:05











  • It's only shorter at 70mm. At 200mm it's actually longer.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:34

















6















Canon announced the RF 70-200 f/2.8L in February 2019. This is notable for being much smaller than the equivalent EF lens, being perhaps two thirds of the length, yet maintaining the speed of the EF version - see for example the fourth picture on this page.



My perhaps naive understanding was that while the short focal plane distance of mirrorless cameras allowed for smaller retrofocal lenses, the advantage was mostly lost for telephoto lenses. Have I misunderstood this, or have Canon just optimised the RF lens for size, thus presumably giving up something else - if so, what?



(Canon have confirmed that the lens does not use diffractive optics - "We decided not to use Diffractive Optics with this lens" - so that's not the answer this time)










share|improve this question
























  • Agreed. Poring over the patent claim there seem to be just a clever stacking of alternating convergent/divergent lens groups with some tight positional relationships: when zooming, 6 lens groups are moving...

    – xenoid
    Mar 18 at 13:05











  • It's only shorter at 70mm. At 200mm it's actually longer.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:34













6












6








6


1






Canon announced the RF 70-200 f/2.8L in February 2019. This is notable for being much smaller than the equivalent EF lens, being perhaps two thirds of the length, yet maintaining the speed of the EF version - see for example the fourth picture on this page.



My perhaps naive understanding was that while the short focal plane distance of mirrorless cameras allowed for smaller retrofocal lenses, the advantage was mostly lost for telephoto lenses. Have I misunderstood this, or have Canon just optimised the RF lens for size, thus presumably giving up something else - if so, what?



(Canon have confirmed that the lens does not use diffractive optics - "We decided not to use Diffractive Optics with this lens" - so that's not the answer this time)










share|improve this question
















Canon announced the RF 70-200 f/2.8L in February 2019. This is notable for being much smaller than the equivalent EF lens, being perhaps two thirds of the length, yet maintaining the speed of the EF version - see for example the fourth picture on this page.



My perhaps naive understanding was that while the short focal plane distance of mirrorless cameras allowed for smaller retrofocal lenses, the advantage was mostly lost for telephoto lenses. Have I misunderstood this, or have Canon just optimised the RF lens for size, thus presumably giving up something else - if so, what?



(Canon have confirmed that the lens does not use diffractive optics - "We decided not to use Diffractive Optics with this lens" - so that's not the answer this time)







canon lens-design mirrorless






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 4 at 10:09







Philip Kendall

















asked Mar 17 at 15:20









Philip KendallPhilip Kendall

16.8k44983




16.8k44983












  • Agreed. Poring over the patent claim there seem to be just a clever stacking of alternating convergent/divergent lens groups with some tight positional relationships: when zooming, 6 lens groups are moving...

    – xenoid
    Mar 18 at 13:05











  • It's only shorter at 70mm. At 200mm it's actually longer.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:34

















  • Agreed. Poring over the patent claim there seem to be just a clever stacking of alternating convergent/divergent lens groups with some tight positional relationships: when zooming, 6 lens groups are moving...

    – xenoid
    Mar 18 at 13:05











  • It's only shorter at 70mm. At 200mm it's actually longer.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:34
















Agreed. Poring over the patent claim there seem to be just a clever stacking of alternating convergent/divergent lens groups with some tight positional relationships: when zooming, 6 lens groups are moving...

– xenoid
Mar 18 at 13:05





Agreed. Poring over the patent claim there seem to be just a clever stacking of alternating convergent/divergent lens groups with some tight positional relationships: when zooming, 6 lens groups are moving...

– xenoid
Mar 18 at 13:05













It's only shorter at 70mm. At 200mm it's actually longer.

– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:34





It's only shorter at 70mm. At 200mm it's actually longer.

– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:34










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















8














They are two totally different designs.



  • One is a non-extending lens that does all of the "zooming" internally.

  • The other is an extending zoom lens that is considerably shorter at 70mm than at 200mm.

In fact, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS is slightly longer than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III when the RF lens is zoomed all the way in to 200mm.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Yep, this is the point I missed. Probably because Canon "accidentally" forgot to mention it in their press releases about the lens... have you found any photos of the lens in the fully extended state?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 19 at 11:46











  • I haven't really looked. Every "rumor" I've seen regarding this lens says it is an extending design. No one claims that it does not extend.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:53


















4














In its current design, it was achieved by using an extending lens body.



A recent interview in DPReview with Canon's executives states:




Q: In terms of making the new 70-200mm smaller, how difficult was it to decide to move to an extending zoom design?



A: We've not actually disclosed that it is going to extend or not, but we do have the extending mechanism in other lenses we make. So we do have the experience and know-how in-house: we have the capability to introduce such a feature in a new lens. To be clear, though: I have not said that it's going to be an extending design.





Lens-rumors.com claims that the US-patent #20190004296 is for the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. This patent states:



Focal length [mm] | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
Length of the lens [mm] | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86


Found in the patent application's p. 7



The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III is 199.0 mm and it is not extending.



However:



enter image description hereStolen from ephotozine's hands-on article



I further browsed through the illusive patent application and I found three different tables for lens sizes:



[Numerical data 1] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 2.87 | 2.91 | 2.96
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.71 | 242.23

[Numerical data 2] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
F-Number | 2.92 | 2.92 | 2.92
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86

[Numerical data 3] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 218.46 | 231.71

[Numerical data 4] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.89 | 3.15 | 3.35
Tot. Lens Length | 207.73 | 207.72 | 207.71

[Numerical data 5] Zoom ratio 1.95
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 100.00 | 150.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 3.93 | 4.02 | 3.96
Tot. Lens Length | 167.73 | 207.60 | 231.68


As @MichaelC states in his comments, it is probable that these are just the designs that Canon has tried out before applying the patent - they say little to nothing about the lens to come.



@JohannesD pointed out that the numbers in the patent application include the flange focal distance, i.e. they are measured from the front of the lens to the sensor. Since the FFD of the RF mount is 20mm, we can subtract them to get the lengths of the designs.



Note that the only one that is smaller than the EF lens is #4 - 199 vs. 187.7mm. Interestingly, this seems to be an (almost) non-extending design.






share|improve this answer

























  • Simply comparing the lens diagram (global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/…) ... it's a whole different beast. I've no idea how to interpret the changes but, it sure is pretty.

    – Hueco
    Mar 18 at 18:24











  • Products do not have to match the dimensions of the patent. they have to match the design elements that make them unique from other, previously patented, design elements.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:38






  • 1





    "Total lens length" in an optical patent text always includes the flange distance; it's the distance from the front element to the image plane. Subtract 20mm from the lengths mentioned in the patent to get more comparable measurements.

    – JohannesD
    Mar 30 at 18:46






  • 1





    @MichaelC Definitely! But here the length of the EF 70-200mm that was mentioned (199mm) was its actual physical dimension.

    – JohannesD
    Apr 5 at 14:28







  • 1





    @JohannesD incorporated that information in my answer. thanks!

    – flolilo
    Apr 5 at 14:37


















-3














It is possible to image using a modest single element lens. Sorry to report, the resulting images will be second-rate. That’s because all lenses suffer from aberrations that degrade. Opticians mitigate aberrations by combining numerous lens elements. Some are positive (convex) and some are negative (concave) as to power. Additionally some are cemented together; others are air-spaced. It takes all this to mitigate aberrations. Nevertheless, residual aberrations always remain.



If the camera were to be fitted with a single element lens and focused on a distant vista, we could take a measurement from the center of the lens to the image plane. This value is the focal length. In a complex lens array, finding the point to make this measurement is more obscure. The point we need to find is called the rear nodal.



Opticians can and do shift the position of the rear nodal. Now a long lens is one that has a long focal length. The longer the focal length, the more magnification it will deliver. A long lens is very desirable if you are into sports or wildlife or the like. However, you might find a long lens to be somewhat awkward.



Opticians have a trick up their sleeve that physically shortens the lens barrel. This is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward. If the optician desires, a complex array of lens elements can be constructed so that the rear nodal falls in the air, forward of the front element.



Remember, the focal length is a measure taken from the rear nodal to the image plane. The advantage of such a design is a shorter, less awkward barrel length. Let me add, a true telephoto design differs from the long lens in that the telephoto is foreshortened as to barrel length.



Also, you should know that short wide-angle lenses often place the rear lens group too close to the image plane. If true, there is no room for the mirror mechanism of the SLR. The optician, desiring more room for the back-focus distance, will shift the rear nodal rearward.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.

    – osullic
    Mar 17 at 16:57











  • This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 17 at 16:58






  • 2





    The RF version sports a shorter barrel which is less awkward to use. This shorter design is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward away from the center point of the lens barrel.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 17 at 21:09






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1





    I am unable to know about the operation of their mind. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 18 at 3:57











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106014%2fwhat-enables-the-canon-rf-70-200-f-2-8-to-be-much-smaller-than-the-ef-version%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









8














They are two totally different designs.



  • One is a non-extending lens that does all of the "zooming" internally.

  • The other is an extending zoom lens that is considerably shorter at 70mm than at 200mm.

In fact, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS is slightly longer than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III when the RF lens is zoomed all the way in to 200mm.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Yep, this is the point I missed. Probably because Canon "accidentally" forgot to mention it in their press releases about the lens... have you found any photos of the lens in the fully extended state?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 19 at 11:46











  • I haven't really looked. Every "rumor" I've seen regarding this lens says it is an extending design. No one claims that it does not extend.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:53















8














They are two totally different designs.



  • One is a non-extending lens that does all of the "zooming" internally.

  • The other is an extending zoom lens that is considerably shorter at 70mm than at 200mm.

In fact, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS is slightly longer than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III when the RF lens is zoomed all the way in to 200mm.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Yep, this is the point I missed. Probably because Canon "accidentally" forgot to mention it in their press releases about the lens... have you found any photos of the lens in the fully extended state?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 19 at 11:46











  • I haven't really looked. Every "rumor" I've seen regarding this lens says it is an extending design. No one claims that it does not extend.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:53













8












8








8







They are two totally different designs.



  • One is a non-extending lens that does all of the "zooming" internally.

  • The other is an extending zoom lens that is considerably shorter at 70mm than at 200mm.

In fact, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS is slightly longer than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III when the RF lens is zoomed all the way in to 200mm.






share|improve this answer















They are two totally different designs.



  • One is a non-extending lens that does all of the "zooming" internally.

  • The other is an extending zoom lens that is considerably shorter at 70mm than at 200mm.

In fact, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS is slightly longer than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III when the RF lens is zoomed all the way in to 200mm.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 19 at 14:16









Hueco

12.3k32857




12.3k32857










answered Mar 19 at 11:41









Michael CMichael C

135k7154384




135k7154384







  • 1





    Yep, this is the point I missed. Probably because Canon "accidentally" forgot to mention it in their press releases about the lens... have you found any photos of the lens in the fully extended state?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 19 at 11:46











  • I haven't really looked. Every "rumor" I've seen regarding this lens says it is an extending design. No one claims that it does not extend.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:53












  • 1





    Yep, this is the point I missed. Probably because Canon "accidentally" forgot to mention it in their press releases about the lens... have you found any photos of the lens in the fully extended state?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 19 at 11:46











  • I haven't really looked. Every "rumor" I've seen regarding this lens says it is an extending design. No one claims that it does not extend.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:53







1




1





Yep, this is the point I missed. Probably because Canon "accidentally" forgot to mention it in their press releases about the lens... have you found any photos of the lens in the fully extended state?

– Philip Kendall
Mar 19 at 11:46





Yep, this is the point I missed. Probably because Canon "accidentally" forgot to mention it in their press releases about the lens... have you found any photos of the lens in the fully extended state?

– Philip Kendall
Mar 19 at 11:46













I haven't really looked. Every "rumor" I've seen regarding this lens says it is an extending design. No one claims that it does not extend.

– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:53





I haven't really looked. Every "rumor" I've seen regarding this lens says it is an extending design. No one claims that it does not extend.

– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:53













4














In its current design, it was achieved by using an extending lens body.



A recent interview in DPReview with Canon's executives states:




Q: In terms of making the new 70-200mm smaller, how difficult was it to decide to move to an extending zoom design?



A: We've not actually disclosed that it is going to extend or not, but we do have the extending mechanism in other lenses we make. So we do have the experience and know-how in-house: we have the capability to introduce such a feature in a new lens. To be clear, though: I have not said that it's going to be an extending design.





Lens-rumors.com claims that the US-patent #20190004296 is for the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. This patent states:



Focal length [mm] | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
Length of the lens [mm] | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86


Found in the patent application's p. 7



The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III is 199.0 mm and it is not extending.



However:



enter image description hereStolen from ephotozine's hands-on article



I further browsed through the illusive patent application and I found three different tables for lens sizes:



[Numerical data 1] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 2.87 | 2.91 | 2.96
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.71 | 242.23

[Numerical data 2] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
F-Number | 2.92 | 2.92 | 2.92
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86

[Numerical data 3] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 218.46 | 231.71

[Numerical data 4] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.89 | 3.15 | 3.35
Tot. Lens Length | 207.73 | 207.72 | 207.71

[Numerical data 5] Zoom ratio 1.95
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 100.00 | 150.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 3.93 | 4.02 | 3.96
Tot. Lens Length | 167.73 | 207.60 | 231.68


As @MichaelC states in his comments, it is probable that these are just the designs that Canon has tried out before applying the patent - they say little to nothing about the lens to come.



@JohannesD pointed out that the numbers in the patent application include the flange focal distance, i.e. they are measured from the front of the lens to the sensor. Since the FFD of the RF mount is 20mm, we can subtract them to get the lengths of the designs.



Note that the only one that is smaller than the EF lens is #4 - 199 vs. 187.7mm. Interestingly, this seems to be an (almost) non-extending design.






share|improve this answer

























  • Simply comparing the lens diagram (global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/…) ... it's a whole different beast. I've no idea how to interpret the changes but, it sure is pretty.

    – Hueco
    Mar 18 at 18:24











  • Products do not have to match the dimensions of the patent. they have to match the design elements that make them unique from other, previously patented, design elements.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:38






  • 1





    "Total lens length" in an optical patent text always includes the flange distance; it's the distance from the front element to the image plane. Subtract 20mm from the lengths mentioned in the patent to get more comparable measurements.

    – JohannesD
    Mar 30 at 18:46






  • 1





    @MichaelC Definitely! But here the length of the EF 70-200mm that was mentioned (199mm) was its actual physical dimension.

    – JohannesD
    Apr 5 at 14:28







  • 1





    @JohannesD incorporated that information in my answer. thanks!

    – flolilo
    Apr 5 at 14:37















4














In its current design, it was achieved by using an extending lens body.



A recent interview in DPReview with Canon's executives states:




Q: In terms of making the new 70-200mm smaller, how difficult was it to decide to move to an extending zoom design?



A: We've not actually disclosed that it is going to extend or not, but we do have the extending mechanism in other lenses we make. So we do have the experience and know-how in-house: we have the capability to introduce such a feature in a new lens. To be clear, though: I have not said that it's going to be an extending design.





Lens-rumors.com claims that the US-patent #20190004296 is for the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. This patent states:



Focal length [mm] | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
Length of the lens [mm] | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86


Found in the patent application's p. 7



The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III is 199.0 mm and it is not extending.



However:



enter image description hereStolen from ephotozine's hands-on article



I further browsed through the illusive patent application and I found three different tables for lens sizes:



[Numerical data 1] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 2.87 | 2.91 | 2.96
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.71 | 242.23

[Numerical data 2] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
F-Number | 2.92 | 2.92 | 2.92
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86

[Numerical data 3] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 218.46 | 231.71

[Numerical data 4] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.89 | 3.15 | 3.35
Tot. Lens Length | 207.73 | 207.72 | 207.71

[Numerical data 5] Zoom ratio 1.95
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 100.00 | 150.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 3.93 | 4.02 | 3.96
Tot. Lens Length | 167.73 | 207.60 | 231.68


As @MichaelC states in his comments, it is probable that these are just the designs that Canon has tried out before applying the patent - they say little to nothing about the lens to come.



@JohannesD pointed out that the numbers in the patent application include the flange focal distance, i.e. they are measured from the front of the lens to the sensor. Since the FFD of the RF mount is 20mm, we can subtract them to get the lengths of the designs.



Note that the only one that is smaller than the EF lens is #4 - 199 vs. 187.7mm. Interestingly, this seems to be an (almost) non-extending design.






share|improve this answer

























  • Simply comparing the lens diagram (global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/…) ... it's a whole different beast. I've no idea how to interpret the changes but, it sure is pretty.

    – Hueco
    Mar 18 at 18:24











  • Products do not have to match the dimensions of the patent. they have to match the design elements that make them unique from other, previously patented, design elements.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:38






  • 1





    "Total lens length" in an optical patent text always includes the flange distance; it's the distance from the front element to the image plane. Subtract 20mm from the lengths mentioned in the patent to get more comparable measurements.

    – JohannesD
    Mar 30 at 18:46






  • 1





    @MichaelC Definitely! But here the length of the EF 70-200mm that was mentioned (199mm) was its actual physical dimension.

    – JohannesD
    Apr 5 at 14:28







  • 1





    @JohannesD incorporated that information in my answer. thanks!

    – flolilo
    Apr 5 at 14:37













4












4








4







In its current design, it was achieved by using an extending lens body.



A recent interview in DPReview with Canon's executives states:




Q: In terms of making the new 70-200mm smaller, how difficult was it to decide to move to an extending zoom design?



A: We've not actually disclosed that it is going to extend or not, but we do have the extending mechanism in other lenses we make. So we do have the experience and know-how in-house: we have the capability to introduce such a feature in a new lens. To be clear, though: I have not said that it's going to be an extending design.





Lens-rumors.com claims that the US-patent #20190004296 is for the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. This patent states:



Focal length [mm] | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
Length of the lens [mm] | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86


Found in the patent application's p. 7



The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III is 199.0 mm and it is not extending.



However:



enter image description hereStolen from ephotozine's hands-on article



I further browsed through the illusive patent application and I found three different tables for lens sizes:



[Numerical data 1] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 2.87 | 2.91 | 2.96
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.71 | 242.23

[Numerical data 2] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
F-Number | 2.92 | 2.92 | 2.92
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86

[Numerical data 3] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 218.46 | 231.71

[Numerical data 4] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.89 | 3.15 | 3.35
Tot. Lens Length | 207.73 | 207.72 | 207.71

[Numerical data 5] Zoom ratio 1.95
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 100.00 | 150.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 3.93 | 4.02 | 3.96
Tot. Lens Length | 167.73 | 207.60 | 231.68


As @MichaelC states in his comments, it is probable that these are just the designs that Canon has tried out before applying the patent - they say little to nothing about the lens to come.



@JohannesD pointed out that the numbers in the patent application include the flange focal distance, i.e. they are measured from the front of the lens to the sensor. Since the FFD of the RF mount is 20mm, we can subtract them to get the lengths of the designs.



Note that the only one that is smaller than the EF lens is #4 - 199 vs. 187.7mm. Interestingly, this seems to be an (almost) non-extending design.






share|improve this answer















In its current design, it was achieved by using an extending lens body.



A recent interview in DPReview with Canon's executives states:




Q: In terms of making the new 70-200mm smaller, how difficult was it to decide to move to an extending zoom design?



A: We've not actually disclosed that it is going to extend or not, but we do have the extending mechanism in other lenses we make. So we do have the experience and know-how in-house: we have the capability to introduce such a feature in a new lens. To be clear, though: I have not said that it's going to be an extending design.





Lens-rumors.com claims that the US-patent #20190004296 is for the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM. This patent states:



Focal length [mm] | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
Length of the lens [mm] | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86


Found in the patent application's p. 7



The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III is 199.0 mm and it is not extending.



However:



enter image description hereStolen from ephotozine's hands-on article



I further browsed through the illusive patent application and I found three different tables for lens sizes:



[Numerical data 1] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 2.87 | 2.91 | 2.96
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.71 | 242.23

[Numerical data 2] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.99
F-Number | 2.92 | 2.92 | 2.92
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 227.50 | 242.86

[Numerical data 3] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90
Tot. Lens Length | 172.73 | 218.46 | 231.71

[Numerical data 4] Zoom ratio 2.71
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 72.00 | 135.00 | 194.98
F-Number | 2.89 | 3.15 | 3.35
Tot. Lens Length | 207.73 | 207.72 | 207.71

[Numerical data 5] Zoom ratio 1.95
-------------------------------------------
Focal Length | 100.00 | 150.00 | 195.00
F-Number | 3.93 | 4.02 | 3.96
Tot. Lens Length | 167.73 | 207.60 | 231.68


As @MichaelC states in his comments, it is probable that these are just the designs that Canon has tried out before applying the patent - they say little to nothing about the lens to come.



@JohannesD pointed out that the numbers in the patent application include the flange focal distance, i.e. they are measured from the front of the lens to the sensor. Since the FFD of the RF mount is 20mm, we can subtract them to get the lengths of the designs.



Note that the only one that is smaller than the EF lens is #4 - 199 vs. 187.7mm. Interestingly, this seems to be an (almost) non-extending design.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 5 at 14:37

























answered Mar 17 at 16:15









floliloflolilo

5,51811839




5,51811839












  • Simply comparing the lens diagram (global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/…) ... it's a whole different beast. I've no idea how to interpret the changes but, it sure is pretty.

    – Hueco
    Mar 18 at 18:24











  • Products do not have to match the dimensions of the patent. they have to match the design elements that make them unique from other, previously patented, design elements.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:38






  • 1





    "Total lens length" in an optical patent text always includes the flange distance; it's the distance from the front element to the image plane. Subtract 20mm from the lengths mentioned in the patent to get more comparable measurements.

    – JohannesD
    Mar 30 at 18:46






  • 1





    @MichaelC Definitely! But here the length of the EF 70-200mm that was mentioned (199mm) was its actual physical dimension.

    – JohannesD
    Apr 5 at 14:28







  • 1





    @JohannesD incorporated that information in my answer. thanks!

    – flolilo
    Apr 5 at 14:37

















  • Simply comparing the lens diagram (global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/…) ... it's a whole different beast. I've no idea how to interpret the changes but, it sure is pretty.

    – Hueco
    Mar 18 at 18:24











  • Products do not have to match the dimensions of the patent. they have to match the design elements that make them unique from other, previously patented, design elements.

    – Michael C
    Mar 19 at 11:38






  • 1





    "Total lens length" in an optical patent text always includes the flange distance; it's the distance from the front element to the image plane. Subtract 20mm from the lengths mentioned in the patent to get more comparable measurements.

    – JohannesD
    Mar 30 at 18:46






  • 1





    @MichaelC Definitely! But here the length of the EF 70-200mm that was mentioned (199mm) was its actual physical dimension.

    – JohannesD
    Apr 5 at 14:28







  • 1





    @JohannesD incorporated that information in my answer. thanks!

    – flolilo
    Apr 5 at 14:37
















Simply comparing the lens diagram (global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/…) ... it's a whole different beast. I've no idea how to interpret the changes but, it sure is pretty.

– Hueco
Mar 18 at 18:24





Simply comparing the lens diagram (global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/…) ... it's a whole different beast. I've no idea how to interpret the changes but, it sure is pretty.

– Hueco
Mar 18 at 18:24













Products do not have to match the dimensions of the patent. they have to match the design elements that make them unique from other, previously patented, design elements.

– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:38





Products do not have to match the dimensions of the patent. they have to match the design elements that make them unique from other, previously patented, design elements.

– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:38




1




1





"Total lens length" in an optical patent text always includes the flange distance; it's the distance from the front element to the image plane. Subtract 20mm from the lengths mentioned in the patent to get more comparable measurements.

– JohannesD
Mar 30 at 18:46





"Total lens length" in an optical patent text always includes the flange distance; it's the distance from the front element to the image plane. Subtract 20mm from the lengths mentioned in the patent to get more comparable measurements.

– JohannesD
Mar 30 at 18:46




1




1





@MichaelC Definitely! But here the length of the EF 70-200mm that was mentioned (199mm) was its actual physical dimension.

– JohannesD
Apr 5 at 14:28






@MichaelC Definitely! But here the length of the EF 70-200mm that was mentioned (199mm) was its actual physical dimension.

– JohannesD
Apr 5 at 14:28





1




1





@JohannesD incorporated that information in my answer. thanks!

– flolilo
Apr 5 at 14:37





@JohannesD incorporated that information in my answer. thanks!

– flolilo
Apr 5 at 14:37











-3














It is possible to image using a modest single element lens. Sorry to report, the resulting images will be second-rate. That’s because all lenses suffer from aberrations that degrade. Opticians mitigate aberrations by combining numerous lens elements. Some are positive (convex) and some are negative (concave) as to power. Additionally some are cemented together; others are air-spaced. It takes all this to mitigate aberrations. Nevertheless, residual aberrations always remain.



If the camera were to be fitted with a single element lens and focused on a distant vista, we could take a measurement from the center of the lens to the image plane. This value is the focal length. In a complex lens array, finding the point to make this measurement is more obscure. The point we need to find is called the rear nodal.



Opticians can and do shift the position of the rear nodal. Now a long lens is one that has a long focal length. The longer the focal length, the more magnification it will deliver. A long lens is very desirable if you are into sports or wildlife or the like. However, you might find a long lens to be somewhat awkward.



Opticians have a trick up their sleeve that physically shortens the lens barrel. This is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward. If the optician desires, a complex array of lens elements can be constructed so that the rear nodal falls in the air, forward of the front element.



Remember, the focal length is a measure taken from the rear nodal to the image plane. The advantage of such a design is a shorter, less awkward barrel length. Let me add, a true telephoto design differs from the long lens in that the telephoto is foreshortened as to barrel length.



Also, you should know that short wide-angle lenses often place the rear lens group too close to the image plane. If true, there is no room for the mirror mechanism of the SLR. The optician, desiring more room for the back-focus distance, will shift the rear nodal rearward.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.

    – osullic
    Mar 17 at 16:57











  • This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 17 at 16:58






  • 2





    The RF version sports a shorter barrel which is less awkward to use. This shorter design is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward away from the center point of the lens barrel.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 17 at 21:09






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1





    I am unable to know about the operation of their mind. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 18 at 3:57















-3














It is possible to image using a modest single element lens. Sorry to report, the resulting images will be second-rate. That’s because all lenses suffer from aberrations that degrade. Opticians mitigate aberrations by combining numerous lens elements. Some are positive (convex) and some are negative (concave) as to power. Additionally some are cemented together; others are air-spaced. It takes all this to mitigate aberrations. Nevertheless, residual aberrations always remain.



If the camera were to be fitted with a single element lens and focused on a distant vista, we could take a measurement from the center of the lens to the image plane. This value is the focal length. In a complex lens array, finding the point to make this measurement is more obscure. The point we need to find is called the rear nodal.



Opticians can and do shift the position of the rear nodal. Now a long lens is one that has a long focal length. The longer the focal length, the more magnification it will deliver. A long lens is very desirable if you are into sports or wildlife or the like. However, you might find a long lens to be somewhat awkward.



Opticians have a trick up their sleeve that physically shortens the lens barrel. This is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward. If the optician desires, a complex array of lens elements can be constructed so that the rear nodal falls in the air, forward of the front element.



Remember, the focal length is a measure taken from the rear nodal to the image plane. The advantage of such a design is a shorter, less awkward barrel length. Let me add, a true telephoto design differs from the long lens in that the telephoto is foreshortened as to barrel length.



Also, you should know that short wide-angle lenses often place the rear lens group too close to the image plane. If true, there is no room for the mirror mechanism of the SLR. The optician, desiring more room for the back-focus distance, will shift the rear nodal rearward.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.

    – osullic
    Mar 17 at 16:57











  • This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 17 at 16:58






  • 2





    The RF version sports a shorter barrel which is less awkward to use. This shorter design is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward away from the center point of the lens barrel.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 17 at 21:09






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1





    I am unable to know about the operation of their mind. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 18 at 3:57













-3












-3








-3







It is possible to image using a modest single element lens. Sorry to report, the resulting images will be second-rate. That’s because all lenses suffer from aberrations that degrade. Opticians mitigate aberrations by combining numerous lens elements. Some are positive (convex) and some are negative (concave) as to power. Additionally some are cemented together; others are air-spaced. It takes all this to mitigate aberrations. Nevertheless, residual aberrations always remain.



If the camera were to be fitted with a single element lens and focused on a distant vista, we could take a measurement from the center of the lens to the image plane. This value is the focal length. In a complex lens array, finding the point to make this measurement is more obscure. The point we need to find is called the rear nodal.



Opticians can and do shift the position of the rear nodal. Now a long lens is one that has a long focal length. The longer the focal length, the more magnification it will deliver. A long lens is very desirable if you are into sports or wildlife or the like. However, you might find a long lens to be somewhat awkward.



Opticians have a trick up their sleeve that physically shortens the lens barrel. This is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward. If the optician desires, a complex array of lens elements can be constructed so that the rear nodal falls in the air, forward of the front element.



Remember, the focal length is a measure taken from the rear nodal to the image plane. The advantage of such a design is a shorter, less awkward barrel length. Let me add, a true telephoto design differs from the long lens in that the telephoto is foreshortened as to barrel length.



Also, you should know that short wide-angle lenses often place the rear lens group too close to the image plane. If true, there is no room for the mirror mechanism of the SLR. The optician, desiring more room for the back-focus distance, will shift the rear nodal rearward.






share|improve this answer













It is possible to image using a modest single element lens. Sorry to report, the resulting images will be second-rate. That’s because all lenses suffer from aberrations that degrade. Opticians mitigate aberrations by combining numerous lens elements. Some are positive (convex) and some are negative (concave) as to power. Additionally some are cemented together; others are air-spaced. It takes all this to mitigate aberrations. Nevertheless, residual aberrations always remain.



If the camera were to be fitted with a single element lens and focused on a distant vista, we could take a measurement from the center of the lens to the image plane. This value is the focal length. In a complex lens array, finding the point to make this measurement is more obscure. The point we need to find is called the rear nodal.



Opticians can and do shift the position of the rear nodal. Now a long lens is one that has a long focal length. The longer the focal length, the more magnification it will deliver. A long lens is very desirable if you are into sports or wildlife or the like. However, you might find a long lens to be somewhat awkward.



Opticians have a trick up their sleeve that physically shortens the lens barrel. This is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward. If the optician desires, a complex array of lens elements can be constructed so that the rear nodal falls in the air, forward of the front element.



Remember, the focal length is a measure taken from the rear nodal to the image plane. The advantage of such a design is a shorter, less awkward barrel length. Let me add, a true telephoto design differs from the long lens in that the telephoto is foreshortened as to barrel length.



Also, you should know that short wide-angle lenses often place the rear lens group too close to the image plane. If true, there is no room for the mirror mechanism of the SLR. The optician, desiring more room for the back-focus distance, will shift the rear nodal rearward.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Mar 17 at 16:36









Alan MarcusAlan Marcus

26k23060




26k23060







  • 1





    Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.

    – osullic
    Mar 17 at 16:57











  • This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 17 at 16:58






  • 2





    The RF version sports a shorter barrel which is less awkward to use. This shorter design is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward away from the center point of the lens barrel.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 17 at 21:09






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1





    I am unable to know about the operation of their mind. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 18 at 3:57












  • 1





    Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.

    – osullic
    Mar 17 at 16:57











  • This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?

    – Philip Kendall
    Mar 17 at 16:58






  • 2





    The RF version sports a shorter barrel which is less awkward to use. This shorter design is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward away from the center point of the lens barrel.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 17 at 21:09






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    Mar 18 at 1:21






  • 1





    I am unable to know about the operation of their mind. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

    – Alan Marcus
    Mar 18 at 3:57







1




1





Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.

– osullic
Mar 17 at 16:57





Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.

– osullic
Mar 17 at 16:57













This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?

– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 16:58





This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?

– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 16:58




2




2





The RF version sports a shorter barrel which is less awkward to use. This shorter design is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward away from the center point of the lens barrel.

– Alan Marcus
Mar 17 at 21:09





The RF version sports a shorter barrel which is less awkward to use. This shorter design is accomplished by shifting the rear nodal forward away from the center point of the lens barrel.

– Alan Marcus
Mar 17 at 21:09




1




1





It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

– Eric Shain
Mar 18 at 1:21





It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

– Eric Shain
Mar 18 at 1:21




1




1





I am unable to know about the operation of their mind. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

– Alan Marcus
Mar 18 at 3:57





I am unable to know about the operation of their mind. In other words, your guess is as good as mine.

– Alan Marcus
Mar 18 at 3:57

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106014%2fwhat-enables-the-canon-rf-70-200-f-2-8-to-be-much-smaller-than-the-ef-version%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown






Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?