What enables the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 to be much smaller than the EF version? The Next CEO of...
Film where the government was corrupt with aliens, people sent to kill aliens are given rigged visors not showing the right aliens
Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?
What happened in Rome, when the western empire "fell"?
Expressing the idea of having a very busy time
Towers in the ocean; How deep can they be built?
Vector calculus integration identity problem
How to Implement Deterministic Encryption Safely in .NET
Is there such a thing as a proper verb, like a proper noun?
Is it ever safe to open a suspicious HTML file (e.g. email attachment)?
What steps are necessary to read a Modern SSD in Medieval Europe?
Is it OK to decorate a log book cover?
"Eavesdropping" vs "Listen in on"
Are the names of these months realistic?
Can this note be analyzed as a non-chord tone?
Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?
How to get the last not-null value in an ordered column of a huge table?
Why do we say 'Un seul M' and not 'Une seule M' even though M is a "consonne"
Is it convenient to ask the journal's editor for two additional days to complete a review?
Raspberry pi 3 B with Ubuntu 18.04 server arm64: what chip
From jafe to El-Guest
How do you define an element with an ID attribute using LWC?
What CSS properties can the br tag have?
Which Pokemon have a special animation when running with them out of their pokeball?
Why don't programming languages automatically manage the synchronous/asynchronous problem?
What enables the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 to be much smaller than the EF version?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCanon 70-200 F4 L USM (non-IS) vs Tamron 70-300 VCWhy do mirrorless cameras have quicker autofocus than SLRs using live view?Does the Canon M have actual, significant deficiencies vs. the competition?Does sensor size dictate lens size with all other things equal?Why are SLR lenses so much larger than Sony E-mount lenses?Should lenses of equal quality for smaller sensors be cheaper?What criteria to consider to match cameras and lenses for shooting people at parties?Why is my large format lens so much smaller (in length) than my 35mm-format lens?Why is the kit zoom lens for Olympus so much smaller than that for Nikon?Does a large mount diameter really allow design advantages for large aperture lenses?
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 lens-design mirrorless
add a comment |
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 lens-design mirrorless
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
Mar 17 at 18:06
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 18:14
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
add a comment |
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 lens-design mirrorless
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 lens-design mirrorless
canon lens-design mirrorless
asked Mar 17 at 15:20
Philip KendallPhilip Kendall
16.7k44983
16.7k44983
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
Mar 17 at 18:06
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 18:14
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
add a comment |
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
Mar 17 at 18:06
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 18:14
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
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
Mar 17 at 18:06
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
Mar 17 at 18:06
2
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 18:14
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 18:14
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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
add a comment |
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
So the RF-lens is probably extending with increasing focal lengths.
The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III
is 199.0 mm
and it is not extending.
However:
Stolen from ephotozine's hands-on article
That's more than 2.6 cm - I'd say that it is closer to 5 cm (~ 2 inches), so something in the numbers is off.
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
This totally beats me...
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
@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?
– flolilo
Mar 19 at 11:41
Yes. But if you'll notice, in all of the 5 scenarios listed, the lens is longer than 200mm when extended to the maximum focal length of 195mm. It's much shorter than 200mm in four of the five scenarios when zoomed to 70-100mm. All of them are already longer than 200mm in length when zoomed to 135mm.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:51
Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:57
|
show 4 more comments
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.
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
1
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited Mar 19 at 14:16
Hueco
11.8k32857
11.8k32857
answered Mar 19 at 11:41
Michael CMichael C
134k7152380
134k7152380
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
So the RF-lens is probably extending with increasing focal lengths.
The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III
is 199.0 mm
and it is not extending.
However:
Stolen from ephotozine's hands-on article
That's more than 2.6 cm - I'd say that it is closer to 5 cm (~ 2 inches), so something in the numbers is off.
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
This totally beats me...
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
@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?
– flolilo
Mar 19 at 11:41
Yes. But if you'll notice, in all of the 5 scenarios listed, the lens is longer than 200mm when extended to the maximum focal length of 195mm. It's much shorter than 200mm in four of the five scenarios when zoomed to 70-100mm. All of them are already longer than 200mm in length when zoomed to 135mm.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:51
Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:57
|
show 4 more comments
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
So the RF-lens is probably extending with increasing focal lengths.
The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III
is 199.0 mm
and it is not extending.
However:
Stolen from ephotozine's hands-on article
That's more than 2.6 cm - I'd say that it is closer to 5 cm (~ 2 inches), so something in the numbers is off.
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
This totally beats me...
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
@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?
– flolilo
Mar 19 at 11:41
Yes. But if you'll notice, in all of the 5 scenarios listed, the lens is longer than 200mm when extended to the maximum focal length of 195mm. It's much shorter than 200mm in four of the five scenarios when zoomed to 70-100mm. All of them are already longer than 200mm in length when zoomed to 135mm.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:51
Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:57
|
show 4 more comments
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
So the RF-lens is probably extending with increasing focal lengths.
The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III
is 199.0 mm
and it is not extending.
However:
Stolen from ephotozine's hands-on article
That's more than 2.6 cm - I'd say that it is closer to 5 cm (~ 2 inches), so something in the numbers is off.
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
This totally beats me...
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
So the RF-lens is probably extending with increasing focal lengths.
The official length for the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM III
is 199.0 mm
and it is not extending.
However:
Stolen from ephotozine's hands-on article
That's more than 2.6 cm - I'd say that it is closer to 5 cm (~ 2 inches), so something in the numbers is off.
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
This totally beats me...
edited Mar 17 at 16:44
answered Mar 17 at 16:15
floliloflolilo
5,14411838
5,14411838
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
@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?
– flolilo
Mar 19 at 11:41
Yes. But if you'll notice, in all of the 5 scenarios listed, the lens is longer than 200mm when extended to the maximum focal length of 195mm. It's much shorter than 200mm in four of the five scenarios when zoomed to 70-100mm. All of them are already longer than 200mm in length when zoomed to 135mm.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:51
Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:57
|
show 4 more comments
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
@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?
– flolilo
Mar 19 at 11:41
Yes. But if you'll notice, in all of the 5 scenarios listed, the lens is longer than 200mm when extended to the maximum focal length of 195mm. It's much shorter than 200mm in four of the five scenarios when zoomed to 70-100mm. All of them are already longer than 200mm in length when zoomed to 135mm.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:51
Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:57
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
@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?
– flolilo
Mar 19 at 11:41
@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?
– flolilo
Mar 19 at 11:41
Yes. But if you'll notice, in all of the 5 scenarios listed, the lens is longer than 200mm when extended to the maximum focal length of 195mm. It's much shorter than 200mm in four of the five scenarios when zoomed to 70-100mm. All of them are already longer than 200mm in length when zoomed to 135mm.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:51
Yes. But if you'll notice, in all of the 5 scenarios listed, the lens is longer than 200mm when extended to the maximum focal length of 195mm. It's much shorter than 200mm in four of the five scenarios when zoomed to 70-100mm. All of them are already longer than 200mm in length when zoomed to 135mm.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:51
Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:57
Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.
– Michael C
Mar 19 at 11:57
|
show 4 more comments
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.
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
1
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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
1
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
answered Mar 17 at 16:36
Alan MarcusAlan Marcus
25.9k23060
25.9k23060
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
1
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
1
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
1
1
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
Mar 17 at 18:06
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
Mar 17 at 18:14
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