Close Menu

    Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8

    By 15 Comments Canon Patents 1 Min Read

    In this patent application (2024-078721), Canon is showing off some embodiments of some smaller standard F2.8 zooms. While at first glance, this seems unlikely we should also keep in mind that Tamron’s smaller 28-70 F2.8 was very well received. So it’s possible that Canon may be looking at doing something similar. At a collapsed lens length (without the focal plane distance) of 110mm this is a very small fast normal full-frame lens.

    Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8

    WideMediumTelephoto
    Focal length28.80 50.00 68.80
    F-Number2.90 2.90 2.90
    Half Angle of View34.92 23.26 17.46
    Image Height21.64 21.64 21.64
    Lens Length130.17 139.65 154.36     
    Back Focus Distance13.97 24.10 33.42

     As with all patent applications, none of these may end up as actual products, but it’s a glimpse into Canon’s ongoing research.

    Source: Japan Patent Application 2024-078721

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    15 comments

    2. I\'d love this lens for hiking if it\'s considerably smaller than the 24-70L. I love that lens, but it would be great to have a smaller and lighter fixed f2.8 option from Canon.
    3. Yep, I would love this for hiking too if under 500 grams, with .30 or better close focus and an L lens with no IS. Should be designable ... The EF24-70 f4L IS was/is a great hiking lens so a sort of similar RF28-70mm f2.8 L using IBIS would tick my boxes.
    4. Is the current 24-70/2.8IS from a patent that has the various aberrations graphed? And if so is this the same better or worse? (I ask about a patent for the formula used on the other lens as that\'s in the same graph format and would be easy to compare.)

      Generally I feel that on an IBIS camera, shutter speeds are so long that we don't need in-lens IS any more and would love to dispose of it if doing so makes the lenses notably smaller, cheaper, and better image quality. OTOH, I started Canon in 1995 with the 28-70 and felt the extra 4mm is really pretty key. For me 28mm is medium-wide while 24mm is suddenly actual wide.
    5. Is the current 24-70/2.8IS from a patent that has the various aberrations graphed? And if so is this the same better or worse? (I ask about a patent for the formula used on the other lens as that\'s in the same graph format and would be easy to compare.)

      Generally I feel that on an IBIS camera, shutter speeds are so long that we don't need in-lens IS any more and would love to dispose of it if doing so makes the lenses notably smaller, cheaper, and better image quality. OTOH, I started Canon in 1995 with the 28-70 and felt the extra 4mm is really pretty key. For me 28mm is medium-wide while 24mm is suddenly actual wide.
      Same here!
      I no longer need OIS on WA zooms or lenses, IBIS is so convincing. Lenses could indeed become lighter and smaller, maybe even a bit less expensive. And, if the saying is true, thanks to a rigid internal lens alignment, optical quality could even benefit.
      On the other hand, I'm also convinced that zooms with a more limited range can be optically better. A 28-70 demands less design compromising than a 24-70.
      Another reason why I'd never ever buy a Tamron 35-150...:ROFLMAO:
    6. Same here!
      I no longer need OIS on WA zooms or lenses, IBIS is so convincing. Lenses could indeed become lighter and smaller, maybe even a bit less expensive. And, if the saying is true, thanks to a rigid internal lens alignment, optical quality could even benefit.
      On the other hand, I'm also convinced that zooms with a more limited range can be optically better. A 28-70 demands less design compromising than a 24-70.
      Another reason why I'd never ever buy a Tamron 35-150...:ROFLMAO:
      I never knew anyone who shot with the old EF 35-350/3.5-whatever. That was a huge white L lens, I think several thousand new. Just checking they're being sold in Tokyo for USD350!! Probably not that sharp but still.

      I don't know optics well enough to be sure that wider zooms have to be worse, but like you I suspect it. Still... 24mm is to me a lot more useful than 28mm at the wide end... Yes, you can usually just step back a few steps with 28mm and get a wider subject into the frame but 24mm is better if what you're trying to get in the frame would ideally be like 16mm.

      On the other hand I carry my 16/2.8 in my backpack with the 50/1.8 on the camera, and I've even used it with the 24-105/4. (For instance family holiday photos at the in-laws where 24mm is still too narrow for their living/dining room.) The 16/2.8 would also be a useful emergency backup lens to have while shooting a 28-70/2.8, so maybe 24-70 isn't quite as important now.

      But then I come back to the logic: you can crop 50/1.8 to 70mm or narrower and it has a bit bigger aperture so yet more bokeh. And 50/1.8 works at 50mm :-D . You can step back enough to not need 35mm... and if you need wider then you can crop the 16mm. And the 50/1.8 is seriously good, hand-holding on an R5 1/2 to 1/15 sec in my tests better than 1/30 or faster. (Which doesn't make sense but is weirdly true.)
    7. I never knew anyone who shot with the old EF 35-350/3.5-whatever. That was a huge white L lens, I think several thousand new. Just checking they're being sold in Tokyo for USD350!! Probably not that sharp but still.

      I don't know optics well enough to be sure that wider zooms have to be worse, but like you I suspect it. Still... 24mm is to me a lot more useful than 28mm at the wide end... Yes, you can usually just step back a few steps with 28mm and get a wider subject into the frame but 24mm is better if what you're trying to get in the frame would ideally be like 16mm.

      On the other hand I carry my 16/2.8 in my backpack with the 50/1.8 on the camera, and I've even used it with the 24-105/4. (For instance family holiday photos at the in-laws where 24mm is still too narrow for their living/dining room.) The 16/2.8 would also be a useful emergency backup lens to have while shooting a 28-70/2.8, so maybe 24-70 isn't quite as important now.

      But then I come back to the logic: you can crop 50/1.8 to 70mm or narrower and it has a bit bigger aperture so yet more bokeh. And 50/1.8 works at 50mm :-D . You can step back enough to not need 35mm... and if you need wider then you can crop the 16mm. And the 50/1.8 is seriously good, hand-holding on an R5 1/2 to 1/15 sec in my tests better than 1/30 or faster. (Which doesn't make sense but is weirdly true.)
      Stepping back may be an option in a city, but not on a steep and narrow mountain path.
      Well, to put it short, I prefer primes anyway. I often tried 24-70, 24-105 or similar zooms, only to find out that results would be better with primes. Battling one's own laziness is the price to pay if you want sharper corners...
      Cropping a 50 into a 70mm? Yes, with a high MP sensor , it works!
    8. Cropping a 50 into a 70mm? Yes, with a high MP sensor , it works!
      Yeah, the R5 and RF lenses literally have resolution to burn for 99% of shots. (Of course I shoot in hopes of getting the 1% that I want as high as quality as possible but of course that's not the norm. And the 50/1.8 is really good enough to use all 45MP from.)
    10. Having had the EF 28-135mm lens I would agree that 28 is far too narrow for standard street use.
      Funny how different tastes can be.
      I find 28mm too wide, and prefer 35mm. :)
    11. You can't always get far enough away for include the entire subject at 28mm, where 24mm is more often able. As for 35mm that is surely just a matter for turning the zoom ring, if that is your desire.
    12. Funny how different tastes can be.
      I find 28mm too wide, and prefer 35mm. :)
      Me, too. Years ago when trying to decide between the EF 24/1.4L II and EF 35/1.4, I set my 24-105/4 to each focal length for a couple of days each and preferred 35mm. From the 24mm shots, I found myself cropping in post anyway. So I bought the EF 35/1.4L. So for me, the 28-70/2 is wide enough (and fast enough).
    13. Me, too. Years ago when trying to decide between the EF 24/1.4L II and EF 35/1.4, I set my 24-105/4 to each focal length for a couple of days each and preferred 35mm. From the 24mm shots, I found myself cropping in post anyway. So I bought the EF 35/1.4L. So for me, the 28-70/2 is wide enough (and fast enough).
      And also good enough!
    14. You can't always get far enough away for include the entire subject at 28mm, where 24mm is more often able. As for 35mm that is surely just a matter for turning the zoom ring, if that is your desire.
      For street, I always use a Leica M. Though zooms are also available for it, I far prefer primes. No zoom is as discreet as a Summilux or Summicron. And why should I crop a 24mm picture if I get what I want with a 35mm?
      You are happy with your system, I'm happy with mine!
      As I wrote, tastes are different...:)
    15. I still don't understand how you are going to take a picture of something wide enough to require 24mm with a 35mm lens, no matter what your preference is. Unless you have a preference for shooting parts of a building, rather than the whole? It is not always possible to move further away. If you don't take those type of photos then no problem.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment