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












4















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?










share|improve this question























  • Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?

    – xenoid
    2 days ago








  • 2





    @xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











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

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago
















4















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?










share|improve this question























  • Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?

    – xenoid
    2 days ago








  • 2





    @xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











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

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago














4












4








4


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?










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 lens-design mirrorless






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Philip KendallPhilip Kendall

16.7k44983




16.7k44983













  • Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?

    – xenoid
    2 days ago








  • 2





    @xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











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

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago



















  • Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?

    – xenoid
    2 days ago








  • 2





    @xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago











  • 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
    yesterday











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

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago

















Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?

– xenoid
2 days ago







Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?

– xenoid
2 days ago






2




2





@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.

– Philip Kendall
2 days ago





@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.

– Philip Kendall
2 days ago













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
yesterday





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
yesterday













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

– Michael C
11 hours ago





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

– Michael C
11 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4














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


























  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago



















2














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:



enter image description hereStolen 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...






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
    yesterday











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • @MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?

    – flolilolilo
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago





















-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
    2 days ago











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

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Alan Marcus
    yesterday











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









4














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


























  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago
















4














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


























  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago














4












4








4







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 8 hours ago









Hueco

11.6k32857




11.6k32857










answered 11 hours ago









Michael CMichael C

133k7152378




133k7152378













  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago



















  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago

















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
11 hours ago





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
11 hours ago













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
11 hours ago





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
11 hours ago













2














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:



enter image description hereStolen 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...






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
    yesterday











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • @MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?

    – flolilolilo
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago


















2














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:



enter image description hereStolen 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...






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
    yesterday











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • @MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?

    – flolilolilo
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago
















2












2








2







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:



enter image description hereStolen 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...






share|improve this answer















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:



enter image description hereStolen 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...







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









floliloliloflolilolilo

5,05411835




5,05411835













  • 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
    yesterday











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • @MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?

    – flolilolilo
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago





















  • 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
    yesterday











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • @MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?

    – flolilolilo
    11 hours ago











  • 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
    11 hours ago











  • Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.

    – Michael C
    11 hours ago



















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
yesterday





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
yesterday













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
11 hours ago





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
11 hours ago













@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?

– flolilolilo
11 hours ago





@MichaelC I see, so it is something of a draft how the lens could look like?

– flolilolilo
11 hours ago













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
11 hours ago





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
11 hours ago













Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.

– Michael C
11 hours ago







Here's a less distorted view of the two lenses side-by-side.

– Michael C
11 hours ago













-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
    2 days ago











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

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Alan Marcus
    yesterday
















-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
    2 days ago











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

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Alan Marcus
    yesterday














-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 2 days ago









Alan MarcusAlan Marcus

25.7k23060




25.7k23060








  • 1





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

    – osullic
    2 days ago











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

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Alan Marcus
    yesterday














  • 1





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

    – osullic
    2 days ago











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

    – Philip Kendall
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 1





    It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

    – Eric Shain
    yesterday






  • 1





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

    – Alan Marcus
    yesterday








1




1





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

– osullic
2 days ago





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

– osullic
2 days ago













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

– Philip Kendall
2 days ago





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

– Philip Kendall
2 days ago




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
2 days ago





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
2 days ago




1




1





It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

– Eric Shain
yesterday





It sounds like you are guessing why rather actually knowing.

– Eric Shain
yesterday




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
yesterday





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

– Alan Marcus
yesterday


















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

Callistus I

Tabula Rosettana

How to label and detect the document text images