What enables the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 to be much smaller than the EF version?Canon 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?
Is honey really a supersaturated solution? Does heating to un-crystalize redissolve it or melt it?
World War I as a war of liberals against authoritarians?
Usage and meaning of "up" in "...worth at least a thousand pounds up in London"
Print a physical multiplication table
Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?
Does the attack bonus from a Masterwork weapon stack with the attack bonus from Masterwork ammunition?
A Ri-diddley-iley Riddle
Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions
Brake pads destroying wheels
Can you move over difficult terrain with only 5 feet of movement?
Variable completely messes up echoed string
Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?
Light propagating through a sound wave
If "dar" means "to give", what does "daros" mean?
Tikz: place node leftmost of two nodes of different widths
Existence of a celestial body big enough for early civilization to be thought of as a second moon
HP P840 HDD RAID 5 many strange drive failures
Why is there so much iron?
Do US professors/group leaders only get a salary, but no group budget?
What does Deadpool mean by "left the house in that shirt"?
Calculate the frequency of characters in a string
How does 取材で訪れた integrate into this sentence?
Synchronized implementation of a bank account in Java
Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?
What enables the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 to be much smaller than the EF version?
Canon 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
8 hours ago
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
8 hours ago
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 11 hours ago
Philip KendallPhilip Kendall
16.7k44983
16.7k44983
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
8 hours ago
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
8 hours ago
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
8 hours ago
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
8 hours ago
Diffractive optics, like in the Canon-EF-400mm-f/4.0-DO?
– xenoid
8 hours ago
2
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
8 hours ago
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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...
add a comment |
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
9 hours ago
This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?
– Philip Kendall
9 hours ago
I didn't find anything in this answer related to the RF system or the lens in question at all...
– Fábio Dias
9 hours 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
5 hours ago
Why do you suspect that Canon gave the RF lens a nice compact design and not the EF lens? Why don't Canon update the EF lens with a more compact design?
– osullic
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
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
);
);
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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...
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...
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...
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 10 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
floliloliloflolilolilo
4,99911735
4,99911735
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
9 hours ago
This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?
– Philip Kendall
9 hours ago
I didn't find anything in this answer related to the RF system or the lens in question at all...
– Fábio Dias
9 hours 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
5 hours ago
Why do you suspect that Canon gave the RF lens a nice compact design and not the EF lens? Why don't Canon update the EF lens with a more compact design?
– osullic
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
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
9 hours ago
This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?
– Philip Kendall
9 hours ago
I didn't find anything in this answer related to the RF system or the lens in question at all...
– Fábio Dias
9 hours 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
5 hours ago
Why do you suspect that Canon gave the RF lens a nice compact design and not the EF lens? Why don't Canon update the EF lens with a more compact design?
– osullic
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
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 10 hours 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
9 hours ago
This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?
– Philip Kendall
9 hours ago
I didn't find anything in this answer related to the RF system or the lens in question at all...
– Fábio Dias
9 hours 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
5 hours ago
Why do you suspect that Canon gave the RF lens a nice compact design and not the EF lens? Why don't Canon update the EF lens with a more compact design?
– osullic
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.
– osullic
9 hours ago
This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?
– Philip Kendall
9 hours ago
I didn't find anything in this answer related to the RF system or the lens in question at all...
– Fábio Dias
9 hours 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
5 hours ago
Why do you suspect that Canon gave the RF lens a nice compact design and not the EF lens? Why don't Canon update the EF lens with a more compact design?
– osullic
2 hours ago
1
1
Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.
– osullic
9 hours ago
Your wordy explanation might be interesting...but it doesn't really answer the question in any way.
– osullic
9 hours ago
This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?
– Philip Kendall
9 hours ago
This does not answer my question. Why could Canon design the RF version be shorter than the EF version?
– Philip Kendall
9 hours ago
I didn't find anything in this answer related to the RF system or the lens in question at all...
– Fábio Dias
9 hours ago
I didn't find anything in this answer related to the RF system or the lens in question at all...
– Fábio Dias
9 hours 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
5 hours 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
5 hours ago
Why do you suspect that Canon gave the RF lens a nice compact design and not the EF lens? Why don't Canon update the EF lens with a more compact design?
– osullic
2 hours ago
Why do you suspect that Canon gave the RF lens a nice compact design and not the EF lens? Why don't Canon update the EF lens with a more compact design?
– osullic
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
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
8 hours ago
2
@xenoid I think it would have been mentioned by Canon if that were the case.
– Philip Kendall
8 hours ago