Inner Focus on 24-70 f/2.8L II

When it says "Inner Focus" system on the 24-70 f/2.8L II, does this imply that the lens does not externally extend to zoom?

ocabj wrote in post #13841880
When it says "Inner Focus" system on the 24-70 f/2.8L II, does this imply that the lens does not externally extend to zoom?

No, it focuses internally but does not zoom internally.

No, that just means it doesn't change length when focusing. The original 24-70 is also IF or "internal focusing"... and not internal zooming (few zooms are).

I'm sure it still changes length when zooming.... Pretty sure it's reversed from the original 24-70, which "grows longer" when zoomed toward the wide/24mm end. I think I saw somewhere that the Mark II grows longer when zoomed toward the tele/70mm end. (The photos of the new lens seem to bear this out... it's shown "parked" at 24mm, while photos of the original lens are shown parked at 70mm, with the zoom retracted.)

If that's the case, then the lens hood would probably need to be changed in design quite a bit. The original "Brick" uses a quite large hood that doesn't travel with the moving lens barrel... so it's deep at the 70mm setting and shallow at the 24mm setting, as the front element assembly moves inside it. If the "Brick II" zoom grows the lens the opposite way, I'm sure the hood would be attached in such a way as to travel with the front element and likely won't be very deep to shade the 70mm end of the range. Haven't seen the hood for it yet, though.

I'll be interested to see more info on the Mark II, to hear what makes it worth $1000 more than the original Brick. Most of the press release talks about IQ and focus speed/accuracy, both of which are pretty darned good on the original lens. The new lens is about half an inch shorter and 145 grams lighter, but a little larger diameter. There's 82mm filters (same as the 16-35L II and some others), and I think I see a zoom lock or zoom dampening control knob on there. There's already some whining about the Mark II not getting IS... which personally I don't think is needed on a zoom in this range. I would guess this is a quite deliberate decision of Canon designers... the lens is mostly targeted at pros and advanced amateurs who probably have a pretty good idea how to hold a 24mm or 70mm steady enough to get the shot (especially with cameras' usable ISOs climbing higher and higher every generation). IS would just be one more system in the lens to possibly fail during a shoot and require the lens to go in for repair (granted, IS is pretty durable in most lenses). And it adds optical elements that might run counter to get the last little bit of IQ out of the lens.

I suspect there's a 36MP+ DSLR on the Canon drawing boards and that they might be revising key lenses anticipating that such high resolution camera will put pretty heavy demands on aging lens designs. It goes hand in hand with a 70-200/2.8 Mark II that's only a few months old. Next we might see 16-35... and we're awaiting the 200-400/4 1.4X (and it's price, which I'd expect will be "stunning").

amfoto1 wrote in post #13842349
No, that just means it doesn't change length when focusing. The original 24-70 is also IF or "internal focusing"... and not internal zooming (few zooms are).

I'm sure it still changes length when zooming.... Pretty sure it's reversed from the original 24-70, which "grows longer" when zoomed toward the wide/24mm end. I think I saw somewhere that the Mark II grows longer when zoomed toward the tele/70mm end. (The photos of the new lens seem to bear this out... it's shown "parked" at 24mm, while photos of the original lens are shown parked at 70mm, with the zoom retracted.)

If that's the case, then the lens hood would probably need to be changed in design quite a bit. The original "Brick" uses a quite large hood that doesn't travel with the moving lens barrel... so it's deep at the 70mm setting and shallow at the 24mm setting, as the front element assembly moves inside it. If the "Brick II" zoom grows the lens the opposite way, I'm sure the hood would be attached in such a way as to travel with the front element and likely won't be very deep to shade the 70mm end of the range. Haven't seen the hood for it yet, though.

I'll be interested to see more info on the Mark II, to hear what makes it worth $1000 more than the original Brick. Most of the press release talks about IQ and focus speed/accuracy, both of which are pretty darned good on the original lens. The new lens is about half an inch shorter and 145 grams lighter, but a little larger diameter. There's 82mm filters (same as the 16-35L II and some others), and I think I see a zoom lock or zoom dampening control knob on there. There's already some whining about the Mark II not getting IS... which personally I don't think is needed on a zoom in this range. I would guess this is a quite deliberate decision of Canon designers... the lens is mostly targeted at pros and advanced amateurs who probably have a pretty good idea how to hold a 24mm or 70mm steady enough to get the shot (especially with cameras' usable ISOs climbing higher and higher every generation). IS would just be one more system in the lens to possibly fail during a shoot and require the lens to go in for repair (granted, IS is pretty durable in most lenses). And it adds optical elements that might run counter to get the last little bit of IQ out of the lens.

I suspect there's a 36MP+ DSLR on the Canon drawing boards and that they might be revising key lenses anticipating that such high resolution camera will put pretty heavy demands on aging lens designs. It goes hand in hand with a 70-200/2.8 Mark II that's only a few months old. Next we might see 16-35... and we're awaiting the 200-400/4 1.4X (and it's price, which I'd expect will be "stunning").

Look at the threads for the hood by the front barrel. The hood is attached to the front barrel much like the 24-105L.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com …ls_three_new_ef​_lenses.do