# Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 13, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;clear:right; float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/patent-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/patent-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-top:10px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/patent-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Another patent

</strong>This is probably the third separate patent I have seen for an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS over the last 24 months. A zoom ring version does exist in the wild. We’re told the push/pull is finished and we’ll get a properly sealed 100-400. The cost will be north of $2500 USD and we could finally see it announced before the end of the year. Also appearing in the patent is a 70-300.</p>
<p><strong>The breakdown below is Google translated</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span>Patent Publication No. 2013-105053</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Publication date 2013.5.30</span></li>
<li><span>Filing date 2011.11.15</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 1</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Zoom ratio 4.01</span></li>
<li><span>Focal length f = 72.48-135.49-290.86mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 4.58-4.94-5.85</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 16.62-9.07-4.25 °</span></li>
<li><span>Image height Y = 21.64mm</span></li>
<li><span>143.42-175.48-201.87mm overall length of the lens</span></li>
<li><span>BF 39.98mm</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Example 3</span>
<ul>
<li><span>Zoom ratio 3.75</span></li>
<li><span>Focal length f = 104.16-166.66-391.00mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 4.60-5.20-5.80</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 11.73-7.40-3.17 °</span></li>
<li><span>Image height Y = 21.64mm</span></li>
<li><span>221.48-252.31-300.68mm overall length of the lens</span></li>
<li><span>BF 70.65-87.69-113.37mm</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><span>Canon</span><span> patent</span>
<ul>
<li><span>I want to put in the first group the anomalous dispersion optical element</span></li>
<li><span>It is possible correction and lateral chromatic axial chromatic aberration, but spherical aberration of color and field curvature occurs</span></li>
<li><span>By optimizing the placement, the correction and field curvature, the spherical aberration of the color of g-line</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-06-13" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RGF (Jun 13, 2013)

Interesting about 70-300. The current 70-300 is a great lens; light weight and reasonable sharp. Wonder what the Canon-gods have in store for us.

It would great if the new 100-400 is on par with the 70-300 or even better, close to the 70-200. Though I suspect a 4x zoom will be hard to make as sharp as the 70-200 (which is 2.8x zoom).


----------



## tron (Jun 13, 2013)

RGF said:


> It would great if the new 100-400 is on par with the 70-300 or even better, close to the 70-200. Though I suspect a 4x zoom will be hard to make as sharp as the 70-200 (which is 2.8x zoom).


As long as it will be best at 400mm fully open...


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 13, 2013)

at least in the patents one can see by how much Canon (and other lens makers) screw us by providing the focal lengths written on the lens! 

no need to waste research on yet another boring, slow, consumer 70-300. 
Just get on with that 100-400 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2013)

Where's Example 2??



Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told the push/pull is finished and we’ll get a properly sealed 100-400.



The inference is that a push-pull lens is not 'properly sealed.' However, for the similarly-designed push-pull 28-300L, Canon states that the, "_Tight seal structure ensures excellent dust-proof and drip-proof performance._" So there's no reason we couldn't get a properly sealed push-pull 100-400L...


----------



## jrbdmb (Jun 13, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> at least in the patents one can see by how much Canon (and other lens makers) screw us by providing the focal lengths written on the lens!
> 
> no need to waste research on yet another boring, slow, consumer 70-300.
> Just get on with that 100-400 II.


By that way of thinking, this other lens is just a boring, slow, consumer 100-400.

I think you need to man up and get the 200-400 1.4x. That one is definitely not a consumer lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The inference is that a push-pull lens is not 'properly sealed.' However, for the similarly-designed push-pull 28-300L, Canon states that the, "_Tight seal structure ensures excellent dust-proof and drip-proof performance._" So there's no reason we couldn't get a properly sealed push-pull 100-400L...



Don't know how difficult it may be to weatherseal push-pull zooms. Not interested in those. 

What I am observing however, is that Canon is withholding wheathersealing in anything other than expensive *L*uxury products. In reality, wheathersealing of DSLRs and lenses is really simple and does not cause significant additional R&D and production costs. As demonstrated by Pentax over and over again. All it takes is a few O-rings in the right places: 

That's what cheap kit-lenses look like at Pentax these days: 






http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Pentax-K-50-Wetterfest-und-robust [and sorry, got it in German only at the moment]


----------



## Malte_P (Jun 13, 2013)

double the price.. as expected.


----------



## lol (Jun 13, 2013)

I really didn't care about a mk2 as I assumed they're almost certainly going to make it a twister. But if they're going to do another push-pull... I feel my wallet twitching!


----------



## t.linn (Jun 13, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Don't know how difficult it may be to weatherseal push-pull zooms. Not interested in those.
> 
> What I am observing however, is that Canon is withholding wheathersealing in anything other than expensive *L*uxury products. In reality, wheathersealing of DSLRs and lenses is really simple and does not cause significant additional R&D and production costs. As demonstrated by Pentax over and over again. All it takes is a few O-rings in the right places:
> 
> ...



I think we've seen example after example over the last few years that suggest Canon's philosophy is to give consumers as little as they can get away with and still move product. Exhibit A: the T5i; Exhibit B: the 50D, complete with video capabilities that were disabled prior to release.

Now, before anyone says anything, I'm not saying this isn't their right. It is something to be aware of before jumping on the Canon bandwagon. Pentax, for example, offers more for your dollar but if you want to use a high end tilt-shift lens or an elaborate Speedlite system Pentax may not be the best choice.


----------



## t.linn (Jun 13, 2013)

Malte_P said:


> double the price.. as expected.



If this thing comes in at $2,500 I'd be relieved given what Canon has been doing lately with pricing. (Of course, the quote is "north of" $2,500.)


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 13, 2013)

Last time I checked, 2500 isn't double 1500.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 13, 2013)

I was under the impression that the new 100-400 was to have a max ap @ 4, not 4.5. I know this is picking nits, but with such an increase in price, I want all I can get. Obviously IQ will be the ultimate determining factor (other than price) on whether I upgrade or keep my current beloved copy.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 13, 2013)

With a FF kit, this would be a tempting upgrade path from the 70-300L to get a bit more reach...but at that price point it might just make more sense to grab a 70D (when it comes out) and use the 70-300 with it when I need maximum reach (I consider it an outdoor lens anyway - I don't use it inside where FF quality makes the biggest difference)...figures.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 13, 2013)

scrappydog said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Last time I checked, 2500 isn't double 1500.
> ...



There's always a smarta$$


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> There's always a smarta$$



Watch it, crasher7 crasher8 crasher9.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2013)

Act444 said:


> With a FF kit, this would be a tempting upgrade path from the 70-300L to get a bit more reach...



I'd say that will depend on the physical specs of the new 100-400L. While I'd appreciate a step up in IQ and IS, I find that the current 100-400L delivers excellent images. But I'm still considering (and will likely purchase soon) the 70-300L as a travel lens.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 14, 2013)

t.linn said:


> Pentax, for example, offers more for your dollar but if you want to use a high end tilt-shift lens or an elaborate Speedlite system Pentax may not be the best choice.



Whether Pentax offers "more for your dollar" rather depends on what you want. If you care about accurate, really fast and quiet focusing, or a good selection of long zooms, for instance, they give you less. Weather sealing (not many of their lenses are), great ergonomics and a superb sensor (I used to own a K-5; I gather its successor is even better) are all very well, but....


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > There's always a smarta$$
> ...


All this talk of Mods made me listen to Quadrophenia


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > With a FF kit, this would be a tempting upgrade path from the 70-300L to get a bit more reach...
> ...



Regarding 70-300 I will be interested in your opinion when/if you get it. I already have two 70-200 lenses (70-200 2.8L IS II and 70-200 4L IS) I intend to keep. A third one in the same more or less focal range would be too much.The f/4 is an excellent travel lens. Light and sharp. In addition I do not like the reverse use of zooming and focusing rings in 70-300 ...

On the positive side I would not have to bring my 300 4L and there are bags that you can put the 70-300 lens vertically - but not the 70-200 f4 - and save a lot of space!!! 

Choices...


----------



## viggen61 (Jun 14, 2013)

brad-man said:


> I was under the impression that the new 100-400 was to have a max ap @ 4, not 4.5. I know this is picking nits, but with such an increase in price, I want all I can get. Obviously IQ will be the ultimate determining factor (other than price) on whether I upgrade or keep my current beloved copy.


Even if it has a max f/4 @ 100mm, it'll still be f/5.6 in the range where most of us use it most of the time!


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 14, 2013)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



I'm guessing that if you were to get the 70-300L, then the 70-200 f/4 IS would be the odd lens out. The 70-300L really does offer very good IQ in a light and compact package. I can use my smallest camera bag (Velocity 7) and barely shove the 70-300L mounted to the camera and another lens on the side. You'd lose a fraction of a stop to the f/4, but if you needed shallower DOF or more light-gathering ability, you'd be using the 70-200L II anyway.

If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III. Hopefully, it'll take extenders well and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system. I'm also guessing that it'll weigh slightly more than the current lens' weight (more elements) and nearly weigh 4 lb (with hood and collar) and close to the current lens' length of 8 and 11 (extended) inches. If it is, then there is still a place for the 70-300L. The 70-300L will never be as popular as the 70-200 (ultimate short telephoto) or 100-400 (ultimate mobile reach) but it is an excellent travel lens. If the 100-400 II is as good as the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, then I'll probably end up with that one down the road too (currently 70-200 II and 70-300L). Now, if the 100-400 II weighs less than 3 lb and is closer to 6 inches in length, then it'll make the 70-300L expendable.


----------



## yogi (Jun 14, 2013)

WHO are you referring to? Was afraid i was going to have to reincarnate also. Just a 10 day ban, mostly deserved IMO. Or is it to WHOm are you referring?


crasher8 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 14, 2013)

If you can't follow the threads there's always the Holga Rumors forum


----------



## win nut (Jun 14, 2013)

Maybe make the 70-300L F4?? Well I can wish can't?


----------



## yogi (Jun 14, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> If you can't follow the threads there's always the Holga Rumors forum




If you are referring to my post, I had in mind a possible common bond of liking the great band the WHO. And also referring to another thread concerning banning and your new incarnation as crasher8. Oh well.


----------



## woollybear (Jun 14, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Last time I checked, 2500 isn't double 1500.



Quite pedantic, :


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 14, 2013)

Looking forward to the 100-400 and will have an hard time beating the already good 100-400 in terms of value for money and image quality for the $$/££. Expect that the USM will be top notch and new improved, improved 4 Stop IS at least and possibly trump card over Nikon "New Cannon Hybrid IS system compensates for both angle camera shake and shift camera shake". Should be improved Optics with modern glass elements and construction; hopefully price will be nearer to the Sony MK 2 version of 70-400 lens around £1600 / $1900 rather than Nikon's price of £2500 / $2900.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III. *Hopefully, it'll take extenders well* and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.



Hopefully, it'll take them at all. Lots of people are clamoring for a rotating zoom like the 70-300L. What if that plus a compact design means the lens loses extender compatibility?? Why would they do that? Consider...all along the 'barrier' was 400/420mm. If you wanted longer and still wanted AF, you shelled out the big bucks for a 1-series body or a supertele. So now that they've put f/8 AF in a 5-series, perhaps they'll take away a 'cheap' 560mm f/8 IS option with good IQ. Not really trying to be the voice of doom, here, but we all know that Canon giveth and Canon taketh away (AFMA on the 60D, anyone?).


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III. *Hopefully, it'll take extenders well* and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.
> ...



Perhaps... that's the nice thing about being the consumer and in charge of the money... it's our choice. If the IQ is outstanding and it doesn't take TCs, then it'll be a harder trade. I currently use the 70-200 II + 2x, but I don't use it that often. However, I do use the 70-300L a lot at 300. I'd love to get a supertelephoto at some point, but I can't justify it now. It's not just about the cost, but mobility with having the larger lens and the support system. Maybe if the kids get more serious about sports once they get older then I'll be able to convince the wife. Look hon, I've got the camera, tripod, gimbal head, etc... all I need is the lens! Plus the supertelephotos are kinda hard to hide. They stick out like a sore thumb like those conifer cell towers towering 30-60 feet above the treeline. At least the 100-400 is expected to be "blendable" with the 70-200 and 70-300 surrounded by smaller black tubes. ;D


----------



## ddashti (Jun 14, 2013)

So this could possibly turn into an actual product within a year?


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2013)

ddashti said:


> So this could possibly turn into an actual product within a year?


There are rumors for the update of this lens every year...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 14, 2013)

ddashti said:


> So this could possibly turn into an actual product within a year?



Maybe. There have been rumors that it's being evaluated in the field. If you don't hear any testing rumor, then year -> years.


----------



## caruser (Jun 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > If the 100-400 is as good as Canon's recent new offerings, then it should be markedly better than the 70-200L II + 2x III. *Hopefully, it'll take extenders well* and give us good IQ at 560mm, which is about as far as we can get with a mobile hand-holdable system.
> ...


But presumably it would still work with 3rd-party extenders?


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Maybe. There have been rumors that it's being evaluated in the field. I


Hmm CR0, CR1, CR2 or CR3 rumors? :

Seriously, I would be interested too. I am just not too optimistic...


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2013)

tron said:


> ddashti said:
> 
> 
> > So this could possibly turn into an actual product within a year?
> ...



The rumours probably started in November of 1998


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2013)

You know I am thinking of a 400mm f/5.6L that I will combine with a 1.4X II (or even 2XII) for sunsets, sunrises, ducks, etc.

But my sunrise/sunset lens is a 300mm f/4L (non-IS) with the above mentioned teleconverters.

Also my "duck" lens (yes I have given it this nickname!) is a 100-400L.

So it would be too much. (The reason for fixed 400 is IQ wise I do not wish to use the 2X).

A new 400 (either as a fixed lens or as a 100-400 zoom) would be the best for me (and I guess thousands more...)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Last time I checked, 2500 isn't double 1500.



last time I checked, 2500 is close to double 1500 (even more when you note they said expected to be north of 2500)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2013)

Act444 said:


> With a FF kit, this would be a tempting upgrade path from the 70-300L to get a bit more reach...but at that price point it might just make more sense to grab a 70D (when it comes out) and use the 70-300 with it when I need maximum reach (I consider it an outdoor lens anyway - I don't use it inside where FF quality makes the biggest difference)...figures.



Good point. The 100-400 doesn't really replace the 70-300L either since it is so much larger and heaver and doesn't hit 70mm which is very handy on FF. So getting a 100-400L and/or a 70-300L for your FF you add a 7D2 or a 70D instead. Of course even 400mm is short even with 18MP APS-C for lots of things....


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 15, 2013)

RGF said:


> Interesting about 70-300. The current 70-300 is a great lens; light weight and reasonable sharp. Wonder what the Canon-gods have in store for us.



This is all due to the same reason: The future high mp ff bodies need sharper lenses, and these will be more costly to produce plus Canon will take a hefty premium.

The current 70-300L/100-400L might be the last sub-€2000 telezooms we have seen, so in the future dslr tele photography might be well out of reach of the average joe.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 16, 2013)

For me the 70-300L has proven itself worthwhile. It's perfectly sharp, IS is four stops, you even get solid background blur and then it's light and much agile than the alternatives. If I need reach I'll put it on a cheap 60D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 16, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> For me the 70-300L has proven itself worthwhile. It's perfectly sharp



No way, it doesn't outresolve either the ff or crop sensors - I'd say it's absolutely "sharp enough", but no comparison to for example the 100L or afaik other very sharp zooms like the 24-70ii or the 70-200is2.


----------

