# Canon EF 600mm DO BR prototype at EXPO 2015



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

Looks interesting!
https://instagram.com/p/7dKqEaooh6/


----------



## Eldar (Sep 10, 2015)

Indeed!!


----------



## meywd (Sep 10, 2015)

wow, guess they will charge 15k++ on size reduction alone


----------



## applecider (Sep 10, 2015)

Any idea as to aperture and weight? Is fluoride still needed if br is used?

Please someone at show check it out....

And tell us about it.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 10, 2015)

Somehow, I doubt that this is the new "affordable telephoto" rumoured to be added to the Canon lineup.....


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 10, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Somehow, I doubt that this is the new "affordable telephoto" rumoured to be added to the Canon lineup.....



lol


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 10, 2015)

applecider said:


> Any idea as to aperture and weight? Is fluoride still needed if br is used?
> 
> Please someone at show check it out....
> 
> And tell us about it.



Based on the size in comparison to the body, then it's gonna make all us current 500mm and 600mm owners very jealous unless it comes in at a (ridiculous for Canon) price. I would guess about US14K.

It looks comparable in size with the 300mm f/2,8 which is amazing


----------



## kaihp (Sep 10, 2015)

OK, I'll bite.

What does "BR" stand for in this context?


----------



## candc (Sep 10, 2015)

kaihp said:


> OK, I'll bite.
> 
> What does "BR" stand for in this context?



That's for the new "blue refractive" lens elements.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 10, 2015)

candc said:


> That's for the new "blue refractive" lens elements.


Ahh, thanks.

Yet Another acronym, just to make our lives more complicated


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

Does anyone care to speculate why the barrel looks like that?


----------



## kubelik (Sep 10, 2015)

Meatcurry said:


> Does anyone care to speculate why the barrel looks like that?



I'll throw out a wild guess - it's probably just a big thick container that is easy to manufacture/modify while they test the actual inner workings of the lens


----------



## fegari (Sep 10, 2015)

Do diffractive optics also alter the diamater needs to achieve an f/4 or f2.8 lens? I mean, If they release those "compact" 600/4 and 500/4 in DO, does that mean they can do a 600/2.8 and 500/2.8 also with DO but in the current form factor of the 600-500/4?


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

kubelik said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone care to speculate why the barrel looks like that?
> ...



Sounds plausible, just looks like a reversed hood, intergrated slid out hood perhaps?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 10, 2015)

fegari said:


> Do diffractive optics also alter the diamater needs to achieve an f/4 or f2.8 lens? I mean, If they release those "compact" 600/4 and 500/4 in DO, does that mean they can do a 600/2.8 and 500/2.8 also with DO but in the current form factor of the 600-500/4?



The largest element diameter is the focal length divided by the F-stop... Diffractive Optics lenses do not change this.... a 600F2.8DO lens would need a 214mm first element and that makes for a huge! lens....


----------



## vscd (Sep 10, 2015)

> The largest element diameter is the focal length divided by the F-stop... Diffractive Optics lenses do not change this.... a 600F2.8DO lens would need a 214mm first element and that makes for a huge! lens....



Not Frontelement, but an 214mm aperture. By the way... it seems the green ring is gone to red with BR Elements


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

vscd said:


> > The largest element diameter is the focal length divided by the F-stop... Diffractive Optics lenses do not change this.... a 600F2.8DO lens would need a 214mm first element and that makes for a huge! lens....
> 
> 
> 
> Not Frontelement, but an 214mm aperture. By the way... it seems the green ring is gone to red with BR Elements



That lens with the red ring looks production ready, why show that and the prototype version? Are we sure that's the 600 DO, damm CanonRumours, why aren't you there?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2015)

Those are clearly two different lenses. One looks like an early proof of concept and the other looks like a product. Are we sure both are the same focal length?

And I know length is huge for packing/travel, but that a looks something like a french horn spout as far as diameter goes. What the hell kind of bag/case would you transport that in?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2015)

Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.

So it's just _one_ new lens we're looking at. Okay.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2015)

The one with the red ring would be a production mockup almost certainly without the correct internals, the rougher looking version would be a 'working' prototype, it would probably have the right glass elements in the right places to provide proof of concept, as the prototype testing progressed more functionality would be expected, AF, IS etc etc. Then the two would be combined, any conflicts sorted out and pre production models made. Doing all this is a long and costly business, Canon refuse to innovate  :


----------



## chromophore (Sep 10, 2015)

There are two objects: one is a semi-working prototype that I presume to have actual optics inside to demonstrate the imaging performance (this is the one that's mounted to a camera). The other is a cosmetic prototype that shows how the lens might look in final production form. I would bet that neither lens has a functioning autofocus assembly. The one with optics seems to only have a manual focusing ring.

The use of BR and DO technology in a single lens would permit this significant reduction in length, since both technologies are able to refract blue wavelengths more than red wavelengths. As to whether it would still use fluorite, I don't know. BR could very well be a replacement for fluorite in the long run.

Bear in mind, however, that DO technology still has yet to rival non-DO equivalents in terms of imaging resolution and rendition of bokeh. Traditional glass still has a small advantage, and with the use of teleconverters, this advantage becomes more apparent.


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.
> 
> So it's just _one_ new lens we're looking at. Okay.
> 
> - A



Could be the current 600 f4 to show size/weight comparison with DO prototype?


----------



## kubelik (Sep 10, 2015)

Meatcurry said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.
> ...



I think you've nailed that on the head. they always do DO and non-DO side by side to show the size and weight savings


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2015)

Fair point -- this should get a _green_ ring and not a red one, right?

#details

- A


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

kubelik said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


----------



## chromophore (Sep 10, 2015)

kubelik said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



No. The second photo, with the red ring, is not the existing EF 600/4L IS II. It's much too short. Compare with the image at The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Even the fact that the photo was taken at an angle, there is simply no way that this lens could be a production model. The dimensions are all wrong. Just compare the manual focusing rings. The 600/4L IS II has an enormous MF ring. The prototype does not.


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

chromophore said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > Meatcurry said:
> ...


----------



## Dianoda (Sep 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



It's not the current 400mm f/2.8L II, take a look at the second image and notice the area after the red ring where the lens is constant diameter - the 400mm F/2.8L II tapers off in diameter almost immediately after the red ring. Try comparing it to product images for the 400mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Big-Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=741


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 10, 2015)

Dianoda said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > chromophore said:
> ...



I guess it IS the 600 f4 DO then


----------



## grainier (Sep 10, 2015)

15-20K?


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 11, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Somehow, I doubt that this is the new "affordable telephoto" rumoured to be added to the Canon lineup.....



The size looks really good. If the weight is some where near 300mm f2.8 IS II or less, I think it will be a KILLER.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Sep 11, 2015)

I would guess about US14K.

It looks comparable in size with the 300mm f/2,8 which is amazing
[/quote]

14k would be my guess as well. Anyone here need a kidney & a half a lung?......


----------



## chromophore (Sep 11, 2015)

Such a design is guaranteed to be noticeably larger and heavier than the 300/2.8L IS II. A 600/4, DO and BR or otherwise, must have a front element diameter of at least 150mm, otherwise it cannot achieve f/4. The 300/2.8L IS II design has a front element diameter of approximately 108mm. The 600/4 will be approximately 40% larger in diameter. It's not possible to make it as small as a 300/2.8 even with DO and BR. Those technologies can make the lens *shorter* but not narrower. The weight savings come primarily from making the lens barrel shorter, and to a lesser extent, from reducing the total mass of optical elements.

Traditionally, if you make a long focal length lens shorter (more telephoto), you necessarily increase the refractive power of the individual elements, which is either accomplished by increasing the material refractive index, and/or by increasing the curvature of the lens elements. But in the first case, increasing refractive index increases dispersion and therefore chromatic aberration, to unacceptable levels; in the second case, increasing curvature increases spherical aberration as well as substantially increases the mass of the elements (thicker glass).

Canon's solution to this problem can be grouped into generations. The first generation telephotos used UD/Super UD glass, which had low dispersion, to control chromatic aberration. The second generation used pure fluorite crystal (CaF2) which, in addition to low dispersion, has anomalous dispersion in the violet portion of the spectrum. The third generation saw the use of diffractive optics (DO) to simultaneously increase refractive power and correct chromatic aberration while reducing weight.

And now, we are in the fourth generation, with blue refractive (BR) technology.

Nevertheless, certain laws of optics cannot be violated: you cannot design a lens whose f-number is faster than the entrance pupil will allow.


----------



## candc (Sep 11, 2015)

Using do optics is supposed to allow a 30% length and 25% weight reduction compared to conventional refractive optics. That would make it 12-13 inches and 6-6 1/2 lbs I reckon.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 11, 2015)

As to price, I think the $14K+ estimates are very off. If the 400mm version of this goes for about $7k, the 600 should go for closer to $10-12k. If the IQ is as we expect, now that we see what the 400 DO II can do without even having the BR tech, I suspect this simply replaces the 600 f/4 II and fits right into the price niche as well.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 11, 2015)

While you folks have been chatting, Neuro has already pre-ordered his. ;D


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2015)

Anyone have an idea on the physical length of the lens?


----------



## applecider (Sep 11, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> As to price, I think the $14K+ estimates are very off. If the 400mm version of this goes for about $7k, the 600 should go for closer to $10-12k. If the IQ is as we expect, now that we see what the 400 DO II can do without even having the BR tech, I suspect this simply replaces the 600 f/4 II and fits right into the price niche as well.




Wishful thinking at 12 k, I'd say the price is right up to 15,998.

See what I did there, didn't say US dollars or euros or aus or Canadian so I've got a range covered! But it's not yen or lire.


----------



## chromophore (Sep 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Dianoda said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



No, it's not a "strange angle." The focusing ring on the prototype is only slightly wider (about 2x) than the AF stop button ring, whereas in the 400/2.8 L IS II, it is much more than twice as wide. Second, as was *already* point out, but you failed to read (and who else is surprised by this willful lack of reading comprehension?), *the tapering after the red ring is different between the prototype and the 400/2.8. * In the 400/2.8, the tapering begins almost immediately after the red ring. In the prototype, there is a significant white band behind the red ring before the barrel begins to taper.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 11, 2015)

dolina said:


> Anyone have an idea on the physical length of the lens?



31cm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have an idea on the physical length of the lens?
> ...



Approx 19cm. Current 600 f4 is 17cm.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 11, 2015)

grainier said:


> 15-20K?



Until Nikon matches it they could charge just about whatever they want.

-Game Changer-


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 11, 2015)

Good job! Thank you PBD.



privatebydesign said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have an idea on the physical length of the lens?
> ...





privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > front element looks to be about the same height as a 1DX body, putting it in the right ballpark for a 600/f4.
> ...


And as the thick barrel of the lens front could melt down in production that should be equal.


----------



## krisbell (Sep 11, 2015)

If this beats a 300mm with 2x extender for IQ and with a faster aperture and reduction in weight/dimensions, I would buy it for $30k!!


----------



## meywd (Sep 11, 2015)

krisbell said:


> If this beats a 300mm with 2x extender for IQ and with a faster aperture and reduction in weight/dimensions, I would buy it for $30k!!



and that's the new price of the lens...


----------



## Silverman (Sep 11, 2015)

Hope Canon thinks about to add an internal extender 1.4x like on the 200-400 EXT. If this adds approx 3cm additional lengh and approx 200 gramms to the lens design - still game changer. If pricing could be competative it would really take it to the next level - not a niche product but a starting a new era for wildlife shooters.


----------



## Proscribo (Sep 11, 2015)

Silverman said:


> Hope Canon thinks about to add an internal extender 1.4x like on the 200-400 EXT. If this adds approx 3cm additional lengh and approx 200 gramms to the lens design - still game changer. If pricing could be competative it would really take it to the next level - not a niche product but a starting a new era for wildlife shooters.


A prime that wants to be a zoom. ;D


----------



## Eldar (Sep 11, 2015)

Silverman said:


> Hope Canon thinks about to add an internal extender 1.4x like on the 200-400 EXT. If this adds approx 3cm additional lengh and approx 200 gramms to the lens design - still game changer. If pricing could be competative it would really take it to the next level - not a niche product but a starting a new era for wildlife shooters.


Agree! A 600 f4 DO, with built in 1.4x extender and IQ in line with the 400 DO II, would be awesome. However, the expected pricetag, whatever that will be, will keep it out of reach for most people ...


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 11, 2015)

A lot more pics and info here:-
http://www.photographybay.com/2015/09/10/canon-el-600mm-f4l-is-do-br-usm-lens-prototype-images-and-details/#more-61522


----------



## candc (Sep 11, 2015)

looking at the straight on side picture you can see the mock up has the same tripod foot as the current 600. the 2 notches measure 1.5 cm on my screen. the overall length of the lens on screen is 14 cm. 14/1.5=9.33. the actual measurement between the notches is 1 3/8" on the 600ii. 

1.325" x 9.33=12.36" that fits in with what i would expect the length of the production lens to be. i don't think you should use the working lens on the camera for reference because it doesn't have a lot of the components that the production lens will have so its a bit shorter.


----------



## infared (Sep 11, 2015)

MOTHER OF GOD!.............drool. :-X


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 11, 2015)

Exactly this. But the traditional optical won't go away.



[email protected] said:


> As to price, I think the $14K+ estimates are very off. If the 400mm version of this goes for about $7k, the 600 should go for closer to $10-12k. If the IQ is as we expect, now that we see what the 400 DO II can do without even having the BR tech, I suspect this simply replaces the 600 f/4 II and fits right into the price niche as well.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 11, 2015)

wtlloyd said:


> Exactly this. But the traditional optical won't go away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



@Tiggy - but that is the price of the current f/4 II so unless Canon is planning to stop making it ? What would be interesting is if it is cheaper for them to make (less elements maybe?) and they sell it to indeed replace the current lens (woe is me, lol).

Still, where Canon is being sensible is to promote their lenses and continue to invest in lenses. Definitely helps differentiate them from other brands.... Will be interesting if Sony are continuing to develop their AF compatibility so that next gen will be even faster...

I personally don't see the new lens having a 1.4x inside. It's a great idea, but they didnt do it on the 400mm MK II, so this is again perhaps a case of Canon dont feel the need to competition wise (the 200-400 already existed as a Nikon lens).

I also wonder, $ for $, how much Canon make from their lenses vs their bodies, and whether therefore they are focusing more R&D into lenses to ensure they keep revenues and profits up.

Interesting times.


----------



## candc (Sep 11, 2015)

The do optics are apparently difficult and expensive to produce. If the current 600ii stays in production then it will be the $10000.00 budget friendly alternative the $14000.00 do lens.


----------



## RGF (Sep 11, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> fegari said:
> 
> 
> > Do diffractive optics also alter the diamater needs to achieve an f/4 or f2.8 lens? I mean, If they release those "compact" 600/4 and 500/4 in DO, does that mean they can do a 600/2.8 and 500/2.8 also with DO but in the current form factor of the 600-500/4?
> ...



Optics is optics. Always works this way.


----------



## LDS (Sep 11, 2015)

candc said:


> i don't think you should use the working lens on the camera for reference because it doesn't have a lot of the components that the production lens will have so its a bit shorter.



Once the optic design is fixed, the distances between lenses and the focal plane can't be changed (but the focusing adjustment, of course, which in these lenses is internal anyway). So if the lens is a prototype of the final design, the barrel can become leaner, but the front lens to the mount distance will be the same. The design of the barrel around the front lens may make it a little longer, but not much.


----------



## Vern (Sep 11, 2015)

A little surprising to me if Canon releases a direct competitor to the 600II which is only 4ish years old. If this turns into a production 600 f4 DO with BR that gives equal-ish IQ and it cuts the size/weight, a lot of us with the 600II might jump. If it has a built-in 1.4X, I'm sold at any price south of $20K. I love the 600II, use it 70% of the time with the 1.4XIII for birdies but would do a lot more walking with it if it lost a couple of lbs. Built-in 1.4X would be ideal for wildlife where the perfect shot & framing is fleeting even if this compromised the weight loss a bit. I would have bet on an update to the 800 which the 600II + 1.4X obsoleted in 2011 or a 600 DO/BR 5.6 which would be differentiated. But, what do I know? Nice to see so many innovative designs.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 11, 2015)

Where's Neuro? Must be on vacation with his 600/4.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 11, 2015)

candc said:


> The do optics are apparently difficult and expensive to produce. If the current 600ii stays in production then it will be the $10000.00 budget friendly alternative the $14000.00 do lens.



They are currently difficult and expensive to produce, but we are looking at this technology in it's infancy. It is a safe bet that production techniques will improve and that the cost per unit will fall. These are exciting times for lens design!


----------



## candc (Sep 12, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > The do optics are apparently difficult and expensive to produce. If the current 600ii stays in production then it will be the $10000.00 budget friendly alternative the $14000.00 do lens.
> ...



Truenuff. Its been a real problem getting the 400doii. Apparently matching the 2 halves of the element is super tedious. The lens has been in production for almost a year now and there have been less than a hundred made afaik. I don't know if that's the best they can do at the moment or if there is some other reason for not producing more?


----------



## sanj (Sep 12, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Where's Neuro? Must be on vacation with his 600/4.



You beat me to it. Been wondering where he is.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 12, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Where's Neuro?



Playing with his a7r II ;D


----------



## Click (Sep 12, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Where's Neuro?
> ...



Ha Ha Ha ;D


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 12, 2015)

candc said:


> Truenuff. Its been a real problem getting the 400doii. Apparently matching the 2 halves of the element is super tedious. The lens has been in production for almost a year now and there have been less than a hundred made afaik. I don't know if that's the best they can do at the moment or* if there is some other reason for not producing more?*



Maybe Canon is secretly cranking out 600 DO lenses for 1DXII + 600 DO kits.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 14, 2015)

Click said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I'd be doing the same if I had the money. Of course I'd also have the full set of Fuji lenses and maybe a Nikon D810 with a few Sigma lenses.
As is I have the best system on the market and am entirely satisfied (aside from a mild case of dial-envy for Fuji cameras).
If Canon would universally adopt the addition of just one more dial with 10 slots for custom modes that might get rid of my Fuji envy.


----------



## applecider (Sep 14, 2015)

Please no built in extender.... Keep the weight down to current 500 f4 ii or less weights and it is hand holdable and transportable. Add on the extender and you add weight that could be left home or out of your hands all day.

Or make two models one with extender(s) and one without.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2015)

applecider said:


> Please no built in extender.... Keep the weight down to current 500 f4 ii or less weights and it is hand holdable and transportable. Add on the extender and you add weight that could be left home or out of your hands all day.
> 
> Or make two models one with extender(s) and one without.


+1000  (The smaller and the lighter the better)


----------

