# Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 3, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/patent-400-f4-300-f4-200-f5-6/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/patent-400-f4-300-f4-200-f5-6/" 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 class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/patent-400-f4-300-f4-200-f5-6/"></a></div>
<strong>New Lens Formula Patents

</strong>A new 400 f/4L IS non-DO would probably be a very welcomed lens. However, it will probably depend on the price of the 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x ($8000  I predict) as to whether or not it ever sees the light of day. The 200 f/5.6 is a strange one.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2012-22105</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2012.2.2 Release Date</li>
<li>2010.7.14 filing date</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>392.00mm focal length</li>
<li>Fno 4.12</li>
<li>3.15deg half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Length 279.32mm lens</li>
<li>BF 64.82mm</li>
<li>15 sheets of 12 group configuration</li>
<li>An aspherical surface</li>
<li>Inner focus</li>
<li>Telephoto ratio 0.71</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 3</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>200.00mm focal length</li>
<li>Fno 5.77</li>
<li>6.18deg half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Length 180.00mm lens</li>
<li>BF 54.98mm</li>
<li>6 lenses in 5 groups configuration</li>
<li>Telephoto ratio 0.90</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>294.00mm focal length</li>
<li>Fno 4.14</li>
<li>4.21deg half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Length 239.85mm lens</li>
<li>14 images in 9 groups configuration</li>
<li>An aspherical surface</li>
<li>Inner Focus</li>
<li>Telephoto ratio 0.815</li>
<li>Telephoto lens</li>
<li>Stretch the focal length, and miniaturized, on-axis chromatic aberration and lateral chromatic aberration occurs</li>
<li>Tele photo lens type refers to the overall length is shorter than the focal length</li>
<li>And telephoto ratio refers to the value obtained by dividing the focal length the total length</li>
<li>Canon’s patent</li>
<li>Using the lens refractive index distribution</li>
</ul>
<p><strong> Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-02-03">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## bvukich (Feb 3, 2012)

200/5.6???

Unless it's a macro (and even that would be a little wierd), that makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 3, 2012)

a 200mm f5.6 certainly is odd. A super cheap telephoto prime?


----------



## kubelik (Feb 3, 2012)

yesssss! I would love a 400mm f/4 L IS! being able to add a 1.4x III onto this would be sweet for us full frame folks (the bare lens itself is awesome enough).

I know this is like, probably 5 years away from happening at the earliest, but I'm definitely willing to hold out for it. besides, there's just no way I can afford the 200-400mm f/4 L.


----------



## bornshooter (Feb 3, 2012)

bvukich said:


> 200/5.6???
> 
> Unless it's a macro (and even that would be a little wierd), that makes no sense whatsoever.


yeah a 200/5.6 is strange but these are just patents i bet theres loads of strange ones that canon have no intention of putting into production.


----------



## pharp (Feb 3, 2012)

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_f82/egami/2012_22105_fig01.png

Looks like a macro, but it would have to be amazing to lose more than a stop from the 180mm. Odd.


----------



## vlim (Feb 3, 2012)

A 400 f/4 L IS and weather sealed would be a dream and an instant favorite lens for numbers of wildlife photographers if the price is correct (i bet between 2500 and 3000$)...

If one of the 300 f/4 L IS II weather sealed or the 400 f/4 L IS is due to be produced this year i'll be a buyer for sure !


----------



## traveller (Feb 3, 2012)

What advantage is an f/5.6 macro (other than cheaper)? 

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 3, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> a 200mm f5.6 certainly is odd. A super cheap telephoto prime?


That was my thought, but, it'd have to be like $2-300 for it even really sell, since the 200 f/2.8 is only an $800 lens. They've had a lot of success with the cheaper primes (50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, etc) for hobbyists, this could fill that same kind of void, but, I question how profitable it would be to sell a 200mm f/5.6 for less than $500.

But, they might just be beating others to the punch with the patent, even if they know they won't produce it.


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 3, 2012)

Any chance that the 200 f/5.6 is a IS'd T/S macro? Can't think of any other explanation.


----------



## lol (Feb 3, 2012)

A 200mm f/5.6 macro could make sense, within some limits. Other macro lenses tend to be f/2.8 to allow AF to work at closer focus distances, since at 1:1 macro the effective aperture of a f/2.8 lens is f/5.6, the nominal limit of phase AF. If you sacrifice close focus AF, then making the lens f/5.6 would make it significantly cheaper and lighter. Bear in mind the depth of field in macro is already very thin, most macro shots are stopped down, so I don't think the slow aperture will be an issue in this application. Overall I think it would be very niche though. Near macro it would be MF only, which is ok for most macro uses, but would you want to use a 200mm f/5.6 AF at further distances? Might as well make it MF only, and offer more than 1x magnification, like a long version of the MP-E65.


----------



## JR (Feb 3, 2012)

A new 300mm f4 would be sooooooo cool! Where do I sign?


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 3, 2012)

Given that the aperture closes up as you reach the minimum focusing distance (even though Canon doesn't report the change) starting at f5.6 would make this a very slow lens for macro work without a flash.


----------



## dstppy (Feb 3, 2012)

Am I the only one that sees the 200 as either an attempt to go much cheaper or lighter/smaller?


----------



## kubelik (Feb 3, 2012)

traveller said:


> The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.



I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens. that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.


----------



## BL (Feb 3, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Given that the aperture closes up as you reach the minimum focusing distance (even though Canon doesn't report the change) starting at f5.6 would make this a very slow lens for macro work without a flash.



not to mention a very dim viewfinder


----------



## hmmm (Feb 3, 2012)

Time for a dumb question: doesn't an image height of 21.64mm imply that these are all less than FF (24x36)? These could be for ef-s (22.2x14.8), or even a future mirrorless system? 

I think more likely I'm just not understanding how the given image height factors into sensor size. Anyone who can clarify, please do! ???


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 3, 2012)

kubelik said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.
> ...



Unless Canon omitted the use of fluorite elements or other steps to drive down costs (no IS? weather-sealing?), you'd probably still be looking a final cost close to the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO. Physics dictates that the diameter of the front objective would need to match that of the 400 f/4 DO IS, which is something like 122-125mm. And given the advances in performance (AF speed/accuracy, optics) with the new III TCs, I doubt we'll ever get this lens from Canon. An update to the 400 f/5.6 or 300 f/4 would make more sense.


----------



## jlev23 (Feb 3, 2012)

this means nothing.


----------



## lol (Feb 3, 2012)

hmmm said:


> Time for a dumb question: doesn't an image height of 21.64mm imply that these are all less than FF (24x36)? These could be for ef-s (22.2x14.8), or even a future mirrorless system?
> 
> I think more likely I'm just not understanding how the given image height factors into sensor size. Anyone who can clarify, please do! ???


The "height" is from the middle of the image, since it doesn't matter which direction you go from there to form an image circle. The diagonal of a full frame sensor is sqrt(24^2+36^2) which is about 43.3mm, and half that is 21.6mm.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 3, 2012)

kubelik said:


> yesssss! I would love a 400mm f/4 L IS! being able to add a 1.4x III onto this would be sweet for us full frame folks (the bare lens itself is awesome enough).
> 
> I know this is like, probably 5 years away from happening at the earliest, but I'm definitely willing to hold out for it. besides, there's just no way I can afford the 200-400mm f/4 L.



totally agree with you here a 400 f4 would be sweet


----------



## Mooose (Feb 3, 2012)

No one will be able to use the 200mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender on a Canon 1DX!!!


----------



## KitH (Feb 3, 2012)

200mm f5.6. 

Two possibilities come to mind immediately for that aperture and focal length. 

1) It's for a extremely high resolution lens, with absolutely no chromatic aberration or distortion. Something like the Zeiss Superachromatic designs of the 1960s. Many say their sharpness has never been matched and give stunning results in black and white and in color (although it's too sharp and unforgiving for flattering portraits). Can also be used for IR photography as the focus is the same across a wide range of wavelengths. Notable for it's six element design with one achromatic pair.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF250SA.pdf 

They were limited-run productions and ferociously expensive because they had fluorite elements and they actually finished the lens design after they'd made the crystals and could measure the optical properties properly. 

Maybe Canon have found a way to make an achromatic without the cost of the fluorite elements. 



2) The other thought is that it's for a medical lens with a ring flash incorporated. This is a Medical-Nikkor from the 1960s in 200mm f5.6. 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/special/250medical.htm 

They were used by dentists, cosmetic surgeons and dermatologists. Especially useful for close-up shots without being too much in the patients' face.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 3, 2012)

vlim said:


> A 400 f/4 L IS and weather sealed would be a dream and an instant favorite lens for numbers of wildlife photographers if the price is correct (i bet between 2500 and 3000$)...
> 
> If one of the 300 f/4 L IS II weather sealed or the 400 f/4 L IS is due to be produced this year i'll be a buyer for sure !



The front element of a 400 f4 would be nearly the same size as the front element of the 300 2.8 (they share the same hood and cover). As such, I doubt it will go for under 5000-6000 bucks...

Still, would be a nice lens... maybe they will make the 7D mk II to AF with f8 lenses...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 3, 2012)

The examples are just that, some theoretical lenses that use the optical formula. A actual production lens might be something totally different, and still be covered under the patent if it used the optical formula.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 3, 2012)

Mooose said:


> No one will be able to use the 200mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender on a Canon 1DX!!!



HAR HAR!!!! ;D


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Feb 4, 2012)

Great...120-300mm f/2.8 with 2X AND 400mm f/4 with 1.4x. 

Will be interesting to see the image results out of it if it launches. I don't see it being cheaper than the 120-300mm + 2X III combo, and (the part that makes me less happy) it would require me to get all new parts (unless I didn't mind losing AF on the 7D - I suppose I could always try to hunt down an old full frame or even 1.3X body though - and 800mm equivalence from a prime would be very nice).


----------



## dolina (Feb 4, 2012)

The 400/4 should sell for at least $7300 which makes the $11500 of the 400/2.8 IS II look like a bargain.

The price is derived from the 200/2, 300/2.8 version 1 and 2 and 400/4 DO that share a similar entry pupil diameter.


----------



## Justin (Feb 4, 2012)

Multiple lens patents can lead to a single product. Thus we should entertain the possibility of a cheap zoom lens with a variable aperture ending at 200mm with a 5.6 aperture.


----------



## vlim (Feb 4, 2012)

If i'm not wrong, this is the 4th patent of the 300 f/4 since early 2011... So can we conclude the actual one will have a new version in 2012 or 2013 ?


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 4, 2012)

5.6/200 seems strange for common photography but might be designed for special purposes. It is not compact and doesn't have the lens config for an internal focusing macro lens nor some symmetric lens arrangement which is typical for all macro setups (more or less).

A low number of lens elements means very low transmission losses and very high contrast - perhaps it is a lens for bright contralight conditions. The two plane front elements might be a protective cover to allow the use if that lens unter harsh conditions.
=> perhaps a lens for movie/video productions?
=> perhaps a lens for video surveillance?

But if it is very contrasty, flare resistant and rugged - it might be the lens for contralight landscape and closeup for me!


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2012)

kubelik said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.
> ...



I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would _like_ to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....


----------



## Flake (Feb 4, 2012)

Surprised no one has said it, but what is a lens story doing in the camera bodies section?


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 4, 2012)

jrista said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...


I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.


----------



## Trondster (Feb 4, 2012)

Mooose said:


> No one will be able to use the 200mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender on a Canon 1DX!!!


Of course not - with an image height of 21mm, the image would not cover a full frame sensor.


----------



## jwong (Feb 4, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



Think 8-10k is too high. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 is ~7k, and Canon's 400 f/2.8 is 11.5k. I would expect the 400 f/4 price to be well below Nikon's excellent 200-400 f/4. Given the ratio between Canon's 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the 300mm (7300 vs. 1400), one might expect that the the 400 f/4 might cost closer to 2-3k. If it's 8-10k, most people might consider saving up a little more for the 400 f/2.8.


----------



## dolina (Feb 4, 2012)

I see the Canon 200-400mm to sell for more than $7000 but below $10500.


----------



## Asposium (Feb 4, 2012)

from an optical point of view, taking the 200 f/2 and the 300 f2.8 as an example, as the focal length increases from 200 to 300 the "speed" of the lens drops by one stop, whereas the diameter of the front optical stays pretty much constant.

the price of the 200 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 (mark one IS) were quite similar
the weight of the two was quite similar and the 300 slightly longer

continuing the trend to a 400 f/4

it would not be unreasable for the following to be true...
the 400 f/4 would be a similar diameter to the 200 and 300 and weigh about the same
the 400 f/4 would be slightly longer than the 300
the 400 f/4 would cost about the same, to a rough order of magnitude.


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would _like_ to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....
> ...



When you get to lenses of that caliber, the only real significant cost to design is the optics. Some of those lenses require HUGE elements that have to be perfect across their entire volume, and often require a lot of element groups with a high number of total elements. In the case of the DO lens, there is one very expensive element group (the DO group)...however because of that Canon was able to eliminate a lot of other corrective groups that would have otherwise been necessary...at the cost of maximum resolution (the diffraction is going to etch away at it a little bit.) Given the size that a 400/4 lens would need to be (larger by a fair amount than the DO version), and the optical corrections that would have to be performed to keep IQ at 500/600 L II levels...there are simply going to be _more_ big, expensive lens elements.



jwong said:


> Think 8-10k is too high. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 is ~7k, and Canon's 400 f/2.8 is 11.5k. I would expect the 400 f/4 price to be well below Nikon's excellent 200-400 f/4. Given the ratio between Canon's 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the 300mm (7300 vs. 1400), one might expect that the the 400 f/4 might cost closer to 2-3k. If it's 8-10k, most people might consider saving up a little more for the 400 f/2.8.



Now, its certainly possible for Canon to create a 400/4 that does not have 500/600 L II level IQ...but why? They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ (which is minor, at that...look at Art Morris' bird shots with that lens...they are stunning; the notion that IQ is rendered useless by the DO element is largely myth). If Canon creates a 400mm f/4 L IS lens, it seems logical that they would make it a high quality, top-end lens lacking nothing. If its not a DO lens, then they don't have the diffractive optics corrective benefits...so they are going to have to correct optical aberrations another way (i.e. UD and flourite elements, multiple corrective groups, etc.), and that'll increase cost. Personally I think it'll land around $8000, maybe $7500...f/4 @ 400mm isn't quite as much a feat as a 500mm f/4 lens....but its still going to be expensive.


----------



## Asposium (Feb 4, 2012)

apparently, when canon made the 400 do they also made a 400 against to compare

dpreview has a picture of the above two side by side

sourcehttp://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/9/6/canon_400do


----------



## funkboy (Feb 4, 2012)

KitH said:


> 200mm f5.6.
> Two possibilities come to mind immediately for that aperture and focal length.
> 
> 1) It's for a extremely high resolution lens, with absolutely no chromatic aberration or distortion. Something like the Zeiss Superachromatic designs of the 1960s. Many say their sharpness has never been matched and give stunning results in black and white and in color (although it's too sharp and unforgiving for flattering portraits). Can also be used for IR photography as the focus is the same across a wide range of wavelengths. Notable for it's six element design with one achromatic pair.
> http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF250SA.pdf



Bloody brilliant. With 6 elements in 5 groups it could certainly be pretty small, light, & cheap if they wanted to. It's true that f/5.6 ain't that great but if it was razor sharp wide-open & had good IS then I'd certainly want to have one in my coat pocket whenever I'm out shooting.


----------



## jwong (Feb 4, 2012)

jrista said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



@jrista, It'll be interesting to see how good the 200-400 f/4 is. If the Canon 400 f/4 is priced so similarly to the Nikon 200-400 f/4 (7k) and assuming that the upcoming Canon 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x TC is competitive with the Nikon version, then that sets a ceiling for how much a prime 400 f/4 is worth. If it's at 7k or above, I can't see the 400 f/4 being successful in the marketplace. The 400 f/2.8 is tops at this focal range. The 400 f/4 won't match the f/2.8 and probably shouldn't be priced at 70% of the f/2.8's price. I'd rather have the 200-400mm rather than the 400 f/4 if they are similar in price. Can't really compare lenses at 500mm or above, because f/4 is the widest offering there is.


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2012)

jwong said:


> @jrista, It'll be interesting to see how good the 200-400 f/4 is. If the Canon 400 f/4 is priced so similarly to the Nikon 200-400 f/4 (7k) and assuming that the upcoming Canon 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x TC is competitive with the Nikon version, then that sets a ceiling for how much a prime 400 f/4 is worth. If it's at 7k or above, I can't see the 400 f/4 being successful in the marketplace. The 400 f/2.8 is tops at this focal range. The 400 f/4 won't match the f/2.8 and probably shouldn't be priced at 70% of the f/2.8's price. I'd rather have the 200-400mm rather than the 400 f/4 if they are similar in price. Can't really compare lenses at 500mm or above, because f/4 is the widest offering there is.



Aye, I guess the 200-400/4 will really be a driver of any 400/4's price. Personally, even if the 400/4 was fairly cheap, I would probably still opt for the 200-400/4. Its built-in togglable teleconverter is an extremely handy little feature, and I like having the versatility of zoom...means a lot less moving around. Its not _way_ out of the ball park of "eventual affordability" if your a saver, either, at $7000 (where as the 400/2.8, 500, 600, and 800mm lenses are). I didn't consider that in my analysis, but I guess I too would be surprised if any 400/4 was more than that...throwing the 200-400 into the mix, I think it would at most have to be about the same price as the 400/4 DO.


----------



## Woody (Feb 5, 2012)

What happened to Canon's patent on the 14-24 f/2.8L:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/

I'm sure the simultaneous release of 14-24 f/2.8L + 24-70 f/2.8L MkII with the 5D3/5DX is gonna rock.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2012)

Justin said:


> Multiple lens patents can lead to a single product. Thus we should entertain the possibility of a cheap zoom lens with a variable aperture ending at 200mm with a 5.6 aperture.



Its not a patent for a zoom and does not apply to a zoom. While you can apply multiple patents to a lens, they must be used in the lens, and this one is specifically a prime.


----------



## vlim (Feb 5, 2012)

> They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ



But many users who bought that lens have been disapointed considering its high price


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2012)

vlim said:


> > They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ
> 
> 
> 
> But many users who bought that lens have been disapointed considering its high price



I think the complaints, like many things related to IQ and modern camera gear, are overblown. Consider the number of good, often GLOWING, reviews from real-world users (fredmiranda users generally seem to think the key "con" is price, and a few seem to think it sometimes needs a slight contrast boost in post...its very rare that anyone really complains about IQ in a major way):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=41&sort=7&cat=2&page=1
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/159/cat/14/limit/recent/date/1067115672 

I see it akin to the love/hate split with the Canon 7D. Owning it myself, its a fantastic camera with excellent IQ in every real-world scenario. Its only the pixel-peepers who have a lot of complaints, and I believe their approach to IQ evaluation tends to be particularly flawed. Complaining about a slight drop in contrast with a lens like the 400 DO in the digital age is like complaining that noise on an 18mp sensor at 100% crop appears worse than a 10mp sensor at 100% crop: its largely pointless, as it can all be corrected with a few EASY post-processing tweaks, and is all going to be imperceptible in print regardless.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 5, 2012)

jrista said:


> I think the complaints, like many things related to IQ and modern camera gear, are overblown. Consider the number of good, often GLOWING, reviews from real-world users (fredmiranda users generally seem to think the key "con" is price, and a few seem to think it sometimes needs a slight contrast boost in post...its very rare that anyone really complains about IQ in a major way



Exactly - the issues raised by most 400MM f/4 DO owners relate to the idea that _for the price_ it should be "perfect".



> I see it akin to the love/hate split with the Canon 7D. Owning it myself, its a fantastic camera with excellent IQ in every real-world scenario.



Indeed. Bird photography has very high _de facto_ IQ standards, I'm as fussy as hell about IQ (I have a constant stream of people beating a path to my door to ask me how I get mine) and I simply would not _countenance_ a 7D if it wasn't capable of fantastic results.



> Its only the pixel-peepers who have a lot of complaints, and I believe their approach to IQ evaluation tends to be particularly flawed.



That, and - usually - a flawed and unintelligent approach to conversion and post processing.

Back to the 400mm DO, I've seen enough about that lens to know that it'd probably be my ideal lens (light enough for a comfortable day in the field shooting birds, and very capable with a TC) and - like many - for me it's only _the price_ that gets in the way. 

I can (and did) buy a brand new, official UK stock Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS for half the price of a _used_ 400mm DO.


----------



## noncho (Feb 5, 2012)

Nice patents, but I prefer to see not so expensive and large 200 2.8 IS and 400 5.6 IS


----------



## kubelik (Feb 5, 2012)

Keithr and jrista, just curious, are you guys not bothered by the donut bokeh? I've never shot with a DO lens and don't do enouggh birding to know how critical that is, so I'm interested in your take on that.


----------



## AdamJ (Feb 5, 2012)

Trondster said:


> Mooose said:
> 
> 
> > No one will be able to use the 200mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender on a Canon 1DX!!!
> ...



Just so that we're clear on this, the image height is the radius of the image circle. These patents apply to FF lenses.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 5, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Keithr and jrista, just curious, are you guys not bothered by the donut bokeh? I've never shot with a DO lens and don't do enough birding to know how critical that is, so I'm interested in your take on that.


I've never actually seen bad bokeh from a 400mm DO used in a birding context - this isn't a mirror lens (donut bokeh from which can be a serious issue), and what I've seen corresponds well to the comments in this review:


> The "bokeh", or characteristics of the out-of-focus portion of an image, is considered by many (me included) to be of great importance in defining the "signature" or characteristics of a lens. In the frame above, where I was focused on the foreground vegetation and the line of cranes was allowed to go soft, they have a very lovely soft-edged quality. Good bokeh, as the Japanese would call it.


----------



## jrista (Feb 5, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Keithr and jrista, just curious, are you guys not bothered by the donut bokeh? I've never shot with a DO lens and don't do enouggh birding to know how critical that is, so I'm interested in your take on that.



I don't believe the 400 DO has "donut bokeh". Thats usually something you get with catadioptric lenses, and is caused by secondary mirror obstruction. The 400 DO is NOT a catadioptric lens, its a standard type lens with a couple specially ground glass elements in the front element group....very different things. From what I've seen, the bokeh of the 400/4 DO is better than the 100-400 @ 400. Sharpness is also better, from what I've been able to tell by digging around the net for comparison shots. People complain about contrast, but it must be an incredibly minor effect, as I've never been able to notice any difference in contrast myself. A good writeup about the lens with some sample shots comparing the 400 DO with the 300/2.8 can be found at Luminous Landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400-do.shtml. 

I think there is a whole subculture mythology that has sprung up around the 400 DO, and its given this lens a really bad name based on a bunch of assumption and unfounded speculation. The diffraction grating will take a toll on _*resolution*_...but it is a MINUSCULE toll...not something that is going to matter unless you are enlarging your shots 3 fold or more, and even then, thats really pushing it for ANY lens. That assumes your camera is capable of capturing all the resolution the lens has to offer in the first place...if its not, any complaints about the 400 DO not offering as much resolution as a non-DO counterpart are pointless on their face. For everything else, from all the real-world reviews from actual photographers (photographers, not reviewers), the IQ seems to be SUPERB. Its really sad that people think its such a terrible lens...IMO, its a genius lens, offering pretty awesome optics and a wide aperture in an amazingly handy, useful size that won't tire you out through a day of tracking birds or wildlife as much as a normal 400/4 lens would.


----------

