# Patent: Canon EF 1000mm f/5.6 IS DO



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 2016)

```
<p>Howabout a 1000mm replacement for the EF 800mm f/5.6L IS? A patent showing the optical formula for an <a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-06-06">EF 1000mm f/5.6 IS DO</a> has appeared.</p>
<p>We’ve seen the prototype for a future <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/more-images-of-the-canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-br-lens/">EF 600mm f/4 IS DO BR </a>already, and the likelihood of seeing more DO lenses I think is pretty high. A 1000mm lens would be a great replacement for the current 800mm lens.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-102852 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.6.2</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.11.27</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 1.00</li>
<li>Focal length 950.00</li>
<li>F-number 5.80</li>
<li>Angle of view 1.30</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 485.94</li>
<li>BF 0.40</li>
<li>Canon patent</li>
<li>Positive and negative Shibomake</li>
<li>Diffractive optical element (first group)</li>
<li>Inner focus (the second group)</li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 6, 2016)

if this lens becomes a reality, then its going to be one droool worthy piece of glass and metal.


----------



## romanr74 (Jun 6, 2016)

meh, this is so not innovative... : i'll have to jump ship...


----------



## nda (Jun 6, 2016)

:'($20000+


----------



## FlorentC (Jun 6, 2016)

Such a release would be quite smart. 800/5.6 is not attractive enough when there's a fantastic 600/4 around (and probably a DO version soon) that pairs well with the 1.4× teleconverter. And a 1000mm Canon lens with cutting-edge tech is certainly droolworthy.


----------



## kirbyzhou (Jun 6, 2016)

Wonderful news, I hope the old 800/5.6 will be cheaper.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jun 6, 2016)

This is not a 1000/5.6, but a 950/5.8. it's about the same size as a 925/5.6 would be 

But still, if affordable in relations of the big whites this would be great. But this pont i doubt if i look at the price of the 400/4 do


----------



## dolina (Jun 6, 2016)

It will sell for $16,300 or more.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 6, 2016)

nda said:


> :'($20000+



A bargain!

Considering Nikon launched their latest 800mm close to that price (I think it started with an MSRP around $18,000), and the use of a 178mm front element for something intended to cost less than a house, and the use of DO, if they can get it on the streets for less than $20K that would be fantastic.

Lets hope they shoot for a matching 500f2.8DO and 250f1.4DO to up the ante across the board.

Now I'm just curious, what F number would a 178mm element on a 125mm lens have?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 6, 2016)

Wow...an ef 1000mm f5.6 L with IS, half the bulk and size and a lot less than $100K....sounds like it'll be a winner.


----------



## Wizardly (Jun 6, 2016)

3 working examples.

1: 780 mm f/5.8, 389.21 mm lens length, for 135-format
2: 950 mm f/5.8, 485.94 mm lens length, for 135-format
3: 585 mm f/5.8, 292.50 mm lens length, for 135-format

Aberration graphs look very nice.

For comparison, EF 400 f/4 DO ii is 233 mm long, EF 600 mm f/4 L is 456 mm long, EF 800 mm f/5.6 L is 461 mm long, and the EF 1200 mm f/5.6 L is 836 mm long.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 6, 2016)

*Drools*


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 6, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> Howabout a 1000mm replacement for the EF 800mm f/5.6L IS? A patent showing the optical formula for an <a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-06-06">EF 1000mm f/5.6 IS DO</a> has appeared.</p>
> <p>We’ve seen the prototype for a future <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/more-images-of-the-canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-br-lens/">EF 600mm f/4 IS DO BR </a>already, and the likelihood of seeing more DO lenses I think is pretty high. A 1000mm lens would be a great replacement for the current 800mm lens.</p>
> <p>Patent Publication No. 2016-102852 (Google Translated)</p>
> <ul>
> ...



What kind of a job do I need to be able to afford this? It will be out of financial reach for 99%+ of mere mortals. Sadly.

sek


----------



## KarstenReis (Jun 6, 2016)

Does anyone know what Shibomake is? Apparently this lens has both positive and negative of it. :A little googling just returns this general rumor.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 6, 2016)

a 1000 DO makes more sense than a 800 replacement. Definitely an attractive offer for wildlife shooters who have a 2x glued to their 500 or 600.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> What kind of a job do I need to be able to afford this? It will be out of financial reach for 99%+ of mere mortals. Sadly.
> 
> sek



1% of the population of mortals of the world is 70 million, which should keep the Canon production line going for some time.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2016)

9VIII said:


> nda said:
> 
> 
> > :'($20000+
> ...



f = 0.7.


----------



## WRS (Jun 6, 2016)

Wow. I really hope this becomes a reality. I definitely think it makes sense to put a little more space between the 600 f4 and the 800 f5.6 replacement, particularly given how well the 600 works with teleconverters. Build it Canon!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Since these patents are likely the result of actually making something, who takes them for a "test drive"?
> 
> Or do the patents just reflect a working set of objective lenses without any electronics?


Generally, there is a proof of concept model or set of models for patents to show that the product can be built and works. They are hand machined or scavenge parts from existing lenses, or are just totally manual. Since the patent is for a optical formula, there is no need to have AF, IS, or a electronic aperture.

Some of these will appear at trade shows for PR purposes, like the huge MP sensors or 8K video cameras.

Since Canon has been trying to outdo Nikon by making a Wider Zoom, why not a longer telephoto. Certainly, there are potential buyers. I suspect that the cost of making such a lens would be a huge factor. The cost goes up exponentially for super long lenses, so trying to build one that would sell for under $40K might be a challenge.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of a job do I need to be able to afford this? It will be out of financial reach for 99%+ of mere mortals. Sadly.
> ...



I believe the OP'er was referring to only the current Canon user group - significantly less than 7 billion. Say around 10-15 million (this is a purely hypothetical WAG on my part), so maybe around 100,000 or so (1% of 10M)...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> I believe the OP'er was referring to only the current Canon user group - significantly less than 7 billion. Say around 10-15 million (this is a purely hypothetical WAG on my part), so maybe around 100,000 or so (1% of 10M)...



If Canon makes this lens and actually sells 100,000 of them, I'd eat my hat (if I wore a hat). It'll be priced high enough to recoup development costs, but really a lens like this is all about promoting the brand with the 'wow factor'.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 6, 2016)

My best guess, if this lens becomes (a sweet) reality, is a cost of approximately 2x to 2-1/2x what the current 400mm f4.0 DO IS is. Which I believe is around $6,700USD. So somewhere between $14,000USD - $17,000USD. 

I don't believe they would even attempt to commercialize it, if it were going to be very north of $20,000USD because recouping the development and extra manufacturing costs would be very hard to do, due to a limited market for it. (Just my opinion as I have not done any research whatsoever on Canon's current and historical sales of their big whites.)


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> FramerMCB said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the OP'er was referring to only the current Canon user group - significantly less than 7 billion. Say around 10-15 million (this is a purely hypothetical WAG on my part), so maybe around 100,000 or so (1% of 10M)...
> ...



Me too! But not eat your hat...my own hat. 

My number of 100,000 or so, would just be the market demographic for this lens. The number of photographers that would then actually be potential/likely purchases would be even less. Because many Pros would not have a need for this lens even if their budget would allow it...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 6, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Howabout a 1000mm replacement for the EF 800mm f/5.6L IS? A patent showing the optical formula for an <a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-06-06">EF 1000mm f/5.6 IS DO</a> has appeared.</p>
> ...



99.99 more like.


----------



## George D. (Jun 6, 2016)

The egami website that leaked the news says below the patent (jpn.translation): "cannot imagine the amount of money but the target group is EF 1200/5.6L USM and AI NIKKOR 1200-1700/5.6-8 ED IF users". 

Do you know how many EF 1200/5.6L lenses were sold and to whom? It's in the forum.

As for the Nikkor counterpart user profile, see picture below.

So, this kind of target group doesn't care about cost, their agency pays. Only cares about portability.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 6, 2016)

George D. said:


> The egami website that leaked the news says below the patent (jpn.translation): "cannot imagine the amount of money but the target group is EF 1200/5.6L USM and AI NIKKOR 1200-1700/5.6-8 ED IF users".
> 
> Do you know how many EF 1200/5.6L lenses were sold and to whom? It's in the forum.
> 
> ...



1. No leak involved, Egami is a site that monitors public releases of patents, anyone can do it.

2. The 1200mm lenses were built for a specific baseball stadium in Japan, they could zoom in on the pitcher at 1200mm and the batter at 1700mm. With the Canon, you had to use the built-in TC to get 1680mm. Later, the newspapers started using them for other purposes. The cost is unknown, probably $75K in todays dollars.


The very high prices for the few copies of those lenses are based on the limited number available. A 1000mm lens will probably not change the value of them, they are for individuals who have the money and desire to collect rare items. 


From the Nikon Web site:

http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/recollections/r16_e/index.htm
**************************************************************
At Koshien Stadium the photographers' seats are situated next to the center-field back screen so as to enable news photographers to shoot the home plate, which is over 130 meters away. From this position it requires a focal length of 1200mm to capture the pitcher, the catcher, and the batter in frame, and a focal length of 1700mm to shoot a full-frame vertical photograph of the batter. In short, the 1200-1700mm was developed for shooting pictures from the photographers' seats at Koshien Stadium.

In 1980s, a rival company was making a 1200mm f/5.6 super telephoto lens. The newspapers were beginning to switch over to cameras made by this company in order to use the lens in their coverage of baseball at Koshien Stadium.

In May 1989, Nikon rushed to begin development of its own super telephoto lens for Koshien Stadium. The company resolved to complete the prototype by March 1990, in response to the fervent wishes of the newspapers.

"In order to complete the prototype by March, we had to complete the blueprints by the preceding July. Time was short. Moreover, we just didn't know where to start," says the mechanical designer of the lens.
"Seeing that we were developing a lens from scratch, it would be pointless if we did not surpass our competitor. The competitor's lens had a built-in teleconverter, which served as the mechanism for switching the focal length between 1200mm and 1700mm. We decided not to use a switching mechanism, and instead selected a zoom mechanism that enabled the photographer to freely adjust the focal length in the 1200mm to 1700mm range. Although the zoom method is more complex (both optically and mechanically), we knew that it would make framing adjustment easier and produce better photographs," adds the lens's optical designer.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > scottkinfw said:
> ...



Unfortunately, some don't recognize when a comment is humorous unless it has a  after it.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 6, 2016)

George D. said:


> The egami website that leaked the news says below the patent (jpn.translation): "cannot imagine the amount of money but the target group is EF 1200/5.6L USM and AI NIKKOR 1200-1700/5.6-8 ED IF users".
> 
> Do you know how many EF 1200/5.6L lenses were sold and to whom? It's in the forum.
> 
> ...



Met a retired photojournalist who photographed the inauguration of Bill Clinton using the EF 1200mm f/5.6L. Never found out what agency he worked for, but wow was I jealous. I've been blown away using a 600mm, I can't even imagine 1200mm. 36 pounds isn't light either, and it sounded like he had fun just trying to get it set up.

It would be so awesome to stick a 2x converter on a 1000mm f/5.6 lens..


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 6, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > The egami website that leaked the news says below the patent (jpn.translation): "cannot imagine the amount of money but the target group is EF 1200/5.6L USM and AI NIKKOR 1200-1700/5.6-8 ED IF users".
> ...


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 6, 2016)

Have no use for this lens. However, some of my friends have $20k watches. So maybe I'd get it just to make a "statement". :


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 6, 2016)

Wouldn't it make more sense to call this the 1 meter lens?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2016)

Andyx01 said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense to call this the 1 meter lens?



Such a small number. Americans wouldn't buy it.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 6, 2016)

I can think of at least two CR members who would be quite keen to buy this lens (I am not one of them!) I imagine.

I think it is terrific that Canon are pushing limits. 

Has anyone complained yet that there does not seem to be a built in teleconverter?


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 7, 2016)

I've been shooting with my 500mm f/4L II and the 2x III. It is a great combo. Aside from being likely lighter weight and a stop faster, I'm not sure Canon could entice me to buy the 1000mm DO.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 7, 2016)

Nice lens, but too rich for my blood....


----------



## Maui5150 (Jun 7, 2016)

Meh... 5.6.

Show me 2.8 and then I will get excited


----------



## RGF (Jun 7, 2016)

nda said:


> :'($20000+



Do I $25,000 (USD)?


----------



## RGF (Jun 7, 2016)

j-nord said:


> a 1000 DO makes more sense than a 800 replacement. Definitely an attractive offer for wildlife shooters who have a 2x glued to their 500 or 600.



Will it have a 1.4 drop extender included (a la 200-400)? That would nice add-on, like to see all future super teles from Canon to have a drop extender. Best would be multiple factors but I will settle for a single 1.4


----------



## RGF (Jun 7, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Will Canon be offering a finance plan as part of a lens package for potential purchasers of this lens?



Yes, your first born, a kidney and the deed to your house


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2016)

Sigzilla is $30,000....... I can't see Canon being less expensive....


----------



## d (Jun 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Andyx01 said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to call this the 1 meter lens?
> ...



They'd have to call it a "Triple-Footlong" for the N.A. market.


----------



## Woody (Jun 7, 2016)

With the impending release of 16-35 f/2.8 III and 1000 f/5.6 ISO DO, Canon show they are really digging their heels in the EF-DSLR business. 

Who cares about Mirrorless? ;D


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Andyx01 said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to call this the 1 meter lens?
> ...



They could call it the 40" lens.


----------



## Simen1 (Jun 7, 2016)

9VIII said:


> nda said:
> 
> 
> > :'($20000+
> ...


The front element would be 950/5,6 = 163,8 mm across, not 178.

Anyway, just do the math 125mm/178mm = f/0,702
The aperture diameter notation f/ literally means "focal length divided by".

Reducing the focal length without reducing the diameter is not easy. It means higher refractive index through thicker glass or worse glass types, both which have bi-effects like more CA, coma, field flatness and more. If you keep reducing FL you will eventually end up with the worst glass and run out of air in between the lenses. Look at 50mm f/0,95 lenses to get an idea of both how stuffed they are with glass and how they perform optically at large apertures. I assume the DO lens design would be more difficult too. Especially manufacturability (failure rate/cost) and contrast.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jun 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> FramerMCB said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the OP'er was referring to only the current Canon user group - significantly less than 7 billion. Say around 10-15 million (this is a purely hypothetical WAG on my part), so maybe around 100,000 or so (1% of 10M)...
> ...



And how many of these has Sigma sold? 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=551435&gclid=CJLmkbLflc0CFU88gQodhtALQw&is=REG&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C52934715962%2C&A=details&Q=

If the price for the Canon beast is $20K, even if they sell 500 world wide, which may be aggressive, the $10M probably does not cover full development costs, but I am also sure in producing the lens, they gained knowledge and insight., but I am thinking this will be more in the $16K range.

I am sure Military and Intelligence agencies would be all over this

Probably manual focus with a 2X teleconverter


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> Probably manual focus with a 2X teleconverter



Or DPAF...


----------



## Wizardly (Jun 7, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> And how many of these has Sigma sold?
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=551435&gclid=CJLmkbLflc0CFU88gQodhtALQw&is=REG&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C52934715962%2C&A=details&Q=



The opportunity is still out there to go down in obscurity for being the only verified review of that item.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 7, 2016)

This looks great, but I bet that they would sell a lot more of a 60mm f/4 DO


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2016)

NancyP said:


> This looks great, but I bet that they would sell a lot more of a 60mm f/4 DO



Who would want a 60mm f/4 DO?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2016)

AlanF said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > This looks great, but I bet that they would sell a lot more of a 60mm f/4 DO
> ...



AvTvM – it sounds like a near-perfect EF-M pancake lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > This looks great, but I bet that they would sell a lot more of a 60mm f/4 DO
> ...



Somone willing to pay $1500 to shave a inch off the length. I doubt that there are that many.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 8, 2016)

Perhaps the reason why the 1dx2 is able to focus at f8 on all points?
1000mm 5.6 + 1.4 teleconverter?


----------



## scyrene (Jun 8, 2016)

Bennymiata said:


> Perhaps the reason why the 1dx2 is able to focus at f8 on all points?
> 1000mm 5.6 + 1.4 teleconverter?



Well it works for a lot of existing combinations too - 500+2x, 600+2x, 800+1.4x etc.


----------



## flyingSquirrel (Jun 11, 2016)

Has anyone in this thread mentioned atmospheric distortion? When you start getting into the high mm lenses, even shooting over not too long of distances, atmospheric distortion becomes a problem regularly. And especially if you have a TC and/or a crop sensor camera.

Shooting my 500 f/4 on a 7D mk II, and often with a 1.4x, I sometimes get mushy photos - and I know it's atmospheric distortion because I know what it looks like, compared to bad settings or poor technique. Especially right at those ideal times and places for good wildlife - sunrise / morning light, over fields or water. For example bald eagles fishing in a harbor a while after sunrise.

I would be more inclined to be interested in a supertelephoto (especially a monster like this) if it had some way to mitigate atmospheric distortion - built into the lens, or a feature of a camera body.


----------



## nc0b (Jun 11, 2016)

Atmospheric thermal distortion drives me nuts when shooting wildlife at large distances on the Pawnee Grassland in Colorado. Getting close to antelope is almost impossible. They can see you from hundreds of yards away and run off. I have shot a distant windmill over a season at 86, 60 and 45 degrees F. At 45 degrees the thermal blurring is less, but still awful. Attached is a shot taken a couple weeks ago of antelope estimated around 500 yards away, and a windmill beyond that. 5DsR, 100-400mm II with 1.4X TC III. Out of about 50 shots, fewer than 3 were usable, and I use the term loosely. I would like to know what it is like for those on safari in Africa. Is the thermal issue different at lower altitudes than mile-high Colorado?


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 11, 2016)

nc0b said:


> Atmospheric thermal distortion drives me nuts ... I would like to know what it is like for those on safari in Africa. Is the thermal issue different at lower altitudes than mile-high Colorado?



Differs. But generally you go to shoot as early as possible in the morning for the same reason. Also, most tend to travel during our summer = their winter, which helps. Last time I was on a Safari it was in fact _bitterly _ cold most of the time with a touch of frost a couple of mornings.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2016)

flyingSquirrel said:


> Has anyone in this thread mentioned atmospheric distortion? When you start getting into the high mm lenses, even shooting over not too long of distances, atmospheric distortion becomes a problem regularly. And especially if you have a TC and/or a crop sensor camera.
> 
> Shooting my 500 f/4 on a 7D mk II, and often with a 1.4x, I sometimes get mushy photos - and I know it's atmospheric distortion because I know what it looks like, compared to bad settings or poor technique. Especially right at those ideal times and places for good wildlife - sunrise / morning light, over fields or water. For example bald eagles fishing in a harbor a while after sunrise.
> 
> I would be more inclined to be interested in a supertelephoto (especially a monster like this) if it had some way to mitigate atmospheric distortion - built into the lens, or a feature of a camera body.



From my experience, it's rarely a problem. It is obvious as you say, once you know what to look for, and if you're shooting over fairly large distances (a hundred metres or more, say) in warm conditions, it can be problematic (for instance, I had a lot of this doing seabird shots recently). But shots from great distances are for records only anyway, in general (admittedly I live in a cooler part of the world, and tend to shoot small birds, so the distances are less, and distortion rarer).

As for mitigating it, I don't think that's possible. The only systems that can are those found on modern institutional telescopes, where they shoot a laser into the atmosphere, measure the distortion, and factor that into their imaging. Hardly practical!


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> nc0b said:
> 
> 
> > Atmospheric thermal distortion drives me nuts ... I would like to know what it is like for those on safari in Africa. Is the thermal issue different at lower altitudes than mile-high Colorado?
> ...



Good points.


----------



## nc0b (Jun 12, 2016)

Thermal distortion in real time, when it exists, is very obvious when using a pair of Canon 10X42 L IS binoculars. The magnification is equivalent to a 500mm lens, chromatic aberration with the only L quality binoculars is significantly better than the other Canon offering, and the IS is fantastic. 

Today I was looking in the same direction as my earlier sample picture with a very thermally distorted windmill, and I wasn't seeing much distortion with the binoculars. The temperature was 90 degrees, but the sun was behind clouds, and there was a 10 to 12 MPH breeze. 

I used the same setup as before, 5DsR, 100-400mm II and 1.4X TC III at 560mm equivalent focal length. Even though the windmill blades were facing a different direction, the distortion of the legs was much less. I also shot an oil well that is a mile away, and the distortion is relatively low considering the 90 degree temperature and distance involved. Between the clouds blocking the direct sun, and possibly the wind, the difference between the two shooting days was amazing. Too bad there weren't any antelope today!


----------

