# Possible prototype lens spotted in video



## Meatcurry (Jul 16, 2017)

I know it's a long shot but the guy from canon appears to be holding a 6d2 with a 100-400 mark 2, but what's with the lens hood?

https://youtu.be/-n9ujy0LFog

It's either a 24/28-300 prototype or he lost his hood and is using this one instead, but this guy works for canon uk, I mean surely he can find the right hood??


----------



## timmy_650 (Jul 17, 2017)

I think it is 100-400 markii with 70-200 lenses hood. Which makes sense bc the other lens look like a 70-200. If they were both the Canon rep lenses I could see some traveling with both of the lenses and just one lenses hood.


----------



## Meatcurry (Jul 17, 2017)

timmy_650 said:


> I think it is 100-400 markii with 70-200 lenses hood. Which makes sense bc the other lens look like a 70-200. If they were both the Canon rep lenses I could see some traveling with both of the lenses and just one lenses hood.



I dont think so, the 70-200 hood is much deeper, could be a 24-70 hood, but why fit it to the 100-400, surely it just wouldn't be as effective? And as for traveling, just turn it around, its designed that way.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 17, 2017)

Hi Meatcurry! 

First of all if you had mentioned that you were referring to just the section from 1:00 to 1:15 minutes I could have avoided watching some really boring 5:49 minutes. But okay...

So if you now look at the lens barrel it definitely looks like a 100-400L MkII. But also the 28-300L looks similar to the old 100-400L, so why not reusing a barrel design, if the optical formula fits to it.

If you now compare the ET-83G of the 28-300L it could be possible that a redesign looks like the one in the video, compare here:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EW-83G-Lens-28-300mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B0007NIB6U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500282910&sr=8-1&keywords=Canon+ET-83G

But I would get high doubts in the Canon prototype test program if those guys were involved in it. 
But who knows. 

I would put my 2 cents on someone taking the wrong hood on a 100-400 II.


----------



## Meatcurry (Jul 17, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Hi Meatcurry!
> 
> First of all if you had mentioned that you were referring to just the section from 1:00 to 1:15 minutes I could have avoided watching some really boring 5:49 minutes. But okay...
> 
> ...



Yes - sorry the lens only appears in the section you mentioned, however the guy holding the mystery lens is David Parry, who is a product specialist at Canon UK, so I think entirely feasible that he could be using an unreleased lens, particularly if it looks nearly identical to the 100-400. I just thought it was a bit odd using a wide angle hood on a telephoto lens! and as you mentioned the similarity of the first generation 100-400 and 28-300 design had me thinking.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 17, 2017)

Meatcurry said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > ... But I would get high doubts in the Canon prototype test program if those guys were involved in it.
> ...


Okay! Didn't get this, could be possible then. 
But as you could have read out of my previous words I was not impressed with his/their role/s in this video


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

Meatcurry said:


> ...however the guy holding the mystery lens is David Parry, who is a product specialist at Canon UK, so I think entirely feasible that he could be using an unreleased lens...



But quite unlikely that he'd bring an unannounced prototype lens to a session he knew would be video recorded and published.


----------



## Meatcurry (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > ...however the guy holding the mystery lens is David Parry, who is a product specialist at Canon UK, so I think entirely feasible that he could be using an unreleased lens...
> ...



Yes, unlikely but if the lens appears cosmetically similar to the 100-400, the risk of exposure may have been assessed as low. Its also possible that they are making pre-release promo material, which this was for the 6D2. Ok i'm clutching at straws here!!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 17, 2017)

Why not just hit the "Enhance" button and read what's printed on the lens?


----------



## Khalai (Jul 17, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Why not just hit the "Enhance" button and read what's printed on the lens?



CSI style


----------



## Meatcurry (Jul 17, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Why not just hit the "Enhance" button and read what's printed on the lens?



Yeah it says CANON EF 24-300MM F/3.5-5.6 L IS USM!!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

Meatcurry said:


> Yes, unlikely but if the lens appears cosmetically similar to the 100-400, the risk of exposure may have been assessed as low. Its also possible that they are making pre-release promo material, which this was for the 6D2. Ok i'm clutching at straws here!!



Clearly, the hood used _does not_ appear at all similar to that for the 100-400 II, meaning the risk would logically be assessed as high, and is why we're having this discussion in the first place. 

What is clear, however, is that this was a dumb move no matter the reason. Either a Canon employee is accidentally revealing a prototype lens, or he's using a chosen to use a completely useless lens hood and looks like an idiot. 

Alternatively, maybe it's an _intentional_ leak...or maybe the guy just thought, "Hey, perhaps I'll go out with the wrong hood just to f_ck with some rumor site forum dwellers..."


----------



## Meatcurry (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Meatcurry said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, unlikely but if the lens appears cosmetically similar to the 100-400, the risk of exposure may have been assessed as low. Its also possible that they are making pre-release promo material, which this was for the 6D2. Ok i'm clutching at straws here!!
> ...



Extract from risk assessment:- 
"This lens can be used in public as it is cosmetically similar to an existing lens, however the lens hood must not be used in this case"

Well we will no doubt find out in the next 2 years, I just thought it was odd, not only is he using the wrong hood, he gave his buddy a lens without a hood on the sunniest day this year!!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 17, 2017)

I'd argue the risk would logically be assessed as low.

Look, we saw the lens. What conclusions have we drawn from it? A big "maybe". Maybe it's an unreleased lens. Or the wrong hood on a 100-400ii. Even if we know there's a prototype 28-300ii, what does that tell us? At most, they've knocked together an engineering sample of it. Yay. Does anyone think they don't have such a thing in the lab? Of course they do. But we can't even tell that it _is_ a prototype or sample instead of just the wrong hood on a 100-400ii; so we don't even gain that new knowledge.

And if we did, so what? It doesn't tell us the optical formula, which is certainly protected by a patent. If someone leaked an email from Canon that said "Mr Jones, I put together the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS II prototype like you asked", would even that really tell us anything? No. They must have a huge pile of prototypes that may or may not see the light of day, probably mostly in reused shells. Working on it doesn't mean it will ever be released, or will be released in a year, or two, so no one should infer anything from it.

Even if this confirmed that, which it doesn't. Risk is very low, except for getting the forums all riled up over a pile of nothing.

Though I'd love a 28-300ii that was as nice as my 100-400ii.


----------



## RGF (Aug 4, 2017)

Lens hood looks like 28-300 hood.

Could this be prototype of the 28-300??


----------



## hne (Aug 4, 2017)

Lens seems to be used similarly to both a 70-200 (across open water) and a 24-105 (passing hovercraft).


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 4, 2017)

RGF said:


> Lens hood looks like 28-300 hood.
> 
> Could this be prototype of the 28-300??



Possibly, but do you mean the 24-300, the 28-300 is the current model(push pull zoom), whilst recent patents point to a 24-300 replacement


----------



## RGF (Aug 6, 2017)

Meatcurry said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Lens hood looks like 28-300 hood.
> ...



Sure - prototype of the replacement for the 28-300, which would be 24-300?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 9, 2017)

There were six years between the release of the 100-400 (1998) and 28-300 (2004). The 100-400ii was released in 2014; hopefully we aren't waiting until 2020 for a replacement 28-300 (whether it starts at 28 or 24).


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 22, 2017)

24-300 spotted again?


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 22, 2017)

looks like a 100-400ii to me. Even if it was a 24-300, he would still be zoomed to 300 if he was focused on that athlete. I don't imagine it would be a reverse zoom like the original 24-70 f2.8


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 22, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> looks like a 100-400ii to me. Even if it was a 24-300, he would still be zoomed to 300 if he was focused on that athlete. I don't imagine it would be a reverse zoom like the original 24-70 f2.8



Yep, I've judged watched it again and he may actually be shooting past the athletes head!


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 24, 2017)

Meatcurry said:


> 24-300 spotted again?



In fairness, the 100-400 II can focus as close as 3 feet away. I've been given plenty of weird looks while on assignment using the 100-400 II at close-focus and 400mm to try to get a close-up detail from someone's hands/outfit/etc, it looks really weird to be 3 feet away with such a huge lens!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 24, 2017)

Man, bumping this thread got me all thirsty for a 24-300L again. Y'all suck!


----------

