# Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III coming ahead of Photokina [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 20, 2018)

> We can confirm that the second “Big White Lens” coming ahead of Photokina will be the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III. This will come along with the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III that we reported on last week.
> We’re upgrading the rumor rating on the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III to [CR3]
> We can only speculate what the upgrades for the new lenses will be, but we’re pretty sure weight reduction will be a big part of the equation, since these are the heaviest of the four most popular supertelephoto primes in Canon’s lineup.
> There’s no word on whether or not the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II or the EF Canon 500mm f/4L IS II will receive updates soon after.



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 20, 2018)

No DO though. Too bad.


----------



## Trigger (Aug 20, 2018)

So if it is true that the first two lenses are the 400 2.8 and 600, when would we likely see the 500 III?


----------



## DanCarr (Aug 20, 2018)

I find this so strange. I’m sat here waiting for the 600DO, what to do now? I can’t imagine them releasing a DO version shortly after a MkIII. Maybe it’s just time to give up on the dream.


----------



## xps (Aug 20, 2018)

DanCarr said:


> I find this so strange. I’m sat here waiting for the 600DO, what to do now? I can’t imagine them releasing a DO version shortly after a MkIII. Maybe it’s just time to give up on the dream.



Maybe, it is an III lens with an DO element inside, so the naming could have been kept. Just for keeping the name, as an synonyme for exceptional optical quality


----------



## rikstir (Aug 20, 2018)

How about a 300-600 f4 with built in 1.4tc


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 20, 2018)

xps said:


> Maybe, it is an III lens with an DO element inside, so the naming could have been kept. Just for keeping the name, as an synonyme for exceptional optical quality


I would think this is the case. Don't forget, the 600 DO had a red ring, instead of green. 

Maybe Canon would worry that "DO" would have a negative connotation, so with this being their top-of-the-line L supertelephotos, they'll just put it as a mark III.


----------



## xps (Aug 20, 2018)

My 600 II is not in the age of beeing replaced (except I´m not able to hold it anymore). But I wonder how much the pricing will be raised.
An DO version would have been fine. Just look at the DO protoype at Photokina two years ago. Carrying an 600mm lens with attached body in an not xxl backpack...

Maybe an weight reduction of this lens is "most wanted" by nature photographers, so there is an higher pressure to redesign it and not the other lenses like the 300 or 500mm


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 20, 2018)

Considering the quality of the Mark II, this lens is going to have to be close to perfection!


----------



## xps (Aug 20, 2018)

rikstir said:


> How about a 300-600 f4 with built in 1.4tc


But the 200-400 is about the same weight of the 600. So an 300-600 f4 + 1.4x woul be muuuuch heavier. Except with DO elements


----------



## xps (Aug 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Considering the quality of the Mark II, this lens is going to have to perfection!


The optical/resolution preparation for the 100MP body with 20fps and 18 stops of DR


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Aug 20, 2018)

DanCarr said:


> I find this so strange. I’m sat here waiting for the 600DO, what to do now? I can’t imagine them releasing a DO version shortly after a MkIII. Maybe it’s just time to give up on the dream.



I'm not sure how far Canon's Diffractive Optic manufacturing technology has come, but from everything I've heard DO elements are extremely difficult to make. The difficulty just becomes more pronounced with larger elements, and 600mm F/4 would have DO elements more than twice the size of a 400mm f/4. Just going on aperture values for the element sizes (they'd obviously be larger since they're positioned at the front of the lens): 400mm f/4 equals 100mm aperture diameter means 3.1459(50mm^2) = 7,853mm sq; 600mm f/4 equals 150mm aperture diameter means 3.14159(75mm^2) = 17,671mm sq.

Since the 400mm f/4 DO IS II already costs about $7k, I'd imagine a 600mm f/4 DO would be so expensive even most career wildlife photographers would find it difficult to purchase.


----------



## DanCarr (Aug 20, 2018)

xps said:


> Maybe, it is an III lens with an DO element inside, so the naming could have been kept. Just for keeping the name, as an synonyme for exceptional optical quality


Yeah you definitely could be right. It's a shred of hope I'm going to cling onto all week 

The only thing about that theory is that it would take huge guts for Canon to say a DO version is the true successor to the MKII. DO optics get heavily scrutinized, particularly in the area of bokeh quality. I'm a 400 DO II user myself so I know what I'm in for when/if a 600 DO comes to market, but I'm sure a few purists out there would be kicking and screaming if a DO lens fully replaced the more traditional design. Now personally I think it makes a lot of sense, but Canon isn't exactly known for being bold.


----------



## DanCarr (Aug 20, 2018)

H. Jones said:


> I would think this is the case. Don't forget, the 600 DO had a red ring, instead of green.
> 
> Maybe Canon would worry that "DO" would have a negative connotation, so with this being their top-of-the-line L supertelephotos, they'll just put it as a mark III.


Yeah, that's also a possibility. Good thinking and here's hoping!


----------



## RGF (Aug 20, 2018)

wonder how much weight they could reduce lens by? It would be nice if it were an inch or two shorter so it could fit in a package w/ body attached. WAIT - that is the 600 F4 DO. Wonder if that will ever see the light of day?


----------



## tron (Aug 20, 2018)

I DO hope that a DO lens will come next (Pun intended  )


----------



## helpful (Aug 20, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy,

If I sell my 400mm II lens right now, how long will I have to wait before being able to purchase and have the new version in hand?

I've already sent one of my current 400mm II lenses in for free Platinum cleaning and checking, and even paid them $248 extra to do do everything needed to put it in as close to like new condition as possible, in preparation for selling it and moving to the new version. I want to sell mine ASAP so someone else can get the most use out of it, but I don't want to have to wait more than a couple of weeks while relying only on my backup 400mm II lens. If something goes wrong or anything happens to my backup lens...

Thank you for any info you can provide about the actual expected shipping date for the 400mm 2.8 III lens.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 21, 2018)

helpful said:


> Canon Rumors Guy,
> 
> If I sell my 400mm II lens right now, how long will I have to wait before being able to purchase and have the new version in hand?
> 
> ...



This is just a rumor. So please do not make a selling or buying decision based on this. Canon may or may not announce these lenses.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 21, 2018)

It's funny how CR admin is reporting this. "We can confirm that the second “Big White Lens” coming ahead of Photokina will be the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III". If you can confirm why it is CR3?


----------



## frnd.frts (Aug 21, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Does it make sense to upgrade all this glass right before launching a new MILC FF mount? I think it does not. Therefore, my intuition is that the new MILC FF Canon camera will use the EF mount, or some variation of it that may be full compatible with existing EF lenses. But what about the flange distance and focus motor differences required by a MILC camera. Well, maybe these lenses have some hidden upgrade in the focus actuation and/or hardware/firmware that make them more suitable to MILC cameras. In this case, the recent “upgrade” on the 70-200 f2,8 III which apparently didn’t upgrade much, could actually be a “stealth” upgrade, already including internal features that are only going to become relevant once the new MILC FF camera is announced/released...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 21, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> It's funny how CR admin is reporting this. "We can confirm that the second “Big White Lens” coming ahead of Photokina will be the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III". If you can confirm why it is CR3?



Cr3 means its for sure. Thats why a CR3.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 21, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Cr3 means its for sure. Thats why a CR3.



I guess I don't have the rating scale up anymore, I'll fix that tomorrow.

It's back up: https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rumors-rating-system-explained/


----------



## rikstir (Aug 21, 2018)

xps said:


> But the 200-400 is about the same weight of the 600. So an 300-600 f4 + 1.4x woul be muuuuch heavier. Except with DO elements



I could live with a little heavier, say like the original 400 2.8


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 21, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I guess I don't have the rating scale up anymore, I'll fix that tomorrow.
> 
> It's back up: https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rumors-rating-system-explained/



My bad for some reason I was thinking there was a CR4 (running 5 steps CR0 to CR4). Thanks for posting the rating scale


----------



## djack41 (Aug 21, 2018)

I have been waiting for the 600mm DO but life is short. I will buy the new 600mm lll.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 21, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Cr3 means its for sure. Thats why a CR3.



Thank you.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 21, 2018)

frnd.frts said:


> Does it make sense to upgrade all this glass right before launching a new MILF FF mount? I think it does not. Therefore, my intuition is that the new MILF FF Canon camera will use the EF mount, or some variation of it that may be full compatible with existing EF lenses. But what about the flange distance and focus motor differences required by a MILF camera. Well, maybe these lenses have some hidden upgrade in the focus actuation and/or hardware/firmware that make them more suitable to MILF cameras. In this case, the recent “upgrade” on the 70-200 f2,8 III which apparently didn’t upgrade much, could actually be a “stealth” upgrade, already including internal features that are only going to become relevant once the new MILF FF camera is announced/released...



You'll see that this has nothing to do with mirrorless. Canon won't be targeting professional sports use or the such with their mirrorless at this stage. These lenses will form the backbone of their 2020 Olympics lineup along with the 1DX III. You won't see a mirrorless competitor to A9 for a long time from Canon or Nikon which will also release a D6 next year. The best you can hope for is very good AF speed when used on an adapter on their mirrorless. Will Canon have the AF to match Sony and Nikon's mirrorless though? We know Nikon is targeting A73 and A7R3 and AF is over 400 AF points


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 21, 2018)

helpful said:


> Canon Rumors Guy,
> 
> If I sell my 400mm II lens right now, how long will I have to wait before being able to purchase and have the new version in hand?



57 days. 55 days if you have it overnighted, unless it is overnight via the United States Post Office. In that case you'll wait 62 days.


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 21, 2018)

I'm just hoping here that Canon have decided that DO elements are now just part of the lens design and that naming lens with DO in the title is no longer a thing, I did a qick search and found this:-





I wonder if thats why the 600 DO prototype has a red ring?


----------



## docsmith (Aug 21, 2018)

There are several ways that they could save weight. As long as they do so, while keeping build quality and IQ, excellent.


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 21, 2018)

I'm still waiting for some 24-70 @ 2.8 Photokina CR3! It is getting close and there is again complete radio silence. And I will even not start about the unicorn (new 50). 

Anyway. This is interesting pair to be released together considering how they were released previously. Maybe they will not be just refreshes with new coatings. If these are not just refreshes it will also be interesting to see what will happen with prices - both prices of new models and used MK.II.


----------



## padam (Aug 21, 2018)

This is how it is expected to look. Weight could be down much closer to 500/4 IS II level (but the price will probably climb)


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 21, 2018)

Both the EF 600mm f/4L IS USM and the mkII are newer than the 50mm f/1.4

And I would have bet the 50mm f/1.4 is so much more profitable...


----------



## Bambel (Aug 21, 2018)

frnd.frts said:


> (...) MILF FF mount



I know there has been talk about a "sexy solution" for the new mount but i didn't expect it to be.. that sexy 

B.


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2018)

Bambel said:


> I know there has been talk about a "sexy solution" for the new mount but i didn't expect it to be.. that sexy
> 
> B.


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2018)

I wonder how much lighter the new 600 can be. The DO prototype that lacked AF and IS weighted 3.2Kg.
The current 600 4L IS II weighs 3.9Kg...


----------



## ethanz (Aug 21, 2018)

Bambel said:


> I know there has been talk about a "sexy solution" for the new mount but i didn't expect it to be.. that sexy
> 
> B.



I wanted to comment on that, but didn't know if anyone else would understand. Glad you did.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 21, 2018)

I am going to speculate.
New Coating
2 ounces
and $4,000 more

Now to hope,
New Coating
2 pounds
2 more stops of IS
and it is the same price as the II


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2018)

2 pounds ~ 0.9 Kg would make it lighter than a DO version! Not likely but we can always hope...
Regarding coatings Canon's Sub Wavelength Coating (that all big white teles have) seems similarly good with ASC

http://www.canon.com.hk/cpx/en/technical/pa_ASC-Reduction_of_Flare_and_Ghosting.html

Actually this is just my interepretation. But, I do not believe reduction of flare can be quantified and so compared in theory.


----------



## yavuz (Aug 21, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Dont need to upgrade 600 or 400 .. they need to upgrade 7dm2 and 5dsr


----------



## Bambel (Aug 21, 2018)

ethanz said:


> I wanted to comment on that, but didn't know if anyone else would understand. Glad you did.



And we haven't started to talk about the "throat" of... oh well lets end this right now

B.


----------



## yavuz (Aug 21, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I am going to speculate.
> New Coating
> 2 ounces
> and $4,000 more
> ...


Even 1 pound is diffucult to achieve..


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2018)

yavuz said:


> Dont need to upgrade 600 or 400 .. they need to upgrade 7dm2 and 5dsr


I agree. The version II teles are already fantastic anyway...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 21, 2018)

yavuz said:


> Even 1 pound is diffucult to achieve..


You realize that the people who design lenses are not the same people who design cameras


----------



## dpvue (Aug 22, 2018)

I’m wondering how much the price for Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II will drop after the release of Mark III


----------



## tron (Aug 22, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Does anyone sane think that 300mm 2.8L IS II needs an update?

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009


----------



## Trigger (Aug 22, 2018)

If these new lenses don't have an integrated arca swiss mount on the foot, I will be forwarding a sternly worded letter to Canon.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 22, 2018)

I find it strange Canon upgrades the 400 and 600? Is it related to Sony big whites and ensuring they won’t be surpassed?
The 600 especially it seems very early to update. It is too heavy but unless the optical formula has changed I’d wonder if lighter is also weaker..
By doing this they’ve devalued the II which is annoying but the gain in terms of quality can only be marginal.
If I was in the market to upgrade my 600 then lighter weight would be welcome but it would be a mad thing to do as the cost would never justify it. It will be lighter but still heavy.


----------



## Trigger (Aug 22, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> By doing this they’ve devalued the II which is annoying...



That will only be true if the III is priced similar to what the II was. When they released the II versions of the 500/600s (about 7 years ago), they were priced _much_ higher than the previous IS versions, making them out of reach for many people, which had the effect of actually _raising_ the value of used IS versions.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I am going to speculate.
> New Coating
> 2 ounces
> and $4,000 more
> ...



What's the current IS rating? 4 stops? 4.5? I don't know of any lenses produced by any manufacturer that claim more than 5 or maybe 5.5 stops of IS - unless someone can correct me? I think we're chasing diminishing returns on that front.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 22, 2018)

scyrene said:


> What's the current IS rating? 4 stops? 4.5? I don't know of any lenses produced by any manufacturer that claim more than 5 or maybe 5.5 stops of IS - unless someone can correct me? I think we're chasing diminishing returns on that front.



Good question Scyrene. According to TDP: 
"The 600mm f/4L IS II's IS is rated at a best-available-at-review-time 4-stops of assistance (the 600 L IS I was rated for two stops). "The Image Stabilizer ... has been enhanced through the incorporation of a rolling-ball-friction system in place of sliding parts in the compensation optics barrel for a minimum-friction structure" [Canon USA]

Shooting outdoors with no wind and solid footing, I am able to get a reasonable percentage of sharp handheld results at between 1/25th and 1/15th of a second for an easy 4 stops (approaching 5 stops) of assistance."

So yes, it will be difficult to get much improvement in IS, maybe .5 or 1 stop better at most.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 22, 2018)

Regarding weight, it could be possible to reduce it a little more, if Canon is able to do what they did from V1 to V2. (Again, thanks to TDP)


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 22, 2018)

scyrene said:


> What's the current IS rating? 4 stops? 4.5? I don't know of any lenses produced by any manufacturer that claim more than 5 or maybe 5.5 stops of IS - unless someone can correct me? I think we're chasing diminishing returns on that front.



It doubled last upgrade, how about a double this time. 

It is an upgrade lens. What does it matter what other manufacturer's have released? 
That is no indication of what new improvement may be released.


----------



## frnd.frts (Aug 23, 2018)

Bambel said:


> I know there has been talk about a "sexy solution" for the new mount but i didn't expect it to be.. that sexy
> 
> B.



Oops...


----------



## frnd.frts (Aug 23, 2018)

ethanz said:


> I wanted to comment on that, but didn't know if anyone else would understand. Glad you did.



Oops...


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 23, 2018)

tron said:


> I wonder how much lighter the new 600 can be. The DO prototype that lacked AF and IS weighted 3.2Kg.
> The current 600 4L IS II weighs 3.9Kg...



There was no weight published for the 600 f/4 DO prototype and I wouldn't even believe that number if they did post it. The 600 f/4 DO would be a least 30% lighter than the regular version at worst. Sony can make a non DO 400 f/2.8 25% lighter than Canikon, if a DO lens couldn't be made lighter still I'll be a monkey's uncle. well under 3kg would be a given.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 23, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Regarding weight, it could be possible to reduce it a little more, if Canon is able to do what they did from V1 to V2. (Again, thanks to TDP)



It's worth pointing out that a significant weight saving from version I to II was the removal of a non-optical front element - i.e. a big piece of glass that didn't affect the optical formula (see diagrams below). This can't be repeated, though they can of course shave a little off elsewhere (or go with a new optical formula, though I'd be surprised by that).


----------



## scyrene (Aug 23, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> It doubled last upgrade, how about a double this time.
> 
> It is an upgrade lens. What does it matter what other manufacturer's have released?
> That is no indication of what new improvement may be released.



Erm, well it's generally a good idea to keep one's expectations within the realms of reality. You are familiar with the term 'diminishing returns'? "It doubled before, why can't it double again?" is the kind of question I'd expect a child to ask. You honestly think a lens with a minimum of 8 stops of IS is realistic at this time? Looking at other manufacturers (and other recent lenses from Canon) is a good guide to what is physically possible within the budget of these things.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 23, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Erm, well it's generally a good idea to keep one's expectations within the realms of reality. You are familiar with the term 'diminishing returns'? "It doubled before, why can't it double again?" is the kind of question I'd expect a child to ask. You honestly think a lens with a minimum of 8 stops of IS is realistic at this time? Looking at other manufacturers (and other recent lenses from Canon) is a good guide to what is physically possible within the budget of these things.



A child might ask the question but you wouldn't have a decent answer. "Looking at other manufactures is a good guide to what is physically possible" is ridiculous.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 23, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> A child might ask the question but you wouldn't have a decent answer. "Looking at other manufactures is a good guide to what is physically possible" is ridiculous.



But looking at what Canon just released with their 70-200 f4, 5 stops was what they chose.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> A child might ask the question but you wouldn't have a decent answer. "Looking at other manufactures is a good guide to what is physically possible" is ridiculous.



Not ridiculous at all.
If no-one offers what you ask it suggests of two things: it may be that what you ask for is commonly thought (by the manufacturers) to be not worth including, or it may be that no-one has found a way to do it in which case your expectations are unreasonable. Hence Scyrene saying it is 'a guide'.
There is nothing wrong with wanting something but to criticise a company for no other reason than you are ignorant of technical capability is flawed.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 23, 2018)

ethanz said:


> But looking at what Canon just released with their 70-200 f4, 5 stops was what they chose.



"Chose" vs "physically possible" 

Keep in mind you are comparing a $1200 lens to a $12000 lens.
scyrene seemed to be familiar with the term "diminishing returns". It would be easier for a manufacture to incorporate more expensive elements in a lens cost $12,000 than one costing $1,200.

One stop is good though. On the big lenses an extra stop is a substantial gain.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Not ridiculous at all.
> If no-one offers what you ask it suggests of two things: it may be that what you ask for is commonly thought (by the manufacturers) to be not worth including, or it may be that no-one has found a way to do it in which case your expectations are unreasonable. Hence Scyrene saying it is 'a guide'.
> There is nothing wrong with wanting something but to criticise a company for no other reason than you are ignorant of technical capability is flawed.



Looking at what is available presently and using that as a guide to determine what innovations the industry leader may incorporate is flawed.

I am confused by your second statement:
"There is nothing wrong with wanting something but to criticize a company for no other reason than you are ignorant of technical capability is flawed."
The only one critisizing in this situation would be scyrene, who was drawing comparisons between companies.
Perhaps you should go back and read the thread more thoroughly.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Perhaps you should go back and read the thread more thoroughly.



I was merely responding to your comment that looking at what other companies are doing is (to use your word) 'ridiculous'. 
That does not mean that Canon may not be able to beat it and move things a step take a step forward but expecting that 'they doubled it last time so should be able to double it this time' is illogical in technological terms. And that is where looking at other manufacturers is a guide - no-one I know of has in lens IS better than 5 stops which suggests there is a technological limit hard to get over. 
Then look at the developments on this lens. The v1 was released in 1999 (?) and as I understand it had 2 stop IS the v2 in 2011 has 4 stops - that is 12 years of technological evolution to go from 2 stops to 4 stops. Now you want them to add another 4 stops after another 7 years simply because you think 'it should be possible'.

But then a one stop addition is in fact a doubling so it all depends on what you mean.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I was merely responding to your comment that looking at what other companies are doing is (to use your word) 'ridiculous'.
> That does not mean that Canon may not be able to beat it and move things a step take a step forward but expecting that 'they doubled it last time so should be able to double it this time' is illogical in technological terms. And that is where looking at other manufacturers is a guide - no-one I know of has in lens IS better than 5 stops which suggests there is a technological limit hard to get over.
> Then look at the developments on this lens. The v1 was released in 1999 (?) and as I understand it had 2 stop IS the v2 in 2011 has 4 stops - that is 12 years of technological evolution to go from 2 stops to 4 stops. Now you want them to add another 4 stops after another 7 years simply because you think 'it should be possible'.
> 
> But then a one stop addition is in fact a doubling so it all depends on what you mean.



You came in on a conversation of ridiculous statements.

My OP:
_I am going to speculate.
New Coating
2 ounces
and $4,000 more

Now to hope,
New Coating
2 pounds
2 more stops of IS
and it is the same price as the II _

As was pointed out, by ethanz the 70x200 f4 II was released with 5.
Is it out of the realm of possibility that a new lens might have 6.
I suppose it is if we apply the logic it has never been done.


----------



## RGF (Aug 23, 2018)

frnd.frts said:


> Does it make sense to upgrade all this glass right before launching a new MILC FF mount? I think it does not. Therefore, my intuition is that the new MILC FF Canon camera will use the EF mount, or some variation of it that may be full compatible with existing EF lenses. But what about the flange distance and focus motor differences required by a MILC camera. Well, maybe these lenses have some hidden upgrade in the focus actuation and/or hardware/firmware that make them more suitable to MILC cameras. In this case, the recent “upgrade” on the 70-200 f2,8 III which apparently didn’t upgrade much, could actually be a “stealth” upgrade, already including internal features that are only going to become relevant once the new MILC FF camera is announced/released...



If Canon mimics Nikon, there will be an adapter to enable current EF lens to work the ML body while there are new lens that have a shorter flange distance


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2018)

ethanz said:


> But looking at what Canon just released with their 70-200 f4, 5 stops was what they chose.


But also note that the F4 version has an extra stop of IS over the F2.8 version.....

Both are released at the same time, the same focal length, and (presumably) the same technology. The difference is that the F2.8 has heavier elements and takes more energy to move. This is your limit for optical stabilization.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> But also note that the F4 version has an extra stop of IS over the F2.8 version.....
> 
> Both are released at the same time, the same focal length, and (presumably) the same technology. The difference is that the F2.8 has heavier elements and takes more energy to move. This is your limit for optical stabilization.



With the 500mm I have always noticed that the 1D models have always pushed the IS and the AF faster. I always assumed it was battery power as much as anything.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> With the 500mm I have always noticed that the 1D models have always pushed the IS and the AF faster. I always assumed it was battery power as much as anything.


The 1 series cameras have a 10.8 volt battery, the others (Lp-6) have a 7.2 volt battery. The extra voltage would allow you to drive lens motors faster, so your assumption is probably true.....


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 23, 2018)

Both of these new lens will have DO elements, my wife's, brothers, sisters mother said so. But seriously I really think that Canon could have reached a point where DO lens can match or better existing conventional designs and that they would have no problem just using the DO tech as part of lens design rather make a DO lens. That's why the 600 DO prototype had a RED ring!!


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The 1 series cameras have a 10.8 volt battery, the others (Lp-6) have a 7.2 volt battery. The extra voltage would allow you to drive lens motors faster, so your assumption is probably true.....



That and Canon puts an extra coating of grease on the electrons. You heard it here first!


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 24, 2018)

Just in! It will be made of carbon fiber reinforced bubble wrap and only weigh 1.2 kg.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2018)

And it will bounce! Great idea.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2018)

Meatcurry said:


> Both of these new lens will have DO elements, my wife's, brothers, sisters mother said so. But seriously I really think that Canon could have reached a point where DO lens can match or better existing conventional designs and that they would have no problem just using the DO tech as part of lens design rather make a DO lens. That's why the 600 DO prototype had a RED ring!!


With DO lenses, chromatic aberration tends to occur in the opposite direction of that in glass elements.... This gives the lens designer another tool to use in the search for the ultimate sharpness.

I predict that DO lens elements are going to become very common at some point in the near future.


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> With DO lenses, chromatic aberration tends to occur in the opposite direction of that in glass elements.... This gives the lens designer another tool to use in the search for the ultimate sharpness.
> 
> I predict that DO lens elements are going to become very common at some point in the near future.


Even Canon's superb 400mm DO II has some issues when pointed to bright spot light sources. A green halo around them. This does not exist with L lenses. I discovered it coincidentally by taking a test photo. Since I use it for birding it performs superbly so no issues there. 
If they fix that and incorporate DO elements in big heavy lenses they will do our backs (and camera bags) great favor! (not to our wallet though!)


----------



## RGF (Aug 29, 2018)

If Canon is able to shave a pound off the 600, I wonder how much it will cost

$2000/lb?


----------



## RGF (Aug 29, 2018)

tron said:


> Even Canon's superb 400mm DO II has some issues when pointed to bright spot light sources. A green halo around them. This does not exist with L lenses. I discovered it coincidentally by taking a test photo. Since I use it for birding it performs superbly so no issues there.
> If they fix that and incorporate DO elements in big heavy lenses they will do our backs (and camera bags) great favor! (not to our wallet though!)



I have heard that the Nikon 500P does not suffer from this problem. I believe that the Nikon P series is the same as Canon's DO


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2018)

RGF said:


> I have heard that the Nikon 500P does not suffer from this problem. I believe that the Nikon P series is the same as Canon's DO


I refer to strong point light sources at night. This is non-issue for the use I need the 400mm DO II for. In fact I found out by chance. I do not believe Nikon's will be better than Canon though.
And a possible test between them should be carefully designed to avoid comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## RGF (Aug 29, 2018)

tron said:


> I refer to strong point light sources at night. This is non-issue for the use I need the 400mm DO II for. In fact I found out by chance. I do not believe Nikon's will be better than Canon though.
> And a possible test between them should be carefully designed to avoid comparing apples to oranges.



Hi Tron

I would like to see a comparison. But tell me, when do you see the green halo? A star? The moon? or perhaps a flood light in the distance. Since I don't have a DO right now I can not test. Hopefully the 600 DO will be released soon. If it is as good as the 400 DO II I'll sell my 600 F4 and buy the 600 DO.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 29, 2018)

yavuz said:


> Dont need to upgrade 600 or 400 .. they need to upgrade 7dm2 and 5dsr


Canon needs to upgrade all! The company needs to make up for lost time and begin innovating.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Canon needs to upgrade all! The company needs to make up for lost time and begin innovating.



Since when has 'upgrade' become synonymous with 'innovation' ?
Has 'innovating' become the new word for 'I don't know what to say so I will thrown in a word that I have seen everyone else using'?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 29, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Since when has 'upgrade' become synonymous with 'innovation' ?
> Has 'innovating' become the new word for 'I don't know what to say so I will thrown in a word that I have seen everyone else using'?



Time for the Princess Bride /Montoya meme.


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2018)

RGF said:


> Hi Tron
> 
> I would like to see a comparison. But tell me, when do you see the green halo? A star? The moon? or perhaps a flood light in the distance. Since I don't have a DO right now I can not test. Hopefully the 600 DO will be released soon. If it is as good as the 400 DO II I'll sell my 600 F4 and buy the 600 DO.


You really do not have to worry. I photographed an ancient temple from afar. The halo was around a powerful light that was one of the two that were enough to lit it fully at night. So it was an extreme situation (not so real life). It is just that when I do this with my 500mm f/4L IS II there is no halo. I have attached a composite:
A part of the full picture over a part of a 100% magnification of the picture to see what I mean.


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2018)

But on second thought it had to be the way it was turned because 500 produced less halo but not zero:
So you really do not have to worry. Just my opinion. The attachment is a screenshot of a shot taken with the 500 at 100%.


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2018)

An 600 DO will be worth a lot although I would still need to use it from the inside of my car or on a tripod (the way I use my 500).


----------



## RGF (Aug 30, 2018)

tron said:


> But on second thought it had to be the way it was turned because 500 produced less halo but not zero:
> So you really do not have to worry. Just my opinion. The attachment is a screenshot of a shot taken with the 500 at 100%.



I see the green halo. Wonder what causes it.


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2018)

RGF said:


> I see the green halo. Wonder what causes it.


Partly it's because the light is very bright. The color of the halo is due to the light not being white. It exists slightly on the shot with 500 too. I remembered that the temple was not shown lit with white color at its left side. When I was close, it looked as lit with blue/green light. So there is at least an explanation for the color. The difference with the 500 is just a little more halo compared with it. I haven't photographed the moon with the 400 though so I cannot comment on that. The moon shot with the 500 is excellent of course!


----------



## RGF (Aug 30, 2018)

tron said:


> Partly it's because the light is very bright. The color of the halo is due to the light not being white. It exists slightly on the shot with 500 too. I remembered that the temple was not shown lit with white color at its left side. When I was close, it looked as lit with blue/green light. So there is at least an explanation for the color. The difference with the 500 is just a little more halo compared with it. I haven't photographed the moon with the 400 though so I cannot comment on that. The moon shot with the 500 is excellent of course!



Thanks

I know fluorescent lights have a strong green component. I presume that the bright light in your image is from a halogen light. 

I have shot the moon w/ my old 500 F4 (version 1) and don't remember seeing a green halo.


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2018)

RGF said:


> Thanks
> 
> I know fluorescent lights have a strong green component. I presume that the bright light in your image is from a halogen light.
> 
> I have shot the moon w/ my old 500 F4 (version 1) and don't remember seeing a green halo.


Of course not. It is undoubtely a nice lens. Neither my 500 version 2 has any real issue. I use this lens to shoot the moon and it's excellent at it. I will have to find a chance to shoot the moon with the 400DOII to see the result. But since I use the 400DOII as a portable lens for birding (and excells at it) I am more than satisfied with it.


----------



## RGF (Aug 31, 2018)

tron said:


> Of course not. It is undoubtely a nice lens. Neither my 500 version 2 has any real issue. I use this lens to shoot the moon and it's excellent at it. I will have to find a chance to shoot the moon with the 400DOII to see the result. But since I use the 400DOII as a portable lens for birding (and excells at it) I am more than satisfied with it.



Birding w/ a 600 DO would be even nicer, that is if the weight does not become an issue


----------



## tron (Aug 31, 2018)

RGF said:


> Birding w/ a 600 DO would be even nicer, that is if the weight does not become an issue


I Completely agree. Even the fact that a DO lens is shorter so held closer to the body helps. But weight is very important too. But It seems that my limit is a 400DOII + tele.
So I would hold a 600DO 5.6 but I am not sure I would manage a 600DO 4. I will have to think about it more however only If Canon makes one


----------



## RGF (Aug 31, 2018)

tron said:


> I Completely agree. Even the fact that a DO lens is shorter so held closer to the body helps. But weight is very important too. But It seems that my limit is a 400DOII + tele.
> So I would hold a 600DO 5.6 but I am not sure I would manage a 600DO 4. I will have to think about it more however only If Canon makes one



For a short while I can hold a 200-400 but it is not easy nor very long (short while). A few pounds lighter would be very helpful. Given that the 400 F2.8 weighs 8.5 pounds and the 600 F4 weighs 8.6, I would expect that ther 400 DO and 600 D0 would be similar weight. Perhaps the 600 DO would be lighter but then again Canon decide to save the lighter materials /methods for the next version of both lenses. Sorry if I seems cynical


----------



## tron (Sep 1, 2018)

400 is f/2.8 and 600 is f/4. But 400DOII is f/4 and 600DO is rumored to be f/4 too. So not the same situation. But if 600 were to be f/5.6 yes I agree with you.


----------



## RGF (Sep 1, 2018)

tron said:


> 400 is f/2.8 and 600 is f/4. But 400DOII is f/4 and 600DO is rumored to be f/4 too. So not the same situation. But if 600 were to be f/5.6 yes I agree with you.



Of course, for the 400 DO and 600 DO to be the same weight the 600 DO would need to be F5.6. My error


----------



## tron (Sep 2, 2018)

RGF said:


> Of course, for the 400 DO and 600 DO to be the same weight the 600 DO would need to be F5.6. My error


That's OK. I only imagine how flexible would be a 600DO 5.6. We would be able to carry it and walk all day (Just like I do with my 400DOII f/4). It would be a super birding lens.


----------



## RGF (Sep 2, 2018)

tron said:


> That's OK. I only imagine how flexible would be a 600DO 5.6. We would be able to carry it and walk all day (Just like I do with my 400DOII f/4). It would be a super birding lens.



compare the 400 DO F4 + TC1.4 vs 600 DO F5.6. 400/TC combo would be a bit heavier but more flexible. At 560 may not be as sharp as the 600 and the 600 could extended to 840 w/ TC 1.4

Now if Canon made at 7D Mark III with the AF of the then current 1Dx


----------



## tron (Sep 5, 2018)

... and/or a 5DsR MkII


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 10, 2018)

RGF said:


> Thanks
> 
> I know fluorescent lights have a strong green component. I presume that the bright light in your image is from a halogen light.
> 
> I have shot the moon w/ my old 500 F4 (version 1) and don't remember seeing a green halo.



(Over)Expose the moon bright enough and you'll get a halo with any lens. That's not to say that a halo from a DO lens will be exactly the same as a halo from a non-DO lens. It will vary for any two disparate lens designs.


----------

