# Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 4, 2014)

```
<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/2014/02/patent-canon-ef-70-400-f4-5-5-6l-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/patent-canon-ef-70-400-f4-5-5-6l-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>2014 will see the replacement of the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, and we should see some new new patents showing new optical formulas for its replacement. Below is a patent for an EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS.</p>
<p><strong>Description and self-interpretation of the patent literature</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Patent Publication No. 2014-21256,2014-21257
<ul>
<li>Publication date 2014.2.3</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.7.18</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Example 2
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 5.45</li>
<li>Focal length f = 71.33-144.71-388.95mm</li>
<li>Fno. 4.63-4.84-5.83</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 16.87-8.50-3.18 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64</li>
<li>240.00-284.68-303.83mm overall length of the lens</li>
<li>BF 75.92-79.30-95.93mm</li>
<li>6-group zoom of positive and negative positive and negative positive and negative</li>
<li>(Part of the fourth group) anti-vibration</li>
<li>Rear Focus (Group 6)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-02-04" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Eldar (Feb 4, 2014)

If they keep the size about the same as the current 100-400, drop the push-pull and improve IQ, this could be a very tempting lens ...


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 4, 2014)

Hmmm "2014 WILL see the replacement of the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS"

Well, that's interesting!!! Not 'may'! 

I love my 70-300mm (great IQ, and still so portable). I expect any 70-400mm will be significantly larger (& more expensive) - but would be a great 'zoom' birding lens. 

Then there's the 200-400mm 1.4x... *sigh*

The Tamron 150-600mm looks like a decent budget birding zoom... reviews showing it's decent at 600mm at between f/8 and f/11.

But still... we're talking about a potential Canon 70-400mm... yes, I expect it will be EF too.

 Paul


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 4, 2014)

It will be interesting to see if/how it copes with 1.4x TC VS the Tamron.


----------



## dufflover (Feb 4, 2014)

This particular patent says 240mm lens length (right?) so that puts it a tad shorter than the 400mm/5.6.
And way longer than the nice 70-200 collapsed size if that's the case.


----------



## MintChocs (Feb 4, 2014)

I wonder what lens will weigh and more importantly what the price will be?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2014)

dufflover said:


> This particular patent says 240mm lens length (right?) so that puts it a tad shorter than the 400mm/5.6.
> And way longer than the nice 70-200 collapsed size if that's the case.



The 70-200L is 200mm (internal zoom), and this is on the very edge of portable ... the 70-300L is only 143mm collapsed. 

This puts this new patent in another class entirely, and thus the zoom range is a bit bit strange - who would want to use this @70mm except for dedicated usage cases when very high flexibility is required? The difference between ~300 and 390 isn't that large w/o tc, so if I were to use this instead of the 70-300L the new lens would have to have terrific iq ... which also means very high weight & price.


----------



## GreenViper (Feb 4, 2014)

To be honest, if the replacement for the 100-400 is going to be extended in range and noticeably larger, I'd much prefer the extended range at the long end e.g. 100-500 or 150-500 for my 5D3. The gap between the current 100-400 and the supertelephotos for 400+ range is quite frankly a financial chasm. Something like a high quality 150-500 at $2000-3000 range would go a long way to filling that gap. Canon could get a number of enthusiasts to spend this much more for such a lens without in any way impacting its supertelephoto sales.


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 4, 2014)

70-400 2.8 IS . 

this. hahahah, for an arm and a leg. 70-400 would seem like a nice focal length though. i still wouldnt mind push pull. either or would be fine imho.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > This particular patent says 240mm lens length (right?) so that puts it a tad shorter than the 400mm/5.6.
> ...



I can see many applications, especially in sports and action. I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.

The 70 - 300 has been tempting, but my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II I think has slightly better IQ, not to mention a lot faster, so have a hard time justifying dropping $1500 for just having 100 extra MM

Now the 200-400... Car or lens... Car or Lens... 

So for the 70-400 with the same aperture range as the old 100-400? I only stayed away from the 100-400 because I heard it was a dust sucker, have used it/rented it twice and it was decent, but the 300-400 range can be very convenient, especially when you don't have to swing / switch bodies as object gets closer. 

If the 70-400 has the slightly better IQ and better sealing, and no more push/pull I think it is a decent upgrade.

I still will likely pull the trigger on the Tamron because of price, and for what I have seen the IQ is decent. Even if the 600 really needs F/8 or F/11, I figure getting upwards of 500mm for that price still is a bargain, and makes a nice compliment of 70-200 on one body and 150-600 on a second.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 4, 2014)

Yet another patent ... Canon does seem to be on a bit of an innovation overdrive ;D

OTOH, this is yet another patent that may not see light of day.


----------



## vlim (Feb 4, 2014)

So many patents and just a few new lenses but not the ones we're expecting like a new 100-400, new 400... At least they 're searching for the right formula 8)


----------



## Haydn1971 (Feb 4, 2014)

Having a 70-300mm, personally, I would rather see something in the 200-460mm f4-5.6 range - that would give a max 82mm front element and tie in with the 70-200 lenses too... Although I shudder to think of the cost. !


----------



## DanielW (Feb 4, 2014)

CatfishSoupFTW said:


> 70-400 2.8 IS .
> 
> this. hahahah, for an arm and a leg. (...)



I'd suggest keeping both arms and both legs, as you will end up with a heavy toy...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> I can see many applications, especially in sports and action. I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.



No doubt a lot of people are, I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.



There are many times with my 70-200 when I find that 70mm is just barely wide enough for me not to have to change lenses. The wide end of my 100-400 requires me to pop on the 40/2.8 more than a 70-400 would. Also, Nikon has an *80*-400…


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The wide end of my 100-400 requires me to pop on the 40/2.8 more than a 70-400 would.


 
In that case, they should stop making lenses except for a new 14-400 :->



neuroanatomist said:


> Also, Nikon has an *80*-400…



Ok, I admit that's a striking reason and we can start impressing the Nikonians after all the shameful reporting about sensors, wide angle lenses and whatnot :-o


----------



## kubelik (Feb 4, 2014)

Perhaps it's a case of you-always-want-what-you-can't-have but I feel like Canon is totally missing the gauntlet just thrown by Tamron with the new 150-600. instead of covering the 70mm-100mm range yet again for the zillionth time, how about moving up into the 500mm or 600mm range for consumers and serious amateurs? I think that they will absolutely lose sales over this, not because the Tamron is amazing (although initial reports seem to show that it's pretty good at the least) but because Canon simply has zero competitive offerings in the focal length-to-price class. How about a 500mm f/5.6 L prime to replace the 400mm f/5.6? How about matching the 150-600mm variable aperture, or a 200-600, or a 150-500? 

I know that the Tamron is just hitting and it will take some time for Canon to rework its lens designs and patents. I also know it's easy for webgeeks to sit and critique decisions that were probably made for very good reasons based on more factors than we will ever know about. But I seriously think Canon has been short-sighted in assuming that the 400mm maximum focal length would satisfy amateur photographers forever. Just because that was a realistic assumption 20 years ago doesn't mean it's a realistic assumption now. I have way more confidence in Sigma creating a competitor to the new Tammy than Canon at this point; can't wait until Sigma waves their new magic wand over the Bigma lineup.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2014)

I keep wondering if Canon would come out with a 200-600 F5.6....

It would probably cost $3500 or so, but it fit in nicely above the 70-200's and by keeping the zoom ratio to 3-1 they could keep the kind of IQ that we expect from a L lens.... A 6X zoom is a bit harder to keep hi IQ on....


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 4, 2014)

The 24-105 is still one of the best ranges I have found. I love the 24-70 but have had a lot of times when I shoot events I wish I had more length amd when I shoot the 70-200 want to go wider. IQ is not the same as these two beasts, but as a kit lens, it is pretty solid. 

Regarding Canon going longer, Maybe I would have preferred even a 150-500, but I think what Canon sees is even though the 100-400 is so old, it still sells and is still out there, and that while many want longer, a 70-400 has a larger market range than a 150-500 and my guess is the IQ and amount of glass starts becoming a factor so easier for them to go wider than go longer. 

I have been looking in this range for a LONG time. Covet the 200-400 but that is a dream lens. If the 100-400 was F/4 I would probably have picked it up, as a variable... think it is just off for what I want and still want more length. The Bigma has tempted me, but never enough to bite. 

Also depends. If the 70-400 delivers the IQ of the 70-300 than probably still enough to pay more than lose the extra reach of the Tamron, which to me is more of a 150-500 with some extra might be so-so for the last 100


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 4, 2014)

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS with built in 1.4x TC sounds like a much better proposition. In my mind this sort of lens will satisfy the needs of the people looking for a replacement to the 100-400 push-pull zoom and it sits obediently below the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x TC.

With TC-on that would give 140-420 f/5.6. If priced between $2100-2600 and the IQ at f/4 matched the 100mm macro (non-L) and 300mm IS then I'd say they have a winner.

P.S. (100macro non-L) + (300mm f/4L IS) + (1.4x TC) = $2550


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.
> ...



+1. I am still rediscovering focal lengths and field of view with my recent shift to FF, and I just shot a group photo with 12 people, spaced nicely apart at 70mm. That 30mm will allow a lot of flexibility, IMO.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > I can see many applications, especially in sports and action. I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.
> ...



I shoot aircraft (often R/C) all the time, and they go from "dot in the distance" where proper framing means around 4,000mm to landing 20 feet away, which means more like 40mm. They can do this in a matter of seconds. Even at full-scale airshows, I usually use my 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III and when the planes land and taxi by the crowd, I have to take the teleconverter off and even then sometimes 70mm isn't wide enough.

So, yeah, the wide end would be most helpful to me, even though I'd use it at the long end most of the time.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 4, 2014)

pj1974 said:


> I love my 70-300mm (great IQ, and still so portable). I expect any 70-400mm will be significantly larger (& more expensive) - but would be a great 'zoom' birding lens.



I just got my 70-300 last Saturday, went to an orchid & butterfly garden straight afterwards to test it and instantly fell in love with this lens! Immediately thereafter I thought about my 100-400 and how it could really use an update because it's getting a little long in the tooth. If you consider the fact that my 70-300L is pin-sharp at 300mm and f/5.6 the need to update the 100-400 becomes even more apparent. Considering my L lens line-up it's the oldest model there and the only one without 'weather sealing' (FWIW). Very interested to see what Canon comes up with. Until then I think my 70-300L will see more use outside of 'travel' that I initially bought it for.


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 4, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> ... I would rather see something in the 200-460mm f4-5.6 range ...





GreenViper said:


> ... if the replacement for the 100-400 is going to be extended in range and noticeably larger, I'd much prefer the extended range at the long end e.g. 100-500 or 150-500 ...



+1 

I really don't want much overlap with my 70-200, and would prefer the extra range on the long end. And anything more than a 3x zoom in this FL range has too much potential to "strain" IQ, IMO. I'd love to see something anywhere in the range of 150-450 to 180-540 f/4-5.6.



StudentOfLight said:


> Canon EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS with built in 1.4x TC sounds like a much better proposition. In my mind this sort of lens will satisfy the needs of the people looking for a replacement to the 100-400 push-pull zoom and it sits obediently below the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x TC.
> 
> With TC-on that would give 140-420 f/5.6. If priced between $2100-2600 and the IQ at f/4 matched the 100mm macro (non-L) and 300mm IS then I'd say they have a winner.
> 
> P.S. (100macro non-L) + (300mm f/4L IS) + (1.4x TC) = $2550



The notion of a 100-300 f/4 + 1.4TC is also intriguing. It's wishful thinking that it's price would equal the $2,550 sum of the prices of a 100 macro + 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC, but I'd willingly shell out up to $1,000 more for a lens like this.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 4, 2014)

It would be nice if they got it down to 70mm. IMO,on FF, that makes a lot of difference, then it can be more useful as a general/landscape lens as well as a reach/wildlife lens.

I wonder if it could match the 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS over those ranges in terms of IQ.


----------



## Marauder (Feb 4, 2014)

Rather surprised by this one. I mean, I fully expect the 100-400 replacement this year--it's long overdue. But I expected it to be a 100-400 F4-5.6. A 70-400 is a bit out of left field. On the one hand, I can see how an extra 30 at the wide end will have a bigger impact on framing than an extra 50 at the long end would. And I get how it matches better with the 24-70 and competes with the 80-400 from Nikon. But still, if I was going to have to pay a weight/size penalty, I'd MUCH rather it be at the long end! If I'm putting a long lens on, it means I'm trying to catch something very distant, or moderately distant, and very tiny, like a bird. I'd sooner see a 100-450, or +1 on preferring a 100-500 or 150-500 lens. Or for that matter, simply the 100-400 F4-5.6 that was previously rumoured--same range, and slightly faster at the narrow end. 

I spend most of my time at 400 with my current 100-400 installed, often only zooming out to acquire the subject, before zooming out again. Any time I do need to stay zoomed out, I generally find the 100 is either sufficient, or I'm grabbing my second body with a shorter lens. I rarely ever long for a wider fov on my 100-400....but I FREQUENTLY wish I had even more reach!

Whatever the final format, I fully expect the 100-400 replacement to be much sharper than the current, and thus a worthwhile upgrade. That being said, if it comes out at 70-400, I'd be buying it in _spite_ of the fact that it starts at 70....not _because_ it starts at 70. It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have the extra weight put into a slight aperture improvement, or an improvement at the long end...and I suspect that might be the general consensus for most current users of the 100-400!


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 4, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>2014 will see the replacement of the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS



I've just seen some pink elephants swimming in my beer :


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 4, 2014)

Marauder said:


> It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned.



Probably a negligible amount. The Sony 70-400/4-5.6 weighs 1.5kg versus the 100-400L at 1.4kg, and Sony's lenses aren't exactly known for their light weight.

The long end drives the size of lenses of this type. The only real way to make them smaller at all is to go to a prime, and the 400/5.6L is still 1.25kg even though it lacks IS.

In other words, I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ...I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.



I'm more worried about what it might subtract from the IQ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > ...I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.
> ...



It's a bigger issue if the lens has to cross into retrofocus territory (like the 28-300L does). Remember, the Sigma 50-500 is actually better than the 150-500.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 5, 2014)

kubelik said:


> How about a 500mm f/5.6 L prime to replace the 400mm f/5.6?



I actually think that would be better than a 600f5.6, given that 500f5.6 is only an 89mm diameter front element, with modern design they might be able to keep the weight similar and price it under $4,000, anything 600f5.6 would still be heavy and expensive compared to the 400f5.6.



Don Haines said:


> I keep wondering if Canon would come out with a 200-600 F5.6....
> 
> It would probably cost $3500 or so, but it fit in nicely above the 70-200's and by keeping the zoom ratio to 3-1 they could keep the kind of IQ that we expect from a L lens.... A 6X zoom is a bit harder to keep hi IQ on....



I think that's wishful thinking. 600f5.6 is the same as the 300f2.8, and then the extra cost with zooming? Now, maybe they don't have to pack it full of Fluorite, but I really don't think Canon would ever sell a 600mm anything for anything near what we would consider reasonable.
Hopefully competition proves me wrong though.


----------



## Marauder (Feb 5, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned.
> ...



It will be wasted weight and bulk, as far as I'm concerned.[/quote]

Probably a negligible amount. The Sony 70-400/4-5.6 weighs 1.5kg versus the 100-400L at 1.4kg, and Sony's lenses aren't exactly known for their light weight.

The long end drives the size of lenses of this type. The only real way to make them smaller at all is to go to a prime, and the 400/5.6L is still 1.25kg even though it lacks IS.

In other words, I suspect the 70-100 range on a lens such as this adds barely anything to the weight. Maybe an ounce or two.
[/quote]

I think I made an assumption on weight and bulk, given that the previous spec for a 100-400 replacement was touted as being a F4-5.6 100-400 and this one is a F4.5-5.6 70-400. It seems like they've traded the slightly wider aperture of the previous prototype (at the wide end) for the extra 30mm of wide-angle focal length. I felt that implied that they have to use a slightly narrower aperture to provide the extra 30mm and keep within a specified weight limit. In essence, it was no more than a "guess" on my part.

Whatever format it takes, be it 100-400 or 70-400, I expect the lens will be a major improvement on the current model. I just don't think it being a 70-400, rather than a 100-400 adds any value to me regardless. Even on those occasions when I do zoom out on my 100-400, I usually find myself around 150, 200, 250 or 300. And when I do use 100, I don't think I'd gain much by being able to go to 70. Even if the weight, bulk and/or $ cost is negligible, it doesn't seem to be a very worthwhile change to me. I'd rather gain at the telephoto end. But it will be AF speed and IQ improvements that really decide if this new lens is a winner!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

Good range ... if the IQ is good, it'll make a nice second lens for many to complement the 24-70


----------



## RGF (Feb 5, 2014)

I would like see a 70-300 F4 better then the current 70-300L and take 1.4 converter.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2014)

I'd expect to see a new 70-400 take advantage of the same design techniques as the 70-300 and use other tricks to save weight. It should be shorter and lighter than the current 100-400L. The cost per pound will jump dramatically.

The issue with rear focusing groups is that TC's often can't be used because the focusing group hits it as it moves. Of course, the design can be changed to allow it, it depends on the design choices made.
I haven't seen a well done comparison of the Tamron against the Canon 100-400 with TC, but they should be similar based on what I've seen so far. Testing those long focal length lenses is very difficult, so we may not have a lot of good test data to pour over.


----------



## dufflover (Feb 5, 2014)

As soon as a new Canon 400 gives up it's size advantage there already are existing competitors such as the Sigmas and Tamron. I have no doubt any new Canon L would blow those out of the water (given the 100-400L is still competitive with the Bigmas) but when it gives up it's size advantage, _personally_ I'd rather stick with my Sigma 120-300 OS (with it's decent 400mm f/4.5 or f/5). The collapsed size of a 100-400 is the main reason why I re-bought one.

It probably could be shorter, but obviously the patent says they aren't going down that route, at least for this particular design.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2014)

dufflover said:


> It probably could be shorter, but obviously the patent says they aren't going down that route, at least for this particular design.


 
How is it obvious? 

There are two patents, and I read thru both of them. One common theme was to make the lenses shorter and smaller in diameter. They do not give sizes and weights for the possible designs, but do emphasize that they are giving the size a high priority, at least, that's what my interpretation was. 

" In recent years, as for the imaging device using a solid state image pickup device, advanced features and the whole equipment are miniaturized. And it is small, and is a high zooming ratio, and the photographing optical system used for it is required to be a zoom lens of high resolving power moreover. To be a zoom lens which has a vibration proof function (it corrects) which reduces the blur of the image which originates in the vibration at the time of taking a photograph, etc., and is produced etc. is demanded. "

"According to the present invention, the whole system with high-speed, easy vibration control operation and easy maintaining optical performance good, even if it faces vibration control is small, and the zoom lens of a high zooming ratio is obtained. "


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 5, 2014)

Marauder said:


> I just don't think it being a 70-400, rather than a 100-400 adds any value to me regardless.



Think about it like this.

With Canon finally getting the clue about f/8 AF points, this lens could be a 100-560/6.3-8 with a 1.4x TC attached.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.
> ...



Yes, given good image quality (and I think Canon can deliver), a 70-400 would be a very useful and exciting range.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 5, 2014)

RGF said:


> I would like see a 70-300 F4 better then the current 70-300L and take 1.4 converter.



I presume you mean better than the current 70-300L due to being a constant f4 aperture ? The current 70-300L is a superb lens. 

A constant f4 aperture would result in a huge lens, losing a lot of the current one's handy appeal.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 5, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Yes, given good image quality (and I think Canon can deliver), a 70-400 would be a very useful and exciting range.



I'm probably one of the few enthusiasts who thinks weight is an issue - that's why I'm rather happy with the 70-300L+60d/6d combination. Combined with a flash bracket & large speedlite I can carry around & handhold this all day, complete with crawling through the environment shooting wildlife... not that I'd give back a free 200-400L or 70-400L, but I'd think these weight & size classes need different handling.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, given good image quality (and I think Canon can deliver), a 70-400 would be a very useful and exciting range.
> ...



A 100-400 is actually surprisingly good to hand-hold, I think Canon can do a good job om making a 70-400 that's not too heave, as mentioned before in this thread.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 5, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I think Canon can do a good job om making a 70-400 that's not too heave, as mentioned before in this thread.



We'll see, but the length of this patent design might indicate a high weight - they probably don't just put air inside it  ... the 100-400L is 189mm max, this patent is 303mm!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon can do a good job om making a 70-400 that's not too heave, as mentioned before in this thread.
> ...



Sorry, but the 189mm is in retracted state! The 100-400 will extend to 277mm, not counting the lens hood 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=113

Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 5, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Sorry, but the 189mm is in retracted state! The 100-400 will extend to 277mm, not counting the lens hood



Ok, thanks, that's wikipedia for you  (I've just got the 70-300L).



mrsfotografie said:


> Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"



Good question, plus I don't remember the 303 number from yesterday when looking how long this patented lens is :-o


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 6, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"



Focal length f = 71.33-144.71-388.95mm
Fno. 4.63-4.84-5.83
Half angle ω = 16.87-8.50-3.18 °
240.00-284.68-303.83mm overall length of the lens
BF 75.92-79.30-95.93mm

I'd say, each of the three in each category corresponds to each other.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 6, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"
> ...



I see, looks like the intention is to describe the behavior through the range, but what is so special about that specific point between the extremes of the zoom range. It is not exactly in the middle of any of these figures...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2014)

They should give this lens, to CR members, to test


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 6, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> They should give this lens, to CR members, to test


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 6, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Canon EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS with built in 1.4x TC sounds like a much better proposition. In my mind this sort of lens will satisfy the needs of the people looking for a replacement to the 100-400 push-pull zoom and it sits obediently below the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x TC.
> ...



Of course, but I can always try to be optimistic. Sure I'd also be willing to pay a bit more especially considering it would offer an interesting alternative to Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8, which is a bit soft (at f/2.8) anyway.


----------



## dufflover (Feb 7, 2014)

Well even the minimum number in the patent is quite long compared to the original 100-400. So that's why I am talking about a longer physical size even if Canon could make it shorter - this particular patent says 5cm longer which means it isn't in that 70-200 form factor anymore. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it will be bloody good as usual for their refreshes but the "purpose" of the lens changes slightly in that it would take the role of my Sigma 120-300 (for example) which goes in a backpack, not really a "in shoulder bag ready to go travel lens" that I use my 100-400 for.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 7, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Well even the minimum number in the patent is quite long compared to the original 100-400. So that's why I am talking about a longer physical size even if Canon could make it shorter - this particular patent says 5cm longer which means it isn't in that 70-200 form factor anymore. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it will be bloody good as usual for their refreshes but the "purpose" of the lens changes slightly in that it would take the role of my Sigma 120-300 (for example) which goes in a backpack, not really a "in shoulder bag ready to go travel lens" that I use my 100-400 for.



If you look back at the 70's, SLR equipment has been steadily growing in size. Bigger glass has the potential for better optics, so it's not too strange that this trend continues. Fortunately the materials are getting lighter though.


----------

