# Patent: A New Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 7, 2016)

```
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-is-to-arrive-in-late-2017-cr2/">We posted a couple of days ago</a> that Canon was well into the development of new “big white” lenses. The first patent for a new optical formula has appeared for an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-173439 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.9.29</li>
<li>Filing date 2015.3.17</li>
<li>Focal length 292.46</li>
<li>F-number 2.91</li>
<li>Angle of view 4.23</li>
<li>Image height 21.64</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 273.95</li>
<li>BF 60.81</li>
</ul>
<p>We don’t expect to see the supertelephoto lenses updated until at least 2018.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## AdamFichna (Oct 7, 2016)

I'm wondering what they are going to improve


----------



## candyman (Oct 7, 2016)

O, this may be the first of all the other supertelephoto lenses?
I guess people will hestitate the coming 3 to 5 years to buy the current supertelephoto lenses. On the other hand, knowing Canon, these new lenses will be presented with a much higher price. So maybe the current supertelephoto start to look like a bargain :-X


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 7, 2016)

AdamFichna said:


> I'm wondering what they are going to improve



Yes..I have wondered that too...what benefits will this lens bring? It's already the lightest in it's genre and it's incredibly sharp. I think there is more mileage in developing lighter longer lenses like the 400 f2.8 and 600 f4. But I guess they have to start some where. I would have thought lenses like the 200 f2 would see a redesign first.


----------



## AdamFichna (Oct 7, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AdamFichna said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering what they are going to improve
> ...



I think they should make 300/2.8 with build in x1.4 Tc maybe then I will sell my 300/2.8 IS II and buy the new one


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 7, 2016)

"... According to the present invention, at the telephoto lens, a cemented lens and a non-spherical surface consisting of a glass material having an anomalous dispersion characteristic that used in the appropriate refractive power where appropriate, in the chromatic aberration of the correction and the entire optical system it is possible to achieve both of the* reduction in size and weight* to provide an optical system that has been made..."





AdamFichna said:


> I'm wondering what they are going to improve


----------



## CanoKnight (Oct 7, 2016)

How many of these do we need.


----------



## candyman (Oct 7, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AdamFichna said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering what they are going to improve
> ...


Maybe support for a new type of AF system that Canon may release in future cameras. And, what about the increasement of mpix?


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 7, 2016)

AdamFichna said:


> I'm wondering what they are going to improve


It will be interesting to see how they can improve something optically so close to "perfect".
Mechanics, AF and IS can be updated all the time.


----------



## arcer (Oct 7, 2016)

Looks like the size will be 229 x 100mm for the optical design.
My guess that it will be 232 x 112mm for the real thing.
Compared with the current EF 300 f/2.8L IS II USM is 248 x 128mm.

Looks like we will be seeing a few deductions in both length and weight. Maybe we will see the inclusion of BR which can help optimize the formula?

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's my first time posting my own calculations.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 7, 2016)

It seems that size and weight reduction is the primary goal. It's either cost reduction excercise or.. To support a better overal weight distribution and/or balance when attached to a significantly smaller body. FF MILC, for an instance.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 7, 2016)

Maybe they Design new Converters to. Mark lV i mean. And the Same as with The current Version The might build this lens along with The Converter. I Hope that The also Design along The 300mm f4...


----------



## arcer (Oct 7, 2016)

Actually, I'm looking forward to a new 300F4 IS more.
FWIW, I've been seeing the 300F4 IS out of stock on Canon HK for quite a while already.

Edit: So is the 200F2..... Maybe we might see a refresh for it first before the 300mm. IMO, based on typical Canon market cycles, 2018 might be another Year of the Lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 7, 2016)

While I recognise that the 300mm /f2.8 is a cash cow for Canon...it's not the first lens I would turn to for a weight reduction. There are other big whites that are a lot heavier and larger that would take a percentile weight reduction a lot better. The current 300 f2.8 LIS II is very light already. I see a lot of guys at wildlife shoots with one and a few teleconverters. It's a very light and usable rig....comparatively. If it becomes too light then what's the point of the 400mm DO II?


----------



## mitchel2002 (Oct 7, 2016)

very interested in this
i think there are other lens to be updated first like the 200 2
maybe we will start seeing built in 1.4 extenders in all big whites


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 7, 2016)

I would much rather like to see new macro lens replacing prehistoric: EF 50mm Compact macro with EF 60mm USM (IF) macro or update to EF 180mm USM with EF 180mm USM IS macro. After bad experience with Sigma 150mm OS I dont would much rather get both those lenses from Canon for my butterflies, flowers, frogs and venomous snakes.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 7, 2016)

The improvement on this lens is somehow making it cheaper and lighter....IQ wise, there is no room to improve.


----------



## Vern (Oct 7, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AdamFichna said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering what they are going to improve
> ...



Yes! and make it a 200 1.8 with all the latest optics and IS, that would be exciting.


----------



## KiagiJ (Oct 7, 2016)

Well I hope the 200 f2 isn't in the lineup for an update as I only just got it this year! haha. It's 8 years since release and the 1 before it (200 f1.8 ) was 20 years before then so I was hoping mine was good for another 12 years!  They seem to update the 300 and particularly the 400 2.8 way more often so I may be safe a while


----------



## mnclayshooter (Oct 7, 2016)

LCD range window upgrade??? Anyone? Anyone?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> While I recognise that the 300mm /f2.8 is a cash cow for Canon...it's not the first lens I would turn to for a weight reduction. There are other big whites that are a lot heavier and larger that would take a percentile weight reduction a lot better. The current 300 f2.8 LIS II is very light already. I see a lot of guys at wildlife shoots with one and a few teleconverters. It's a very light and usable rig....comparatively. If it becomes too light then what's the point of the 400mm DO II?



2x400mm = 800mm
2x300mm = 600mm


----------



## Mac Duderson (Oct 7, 2016)

28mm 1.4L BR
50mm 1.2L ii
K-Go!


----------



## PhotographerJim (Oct 8, 2016)

The 300mm 2.8 mk2 is the optically best lens that I've ever used. I didn't think it very heavy, so I too wonder what will they improve to justify the assumed inflated cost?


----------



## David Soares (Oct 8, 2016)

Come on, think about the specs of this lens. It clearly is not a Canon EF (DSLR full frame) or an EF-S (APS-C) lens. Instead, it is a Canon Micro Four Thirds (MFT) lens. 

First of all the Image height is 21.64mm. That is about the image circle diameter of MFT (21.60mm to be exact). That specification has no relevance to full frame or APS-C image dimensions. Canon Rumors used Google Translate, so the translation isn't exact. "Image height" should be "Image Diameter". 

Secondly, the angle of view of this lens is 4.23 degrees. The angle of view of a 300mm lens on a full frame DSLR is 8.15 deg. 4.23 deg. is closer to a 600mm lens on a full frame FSLR or about 300mm (292.5mm in this case) on MFT! 

Thirdly, look at the physical length of this lens: 273.95mm, that's almost 26mm longer than the current state of the art Canon EF 300mm f2.8L Mk II lens. Canon is hardly going to replace that with a longer lens! So why is the MFT design physically longer? Well, by relaxing the physical specifications of a lens (allowing it to be bigger), a lens design engineer has more scope to deliver high optical performance without having to resort to as many exotic and expensive optical materials. Or, by doing both, relaxing the size specification and using exotic materials, even higher optical performance can be achieved (like Zeiss Otus lenses). By the way, this Canon design is physically slightly shorter than the Olympus 300mm f2.8 4/3 lens.

For whatever reason, Canon has decided to design and patent this MFT lens. Time will tell if if ever sees the light of day.


----------



## KiagiJ (Oct 8, 2016)

Yes absolutely they need a 50mm 1.2 ii asap! That should be priority as the sigma art kicks its ass and canon already put up their new 35 1.4 to defend against the sigma 35 art so, a 50 should hopefully be soon. I want that as although my 50 sigma is great optically the focus is crap on my 1dx2 so I just want a good canon 50 so its future proofed with new canon bodies and just know it'll viewfinder focus accurately in future unlike a sigma


----------



## AUGS (Oct 8, 2016)

David Soares said:


> Come on, think about the specs of this lens. It clearly is not a Canon EF (DSLR full frame) or an EF-S (APS-C) lens. Instead, it is a Canon Micro Four Thirds (MFT) lens.
> 
> First of all the Image height is 21.64mm. That is about the image circle diameter of MFT (21.60mm to be exact). That specification has no relevance to full frame or APS-C image dimensions. Canon Rumors used Google Translate, so the translation isn't exact. "Image height" should be "Image Diameter".
> 
> ...



Actually, sorry to correct you, but this is for a full frame lens.

The image height in these patents is the image circle radius. 21.6mm is the half diagonal of a full frame sensor, and is the horizontal axis dimension used in the MTF Charts of a full frame lens. 
The angle of view is also the "half angle" (I have no idea why it is like this in the patents, but assume it is the same reason they use image circle radius and not diameter). So 4.23 degrees half angle is 8.46 degrees full angle of view which is nearly the same as the spec for the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens.
You can also see this information in other patents. Refer to this:
http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii/

What I do find interesting in the patent is the BF 60.8 and slightly longer lens. As you said, this will probably mean less exotic element designs, and in making the lens slightly longer and possibly smaller diameter, may mean a reduction in weight of the overall lens.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Talley (Oct 8, 2016)

AUGS said:


> David Soares said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, think about the specs of this lens. It clearly is not a Canon EF (DSLR full frame) or an EF-S (APS-C) lens. Instead, it is a Canon Micro Four Thirds (MFT) lens.
> ...



Yup this is a FF lens. 

And makes me wonder why the heck would they do this lens? The 300 2.8 IS II is like the benchmark standard next to the 400 2.8 IS II and the 200 F2 IS. These are the top 3 performers currently in their lineup for any lens.

Makes no sense but if it means smaller diameter, lighter and new... so be it. This means the resale value of the II version will drop some. I'm all for that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > While I recognise that the 300mm /f2.8 is a cash cow for Canon...it's not the first lens I would turn to for a weight reduction. There are other big whites that are a lot heavier and larger that would take a percentile weight reduction a lot better. The current 300 f2.8 LIS II is very light already. I see a lot of guys at wildlife shoots with one and a few teleconverters. It's a very light and usable rig....comparatively. If it becomes too light then what's the point of the 400mm DO II?
> ...



Alan....I happen to have a 400mm f2.8 LIS. So I'm well aware of what a 400 with a 2x can do. My point was that the 400 DO II is chosen because it's lighter than the 300 2.8. If the 300 2.8 gets really light then it'll cause the 400 DO to drop in it's primary attraction.


----------



## riker (Oct 9, 2016)

Scifi.

300/2.8L II is the best lens Canon currently has and actually it has the greatest improvement over the previous generation. If there's one lens that doesn't need upgrade, it's the 300/2.8.

I'm always open to magic and surprises though....even smaller and lighter maybe?


----------



## tron (Oct 9, 2016)

riker said:


> Scifi.
> 
> 300/2.8L II is the best lens Canon currently has and actually it has the greatest improvement over the previous generation. If there's one lens that doesn't need upgrade, it's the 300/2.8.


+1 


riker said:


> I'm always open to magic and surprises though....even smaller and lighter maybe?


How much smaller and lighter? It would have to be a DO type lens....


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 9, 2016)

riker said:


> 300/2.8L II is the best lens Canon currently has ... If there's one lens that doesn't need upgrade, it's the 300/2.8.



That's for sure. I have it and its a blast to use with the the 5DS/R.

What to improve? I have no clue. Maybe Canon is looking for a way to lower manufacturing costs. This would be my best guess on why they want to change the formula.

Sometime manufacturing issues lead the way. This was why the 200mm f/1.8 went out and the 200mm f/2.0 took over (with worse optics than the f/1,8). In fact if there's a big white looking for an update its the 200mm f/2.0. 

Yes, is great but the f/1.8 was better because of the lead glass used in that model. The current 300mm f/2.8 IS L II is the improvement the 200mm f/2.0 should also get in a ver. II. Not a lot different optically, just a little better - but overall small, solid advances.


----------



## RGF (Oct 9, 2016)

what does this imply about the future of DO lens? A few super tele DO lens and the rest traditional?

Would love to see canon develop these lens with a built-in 1.4 extender (or better yet), a variable extender (such as 1.2, 1.4, 1.7)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 9, 2016)

riker said:


> Scifi.
> 
> 300/2.8L II is the best lens Canon currently has and actually it has the greatest improvement over the previous generation. If there's one lens that doesn't need upgrade, it's the 300/2.8.



I wouldn't agree with you that it's the best Canon lens. It's a very impressive lens and certainly in their top 10 of all time. But it's certainly not the best.


----------



## swkitt (Oct 9, 2016)

RGF said:


> Would love to see canon develop these lens with a built-in 1.4 extender (or better yet), a variable extender (such as 1.2, 1.4, 1.7)



That's what they call a "zoom" already


----------



## AlanF (Oct 9, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I have had the 300/2.8 II for several years and now have the 400mm DO II as well. I have stopped using the 300mm and use only the 400mm II and will be selling the 300 precisely because of the advantage of having 800mm with the 2xTC. Small differences in weight do not come in to it, for me at least.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 9, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I wouldn't agree with you that it's the best Canon lens. It's a very impressive lens and certainly in their top 10 of all time. But it's certainly not the best.



So according to you, which is Canon's best lens?


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 9, 2016)

Honestly, I think Canon could really do with a 100-300mm f/2.8 IS lens instead of replacing the 300mm f/2.8 IS. I rented out the 120-300 once for a major job and wasn't happy with the poor autofocus, but it's a good range for an f/2.8 lens. If it was as sharp and fast focusing as the 300mm f/2.8, they could easily sell it for more than the 300mm f/2.8 IS and still make a killing.

I think it could sell a lot more than the 300 f/2.8 IS as awell. I constantly see 200-400 F/4 lenses and almost never see the 400 F/4, so a lot of professionals are definitely choosing the single big white zoom over its prime version.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 9, 2016)

kaihp said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't agree with you that it's the best Canon lens. It's a very impressive lens and certainly in their top 10 of all time. But it's certainly not the best.
> ...



The one with the appropriate focal length and aperture for your shooting situation.


----------



## riker (Oct 9, 2016)

tron said:


> riker said:
> 
> 
> > Scifi.
> ...



Haha, well I'm still not a fan of DO and the reason for it is exactly the 300/2.8L II.
While
300/2.8 I -> II changed 2550g to 2350g and minimum focusing distance 2.5m to 2m,
400/4 DO I -> II changed 1940g to 2100g and minimum focusing distance 3.5m to 3.3m
...and 400/4 DO II finally reached the optical performance of the first generation of 300/2.8L which is huge step compared to the previous generation which was crap but still useless in my eyes near the ass-kicking 300/2.8 II which is now only 250g heavier and a full stop faster.

According to dxomark, on a 5DsR the 300/2.8L II has 45MP resolution while the 400/4DO has 29MP. 
So as for DO lenses, no thanks UNLESS they are at least 25-30% lighter.


----------



## riker (Oct 9, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> riker said:
> 
> 
> > Scifi.
> ...



Well, this could be a pretty pointless argument 
Anyway, to me it's the best Canon lens without any questions. It has the highest resolution with 45MP measured on 5DsR, where the second on the list comes with only 37MP. So by means of sharpness/resolution it's FAR the best Canon lens ever. Vignetting, CA and the rest I don't care about, most of it can easily be corrected in post with two clicks, the rest is never visible to the bare eye.
And then come the other awesome properties of the lens, like light weight and close focusing distance.
This lens is not only beating the crap out of any other brand's 300mm, but also standing out of the crowd among Canon lenses. This is one of the lenses I love Canon for even when I hate them. An engineering masterpiece, a magical creation. 
I'm almost sad I don't need it, and I'm not American to buy it just to have it


----------



## AlanF (Oct 9, 2016)

riker said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > riker said:
> ...



_According to DxOmark_ says it all: it has the 400mm f/2.8 II, which has the reputation of being the sharpest Canon telephoto, has only 36 perceptual megapixels, whatever they are (and not many of know what they are in reality). The site that analyses multiple copies of lenses with reliability, lensrentals, has quite a different perspective - see

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

Those guys handle lenses all the time, and look at and use many, many copies. Websites that report measurements on a single copy of a lens with methods that are not reproducible are pretty much a waste of time. The only tests that really matter are your experience on your lens on your camera employed for your purposes under the conditions that you use.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 10, 2016)

arcer said:


> Looks like the size will be 229 x 100mm for the optical design.
> My guess that it will be 232 x 112mm for the real thing.
> Compared with the current EF 300 f/2.8L IS II USM is 248 x 128mm.
> 
> ...



The reduction in dimensions is I guess something, however less than an inch to slightly over an inch. I don't know about the weight.

This is a very expensive lens (for me anyway), and as noted, it is light enough, short enough, and has excellent image quality, and AF. 

Given all of the above, Canon won't see my money for another 300 2.8. A built in 1.4X tele-extender like the 200-400 would be very tempting, but still, a whole lot of money.

Scott


----------



## tron (Oct 10, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> ...
> This is a very expensive lens (for me anyway), and as noted, it is light enough, short enough, and has excellent image quality, and AF.
> 
> Given all of the above, Canon won't see my money for another 300 2.8. ...
> Scott


I agree. Money - IF Available - could be spent for lenses with different focal lengths...


----------



## j-nord (Oct 10, 2016)

I find this interesting because... why Canon, why? There are so many other high volume lenses that need updates!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I find this interesting because... why Canon, why? There are so many other high volume lenses that need updates!



Because the camera market is in decline, it isn't going to mirrorless, less people are buying cameras and even fewer buy additional lenses. Traditionally the entry level cameras and kits were the cash cows, the higher end stuff never made the big bucks and in some cases was a loss leader, with the drastic decline in this entry level revenue stream it means all camera manufacturers have to sell more higher priced items. The 300 f2.8 is a staple and surely the best selling of their over $5,000 lenses, it also probably has the best cost to return and sales figures balance so will be the best upgrade to help income.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 10, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I find this interesting because... why Canon, why? There are so many other high volume lenses that need updates!
> ...



Possibly..

But just imagine the sales volume if they replaced the 50f1.4 with a mechanically and optically decent version, think approaching ART level and an AF that always works, even it it was £500, they'd sell them by the bucket load.

I don't see the need to make arguably the worlds best lens "better", unless they're planning a 200MPix body and need lenses to pair with it!.. which leaves the 50f1.4 looking even more horrible.

PS: I own the 50STM in preference to the 1.4


----------



## riker (Oct 10, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> PS: I own the 50STM in preference to the 1.4



+
Even though I loved the 50/1.4 but that AF was just not acceptable anymore.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Oct 10, 2016)

Might be a reach, but is it possible that the update is a cinema-based update? I completely understand that the two lens types are not tightly related - however, would focus by wire etc be a "Feature" worthy of an upgrade? 

I'm really digging to find a reason to update the lens, other than a modest weight savings as noted by many others. Also, the LCD range window... obviously a wanted feature. 8)


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 10, 2016)

There are lots of more important new lenses to be released before a new 300/2.8...
What about a 24-70/2.8 IS?
What about a 16-35/2.8 IS?
What about a lightweight fullframe superzoom?
What about a sharp fast 50 and 85mm prime?
What about stabilized fast primes?
What about APS-C lenses that fit on full frame cameras, so people can make wide angle 4K videos as well?


----------



## Wizardly (Oct 11, 2016)

Am I the only one that thinks the lens diagram for the 400 mm f/4 DO IS lens diagram in the patent drawings looks exactly like the EF 400 mm f/4 DO IS II USM?


----------



## RGF (Oct 11, 2016)

swkitt said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Would love to see canon develop these lens with a built-in 1.4 extender (or better yet), a variable extender (such as 1.2, 1.4, 1.7)
> ...



Discrete zoom, not continuous


----------



## arcer (Oct 11, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> There are lots of more important new lenses to be released before a new 300/2.8...
> What about a 24-70/2.8 IS?
> What about a 16-35/2.8 IS?
> What about a lightweight fullframe superzoom?
> ...



Finally, a list from you that I can agree with. Luckily this time, you didn't foresee Canon's doom if they don't release these lens by 2020. 

Would be nice if the 17-55 F2.8 replacement can fulfill your last request. So will it make me happy.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 11, 2016)

> What about APS-C lenses that fit on full frame cameras, so people can make wide angle 4K videos as well?

You won't see this - even if the lens is capable of fitting on a FF camera without colliding with the mirror - for one important reason - Canon will probably lose more from stupid people who buy the lens and then want to return it because it doesn't fill the full sensor of their FF camera for photography than they will gain sales from people who actually want to use it for 4K on a FF camera.

Of course if Canon ever release a decent mirrorless FF camera then there's no problem.

Jolyon


----------



## Sator (Oct 11, 2016)

AdamFichna said:


> I'm wondering what they are going to improve



The answer can already be found in Egami's commentary:

AF-S 14-24mm F2.8GやEF11-24mm F4L USM、12-24mm F4 DG HSM Artでは、かつてない巨大な非球面レンズが使われています。 巨大な非球面の生産能力が勝敗を決するようになるのでしょうね。

What he says here is that the technology for the manufacture of giant aspherical lenses have progressed. Such aspherical elements are already found for example in the AF-S 14-24mm F2.8G, EF11-24mm F4L USM, and the 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art lenses. 

Egami quotes this particular point in the patent:

【００１５】本発明によれば、望遠レンズにおいて、異常分散特性を有した硝材から成る接合レンズと非球面を適切な箇所に適切な屈折力で用いることで、色収差の補正と光学系全系での小型化及び軽量化の両立がなされた光学系を提供することができる。

It seems to describe novels optical methods of achieving a reduction in chromatic aberration using particular combinations of low dispersion elements and aspherical element(s) while achieving an overall weight reduction in the optical design. 

The idea of telephoto lenses with giant aspherical elements certainly sounds interesting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2016)

Sator said:


> AdamFichna said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering what they are going to improve
> ...



Telephoto/long focal length lenses don't benefit from aspheric elements like wide and ultrawide lenses do. Teles/long focal lengths bend the light at much less acute angles so spherical aberrations are much lower and they don't have to play the retrofocus games the wides and ultrawides do. 

Indeed I don't know a super tele that has an aspheric element, do you?


----------



## Sator (Oct 11, 2016)

The implication is that the particular use of an aspherical element after a low dispersion in a unique combination allows the reduction of overall lens size. That is, they have invented a novel way of reducing lens size with the use of giant aspherical elements. Egami does not state this is a conventional use of smaller aspherical elements, and the patent does not reveal further optical engineering details on how their aims are achieved. However, the patent does hint at an improvement of overall optical performance as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2016)

I think you are right. 

The point of an aspheric element in the teles would be to reduce length. The 400mm DO MkII has a good sized aspheric element so a new round of superteles could be even shorter even if they don't have DO elements by using the bigger aspheric elements.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> While I recognise that the 300mm /f2.8 is a cash cow for Canon...it's not the first lens I would turn to for a weight reduction. There are other big whites that are a lot heavier and larger that would take a percentile weight reduction a lot better. The current 300 f2.8 LIS II is very light already. I see a lot of guys at wildlife shoots with one and a few teleconverters. It's a very light and usable rig....comparatively. If it becomes too light then what's the point of the 400mm DO II?



You seem to think it'll be a lot lighter, just not going to happen. They might be able to get it down another 300g or so, but there's not a lot of wriggle room in the 300, unless they went all CF body say. Hopefully they even further improve mfd say to 1.8m, 10-20mm shorter, and say 2.2kg max. 

Like with the mk II the biggest savings will come with the 400 f/2.8/600 f4/800 f/5.6 (assuming that will ever be updated). I wouldn't be surprised to see 500 f/4 III come in at 2.8kg, 400 3.2kg, 600 3.3kg, 800 3.5kg.

But the big news will be how small and light the 600 f/4 DO will be. Shorter than the 500, and probably lighter too.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 12, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> There are lots of more important new lenses to be released before a new 300/2.8...
> What about a 24-70/2.8 IS?
> What about a 16-35/2.8 IS?
> What about a lightweight fullframe superzoom?
> ...



1. don't care.
2. don't care
3. may be on the way as well. this WAS just a patent. don't go jumping off a cliff now.
4. meh.
5. don't care.
6. don't care.

if all else fails, refer to 3.


----------



## ranplett (Oct 14, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> 1. don't care.
> 2. don't care
> 3. may be on the way as well. this WAS just a patent. don't go jumping off a cliff now.
> 4. meh.
> ...



Well, ladies and gentlemen, rccphoto does not approve of such highly sought after lenses, so I think we can close the book on this one. And to think we were all such fools for dreaming about a 24-70 2.8 IS...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 14, 2016)

ranplett said:


> Well, ladies and gentlemen, rccphoto does not approve of such highly sought after lenses, so I think we can close the book on this one. And to think we were all such fools for dreaming about a 24-70 2.8 IS...



So what you are saying is that if anyone has ideas contrary to yours they should shut up? Reminds me of my grandad whose idea of an intelligent person was someone who agreed with him.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 14, 2016)

ranplett said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > 1. don't care.
> ...



ah yes, that's almost as bad as the original rant .. complaining over canon of all things.. doing a .. PATENT.. 
:


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 16, 2016)

One other thought.

Could this patent be intended to shoot Nikons Fox? i.e. Canon won't produce this any time soon but the patent challenges any answer Nikon may be thinking about?


----------



## ranplett (Oct 18, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> ranplett said:
> 
> 
> > Well, ladies and gentlemen, rccphoto does not approve of such highly sought after lenses, so I think we can close the book on this one. And to think we were all such fools for dreaming about a 24-70 2.8 IS...
> ...



The contrary idea would moreso apply to the secondary poster who disregarded the original poster's entire list of lenses that I don't think would hurt to have.

OP: I want Xmm lens with Y aperture and IS.
SP: Don't care.
Me: Personal opinions don't add much to the convo.
You: You sound like my grandad.
Me: Nah, trying to open up dialogue instead of 'shutting up' as you say.


----------

