# canon-300mm f1.8, Exotic or what



## mukul (Apr 28, 2017)

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/

Is it EF or FD?

canon museum does not list it?

http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product_search_result.html?t=lens&q=300

http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product_search_result.html?t=lens&q=1.8&sort=new


----------



## Labdoc (Apr 28, 2017)

The video says they were all FD initially but were upgraded to EF and future production from that time is EF.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 28, 2017)

Why is such a high serial number stamped on the lens when only a few were ever made?


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 28, 2017)

Technically it's not EF if it doesn't have *E*lectronic *F*ocus and aperture control even if it's mechanically compatible with the EF mount.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 28, 2017)

Great balance when mount it to an A9 ;D


----------



## Click (Apr 28, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Great balance when mount it to an A9 ;D



;D ;D ;D


----------



## LDS (Apr 28, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> Technically it's not EF if it doesn't have *E*lectronic *F*ocus and aperture control even if it's mechanically compatible with the EF mount.



That's why it is marked "PE". I wonder what PE stands for. 

Also, it says how much money revolve around some horse races. If they are so specific I understand why almost nobody knew them, unlike the 1200/5.6 which was officially listed and could be ordered - if you had the money.


----------



## slclick (Apr 28, 2017)

PE is the class you must take in order to lug this beast around.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 28, 2017)

We have a PL mounted version of the Canon EF 1200mm f5.6. We used to own two of these lenses but sold one off years ago. 
Never heard of the 300mm f1.8


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 28, 2017)

I've wanted Canon to release a new 50mm 1.0 for a while. Now I know what my new number 1 daydream release is.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 28, 2017)

LDS said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Technically it's not EF if it doesn't have *E*lectronic *F*ocus and aperture control even if it's mechanically compatible with the EF mount.
> ...


perhaps PE cos it's Physically Enormous ;D


----------



## infared (Apr 28, 2017)

....and I thought that I was Hot $hit with my Sigma 135mm F/1.8.... 
LOL!


----------



## runbei (Apr 28, 2017)

Made me laugh. What a perfect lens for a clog-wearing South Beach fashion photographer!


----------



## cayenne (Apr 28, 2017)

Oooooh!!

I gotta put an alert for myself on cannon watch......and try to grab one of these bad boys on a refurb sale!!!




cayenne


----------



## NancyP (Apr 28, 2017)

I am going to have to think that the design was highly specific for function, and that their off-the-shelf 300 f/2.8 of any era out-resolved it.


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 28, 2017)

Naah, it's crap; it's not even an L.


GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!


Seriously, I am amazed that such a lens exists! 


Thanks for posting this link! Fascinating!


----------



## Tom W (Apr 28, 2017)

300 f/1.8 - the original Fat-Boy!


----------



## rwvaughn (Apr 28, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Why is such a high serial number stamped on the lens when only a few were ever made?



We only read of one race tracks use of this super specialty lens in the article. However, I would imagine that there were more than just a few made, and more than just a few are still being used for photo finish work. Take the number of race tracks in existence, and barring a competing lens being used manufactured by Nikon, it's plausible that dozens of this lens were made and exist. 

Just because the serial number stamped on the lens is a high number could have very little meaning. It could represent some sort of code much like the Canon Date Code. The serial number could identify the lens to Canon as a certain series, lens type and production specimen as a whole. There's really no way to know.

One has to wonder how many other super specialty lenses exist for specific applications that are not listed in the general Canon/Nikon lens catalogs due to trade secret reasons or due to contractual non-disclosure obligations?

Canon, Nikon and even Tamron have whole industrial optics divisions that produce lenses that are not listed in there general consumer lens line ups. I don't find it impossible that there are other monsters out there with wide apertures to be discovered.


----------



## Pippan (Apr 29, 2017)

I'm wondering what use 6" of DOF would be in a photofinish.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 29, 2017)

rwvaughn said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Why is such a high serial number stamped on the lens when only a few were ever made?
> ...



Oooooh, so their might be a _400mm_ f/1.8?
Or maybe a 10-1000 f/1.0. ;D


----------



## LonelyBoy (Apr 29, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Or maybe a 10-1000 f/1.0. ;D



I _knew_ they were just holding out on us all this time.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 29, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Oooooh!!
> 
> I gotta put an alert for myself on cannon watch......and try to grab one of these bad boys on a refurb sale!!!
> 
> ...



Haha, yes good call. I'd be right behind you but 300mm isn't my top focal length.


----------



## Lurker (Apr 29, 2017)

> That's why it is marked "PE". I wonder what PE stands for.



Bronica ETRSi PE mount?


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 29, 2017)

Pippan said:


> I'm wondering what use 6" of DOF would be in a photofinish.



The fast aperture could have been made for other reasons, say to shorten the exposure time in order to get a sharp photo (the horses are running fast at the finish line), or due to the low light, e.g. evening or overcast weather.


----------



## hne (Apr 29, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Pippan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering what use 6" of DOF would be in a photofinish.
> ...



From the petapixel page, you can read they used it to expose 10000 strips of film per second, effectively meaning they'd need to use ISO800 at f/1.8 at LV12 (heavily overcast). ISO100 for sunny weather. Sounds reasonable.

At 100 meter distance you wouldn't be able to frame a 20m wide race track on a 24mm long strip of film but still have 250lp/ph resolution at the image extremes at f/1.8 looking down at a plane at a 30° angle, so unless the cameras were mounted way lower than it looks from the picture or ran 120 film using a slightly larger than average imaging circle for an EF mount lens (there might be a bit of margin left at f/1.8), I doubt the aperture would be the limiting factor for deciding who won. I'm more inclined to say the very speedy development and sometimes high sensitivity film needed would be the limiting factors.


----------



## Cochese (Apr 29, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Great balance when mount it to an A9 ;D



My guess it's an autofocus lens. If not, than I cannot for the life of me figure out why they'd have a focus limit switch on the body. Style? Looks? Took the body from another lens, but was too lazy to just cover that area up with a blank plate?


----------



## Jopa (Apr 29, 2017)

Cochese said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Great balance when mount it to an A9 ;D
> ...



Most likely they simply pre-focuse it on the mid of the finish line.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 29, 2017)

hne said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Pippan said:
> ...



By the end of the race, all the horses have converged on the inner tracks, same as runners do in the Olympics when running more than 400m, so they might need to frame 10m, or even less.


----------



## retroreflection (Apr 29, 2017)

The slit in slit scan photography is an aperture. I'm not an expert on the optics, but it seems the f1.8 is needed to use most of the light that makes it through the slit, not to create a pleasing bokeh.


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 29, 2017)

This is amazing, and I thought the Nikon 300mm F/2 was already pushing the optics to the limit.

I'm pretty sure this lens sucks for everything else than gathering lots of light, image quality must be abysmal, but it served it's purpose of getting the most light to allow them to identify the winning horse.

I wonder what the technology limit is for these lenses. Could they do a 400mm f/2 if they wanted? I think so, it just wouldn't be practical (too expensive, to heavy, too large). But could they do a 400mm f/1.4?


----------



## LDS (Apr 29, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> But could they do a 400mm f/1.4?



Sure, but can you also afford the self-propelled vehicle to carry it around, and the electric-driven turret to aim it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 29, 2017)

LDS said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > But could they do a 400mm f/1.4?
> ...



You laugh, Leica made a 1700mm f4 as a custom order for a Middle Eastern customer, along with the lens came a custom Mercedes G Wagon with a fixed mount for it in the back.


----------



## LDS (Apr 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> You laugh, Leica made a 1700mm f4 as a custom order for a Middle Eastern customer, along with the lens came a custom Mercedes G Wagon with a fixed mount for it in the back.



AFAIK there have been a Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f/4 (with an Hasselblad mount), and a Leica 1600mm f/5.6, both made for Middle-East customers.

I didn't know about the car, but it looks to me a welcome accessory to put in the box, together the shade, though. While Canon doesn't add the shade of tripod mount with some lenses...


----------



## Cochese (Apr 30, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Cochese said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Weird it had me quote the wrong reply. 
But if they prefocused it, there'd be no need for a focus distance limit switch on a manual focus lens.


----------



## 100 (Apr 30, 2017)

LDS said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > But could they do a 400mm f/1.4?
> ...



There is a Zeiss Jena 400 f/1.5 but it’s kind of slow compared to a Super Schmidt telescope 510mm f/0.96 ;-)

https://patricelaborda.jimdo.com/2015/03/17/extreme-lenses-for-extreme-pictures/


----------



## Buck (Apr 30, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> hne said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



not if were being used in quarter horse racing, you could have up to 8 wide from the inner or out part of the track


----------



## rs (Apr 30, 2017)

Cochese said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Great balance when mount it to an A9 ;D
> ...



Yes, it autofocus. More photos at PetaPixel now, including this one:


----------



## fentiger (Apr 30, 2017)

I believe NASA are building a 134 meter focal length f20 right now! 8)
Wonder if my 1DX11 will work on it


----------



## LDS (Apr 30, 2017)

100 said:


> There is a Zeiss Jena 400 f/1.5 but it’s kind of slow compared to a Super Schmidt telescope 510mm f/0.96 ;-)
> 
> https://patricelaborda.jimdo.com/2015/03/17/extreme-lenses-for-extreme-pictures/



Yes, but let's stick to photo lenses, telescopes are usually designed differently for a different use, and designs using mirrors usually means a fixed aperture.

Also lenses designed for visual use (especially wartime ones designed for spotting and aiming) may not need to be apochromatic, nor usually need a large corrected field of view, greatly simplifying the design.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 30, 2017)

My observations, for what they're worth.

I think there are probably significantly more than 4 of these around. But the vast majority are in the hand of agencies that would generally not invite PetaPixel in to see them.

We know that Canon does custom work for intelligence agencies, etc. I would be very surprised if this was not one of those projects. I'd also expect at least the 95 part of the serial number to be accurate.

This would explain the secrecy behind the lens. I would also not be surprised if this is the case that this particular lens is still at least on paper owned by Canon and that these lenses are rented out whilst remaining the property of Canon to prevent resale. Or at least that may have been the case in the past.


----------



## magarity (May 1, 2017)

Cochese said:


> My guess it's an autofocus lens. If not, than I cannot for the life of me figure out why they'd have a focus limit switch on the body. Style? Looks? Took the body from another lens, but was too lazy to just cover that area up with a blank plate?


Because such a limited run specialty product (with associated price tag) was almost certainly handed to the engineers to do with a fair amount of leeway to "do it right". Being engineers, they were psychologically incapable of NOT including the focus limiting switch, etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 1, 2017)

magarity said:


> Cochese said:
> 
> 
> > My guess it's an autofocus lens. If not, than I cannot for the life of me figure out why they'd have a focus limit switch on the body. Style? Looks? Took the body from another lens, but was too lazy to just cover that area up with a blank plate?
> ...



Looking at it it is based on the EF 200mm f1.8. Certainly externally from the rubber focusing ring to the body are from the 200 f1.8, like the one behind it. You can tell this because only the non IS super teles had the pre focus distance ring closer to the camera than the actual focus ring, and the 200 was the only version of those teles that looks remotely like it. So even if it was manual focus, it would still have those switches and covers even if there was nothing behind them. Though bearing in mind all those lenses are internal focus lenses I see no reason why it wouldn't be AF capable.

Indeed looking at the block diagram of the non IS 300 f2.8 and 200 f1.8 it would seem the 200 has a lot more potential for customization than the 300, just replace the front four elements that are the only relevant thing forwards of that focus ring with lots of potential for adjustments within the 200mm f1.8 barrel. The focus group and motor and the aperture are all contained in that 'borrowed' section.

Mind you that does mean if it is AF it is a focus by wire lens and would need power to focus even manually, also if the motor were to die the lens would be unusable even in manual focus.

P.S. It also has the later 200mm f1.8 focus switch on it, the earlier ones had AF/M on them the later ones AF/MF. I thought I remember reading that was the last few years of production so it potentially dates the lens to around the late 1990's.

P.P.S. The front element is going to be around 166mm, so a decent bit bigger than the 600mm f4 at around 155mm, but much smaller than the 1200mm f5.6 which would be around 214mm!


----------



## Sharlin (May 2, 2017)

fentiger said:


> I believe NASA are building a 134 meter focal length f20 right now! 8)
> Wonder if my 1DX11 will work on it




Yeah, but it's a reflector so the bokeh will be horrible


----------



## IglooEater (May 2, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> fentiger said:
> 
> 
> > I believe NASA are building a 134 meter focal length f20 right now! 8)
> ...


I'd also be guessing that its minimum focus distance might not allow it to have anything on earth in focus...


----------



## rs (May 2, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > fentiger said:
> ...



I guess it can focus down to 1.5 million kilometres:



> Orbit:	1.5 million km from Earth orbiting the L2 Point



source: https://jwst.nasa.gov/facts.html


----------



## jolyonralph (May 2, 2017)

That would really be pushing the limits for infinity focus!


----------



## IglooEater (May 7, 2017)

rs said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...


True enough. Forgot it would be in orbit... :-\


----------

