# Multiple New Diffracitve Optics Lenses Coming from Canon in 2018 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 14, 2017)

```
We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-br-at-canon-expo/">learned about the development of the EF 600mm f/4 DO IS</a> way back  in September 2015 at the Canon EXPO in New York City.</p>
<p>We’re being told that one or two additional DO lens is being developed alongside the EF 600mm f/4 DO IS and the plan is to announce them in late August 2018 ahead of Photokina 2018 in Cologne, Germany.</p>

<p>We’re not sure how well the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS sold, but I haven’t seen too many of them in peoples kits over the years. A replacement doesn’t make too much sense to us. It definitely wasn’t a bad lens, but I don’t think it was good enough or small enough to justify a purchase once the space saving 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS was announced.</p>
<p>As always, lenses can be hard to nail down as far as announcement time frames go, but we’ll keep asking.</p>
<p><em>More to come….</em></p>
<p><em>image credit // <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/canon-is-working-on-600mm-do-br-telephoto-lens-with-its-latest-optical-tech">popphoto</a></em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 14, 2017)

If the new DO lenses are as good as the 400mm DO II, they will be welcome additions to Canons lens lineup. Expect premium prices over conventional lens designs, but many will be willing to pay-up for the benefits.


----------



## sanj (Sep 14, 2017)

Canon and Apple will never let me save money. :'(


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 14, 2017)

sanj said:


> Canon and Apple will never let me save money. :'(



Apple is now on another level of insane... but yes... this recent Canon lens announcement is going to cost me... and if this bit of information is accurate, oh no.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 14, 2017)

I'll bet 500mm DO, and 300mm f/4 IS USM DO or 800mm f/5.6 IS USM DO.


----------



## kirispupis (Sep 14, 2017)

Would they be at a premium price though? Wouldn't a DO lens require less materials than a non-DO lens? The 400mm DO doesn't sell for much more than the 300/2.8.


----------



## exkeks (Sep 14, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> 300mm f/4 IS USM DO



This!
The respective Nikkor lens was well received in reviews.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Sep 14, 2017)

isnt a a new 70-200mm F2.8 IS Mark 3 and F4 DUE UP FOR A NEW IS AND OPTICS SOON?


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 14, 2017)

I'd love to see Canon's take on a new 70-300 DO. Smaller and lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8 II. That would be a nicer travel option than the 70-300L if they 2nd gen DO works as well for the 70-300 design as it did for the 400 f/4 DO.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 14, 2017)

how about something for the M? 
collapsible...with DO...maybe a 100-400 with 6.3 at 400? i'm guessing that would be small..not sure about the price though...


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 14, 2017)

Knowing nothing about optical engineering myself, my gut instinct is that a zoom is harder to design with DO than a fixed telephoto. But then again their first DO was a 70-300, so what do I know?

My guess, however, is still that they will be fixed telephoto lenses. This is where the size reduction of DO will be needed anyway. However I cannot afford any of their current supertelephoto lenses and when these are announced it will be that many more lenses I cannot afford.


----------



## Phil995511 (Sep 14, 2017)

Canon takes too long to release its 600mm DO... It does not stop being repulsed, it is very disappointing.

I mainly do photography without a freehand tripod, a weight less than 2.5 Kg is essential for me. I'm afraid the 600 mm DO is heavier... but I still have some hope that they arrive at a weight of 2.5 Kg. 

I hope that we will not have to wait another 3-4 years to see a 500mm DO F4 with a lightweight to come on the market !

I'm also looking forward to the release (but less impatient that the 500mm DO F4 and 600mm DO F4) of a 24-70 mm F2.8 IS, 70-200mm F2.8 IS DO, 100mm F2.8 macro IS II not in plastic. 

In my opinion Canon takes too long to renew its lenses.They have many range of lenses, EF-S, EF-M, Full Size. I would prefer that they simplify the range of production by removing for example the EF-S which are only compatible with APS-C and that their engineers work more on the development of lentils that make us dream...

If I were an APS-C customer and I had only optics of this type, I would be very disappointed not to be able to go to the full format while maintaining my lenses. It's still a risk that Canon will see customers then change brand due to dissatisfaction / frustration had purchased a product with limited compatibility of the APS-C lens.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2017)

Phil995511 said:


> and that their engineers work more on the development of lentils that make us dream...



What are you smoking?


----------



## Talys (Sep 14, 2017)

Oh, crap. I am going to be broke.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 14, 2017)

exkeks said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > 300mm f/4 IS USM DO
> ...



Would love it too. However, Nikon model has severe bokeh issues. If Canon can solve these it'll be a massive success.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 14, 2017)

Another 70-300 would not be in Canon's best interest, I don't think. That range is covered fairly well with the inexpensive IS lens, and the L lens. The DO technology might be quite useful for a lightweight super-zoom like a 200-500 or 200-600 that can compete with the third party offerings in this range. 

I had the 70-300 DO. Reasonably sharp, but the bokeh was awkward, and it tended to lose contrast in flare situations easily. The newer edition of DO technology is much better in this respect, as witnessed by the 400 DO II.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 14, 2017)

*Re: Multiple New Diffractive Optics Lenses Coming from Canon in 2018 [CR2]*

My 100-400 II with 1.4x III TC is so good at 560mm, I think I'd jump into this long DO market if there were an 800mm for < $10k. I'm NOT anticipating that, but I'm just saying there is a sizable market that would enter the fray if they were to attempt to goose the volume. 

The difference between the currency balances between now and when the Mark II big whites were released might actually get close to this. More likely, they'll price them at just about the same level as the existing entries. 

My wish: A 6-pound 800mm F/8 DO IS for $9999.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 14, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Would love it too. However, Nikon model has severe bokeh issues. If Canon can solve these it'll be a massive success.


Here's a wake up for you and most other 'hardcore'-type photographers:

99% of people don't look at things which aren't in focus, and bokeh does not matter.

Just like how sensor colour depth and tonal range doesn't matter. Just like how APD filters don't matter. Just like how 1:1 pixel-level sharpness doesn't really matter as long as _something_ in the overall image is sharp.

Plenty of the best-selling lenses ever do not have good bokeh. Plenty of the most popular photos ever have nearly everything front-to-back in focus anyway. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the widest landscape lens or the tightest ultra-telephoto wildlife lens, or anything in between. People aren't looking at the blurry mush. They look at the person's face, or the food on the plate, or the bird, or the sunlight falling across the meadow, or whatever it is you've photographed.

Yes, the Nikon has a fresnel element which makes bokeh drop a little and background highlights take on busy ringlet patterns at smaller apertures. And nobody who sees any photo taken with it will ever care, and Canon could put out a similar lens with the exact same results and it'd be just as popular; and if they can, they absolutely should. (Though they will be hard-pressed to improve on the current 300mm f/4 IS other than in IS effectiveness and AF speed.)


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Sep 14, 2017)

I'd rather like Canon to keep updating their medium telephoto lineup. What about new f/1.8 105mm L IS and f/2 135mm L IS?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 14, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Would love it too. However, Nikon model has severe bokeh issues. If Canon can solve these it'll be a massive success.
> ...



Can you provide studies to support your claim?

People who pay $1000 plus for a lens usually do care about the quality of the images.

Even smart phone users are paying attention to phones with better cameras, because they want better images.

You also claim that Nobody will care, even though many obviously do and have commented.

I think you are just speaking for yourself, and may be in the wrong forum, photographers do care.


----------



## Otara (Sep 14, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Here's a wake up for you and most other 'hardcore'-type photographers:
> 
> 99% of people don't look at things which aren't in focus, and bokeh does not matter.



I suspect with lenses at this level, that changes quite rapidly - because ultimately the first person you have to please is the person taking the actual photo. Because they're the person buying the lens, and they're the one who wants to be happy with the pictures they're taking.

So in this case the 99% are irrelevant.


----------



## Talys (Sep 14, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Would love it too. However, Nikon model has severe bokeh issues. If Canon can solve these it'll be a massive success.
> ...



I say this without being a smartass: If you're not interested in focus (and therefore sharpness) or bokeh, save yourself a whole bunch of money and buy a kit xx-250 or xx-300. 

And you're right, those lenses probably outsell ones that are thousands of dollars by a factor of tens of thousands or more. 

Although every photo should have something in focus, and most photos have something out of focus, what is in focus and isn't matters a lot. If the eyes are blurry, the picture is garbage. If a dog's paw is in focus but the head isn't, toss it. If it's a product shot for a car brochure and the whole vehicle isn't flawless after post, it's useless.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 14, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Would love it too. However, Nikon model has severe bokeh issues. If Canon can solve these it'll be a massive success.
> ...



True. But I take pictures for the 1%. YMMV.


----------



## JMZawodny (Sep 14, 2017)

My guess at the new DO lenses.

There will be three,
600 f/4
400 f/2.8
800 f/5.6

We've known about the 600, there have been rumors of a new 800 of some sort, and the 400 f/2.8 is my stretch predict based only upon it having a similarly sized front optic to the other two. I'll be happy if I hit 2 out of 3.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 14, 2017)

JMZawodny said:


> My guess at the new DO lenses.
> 
> There will be three,
> 600 f/4
> ...



300mm f/4 would be a smash..


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> JMZawodny said:
> 
> 
> > My guess at the new DO lenses.
> ...



???? There is a 400mm f/4 DO.


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 14, 2017)

I understand why the idea of this tech being used in a 600mm or 800mm lens is exciting but I think Canon should consider a competitor for Nikon's 300/4. Canon's 300/4 is still good but is due an update, has the older IS system and this would seem a good chance to convert it to DO as it's a lens generally used by those who want to save weight (its key advantage over a 300/2.8 - so press home that advantage).

As for the 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO I used it and it really wasn't very good. I don't know how likely it is that Canon would want yet another 70-300 lens but DO really makes sense for that range. A 70-300 is a useful lens for travel so DO would be very welcome. With modern coatings, lens elements and IS it could be a great lens.


----------



## Click (Sep 14, 2017)

sanj said:


> Canon and Apple will never let me save money. :'(




Same here.


----------



## candc (Sep 15, 2017)

We know the 600 do is in the works. The 800 is due for replacement so that makes sense for the second one. I would guess a zoom also. 

Cost is higher now due to manufacturing difficulties and limited production. The price should come down in line with refractive lenses if "do" optics become more common in there lens lineup. 

Good to hear.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> I understand why the idea of this tech being used in a 600mm or 800mm lens is exciting but I think Canon should consider a competitor for Nikon's 300/4. Canon's 300/4 is still good but is due an update, has the older IS system and this would seem a good chance to convert it to DO as it's a lens generally used by those who want to save weight (its key advantage over a 300/2.8 - so press home that advantage).
> 
> As for the 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO I used it and it really wasn't very good. I don't know how likely it is that Canon would want yet another 70-300 lens but DO really makes sense for that range. A 70-300 is a useful lens for travel so DO would be very welcome. With modern coatings, lens elements and IS it could be a great lens.



Its possible that its coming, but the 300 f/4 is very good and inexpensive. A DO version might more than double the price, but not likely improve much but the IS.


a 300mm f/2.8 DO might be interesting, its a lens that already is in the higher price range, and a lighter one would be valuable.


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 15, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand why the idea of this tech being used in a 600mm or 800mm lens is exciting but I think Canon should consider a competitor for Nikon's 300/4. Canon's 300/4 is still good but is due an update, has the older IS system and this would seem a good chance to convert it to DO as it's a lens generally used by those who want to save weight (its key advantage over a 300/2.8 - so press home that advantage).
> ...



What really got me thinking was using the new 100-400 II and seeing how wonderful it is in terms of image quality and the IS. Canon should be able to do even better with a 300 prime. But then how to differentiate it from the 100-400 etc? The aperture is a bit wider but DO might allow it to be a lot lighter.

It's not good to go off second hand opinions I know but pat of my feelings on this is knowing a few Nikon shooters who love their 300/4 and have shown me some great photos they got.

And yes indeed, a 300 2.8 DO would make a lot of sense too!


----------



## PCM-madison (Sep 15, 2017)

I hope at least one is a zoom. I've been happy with my 70-300mm DO, especially for travel. It is small and black so it doesn't attract the attention of a white L telephoto lens. It focuses well including for moving subjects. I am also very happy with the image quality shooting in RAW. Better optics, IS, etc in a new lens would be welcome. Hawk shot with a 60D, 70-300 DO @ 300mm, ISO 200, F8, 1/1000. Cityscape shot with a 6D, 70-300 DO @ 130mm, ISO 125, F14, 1/80


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > mjg79 said:
> ...



The 300mm f/4 except for the IS and loud clunk it makes when focusing is better than the 100-400, has a very close focus distance, and is f/4. A new version would possibly be slightly lighter, it could use rear focus groups like the other newer lenses. A upgrade like that would probably put it in the $1500-$1700 range. With DO, probably $2500.

Its not a big seller now, so Canon seems to have been ignoring any upgrades. However, they are coming out with new tilt shifts, and those don't exactly sell by the zillions, so it is time to upgrade the 300/4.

However, the 50mm f/1.4 needs a replacement more urgently.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 15, 2017)

Phil says: "... that their engineers work more on the development of lentils that make us dream..."
No, Phil isn't smoking anything. The translation program or the spell-check is "smoking something". ;D

I have to wonder what a 400 f/2.8 DO would weigh....

I also have to wonder when the 50mm f/1.4, or 50 f/1.2L, is getting a replacement.


----------



## RGF (Sep 15, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Would they be at a premium price though? Wouldn't a DO lens require less materials than a non-DO lens? The 400mm DO doesn't sell for much more than the 300/2.8.



Since when does Cost Of Goods (COG) determine the price. How much is it worth to you to shave off a few pounds and perhaps 4-6 inches off a 600 and still get great image quality?


----------



## RGF (Sep 15, 2017)

JMZawodny said:


> My guess at the new DO lenses.
> 
> There will be three,
> 600 f/4
> ...



Since they already have a 400 F4 DO, why would they create 400 F2.8? Perhaps 300 F2.8 first.'

others should reasonable though they opt for 500 F5.6 DO for a light weight hand held lens (or perhaps 200-560 DO F4 - 5.6)


----------



## svatsal (Sep 15, 2017)

Canon please make 200-600 happen. Pleassseeee!!! :-\ :-\


----------



## Talys (Sep 15, 2017)

mjg79 said:


> As for the 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO I used it and it really wasn't very good. I don't know how likely it is that Canon would want yet another 70-300 lens but DO really makes sense for that range. A 70-300 is a useful lens for travel so DO would be very welcome. With modern coatings, lens elements and IS it could be a great lens.



The 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO is nice only because it's _tiny_. I mean, lens-retracted, it's about the size of a 24-70.

But yeah, I get what you mean -- this would be a nice carry-around, if only if were tiny and had a bit more awesomeness in the IQ department, too


----------



## Joakim (Sep 15, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Would they be at a premium price though? Wouldn't a DO lens require less materials than a non-DO lens? The 400mm DO doesn't sell for much more than the 300/2.8.



Well that is a 400 F4, compared to a 300 F2.8. The Non-DO 400 is a 2.8 and considerably more expensive.

The article talks about a 600 F4 DO, i.e same aperture as the current 600 F4, so it is likely to be more expensive.
It would have to be a 600 F5.6 or thereabouts to match the 400 F4 DO -> 300 F2.8 comparison.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 15, 2017)

I think a 300mm f2.8 DO is wishful thinking. Is anyone going to stomach a 15% weight and size reduction on what is already a very light and small white tele? Especially considering the excessive price hike that will occur? 
As it stands, the current 300mm f2.8 LIS II is a direct rival to the 400mm f4 DO in many peoples opinion. There is little weight, size and price difference between them and it kind of falls to a comparison of who wants the native 300mm f2.8 vs the native 400mm? 

The best usage of the DO tech is with the very big and heavy white teles like the 600mm f4, the 800 f5.6 and probably the 400mm f2.8. The 300mm f4 and 2.8 are already very light and small lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 15, 2017)

Phil995511 said:


> I mainly do photography without a freehand tripod, a weight less than 2.5 Kg is essential for me. I'm afraid the 600 mm DO is heavier... but I still have some hope that they arrive at a weight of 2.5 Kg.



Not gonna happen.



Phil995511 said:


> I'm also looking forward to the release [...] 100mm F2.8 macro IS II not in plastic.



Again, not gonna happen. But also, why? That lens's build quality is fine, and I've never seen anyone complain about it.



Phil995511 said:


> If I were an APS-C customer and I had only optics of this type, I would be very disappointed not to be able to go to the full format while maintaining my lenses. It's still a risk that Canon will see customers then change brand due to dissatisfaction / frustration had purchased a product with limited compatibility of the APS-C lens.



Here we go again : I think they know their business pretty well, especially lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 15, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Phil995511 said:
> 
> 
> > and that their engineers work more on the development of lentils that make us dream...
> ...



Read 'lens' for lentil (they share an etymology, and I imagine this is a simple mis-translation, as NancyP says above).


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 15, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > 400mm f/4 would be a smash..
> ...



300mm - corrected


----------



## Anthny (Sep 15, 2017)

The lens that I would like is a 200-600mm L zoom lens for wildlife and birding. There was a lot of discussion about this lens about a year ago and silence since then. I hope canon is work on one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2017)

Anthny said:


> The lens that I would like is a 200-600mm L zoom lens for wildlife and birding. There was a lot of discussion about this lens about a year ago and silence since then. I hope canon is work on one.



That would be the 200-560 f4-5.6 that has been out for quite some time.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 15, 2017)

The current 100L is too heavy and long. No, just kidding. But it doesn't seem that sharp, compared to the Milvus 100 and the Sigma 135 Art. How's that for a complaint? I do enjoy using it with tubes, though.



scyrene said:


> Phil995511 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also looking forward to the release [...] 100mm F2.8 macro IS II not in plastic.
> ...


----------



## scyrene (Sep 15, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> The current 100L is too heavy and long. No, just kidding. But it doesn't seem that sharp, compared to the Milvus 100 and the Sigma 135 Art. How's that for a complaint? I do enjoy using it with tubes, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## neonlight (Sep 17, 2017)

My guess:
500 f/4
600f/4
800 f/5.6
1000 f/5.6


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 18, 2017)

The 100L MFD is 12", much closer than the Milvus 100 (17") and the Sigma 135 Art (35"). I like the 100L with ET's because of the resulting magnification. I rarely use the Sigma at MFD; as you state, it is not at its sharpest at MFD, so I use it at a minimum of ~4'.



scyrene said:


> Heh  Well that would be a fair criticism, assuming it's correct. What focus distance are we talking about? Some 'sharp' standard/portrait lenses I've tried have been softer at miminum focus distance.





chrysoberyl said:


> The current 100L is too heavy and long. No, just kidding. But it doesn't seem that sharp, compared to the Milvus 100 and the Sigma 135 Art. How's that for a complaint? I do enjoy using it with tubes, though.


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> The 100L MFD is 12", much closer than the Milvus 100 (17") and the Sigma 135 Art (35"). I like the 100L with ET's because of the resulting magnification. I rarely use the Sigma at MFD; as you state, it is not at its sharpest at MFD, so I use it at a minimum of ~4'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the 100L close up (not quite MFD), with no corrections of any sort. You're looking at 1:1 pixels of embroidery (thread) on fabric:







I'm not really sure how much sharper you could ask for!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 18, 2017)

Talys said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > The 100L MFD is 12", much closer than the Milvus 100 (17") and the Sigma 135 Art (35"). I like the 100L with ET's because of the resulting magnification. I rarely use the Sigma at MFD; as you state, it is not at its sharpest at MFD, so I use it at a minimum of ~4'.
> ...



The 50mf1.4 is sharper across the frame at f5.6 than the 100 L macro. I didn't believe it when I got mine but my personal lenses agree with TDP results.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 18, 2017)

Don't get me wrong - the 100L is definitely sharp! But comparing my copy to my other lenses, it is just not quite as sharp. This is an Asiatic Dayflower, and the blossom is 3/4".



Talys said:


> This is the 100L close up (not quite MFD), with no corrections of any sort. You're looking at 1:1 pixels of embroidery (thread) on fabric:
> 
> I'm not really sure how much sharper you could ask for!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 18, 2017)

And a shot taken with the Sigma 135.


----------



## Talys (Sep 19, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> And a shot taken with the Sigma 135.



Beautiful butterfly


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 19, 2017)

Thank you. 



Talys said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > And a shot taken with the Sigma 135.
> ...


----------

