Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

This is the first I have seen this sort of patent. Canon has filed an optical formula patent for a diffractive optic macro lens. What better lens to upgrade with a DO version than the long-in-the-tooth Canon EF 180 f/3.5L Macro?

Patent Information (Google Translated)

• Patent Publication No. 2014-137484
  • Publication date 2014.7.28
  • Filing date 2013.1.17
• Example 1
  • Focal length f = 180.00mm
  • Shooting magnification ∞ 0.5x 1.0x
  • Fno. 3.50-4.50-5.20
  • Half angle ω = 6.85 °
  • Image height 21.64mm
  • The overall length of the lens 202.38mm
  • BF 52.18mm

Source: [EG]

cr

[ScottyP]

Seems like they would want to shrink a bigger telephoto lens before a macro but maybe.  I also wonder if the price would be beyond what most folks would pay for a macro?

[neuroanatomist]

What better lens to upgrade with a DO version than the long-in-the-tooth Canon EF 180 f/3.5L Macro?

Indeed, because (1) the current 180L is way too big, (2) DO elements dramatically reduce lateral CA, which is just horrible on the current 180L, and (3) DO elements create onion ring bokeh, but that's ok because bokeh is totally unimportant in macro shooting.

 

[privatebydesign]

I used the 70-300 DO once, never again. I'd love to know how many 400 DO's they sell and if the people that buy them are legally blind.

[RGF]

I used the 70-300 DO once, never again. I'd love to know how many 400 DO's they sell and if the people that buy them are legally blind.

I had both.  Decided that the 70-300L was better fit than the DO so I sold the 70-300DO.

Had the 400 DO, and while good, it was not that good.  In the end image quality was more important than weight.

[mackguyver]

I've been hoping for a 180 II, but was hoping for f/2.8, 9 bladed diaphragm, and the like, not DO.  Let's hope this is just a defensive patent.

[Vossie]

(3) DO elements create onion ring bokeh, but that's ok because bokeh is totally unimportant in macro shooting.

Neuro, I probably miss the meaning of the smiley, but for me the aesthetic quality of the out-of-focus areas  make or break a good macro photo.

I have never used a DO lens myself, but have looked at many photos from DO lenses on the net and agree that OOF areas typically look a bit nervous and not very pleasing.

[Chaitanya]

If they really go with a DO design for this macro, I will get a sigma 180mm f2.8 .

[tayassu]

(3) DO elements create onion ring bokeh, but that's ok because bokeh is totally unimportant in macro shooting.

Neuro, I probably miss the meaning of the smiley, but for me the aesthetic quality of the out-of-focus areas  make or break a good macro photo.

+1
For me, bokeh is very important in macro shooting. But probably, you shoot macro at f/16+ and I do it at f/2.8, so we're talking different things. 

[pierlux]

The 400 and 70-300 DO are 13 and 10 years old, respectively. Moreover, they were the first of their kind to appear as photographic lenses (I think, as far as I recall, were they actually?). So why do we assume the new DO lenses, should they ever hit the shelves, will have the same IQ issues of their predecessors? IMHO, along with a higher price as compared with their non-DO counterparts, if any, they will offer much better IQ than the previous generation of DO lenses.

[mrzero]

I've been hoping for a 180 II, but was hoping for f/2.8, 9 bladed diaphragm, and the like, not DO.  Let's hope this is just a defensive patent.

Ditto.  And IS.

[NancyP]

I really like my 180L, but it is a large and heavy lens, made tolerable by the comparison with my beloved 400 f/5.6L, which is a few grams lighter. I tend to use the 180L with a monopod and loose tilt head or with the "Lord V" method of stabilization (grab onto a stick planted in the ground, move up and down as needed, focus by leaning stick forward or back). I happen to like the bokeh and the color/contrast on the 180L, and of course the working room is great to have.  IS and f/2.8 and more engineering plastic would be nice to have....

Canon has lots of DO patents, lots of patents of all kinds. I think that they do "defensive" patents.

[wsmith96]

I don't know much about DO, but the optics leave a funny looking bokeh?  Does anyone have a picture showing the onion ring effect?

[wsmith96]

Oh, I see what you are talking about.  Found a picture of it here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1248658

not very appealing to me.

[privatebydesign]

I don't know much about DO, but the optics leave a funny looking bokeh?  Does anyone have a picture showing the onion ring effect?

It is mainly specular highlights that cause the problem. I can imagine many shooting with it and loving it they don't shoot that kind of highlight, but if you regularly shoot with those kinds of highlights it is very distracting.

But it can be caused in more situations. Here is a very good example of how DO can impact a shot, the foreground flowers are not over exposed but are rendered into weird outlines which is exacerbated by the specular highlights on the water.


http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/