Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6

[Canon Rumors]

Share

New Lens Formula Patents A new 400 f/4L IS non-DO would probably be a very welcomed lens. However, it will probably depend on the price of the 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x ($8000 I predict) as to whether or not it ever sees the light of day. The 200 f/5.6 is a strange one.

Patent Publication No. 2012-22105

• 2012.2.2 Release Date
• 2010.7.14 filing date

Example 1

• 392.00mm focal length
• Fno 4.12
• 3.15deg half angle of view.
• Image height 21.64mm
• Length 279.32mm lens
• BF 64.82mm
• 15 sheets of 12 group configuration
• An aspherical surface
• Inner focus
• Telephoto ratio 0.71

Example 3

• 200.00mm focal length
• Fno 5.77
• 6.18deg half angle of view.
• Image height 21.64mm
• Length 180.00mm lens
• BF 54.98mm
• 6 lenses in 5 groups configuration
• Telephoto ratio 0.90

Example 4

• 294.00mm focal length
• Fno 4.14
• 4.21deg half angle of view.
• Image height 21.64mm
• Length 239.85mm lens
• 14 images in 9 groups configuration
• An aspherical surface
• Inner Focus
• Telephoto ratio 0.815
• Telephoto lens
• Stretch the focal length, and miniaturized, on-axis chromatic aberration and lateral chromatic aberration occurs
• Tele photo lens type refers to the overall length is shorter than the focal length
• And telephoto ratio refers to the value obtained by dividing the focal length the total length
• Canon’s patent
• Using the lens refractive index distribution

 Source: [EG]

cr

[bvukich]

200/5.6???

Unless it's a macro (and even that would be a little wierd), that makes no sense whatsoever.

[EYEONE]

a 200mm f5.6 certainly is odd. A super cheap telephoto prime?

[kubelik]

yesssss!  I would love a 400mm f/4 L IS!  being able to add a 1.4x III onto this would be sweet for us full frame folks (the bare lens itself is awesome enough).

I know this is like, probably 5 years away from happening at the earliest, but I'm definitely willing to hold out for it.  besides, there's just no way I can afford the 200-400mm f/4 L.

[bornshooter]

200/5.6???

Unless it's a macro (and even that would be a little wierd), that makes no sense whatsoever.

yeah a 200/5.6 is strange but these are just patents i bet theres loads of strange ones that canon have no intention of putting into production.

[pharp]

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_f82/egami/2012_22105_fig01.png

Looks like a macro, but it would have to be amazing to lose more than a stop from the 180mm. Odd.

[vlim]

A 400 f/4 L IS and weather sealed would be a dream and an instant favorite lens for numbers of wildlife photographers if the price is correct (i bet between 2500 and 3000$)...

If  one of the 300 f/4 L IS II weather sealed or the 400 f/4 L IS is due to be produced this year i'll be a buyer for sure !

[traveller]

What advantage is an f/5.6 macro (other than cheaper)?

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock.  Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.  I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS. 

[preppyak]

a 200mm f5.6 certainly is odd. A super cheap telephoto prime?

That was my thought, but, it'd have to be like $2-300 for it even really sell, since the 200 f/2.8 is only an $800 lens. They've had a lot of success with the cheaper primes (50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, etc) for hobbyists, this could fill that same kind of void, but, I question how profitable it would be to sell a 200mm f/5.6 for less than $500.

But, they might just be beating others to the punch with the patent, even if they know they won't produce it.

[Cetalis]

Any chance that the 200 f/5.6 is a IS'd T/S macro? Can't think of any other explanation.

[lol]

A 200mm f/5.6 macro could make sense, within some limits. Other macro lenses tend to be f/2.8 to allow AF to work at closer focus distances, since at 1:1 macro the effective aperture of a f/2.8 lens is f/5.6, the nominal limit of phase AF. If you sacrifice close focus AF, then making the lens f/5.6 would make it significantly cheaper and lighter. Bear in mind the depth of field in macro is already very thin, most macro shots are stopped down, so I don't think the slow aperture will be an issue in this application. Overall I think it would be very niche though. Near macro it would be MF only, which is ok for most macro uses, but would you want to use a 200mm f/5.6 AF at further distances? Might as well make it MF only, and offer more than 1x magnification, like a long version of the MP-E65.

[JR]

A new 300mm f4 would be sooooooo cool!  Where do I sign?   

[EYEONE]

Given that the aperture closes up as you reach the minimum focusing distance (even though Canon doesn't report the change) starting at f5.6 would make this a very slow lens for macro work without a flash.

[dstppy]

Am I the only one that sees the 200 as either an attempt to go much cheaper or lighter/smaller?

[kubelik]

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock.  Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.  I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens.  that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.