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

[BL]

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.

not to mention a very dim viewfinder

[hmmm]

Time for a dumb question: doesn't an image height of 21.64mm imply that these are all less than FF (24x36)?   These could be for ef-s (22.2x14., or even a future mirrorless system?   

I think more likely I'm just not understanding how the given image height factors into sensor size.   Anyone who can clarify, please do!   

[Dianoda]

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.

Unless Canon omitted the use of fluorite elements or other steps to drive down costs (no IS? weather-sealing?), you'd probably still be looking a final cost close to the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO.  Physics dictates that the diameter of the front objective would need to match that of the 400 f/4 DO IS, which is something like 122-125mm.  And given the advances in performance (AF speed/accuracy, optics) with the new III TCs, I doubt we'll ever get this lens from Canon.  An update to the 400 f/5.6 or 300 f/4 would make more sense.

[jlev23]

this means nothing.

[lol]

Time for a dumb question: doesn't an image height of 21.64mm imply that these are all less than FF (24x36)?   These could be for ef-s (22.2x14., or even a future mirrorless system?   

I think more likely I'm just not understanding how the given image height factors into sensor size.   Anyone who can clarify, please do!   

The "height" is from the middle of the image, since it doesn't matter which direction you go from there to form an image circle. The diagonal of a full frame sensor is sqrt(24^2+36^2) which is about 43.3mm, and half that is 21.6mm.

[wickidwombat]

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.

totally agree with you here a 400 f4 would be sweet

[Mooose]

No one will be able to use the 200mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender on a Canon 1DX!!!     

[KitH]

200mm f5.6. 

Two possibilities come to mind immediately for that aperture and focal length.

1) It's for a extremely high resolution lens, with absolutely no chromatic aberration or distortion.  Something like the Zeiss Superachromatic designs of the 1960s.  Many say their sharpness has never been matched and give stunning results in black and white and in color (although it's too sharp and unforgiving for flattering portraits).  Can also be used for IR photography as the focus is the same across a wide range of wavelengths.   Notable for it's six element design with one achromatic pair.

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF250SA.pdf   

They were limited-run productions and ferociously expensive because they had fluorite elements and they actually finished the lens design after they'd made the crystals and could measure the optical properties properly. 

Maybe Canon have found a way to make an achromatic without the cost of the fluorite elements.



2)  The other thought is that it's for a medical lens with a ring flash incorporated.  This is a Medical-Nikkor from the 1960s in 200mm f5.6.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/special/250medical.htm

They were used by dentists, cosmetic surgeons and dermatologists.   Especially useful for close-up shots without being too much in the patients' face.

[dilbert]

Time for a dumb question: doesn't an image height of 21.64mm imply that these are all less than FF (24x36)?   These could be for ef-s (22.2x14., or even a future mirrorless system?   

I think more likely I'm just not understanding how the given image height factors into sensor size.   Anyone who can clarify, please do!   

That image height is larger than is required by EF-S. It's also larger than is required for APS-H (1.3x crop from 1D series) but not large enough for FF.

There is something quite strange going on ...

Looking at the size of them:
400/4 - 28cm
200/5.6 - 18cm
300/4 - 24cm

Current models:
300/4 - 22cm
400/5.6 - 26cm
400/4 DO - 23cm

... why should the 300/4 and 400/4 in the patent be larger than is required for FF?

So here's my bet..

All three are "Cinema" lenses.

[AprilForever]

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 !

The front element of a 400 f4 would be nearly the same size as the front element of the 300 2.8 (they share the same hood and cover). As such, I doubt it will go for under 5000-6000 bucks...

Still, would be a nice lens... maybe they will make the 7D mk II to AF with f8 lenses...

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The examples are just that, some theoretical lenses that use the optical formula.  A actual production lens might be something totally different, and still be covered under the patent if it used the optical formula.

[AprilForever]

No one will be able to use the 200mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender on a Canon 1DX!!!     

HAR HAR!!!! 

[Edwin Herdman]

Great...120-300mm f/2.8 with 2X AND 400mm f/4 with 1.4x. 

Will be interesting to see the image results out of it if it launches.  I don't see it being cheaper than the 120-300mm + 2X III combo, and (the part that makes me less happy) it would require me to get all new parts (unless I didn't mind losing AF on the 7D - I suppose I could always try to hunt down an old full frame or even 1.3X body though - and 800mm equivalence from a prime would be very nice).

[dolina]

The 400/4 should sell for at least $7300 which makes the $11500 of the 400/2.8 IS II look like a bargain.

The price is derived from the 200/2, 300/2.8 version 1 and 2 and 400/4 DO that share a similar entry pupil diameter.

[Justin]

Multiple lens patents can lead to a single product. Thus we should entertain the possibility of a cheap zoom lens with a variable aperture ending at 200mm with a 5.6 aperture.