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

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Its not a patent for a zoom and does not apply to a zoom.  While you can apply multiple patents to a lens, they must  be used in the lens, and this one is specifically a prime.

[vlim]

They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ

But many users who bought that lens have been disapointed considering its high price

[jrista]

They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ

But many users who bought that lens have been disapointed considering its high price

I think the complaints, like many things related to IQ and modern camera gear, are overblown. Consider the number of good, often GLOWING, reviews from real-world users (fredmiranda users generally seem to think the key "con" is price, and a few seem to think it sometimes needs a slight contrast boost in post...its very rare that anyone really complains about IQ in a major way):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=41&sort=7&cat=2&page=1
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/159/cat/14/limit/recent/date/1067115672

I see it akin to the love/hate split with the Canon 7D. Owning it myself, its a fantastic camera with excellent IQ in every real-world scenario. Its only the pixel-peepers who have a lot of complaints, and I believe their approach to IQ evaluation tends to be particularly flawed. Complaining about a slight drop in contrast with a lens like the 400 DO in the digital age is like complaining that noise on an 18mp sensor at 100% crop appears worse than a 10mp sensor at 100% crop: its largely pointless, as it can all be corrected with a few EASY post-processing tweaks, and is all going to be imperceptible in print regardless.

[KeithR]

I think the complaints, like many things related to IQ and modern camera gear, are overblown. Consider the number of good, often GLOWING, reviews from real-world users (fredmiranda users generally seem to think the key "con" is price, and a few seem to think it sometimes needs a slight contrast boost in post...its very rare that anyone really complains about IQ in a major way

Exactly - the issues raised by most 400MM f/4 DO owners relate to the idea that for the price it should be "perfect".

I see it akin to the love/hate split with the Canon 7D. Owning it myself, its a fantastic camera with excellent IQ in every real-world scenario.

Indeed. Bird photography has very high de facto IQ standards, I'm as fussy as hell about IQ (I have a constant stream of people beating a path to my door to ask me how I get mine) and I simply would not countenance a 7D if it wasn't capable of fantastic results.

Its only the pixel-peepers who have a lot of complaints, and I believe their approach to IQ evaluation tends to be particularly flawed.

That, and - usually - a flawed and unintelligent approach to conversion and post processing.

Back to the 400mm DO, I've seen enough about that lens to know that it'd probably be my ideal lens (light enough for a comfortable day in the field shooting birds, and very capable with a TC) and - like many - for me it's only the price that gets in the way.

I can (and did) buy a brand new, official UK stock Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS for half the price of a used 400mm DO.

[noncho]

Nice patents, but I prefer to see not so expensive and large 200 2.8 IS and 400 5.6 IS 

[kubelik]

Keithr and jrista, just curious, are you guys not bothered by the donut bokeh?  I've never shot with a DO lens and don't do enouggh birding to know how critical that is, so I'm interested in your take on that.

[AdamJ]

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

Of course not - with an image height of 21mm, the image would not cover a full frame sensor.

Just so that we're clear on this, the image height is the radius of the image circle. These patents apply to FF lenses.

[KeithR]

Keithr and jrista, just curious, are you guys not bothered by the donut bokeh?  I've never shot with a DO lens and don't do enough birding to know how critical that is, so I'm interested in your take on that.

I've never actually seen bad bokeh from a 400mm DO used in a birding context - this isn't a mirror lens (donut bokeh from which can be a serious issue), and what I've seen corresponds well to the comments in this review:
 

The "bokeh", or characteristics of the out-of-focus portion of an image, is considered by many (me included) to be of great importance in defining the "signature" or characteristics of a lens. In the frame above, where I was focused on the foreground vegetation and the line of cranes was allowed to go soft, they have a very lovely soft-edged quality. Good bokeh, as the Japanese would call it.

[jrista]

Keithr and jrista, just curious, are you guys not bothered by the donut bokeh?  I've never shot with a DO lens and don't do enouggh birding to know how critical that is, so I'm interested in your take on that.

I don't believe the 400 DO has "donut bokeh". Thats usually something you get with catadioptric lenses, and is caused by secondary mirror obstruction. The 400 DO is NOT a catadioptric lens, its a standard type lens with a couple specially ground glass elements in the front element group....very different things. From what I've seen, the bokeh of the 400/4 DO is better than the 100-400 @ 400. Sharpness is also better, from what I've been able to tell by digging around the net for comparison shots. People complain about contrast, but it must be an incredibly minor effect, as I've never been able to notice any difference in contrast myself. A good writeup about the lens with some sample shots comparing the 400 DO with the 300/2.8 can be found at Luminous Landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400-do.shtml.

I think there is a whole subculture mythology that has sprung up around the 400 DO, and its given this lens a really bad name based on a bunch of assumption and unfounded speculation. The diffraction grating will take a toll on resolution...but it is a MINUSCULE toll...not something that is going to matter unless you are enlarging your shots 3 fold or more, and even then, thats really pushing it for ANY lens. That assumes your camera is capable of capturing all the resolution the lens has to offer in the first place...if its not, any complaints about the 400 DO not offering as much resolution as a non-DO counterpart are pointless on their face. For everything else, from all the real-world reviews from actual photographers (photographers, not reviewers), the IQ seems to be SUPERB. Its really sad that people think its such a terrible lens...IMO, its a genius lens, offering pretty awesome optics and a wide aperture in an amazingly handy, useful size that won't tire you out through a day of tracking birds or wildlife as much as a normal 400/4 lens would.