Canon Gets 300mm Creative

[Richard CR]

We have an interesting patent application (2026-004766) for you today. This is a patent for a Canon RF 300mm f/2.L IS USM. Now, as we have discussed previously, the 300mm f/2.8 is still noticeably missing, and while we lust for a Canon RF 300mm f2L IS USM, maybe the world needs a more affordable Canon […]

See full article...

 

[Tom Raymond]

In 1981, Nikon made a few 300mm F2.0 lenses. Manual focus of course. I have seen pictures of these beasts, I think weighing in at over 15 pounds.

 

[juststeve]

Given the compact appearance of this lens, could this be a diffractive optics lens? Lens length from front element to rear filter looks to be about 250 mm, allowing for a front element of 112 mm and my use of dial calipers to approximate length (questionable, perhaps). And notice the ragged elements drawn in note GP. DO indicators? Nikon has been doing well it seems with its diffractive optics telephotos. Maybe Canon, the pioneer, is wanting to show folks just how to do it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Given the compact appearance of this lens, could this be a diffractive optics lens? Lens length from front element to rear filter looks to be about 250 mm, allowing for a front element of 112 mm and my use of dial calipers to approximate length (questionable, perhaps). And notice the ragged elements drawn in note GP. DO indicators? Nikon has been doing well it seems with its diffractive optics telephotos. Maybe Canon, the pioneer, is wanting to show folks just how to do it.

The length is in the patent. 296mm, subtract 20mm for the flange distance and it’s 276mm from front element to lens mount.

Why a 112mm front element? 300 / 2.8 = 107mm, but it’s really 300.6 / 2.91 = 103mm.

 

[DhlcadR6]

One up the Sony 300mm GM, gearholics are desperate for arms race

 

[juststeve]

112 mm was a number floating around in my brain after a long day. Something one might see mentioned in a 100-300/2.8 spec sheet. A filter diameter, alas. Took my caliper over to my 35 year old 300/2.8 L and saw its front diameter was 110 plus mm at the rubber lip. Likely about 104 mm at the glass. Whatever, the design presented in the patent appears to me to have the glass remarkably compressed to allow for the converter elements. And that GP notation might well mean something special. Diffractive optics, blue goo, I am only guessing. Something to do late after a long day.

 

[Richard CR]

Given the compact appearance of this lens, could this be a diffractive optics lens? Lens length from front element to rear filter looks to be about 250 mm, allowing for a front element of 112 mm and my use of dial calipers to approximate length (questionable, perhaps). And notice the ragged elements drawn in note GP. DO indicators? Nikon has been doing well it seems with its diffractive optics telephotos. Maybe Canon, the pioneer, is wanting to show folks just how to do it.

The Canon ef 300mm F2.8 II is 248mm + 44mm for focal plane or 292mm, this patent application is around the same as that, and even a few mm's longer at 297mm.

so it's the same sizing as the EF version.

Gp just indicates a positive lens, no special elements involved.

A DO'ed 300mm would be ~170-180mm if even possible, going by the same size reduction of the 400mm

 

[mimbu]

In 1981, Nikon made a few 300mm F2.0 lenses. Manual focus of course. I have seen pictures of these beasts, I think weighing in at over 15 pounds.

Nikon made about 440 of them, based on known serial numbers. I've seen perhaps 10 in person, one was brand new in its box. They came with a special 1.4x TC that was specific to that lens. Very cool.

Canon made a very small number of EF 300/1.8L lenses as well, but AFAIK they were only sold to horse tracks in Japan. There are photos online but I've never seen one in person.

 

[Richard CR]

Nikon made about 440 of them, based on known serial numbers. I've seen perhaps 10 in person, one was brand new in its box. They came with a special 1.4x TC that was specific to that lens. Very cool.

Canon made a very small number of EF 300/1.8L lenses as well, but AFAIK they were only sold to horse tracks in Japan. There are photos online but I've never seen one in person.

i personally think the nikkor 7.5mm is the coolest lens ever.

but i digress.

 

[Chig]

A 300mm f/2.0 with 1.4x and 2x builtin extenders would be even nicer:
420mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 at the flick of a switch

I keep suggesting this and keep hoping Canon's listening.

Also a 200mm f/1.4 with 1.4x and 2x builtin
280mm f/2.0 and 400mm f/2.8

 

[Planterz]

Interestingly, Sigma just filed a patent for a 300mm f2.8 too. Obviously not for RF mount, probably just L and Sony E (just like the 500mm f5.6 and 200mm f2.0).

A 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4x TC would be amazing for airshows. Good wildlife lens with the R7 II, as long as the R7 II meets our lofty expectations.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

A 300mm f/2.0 with 1.4x and 2x builtin extenders would be even nicer:
420mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 at the flick of a switch

I keep suggesting this and keep hoping Canon's listening.

Also a 200mm f/1.4 with 1.4x and 2x builtin
280mm f/2.0 and 400mm f/2.8

The sweet spot for integrated teleconverters is the 400mm f2.8. With a 1.4 it's close to a 600/f4 and with a 2x it's a 800/f5.6. You get a small lens package, that is light and easly to lug about (compared with the 600/4) and the 400/2.8 has a much closer MFD which some times helps. Also the brighter optics help if you can move closer to your subject.
Where the 600/f4 kicks it's butt is when you put a 2x on the 600/4 and get a 1200mm f8 (which is well beyond the reach of a 400/2.8) and with a 1.4x to get a similar 800/f5.6 but with less stressed optics, AF and IS.
The problem with 400-600mm zoom designs is that you basically have a 600mm f4 that can go wider, it's not a 400/2.8 that can go longer. So you get the size and heft of the 600mm f4 and not the benefits that a 400/2.8 has. What would be cool is a 400mm f2.8 with an integrated 1.5x TC for a 600mm. The you could pop another 1.4x TC on for more reach and still ahve a small(ish) and more portable rig.