Canon EF 600mm DO BR prototype at EXPO 2015

[chromophore]

There are two objects: one is a semi-working prototype that I presume to have actual optics inside to demonstrate the imaging performance (this is the one that's mounted to a camera). The other is a cosmetic prototype that shows how the lens might look in final production form. I would bet that neither lens has a functioning autofocus assembly. The one with optics seems to only have a manual focusing ring.

The use of BR and DO technology in a single lens would permit this significant reduction in length, since both technologies are able to refract blue wavelengths more than red wavelengths. As to whether it would still use fluorite, I don't know. BR could very well be a replacement for fluorite in the long run.

Bear in mind, however, that DO technology still has yet to rival non-DO equivalents in terms of imaging resolution and rendition of bokeh. Traditional glass still has a small advantage, and with the use of teleconverters, this advantage becomes more apparent.

 

[Meatcurry]

Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.

So it's just one new lens we're looking at. Okay.

- A

Could be the current 600 f4 to show size/weight comparison with DO prototype?

 

[kubelik]

Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.

So it's just one new lens we're looking at. Okay.

- A

Could be the current 600 f4 to show size/weight comparison with DO prototype?

I think you've nailed that on the head. they always do DO and non-DO side by side to show the size and weight savings

 

[ahsanford]

Fair point -- this should get a green ring and not a red one, right?

#details

- A

 

[Meatcurry]

Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.

So it's just one new lens we're looking at. Okay.

- A

Could be the current 600 f4 to show size/weight comparison with DO prototype?

Yep, just checked some pics of current 600 f4 NON DO and it's identical to the second pic, so I guess it's there to compare size and weight etc

I think you've nailed that on the head. they always do DO and non-DO side by side to show the size and weight savings

 

[chromophore]

Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.

So it's just one new lens we're looking at. Okay.

- A

Could be the current 600 f4 to show size/weight comparison with DO prototype?

I think you've nailed that on the head. they always do DO and non-DO side by side to show the size and weight savings

No. The second photo, with the red ring, is not the existing EF 600/4L IS II. It's much too short. Compare with the image at The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Even the fact that the photo was taken at an angle, there is simply no way that this lens could be a production model. The dimensions are all wrong. Just compare the manual focusing rings. The 600/4L IS II has an enormous MF ring. The prototype does not.

 

[Meatcurry]

Waaaaaait a minute. That second picture just looks like the non-DO 600mm L prime.

So it's just one new lens we're looking at. Okay.

- A

Yep, I no longer think it's the 600, not even sure it's the 400 either

Could be the current 600 f4 to show size/weight comparison with DO prototype?

I think you've nailed that on the head. they always do DO and non-DO side by side to show the size and weight savings

No. The second photo, with the red ring, is not the existing EF 600/4L IS II. It's much too short. Compare with the image at The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Even the fact that the photo was taken at an angle, there is simply no way that this lens could be a production model. The dimensions are all wrong. Just compare the manual focusing rings. The 600/4L IS II has an enormous MF ring. The prototype does not.

 

[Dianoda]

...
No. The second photo, with the red ring, is not the existing EF 600/4L IS II. It's much too short. Compare with the image at The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
...

The second image is the 400/f2.8L II IS USM.

It's not the current 400mm f/2.8L II, take a look at the second image and notice the area after the red ring where the lens is constant diameter - the 400mm F/2.8L II tapers off in diameter almost immediately after the red ring. Try comparing it to product images for the 400mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Big-Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=741

 

[Meatcurry]

...
No. The second photo, with the red ring, is not the existing EF 600/4L IS II. It's much too short. Compare with the image at The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
...

The second image is the 400/f2.8L II IS USM.

It's not the current 400mm f/2.8L II, take a look at the second image and notice the area after the red ring where the lens is constant diameter - the 400mm F/2.8L II tapers off in diameter almost immediately after the red ring. Try comparing it to product images for the 400mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Big-Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=741

I guess it IS the 600 f4 DO then

 

[grainier]

15-20K?

 

[Dylan777]

Somehow, I doubt that this is the new "affordable telephoto" rumoured to be added to the Canon lineup.....

The size looks really good. If the weight is some where near 300mm f2.8 IS II or less, I think it will be a KILLER.

 

[can0nfan2379]

I would guess about US14K.

It looks comparable in size with the 300mm f/2,8 which is amazing
[/quote]

14k would be my guess as well. Anyone here need a kidney & a half a lung?......

 

[chromophore]

Such a design is guaranteed to be noticeably larger and heavier than the 300/2.8L IS II. A 600/4, DO and BR or otherwise, must have a front element diameter of at least 150mm, otherwise it cannot achieve f/4. The 300/2.8L IS II design has a front element diameter of approximately 108mm. The 600/4 will be approximately 40% larger in diameter. It's not possible to make it as small as a 300/2.8 even with DO and BR. Those technologies can make the lens shorter but not narrower. The weight savings come primarily from making the lens barrel shorter, and to a lesser extent, from reducing the total mass of optical elements.

Traditionally, if you make a long focal length lens shorter (more telephoto), you necessarily increase the refractive power of the individual elements, which is either accomplished by increasing the material refractive index, and/or by increasing the curvature of the lens elements. But in the first case, increasing refractive index increases dispersion and therefore chromatic aberration, to unacceptable levels; in the second case, increasing curvature increases spherical aberration as well as substantially increases the mass of the elements (thicker glass).

Canon's solution to this problem can be grouped into generations. The first generation telephotos used UD/Super UD glass, which had low dispersion, to control chromatic aberration. The second generation used pure fluorite crystal (CaF2) which, in addition to low dispersion, has anomalous dispersion in the violet portion of the spectrum. The third generation saw the use of diffractive optics (DO) to simultaneously increase refractive power and correct chromatic aberration while reducing weight.

And now, we are in the fourth generation, with blue refractive (BR) technology.

Nevertheless, certain laws of optics cannot be violated: you cannot design a lens whose f-number is faster than the entrance pupil will allow.

 

[candc]

Using do optics is supposed to allow a 30% length and 25% weight reduction compared to conventional refractive optics. That would make it 12-13 inches and 6-6 1/2 lbs I reckon.

 

[[email protected]]

As to price, I think the $14K+ estimates are very off. If the 400mm version of this goes for about $7k, the 600 should go for closer to $10-12k. If the IQ is as we expect, now that we see what the 400 DO II can do without even having the BR tech, I suspect this simply replaces the 600 f/4 II and fits right into the price niche as well.

 

[Orangutan]

While you folks have been chatting, Neuro has already pre-ordered his. ;D

 

[dolina]

Anyone have an idea on the physical length of the lens?

 

[applecider]

As to price, I think the $14K+ estimates are very off. If the 400mm version of this goes for about $7k, the 600 should go for closer to $10-12k. If the IQ is as we expect, now that we see what the 400 DO II can do without even having the BR tech, I suspect this simply replaces the 600 f/4 II and fits right into the price niche as well.

Wishful thinking at 12 k, I'd say the price is right up to 15,998.

See what I did there, didn't say US dollars or euros or aus or Canadian so I've got a range covered! But it's not yen or lire.

 

[chromophore]

...
No. The second photo, with the red ring, is not the existing EF 600/4L IS II. It's much too short. Compare with the image at The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
...

The second image is the 400/f2.8L II IS USM.

It's not the current 400mm f/2.8L II, take a look at the second image and notice the area after the red ring where the lens is constant diameter - the 400mm F/2.8L II tapers off in diameter almost immediately after the red ring. Try comparing it to product images for the 400mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Big-Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=741

The #2 image is at a strange angle. allow for that and the tapering matches

No, it's not a "strange angle." The focusing ring on the prototype is only slightly wider (about 2x) than the AF stop button ring, whereas in the 400/2.8 L IS II, it is much more than twice as wide. Second, as was already point out, but you failed to read (and who else is surprised by this willful lack of reading comprehension?), the tapering after the red ring is different between the prototype and the 400/2.8. In the 400/2.8, the tapering begins almost immediately after the red ring. In the prototype, there is a significant white band behind the red ring before the barrel begins to taper.

 

[privatebydesign]

Anyone have an idea on the physical length of the lens?

31cm.