Patent: Canon EF 1000mm f/5.6 IS DO
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
neuroanatomist said:Andyx01 said:Wouldn't it make more sense to call this the 1 meter lens?
Such a small number. Americans wouldn't buy it.
They could call it the 40" lens.
Upvote
0
The front element would be 950/5,6 = 163,8 mm across, not 178.9VIII said:
Anyway, just do the math 125mm/178mm = f/0,702
The aperture diameter notation f/ literally means "focal length divided by".
Reducing the focal length without reducing the diameter is not easy. It means higher refractive index through thicker glass or worse glass types, both which have bi-effects like more CA, coma, field flatness and more. If you keep reducing FL you will eventually end up with the worst glass and run out of air in between the lenses. Look at 50mm f/0,95 lenses to get an idea of both how stuffed they are with glass and how they perform optically at large apertures. I assume the DO lens design would be more difficult too. Especially manufacturability (failure rate/cost) and contrast.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:FramerMCB said:I believe the OP'er was referring to only the current Canon user group - significantly less than 7 billion. Say around 10-15 million (this is a purely hypothetical WAG on my part), so maybe around 100,000 or so (1% of 10M)...
If Canon makes this lens and actually sells 100,000 of them, I'd eat my hat (if I wore a hat). It'll be priced high enough to recoup development costs, but really a lens like this is all about promoting the brand with the 'wow factor'.
And how many of these has Sigma sold?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=551435&gclid=CJLmkbLflc0CFU88gQodhtALQw&is=REG&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C52934715962%2C&A=details&Q=
If the price for the Canon beast is $20K, even if they sell 500 world wide, which may be aggressive, the $10M probably does not cover full development costs, but I am also sure in producing the lens, they gained knowledge and insight., but I am thinking this will be more in the $16K range.
I am sure Military and Intelligence agencies would be all over this
Probably manual focus with a 2X teleconverter
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
Somone willing to pay $1500 to shave a inch off the length. I doubt that there are that many.
Upvote
0
Perhaps the reason why the 1dx2 is able to focus at f8 on all points?
1000mm 5.6 + 1.4 teleconverter?
1000mm 5.6 + 1.4 teleconverter?
Upvote
0
Bennymiata said:
Well it works for a lot of existing combinations too - 500+2x, 600+2x, 800+1.4x etc.
Upvote
0
flyingSquirrel
Extreme Nature Photog
Has anyone in this thread mentioned atmospheric distortion? When you start getting into the high mm lenses, even shooting over not too long of distances, atmospheric distortion becomes a problem regularly. And especially if you have a TC and/or a crop sensor camera.
Shooting my 500 f/4 on a 7D mk II, and often with a 1.4x, I sometimes get mushy photos - and I know it's atmospheric distortion because I know what it looks like, compared to bad settings or poor technique. Especially right at those ideal times and places for good wildlife - sunrise / morning light, over fields or water. For example bald eagles fishing in a harbor a while after sunrise.
I would be more inclined to be interested in a supertelephoto (especially a monster like this) if it had some way to mitigate atmospheric distortion - built into the lens, or a feature of a camera body.
Shooting my 500 f/4 on a 7D mk II, and often with a 1.4x, I sometimes get mushy photos - and I know it's atmospheric distortion because I know what it looks like, compared to bad settings or poor technique. Especially right at those ideal times and places for good wildlife - sunrise / morning light, over fields or water. For example bald eagles fishing in a harbor a while after sunrise.
I would be more inclined to be interested in a supertelephoto (especially a monster like this) if it had some way to mitigate atmospheric distortion - built into the lens, or a feature of a camera body.
Upvote
0
Atmospheric thermal distortion drives me nuts when shooting wildlife at large distances on the Pawnee Grassland in Colorado. Getting close to antelope is almost impossible. They can see you from hundreds of yards away and run off. I have shot a distant windmill over a season at 86, 60 and 45 degrees F. At 45 degrees the thermal blurring is less, but still awful. Attached is a shot taken a couple weeks ago of antelope estimated around 500 yards away, and a windmill beyond that. 5DsR, 100-400mm II with 1.4X TC III. Out of about 50 shots, fewer than 3 were usable, and I use the term loosely. I would like to know what it is like for those on safari in Africa. Is the thermal issue different at lower altitudes than mile-high Colorado?
Attachments
Upvote
0
nc0b said:
Differs. But generally you go to shoot as early as possible in the morning for the same reason. Also, most tend to travel during our summer = their winter, which helps. Last time I was on a Safari it was in fact bitterly cold most of the time with a touch of frost a couple of mornings.
Upvote
0
flyingSquirrel said:
From my experience, it's rarely a problem. It is obvious as you say, once you know what to look for, and if you're shooting over fairly large distances (a hundred metres or more, say) in warm conditions, it can be problematic (for instance, I had a lot of this doing seabird shots recently). But shots from great distances are for records only anyway, in general (admittedly I live in a cooler part of the world, and tend to shoot small birds, so the distances are less, and distortion rarer).
As for mitigating it, I don't think that's possible. The only systems that can are those found on modern institutional telescopes, where they shoot a laser into the atmosphere, measure the distortion, and factor that into their imaging. Hardly practical!
Upvote
0
Thermal distortion in real time, when it exists, is very obvious when using a pair of Canon 10X42 L IS binoculars. The magnification is equivalent to a 500mm lens, chromatic aberration with the only L quality binoculars is significantly better than the other Canon offering, and the IS is fantastic.
Today I was looking in the same direction as my earlier sample picture with a very thermally distorted windmill, and I wasn't seeing much distortion with the binoculars. The temperature was 90 degrees, but the sun was behind clouds, and there was a 10 to 12 MPH breeze.
I used the same setup as before, 5DsR, 100-400mm II and 1.4X TC III at 560mm equivalent focal length. Even though the windmill blades were facing a different direction, the distortion of the legs was much less. I also shot an oil well that is a mile away, and the distortion is relatively low considering the 90 degree temperature and distance involved. Between the clouds blocking the direct sun, and possibly the wind, the difference between the two shooting days was amazing. Too bad there weren't any antelope today!
Today I was looking in the same direction as my earlier sample picture with a very thermally distorted windmill, and I wasn't seeing much distortion with the binoculars. The temperature was 90 degrees, but the sun was behind clouds, and there was a 10 to 12 MPH breeze.
I used the same setup as before, 5DsR, 100-400mm II and 1.4X TC III at 560mm equivalent focal length. Even though the windmill blades were facing a different direction, the distortion of the legs was much less. I also shot an oil well that is a mile away, and the distortion is relatively low considering the 90 degree temperature and distance involved. Between the clouds blocking the direct sun, and possibly the wind, the difference between the two shooting days was amazing. Too bad there weren't any antelope today!
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
