Patent: Dual internal teleconverter telephoto lens.

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
301
116
Awesome!

I don't think it needs to be flat, though. It could be very very slightly conical, and that would mean the unused lenses would be splayed out a bit, which would keep them from occluding each other...
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
851
130
Ok, just give me 50mm that becomes 70mm and 35mm.
A question to those who understand lens design - would the lens reducer work the same with a 50mm lens?

My limited understanding is it's easy to add a focal length reducer in this case because 400mm / 5.6 is larger than a full frame sensor's diagonal, similar to what's done with speed boosters from FF lenses to crop bodies. My understanding is repeating the trick with a 50mm would require it to have a much larger power of coverage, similar to the TS-E 45mm (though without the mechanics to tilt and shift it, which isn't trivial).
 

BobG

EOS M50
Jul 2, 2014
26
9
I would have “settled” for a 400/2.8 with 1.4x builtin, as a replacement for my 400 mk II. The 200-400 is too slow for some of the events I cover.

If a reducer could be added, enabling 280(?) f/2, that would be absolutely mind-blowing!

$20k or thereabouts, but worth every penny...
why so expensive ?
The basic 400F5.6 is £1200, adding a couple of inbuilt converters at £450 each would take it to the same price region as the 100-400 Mk 2. This would make a decent birders lens.
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
Dec 16, 2011
323
27
Canon rocks with lenses!!! imagine if Canon makes lenses for Sony and Nikon we will have best of all worlds. Best Sensor Tech (Sony), Best weather sealing and ergonomics (Nikon&Canon), Fantastic Lenses (Canon)
Yeah. Too bad the stills world isn't like TV/"Movie" production.

PL mount Canon 17-120 on Sony F55
184565



Heck, at one point Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Angenieux all built 2/3" B4 mount lenses for TV cameras. It's just Canon and Fuji, today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldenhusky

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
178
73
That is rather clever. But will we get a 300 f/4 with very poor mfd like the 400 f/5.6 or will that improve to get something more like the current 300 f/4L. 300 f/4L IS is a great lens for floral portraits and larger insect work like dragonflies etc. But current 100-400 are even better.
 

awair

EOS T7i
Jan 3, 2013
93
7
photo.awair.net
I would have “settled” for a 400/2.8 with 1.4x builtin...

...

$20k or thereabouts, but worth every penny...
why so expensive ?
The basic 400F5.6 is £1200, adding a couple of inbuilt converters at £450 each would take it to the same price region as the 100-400 Mk 2. This would make a decent birders lens.
With the 400/2.8 (II) recently at $10k (now reduced), the 200-400 at $11k, and the new 400/2.8 (III) at $12k, I think adding a 1.4x to the 400 would more than likely add $2-3000 to the cost (never mind the sales price). With a reducer as well, it would still be a bargain!