600mm L DO patented with 5.6 max. aperture

[AlanF]

As has been pointed out by many others many times in these forums, a 600mm EF-S or EF-M lens has the same size diameter front element as a FF lens and so very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

 

[Nininini]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

 

[ahsanford]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

+1

A few examples to consider, with a crop-only lens on the left and a FF equivalent on the right:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=838&LensComp=941&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=271&LensComp=949&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=856&LensComp=972&Units=E

(yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)

- A

 

[Don Haines]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

You can't compare an F5.6 lens to an F4 lens and claim it means APSC is lighter than FF....

I can just as easily say that the EF-S 17-55 lens, being heavier than the 24-70 F4 L lens means that FF lenses are lighter than the equivalent crop lens, and I would be equally wrong.

 

[ahsanford]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

You can't compare an F5.6 lens to an F4 lens and claim it means APSC is lighter than FF....

I can just as easily say that the EF-S 17-55 lens, being heavier than the 24-70 F4 L lens means that FF lenses are lighter than the equivalent crop lens, and I would be equally wrong.

See my three comparisons above. I tried my best to match max aperture.

The bottom line is that you need less real estate (in the barrel, optics, etc.) to do a similar job on a crop sensor than a FF sensor. So it's natural the lenses would be smaller and lighter.

- A

 

[9VIII]

Patents are for a optical formula, and they usually have multiple working models to demonstrate it. Picking out just one of those models (4) and then proclaiming that the patent is for that one alone is misleading at best.

The patent has five examples, but the formula can be used for almost any telephoto lens.

1.
Focal distance 390.97
F number 4.12
a half field angle (degree) -- 3.17
Image height 21.64
Whole length of the lens 255.66
BF 71.87

2.
Focal distance 392.00
F number 2.90
a half field angle (degree) -- 3.16
Image height 21.64
Whole length of the lens 337.95
BF 73.47

3.
Focal distance 391.00
F number 4.12
a half field angle (degree) -- 3.17
Image height 21.64
Whole length of the lens 255.66
BF 63.84

4.
Focal distance 585.00
F number 5.74
a half field angle (degree) -- 1.34
Image height 13.66
Whole length of the lens 299.25
BF 29.45

5.
Focal distance 786.20
F number 5.80
a half field angle (degree) -- 1.58
Image height 21.64
Whole length of the lens 485.25
BF 127.41

6.

YES!

They're moving ALL the Big Whites to Mirrorless!

 

[Loswr]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

+1

A few examples to consider, with a crop-only lens on the left and a FF equivalent on the right:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=838&LensComp=941&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=271&LensComp=949&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=856&LensComp=972&Units=E

(yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)

- A

–1

Note that Alan stated "telephoto lens" – your first two comparison links do not include any telephoto lenses and your third comparison link contains only one telephoto lens. Note that in context, we're referring to a telephoto lens design, i.e. the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (not an arbitrary categorization of lenses as wide/normal/telephoto/supertelephoto), and the EF-S 55-250 is not a telephoto lens design, whereas the patented 600mm lens under discussion is a telephoto lens. One aspect of the design for a telephoto lens is that the entrance pupil (the apparent optical location of the iris diaphragm) is approximately at the position of the front element, and since light must fill that entrance pupil, the diameter of the front element is approximated by focal lemgth divided by aperture number of the lens. It a telephoto design, the diameter of the image circle is not a limiting factor – but, there is not a significant advantage to designing an EF-S telephoto lens (but combining DO with the short flange focal distance of mirrorless could result in a meaningful length reduction).

 

[AlanF]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

+1

A few examples to consider, with a crop-only lens on the left and a FF equivalent on the right:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=838&LensComp=941&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=271&LensComp=949&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=856&LensComp=972&Units=E

(yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)

- A

–1

Note that Alan stated "telephoto lens" – your first two comparison links do not include any telephoto lenses and your third comparison link contains only one telephoto lens. Note that in context, we're referring to a telephoto lens design, i.e. the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (not an arbitrary categorization of lenses as wide/normal/telephoto/supertelephoto), and the EF-S 55-250 is not a telephoto lens design, whereas the patented 600mm lens under discussion is a telephoto lens. One aspect of the design for a telephoto lens is that the entrance pupil (the apparent optical location of the iris diaphragm) is approximately at the position of the front element, and since light must fill that entrance pupil, the diameter of the front element is approximated by focal lemgth divided by aperture number of the lens. It a telephoto design, the diameter of the image circle is not a limiting factor – but, there is not a significant advantage to designing an EF-S telephoto lens (but combining DO with the short flange focal distance of mirrorless could result in a meaningful length reduction).

+1
You have to compare like with like. The 55-250 EF-S weighs only 390 g because it is made of light plastic. The similarly made cheap 75-300mm III EF f/5.6 full frame weighs only 480 g, despite having a bigger front element. The two are similar in weight because they have been built down to a flimsy construction. The L lenses are heavy because of their heavy professional grade construction.

When it comes to a 600mm lens, the front element has to be 107mm or more on both FF and crop f/5.6 because of the fundamental laws of optics (diameter = 600/5.6 for both). The weight of the front element and the rugged body to hold the same major glass will be the same for both crop and FF lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

+1

A few examples to consider, with a crop-only lens on the left and a FF equivalent on the right:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=838&LensComp=941&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=271&LensComp=949&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=856&LensComp=972&Units=E

(yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)

- A

–1

Note that Alan stated "telephoto lens" – your first two comparison links do not include any telephoto lenses and your third comparison link contains only one telephoto lens. Note that in context, we're referring to a telephoto lens design, i.e. the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (not an arbitrary categorization of lenses as wide/normal/telephoto/supertelephoto), and the EF-S 55-250 is not a telephoto lens design, whereas the patented 600mm lens under discussion is a telephoto lens. One aspect of the design for a telephoto lens is that the entrance pupil (the apparent optical location of the iris diaphragm) is approximately at the position of the front element, and since light must fill that entrance pupil, the diameter of the front element is approximated by focal lemgth divided by aperture number of the lens. It a telephoto design, the diameter of the image circle is not a limiting factor – but, there is not a significant advantage to designing an EF-S telephoto lens (but combining DO with the short flange focal distance of mirrorless could result in a meaningful length reduction).

+1
You have to compare like with like. The 55-250 EF-S weighs only 390 g because it is made of light plastic. The similarly made cheap 75-300mm III EF f/5.6 full frame weighs only 480 g, despite having a bigger front element. The two are similar in weight because they have been built down to a flimsy construction. The L lenses are heavy because of their heavy professional grade construction.

When it comes to a 600mm lens, the front element has to be 107mm or more on both FF and crop f/5.6 because of the fundamental laws of optics (diameter = 600/5.6 for both). The weight of the front element and the rugged body to hold the same major glass will be the same for both crop and FF lenses.

Forgive me, I missed the word telephoto. You are correct.

The word isn't bossing me, though. In the broader sense, I linked three ways to get the same reach and same max aperture with a crop lens, which is perhaps more pertinent for me -- can I do the same job in a smaller package? In all three cases, the crop lenses were much smaller/lighter than their FF counterparts.

As to like-for-like materials, we're out of luck. People don't make crop lenses as solidly as they do with FF (save perhaps that Sigma to Sigma comparison I posted, or perhaps this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=468&LensComp=469&Units=E)

- A

 

[Wizardly]

Patents are for a optical formula, and they usually have multiple working models to demonstrate it. Picking out just one of those models (4) and then proclaiming that the patent is for that one alone is misleading at best.

YES! Thank you! Makes me wonder if anyone actually reads the patent before posting these "articles."

What I'm really curious about is how the distortions presented in the patents compare to the existing lenses. The size of the lenses seems to compare similarly with existing designs; the DO elements do not appear to make the lenses any smaller than the existing lenses. Also I noticed a lack of IS groups in the design, something that exists in the current 400 f/4 DO design.

 

[Loswr]

(yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)

Forgive me, I missed the word telephoto. You are correct.

The word isn't bossing me, though. In the broader sense, I linked three ways to get the same reach and same max aperture with a crop lens, which is perhaps more pertinent for me -- can I do the same job in a smaller package? In all three cases, the crop lenses were much smaller/lighter than their FF counterparts.

Seems you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot have the same reach, same aperture, and same total light gathering. In your same reach/aperture comparison, you'd need a lens 1.3-stops faster to gather the same total light...for a telephoto lens, an extra stop can add inches and pounds and cost thousands of dollars, and for a fast prime it may not be possible. Or, you can live with less total light and more image noise.

Equivalence is a bitch.

Of course, at lower ISOs the noise isn't significant, so the crop sensor/lens combo is a good, inexpensive option. It's when you start needing high shutter speeds in less bright light (which occurs at what are often the best times of day to shoot) that that ~1.3-stop difference really becomes an advantage for the FF body.

 

[RickWagoner]

very little weight is saved by having an EF-S rather than an EF telephoto lens.

false, my 55-250 EF-S STM lens has a puny weight compared to every full frame lens I compared ti with, from Canon to Sigma to Tamron, they were all at least twice the weight

a lot of weight can be saved by making dedicated crop lenses, not to mention the massive cost reduction

+1

A few examples to consider, with a crop-only lens on the left and a FF equivalent on the right:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=838&LensComp=941&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=271&LensComp=949&Units=E

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=856&LensComp=972&Units=E

(yes, DOF will be different, but light gathering will be the same -- you have to pick your poison with these comparisons)

- A

–1

Note that Alan stated "telephoto lens" – your first two comparison links do not include any telephoto lenses and your third comparison link contains only one telephoto lens. Note that in context, we're referring to a telephoto lens design, i.e. the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (not an arbitrary categorization of lenses as wide/normal/telephoto/supertelephoto), and the EF-S 55-250 is not a telephoto lens design, whereas the patented 600mm lens under discussion is a telephoto lens. One aspect of the design for a telephoto lens is that the entrance pupil (the apparent optical location of the iris diaphragm) is approximately at the position of the front element, and since light must fill that entrance pupil, the diameter of the front element is approximated by focal lemgth divided by aperture number of the lens. It a telephoto design, the diameter of the image circle is not a limiting factor – but, there is not a significant advantage to designing an EF-S telephoto lens (but combining DO with the short flange focal distance of mirrorless could result in a meaningful length reduction).

+1
You have to compare like with like. The 55-250 EF-S weighs only 390 g because it is made of light plastic. The similarly made cheap 75-300mm III EF f/5.6 full frame weighs only 480 g, despite having a bigger front element. The two are similar in weight because they have been built down to a flimsy construction. The L lenses are heavy because of their heavy professional grade construction.

When it comes to a 600mm lens, the front element has to be 107mm or more on both FF and crop f/5.6 because of the fundamental laws of optics (diameter = 600/5.6 for both). The weight of the front element and the rugged body to hold the same major glass will be the same for both crop and FF lenses.

Is it easily possible to build a light weight version of this lens, simply look at the Sigma spot vs the Tamon 150-600s. I would not call the Tamon anything near Flimsy construction. designing and producing a lens for ff vs aps-c are two very different beasts esp when the design of the front element is concerned. The 250 stm will walk the 75-300 crap any day in optics and Equivalent Reach is still greater by 100mm.

Canon is just piling on patents they themselves will never use, pointless thought of the company actually producing such a lens as it would destroy their ff 600mm and down L lenses. Nobody would bother using the 600mm prime at $12k when they can buy 600mm ef-s for $1k even the build like a tank L would be pointless to a pro that can buy a few back ups and still be well ahead in cost savings with the ef-s only.

 

[tron]

I wish they make a 600 5.6 DO BR Full Frame too. The f/4 prototype seems rather big and heavy.

OK not really monstrous big and heavy (apart from the diameter of the front element) but I am thinking of portability in the context of camera bags too.

 

[AlanF]

Rick, the point under discussion is that it would be of similar weight for both full frame and crop. Neither the Tamron 150-600mm or the Sigma C are "light", both are close to 2kg, and the plastic Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 is 2.3kg. The robustly made Sigma S 150-600mm is only 600g heavier than the C. Most of the weight is the glass.

 

[FEBS]

because most wildlife photographers are now shooting crop

they can't try to sell pricey full frame lenses anymore when the shooters themselves have already rejected the format

they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will

Fuji said it better than me:

"We aimed for the system with the optimum balance of high image quality and compact lightweight body that professionals can use. With that idea in mind, we came to the conclusion that APS-C is the way to go as opposed to full frame"

most wildlife photographers are now shooting crop??? I don't know where you did get that info. That's not what I see when on Safari. I do see a lot of 1Dx, 5D3 over there. The 7D2 is also used more and more for birding.

Other APS-C ? No forget it. The conditions that you are shooting are very hard for the gear. I think no one will buy my 5D3 anymore. Full of scratches caused by the harsh conditions of safaris. These 3 cameras of Canon can be used for wildlife photography without any fear, but when it is really extreme, there is only left one and that's the 1Dx.

And trust me, the photos of the crops can't reach most of the cases the quality of the FF.

A 7D2 with grip and a big battery like 1Dx, now that could be something for which wildlife photographers could let there 1Dx at home, but then there is no longer a difference in weight. So what are you talking about?

Don't mix up the commercial info of a manufacturer with the reality on the field.

 

[rs]

they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will

Good luck shooting erratic moving subjects with an EVF.

Additionally, compare mild tele lenses like the cheap and small Canon 85/1.8 to its nearest m43 equivalent, the Panasonic 42.5/1.2. It's the same weight, larger, equivalent of 85/2.4, and costs four times as much!

Or take the cheap, small and light Canon 75-300/4-5.6 to the nearest m43 equivalent, the Olympus 40-150/2.8. The Olympus has a narrower equivalent zoom range (80-300) and a narrower equivalent aperture across most of the zoom range (5.6). And the Olympus is pushing twice the weight, significantly larger, and is more than seven times the price!

Where's this advantage of m43?

 

[Loswr]

they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will

Did you mistype your username when you registered? I think you meant ninny.

 

[Don Haines]

why would canon make a pricey 600mm prime sized/weighted just for crop?

because most wildlife photographers are now shooting crop

they can't try to sell pricey full frame lenses anymore when the shooters themselves have already rejected the format

they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will

Fuji said it better than me:

"We aimed for the system with the optimum balance of high image quality and compact lightweight body that professionals can use. With that idea in mind, we came to the conclusion that APS-C is the way to go as opposed to full frame"

As a wildlife photographer, you want to be shooting at ISO 100 for maximum DR, you want to be shooting at F8 or higher lots of depth of field, and you want to be shooting at 1/2000 or faster to freeze the subject motion with that long lens you are using...... And unless the sun goes supernova, you are not going to get enough light.

Light is your limiting factor. You need as large of a final element as you can afford/carry and you need to focus all that light onto your sensor. No matter what camera, sensor, or lens you have, you need more light but you can't get it, so you make compromises and balance factors..... The sensor format is not your biggest limiting factor, it is the lens!

So why make one just for crop? perhaps to focus all the gathered light onto the sensor and not throw 60 percent of it away......

 

[AlanF]

But, if you focus all the light on the sensor and not throw 60% away, you also focus the image to make it 40% of the original area and shorten the focal length of the lens. That's what a Metabones speedbooster does.

 

[Nininini]

why would canon make a pricey 600mm prime sized/weighted just for crop?

because most wildlife photographers are now shooting crop

they can't try to sell pricey full frame lenses anymore when the shooters themselves have already rejected the format

they will need to face the music and realize the market of bulky and weighty full frame DSLR is dying, and if they don't provide all the crop shooters with tele for wildlife, sigma, tamron and micro 4/3 will

Fuji said it better than me:

"We aimed for the system with the optimum balance of high image quality and compact lightweight body that professionals can use. With that idea in mind, we came to the conclusion that APS-C is the way to go as opposed to full frame"

As a wildlife photographer, you want to be shooting at ISO 100

my camera is always on auto-ISO, ISO is clean enough up to 800 on crop DSLR