Canon Attempts New Supertele Patents

tiggy@mac.com

R5
Canon Rumors Premium
Jan 20, 2014
932
992
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
Several new catadioptric designs (commonly referred to as “mirror” lenses) appeared in a patent application to Japanese authorities, including a 1200mm f/8 and an 800mm f/5.6.
First called out in a post on An Image on a Sensor, the embodiments show typical “mirror lens” construction, but with a larger-than-typical number of lens groups and elements extending from the mirror optical tube, back toward the sensor.
This may imply a much higher level of aberration correction than is normal in this type of lens. Most catadioptric lenses built for cameras are attempts to get at large focal lengths as cheaply as possible, and the catadioptric design allows for more light gathering with less glass.
And they typically have less length, too. Because the mirror design causes the light to...

Continue reading...
 

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,534
23,256
I'm wondering if that would also be AF, possibly with additional ILIS?

The patent drawing does have a lens group labeled "Lis" - Lens Image Stabilization perhaps?

Lens group "Lfo" Lens Focus perhaps?
There is also a heading "Reflex lens with IS and an iris from CANON" so it does have IS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

tiggy@mac.com

R5
Canon Rumors Premium
Jan 20, 2014
932
992
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
I haven't studied details from the sources, but at a first look, this looks very much like same patents as reported by Canon Rumors back in May 2021 ??? :


Tig to Stig: that's a good find. I saw that too. This is a different set of patents, the biggest difference being that these new ones appear to be more an attempt at a higher-end image quality. Those earlier patent designs show almost no correction, and the "sea grass" graphs show very poor edge aberrations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
It bothers me that resources are being used to design lenses like this...I don't know why, but it does. LOL
Yes, it bother me too. I'm sure these will be better but mirror lenses are notoriously fragile, fixed aperture, and ugly donut bokeh.

They had the brilliant EF400mm f5.6L. Light, superb optics, and affordable. The closes they have now is the 100-500mm zoom, which I'd always use on the tele end, unnecessarily heavier, more expensive. And f7.1.

Really wish they come up with the something like the Sony 200-600mm. Serious stuff but not costing as much as a sedan.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,534
23,256
Yes, it bother me too. I'm sure these will be better but mirror lenses are notoriously fragile, fixed aperture, and ugly donut bokeh.

They had the brilliant EF400mm f5.6L. Light, superb optics, and affordable. The closes they have now is the 100-500mm zoom, which I'd always use on the tele end, unnecessarily heavier, more expensive. And f7.1.

Really wish they come up with the something like the Sony 200-600mm. Serious stuff but not costing as much as a sedan.
The EF 400mm f/5.6 L was not cheap when it was introduced some 25 years ago. The RF 100-500mm is in a different league in terms of its versatility. The EF 100-400mm L was a far more useful lens and pretty close optically, and the Mk II is in a different league. The RF 100-400mm is pretty close optically, half the weight and half the cost. I have had all of these lenses, and the 400/5.6 is the bottom of my personal list. And if you are worried about weight, the Sony 200-600mm is much heavier than the 100-500mm, and feels even heavier because of its length.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
It bothers me that resources are being used to design lenses like this...I don't know why, but it does. LOL
I think this is inevitable.

The compact cameras market is practically gone, and ILC camera market is shrinking quickly. Smartphone cameras are getting better, including focal length, e.g. Samsung's moon zoom on Galaxy S2x, though I'm not going to argue for the image quality*. One way to increase the pie is getting cheap small lenses that offers abilities not available till now, such as the RF 16mm which requires correction on a computer, and long focal mirror lenses.

I wouldn't bet too much money on this patent becoming a lens, but I understand the motivation.

* If anyone wants to compare, I can shoot the moon with an S21 on the weekend, or when its full on April 16th, and share the images.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,534
23,256
I think this is inevitable.

The compact cameras market is practically gone, and ILC camera market is shrinking quickly. Smartphone cameras are getting better, including focal length, e.g. Samsung's moon zoom on Galaxy S2x, though I'm not going to argue for the image quality*. One way to increase the pie is getting cheap small lenses that offers abilities not available till now, such as the RF 16mm which requires correction on a computer, and long focal mirror lenses.

I wouldn't bet too much money on this patent becoming a lens, but I understand the motivation.

* If anyone wants to compare, I can shoot the moon with an S21 on the weekend, or when its full on April 16th, and share the images.
Better to shoot half moon as the shadows show up craters and mountains. Full moon is often featureless. Please shoot it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I wonder, if Canon can manage the typical trade offs of such a catadioptric design.
(bad contrast, low resolution to the edges, "halo" in the center, bad bokeh).
:unsure:
Donut bokeh is liked by some people for "artistic effect" but to me it always looks just plain ugly.
It's inherent with catadioptric designs, AFAIK there's no way to hide or minimise the effect.

Personally I'd *much* rather Canon brought out a lightweight "telescopic" 800mm F8, along similar lines to the RF 600mm F11 and RF 800mm F11 designs. Such a lens would probably be cheaper and lighter than this catadioptric 800mm F5.6, it wouldn't have ugly bokeh, and it would be far more useful for bird photography.

It would be interesting to know which of these designs would appeal most to sports photographers - 800mm F5.6 catadioptric, or 800mm F8 telescopic?
 
Upvote 0