Canon EF 600mm f/4 DO IS To Arrive in Late 2017 [CR2]

[scyrene]

I don't mind to carry the 600 f/4 II if the quality is top notch, have no problem shooting it handheld. Sometimes only neck hurts by end of the day

Yikes you must be the original Mr Muscles. Very few photographers on the planet could work all day hand holding any 600mm.
My three times a week at the gym clearly isn't enough.

-pw

I dunno about that. I'm quite weak and fairly unfit, and I can use the 500L + 2x for hours (although mostly you're carrying it rather than holding it up to aim at things), and that's not much lighter than the 600. I think it's mostly just getting used to the thing and maybe the motivation.

 

[candc]

Friends.
Very curious to know what is the downside of DO lenses? What is the compromise?
Thx

Used to be that the "do" lenses were not as sharp and contrasty as the refractive lens counterparts. There was also bad specular highlights and such. Canon has mostly overcome those drawbacks. The oof highlights still may show some rings in some situations but its not common and not much of an issue.

The do elements are difficult to make. Apparently the 2 halves of the do element need to be matched by hand. Its a lengthy process and makes the lens more expensive.

It took a long time before the 400doii was even available due to manufacturing difficulties.

 

[scyrene]

I would have thought Canon would have brought a 300/2 DO out first with matching TCs.

Much more useful than this one I think and a better investment.

I suspect that would be an awkward lens to use - short and very wide with a huge, heavy front element - like the 200 1.8 only more so!

 

[sanj]

Friends.
Very curious to know what is the downside of DO lenses? What is the compromise?
Thx

Used to be that the "do" lenses were not as sharp and contrasty as the refractive lens counterparts. There was also bad specular highlights and such. Canon has mostly overcome those drawbacks. The oof highlights still may show some rings in some situations but its not common and not much of an issue.

The do elements are difficult to make. Apparently the 2 halves of the do element need to be matched by hand. Its a lengthy process and makes the lens more expensive.

It took a long time before the 400doii was even available due to manufacturing difficulties.

Thanks Much. So basically the downside is just the cost?

 

[candc]

Friends.
Very curious to know what is the downside of DO lenses? What is the compromise?
Thx

Used to be that the "do" lenses were not as sharp and contrasty as the refractive lens counterparts. There was also bad specular highlights and such. Canon has mostly overcome those drawbacks. The oof highlights still may show some rings in some situations but its not common and not much of an issue.

The do elements are difficult to make. Apparently the 2 halves of the do element need to be matched by hand. Its a lengthy process and makes the lens more expensive.

It took a long time before the 400doii was even available due to manufacturing difficulties.

Thanks Much. So basically the downside is just the cost?

For now it seems. If canon can further refine the "do" technology and improve the manufacturing process then it could be standard for future superteles.

 

[DJL329]

Looking at the photo again, I just noticed it has a red ring, instead of green, as the other DO lenses have. Perhaps Canon has finally decided to add it to the "L" lineup.

After renting the 500 f/4L II this spring (too long and heavy for little ol' me), I purchased the 400mm DO II and really like it. It's a nice upgrade from the 300mm f/4L IS. The 600mm DO would still be too much for me, but a 500mm f/4 DO might be interesting...

All shots with the 5D III and 1.4x TC II.

F/6.3, 1/1000, ISO 200

on Flickr

F/6.3, 1/4000, ISO 2500

on Flickr

F/11, 1/500, ISO 5000 - w/36mm extension tube

on Flickr

 

[NancyP]

This goes to the top of my fantasy wish list. 3.1 kg is about the weight of the 500 f/4 L IS II, handholdable for shorter periods of time. I would think that the shorter length of the DO relative to the regular design would make the lens somewhat easier to hold and better balanced.

However, there's always rentals. And, my well-loved 400 f/5.6L, when I need real portability.

110# woman here. Minor dumbbell lifting at the moment. One thing I can move from fantasy to reality is more muscle.

 

[sanj]

DJL329.
I am not an expert by any standard, but feel that you need to re look at your sharpening techniques, there is something wrong somewhere.
Friendly comment.

 

[rrcphoto]

They said the ef 50mm f/1.2 L II would be ready when?

Can't believe I beat ahsanford to the question.

who's this very special "they"?

canon has shown prototypes of the 600 DO, it's obviously in development. have you seen this fabled 50mm 1.2L II in prototype form?

 

[rrcphoto]

it looks like PF and DO needs some more decades of development

PF doesn't have decades of development.. DO does.

 

[tron]

Friends.
Very curious to know what is the downside of DO lenses? What is the compromise?
Thx

Used to be that the "do" lenses were not as sharp and contrasty as the refractive lens counterparts. There was also bad specular highlights and such. Canon has mostly overcome those drawbacks. The oof highlights still may show some rings in some situations but its not common and not much of an issue.

The do elements are difficult to make. Apparently the 2 halves of the do element need to be matched by hand. Its a lengthy process and makes the lens more expensive.

It took a long time before the 400doii was even available due to manufacturing difficulties.

Thanks Much. So basically the downside is just the cost?

There is also some haze around bright lights that is much less (almost nothing) with 500mm II. I found out by shooting at the same place with my 400 DO as a test so I could compare. This is not tragic (the contrast and sharpness are excellent) but I use to take moonrise photos at that place (an ancient temple) when the time of year is right. The day after full moon the temple is lit with 2 strong floodlights. It is one of these that I am referring to. This is not serious enough but I should also take moon photos to decide. I am afraid this is the reason I will not be able to part with my 500.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I don't mind to carry the 600 f/4 II if the quality is top notch, have no problem shooting it handheld. Sometimes only neck hurts by end of the day

Yikes you must be the original Mr Muscles. Very few photographers on the planet could work all day hand holding any 600mm.
My three times a week at the gym clearly isn't enough.

-pw

I dunno about that. I'm quite weak and fairly unfit, and I can use the 500L + 2x for hours (although mostly you're carrying it rather than holding it up to aim at things), and that's not much lighter than the 600. I think it's mostly just getting used to the thing and maybe the motivation.

Totally unfit 57 year old Arthritic Diabetic with arms like matchsticks here. When I had the 600 F4 L IS Mk1 hand holding was a problem - traded to the 800 F5.6 L IS and it's fine. I use it hand held or propped against a handy tree/fence between 20 and 30% of the time. In a number of the hides that I use it is impractical to use a tripod or the apertures are so small that I have to remove the hood and rest the lens on the side of the hide again not an issue.

If the 600 F4 DO materialises the I would be very interested indeed - I won't be able to afford it but I would be very interested! Perhaps it could be a little lighter if they don't include IS? That would suit me just fine but I can't see that happening though.

P.S. What is a Gym?

 

[tron]

For weight calculation I compare the 300 2.8 ii with 1.4 ext to the 400 ii DO. The relative weights are

300+1.4-about 100oz, 400 DO 80 oz, either gets you to 400mm f4 more or less. So the DO is 80% roughly of the non-DO.

The 600 f4 ii is 150 oz, times 0.8 gives a potential DO wt of 120 0z or 3.40kg. The bare current 500 is ii is about the same so a DO 600 could weigh about as much as current 500 f4, with weight distributed more toward the camera than the 500.

Using the same guessing method for the 800 f5.6 a 5kg lens could end up as a 4kg 800 DO f5.6.

I just wish canon would innovate....

Actually the existing 800 5.6L IS weighs 4.5Kg...

 

[Cali Capture]

Ive got the 400 f/2.8II, so it's not in the fiscal cards to drop more Mulla for what my 1.4X can give me. Now an 800mm DO might make me save if Canon can use that tech to bring us a lighter/shorter 800mm f/4 or even 5.6. I've more so, also always wanted a 200mm f/2.0. My guess is even though this lens has epic optics, it's next in line for IS, weight and ergonomics/looks upgrade. So That would be may next GAS lens in the off-white family. I love the flexibility fast teles give you paired with a 1.4 or 2x.

 

[tron]

Ive got the 400 f/2.8II, so it's not in the fiscal cards to drop more Mulla for what my 1.4X can give me. Now an 800mm DO might make me save if Canon can use that tech to bring us a lighter/shorter 800mm f/4 or even 5.6. I've more so, also always wanted a 200mm f/2.0. My guess is even though this lens has epic optics, it's next in line for IS, weight and ergonomics/looks upgrade. So That would be may next GAS lens in the off-white family. I love the flexibility fast teles give you paired with a 1.4 or 2x.

A 1000 DO had been mentioned in CR a few months ago...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Ive got the 400 f/2.8II, so it's not in the fiscal cards to drop more Mulla for what my 1.4X can give me. Now an 800mm DO might make me save if Canon can use that tech to bring us a lighter/shorter 800mm f/4 or even 5.6. I've more so, also always wanted a 200mm f/2.0. My guess is even though this lens has epic optics, it's next in line for IS, weight and ergonomics/looks upgrade. So That would be may next GAS lens in the off-white family. I love the flexibility fast teles give you paired with a 1.4 or 2x.

I have the mkI LIS version....and THAT's a heavy lens. Heavier than the 600mm f4 LIS of the same generation. What I love about the 400/2.8 is that is t is THE most versatile white lens. It takes a 1.4x and 2x tc really well and makes an excellent 560mm f4 or 800mm f5.6 with ease. From an IQ point of view...it's pretty near perfect.

 

[Cali Capture]

GMC- Yea, as they say in the auto world, there's no replacement for displacement! Same holds true for aperture, you can always throttle is down, but can never get it if it isn't under the hood :0 That's why I think the 200 f/2 is a great compliment to the 400 f2.8, cause you can fill the 300mm gap at f/2.8 yet you are still stoping action at a lighting f/2.0 which justifys it's exisitance with a 70-200mm f/2.8. I also like the speed when I drop a polarizer in and lose a stop.
Any 200mm f/2.0 owners out there who use this for sports feel like this is a good lens strategy

 

[Mistral75]

Looking at the photo again, I just noticed it has a red ring, instead of green, as the other DO lenses have. Perhaps Canon has finally decided to add it to the "L" lineup.

(...)

The prototype shown last year was an L lens: Canon EF 600 mm f/4L DO IS USM.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Looking at the photo again, I just noticed it has a red ring, instead of green, as the other DO lenses have. Perhaps Canon has finally decided to add it to the "L" lineup.

(...)

The prototype shown last year was an L lens: Canon EF 600 mm f/4L DO IS USM.

Interesting that the nameplate doesn't include the BR designation, which was included in the source article for this thread.

 

[Mistral75]

Interesting that the nameplate doesn't include the BR designation, which was included in the source article for this thread.

The BR in the name of this lens might be a mistake. At Canon Expo the two technologies, BR and DO, were presented together as "next generation lens technology":

There were separated descriptions of each:

and a few examples such as the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM and the prototype of the 600mm f/4.

Since both technologies were presented together and the 600mm f/4 was between the two descriptive panels, people like popphoto and Photography Bay reported on an EF 600mm f/4L DO BR IS USM without thinking further.