EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 600mm f/4L IS III developers talk about the new super telephoto lenses

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon USA has published an interview with the developers of the brand new Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III and Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III super telephoto lenses, the lightest lenses of their kind in the world.
A lot more went on during the development than just weight reduction. New challenges lead to new materials, manufacturing processes and functionality.

Some of the design goals and challenges facing the developers:

Rather than simply making the lens lighter, we retooled the lens from the ground up for an overall balanced weight.
Improved mobility and portability, with reduced weight
A significant — not average — reduction in weight
We were convinced we could reach our goal thanks to the
proposal of a new optical system.
New challenges, one after the other, with tag-team efforts
between Optical Design, Mechanical Design...

Continue reading...

 

[ethanz]

"We didn’t compromise on the white color, despite placing
priority on functionality."

Not sure what that means.

 

[kaptainkatsu]

This is a great paper written by Canon. I enjoyed reading it.

 

[Brown]

Canon's selection of white paint is a racist dog whistle used to indicate the superiority of the super-teles over the (lesser) black lenses.

 

[ethanz]

Canon's selection of white paint is a racist dog whistle used to indicate the superiority of the super-teles over the (lesser) black lenses.

BLM - Black Lenses Matter?

 

[Elston]

So when will I actually be able to buy the new 600mm?

 

[fox40phil]

How about something like the Nikon 200-500 5.6f...damn Canon! This lens is just awesome!!

 

[carrera]

So when will I actually be able to buy the new 600mm?

Now. I already have mine, it shipped to me two weeks ago.

 

[applecider]

There was a topic here where we discussed the MTF curves betweeen the series two and three 400 and 600. Without resurrecting that topic what was the final feeling of the issue of potential optical quality between the series? It looked to me that absent a different methodology the newer series MTF is not quite where the series two MTF and presumably optical quality are.

The weight and balance are a totally different hand of cards winning hand.

 

[maxfactor9933]

I believe for DO they should go with white color as DO are going to be smaller and for normal optics they can paint black as they are bigger. kinda make sence

 

[expatinasia]

With regards to the new 400, I have not read it all yet, but like the idea of two different hoods and a soft carry case. The hard carry case with the previous version was great at protecting the lens but not very practical.

Thanks for sharing I look forward to reading the rest of the article.

 

[BeenThere]

"We didn’t compromise on the white color, despite placing
priority on functionality."

Not sure what that means.

The most awesome white color available was used for this lens.

 

[Pape]

awesome they getting vibrations better handled with new is.
Anyone knows any tripod what would work together with IS better ,like one made half from rubber and half aluminium? built more llike human legs

 

[Deleted member 91053]

awesome they getting vibrations better handled with new is.
Anyone knows any tripod what would work together with IS better ,like one made half from rubber and half aluminium? built more llike human legs

I don't! However I do find that long lenses work better without IS.

 

[brad-man]

I don't! However I do find that long lenses work better without IS.

Shall I infer from your statement that you find that short lenses work better with IS?

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Shall I infer from your statement that you find that short lenses work better with IS?

The only short lenses I have used extensively that have IS are the 16-5 F4 L IS and 24-105 F4 L IS and I don't use IS on them so it would hardly be fair/sensible for me to comment.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

There was a topic here where we discussed the MTF curves betweeen the series two and three 400 and 600. Without resurrecting that topic what was the final feeling of the issue of potential optical quality between the series? It looked to me that absent a different methodology the newer series MTF is not quite where the series two MTF and presumably optical quality are.

The weight and balance are a totally different hand of cards winning hand.

Also the mkI was ridiculously sharp. It's the only lens I've used with a 2x TC and found the sharpness wide open excellent. Although the AF was less accurate with a 2x. The problem with the mk1 is the weight of the thing. I need to heaviest Video tripod to handle the lens adequately. It's no joke finding a tripod and fluid head that can handle a 12Kg + load effortlessly. But the images I get from it are exceptional. I'd like to try a mkIII purely for the weight reduction, but if the IQ is anything less than the mkI....what's the point?