New Lens Information for Photokina

[privatebydesign]

It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time? It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.

 

[Viggo]

The suggested lenses are a huge disappointment to me. Where's the 14-24, 35 II, 135 II (or mk1 with IS), 100-400. I don't question Canons reasons as they know what will sell better than me, but still disappointed..

 

[mrzero]

The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose. Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization. So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need. If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags. I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000). Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting.

This already exists - it's called an EF 24-105 f/4L IS and costs around $600 if you shop around.

I said small, light, and affordable. See: http://j.mp/1n45eEb That isn't the 28-105 that I use, but the size is about the same. I really don't want to waste bag space on a slow midrange zoom. I know the 24-105 and I've used it.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

Yes this would be totally cool! 8)

 

[Plainsman]

It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time? It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.

"...DO is DOA"

How do you actually know that!!

If Canon do bring about an improved 400DO it maybe a signal that they have reached the end of the line with weight reductions on the big whites with current designs.
I am sure there would be a big market for a sharp 3kg 500/4DO or a 2kg 300/2.8DO.

 

[rrcphoto]

Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

I doubt if it will be much better than a 300 and 2xTC, but it certainly won't be noticeably better, it at all, than the 300 and 1.4 TC (to make 420mm and f4). Now if you like the horrible bokeh the DO can create and don't want a lens as flexible or as high quality as the 300 then have at it.

I cannot see a reason for this other than Canon's refusal to give up on DO, meanwhile there is a good market out there for other premium headline catching lenses, the MkII 100-400 will be a cash cow whatever price it comes in at and a 400 f5.6 with IS would clean the wallets of those scared off by a new 100-400 price point. The 45 and 90 TS-E's are desperately overdue, the 2.8 ultrawide zoom has been a sore point in the Canon lineup since, oh, ever, but they clearly can now make good ultrawides so what's the excuse for this delay? The MkII 800 is a headlining niche lens that is sorely wanted by those that need it, to have your longest lens outperformed by your second longest and a TC is an embarrassment. The 85 f1.2 could do with a spruce up, the 50 f1.4 is crying out for the "slow it down and put IS in it" treatment, it just goes on and on........

Canon's lens strategy gives me more concern than their sensor strategy.

it takes years to design and develop a lens. I think the last time any of the big two commented on how long was nikon - and they said it takes 7 years from start to finish.

DO is such a tactical advantage to canon - and we don't know if they correct bokeh related issues, and most that have used the later models of the 400DO have found it no wanting.

It depends on what lens, it would take a design team about three hours to design a 50mm f1.8 IS, and considering they have the glass, they have the parts, they have everything, they could probably have a working model just after lunch.

Now the DO dead end has taken 13 years to come up with an update for a lens that will still appeal to about 20 people, which do you think would make Canon more money, selling a handful of 400 f4 DO's that still perform like crap and depreciate like a Syrian bankers domestic property portfolio, or a mass appeal 50 that costs next to nothing to make and can be slotted into the $499 slot?

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I'm sorry I didn't realize you worked on canon's lens design teams and know even before the lens is released that it isn't ready for prime time.

the usual L refresh rate was always around a decade - 13 years while a bit long, isn't extraordinarily long.

and I'm sure canon knows how many will buy it and the margins far more than you or I.

 

[thedman]

The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose. Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization. So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need. If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags. I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000). Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting.

This already exists - it's called an EF 24-105 f/4L IS and costs around $600 if you shop around.

I really don't want to waste bag space on a slow midrange zoom.

Isn't that what the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 is?

 

[rrcphoto]

"...DO is DOA"

How do you actually know that!!

If Canon do bring about an improved 400DO it maybe a signal that they have reached the end of the line with weight reductions on the big whites with current designs.
I am sure there would be a big market for a sharp 3kg 500/4DO or a 2kg 300/2.8DO.

I assumed he works for canon

since he emphatically knows even before the lens comes out.

canon's released how many DO patents since the 400/4 DO came out - apparently it's no better.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time? It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.

"...DO is DOA"

How do you actually know that!!

If Canon do bring about an improved 400DO it maybe a signal that they have reached the end of the line with weight reductions on the big whites with current designs.
I am sure there would be a big market for a sharp 3kg 500/4DO or a 2kg 300/2.8DO.

I don't, but I'd bet a lot of money on the fact that it hasn't overcome the biggest hurdle it makes for itself. The issue is intrinsic to the design, I believe the only way around it is to do something in post to work around it.

Now if it is released I am sure we will have a lot of testers and early adopters say it is the greatest lens ever, I then suspect that a year or so latter they will be on eBay.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm sorry I didn't realize you worked on canon's lens design teams and know even before the lens is released that it isn't ready for prime time.

the usual L refresh rate was always around a decade - 13 years while a bit long, isn't extraordinarily long.

and I'm sure canon knows how many will buy it and the margins far more than you or I.

I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction. This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements. For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent. Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements. Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction. This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements. For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent. Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements. Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.

 

[Vossie]

The market for a 400 f/4 would be very small if it would not be considerably cheaper than the 300 f/2.8 II, taking into account how well the 300 takes TC's.

Maybe this whole rumor is just a distractive move and Photokina will bring some higher anticipated products... I hope so ???

On the other hand, if these will be the announcements, my wallet will be happy :

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction. This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements. For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent. Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements. Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.

And yet, many owners just love them.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction. This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements. For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent. Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements. Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.

And yet, many owners just love them.

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.

 

[Lee Jay]

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things. I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO. Not so much the 70-300.

 

[PicaPica]

ultrawide f/2.8L zoom being announced for Photokina. A full frame ultrawide zoom at the same time as the EOS 7D Mark II doesn’t make a lot of sense,

that argumentation makes no sense either.

why should the millions of FF owners have to wait until a new FF camera is announced to get a ultrawide zoom?

 

[privatebydesign]

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things. I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO. Not so much the 70-300.

And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions. Oh that is because we weren't talking about the 5D, you are the one that tried to prove something without actually having any examples of it and yet I am the one you say says dumb things, you da man.

So you have talked to a couple of owners, that is convincing, I am looking at what owners are prepared to lose to get rid of them, I believe mine is a bigger sample and a more accurate indicator of lens performance.

 

[wsmith96]

Also, some day the mythical full frame Rebel may actually be released

Isn't that the 6D?

 

[Sporgon]

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.

Perhaps in real money terms, but I would say the 70-300 DO is probably the greatest depreciating lens from new in terms of percentage.

Which is interesting because both these lenses tend to get really bad reviews, and this is reflected in the second hand values. Yet Canon sensors get bad reviews against Exmor yet they still outsell the other brands. My guess is that this is because in the case of the DO lenses people are dissatisfied with the results they get, whereas with the cameras they are quite happy. So I suppose the moral of the story is that the buying public will ignore a bad review if it's BS.