Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/patent-400-f4-300-f4-200-f5-6/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/patent-400-f4-300-f4-200-f5-6/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/patent-400-f4-300-f4-200-f5-6/"></a></div>
<strong>New Lens Formula Patents

</strong>A new 400 f/4L IS non-DO would probably be a very welcomed lens. However, it will probably depend on the price of the 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x ($8000  I predict) as to whether or not it ever sees the light of day. The 200 f/5.6 is a strange one.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2012-22105</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2012.2.2 Release Date</li>
<li>2010.7.14 filing date</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>392.00mm focal length</li>
<li>Fno 4.12</li>
<li>3.15deg half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Length 279.32mm lens</li>
<li>BF 64.82mm</li>
<li>15 sheets of 12 group configuration</li>
<li>An aspherical surface</li>
<li>Inner focus</li>
<li>Telephoto ratio 0.71</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 3</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>200.00mm focal length</li>
<li>Fno 5.77</li>
<li>6.18deg half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Length 180.00mm lens</li>
<li>BF 54.98mm</li>
<li>6 lenses in 5 groups configuration</li>
<li>Telephoto ratio 0.90</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>294.00mm focal length</li>
<li>Fno 4.14</li>
<li>4.21deg half angle of view.</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>Length 239.85mm lens</li>
<li>14 images in 9 groups configuration</li>
<li>An aspherical surface</li>
<li>Inner Focus</li>
<li>Telephoto ratio 0.815</li>
<li>Telephoto lens</li>
<li>Stretch the focal length, and miniaturized, on-axis chromatic aberration and lateral chromatic aberration occurs</li>
<li>Tele photo lens type refers to the overall length is shorter than the focal length</li>
<li>And telephoto ratio refers to the value obtained by dividing the focal length the total length</li>
<li>Canon’s patent</li>
<li>Using the lens refractive index distribution</li>
</ul>
<p><strong> Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-02-03">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>

 

[bvukich]

200/5.6???

Unless it's a macro (and even that would be a little wierd), that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[EYEONE]

a 200mm f5.6 certainly is odd. A super cheap telephoto prime?

 

[kubelik]

yesssss! I would love a 400mm f/4 L IS! being able to add a 1.4x III onto this would be sweet for us full frame folks (the bare lens itself is awesome enough).

I know this is like, probably 5 years away from happening at the earliest, but I'm definitely willing to hold out for it. besides, there's just no way I can afford the 200-400mm f/4 L.

 

[bornshooter]

200/5.6???

Unless it's a macro (and even that would be a little wierd), that makes no sense whatsoever.

yeah a 200/5.6 is strange but these are just patents i bet theres loads of strange ones that canon have no intention of putting into production.

 

[pharp]

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_f82/egami/2012_22105_fig01.png

Looks like a macro, but it would have to be amazing to lose more than a stop from the 180mm. Odd.

 

[vlim]

A 400 f/4 L IS and weather sealed would be a dream and an instant favorite lens for numbers of wildlife photographers if the price is correct (i bet between 2500 and 3000$)...

If one of the 300 f/4 L IS II weather sealed or the 400 f/4 L IS is due to be produced this year i'll be a buyer for sure !

 

[traveller]

What advantage is an f/5.6 macro (other than cheaper)?

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

 

[preppyak]

a 200mm f5.6 certainly is odd. A super cheap telephoto prime?

That was my thought, but, it'd have to be like $2-300 for it even really sell, since the 200 f/2.8 is only an $800 lens. They've had a lot of success with the cheaper primes (50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, etc) for hobbyists, this could fill that same kind of void, but, I question how profitable it would be to sell a 200mm f/5.6 for less than $500.

But, they might just be beating others to the punch with the patent, even if they know they won't produce it.

 

[Cetalis]

Any chance that the 200 f/5.6 is a IS'd T/S macro? Can't think of any other explanation.

 

[lol]

A 200mm f/5.6 macro could make sense, within some limits. Other macro lenses tend to be f/2.8 to allow AF to work at closer focus distances, since at 1:1 macro the effective aperture of a f/2.8 lens is f/5.6, the nominal limit of phase AF. If you sacrifice close focus AF, then making the lens f/5.6 would make it significantly cheaper and lighter. Bear in mind the depth of field in macro is already very thin, most macro shots are stopped down, so I don't think the slow aperture will be an issue in this application. Overall I think it would be very niche though. Near macro it would be MF only, which is ok for most macro uses, but would you want to use a 200mm f/5.6 AF at further distances? Might as well make it MF only, and offer more than 1x magnification, like a long version of the MP-E65.

 

[JR]

A new 300mm f4 would be sooooooo cool! Where do I sign?

 

[EYEONE]

Given that the aperture closes up as you reach the minimum focusing distance (even though Canon doesn't report the change) starting at f5.6 would make this a very slow lens for macro work without a flash.

 

[dstppy]

Am I the only one that sees the 200 as either an attempt to go much cheaper or lighter/smaller?

 

[kubelik]

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens. that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

 

[BL]

Given that the aperture closes up as you reach the minimum focusing distance (even though Canon doesn't report the change) starting at f5.6 would make this a very slow lens for macro work without a flash.

not to mention a very dim viewfinder

 

[hmmm]

Time for a dumb question: doesn't an image height of 21.64mm imply that these are all less than FF (24x36)? These could be for ef-s (22.2x14.8), or even a future mirrorless system?

I think more likely I'm just not understanding how the given image height factors into sensor size. Anyone who can clarify, please do! ???

 

[Dianoda]

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens. that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

Unless Canon omitted the use of fluorite elements or other steps to drive down costs (no IS? weather-sealing?), you'd probably still be looking a final cost close to the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO. Physics dictates that the diameter of the front objective would need to match that of the 400 f/4 DO IS, which is something like 122-125mm. And given the advances in performance (AF speed/accuracy, optics) with the new III TCs, I doubt we'll ever get this lens from Canon. An update to the 400 f/5.6 or 300 f/4 would make more sense.

 

[jlev23]

this means nothing.

 

[lol]

Time for a dumb question: doesn't an image height of 21.64mm imply that these are all less than FF (24x36)? These could be for ef-s (22.2x14.8), or even a future mirrorless system?

I think more likely I'm just not understanding how the given image height factors into sensor size. Anyone who can clarify, please do! ???

The "height" is from the middle of the image, since it doesn't matter which direction you go from there to form an image circle. The diagonal of a full frame sensor is sqrt(24^2+36^2) which is about 43.3mm, and half that is 21.6mm.