Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
K
KitH
Guest
200mm f5.6.
Two possibilities come to mind immediately for that aperture and focal length.
1) It's for a extremely high resolution lens, with absolutely no chromatic aberration or distortion. Something like the Zeiss Superachromatic designs of the 1960s. Many say their sharpness has never been matched and give stunning results in black and white and in color (although it's too sharp and unforgiving for flattering portraits). Can also be used for IR photography as the focus is the same across a wide range of wavelengths. Notable for it's six element design with one achromatic pair.
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF250SA.pdf
They were limited-run productions and ferociously expensive because they had fluorite elements and they actually finished the lens design after they'd made the crystals and could measure the optical properties properly.
Maybe Canon have found a way to make an achromatic without the cost of the fluorite elements.
2) The other thought is that it's for a medical lens with a ring flash incorporated. This is a Medical-Nikkor from the 1960s in 200mm f5.6.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/special/250medical.htm
They were used by dentists, cosmetic surgeons and dermatologists. Especially useful for close-up shots without being too much in the patients' face.
Two possibilities come to mind immediately for that aperture and focal length.
1) It's for a extremely high resolution lens, with absolutely no chromatic aberration or distortion. Something like the Zeiss Superachromatic designs of the 1960s. Many say their sharpness has never been matched and give stunning results in black and white and in color (although it's too sharp and unforgiving for flattering portraits). Can also be used for IR photography as the focus is the same across a wide range of wavelengths. Notable for it's six element design with one achromatic pair.
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF250SA.pdf
They were limited-run productions and ferociously expensive because they had fluorite elements and they actually finished the lens design after they'd made the crystals and could measure the optical properties properly.
Maybe Canon have found a way to make an achromatic without the cost of the fluorite elements.
2) The other thought is that it's for a medical lens with a ring flash incorporated. This is a Medical-Nikkor from the 1960s in 200mm f5.6.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/special/250medical.htm
They were used by dentists, cosmetic surgeons and dermatologists. Especially useful for close-up shots without being too much in the patients' face.
Upvote
0
vlim said:
The front element of a 400 f4 would be nearly the same size as the front element of the 300 2.8 (they share the same hood and cover). As such, I doubt it will go for under 5000-6000 bucks...
Still, would be a nice lens... maybe they will make the 7D mk II to AF with f8 lenses...
Upvote
0
The examples are just that, some theoretical lenses that use the optical formula. A actual production lens might be something totally different, and still be covered under the patent if it used the optical formula.
Upvote
0
Mooose said:No one will be able to use the 200mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x extender on a Canon 1DX!!!
HAR HAR!!!! ;D
Upvote
0
Great...120-300mm f/2.8 with 2X AND 400mm f/4 with 1.4x.
Will be interesting to see the image results out of it if it launches. I don't see it being cheaper than the 120-300mm + 2X III combo, and (the part that makes me less happy) it would require me to get all new parts (unless I didn't mind losing AF on the 7D - I suppose I could always try to hunt down an old full frame or even 1.3X body though - and 800mm equivalence from a prime would be very nice).
Will be interesting to see the image results out of it if it launches. I don't see it being cheaper than the 120-300mm + 2X III combo, and (the part that makes me less happy) it would require me to get all new parts (unless I didn't mind losing AF on the 7D - I suppose I could always try to hunt down an old full frame or even 1.3X body though - and 800mm equivalence from a prime would be very nice).
Upvote
0
The 400/4 should sell for at least $7300 which makes the $11500 of the 400/2.8 IS II look like a bargain.
The price is derived from the 200/2, 300/2.8 version 1 and 2 and 400/4 DO that share a similar entry pupil diameter.
The price is derived from the 200/2, 300/2.8 version 1 and 2 and 400/4 DO that share a similar entry pupil diameter.
Upvote
0
5.6/200 seems strange for common photography but might be designed for special purposes. It is not compact and doesn't have the lens config for an internal focusing macro lens nor some symmetric lens arrangement which is typical for all macro setups (more or less).
A low number of lens elements means very low transmission losses and very high contrast - perhaps it is a lens for bright contralight conditions. The two plane front elements might be a protective cover to allow the use if that lens unter harsh conditions.
=> perhaps a lens for movie/video productions?
=> perhaps a lens for video surveillance?
But if it is very contrasty, flare resistant and rugged - it might be the lens for contralight landscape and closeup for me!
A low number of lens elements means very low transmission losses and very high contrast - perhaps it is a lens for bright contralight conditions. The two plane front elements might be a protective cover to allow the use if that lens unter harsh conditions.
=> perhaps a lens for movie/video productions?
=> perhaps a lens for video surveillance?
But if it is very contrasty, flare resistant and rugged - it might be the lens for contralight landscape and closeup for me!
Upvote
0
kubelik said:
I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....
Upvote
0
I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.jrista said:
Upvote
0
J
jwong
Guest
Kernuak said:
Think 8-10k is too high. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 is ~7k, and Canon's 400 f/2.8 is 11.5k. I would expect the 400 f/4 price to be well below Nikon's excellent 200-400 f/4. Given the ratio between Canon's 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the 300mm (7300 vs. 1400), one might expect that the the 400 f/4 might cost closer to 2-3k. If it's 8-10k, most people might consider saving up a little more for the 400 f/2.8.
Upvote
0
A
Asposium
Guest
from an optical point of view, taking the 200 f/2 and the 300 f2.8 as an example, as the focal length increases from 200 to 300 the "speed" of the lens drops by one stop, whereas the diameter of the front optical stays pretty much constant.
the price of the 200 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 (mark one IS) were quite similar
the weight of the two was quite similar and the 300 slightly longer
continuing the trend to a 400 f/4
it would not be unreasable for the following to be true...
the 400 f/4 would be a similar diameter to the 200 and 300 and weigh about the same
the 400 f/4 would be slightly longer than the 300
the 400 f/4 would cost about the same, to a rough order of magnitude.
the price of the 200 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 (mark one IS) were quite similar
the weight of the two was quite similar and the 300 slightly longer
continuing the trend to a 400 f/4
it would not be unreasable for the following to be true...
the 400 f/4 would be a similar diameter to the 200 and 300 and weigh about the same
the 400 f/4 would be slightly longer than the 300
the 400 f/4 would cost about the same, to a rough order of magnitude.
Upvote
0
Kernuak said:
When you get to lenses of that caliber, the only real significant cost to design is the optics. Some of those lenses require HUGE elements that have to be perfect across their entire volume, and often require a lot of element groups with a high number of total elements. In the case of the DO lens, there is one very expensive element group (the DO group)...however because of that Canon was able to eliminate a lot of other corrective groups that would have otherwise been necessary...at the cost of maximum resolution (the diffraction is going to etch away at it a little bit.) Given the size that a 400/4 lens would need to be (larger by a fair amount than the DO version), and the optical corrections that would have to be performed to keep IQ at 500/600 L II levels...there are simply going to be more big, expensive lens elements.
jwong said:
Now, its certainly possible for Canon to create a 400/4 that does not have 500/600 L II level IQ...but why? They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ (which is minor, at that...look at Art Morris' bird shots with that lens...they are stunning; the notion that IQ is rendered useless by the DO element is largely myth). If Canon creates a 400mm f/4 L IS lens, it seems logical that they would make it a high quality, top-end lens lacking nothing. If its not a DO lens, then they don't have the diffractive optics corrective benefits...so they are going to have to correct optical aberrations another way (i.e. UD and flourite elements, multiple corrective groups, etc.), and that'll increase cost. Personally I think it'll land around $8000, maybe $7500...f/4 @ 400mm isn't quite as much a feat as a 500mm f/4 lens....but its still going to be expensive.
Upvote
0
A
Asposium
Guest
apparently, when canon made the 400 do they also made a 400 against to compare
dpreview has a picture of the above two side by side
sourcehttp://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/9/6/canon_400do
dpreview has a picture of the above two side by side
sourcehttp://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/9/6/canon_400do
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
