Patent: A New Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS

[AlanF]

Scifi.

300/2.8L II is the best lens Canon currently has and actually it has the greatest improvement over the previous generation. If there's one lens that doesn't need upgrade, it's the 300/2.8.

+1

I'm always open to magic and surprises though....even smaller and lighter maybe?

How much smaller and lighter? It would have to be a DO type lens....

Haha, well I'm still not a fan of DO and the reason for it is exactly the 300/2.8L II.
While
300/2.8 I -> II changed 2550g to 2350g and minimum focusing distance 2.5m to 2m,
400/4 DO I -> II changed 1940g to 2100g and minimum focusing distance 3.5m to 3.3m
...and 400/4 DO II finally reached the optical performance of the first generation of 300/2.8L which is huge step compared to the previous generation which was crap but still useless in my eyes near the ass-kicking 300/2.8 II which is now only 250g heavier and a full stop faster.

According to dxomark, on a 5DsR the 300/2.8L II has 45MP resolution while the 400/4DO has 29MP.
So as for DO lenses, no thanks UNLESS they are at least 25-30% lighter.

According to DxOmark says it all: it has the 400mm f/2.8 II, which has the reputation of being the sharpest Canon telephoto, has only 36 perceptual megapixels, whatever they are (and not many of know what they are in reality). The site that analyses multiple copies of lenses with reliability, lensrentals, has quite a different perspective - see

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

Those guys handle lenses all the time, and look at and use many, many copies. Websites that report measurements on a single copy of a lens with methods that are not reproducible are pretty much a waste of time. The only tests that really matter are your experience on your lens on your camera employed for your purposes under the conditions that you use.

 

[scottkinfw]

Looks like the size will be 229 x 100mm for the optical design.
My guess that it will be 232 x 112mm for the real thing.
Compared with the current EF 300 f/2.8L IS II USM is 248 x 128mm.

Looks like we will be seeing a few deductions in both length and weight. Maybe we will see the inclusion of BR which can help optimize the formula?

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's my first time posting my own calculations.

The reduction in dimensions is I guess something, however less than an inch to slightly over an inch. I don't know about the weight.

This is a very expensive lens (for me anyway), and as noted, it is light enough, short enough, and has excellent image quality, and AF.

Given all of the above, Canon won't see my money for another 300 2.8. A built in 1.4X tele-extender like the 200-400 would be very tempting, but still, a whole lot of money.

Scott

 

[tron]

...
This is a very expensive lens (for me anyway), and as noted, it is light enough, short enough, and has excellent image quality, and AF.

Given all of the above, Canon won't see my money for another 300 2.8. ...
Scott

I agree. Money - IF Available - could be spent for lenses with different focal lengths...

 

[j-nord]

I find this interesting because... why Canon, why? There are so many other high volume lenses that need updates!

 

[privatebydesign]

I find this interesting because... why Canon, why? There are so many other high volume lenses that need updates!

Because the camera market is in decline, it isn't going to mirrorless, less people are buying cameras and even fewer buy additional lenses. Traditionally the entry level cameras and kits were the cash cows, the higher end stuff never made the big bucks and in some cases was a loss leader, with the drastic decline in this entry level revenue stream it means all camera manufacturers have to sell more higher priced items. The 300 f2.8 is a staple and surely the best selling of their over $5,000 lenses, it also probably has the best cost to return and sales figures balance so will be the best upgrade to help income.

 

[rfdesigner]

I find this interesting because... why Canon, why? There are so many other high volume lenses that need updates!

Because the camera market is in decline, it isn't going to mirrorless, less people are buying cameras and even fewer buy additional lenses. Traditionally the entry level cameras and kits were the cash cows, the higher end stuff never made the big bucks and in some cases was a loss leader, with the drastic decline in this entry level revenue stream it means all camera manufacturers have to sell more higher priced items. The 300 f2.8 is a staple and surely the best selling of their over $5,000 lenses, it also probably has the best cost to return and sales figures balance so will be the best upgrade to help income.

Possibly..

But just imagine the sales volume if they replaced the 50f1.4 with a mechanically and optically decent version, think approaching ART level and an AF that always works, even it it was £500, they'd sell them by the bucket load.

I don't see the need to make arguably the worlds best lens "better", unless they're planning a 200MPix body and need lenses to pair with it!.. which leaves the 50f1.4 looking even more horrible.

PS: I own the 50STM in preference to the 1.4

 

[riker]

PS: I own the 50STM in preference to the 1.4

+
Even though I loved the 50/1.4 but that AF was just not acceptable anymore.

 

[mnclayshooter]

Might be a reach, but is it possible that the update is a cinema-based update? I completely understand that the two lens types are not tightly related - however, would focus by wire etc be a "Feature" worthy of an upgrade?

I'm really digging to find a reason to update the lens, other than a modest weight savings as noted by many others. Also, the LCD range window... obviously a wanted feature. 8)

 

[douglaurent]

There are lots of more important new lenses to be released before a new 300/2.8...
What about a 24-70/2.8 IS?
What about a 16-35/2.8 IS?
What about a lightweight fullframe superzoom?
What about a sharp fast 50 and 85mm prime?
What about stabilized fast primes?
What about APS-C lenses that fit on full frame cameras, so people can make wide angle 4K videos as well?

 

[Wizardly]

Am I the only one that thinks the lens diagram for the 400 mm f/4 DO IS lens diagram in the patent drawings looks exactly like the EF 400 mm f/4 DO IS II USM?

 

[RGF]

Would love to see canon develop these lens with a built-in 1.4 extender (or better yet), a variable extender (such as 1.2, 1.4, 1.7)

That's what they call a "zoom" already

Discrete zoom, not continuous

 

[arcer]

There are lots of more important new lenses to be released before a new 300/2.8...
What about a 24-70/2.8 IS?
What about a 16-35/2.8 IS?
What about a lightweight fullframe superzoom?
What about a sharp fast 50 and 85mm prime?
What about stabilized fast primes?
What about APS-C lenses that fit on full frame cameras, so people can make wide angle 4K videos as well?

Finally, a list from you that I can agree with. Luckily this time, you didn't foresee Canon's doom if they don't release these lens by 2020.

Would be nice if the 17-55 F2.8 replacement can fulfill your last request. So will it make me happy.

 

[jolyonralph]

> What about APS-C lenses that fit on full frame cameras, so people can make wide angle 4K videos as well?

You won't see this - even if the lens is capable of fitting on a FF camera without colliding with the mirror - for one important reason - Canon will probably lose more from stupid people who buy the lens and then want to return it because it doesn't fill the full sensor of their FF camera for photography than they will gain sales from people who actually want to use it for 4K on a FF camera.

Of course if Canon ever release a decent mirrorless FF camera then there's no problem.

Jolyon

 

[Sator]

I'm wondering what they are going to improve

The answer can already be found in Egami's commentary:

AF-S 14-24mm F2.8GやEF11-24mm F4L USM、12-24mm F4 DG HSM Artでは、かつてない巨大な非球面レンズが使われています。 巨大な非球面の生産能力が勝敗を決するようになるのでしょうね。

What he says here is that the technology for the manufacture of giant aspherical lenses have progressed. Such aspherical elements are already found for example in the AF-S 14-24mm F2.8G, EF11-24mm F4L USM, and the 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art lenses.

Egami quotes this particular point in the patent:

【００１５】本発明によれば、望遠レンズにおいて、異常分散特性を有した硝材から成る接合レンズと非球面を適切な箇所に適切な屈折力で用いることで、色収差の補正と光学系全系での小型化及び軽量化の両立がなされた光学系を提供することができる。

It seems to describe novels optical methods of achieving a reduction in chromatic aberration using particular combinations of low dispersion elements and aspherical element(s) while achieving an overall weight reduction in the optical design.

The idea of telephoto lenses with giant aspherical elements certainly sounds interesting.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm wondering what they are going to improve

The answer can already be found in Egami's commentary:

AF-S 14-24mm F2.8GやEF11-24mm F4L USM、12-24mm F4 DG HSM Artでは、かつてない巨大な非球面レンズが使われています。 巨大な非球面の生産能力が勝敗を決するようになるのでしょうね。

What he says here is that the technology for the manufacture of giant aspherical lenses have progressed. Such aspherical elements are already found for example in the AF-S 14-24mm F2.8G, EF11-24mm F4L USM, and the 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art lenses.

Egami quotes this particular point in the patent:

【００１５】本発明によれば、望遠レンズにおいて、異常分散特性を有した硝材から成る接合レンズと非球面を適切な箇所に適切な屈折力で用いることで、色収差の補正と光学系全系での小型化及び軽量化の両立がなされた光学系を提供することができる。

It seems to describe novels optical methods of achieving a reduction in chromatic aberration using particular combinations of low dispersion elements and aspherical element(s) while achieving an overall weight reduction in the optical design.

The idea of telephoto lenses with giant aspherical elements certainly sounds interesting.

Telephoto/long focal length lenses don't benefit from aspheric elements like wide and ultrawide lenses do. Teles/long focal lengths bend the light at much less acute angles so spherical aberrations are much lower and they don't have to play the retrofocus games the wides and ultrawides do.

Indeed I don't know a super tele that has an aspheric element, do you?

 

[Sator]

The implication is that the particular use of an aspherical element after a low dispersion in a unique combination allows the reduction of overall lens size. That is, they have invented a novel way of reducing lens size with the use of giant aspherical elements. Egami does not state this is a conventional use of smaller aspherical elements, and the patent does not reveal further optical engineering details on how their aims are achieved. However, the patent does hint at an improvement of overall optical performance as well.

 

[privatebydesign]

I think you are right.

The point of an aspheric element in the teles would be to reduce length. The 400mm DO MkII has a good sized aspheric element so a new round of superteles could be even shorter even if they don't have DO elements by using the bigger aspheric elements.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

While I recognise that the 300mm /f2.8 is a cash cow for Canon...it's not the first lens I would turn to for a weight reduction. There are other big whites that are a lot heavier and larger that would take a percentile weight reduction a lot better. The current 300 f2.8 LIS II is very light already. I see a lot of guys at wildlife shoots with one and a few teleconverters. It's a very light and usable rig....comparatively. If it becomes too light then what's the point of the 400mm DO II?

You seem to think it'll be a lot lighter, just not going to happen. They might be able to get it down another 300g or so, but there's not a lot of wriggle room in the 300, unless they went all CF body say. Hopefully they even further improve mfd say to 1.8m, 10-20mm shorter, and say 2.2kg max.

Like with the mk II the biggest savings will come with the 400 f/2.8/600 f4/800 f/5.6 (assuming that will ever be updated). I wouldn't be surprised to see 500 f/4 III come in at 2.8kg, 400 3.2kg, 600 3.3kg, 800 3.5kg.

But the big news will be how small and light the 600 f/4 DO will be. Shorter than the 500, and probably lighter too.

 

[rrcphoto]

There are lots of more important new lenses to be released before a new 300/2.8...
What about a 24-70/2.8 IS?
What about a 16-35/2.8 IS?
What about a lightweight fullframe superzoom?
What about a sharp fast 50 and 85mm prime?
What about stabilized fast primes?
What about APS-C lenses that fit on full frame cameras, so people can make wide angle 4K videos as well?

1. don't care.
2. don't care
3. may be on the way as well. this WAS just a patent. don't go jumping off a cliff now.
4. meh.
5. don't care.
6. don't care.

if all else fails, refer to 3.

 

[ranplett]

1. don't care.
2. don't care
3. may be on the way as well. this WAS just a patent. don't go jumping off a cliff now.
4. meh.
5. don't care.
6. don't care.

if all else fails, refer to 3.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, rccphoto does not approve of such highly sought after lenses, so I think we can close the book on this one. And to think we were all such fools for dreaming about a 24-70 2.8 IS...