Patent: Canon EF 600mm f/4 DO IS

[KeithBreazeal]

Are we ready for a $15,000 - $16,000 lens?

It'll be a tough call between buying a car or a lens

Yeah, when I go out shooting birds the value of the gear in the car (1D X, 600/4L IS II, RRS tripod+monopod) exceeds the value of the car.

+1 on the built-in extender, I use my 600/4 with a 1.4x much of the time.

Yup, about as much as my first house! Wife wants a new pickup truck. This could get ugly.

 

[fegari]

Based on the patent's description of the lens length, the lenght is virtually identical to the 400 2.8 II or 200-400 F4.

Not quite. Those are 343mm (13.5") and 366mm (14.4"), respectively, whereas the physical length of this patented lens would be ~292mm (11.5"). A 50mm / 2" / 15% length reduction is not insignificant.

Keep in mind that a 'lens patent' is really an optical formula patent, so the 'lens total length' is from the front element to the sensor. To compare with measurements of actual lenses, you need to subtract the 43mm flange focal distance from the patented length.

Where do you see 292mm in lenght? in the post it is state "Lens total length 335.32"

 

[Loswr]

Based on the patent's description of the lens length, the lenght is virtually identical to the 400 2.8 II or 200-400 F4.

Not quite. Those are 343mm (13.5") and 366mm (14.4"), respectively, whereas the physical length of this patented lens would be ~292mm (11.5"). A 50mm / 2" / 15% length reduction is not insignificant.

Keep in mind that a 'lens patent' is really an optical formula patent, so the 'lens total length' is from the front element to the sensor. To compare with measurements of actual lenses, you need to subtract the 43mm flange focal distance from the patented length.

Where do you see 292mm in lenght? in the post it is state "Lens total length 335.32"

Subtraction. 335mm – 43mm = 292mm.

 

[fegari]

Based on the patent's description of the lens length, the lenght is virtually identical to the 400 2.8 II or 200-400 F4.

Not quite. Those are 343mm (13.5") and 366mm (14.4"), respectively, whereas the physical length of this patented lens would be ~292mm (11.5"). A 50mm / 2" / 15% length reduction is not insignificant.

Keep in mind that a 'lens patent' is really an optical formula patent, so the 'lens total length' is from the front element to the sensor. To compare with measurements of actual lenses, you need to subtract the 43mm flange focal distance from the patented length.

Where do you see 292mm in lenght? in the post it is state "Lens total length 335.32"

Subtraction. 335mm – 43mm = 292mm.

tx, did not know that. In such case it is tiny! just 60mm longer than 400 DO II and just 40mm aprox longer than 300 2.8 II. Based on that lenght I guess we're talking about 2.5kg +- lens with a diameter probably close to the 500's front diameter

 

[LordofTackle]

tx, did not know that. In such case it is tiny! just 60mm longer than 400 DO II and just 40mm aprox longer than 300 2.8 II. Based on that lenght I guess we're talking about 2.5kg +- lens with a diameter probably close to the 500's front diameter

I thought the front lens stays the same, also with an DO lens?
DO just shortens the lens, but 600mm f/4 is still 600mm f/4...

 

[Loswr]

tx, did not know that. In such case it is tiny! just 60mm longer than 400 DO II and just 40mm aprox longer than 300 2.8 II. Based on that lenght I guess we're talking about 2.5kg +- lens with a diameter probably close to the 500's front diameter

I thought the front lens stays the same, also with an DO lens?
DO just shortens the lens, but 600mm f/4 is still 600mm f/4...

Correct. A 600/4 is still going to need a 150mm front element, whether conventional or DO. As the guy in the red shirt (who somehow managed not to die on the show) said, "Ya cann'a change the laws of physics."

 

[fegari]

tx, did not know that. In such case it is tiny! just 60mm longer than 400 DO II and just 40mm aprox longer than 300 2.8 II. Based on that lenght I guess we're talking about 2.5kg +- lens with a diameter probably close to the 500's front diameter

I thought the front lens stays the same, also with an DO lens?
DO just shortens the lens, but 600mm f/4 is still 600mm f/4...

Correct. A 600/4 is still going to need a 150mm front element, whether conventional or DO. As the guy in the red shirt (who somehow managed not to die on the show) said, "Ya cann'a change the laws of physics."

I may need to disagree, the f/stop relates to the entrance pupil which does not necessarily mean it is the same size than the front element's diameter.

Nonetheless, I was not referring that, I was talking about overall lens diameter, not front lens diameter (nor pupil for what is worth). I was using the 500 II's diameter as a proxy of what this new lens diameter could be.

 

[privatebydesign]

I may need to disagree, the f/stop relates to the entrance pupil which does not necessarily mean it is the same size than the front element's diameter.

It is the apparent size of the entrance pupil that is important, not the physical size. In complex lenses that means the front element can't be smaller than the focal length divided by the widest aperture for lenses that focus to infinity. A 600mm f4 lens must have a 150mm front element.

 

[vscd]

I may need to disagree, the f/stop relates to the entrance pupil which does not necessarily mean it is the same size than the front element's diameter.

It is the apparent size of the entrance pupil that is important, not the physical size. In complex lenses that means the front element can't be smaller than the focal length divided by the widest aperture for lenses that focus to infinity. A 600mm f4 lens must have a 150mm front element.

Yes, correct. I would say the "aperture"-diameter has to be 150mm. The Frontelement is at least 150mm or larger, but it's not neccessarily the same size.

 

[100]

I may need to disagree, the f/stop relates to the entrance pupil which does not necessarily mean it is the same size than the front element's diameter.

It is the apparent size of the entrance pupil that is important, not the physical size. In complex lenses that means the front element can't be smaller than the focal length divided by the widest aperture for lenses that focus to infinity. A 600mm f4 lens must have a 150mm front element.

Yes, correct. I would say the "aperture"-diameter has to be 150mm. The Frontelement is at least 150mm or larger, but it's not neccessarily the same size.

A 600 f/4 needs 150mm but it’s “only” a 585 f/4.12 so a 142mm front element will do

 

[Loswr]

tx, did not know that. In such case it is tiny! just 60mm longer than 400 DO II and just 40mm aprox longer than 300 2.8 II. Based on that lenght I guess we're talking about 2.5kg +- lens with a diameter probably close to the 500's front diameter

I thought the front lens stays the same, also with an DO lens?
DO just shortens the lens, but 600mm f/4 is still 600mm f/4...

Correct. A 600/4 is still going to need a 150mm front element, whether conventional or DO. As the guy in the red shirt (who somehow managed not to die on the show) said, "Ya cann'a change the laws of physics."

I may need to disagree, the f/stop relates to the entrance pupil which does not necessarily mean it is the same size than the front element's diameter.

Nonetheless, I was not referring that, I was talking about overall lens diameter, not front lens diameter (nor pupil for what is worth). I was using the 500 II's diameter as a proxy of what this new lens diameter could be.

With long telephoto lens designs, the apparent position of the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element. My statement doesn't necessarily apply to other lens designs, but generally the front element is as large or larger than the physical iris diaphragm diameter (FL / f-number).

A 600 f/4 needs 150mm but it’s “only” a 585 f/4.12 so a 142mm front element will do

Quite true. In fact, when I lay a ruler across the front of my 600/4L IS II, the front element measures slightly over 142mm in diameter. That's consistent with the typical 'rounding error' for lenses (although in science the practice of rounding is applied such that, on average, there's equal likelihood of rounding up or down, in lens design the rounding almost always favors shorter focal lengths and narrower apertures).

 

[arbitrage]

You should have made the red line green. Canon's DO lenses have a green line.

Who should have made it green? That photo is Canon's prototype of the casing they showed last year. And in some of the photos you can read the actual name plate and Canon named it " EF 600mm 1:4 L DO IS USM " So Canon is pushing this DO into the L range....green ring be gone....this ones gonna be fire engine red 8)

IMO, they should have made the 400 DO II the 400 L DO IS because it leaves the old 400DO in the dust and belongs in the L range of superteles

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I'd like to know weight. Not so much price though

 

[IglooEater]

IMO, they should have made the 400 DO II the 400 L DO IS because it leaves the old 400DO in the dust and belongs in the L range of superteles

Agreed, but I think canon wanted to prove the effectiveness of the DO line before soiling the L line's image unnecessarily. Honestly, the 400mm DO II was the first DO lens that was truly impressive.

 

[Maiaibing]

Having looked a little on Canon's pricing I'm not sure it will be as expensive as some suggest here.

The 400mm DO II is 6.900$. Current 600mm f/4 is ~12.000$. My guess is the DO will effectively replace the 600 f/4 and Canon will split the productions saving between them selves and their customers. So that I would only expect a 12.000$ price tag.

That would be a very attractive lens by all accounts. Offering a distinct advantage over 300mm +2x in a package you could consider lugging around even for hand held shots.

 

[scyrene]

Yeah, when I go out shooting birds the value of the gear in the car (1D X, 600/4L IS II, RRS tripod+monopod) exceeds the value of the car.

When I go out shooting with my EOS M3 and a couple of EF-M lenses the value of that gear exceeds the value of the car!

I don't own a car; my big white lens is worth nearly as much as all my other possessions put together :-[

Oh, and I would be very interested in this lens. I'd have gone for the 600 II but the price is considerably more than the 500 II.

 

[NancyP]

Tron's got a good memory. Yes, I'd be interested, if I could handle it. I tried the Sigma Sport 150-600 mm lens at 2.86 kg - could get it on and off tripod and hand hold in shooting position for a few minutes, but my panning is not great at 600mm - need more muscle to make it readily usable. (actual efforts underway since then, but a long way to go, gym-wise). So, the 500 f/4 L IS II is 3.19 kg and the 600 f/4 L IS II is 3.92 kg. I need to rent a 500 or 600 mm 3+ kilo lens once I have built up my usually ignored arms. This takes longer every year....must get very systematic about arm/shoulder exercises, normally I have just done core and legs.

 

[AlanF]

Having looked a little on Canon's pricing I'm not sure it will be as expensive as some suggest here.

The 400mm DO II is 6.900$. Current 600mm f/4 is ~12.000$. My guess is the DO will effectively replace the 600 f/4 and Canon will split the productions saving between them selves and their customers. So that I would only expect a 12.000$ price tag.

That would be a very attractive lens by all accounts. Offering a distinct advantage over 300mm +2x in a package you could consider lugging around even for hand held shots.

A 600/5.6 DO would weigh less than 2.5 kg (a 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III weighs ~2.7 kg). I can lug one of those around all day on a Blackrapid strap and handhold for long periods even at my advanced age.

 

[Light Sculptor]

Having looked a little on Canon's pricing I'm not sure it will be as expensive as some suggest here.

The 400mm DO II is 6.900$. Current 600mm f/4 is ~12.000$. My guess is the DO will effectively replace the 600 f/4 and Canon will split the productions saving between them selves and their customers. So that I would only expect a 12.000$ price tag.

That would be a very attractive lens by all accounts. Offering a distinct advantage over 300mm +2x in a package you could consider lugging around even for hand held shots.

A 600/5.6 DO would weigh less than 2.5 kg (a 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III weighs ~2.7 kg). I can lug one of those around all day on a Blackrapid strap and handhold for long periods even at my advanced age.

I don't think it would weigh as little as 2.5kg, due to the objective lens diameter being considerably wider than the 300mm lens width you are comparing it with. Even a small increase in diameter leads to a considerably greater volume of glass, hence weight.

 

[Loswr]

Having looked a little on Canon's pricing I'm not sure it will be as expensive as some suggest here.

The 400mm DO II is 6.900$. Current 600mm f/4 is ~12.000$. My guess is the DO will effectively replace the 600 f/4 and Canon will split the productions saving between them selves and their customers. So that I would only expect a 12.000$ price tag.

That would be a very attractive lens by all accounts. Offering a distinct advantage over 300mm +2x in a package you could consider lugging around even for hand held shots.

A 600/5.6 DO would weigh less than 2.5 kg (a 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III weighs ~2.7 kg). I can lug one of those around all day on a Blackrapid strap and handhold for long periods even at my advanced age.

I don't think it would weigh as little as 2.5kg, due to the objective lens diameter being considerably wider than the 300mm lens width you are comparing it with. Even a small increase in diameter leads to a considerably greater volume of glass, hence weight.

Can you explain why a 600/5.6 lens would need a 'considerably wider objective lens diameter' than a 300/2.8 lens? Last I checked, 600 / 5.6 = 300 / 2.8 = 107mm.