Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

[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/2014/02/patent-canon-ef-70-400-f4-5-5-6l-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/patent-canon-ef-70-400-f4-5-5-6l-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>2014 will see the replacement of the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS, and we should see some new new patents showing new optical formulas for its replacement. Below is a patent for an EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS.</p>
<p><strong>Description and self-interpretation of the patent literature</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Patent Publication No. 2014-21256,2014-21257
<ul>
<li>Publication date 2014.2.3</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.7.18</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Example 2
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 5.45</li>
<li>Focal length f = 71.33-144.71-388.95mm</li>
<li>Fno. 4.63-4.84-5.83</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 16.87-8.50-3.18 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64</li>
<li>240.00-284.68-303.83mm overall length of the lens</li>
<li>BF 75.92-79.30-95.93mm</li>
<li>6-group zoom of positive and negative positive and negative positive and negative</li>
<li>(Part of the fourth group) anti-vibration</li>
<li>Rear Focus (Group 6)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-02-04" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Eldar]

If they keep the size about the same as the current 100-400, drop the push-pull and improve IQ, this could be a very tempting lens ...

 

[pj1974]

Hmmm "2014 WILL see the replacement of the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS"

Well, that's interesting!!! Not 'may'!

I love my 70-300mm (great IQ, and still so portable). I expect any 70-400mm will be significantly larger (& more expensive) - but would be a great 'zoom' birding lens.

Then there's the 200-400mm 1.4x... *sigh*

The Tamron 150-600mm looks like a decent budget birding zoom... reviews showing it's decent at 600mm at between f/8 and f/11.

But still... we're talking about a potential Canon 70-400mm... yes, I expect it will be EF too.

Paul

 

[Albi86]

It will be interesting to see if/how it copes with 1.4x TC VS the Tamron.

 

[dufflover]

This particular patent says 240mm lens length (right?) so that puts it a tad shorter than the 400mm/5.6.
And way longer than the nice 70-200 collapsed size if that's the case.

 

[MintChocs]

I wonder what lens will weigh and more importantly what the price will be?

 

[Marsu42]

This particular patent says 240mm lens length (right?) so that puts it a tad shorter than the 400mm/5.6.
And way longer than the nice 70-200 collapsed size if that's the case.

The 70-200L is 200mm (internal zoom), and this is on the very edge of portable ... the 70-300L is only 143mm collapsed.

This puts this new patent in another class entirely, and thus the zoom range is a bit bit strange - who would want to use this @70mm except for dedicated usage cases when very high flexibility is required? The difference between ~300 and 390 isn't that large w/o tc, so if I were to use this instead of the 70-300L the new lens would have to have terrific iq ... which also means very high weight & price.

 

[GreenViper]

To be honest, if the replacement for the 100-400 is going to be extended in range and noticeably larger, I'd much prefer the extended range at the long end e.g. 100-500 or 150-500 for my 5D3. The gap between the current 100-400 and the supertelephotos for 400+ range is quite frankly a financial chasm. Something like a high quality 150-500 at $2000-3000 range would go a long way to filling that gap. Canon could get a number of enthusiasts to spend this much more for such a lens without in any way impacting its supertelephoto sales.

 

[CatfishSoupFTW]

70-400 2.8 IS .

this. hahahah, for an arm and a leg. 70-400 would seem like a nice focal length though. i still wouldnt mind push pull. either or would be fine imho.

 

[Maui5150]

This particular patent says 240mm lens length (right?) so that puts it a tad shorter than the 400mm/5.6.
And way longer than the nice 70-200 collapsed size if that's the case.

The 70-200L is 200mm (internal zoom), and this is on the very edge of portable ... the 70-300L is only 143mm collapsed.

This puts this new patent in another class entirely, and thus the zoom range is a bit bit strange - who would want to use this @70mm except for dedicated usage cases when very high flexibility is required? The difference between ~300 and 390 isn't that large w/o tc, so if I were to use this instead of the 70-300L the new lens would have to have terrific iq ... which also means very high weight & price.

I can see many applications, especially in sports and action. I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.

The 70 - 300 has been tempting, but my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II I think has slightly better IQ, not to mention a lot faster, so have a hard time justifying dropping $1500 for just having 100 extra MM

Now the 200-400... Car or lens... Car or Lens...

So for the 70-400 with the same aperture range as the old 100-400? I only stayed away from the 100-400 because I heard it was a dust sucker, have used it/rented it twice and it was decent, but the 300-400 range can be very convenient, especially when you don't have to swing / switch bodies as object gets closer.

If the 70-400 has the slightly better IQ and better sealing, and no more push/pull I think it is a decent upgrade.

I still will likely pull the trigger on the Tamron because of price, and for what I have seen the IQ is decent. Even if the 600 really needs F/8 or F/11, I figure getting upwards of 500mm for that price still is a bargain, and makes a nice compliment of 70-200 on one body and 150-600 on a second.

 

[J.R.]

Yet another patent ... Canon does seem to be on a bit of an innovation overdrive ;D

OTOH, this is yet another patent that may not see light of day.

 

[vlim]

So many patents and just a few new lenses but not the ones we're expecting like a new 100-400, new 400... At least they 're searching for the right formula 8)

 

[Haydn1971]

Having a 70-300mm, personally, I would rather see something in the 200-460mm f4-5.6 range - that would give a max 82mm front element and tie in with the 70-200 lenses too... Although I shudder to think of the cost. !

 

[DanielW]

70-400 2.8 IS .

this. hahahah, for an arm and a leg. (...)

I'd suggest keeping both arms and both legs, as you will end up with a heavy toy...

 

[Marsu42]

I can see many applications, especially in sports and action. I shot a lot with the 300 F/2.8 IS II last year, and definitely was aching for some extra reach.

No doubt a lot of people are, I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.

 

[Loswr]

I was talking about the 70mm wide end - it's probably there to go along with Canon's new 24-70 lenses and to phase out the 24-105, but the 70-100 range will come at a cost and it's doubtful how many people will need this part on a tele lens... if you want flexible get a 70-300L as this is much more portable.

There are many times with my 70-200 when I find that 70mm is just barely wide enough for me not to have to change lenses. The wide end of my 100-400 requires me to pop on the 40/2.8 more than a 70-400 would. Also, Nikon has an 80-400…

 

[Marsu42]

The wide end of my 100-400 requires me to pop on the 40/2.8 more than a 70-400 would.

In that case, they should stop making lenses except for a new 14-400 :->

Also, Nikon has an 80-400…

Ok, I admit that's a striking reason and we can start impressing the Nikonians after all the shameful reporting about sensors, wide angle lenses and whatnot :-o

 

[kubelik]

Perhaps it's a case of you-always-want-what-you-can't-have but I feel like Canon is totally missing the gauntlet just thrown by Tamron with the new 150-600. instead of covering the 70mm-100mm range yet again for the zillionth time, how about moving up into the 500mm or 600mm range for consumers and serious amateurs? I think that they will absolutely lose sales over this, not because the Tamron is amazing (although initial reports seem to show that it's pretty good at the least) but because Canon simply has zero competitive offerings in the focal length-to-price class. How about a 500mm f/5.6 L prime to replace the 400mm f/5.6? How about matching the 150-600mm variable aperture, or a 200-600, or a 150-500?

I know that the Tamron is just hitting and it will take some time for Canon to rework its lens designs and patents. I also know it's easy for webgeeks to sit and critique decisions that were probably made for very good reasons based on more factors than we will ever know about. But I seriously think Canon has been short-sighted in assuming that the 400mm maximum focal length would satisfy amateur photographers forever. Just because that was a realistic assumption 20 years ago doesn't mean it's a realistic assumption now. I have way more confidence in Sigma creating a competitor to the new Tammy than Canon at this point; can't wait until Sigma waves their new magic wand over the Bigma lineup.

 

[Don Haines]

I keep wondering if Canon would come out with a 200-600 F5.6....

It would probably cost $3500 or so, but it fit in nicely above the 70-200's and by keeping the zoom ratio to 3-1 they could keep the kind of IQ that we expect from a L lens.... A 6X zoom is a bit harder to keep hi IQ on....

 

[Maui5150]

The 24-105 is still one of the best ranges I have found. I love the 24-70 but have had a lot of times when I shoot events I wish I had more length amd when I shoot the 70-200 want to go wider. IQ is not the same as these two beasts, but as a kit lens, it is pretty solid.

Regarding Canon going longer, Maybe I would have preferred even a 150-500, but I think what Canon sees is even though the 100-400 is so old, it still sells and is still out there, and that while many want longer, a 70-400 has a larger market range than a 150-500 and my guess is the IQ and amount of glass starts becoming a factor so easier for them to go wider than go longer.

I have been looking in this range for a LONG time. Covet the 200-400 but that is a dream lens. If the 100-400 was F/4 I would probably have picked it up, as a variable... think it is just off for what I want and still want more length. The Bigma has tempted me, but never enough to bite.

Also depends. If the 70-400 delivers the IQ of the 70-300 than probably still enough to pay more than lose the extra reach of the Tamron, which to me is more of a 150-500 with some extra might be so-so for the last 100