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

[Sporgon]

I would like see a 70-300 F4 better then the current 70-300L and take 1.4 converter.

I presume you mean better than the current 70-300L due to being a constant f4 aperture ? The current 70-300L is a superb lens.

A constant f4 aperture would result in a huge lens, losing a lot of the current one's handy appeal.

 

[Marsu42]

Yes, given good image quality (and I think Canon can deliver), a 70-400 would be a very useful and exciting range.

I'm probably one of the few enthusiasts who thinks weight is an issue - that's why I'm rather happy with the 70-300L+60d/6d combination. Combined with a flash bracket & large speedlite I can carry around & handhold this all day, complete with crawling through the environment shooting wildlife... not that I'd give back a free 200-400L or 70-400L, but I'd think these weight & size classes need different handling.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Yes, given good image quality (and I think Canon can deliver), a 70-400 would be a very useful and exciting range.

I'm probably one of the few enthusiasts who thinks weight is an issue - that's why I'm rather happy with the 70-300L+60d/6d combination. Combined with a flash bracket & large speedlite I can carry around & handhold this all day, complete with crawling through the environment shooting wildlife... not that I'd give back a free 200-400L or 70-400L, but I'd think these weight & size classes need different handling.

A 100-400 is actually surprisingly good to hand-hold, I think Canon can do a good job om making a 70-400 that's not too heave, as mentioned before in this thread.

 

[Marsu42]

I think Canon can do a good job om making a 70-400 that's not too heave, as mentioned before in this thread.

We'll see, but the length of this patent design might indicate a high weight - they probably don't just put air inside it ... the 100-400L is 189mm max, this patent is 303mm!

 

[mrsfotografie]

I think Canon can do a good job om making a 70-400 that's not too heave, as mentioned before in this thread.

We'll see, but the length of this patent design might indicate a high weight - they probably don't just put air inside it ... the 100-400L is 189mm max, this patent is 303mm!

Sorry, but the 189mm is in retracted state! The 100-400 will extend to 277mm, not counting the lens hood

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=113

Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"

 

[Marsu42]

Sorry, but the 189mm is in retracted state! The 100-400 will extend to 277mm, not counting the lens hood

Ok, thanks, that's wikipedia for you (I've just got the 70-300L).

Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"

Good question, plus I don't remember the 303 number from yesterday when looking how long this patented lens is :-o

 

[Lee Jay]

Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"

Focal length f = 71.33-144.71-388.95mm
Fno. 4.63-4.84-5.83
Half angle ω = 16.87-8.50-3.18 °
240.00-284.68-303.83mm overall length of the lens
BF 75.92-79.30-95.93mm

I'd say, each of the three in each category corresponds to each other.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Why are three lengths stated in the patent? "240.00-284.68-303.83"

Focal length f = 71.33-144.71-388.95mm
Fno. 4.63-4.84-5.83
Half angle ω = 16.87-8.50-3.18 °
240.00-284.68-303.83mm overall length of the lens
BF 75.92-79.30-95.93mm

I'd say, each of the three in each category corresponds to each other.

I see, looks like the intention is to describe the behavior through the range, but what is so special about that specific point between the extremes of the zoom range. It is not exactly in the middle of any of these figures...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

They should give this lens, to CR members, to test

 

[mrsfotografie]

They should give this lens, to CR members, to test

 

[StudentOfLight]

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS with built in 1.4x TC sounds like a much better proposition. In my mind this sort of lens will satisfy the needs of the people looking for a replacement to the 100-400 push-pull zoom and it sits obediently below the 200-400mm f/4 1.4x TC.

With TC-on that would give 140-420 f/5.6. If priced between $2100-2600 and the IQ at f/4 matched the 100mm macro (non-L) and 300mm IS then I'd say they have a winner.

P.S. (100macro non-L) + (300mm f/4L IS) + (1.4x TC) = $2550

The notion of a 100-300 f/4 + 1.4TC is also intriguing. It's wishful thinking that it's price would equal the $2,550 sum of the prices of a 100 macro + 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC, but I'd willingly shell out up to $1,000 more for a lens like this.

Of course, but I can always try to be optimistic. Sure I'd also be willing to pay a bit more especially considering it would offer an interesting alternative to Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8, which is a bit soft (at f/2.8) anyway.

 

[dufflover]

Well even the minimum number in the patent is quite long compared to the original 100-400. So that's why I am talking about a longer physical size even if Canon could make it shorter - this particular patent says 5cm longer which means it isn't in that 70-200 form factor anymore. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it will be bloody good as usual for their refreshes but the "purpose" of the lens changes slightly in that it would take the role of my Sigma 120-300 (for example) which goes in a backpack, not really a "in shoulder bag ready to go travel lens" that I use my 100-400 for.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Well even the minimum number in the patent is quite long compared to the original 100-400. So that's why I am talking about a longer physical size even if Canon could make it shorter - this particular patent says 5cm longer which means it isn't in that 70-200 form factor anymore. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it will be bloody good as usual for their refreshes but the "purpose" of the lens changes slightly in that it would take the role of my Sigma 120-300 (for example) which goes in a backpack, not really a "in shoulder bag ready to go travel lens" that I use my 100-400 for.

If you look back at the 70's, SLR equipment has been steadily growing in size. Bigger glass has the potential for better optics, so it's not too strange that this trend continues. Fortunately the materials are getting lighter though.