We're Going to be Waiting a While Longer for the Canon EF 600mm f/4 DO IS

[neonlight]

1) DO IQ is a step back from the f/4.0 L II

I suspect this is the issue. First Canon tried a DO lens. Then they put two DO lenses back to back with goo to bring flare under control. Then a recent report indicated that they were coating the sides of the DO lens's "ribbing" (the flat bits of the lens) to stop stray reflections. Seems to me there are technical difficulties with DO that manufacturing costs are increasing, and the quality is not up to the 600 II.

 

[Yasko]

*typo in the topic?
Shouldn't it say We're Going to be Waiting a While Longer for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM? :

 

[tron]

*typo in the topic?
Shouldn't it say We're Going to be Waiting a While Longer for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM? :

Why? There will be a 50mm 1.4 IS USM for sure by the year ... 2038 ;D ;D ;D

 

[arbitrage]

Folks seem to have some pretty unrealistic expectation on what DO would bring to the table at 600 F4. The 400 benefits from not having a direct L telephoto competitor. How many of those do you think Canon would sell if they sold a 400 F4 L similar in weight and IQ to the 300 2.8 and 20% cheaper than the DO. The IQ of the 600 DO will be compared directly to the IQ of the 600 L II and will most likely come up short. Great concept but I think the reality will be less than many people’s expectations and that’s why it hasn’t been and may never be released. There are lots of ways to get to a focal length of 600mm. The 600 L II is about getting there with the best IQ available. Yes the size and weight are a challenge for many applications but the results are usually worth the effort.

Personally I’d like to see a mid speed long telephoto but I doubt that will ever happen. I’d get far more utility out of a really sharp 500 or 600 f5.6 L IS than a 600 DO and it would be a lot less expensive. Even an updated 400 5.6L IS would be appreciated but that probably won’t t happen either. Canon is losing a lot of long lens purchases to Sigma and Tamron.

There is no such thing as a 400 4L similar in size and weight of 300 2.8L ii (Diameter yes, length definitely not otherwise there would be no need for the DO technology, weight again no due to length (and more elements).

Agreed, a non-DO 400/4 would likely look similar to Canon's prototype displayed when the first 400DO came out. The weight of a modern 400/4 would likely be less than Canon's numbers way back then but the size and shape of the lens would be about the same. Here are the two pictures I've found showing the difference that the DO made to a 400/4 lens design.

 

[tron]

The 600 DO will be interesting. The 600 II is a great lens but boy is it big and heavy (lighter than the previous version but still a serious piece of kit).
I assume the DO makes it shorter but I wonder how much lighter.
The 600 II is a huge investment and to be honest probably not worth it
It draws attention and its always a worry that it would be damaged lost or stolen
A DO would do well if it were significantly cheaper but I doubt it will be.

The 600DO prototype was 31cm long and weighted 3.2Kg. So it weighted just as a 500II but it was 7cm shorter.