Quick Post
I'm just travelling around a bit at the moment and I'm unable to format or research these patents thoroughly. I'm sure some of you will tear it apart. A better translation would be appreciated.
This Japanese site has posted some Canon patents he/she has found.
This is a direct email quote
Based on his investigation Canon made following patents.
EF300/F4 IS II with plastic lens.
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-12-17
This would be a welcomed lens by many.
EF70-210/F4 IS II with plastic lens
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-12-12
Not sure this lens needs an update yet.
EF300/F2.8 DO IS and EF 400/F4 DO IS with new double DO and IS
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-12-02
A lot of DO patents popping up. A lot of people ask for smaller and lighter lenses.
EF 15-24/F3.5-4.5 Fish eye zoom (not EF-S)
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-11-27
I think this would be a great fisheye solution. It wouldn't cost a lot at first sight.
CR's Take
All make some sense outside of a new 70-200 f/4L IS.
View more lens patents here
Thanks Mitsu
cr
48 Comments
Good point. Everyone stuck an L on the end of this one and I got swept away by it too.
But we can still all dream of more affordable L lenses :)
well if they manage to make plastic elements perform as well as the fluorite then this is going to be a revolution (especially if they pass on the savings to the consumer). I’d love to see a 500/4 L IS plastic that at least matches the current lens… DO…meh, don’t mind the extra size as long as I get the bokeh and contrast of the traditional lens… if they can get DO lenses to match them then that could be cool though frankly if I had to choose between size and cost, Id go for cost as long as optical performance was identical (big hypothetical)
Lighter and smaller professional lenses are always nicer, especially if you do air travel at all.
Bring on the plastic!
DO lenses are harder to make i believe, and if they have so much trouble with a 400 f/4 DO, i think they just keep the technology in production to develop, but don’t expect to sell many lenses with it (explaining the incredibly high price). If i am correct, DO lenses look like a Fresnel lens, so they are grooved. Doing something like that to a 800 mm lens might result in too much disfigurement, and doing it for a 100 mm lens may not yield enough results. (if i look at Canons own site, it looks like it’s a triple lens, with the middle being the DO part. Making that in a 15cm wide plate of glass might be too much at the moment)
So far their choices have been defensive at least (400/4 is right between the cheap, and light 5.6 and the expensive, razor sharp, but heavy 2.8), and until Nikon or Sigma produces DO stuff, i think it’ll stay that way.
Why it’s so expensive? It’s new tech, Canon wants to get development costs back, while slowly trying to evolve production of these lenses. The first of these will be incredibly expensive, and then, when they get the hang of it, they can lower production cost (yields go up), and add more DO lenses. Until then, you’ll be paying through your nose for one.