My most wanted list, anything more to add?

[Daniel Browning]

Only problem with it seems to be the DO part....BTW, is there something inherently screwed about 'Diffractive Optics'?

I wouldn't put it that way. It's a really neat technology for reducing size and weight. Canon says the 400mm f/4 DO is 27% shorter and 31% lighter than a non-DO 400m f/4 would be.

What is that anyway? Last thing I heard, lenses worked by refraction.

The EF Lens Book says a diffractive optical element has a diffraction grating which stands 10 microns high in a concentric circle made by a 3D ultra-high precision micro machining tool which could be controlled on the order of several nonometers. Wikipedia says the chromatic aberration produced by DO lenses is opposite in direction to that produced by refractive lenses, and so the coupling of a diffractive element and a refractive element can effectively cancel chromatic aberration.


When you look at results of DO lenses vs. normal lenses, it becomes clear that DO only makes sense if you need it shorter, lighter, and you're willing to pay for it in the form of cold hard cash and lower image quality.

why bother DO if IQ is gonna be
affected.

Because sometimes, weight and size matter more than cost and (certain levels of) image quality.

is canon making any
profit out of its two DO lenses?

I would guess that they are.

[alexniedra]

Let's think about it though:


Diffractive Optics is great technology - and the evidence is in the specs of the 400 f/4 DO IS. Significantly lighter and more compact than a regular 400 f/4 lens. That's pretty cool, but at $5,400, does not seem practical for the market. Anyone in the market for the 400 DO could probably shell out the extra $1,300 for the whole stop in light and better optical performance of the 400 2.8 IS.


Now, at 11.7 lbs, (Canon's heaviest lens in current production), the 400 2.8 IS is a indeed a very heavy (and big) lens. If size and weight are paramount, then the 400 DO IS is a better lens by a wide margin. This gets me back to the point - Canon needs a good 400mm f/4 prime equipped with Image Stabalization that doen't cost a full arm and leg.


The 400 DO IS lens is a cool lens indeed, but not very practical considering the few alternative lenses that lie in Canon's lineup.

[Colin]

I agree much.


If they even made a 5.6L IS at 400mm, it'd be way smaller than the 400 f/4, and the clarity increase would mean that you could shoot higher ISO and then noise reduction detail loss would put you in the same detail ballpark as the DO version at f/4. The 400mm f/5.6 and the 300mm f/4 IS are both relatively small lenses, physically. How much bigger and expensive would a 400mm f/4 IS, build and features along the lines of the 300mm f/4 IS, perhaps with weather sealing, actually be? Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but it would seem that $2,500 would be an achievable selling price. Am I out of my mind?

[Jon Ruyle]

I don't think you are out of your mind


But I do think they would charge more for a 400mm f/4. All other 100mm aperture lenses are in the $4000 range and up. Hard to say, though. Prices of existing lenses are not always what I expect, so there must be plenty I don't understand.


At $2500, I'd buy a 400mm f/4 IS.

[alexniedra]

Right on, Colin.


Canon would have two directions they could go in terms of quality of the lens and features.


One way, like you mentioned, would to make a lens similar to the 300 f/4 IS, which from what I've heard is a great lens. White (Or off-white, smartalecs), Ring USM, IS of course, maybe the retractable hood, but that depends on the optical design of the lens.


Also, Canon can go all-out on this lens. They could include the more professionally-directed features like the focus recall switch and a protective front element. This would make the 400 f/4 similar in physical design to the 200 f/2 IS. The problem being here is that I'm sure Canon would charge alot more for a lens of this caliber.


All in all, a 400 f/4 IS would be the ideal lens for any enthusiast or working professional, and would finally bridge the gap between the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/2.8.

[Daniel Browning]

Anyone in the market for the 400 DO could probably shell out the extra $1,300 for the whole stop in light and better optical performance of the 400 2.8 IS.

Anyone in the market for a $250,000 Lamborghini could probably shell out the extra $20,000 for an RV: a whole lot more room and much more comfortable way to travel. Or a huge 18-wheeler with 100,000 pound hauling capacity. Or a solar-powered electric vehicle that costs nothing to "fill up" (great "fuel" economy).


But someone in the market for a Lamborghini doesn't care that they could have bought a vehicle with much more room, more towing capacity, better gas mileage, or lower cost. They are looking for certain characteristics: speed and handling, and are willing to pay for them.


Same with DO lenses: someone in the market for a DO lens doesn't care that they could have bought a lens with wider aperture, better image quality, or a lower price. They are looking for certain characteristics: size and weight, and they are willing to pay for them.


I have a hard time visualizing someone who would spend 5 times the
money for a lens that has lower image quality, just because it is lighter and smaller. It sounds like you are
having a hard time imagining it, too. But you have to think about what
the target market for this kind of lens is:


Someone who can't possible stand more then four pounds for the lens, and can't fit more than 9 inches of extra gear in their pack. If you've ever hiked you know what a difference 4 pounds can make. If 9 inches is really your limit, then the next closest thing is the 300mm f/4 IS (8.7 inches).


Again, I'll take quality and price over weight and length anytime. But there really are people out there for whom it is the principle thing.

[kmackins]

I am shocked that Canon hasn't gone FF with the 1D. Afterall, it would force people to buy a 400mm or 500mm lens when they have been getting away with a 300mm x the crop factor!


Dear Canon, please make the 1D Mark IV FF! I promise that I will buy one!

[Jon Ruyle]

Me, too. If it is full frame and not substantially more expensive than the 1D III, I want it. But then, I'm not the target market

[Bob]

They have, it is called a 1Ds, otherwise the 1D and the 1Ds would be redundant.

[Jon Ruyle]

They have, it is called a 1Ds, otherwise the 1D and the 1Ds would be redundant.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I thought the idea was that the 1D would have lower resolution. 1D and 1Ds would be more like the Nikon D3 and D3x. Hopefully with a similar price ratio...


Nikon has shown that it is possible to make a full frame camera with a pro body that doesn't cost $6000...