400 F1.8 / F2 DO IS?

[rg-tom]

Hey guys,

Would this kind of lens be viable do you think? Obviously a 400 F1.8 or F2 with normal optics would be completely unbearably large, but can DO be used for large aperture? or is it restricted for smaller apertures?

Cheers

Tom.

[Incomplete Pete]

Doodeedoo...ignore me not reading messages properly lol

But yea, would be viable eventually, I'd love a 1.8 400mm for night time matches!

[rg-tom]

i know it doesnt exist pete, i was asking about the viability of such a lens with the new DO technology ;)

[tim]

DO won't change the fact that you'd need a massive front lens, but they might make it shorter and lighter.

[Dew]

400 F1.8
mmmm I want one!

[Incomplete Pete]

i know it doesnt exist pete, i was asking about the viability of such a lens with the new DO technology ;)


Good point, didn't read it properly! lol

[Pekka]

DO does not help THAT much. First of all the lens would be very large and heavy: I doubt they could manufacture elements that large without 10X more cost (they would sell 5 a year). Also, USM won't be able to move all that glass fast enough for the target use (sports, indoor events). Because lowering noise levels in cameras 2.8 is enough in that focal lenght as we'll have good ISO 12800 in few years time (for portrait and art photography high ISO can not replace the need for large apertures).

Some lenses what I would like to see:
40/1.2L
200 f/2.8L with IS
16mm L prime with perfectly sharp corners

[primoz]

Pekka thing about af motors not being able to move glass fast enough, is not completely true. 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 are faster then any smaller lens Canon made, and their front glass is few times bigger then any other smaller lens. It would be true if front glass(es) would be moving when focusing, but it's not. Only lenses which are moving are rear one which are smaller. And I don't see any reason why in imaginary 400/1.8 would be any different :)
But no I wouldn't want to have it. It might sound cool, but anyone who had chance draging 400/2.8 up and down skiing slope for few hours knows how bad it is already with that lens, which would be half smaller and lighter then 1.8 lens :) So no thank you :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Tom,
Have you seen how large the 400mm f/2.8 is? It's as heavy as the 600mm...

Start there,. then look at how small the 200mm f/2.8.. nice and portable yes?

Now look at the 200mm f/1.8 :shock:

Going from f/2.8 to f/1.8 you have more than quadrupled the size and weight of the lens!!

So start with the 400mm f/2.8 and quadruple that!!!!
Do would only make it shorter...

[radar-eclipse]

Boy I don't have one of those! Let's see.....18-20 pounds, and about $18,000.