Canon EF 200-600 F/4.5-5.6 IS

It is lighter though. From what I can tell it would be in the order of 10-20% lighter than a 400/4 lens with the same technology as the 300 IS II. Just not by the amount it might be if it was the front element that was a fresnel

smythie wrote in post #18350291
It is lighter though. From what I can tell it would be in the order of 10-20% lighter than a 400/4 lens with the same technology as the 300 IS II. Just not by the amount it might be if it was the front element that was a fresnel

I don't think there is any weight saving, but apparently the design has reduced aberrations. That is a good thing, they found a new purpose for the Fresnel design.

Here is the optical design. By fusing the Fresnels, they simultaneously reduce flare and refraction. And with the reduced refraction, they lose the reduced weight benefit. Still a very cool lens, and lighter than the 500/4.

Compare:
300/4 II 1190 grams
400DOII 2100 g
500/4 II 3190 g

I do not like my Sigma at all. I find it way to slow to focus.

Archibald wrote in post #18350319
I don't think there is any weight saving, but apparently the design has reduced aberrations. That is a good thing, they found a new purpose for the Fresnel design.

Here is the optical design. By fusing the Fresnels, they simultaneously reduce flare and refraction. And with the reduced refraction, they lose the reduced weight benefit. Still a very cool lens, and lighter than the 500/4.

Compare:
300/4 II 1190 grams
400DOII 2100 g
500/4 II 3190 g

Most relevant is the 300/2.8 II at 2350g. Using the same technology, a 400/4.0 would be a similar weight, if not slightly heavier. Slightly less relevant is the 200/2.0 at 2520g.

The DO cluster looks to be about 6 cm in diameter, judging from the diagram. So its volume is approx 30 cc. For typical glass densities, the weight of those elements would be 120 to 150 grams, 4 or 5 ounces. That is all they can play with weight-wise with this lens. It's less than 10% of the total weight of the lens.

I do not think the DO elements are the entire story re: size and weight savings. I believe that by using DO elements in the design, they can reduce the size and therefore weight of other elements as well. They are using the Fresnel to ask two elements to do more than would otherwise be possible.

For instance, it is 400mm, and yet physically shorter than the 300mm f/2.8.

We might never know for sure if the 400 DO II is heavy or light, because nobody else makes a 400/4 for comparison.

Big white lenses with larger apertures tend to be a lot longer than those with smaller apertures.

Archibald wrote in post #18350683
We might never know for sure if the 400 DO II is heavy or light, because nobody else makes a 400/4 for comparison.

Big white lenses with larger apertures tend to be a lot longer than those with smaller apertures.

We know how long a 400mm lens needs to be.
Aperture does not make a lens longer.
The 400mm f/5.6 is two inches longer than the DO.

Any word yet if and when this lens will be released?

No recent news, I had been holding my breath but exhaled quite some time ago.

(This was a lens I truly wanted)

T.

Same here. I have the Sigma Sport and not to happy with it. This lens is something I would love to have.

And Nikon is releasing a 180-400 with built in TC---but 13k is lots of bucks when they have a 200-400 and a 200-500.

Canon still has not produced the rumored 200-600 to compete with 150-600s and 200-500.


T.

I think the 180-400 will replace the 200-400

smythie wrote in post #18537655
I think the 180-400 will replace the 200-400

That's the idea but at
13k there is no way sales will compare.

T.

TerryWSmith wrote in post #18537874
That's the idea but at
13k there is no way sales will compare.

T.

If Nikon discontinues the 200-400 there won’t be anything to compare with if you want that quality and want new. It’s back ordered now at B&H so the plan might already be in motion.