Nikon will need to respond to this 1kilo lighter!

Interesting.

Of note that caught my attention was that the lens hoods are optional accessories and the switch to soft shoulder case might be controversial! At the very least for flagship lens they should as before (the MK1 & 2 had lens hood included, didn't they?) include the hoods!!!!

PS having shifted away from Canon for longer lens subjects......not that I could afford anything above 100-400mm these sound great but makes me think the MK2 of each will be sought after based on price???
 
Last edited:
Interesting technical achievements, of course, and essential for some types of photography. But I wonder how many £12k lenses either company sells?
 
robinsslee said:
I wish Canon made 500m 5.6 Nikon equivalent...

They'll come out soon, don't worry.
Click to expand...
We're never happy are we, I wish Nikon made Canon's 400mm f4 ;)
 
Maybe the lenshoods weigh in at a 1Kg and, because they're not included, is why they're 1Kg lighter
 
I have not seen any explaination as to how Canon have achived this massive reduction in weight. And it is a massive reduction. Canon and Nikon brougt in new 400mm f2.8's only a few years back that were super light in comparison to the older models and explainations were given as to how the weight reduction had been achived.

But with this new lens I cannot find any explaination as to how this kilo reduction has been achived. Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.

One has to wonder if compromises have been made. Especially when canon are not saying how the reduction has been achived!
 
It's the same way Sony did there 400mm
shapeshifter said:
I have not seen any explaination as to how Canon have achived this massive reduction in weight. And it is a massive reduction. Canon and Nikon brougt in new 400mm f2.8's only a few years back that were super light in comparison to the older models and explainations were given as to how the weight reduction had been achived.

But with this new lens I cannot find any explaination as to how this kilo reduction has been achived. Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.

One has to wonder if compromises have been made. Especially when canon are not saying how the reduction has been achived!
Click to expand...
 
shapeshifter said:
I have not seen any explaination as to how Canon have achived this massive reduction in weight. And it is a massive reduction. Canon and Nikon brougt in new 400mm f2.8's only a few years back that were super light in comparison to the older models and explainations were given as to how the weight reduction had been achived.

But with this new lens I cannot find any explaination as to how this kilo reduction has been achived. Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.

One has to wonder if compromises have been made. Especially when canon are not saying how the reduction has been achived!
Click to expand...
When Nikon released the latest 500mm f4 E that was around 800g lighter than the precedcessor. I noticed the filter had been reduced from 52mm to 40.5mm so the area near the lens mount must be thinned than it was.

These third generation canon Supertelephoto lenses are impressive for their weight reduction. 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 lenses at the same weight as older 300 f2.8 is quite impressive. Looking forward to what they can do with the 300 f2.8.

There must be some weight reduction by reducing moving elements around and changes in the construction of the lens (materials and thicknesses) as there doesn’t seem to be a big difference in the overal size of the lenses (diameter and length).
 
shapeshifter said:
I have not seen any explaination as to how Canon have achived this massive reduction in weight. And it is a massive reduction. Canon and Nikon brougt in new 400mm f2.8's only a few years back that were super light in comparison to the older models and explainations were given as to how the weight reduction had been achived.

But with this new lens I cannot find any explaination as to how this kilo reduction has been achived. Simply moving the glass around inside does not reduce weight.

One has to wonder if compromises have been made. Especially when canon are not saying how the reduction has been achived!
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2018-09-18 at 19.10.02.png
 
shapeshifter said:
What is the significance of this post? Where does it expalin how the reduction in weight has been achived?
Click to expand...
because moving the elements backwards means they are reduced in diameter. a smaller diameter means they weigh less than if they were further forward because they are physically smaller (a good example as a comparison is the difference in size and weight between a dinner plate and a side plate).
 
Last edited:
shapeshifter said:
What is the significance of this post? Where does it expalin how the reduction in weight has been achived?
Click to expand...
As Rob has said, smaller elements due to them being further back in the lens, they're newer and more efficient too, and a reduction in weight of the IS. That and the lighter build. Did you read the post at all?
 
jakeblu said:
As Rob has said, smaller elements due to them being further back in the lens, they're newer and more efficient too, and a reduction in weight of the IS. That and the lighter build. Did you read the post at all?
Click to expand...
I did read the post but you are guessing as you don't know if the lenses are not thicker.

Knowing is better than guessing.

Canon have not said how they have reduced the weight. If it is by reducing the size of the elements I would prefer them to tell me rather than become involved in speculation.
 
shapeshifter said:
I did read the post but you are guessing as you don't know if the lenses are not thicker.

Knowing is better than guessing.

Canon have not said how they have reduced the weight. If it is by reducing the size of the elements I would prefer them to tell me rather than become involved in speculation.
Click to expand...

The elements would have to be a lot thicker not to be lighter if their diameter has been reduced by so much like it has.

Some rough maths, both models have the same dimensions, 163mm x 343mm. If that drawing is to scale (and it seems like it could be due to the width and length ratio being roughly correct for the stated lens dimensions) the drawings is a 1:4.075 ratio. Going by the drawing the older II version the element diameters are roughly 120mm, 100mm and 80mm and the elements roughly 8-12mm, where as the newer III version element groups are roughly 84mm, 80mm and 76mm and look to be the same kind of thickness 8-12mm.

The element group areas would roughly be:

II Version:

120mm element, area = 11304mm2
100mm element, area = 7850mm2
80mm element, area = 5024mm2
total area = 24178mm2

III Version:

84mm element, area = 5539mm2
80mm element, area = 5024mm2
76mm element, area = 4534mm2
total area = 15097mm2

If they aren't a similar thickness, the newer III lens elements would all have to 1.6 times thicker than the older II version elements to have the same volume and therefore weight (working on the idea that the glass elements weight density is similar and hasn't changed in any way).


Canon have said how they have done it but not gone into specific details such as dimensions and thickness of elements, other than say they moved the element group backwards therefore reducing it's diameter because 1/ it's way above most peoples heads 2/ it doesn't really matter and 3/ its their sensitive commercial information.. Canon are never going to go into a large amount of specific details as that kind of information is likely to be quite commercially sensitive and you don't tell your competitors your secrets.

We have to take what they have said as the most info we are going to get.

In the video linked above:

@0:45 weight reduction due to optical redesign, barrel redesign and IS improvements.

@1:22 front fluorite elements moved back into the middle of the lens, A BIG REASON FOR THE WEIGHT REDUCTION.

Add that to the 'revised optical design for a lighter weight super telephoto EF L lens' info posted by @jakeblu its clear to me how they have done it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top