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???
Interesting technical achievements, of course, and essential for some types of photography. But I wonder how many £12k lenses either company sells?
If I get 6 numbers right in tonight's lottery they'll have sold a couple more!
Thousands of them. Sports agencies all around the world.
I wish that means cheap older versions but with price increases this seems somewhat unlikely.
mk1s are incredibly heavy though. Handholding one is not fun at all.
I think that they ship with a standard hood and it's the short hoods that are optional accessories.
I wish Canon made 500m 5.6 Nikon equivalent...
They'll come out soon, don't worry.
I think he means how many individual people buy it
We're never happy are we, I wish Nikon made Canon's 400mm f4
Canon have the lightweight 400mm f/4 DO II, add the 1.4x and you have a sharp compact 560mm f/5.6 so best of both worlds (saying that you have to pay a lot more for the privilege)
Maybe the lenshoods weigh in at a 1Kg and, because they're not included, is why they're 1Kg lighter
Well that's that too
The lens hood is included.There is an option shorter lens hood available.
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!
Tie about 70 helium filled balloons to your old heavy lens. That'll knock of about 1kg of weight.
It does (or can). Moving the heavier flourite elements backwards will reduce their diameter and possibly the thickness.
It's the same way Sony did there 400mm
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).
What is the significance of this post? Where does it expalin how the reduction in weight has been achived?
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).
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?
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.
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:
120mm element, area = 11304mm2
100mm element, area = 7850mm2
80mm element, area = 5024mm2
total area = 24178mm2
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.