DO theology/technology dead ?

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2010 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · DO theology/technology dead ?

mohamed alfari wrote:
Peter, I dont own 500mm but is it that much better than 400 DO? if too much is the difference i can understand your point, but if little the 400 gives you the ability to handhold, which too me is a big puls, especially when i am not tripod guy

Same here Mohamed.........500 f/4 weight forces me to use it about 75% on a pod, 25% handheld.

Speaking of my lens copies....yes, 500 f/4 is a decidedly better performing lens, and differences go deeper than "sharpness" and "contrast" alone.
However, IMO 400 DO is a reasonably well performing f/4 lens which will not break your back and make your arms sore.

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:01 AM

Bmetcan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · DO theology/technology dead ?

I'm one of the individuals that contacted Les and asked him about his thoughts on the DO prior to purchase. I have to admit I was a little underwhelmed at first when compared to my 500/4 but I sure did love the weight and handling of the DO. A few months after I bought it, and during an out of state weekend photo trip, the IS motor made a "revving up" sound and didn't stop even when I turned the camera off until a few seconds later. The IS seemed to work ok but I couldn't seem to get any shots that weren't blurred. It was retired for the rest of the trip and returned to Canon upon my return home. They replaced the IS motor and calibrated the lens and when it came back, it was much sharper.

Steve

Sep 08, 2010 at 03:29 AM

big country
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Petkal, has anyone released the weight for the 500mm ii?

Sep 08, 2010 at 04:06 AM

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · DO theology/technology dead ?

big country wrote:
Petkal, has anyone released the weight for the 500mm ii?

Not that I know of.
I guess any weight reduction will be a bonus, but I am hoping it will come to at least 3.4 kg, i.e., 15% reduction.

Sep 08, 2010 at 04:13 AM

big country
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · DO theology/technology dead ?

i am hoping they can get that 600 f/4 ii to around 8 lbs...i will be owning one.

Sep 08, 2010 at 04:51 AM

digitalbug30d
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
Bugsy, perhaps a little perspective is in order here: more mature folks like Les, Scalesusa and I probably spent 35+ yrs toiling in diverse salt mines. Now we can finally afford a big stinkin' lens or two.

BTW, how old are you ?

I guess its envy...btw 44 work in manufacturing never going to get those things from where I am...I enjoy photography but when I see pics done with the 200 f2
ect makes me wish I had grown up on the otherside of the tracks.

Sep 08, 2010 at 06:10 AM

Ian.Dobinson
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · DO theology/technology dead ?

rddelliott wrote:
I own the 70-300 DO and my copy is sharp as a tack after a trip to Canon and the correct post processing. The lens is overpriced new but a bargain at $800 used. Small, a great trip lens and the ability to get in to venues the whites cant. It fails at the new price level but great as a used lens.

the problem with that is it wont be $800 used . you may buy it for $800 but as a used lens that may well not have had the trip to canon like yours but still need one the cost of the service could be $200 (service + postage) or more if canon turn round and say it needs parts.
Now $1k is still less than new but it does not look such a bargain.

Sep 08, 2010 at 06:52 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
Canon seems to have undertaken a major effort to trim the weight of their MKII generation supertelephoto lenses such as 300/400 f/2.8........yes, using refractive optics technology. Right, not diffractive optics technology.

Both 300 f/2.8 MkII and 500 f/4 MkII are now approaching 400 DO in weight and thereby they will erode the very reason for the 400 DO existence.

Deadly silence about the second generation of 400DO. The lens probably needs an update/rework more than any of the refractive supertelephoto lenses regarding its unremarkable IQ, lackluster IS and MFD of 3.5m, to name a few areas for improvement.

Based on the above alone we can draw our own conclusions regarding the near and mid-term future of Canon's DO lenses.

That's a real pitty because DO sounded like a great idea at the time. Even 400 DO is probably a bit better lens than many people give it credit for.

Well Canon could apply the same ideas to a DO mk II. The weight reduction of the 300 f/2.8L IS is only minor and this is because the smaller the body to start with the less effective things like titanium will be in reducing weight. Nothing they did as regards weight reduction had anything to do with optical elements, all in the body design. The 800 started the ball rolling and the process has been refined even further. I'd expect the 600 II to achieve similar amazing weight reduction as the 400, and the 500 a bit less, say 20% as opposed to 28%.

A 400 DO II would IMO save about 5% in weight. So for this lens the emphasis would need to be on IS, IQ and mfd. But will you pay $9K for the privilege? I'd rather the 300 II + 1.4x III and use th $2K saved to go on a nice holiday.

Also given a refractive optic 400 f/4 should actually only weigh about the same as a 300 f/2.8 - smaller front element, longer body - not the 3kg Canon claimed way back in 2001 (this was a worst case scenario to paint the DO in a better light IMO), and given it would cost about the same, which would you rather own? A 2.3kg 400 f/4L IS, costing $7K, or a 1.9kg 400 f/4 DO IS costing $9K? We know which will have the better IQ overall.

I think DO is dead unless they decide to offer something like a 150-600 f/4-5.6 DO IS, which combined with the new body tech, should weigh in about the same as a 300 f/2.8L IS. In this case it might be worthwhile, but price would need to drop, otherwise this would cost much more than 300 f/2.8L II IMO. Diffractive elements of camera quality though are hideously expensive to make, the precision needed is extremely high, I cant see price improving much, unless they discover some new process.

Sorry what was the question again, I seem to be rambling.

Sep 08, 2010 at 09:42 AM

wickerprints
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well Canon could apply the same ideas to a DO mk II. The weight reduction of the 300 f/2.8L IS is only minor and this is because the smaller the body to start with the less effective things like titanium will be in reducing weight. Nothing they did as regards weight reduction had anything to do with optical elements, all in the body design. The 800 started the ball rolling and the process has been refined even further. I'd expect the 600 II to achieve similar amazing weight reduction as the 400, and the 500 a bit less, say 20% as opposed to 28%.

This does not agree with my assessment of the changes shown in the corresponding block diagrams. A nontrivial amount of weight reduction was achieved by the use of two fluorite elements instead of one, because this eliminated the need to make the first optical element out of UD glass, which then made the protective meniscus lens unnecessary (since UD and fluorite are softer than normal crown/flint optical glass). The use of more fluorite also permitted a slightly shorter barrel length. This is because in order to shorten the barrel, one must increase the overall refractive power of the system, but doing so requires higher refractive index glass. Higher RI glass introduces greater dispersion, which in turn is corrected through the use of more fluorite.

Therefore, the optical redesign absolutely played a critical role in the weight reduction for both the 300/2.8L IS II and 400/2.8L IS II, as did the use of lighter materials for the barrel itself. The downside, however, is the increased cost of the new designs, in part because of the production costs of crystallizing and polishing high-purity fluorite. As fabrication methods improve, these costs have gone down over the past several years, but instead of retaining the old design and passing those savings to the consumer, Canon has redesigned these lenses to take advantage of what I believe to be their increased capacity to manufacture such elements.

Sep 08, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Canongarcon
Offline
Account Locked

p.2 #10 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Considering there has been no new DO lens in years, DO technology is in hibernation at best.

Sep 08, 2010 at 10:38 AM

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Also given a refractive optic 400 f/4 should actually only weigh about the same as a 300 f/2.8 - smaller front element, longer body - not the 3kg Canon claimed way back in 2001 (this was a worst case scenario to paint the DO in a better light IMO), and given it would cost about the same, which would you rather own? A 2.3kg 400 f/4L IS, costing $7K, or a 1.9kg 400 f/4 DO IS costing $9K? We know which will have the better IQ overall.

Whayne, I agree with that. I think they must have used the 300 f/2.8 non-IS materials and overall design to build the 400 f/4L demo lens......that's how they arrived at 3kg.
I guess they sold the 400 DO concept based on that exaggerated weight juxtaposition. Sold it internally and then went out with it to make it a commercial success. Yet, there is probably a bit more to it. The DO lenses have also contributed to the company image as a technology leader. Even if the lens sales didn't make enough money, the image is also an asset which costs money to build and maintain, and should pay dividens in a global sense.

Sep 08, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Also given a refractive optic 400 f/4 should actually only weigh about the same as a 300 f/2.8 - smaller front element, longer body - not the 3kg Canon claimed way back in 2001 (this was a worst case scenario to paint the DO in a better light IMO), and given it would cost about the same, which would you rather own? A 2.3kg 400 f/4L IS, costing $7K, or a 1.9kg 400 f/4 DO IS costing $9K? We know which will have the better IQ overall.

Whayne, I agree with that. I think they must have used the 300 f/2.8 non-IS materials and overall design to build the 400 f/4L demo lens......that's how they arrived at 3kg.
I guess they sold the 400 DO concept based on that exaggerated weight juxtaposition. Sold it internally and then went out with it to make it a commercial success. Yet, there is probably a bit more to it. The DO lenses have also contributed to the company image as a technology leader. Even if the lens sales didn't make enough money, the image is also an asset which costs money to build and maintain, and should pay dividends in a global sense.

Let me say, DO technology is really quite amazing and it's a tribute to Canon to pull off such superb optical quality with the near wavelength tolerances required. I would hope they continue to develop it, but it's been a long time between drinks and you have to wonder if they've given up or are quietly beavering away?

Sep 08, 2010 at 12:38 PM

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Such as 400 DO MkII. Or perhaps 600 f/4 DO. They have never said the MkII 500/600 f/4 are going to be refractive optics based, right ?

Sep 08, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Let me say, DO technology is really quite amazing and it's a tribute to Canon to pull off such superb optical quality with the near wavelength tolerances required. I would hope they continue to develop it, but it's been a long time between drinks and you have to wonder if they've given up or are quietly beavering away?

I wouldn't totally exclude a development akin to what the American erudites call deus ex machina.

Such as 400 DO MkII. Or perhaps 600 f/4 DO. They have never said the MkII 500/600 f/4 are going to be refractive optics based, right ?

Well they wouldn't be mk II's then if they were DO lenses would they

And Canon specifically said 500 f/4L IS mk II and 600 f/4L IS mk II are coming, ie L glass, a label which is not used for DO lenses

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082614canon500mm600mm.asp

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:09 PM

n0b0
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
They have never said the MkII 500/600 f/4 are going to be refractive optics based, right ?

Perhaps not, but then if it was DO, Canon would've called it 500/600 DO, not MkII now wouldn't they?

I am really curious as to how well the DO lenses sell, but I'm guessing not very. Makes me wonder though... Surely Canon must know that very few people would spend a large amount of money just to save a few hundred grams, if that. We also know that Canon's in it to make money. So why did they push the DO technology at such a high price point knowing that they'll make very little money from it? Experiment? Or maybe they just really believed in this technology? Or perhaps producing DO optics is a lot cheaper than Canon led us to believe.

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:17 PM

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Yes, guess I forgot about that "L" in the press release for 500/600 II.

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:20 PM

jkurkjia
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:45 PM

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · DO theology/technology dead ?

n0b0 wrote:
I am really curious as to how well the DO lenses sell, but I'm guessing not very. Makes me wonder though... Surely Canon must know that very few people would spend a large amount of money just to save a few hundred grams, if that. We also know that Canon's in it to make money. So why did they push the DO technology at such a high price point knowing that they'll make very little money from it? Experiment? Or maybe they just really believed in this technology? Or perhaps producing DO optics is a lot cheaper than Canon led us to believe.

The general perception is, based on our informal "polling" of lens ownership, that the 400DO sales volume has been low. However, that in itself doesn't say much about the product profitability which could have been OK assuming that the profit margin was high.
High margins are also possible if other costs are low such as that of fabrication. Yet, I feel 400DO is more expensive to make than a lens such as 300 f/2.8 primarily on account of the DO element. Furthermore, the product cost is usually also burdened with development $$ which in the case of 400 DO must have been very significant.

In addition, that sort of analysis should also factor in a host of softer elements. For example, someone in the Canon's inner power circle might have staked his reputation on DO success. Perhaps they are waiting for that individual to kick the bucket before they'd "dishonour" him by pulling the plug on 400 DO like they did with 50 f/1.0 and 200 f/1.8.

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:51 PM

uz2work
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Pixel Perfect wrote:

Let me say, DO technology is really quite amazing and it's a tribute to Canon to pull off such superb optical quality with the near wavelength tolerances required. I would hope they continue to develop it, but it's been a long time between drinks and you have to wonder if they've given up or are quietly beavering away?

I think that is both a fair and accurate assessment. When you think about it, the DO technology is really quite amazing. The announcement of the Mark II telephoto lenses, I think, underscores the technological achievement of the DO technology. Considering that a 300/2.8 lens and a 400/4 lens should have very close to the same weight and considering that, even with the newest technology of the Mark II lenses you will still have to add about 50% to the weight of the 400 DO to end up with the new 300/2.8, I think that does highlight what an achievement the DO technology was/is.

I also think that it is pretty clear from numerous responses in this thread (and in every other DO thread) that the number one complaint that some have had about the 400 DO is not its performance, but it has been the price. And, as has been said several times here, with the price structure for super telephoto lenses that will exist when the newly announced lenses become available, the current 400 DO pricing doesn't seem out of line at all, and it may well be the bargain of the bunch. When I bought my 400 DO a few years ago for $5200, I felt like I was paying a stiff premium (and one that was worth it to me) for the weight reduction. When I look at the prices for the new lenses (and even the current 400 DO price), I now feel like I bought mine for a bargain price, and, as long as there is no other way to get to 400 mm at f4 and anything close to 4 pounds, the DO will be an important part of my lens kit.

With regard to DO pricing, I'm confident that the initial prices of the DO lenses after their introduction reflected, like with other new products, Canon's need to recover R&D costs, and statements from Canon would seem to indicate that they had planned, at that time, to eventually have DO lenses be less expensive than their non-DO counterparts. I'm not sure what changed that strategy. Perhaps, sales numbers never allowed them to recover the R&D costs. Perhaps, Canon decided, after R&D costs were recovered, that their bottom line was more positively impacted by keeping the DO as a low volume, high mark up item, or, possibly, there was some other combination of factors.

Les

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:55 PM

Canongarcon
Offline
Account Locked

p.2 #20 · DO theology/technology dead ?

With regard to DO pricing, I'm confident that the initial prices of the DO lenses after their introduction reflected, like with other new products, Canon's need to recover R&D costs, and statements from Canon would seem to indicate that they had planned, at that time, to eventually have DO lenses be less expensive than their non-DO counterparts. I'm not sure what changed that strategy. Perhaps, sales numbers never allowed them to recover the R&D costs. Perhaps, Canon decided, after R&D costs were recovered, that their bottom line was more positively impacted by keeping the DO as a low volume, high mark up item, or, possibly, there was some other combination of factors.

Considering the DO lenses have been around for many years and we haven't seen any or much price reduction indicates we are not going to be seeing any in the near future either.

The fact that Canon is bring out the 70-300mm L lens probably means the 70-300 DO lens will soon be going to lens heaven.

Sep 08, 2010 at 02:01 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end