In the field of optics research, there has been some interest in variable refractive index materials, as well as metamaterials with negative refractive index. If these technologies become refined to the point of being useful in production-level manufacturing, then they hold enormous promise to alter consumer optics.
For example, a variable-index material--if perfected--would be able to bend light with less transmission losses, and it could result in thinner, lighter lenses. A negative refractive index material would open up optical design to entirely novel formulas not previously considered possible.
But sadly, neither of these technologies are close to being feasible. For the most part, photographic optics has relied on the same basic principles as in Petzval's day.
wickerprints wrote:
In the field of optics research, there has been some interest in variable refractive index materials, as well as metamaterials with negative refractive index. If these technologies become refined to the point of being useful in production-level manufacturing, then they hold enormous promise to alter consumer optics.
For example, a variable-index material--if perfected--would be able to bend light with less transmission losses, and it could result in thinner, lighter lenses. A negative refractive index material would open up optical design to entirely novel formulas not previously considered possible.
But sadly, neither of these technologies are close to being feasible. For the most part, photographic optics has relied on the same basic principles as in Petzval's day....Show more →
It think mainstream use negative index materials are in the same timescale as useable fusion energy: permanently 25 years away from being feasible.
Well, doesn't that put all talk of an updated 100-400 to rest.
This lens is a monster, a Sigma 120-300 would probably seem featherweight in comparison. Speaking of which, where's the OS version? It's time for Sigma to roll it out to compete with this (not directly, but it becomes 170-400ish/4 with TC... (since Sigma probably still doesn't go to true 300...)
Daniel Heineck wrote:
It think mainstream use negative index materials are in the same timescale as useable fusion energy: permanently 25 years away from being feasible.
Indeed...like flying cars.
Researchers have been able to create such a metamaterial that works for comparatively long wavelengths, but to make something that is effective across the visible spectrum is very, very daunting. We just don't have the technology to manufacture something at such tiny scales.
Whoa, what else should I similarly muse about, and see issued in less than two weeks, with an eerily "similar" -or at least for the purposes of discussion, 'close enough' - feature set?
RobDickinson wrote:
Sigmas 120-300 will be about the same diameter as the 200-400 and a little shorter, probably heavier but it will be close.
I've still not seen the 120-300OS out in the wild yet either
Given Canon have managed to get large weight savings on most of the new superteles, I wouldn't be surprised to see this 200-400 come in under 3kg despite built-in 1.4x TC.
If the price is well under $8K, I'd sell my 300 f/2.8L IS to partially fund this, as I'd get more use. However, I'd still be pissed if it means the end of the 100-400L. Would never buy the 70-300L even it dropped 50% in price. It's too small a FL for my needs and too slow for a 300. 400mm is a minimum even with 7D.
I wonder if the 400 DO has a future? Will they ever update it? I bet they could now make a regular 400 f/4 only slightly heavier than DO version, although it will always be much longer than DO version.
RobDickinson wrote:
Sigmas 120-300 will be about the same diameter as the 200-400 and a little shorter, probably heavier but it will be close.
I've still not seen the 120-300OS out in the wild yet either
The old 120-300 looked (hoodless) similar in size to 70-200/2.8 IS with hood on (so about 20% longer and 105mm front element). This one looks rather bigger.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I wonder if the 400 DO has a future? Will they ever update it? I bet they could now make a regular 400 f/4 only slightly heavier than DO version, although it will always be much longer than DO version.
I think it's the end of the DO as the 400/4 setting is now covered, with a zoom to boot. Guess both DO lenses will be retired shortly (with the 70-300 also being superseded by the new L).
Pixel Perfect wrote:
However, I'd still be pissed if it means the end of the 100-400L. Would never buy the 70-300L even it dropped 50% in price. It's too small a FL for my needs and too slow for a 300. 400mm is a minimum even with 7D.
I was thinking along the same lines. This new lens looks very impressive, but it will be too big/heavy/expensive for me. Hope there still be a zoom to fill the gap between the 70-300 and the 200-400. I'll keep waiting for a 100-400 Mk II, or Sigma 100-300 f/4.0 plus 1.4 TC
Maybe now that canon have revamped and added to the bulk of the white expensive lens line. they could do something about lenses most people can actualy afford.
Having taken the L's into stratosphere prices (for each size) they could have a sub L line .
Imagine a Line of good quality (not L IQ but much better than base) glass that better amateurs can afford/justify
30/1.8 (FF Ring USM) 50/1.4 (ring USM) 85/1.8 (IS) 200/2.8 (IS) 300/4 (new IS) 400/5.6 (IS)
Maybe even replace the 100-400L with a 100-400 5.6 (new IS)
I think there would be a big market, which is not exactly going to rob buyers from these new L's
Slow in the coming for Nikon has had this tele-zoom at F4 long time ago. And by the way, they seem to have forgotten to come up with an IS version of the humble 400mm F5.6L! A four stop IS, two ED lenses instead of the one in the old version and, a minimum focal length of 1.5m would be a killer!
