The Canon lens in this patent is 30mm longer. Not sure I’d call that ‘quite a bit’ longer. It’s essentially the same length as the current Canon RF 600/4.
I have both the RF 600/4 and the Z 600/4 TC and that RF with the EF-R add-on IS long and any longer would be a problem to be honest. There's no need for it to get even longer. "30mm" more IS the breaking point IMO.
Then I guess it’s a good thing the patent is not longer than the RF 600/4. The formula is slightly shorter, but I expect the actual lens would be about the same length, if it’s actually produced.
Context. I was replying to a post stating the Canon lens patent is ‘quite a bit longer than the Nikon 600/4 TC’. I stated, “The Canon lens in this patent is 30mm longer. Not sure I’d call that ‘quite a bit’ longer. It’s essentially the same length as the current Canon RF 600/4.”
Well, in my opinion, 30mm is not even remotely "essentially the same". Not when the shorter one is approaching the limit for international carry-on checked case sizing. It's less about the difference as the threshold. The Nikkor 600/4 WITH a TC built in is practically stubby by comparison in this aspect.
OMFG. Let me try again. For the last time. Please read carefully.
The patented Canon 600/4 + 1.4x is about 30 mm longer than the Nikon 600/4 + 1.4x. I am not suggesting the 30 mm shorter lens is ‘essentially the same’. I said the two Canon lenses (one real, one possible) are essentially the same length.
I would think for lenses of this size, weight, and price, most are willing to pay for insurance and check it when flying because it means getting those slightly more perfect images. Otherwise, why not save a lot of money, weight, and size with something like 200-800?
Looking back, your mistake is part of the confusion in this thread. You evidently don’t understand how to interpret lens patents. A ‘lens patent’ is actually an optical formula patent and the length of that formula extends from the sensor to the front surface of the front element.
I wouldn’t. It’s not about the cost of the lens, it’s about ensuring that you have the lens when you get where you’re going. Checked luggage gets lost all the time. Personally, I’ve never had an airline lose luggage permanently, but several times it’s taken several days to catch up to me. If I was on a safari or something similar, I’d be very unhappy. And a 600/4 isn’t something you can easily replace while traveling.
Yes, my gear has to fit in to hand luggage along with my medications and computers. Everything else can be replaced quickly if lost or delayed.
There is zero chance I would ever check my lenses or camera bodies. Hell, I'd sooner check a laptop. If you're flying for a big personal trip, then you're screwed if it's lost for even a few days, and that assumes that you just stay near a place that could get it all sent to you. Sounds like hell to me.
Company policy says we aren't allowed to check laptops and with various airlines banning having batteries in checked bags, I don't even want to attempt checking gear, even on personal trips.
Unfortunately, the decision to check a bag isn’t always in your hands. On a recent flight, people in boarding group 3 were forced to gate check their larger bag.
I've had that happen as well a few times, the most egregious one was having to sit through 2 hours of "United offers 2 carry-on items per passenger, for freeeeeeeeee!!!" announcements and when boarding overhearing the crew say there's space for about 0.75 carry-on per seat, so mandatory gate checking after zone 1.
I didn't realize it, but trying to be frugal does make my life a little easier here. I don't travel very far unless I have a way to stay and live for months. So, I never worried if something checked was late and luckily it didn't happen yet. I usually have terrible jetlag at first too...
