come on, make an affordable 600mm or 800mm!!

[Caps18]

That would be interesting.  Although with a 300mm with a 1.4 is a 420mm f/5.6.


The other option is this type of lens, but I know nothing about the quality of it.  This is what I was talking about when I said to look on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001GKLLRY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1328748392&sr=8-3

it is an f/8-32 however, so you would have slow liveview focus only.

[ejenner]

Or, and here's a shocker, how about canon let us use autofocus at f8 - even if it is not good in low light?

Considering what the 5DII does with an f5.6 lens in low-moderate light, I wonder what it would do at f8 in the types of situations you'd mostly use these lenses.

I guess some have done it with 3rd party at 6.3 or with taping the 2x on an f4 (I, like many I've seen comment have never gotten this to work).

I bet it works OK.  The argument used to be 'get a 1D body', but seriously I don't think it is too much to ask for in a $3000 body, realistically.

[wickidwombat]

i put the EG-S focus screen in my 5D2 and using the 600f4.5 its quite easy to MF accurately... It solved the AF issues i was having with the camera anyway

[unfocused]

That would be interesting.  Although with a 300mm with a 1.4 is a 420mm f/5.6.


The other option is this type of lens, but I know nothing about the quality of it.  This is what I was talking about when I said to look on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001GKLLRY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1328748392&sr=8-3

it is an f/8-32 however, so you would have slow liveview focus only.

This reminds me of a lens I bought back in the 70's. I was working at a small newspaper and another photographer and I each bought these 400 mm lenses from an outfit that advertised in the back of Popular Photography. They were very cheap (under $75) came with a 2x converter and worth every penny.

I think the glass was made from recycled Coke bottles.

They were pre-set lenses, which if you don't know what that means, it meant that there were two aperture rings. You turned one of them to the f-stop you wanted to shoot at and then you focused the lens wide open and spun the other ring to the pre-selected f-stop before you shot. It really didn't matter, because you pretty much had to use them wide open anyway.

Even by the standards of the 70s they weren't sharp, but in an emergency, when you really needed a long telephoto, they were better than nothing (just barely, though).

These look like a modern-day version of those lenses.

[wickidwombat]

I think the glass was made from recycled Coke bottles....

Are you sure it wasnt Tamron

[Caps18]

Even by the standards of the 70s they weren't sharp, but in an emergency, when you really needed a long telephoto, they were better than nothing (just barely, though).

These look like a modern-day version of those lenses.

I don't disagree, but would still like a fair test done.  And it would be nice if there was some way to allow f/8 lens focusing for the center point on sunny days of the 5D...

I have a telescope from the 80s that I have been able to connect to my camera.  It is 900mm, but the quality of the focus you get is quite blurry.  You can make out a license plate, but it doesn't come close to a 300 f/4 + 1.4x + 2x.

I will post some pictures of the Moon I took with that setup this weekend.

[KeithR]

so if it was around £2000 for a 500mm f5.6 would that be too much to ask?

£2000 (ish) will get you a new, UK stock Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS: that and a 2x gets you out to 600mm for not a huge amount more, or - as I'm doing at the moment pending getting a 2x - you can stack two 1.4s for a 588mm f/5.6 - handholdable, too.

Or, if you happen to have a Kenko 1.5 in the TC stack, you've got 630mm at f/5.6 (that's a handholdable 1008mm, with AF, with the "crop factor" played in).

The 588mm (940mm with crop factor) option works pretty well, really.

[Hillsilly]

Sir Frans Lanting started off with a mirror lens.  Didn't seem to hurt him.

I've got an old MF Minolta 400mm f5.6 lens that I connect to micro four thirds camera.  This essentially becomes an image stabilised 800mm f5.6 (in 35mm talk when you factor in the 2x crop factor).  Image quality is very good for a cheap-ish option.  But its not perfect.  In a lot of high contrast situations I get some noticeable purple fringing.  But with a 2x teleconverter, that's 1600mm and its still ok.  With two 2x teleconverters, you get to 3200mm and you can take some identifiable pictures of Venus and Jupiter (although they are still very small, and the image quality is ordinary).  I should buy some Canon teleconverters and see how the old lens with cheap teleconverters compares with a newer lens.   

I'd love for Canon to make an affordable 600mm or 800mm with autofocus.

[torger]

"Affordable" is a relative term. Due to the very large glass elements required, long telephoto lenses can never be cheap. But clearly, Canon has the most expensive tele lenses compared to the competitors, possibly the best too though. Is the higher price due to the fluorite glass?

Here in Sweden a Canon 600/4 costs about €120k, while a Nikon 600/4 costs €80k. None of them is exactly cheap, but if you borrow money to finance your bird photography hobby, €80k vs €120k still makes a difference.

The version I was considerably less expensive, so clearly it is possible to make a lower cost lens if you compromise a little bit with the image quality. There is a middle-ground cost-and-quality-wise between mirror designs and the highest end flourite designs...

[dilbert]

Even if it was f8ish, had IS,  and a USM...sell in droves, no?

No, because f/8 lenses will not autofocus on most Canon bodies.  As for an 'affordable' 600mm f/5.6 lens, that means an iris diaphragm of 107mm, so it's much like a 300/2.8 lens.  The only way to make a truly affordable long lens like that is a mirror design, and that has numerous IQ and performance issues. 

Given the recent price trends, it seems apparent that Canon is moving in the other direction, the complete opposite of affordability.   

Note that the 24-70 price increase was only 10,000 Yen, about 5%, in Japan.

What you're seeing with the price increase in the USA (and perhaps elsewhere) is the drop in value of the US dollar.

Essentially what we're now seeing was always going to happen. In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the USA effectively printed a lot of money. Normally it is only 3rd world countries that do things like this, but it (price increases) had to happen. Technically, the "inflation" has already happened. What we're just starting to see is the impact of that on the market place.

The comment about this being a record year for new Canon lenses might be their way of solving this problem: rather than push the price up on many of their lenses to reflect the change in exchange rates, simply deliver new products (lenses) with new prices that take into account new exchange rates.

If the problem is that lenses are now relatively more expensive for you then start talking to your boss/bosses and co-workers and saying that prices of things are going up so you need to be getting paid more.

In other words, the large changes in prices in the USA have nothing to do with Canon, so don't blame Canon.

[jimmy156]

so if it was around £2000 for a 500mm f5.6 would that be too much to ask?

£2000 (ish) will get you a new, UK stock Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS: that and a 2x gets you out to 600mm for not a huge amount more, or - as I'm doing at the moment pending getting a 2x - you can stack two 1.4s for a 588mm f/5.6 - handholdable, too.

Or, if you happen to have a Kenko 1.5 in the TC stack, you've got 630mm at f/5.6 (that's a handholdable 1008mm, with AF, with the "crop factor" played in).

The 588mm (940mm with crop factor) option works pretty well, really.

hmm i hadn't really given that Sigma much thought, although i have heard very good things about it! I'm not against Sigma at all, i have a 120-400mm as my long lens.

What teleconvertors are you using Sigma/Canon/other? This would actually be a viable uprgade for me if i can earn a bit more money!

[MazV-L]

Sigma DG 150-500mm f5.6-6.3 APO HSM, not as good as a Canon L, but affordable! (on 50D- spur-winged plover mantling @370mm f8 iso 200 1/200, image is cropped to download here.)

[Maui5150]

Great in theory, but I think you underestimate the cost of producing glass that size as well as once these lenses get so large, and extended, manufacturing defects increase greatly.  12 inches out if one of the lenses is off by a smidge, that error is amplified greatly.

Secondly, the demand for these lenses is soft.  Most of the users are high end sports photogs or nature photogs who can write off expensive lenses.  For the average joe, look at the complaints and whines people have on the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II and then think just how heavy a 600mm is by comparison, not to mention that a decent tripod to hold this lens will be up there as well. 

The EF 600 F/4 IS weights almost 12 pounds alone.

[torger]

Has anyone tried the 300/2.8 with tele converters? Not exactly cheap, but insanely sharp. It seems from test chart crops like that lens with a 2x III TC produces almost as good results as a 600/4 version I.

[xROELOFx]

Has anyone tried the 300/2.8 with tele converters? Not exactly cheap, but insanely sharp. It seems from test chart crops like that lens with a 2x III TC produces almost as good results as a 600/4 version I.

i use my 300 with the 1.4x extender. it's really really good! i don't have the 2x extender, so i don't know who the results from that combination are.

check the lens gallery for some example pictures of the 300 + 1.4x: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2603.msg68617.html#msg68617