Messages

1

Pricewatch Deals / Prices to drop soon for Canon, Nikon....?

« on: October 23, 2012, 04:57:28 AM »

The sky high yen is resulting in almost unheard of monthly trade deficits for Japan.
Japan is now targeting 90 Yen/USD early next year instead of the current 79.
Could result in significant price drops or discounts for Canon, Nikon etc. as they compete for market share.
So folks wait till next year before buying big ticket items and sell your old gear now!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9626542/Japan-to-join-currency-wars-as-exports-slump.html

2

Lenses / Re: missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?

« on: October 10, 2012, 04:41:06 PM »

My suspicion with the delay in the 200-400 is a factor of trying to balance market sustainability with engineering.  I fully believe that Canon already has the know-how to build this lens.  Where the problem comes is building one that will actually sell.  How much of a premium will people pay for the built in extender?

Canon's 300/2.8 II is currently priced at $7250.  Nikon's 300/2.8 VR is currently priced at $5700 compared to their 200-400 VR II at $6700.  If you extrapolate this price then it comes to $8500 for a Canon 200-400.  The 1.4x III extender is $500.

However the latest CR posts have put the price at $10k-$11k.  That is a hefty premium for the convenience.  At these prices the 300/2.8 II is quite a bit cheaper and handles a 2x extender very well.  This also puts it in competition with the 400/2.8 II.

For this product to be a success, IMHO, they really can't price it above $9500.  Even at that price I expect a number of people to find the 300/2.8 II to be a better alternative.  The reason we are seeing the delay is Canon is finding it difficult to design the lens for that price while still keeping it within the optical standards of their best telephotos.

IMHO Canon really made a mistake here.  They would help themselves far more by releasing a 200-400 without the 1.4x extender at $8500.

I agree. In fact why did Canon bother with the fancy built in extender?
Surely a 200-560 zoom would have been much easier to design and manufacture.
If the new lens is not extremely sharp at 560/5.6 it will be considered a failure if the asking price is very high IMHO.

3

Lenses / Re: Angle of view calculations

« on: October 06, 2012, 10:26:57 AM »

rocket_scientist:

The answer is quite simple and does not require advanced trigonometry!
To show you how to work it out I would need to know the distance to the target is it 50-20yds= 30yds?
Sorry - I am clueless on American football terminology!

4

Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]

« on: September 28, 2012, 01:48:34 PM »

<p>The second is said to be an EF 400 f/4L IS, no mention of it being a DO lens. With the price of the coming EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, mixed with the also expensive 400 f/4 DO IS, there is probably a big market for a 400 f/4 prime that is “affordable”.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]
[/quote]

Maybe this new 400/4 - if it ever comes - could have an integral 1.4TC - like the long awaited 200-400/4!
Don't hold your breath though you probably would have to wait years for it!

5

Canon General / Re: Canon Suspends Operations at 3 Plants in China

« on: September 18, 2012, 09:17:43 AM »

Good on you Canon - close the plants down permanently if necessary.

Don't let Japan be pushed around by bully boy China.

6

Lenses / Re: A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]

« on: September 09, 2012, 03:17:56 PM »

The 400 F5.6 sells for $1350 in Canada. To get a longer Canon lens you have to be ready to shell out $9690. That's a HUGE jump in price.... and I'd be willing to bet that there is a market for something in between, like a 600 F5.6.

A 600mm f/5.6L would cost at least US$7,500. But a 500mm f/5.6L might come in under US$4,000.

It won't get made because they want to sell and make only 500mm f/4L lenses.
[/quote]


Very true neither Canon or Nikon are ever likely to offer a 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 with IS II even though I am sure that there is a market out there for lightweight ultra long lenses.

The best we can hope for from Canon is a new 400/5.6 with IS II and for that we would be extremely grateful - if it ever comes about!

What about Sony then? Their longest "pro" lens currently is a 300/2.8. Perhaps they may be tempted to break the stranglehold Canon/Nikon have on long lenses and come up with something tasty like a prime 500 or 600/5.6!

7

Lenses / Re: A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]

« on: September 07, 2012, 04:36:15 AM »

A new 400/5.6L with IS II would be a fantastic ultra light long lens - nothing like it in the Nikon range.

Perhaps the beginning of the end for the 400/4 DO which Canon do not seem to want to upgrade - image quality wise.

The current 400/5.6 is slightly sharper than the excellent 100-400L and appreciably sharper than the 400/4 DO.

If it comes out and turns out to be even sharper than the current model Canon will sell lots of them.

8

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 + 2x teleconverter vs 100-400

« on: August 28, 2012, 10:39:31 AM »

In a situation like this I always refer to the-digital-picture ISO test charts by Brian Carnahan.

With both lenses wide open @400mm the 100-400L is significantly sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 II plus Canon TC 2x II.

You have to be desperate to put a 2X TC - even a good one - on any lens! You loose a lot of sharpness and AF speed and the 2XTC is not light in weight either.

My suggestion: wait for the new 100-400L coming down the line - likely to be even sharper than the present one and with a much better IS.

Unfortunately there will be a long waiting list for it!

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]

« on: August 20, 2012, 04:10:42 AM »

7D or 70D with 24Mp sensor.

That's fine by me.

Bring it on Canon - asap.

Fannying around with sub 20Mp sensors to suit the zealots here is bad for business!

10

Lenses / New Canon 300mm f2.8 II review...

« on: August 15, 2012, 01:09:59 PM »

New review of this lens together with the the 1.4x and 2x TC IIIs has just been uploaded on juzaphoto - if any one is interested.

Not quite the 300 - 600 universal lens I thought it was!!

11

Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?

« on: August 15, 2012, 08:05:04 AM »

If you are shooting a lot beyond 200 then the 70-300L is the best choice.

The ISO 12233 charts (the-digital-picture) clearly show that the 70-300L @ 300 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II plus latest Canon 1.4XTC @ 280.

These charts also show that even @ 200 there is not much difference in performance between either. Obviously in low light the f2.8 is a much better performer.

The 70-300L is a new design, will be cheaper and lighter and you have the satisfaction of knowing that Canon do not do dud L lenses!

PS I suspect that the (allegedly) forthcoming 100-400L will be a scaled up version of the 70-300L

12

Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!

« on: August 13, 2012, 08:39:53 AM »

Looking carefully at the ISO 12233 test charts by Brian Carnahan the 400/2.8 IS (vers 1) plus 1.4xTC II is sharper wide open than the 500/4 (vers 1) and the 600/4 (vers 1) ie both wide open.

Now that's unbeatable versatility for you.

It seems that the 1.4XTC II was designed for this lens!

This 560/4 combo is also sharper than the latest 300/2.8 IS (vers 2) with 2xTC III wide open ie 600/5.6! Cheaper as well and the extra stop and 143mm aperture is a lot more use than 107mm!

(Is there anyone out there with practical experience of the 560/4 side by side with the others mentioned above to support the evidence of the ISO 12233 charts?)

The great advantage of course of an f2.8 super tele is that even if the IS breaks down - as everything must eventually - it is far more useful than an f4.

And even if the AF packs in the much brighter image given by f2.8 will facilitate more accurate manual focus than f4.

You have made the right choice in limiting your self to f2.8 long lenses and IMHO the best of the bunch must be the 400/2.8 IS (vers 1) if wide open sharpness with/without TC is your main starting reference point.

13

Lenses / Canon 400/4 DO - why no upgrade?

« on: August 10, 2012, 03:10:25 AM »

With all the big Canons having been re-designed with improved optical performance and IS - the DO stands out for its neglect.

Have Canon come to the end of the line with this particular lens? Is DO a dead end anyway - even though Canon regularly leak hints of "possible" new DOs to come. Or is that all a sham to keep the 400/4 production line open?

Clearly optically inferior to the 300/2.8 nevertheless it is mechanically well made and a comparative lightweight and still has a good following.

Surprised that Nikon haven't introduced their own sharp 400/4 to fill the void.

(Apologies if this topic has already been covered)

14

Site Information / Re: Optical Technician ?

« on: July 10, 2012, 04:16:42 AM »

Does anyone have advice for me?  It's hard for me to find any information about working for Leica Cameras or Canon Cameras.  I'm a Freshman in college going through my General Education, i was pretty much wondering what degree do i need to be able to make camera lenses or even cameras for these brands?  Any Advice is welcome Thank you !

It's optics and electronics expertise that is required to design modern camera lenses. To make them you need machine tool design experience ie mechanical engineering expertise.

The Japanese are far away in the lead in these fields - so you could add Japanese language also as an essential requirement if you want to join Canon/Nikon design teams. They most certainly will not be using English!

However US and UK defence industries also need optical engineers - designing tank gun sights, periscopes, space satellite cameras etc etc.

Bottom line is you need optics, electronics as well as a good maths knowledge if you want to be an optical designer - difficult challenging subjects.

If you want to be a just an optical technician - just assembling and repairing Japanese lenses then perhaps you could drop the maths bit. Depends how high your sights are.

Best of luck!

15

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: July 06, 2012, 02:56:26 PM »

I worked with both the 100-400 as well as the 70-200 2.8L II with 1.4 and 2xIII TC.  I did not have a 1D version body so found the 100-400 AF to hunt a lot due to f5.6 at 400mm and excessive coma wide open.  Still, with the 70-200 and 2xIII TC, the AF hunting was less and faster likely due to the increased contrast at f2.8(5.6) having better optics and more contrast for the AF to work with.  The TC does soften ever so slightly the image from the 70-200 but it's far better than the 100-400 wide open.

I've just had a look at the digital picture ISO 12233 100% crops and have to disagree with you.

On axis the 100-400L wide open @400 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II @200 wide open with either the 2XTC II or the III version!

Never a good idea to put a 2xTC on any zoom and expect brilliant results!

By the way an new version of the 100-400L is due sometime - should be a great lens.