April 20, 2014, 12:09:12 AM

Author Topic: Why is there no 700mm?  (Read 3176 times)

littlepilotdude

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Why is there no 700mm?
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:48:45 PM »
Hello,

I am just wondering if anyone knows why there is no 700mm prime. Canon and Nikon both don't have one.


Thanks,

littlepilotdude
Canon 5D Mark II, 24-105mm L IS

canon rumors FORUM

Why is there no 700mm?
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:48:45 PM »

SJTstudios

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2012, 08:54:36 PM »
700/1.4= 500
Canon 500mm f4 x 1.4= 700mm 5.6

This is one of the reasons canon puts a lot of mechanics in their TCs, because they want to give people different telephoto capabilities, without having to waste a lot of time, effort, and money on new prototypes.

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1397
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2012, 09:17:37 PM »
Also, the difference between 600-800mm is the same as the difference between 60-80mm.
There's a 60mm for EF-s, but for FF there's practically nothing between 50-85mm, a much bigger gap in percentage terms than the gap from 600-800mm.
Yes, there's zooms that cross that range, ie 24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4, but f/4 between 50-85mm is nowhere near the f/1.2 you can get at those lengths.
There's the Sigmonster zoom that crosses the 600-800mm at f/5.6, and the 800mm prime is f/5.6 too, any 700mm prime would be probably f/5.6 too. So when you think about it, if 601-799mm is the length you need, you're better served than if you need 61-79mm...
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

HawkinsT

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2012, 09:24:14 PM »
In how many situations do you really need a 700mm prime where neither a 600mm or 800mm will do?

Menace

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 924
  • New Zealand
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2012, 10:06:14 PM »
Market for 600mm+ lenses is rather small due manufacturing cost, RnD and materials all equates to relatively expensive lenses.

I'm sure both Canon and Nikon would offer a 700mm lens if there was a profitable market for it but as it is, 500 with a 1.4x will get you there (as per SJTstudios) 

My 2 cents  :)
5D III | 6D
50 1.2L | 85 1.2L II | 100 2.8 | 400 2.8L IS II 
24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II

dolina

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 778
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2012, 12:26:46 AM »
Not enough demand to create a 700mm.

500 = 10,500
600 = 13,000
800 = 13,900

My guess would be it will sell for about 12,000-13,000.
Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2012, 08:33:23 AM »
Perhaps its also difficult to build. Ive heard 50mm is easy to build but 35mm is more difficult thats why there arent so many 35mm lenses with wide aperture out for example.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2012, 08:33:23 AM »

untitled10

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2012, 09:11:42 AM »
Perhaps its also difficult to build. Ive heard 50mm is easy to build but 35mm is more difficult thats why there arent so many 35mm lenses with wide aperture out for example.

That's because of the flange distance compared to focal length, 35mm is shorter than the 44mm flange distance and thus has to use a different lens type, but once you get over 200mm's or so then it just stays pretty much the same albeit larger, 700mm would be very slightly simpler than an 800 because you would need smaller fluorite elements to correct for chromatic aberration, that is the major problem with longer lenses and what makes all these so expensive, due to the Rn'D and expensive materials used to correct the difficult of a longer focal length.

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2012, 09:13:57 AM »
Thanks for the info.

preppyak

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 725
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2012, 11:03:55 AM »
That's because of the flange distance compared to focal length, 35mm is shorter than the 44mm flange distance and thus has to use a different lens type, but once you get over 200mm's or so then it just stays pretty much the same albeit larger, 700mm would be very slightly simpler than an 800 because you would need smaller fluorite elements to correct for chromatic aberration, that is the major problem with longer lenses and what makes all these so expensive, due to the Rn'D and expensive materials used to correct the difficult of a longer focal length.

Yeah, my guess based on size and weight is that 600mm was as far as they could go with f/4, where a 700mm f/4 would weight 15lbs+ and just be too big for people to reasonably use. And while a 700mm f/5.6 would probably be lighter, the 800mm is only 9.9lbs, so, most would probably go for the reach over saving a few bucks at that price range.

It's sort of in the same realm of why they don't offer a 1000mm or 1200mm lens (well, they do make a 1200mm, but, not for mortals). The return on investment isn't there, as it'd be too heavy, too expensive, and the alternatives with a 1.4x TC are just better. For example, the 1200mm f/5.6 they do make costs like $100k, which could buy you the entire EOS collection basically. Here is the 1200mm v the 800mm


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2012, 11:03:55 AM »