What’s next from Canon?

[justaCanonuser]

Sidenote2, I was happy to see the new 200-800 from an innovation point of view, but at the same time I'm pretty disappointed as well. Somebody who is buying such an expensive super telephoto lens capable of 800mm is most probably going to be a wildlife photographer/birder and you can be sure the lens will mostly be used on the long end. It's absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice IQ (or anything) in order to produce such wide zoom range. A 400-800/8 would have been an instant buy even despite having the 100-500. Now couldn't care less.

I have one and do use it as a birder (this lens is made for birders and maybe some sports shooters). I realized that I frequently use it in the 400-600mm range, not always at 800mm. So far no issues with sharpness in real world photography, even @ 800mm.

Coming from tele photography mostly with a prime (my standard combo: an EF 500mm + 1.4x TC = 700mm) I am positively surprised by the sharpness of this zoom even at the long focal length end (again: I don't talk about MTF charts, since they just tell the theoretical limit of a lens, if you do have a well adjusted copy - Nikon lenses often suffered from decentered lenses at least in the past decade). In particular with a crop camera like my R7 I also appreciate for the first time in my life that I am able to zoom in when I do need 800mm. At that huge focal length, it's not so easy to hit a tiny object with such a small angle of view in the EVF. The only drawback of that lens is f=8 to 9 in the mostly used focal length range, so freezing faster movements requires a lot of light. Slowly moving birds in the morning or evening are no problem because of Canon's very good IS.

But it is clear that such a quite exotic lens always has to be a compromise. The good thing is that a birder/wildlife photographer get's a relatively lightweight, compact and flexible zoom lens for such a big focal length. For all other users I think that lens makes no sense.

 

[MrToes]

When is the high MP camera that has been rumored to be released soon coming?

 

[Quack]

...
Sidenote2, I was happy to see the new 200-800 from an innovation point of view, but at the same time I'm pretty disappointed as well. Somebody who is buying such an expensive super telephoto lens capable of 800mm is most probably going to be a wildlife photographer/birder and you can be sure the lens will mostly be used on the long end. It's absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice IQ (or anything) in order to produce such wide zoom range.

Who said they sacrificed IQ? Every bird/wildlife photographer who I have seen review this lens has said the IQ is excellent and better than they expected.

A 400-800/8 would have been an instant buy even despite having the 100-500. Now couldn't care less.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Bigger focal range is always almost better for a zoom, and there is virtually no real world difference between F8 and F9. In my opinion, of course.

 

[riker]

I am mostly referring to the supertele side of life, with very high demands on AF performance (e.g. birds in flight). There I can wrap up the following experiences:
- SIGMA 500mm F4,5 EX DG / HSM for Nikon F mount: we have one, optically and mechanically a very good lens, but AF performance on all Nikon DSLR's from 2010-16 not very reliable compared with my Canon gear with an original Canon EF 500mm lens;
- Tamron SP 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 for Canon EF: mechanically very good and optically nice lens, beats Sigma's comparable lenses by providing f=5.6 up to 400mm, AF performance not reliable;
- Sigma's 150-600mm zooms both for Canon and Nikon mounts: had a lot of conversations with users of those lenses when waiting for birds - all experienced the same AF troubles when it gets to action that I had with my Tammy;

Standard zooms:
- Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD for EF mount: I have one, nice optics, good IS, quite cheap mechanical quality compared with Canon's comparable lens, AF not reliable with all my older and newer Canon DLSRs, also with my R7.


I have both the 5D4 and the R7, and I share your experience, in particular the R7 struggles often when I try to shoot a flying bird against overcast skies. That said, compared to the old 7D and 7D2, the R7 performs much better AF wise - it also depends on settings, the R7's AF is much more complex. For e.g. birds in flight I learned to better switch off eye detection, because otherwise the R7 tends to pump. I do not agree with your critics on image quality. We have to be fair and stay in the APS-C "world": compared to the 7D2, the R7 provides a very visible leap in IQ, even in high ISO noise, despite its much smaller pixels. Canon did a great job with its conventional sensor and electronics.

Those small pixels also may cause some sharpness "issues" for pixel peepers: amended to FF an R7 sensor would make a whopping 80 MP camera! Accordingly, it requires much higher shutter speeds to really freeze a moving object on the pixel level. I remember when Nikon came out with the original D800, with amazing 36 MP back then, many Nikon photographers coming from the Nikon's 12 MP cameras were complaining about sharpness issues in the beginning. They just were using their old shutter speed settings and where surprised that the new camera lacked sharpness on the pixel level - they didn't have in mind that they now had to choose a 3x faster shutter speed to get the best results a D800 was capable of.

Thx, for the info. I don't really consider Tamron, they tend to make 1-2 good lens every 10y and that's it. Sigma had issues back in the day even with the then premium grade EX series, but they managed to do serious development and today I believe they are absolutely the #1 3rd-party lens vendor especially in the AF domain. The only brand I'm currently glad to buy as a Canon alternative. I rejected any 3rd-party lens for the past 15-20y until recently...then I experienced how awesome the ART series lenses are

Re IQ, dunno...I don't remember criticizing IQ and sensor.

 

[riker]

I have one and do use it as a birder (this lens is made for birders and maybe some sports shooters). I realized that I frequently use it in the 400-600mm range, not always at 800mm. So far no issues with sharpness in real world photography, even @ 800mm.

Coming from tele photography mostly with a prime (my standard combo: an EF 500mm + 1.4x TC = 700mm) I am positively surprised by the sharpness of this zoom even at the long focal length end (again: I don't talk about MTF charts, since they just tell the theoretical limit of a lens, if you do have a well adjusted copy - Nikon lenses often suffered from decentered lenses at least in the past decade). In particular with a crop camera like my R7 I also appreciate for the first time in my life that I am able to zoom in when I do need 800mm. At that huge focal length, it's not so easy to hit a tiny object with such a small angle of view in the EVF. The only drawback of that lens is f=8 to 9 in the mostly used focal length range, so freezing faster movements requires a lot of light. Slowly moving birds in the morning or evening are no problem because of Canon's very good IS.

But it is clear that such a quite exotic lens always has to be a compromise. The good thing is that a birder/wildlife photographer get's a relatively lightweight, compact and flexible zoom lens for such a big focal length. For all other users I think that lens makes no sense.

Yep, I agree, I think your comment supports mine - dropping the 200-400 range and "just" having 400-800 could be a valid path, as the longer side of the lens is statistically _much_ more used than the short end. Getting rid of 200-400, could mean better IQ, or lighter lens, or faster lens, or whatever depending on the design.

 

[riker]

Who said they sacrificed IQ? Every bird/wildlife photographer who I have seen review this lens has said the IQ is excellent and better than they expected.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Bigger focal range is always almost better for a zoom, and there is virtually no real world difference between F8 and F9. In my opinion, of course.

The wider the focal ranger, the lower the IQ. Always. This is basic. A zoom lens itself is a vote for versatility against IQ. Obviously.
Watch/read those reviews again. It is a good lens, it has good IQ, taken, it is a zoom lens, taken it is versatile, etc. It's not really superior to the 100-500 in terms of IQ and of course not comparable to the prime super telephoto lenses. For what it is, it is good.

You misunderstood the "/8". It wasn't just about being faster. At some focal lengths it could even be slower. But we are getting far from my original point so I'll just wrap it up here - it was about some ideas of lenses which I'd prefer, mainly along the lines of placing them between the big zooms and the big primes in every way (size, price, versatility, IQ, etc.)
100-300/4, 300-600/5.6, 400-800/8, etc. (btw I'd also gladly sacrifice the short end of my 100-500 to gain speed or IQ or weight/size)

 

[justaCanonuser]

Yep, I agree, I think your comment supports mine - dropping the 200-400 range and "just" having 400-800 could be a valid path, as the longer side of the lens is statistically _much_ more used than the short end. Getting rid of 200-400, could mean better IQ, or lighter lens, or faster lens, or whatever depending on the design.

Late reply: 200-800mm is indeed a huge zoom range and of course it requires compromises - Canon's engineers definitely have optimized longer end, what is logical for potential users, typically birders. That said, it is in general much easier to construct a zoom layout that's only on the tele side, and that's why Canon starts with 200mm, what is a medium tele range. Zooms going from wide angle to tele, like a 24-105mm or even more extreme like Tamron's classic 18-300mm "rubber lenses" (those ones are really crab) are much more a challenge and require much more optical compromises. I have a Canon EF 24-105mm that I use sometimes for video shootings because it has a silent AF micromotor, and this zoom shows impressive distortions on the wide angle side that really need to be post-processed when architecture with straight lines plays an important role.

Btw 200mm really helped me already to focus on flying birds and zoom in. I could live with a 400-800mm, though, but the performance of the 200-800mm is so good I do welcome to have a wider zoom range - why not? I always preferred primes, not only because of the superior optical performance of a good lens, but because they force you to compose and move when photographing what often gives more interesting results - that's btw part of the classic photography curriculum. Zooms make one lazy. But this 200-800mm really impressed me so far with its real world results, I didn't expect it to be that good. It is a joy to use - if there is enough light.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Late reply: 200-800mm is indeed a huge zoom range and of course it requires compromises - Canon's engineers definitely have optimized longer end, what is logical for potential users, typically birders. That said, it is in general much easier to construct a zoom layout that's only on the tele side, and that's why Canon starts with 200mm, what is a medium tele range. Zooms going from wide angle to tele, like a 24-105mm or even more extreme like Tamron's classic 18-300mm "rubber lenses" (those ones are really crab) are much more a challenge and require much more optical compromises. I have a Canon EF 24-105mm that I use sometimes for video shootings because it has a silent AF micromotor, and this zoom shows impressive distortions on the wide angle side that really need to be post-processed when architecture with straight lines plays an important role.

Btw 200mm really helped me already to focus on flying birds and zoom in. I could live with a 400-800mm, though, but the performance of the 200-800mm is so good I do welcome to have a wider zoom range - why not? I always preferred primes, not only because of the superior optical performance of a good lens, but because they force you to compose and move when photographing what often gives more interesting results - that's btw part of the classic photography curriculum. Zooms make one lazy. But this 200-800mm really impressed me so far with its real world results, I didn't expect it to be that good. It is a joy to use - if there is enough light.

There would be no benefit for mirrorless with a lens starting at 400 mm.
I figure that Canon may as well use the extra flange distance that they have available.

 

[riker]

Late reply: 200-800mm is indeed a huge zoom range and of course it requires compromises - Canon's engineers definitely have optimized longer end, what is logical for potential users, typically birders. That said, it is in general much easier to construct a zoom layout that's only on the tele side, and that's why Canon starts with 200mm, what is a medium tele range. Zooms going from wide angle to tele, like a 24-105mm or even more extreme like Tamron's classic 18-300mm "rubber lenses" (those ones are really crab) are much more a challenge and require much more optical compromises. I have a Canon EF 24-105mm that I use sometimes for video shootings because it has a silent AF micromotor, and this zoom shows impressive distortions on the wide angle side that really need to be post-processed when architecture with straight lines plays an important role.

Btw 200mm really helped me already to focus on flying birds and zoom in. I could live with a 400-800mm, though, but the performance of the 200-800mm is so good I do welcome to have a wider zoom range - why not? I always preferred primes, not only because of the superior optical performance of a good lens, but because they force you to compose and move when photographing what often gives more interesting results - that's btw part of the classic photography curriculum. Zooms make one lazy. But this 200-800mm really impressed me so far with its real world results, I didn't expect it to be that good. It is a joy to use - if there is enough light.

Late is better than never
I have the 100-500 which is also a pretty good performer. It's pretty much the best available now for what I need it - wildlife and also travel.
At this point a 600/4 would be the logical next step for wildlife. The 200-800 is just in between needlessly. The performance is far from the 600/4 and it's significantly bigger and heavier than the 100-500, making it unfit for travel.
Thus I'm whishing for an alternative to the 600/4 which adds something. Flexibility or smaller or whatever. Back in the old days I remember there was a 400/5.6 without IS with stunning(!) IQ. I also used a manual focus Nikon 600/5.6 which was really great. So this is where I'm coming from when I'm envisioning 600/5.6, 800/8, 500-800/8 and such lenses.
A few more additional thoughts.

1) Honestly, it's a bit more complicated. Here is travel which is my main focus. The 70-200/4 is an absolutely gorgeous lens, but juuuuust a bit not enough. The 100-500 is also great but juuuust a bit too big and heavy. Perfect would be a the new "little" 70-200/2.8 with teleconverters but you can't attach teleconverters to that lens. The reason I'm dreaming of a 100-300/4. And remember, the 300/4 was a pretty light lens including IS in 1997!. Imagine what they could do now.

1B) ......and imagine (and this is an evergreen wish/flame) what they could do developing proper APS-C lenses. Imagine an R7 with an RF-S 100-300/4L or RF-S 100-400. Not mentioning RF-S 600/5.6 and 800/8.

2) We get used to zoom/slow lenses and say it's OK, technology is great, we can increase ISO, do noise reduction in post. etc. Which is somewhat true but in some ways not. From time to time I happen to use fast prime lenses and OMG how better the images are and the whole photography experience as well. Last week when shooting birds from a hide (so they were close) using the 100-500 and constantly using the zoom there and back, I had an idea and switched to the Sigma(!) 135/1.8. WOW! The AF suddenly became quick and precise and the images noticeably sharper. It was a whole different universe. So I'm not that much a fan of apertures 7.1, 9 and such.

 

[Loswr]

1B) ......and imagine (and this is an evergreen wish/flame) what they could do developing proper APS-C lenses. Imagine an R7 with an RF-S 100-300/4L or RF-S 100-400. Not mentioning RF-S 600/5.6 and 800/8.

There’s no need to imagine. With some knowledge of optics, the reason you won’t get your wish is obvious. At the focal lengths and apertures you’re talking about, the limiting design factor is the entrance pupil diameter, which is effectively the front element. The image circle diameter is NOT limiting.

What that means is that the lenses listed above would be the same physical size and optical quality whether they were ‘designed for’ FF or APS-C, because those designs would end up covering a FF sensor no matter what.

If your desired ‘proper APS-C lens’ would cover a FF sensor anyway, there is zero upside and only downside for Canon (or anyone else) to market the lens as APS-C.

Check the dimensions of a lens like the OM 150-600, which is ‘for m4/3 cameras’. It’s similar to other brands’ FF lenses in that range, and in fact the OM 150-600 would work fine on a FF camera if OM made them.

Your ‘evergreen wish’ remains evergreen because many people don’t understand optics.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Late is better than never
I have the 100-500 which is also a pretty good performer. It's pretty much the best available now for what I need it - wildlife and also travel.
At this point a 600/4 would be the logical next step for wildlife. The 200-800 is just in between needlessly. The performance is far from the 600/4 and it's significantly bigger and heavier than the 100-500, making it unfit for travel..

You cannot compare a 600/4 with the 200-800mm with respect to price, aperture, and weight, despite the fact that a prime and a zoom are different worlds because with a prime you have to work with a fixed frame (what can be extremely rewarding, like every limitation of degrees of freedom). I know what I am talking about, I mostly shoot wildife with an EF 500mm prime, mostly with a 1.4x TC attached, so 700mm is my preferred focal length for birding.

Current sales of the 200-800 (I had to wait for my copy nearly half a year in Europe) tell that a lot of photographers think different about this lens than you, including me. For me, a 100-500 simply is too short and would require a TC again, plus the 200-800 is compact enough for a nice travel lens. So, this is simply a question of personal preferences in photography. Luckily, Canon recognized that there is a market for such a zoom lens, their market research dept is quite smart.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Check the dimensions of a lens like the OM 150-600, which is ‘for m4/3 cameras’. It’s similar to other brands’ FF lenses in that range, and in fact the OM 150-600 would work fine on a FF camera if OM made them.

Exactly. I met birders using that lens, and it has the dimensions of a typical 150-600mm. I didn't measure it with a pocket meter, I have to admit

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You cannot compare a 600/4 with the 200-800mm

Sorry, but I am in the same boat.
If you already have a supertelephoto zoom and are saving up for a 600 f/4 than a 200-800 would just be an unnecessary expense along the way.
The comparison is buy this or save up for something else.
In that sense, the something else could be completely unrelated like a car.
I never was sure why people think you can't compare apples to oranges.
If you only have money for one or the other then you need to compare them and choose one.