Why do you think the new 100-400 is not an answer to the Nikon 200-500? It is a superb lens and its sharpness allows you to crop significantly.motofotog said:What's the news with the Canon 200-600 lens? are they planing to compete with Sigma/Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. If they think 100-400L II is the answer to those lens, then they are wrong.
I wish they get new Canon 500mm f5.6 L
I had a tough choice between the 100-400 II, and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. The reach of the Sigma seduced me, and I have had no issues with sharpness at 600.Regards the Sigma/Tamron a few reports say that they are both close to the Canon but drop off a bit above 400
I tried my hands on Nikon 200-500 and its not comparable with the current 100-400L. Even I like the 100-400, but the reach the third party lens (Tamron/Sigma) have is what Canon is missing.Rogerdodge said:I had a tough choice between the 100-400 II, and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. The reach of the Sigma seduced me, and I have had no issues with sharpness at 600.Regards the Sigma/Tamron a few reports say that they are both close to the Canon but drop off a bit above 400
It's worth remembering what DO does. It reduces the length, and consequently some of the weight, of a lens, but the front element is still the width it has to be for the maximum aperture. A 500mm f/2.8 DO would be rather wide (more than 178mm, second only to the 1200mm f/5.6) and front-heavy.hendrik-sg said:The current big whites are so good (at least the "ii" versions) that new versions seem not very urgent. They would be interesting if:
- they could cut the size/weight (with "do" versions) significantly.
- or even better add new features. Double extender versions (1.4x and 2.0x) switchable would almost make them zooms
- longer reach for the same size/weight would be great, if possible without big jumps in price. Why not 500 2.8 DO 1.4x/2.0x or 700 4.0 DO 1.4x with 5.0 kg .
I do not see anybody upgrading a 500mm 4.0 ii if there is 200g weight/5cm lenth saving and 0.3 stop IS improvment for 5000$ upgrade cost. For this the current versions are to good
And i think, even for well earning enthusiasts the current versions are painfully expensive, and from my country i am used to high prices. So in my opinion there is not so much room for price increases, i would like to know how many 17'000$ 800's nikon sold, at least i never saw one
There is a 400/4 IS already:Chaitanya said:I would like to see 500 f/5.6 & 400 f/4 IS L being added to lineup replacing the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Both those lenses still sell lile hot cakes and are in need of replacement soon.
That would correlate with their "glass first" tag line I guess.Woody said:It appears that Canon is trying to maximize profits in the face of plunging camera sales by focusing on the release of expensive L lenses. Others try to increase profits by releasing expensive cameras (e.g., Nikon's multiple FF models, Sony's recent A6500 & A7 series, Olympus OMD-EM1 II, Panasonic GH5 etc).
Just a neutral observation
+1, an integral extender is enough innovation to encourage me to upgrade. I was especially interested in the rumor (patent reported here?) for the 400 2.8 DO + 1.4 and 1.7 integral TC's. Yes, it would still be big, heavy and expensive, but it would provide an amazing wildlife (non-avian) lens. A 600 4.0 DO w similar extenders would cover the avian space.Ekpil said:there is no need for a new 800mm F5,6
Please Canon build a 600mm F4,0 plus 1,4 Extender build in = 840mm F5,6
I love the 200-400mm + Ext it is perfect !! Please follow this way with integrated Extender.
Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC. Since the advent of the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron , that 400mm f/5.6L is the most dumped lens on used market and it can be found for around 45000Rs(~660$). I just hope we get update to those two old L lenses sooner.rs said:There is a 400/4 IS already:Chaitanya said:I would like to see 500 f/5.6 & 400 f/4 IS L being added to lineup replacing the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Both those lenses still sell like hot cakes and are in need of replacement soon.
Yes, it is slight, but there is room for improvement. I have been ssooooo close to buying this lens so many times but always held back at the end. Maybe because I could never get over that the old 200mm f/1.8 just had a little better IQ (which I believe is due to its lead-based elements).Talley said:I just got my 200 F2 IS about 8 months ago. IQ it's top notch... but compared to the 300 2.8 II the 200 F2 could improve "slightly" in the corners. It already has a 4 stop IS but adding a mode 3 could help. THEN I bet the most they could improve is about .4lbs lighter.
I'd be very surprised if a newbie is worth the upgrade price. I took the 200mm f/2.0 for a run this December with the 5DIV and the results were simply great. Handling is also much better than the old model.Talley said:In the end it'll be another $6,000 lens and I paid 4k for mine and there is nothing wrong with it. I will not upgrade my 200 any time soon.
A 600 DO with builtin 1.4 or between yet 1.2 and 1.4 which could be independently selected or selected together to give 1.7 would be a winner (as long as IQ similar to the current 300 DO II)padam said:The 600/4 DO is surely a go and there are plenty of other patents suggesting others as well (like 500/4 500/5.6 800/5.6 etc.) who knows which will make it into production.
aww... I have twins... big baby and a little babyKiagiJ said:I don't think the 200 f2 can be improved much right now. My baby! is 9lbs and after a few minutes it's getting a lil tiring Even if they take 1lb off guess what, it'll be 8lbs and still tiring. The image is amazing, the stabilization is amazing at 5 stops to 1/8th second handheld for me, that can't be bettered right now so