Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[sulla]

From paragraph 8 in the patent:

[Problem to be solved by the invention]
[0008] In the looking-far zoom lens used for a television camera in recent years and video camera [...]

OK, this is the final element that pretty much busts this rumour: Cine lenses are never ever cheap. This non-extending F5.2 lens will NOT be the cheap 200-600 lens this rumour is about.

 

[Don Haines]

could this be it?

 

[slclick]

could this be it?

Dimensions of box, 32" x 20" x 22"

 

[Click]

could this be it?

LOL ;D

 

[Lee Jay]

could this be it?

Dimensions of box, 32" x 20" x 22"

It comes with coupon for 50% off your first back surgery.

 

[Don Haines]

could this be it?

LOL ;D

The hard part is going to finding the 215mm ND filter to put on the end.....

 

[neuroanatomist]

could this be it?

LOL ;D

The hard part is going to finding the 215mm ND filter to put on the end.....

No drop in holder or gel holder slot at the back of the lens? Canon screws up yet again. :

;D

 

[slclick]

could this be it?

LOL ;D

The hard part is going to finding the 215mm ND filter to put on the end.....

No drop in holder or gel holder slot at the back of the lens? Canon screws up yet again. :

;D

It's no wonder they are going out of business. I know because I heard it here...http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com

 

[hubie]

200-600 with the Canon 80D and 27 f/8 AF-points... a dream for wildlife shooters 8)

 

[Plainsman]

At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.

Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

 

[Steve Dmark2]

.....
Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

100-400ii with integrated converter. Also a interesting idea.
Still i have also a problem with the with the high maximum aperture.
In your case what would it be: 5.6 + 1,25/1,4 tele = 6.3 just like the sigmas?

 

[ahsanford]

.....
Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

100-400ii with integrated converter. Also a interesting idea.
Still i have also a problem with the with the high maximum aperture.
In your case what would it be: 5.6 + 1,25/1,4 tele = 6.3 just like the sigmas?

I don't know what the corresponding aperture would be (somewhere around 6.3 to 7.1?), but there's so much more to a lens than sharpness, max aperture and IS. A teleconvertered 100-400L II will be well sealed, retain that nice CPL window in the hood, have reliable first party AF and store/carry in a far smaller footprint.

The question is how well you can 'optically match' a modular teleconverter. One would imagine it would perform more like the 1.4x standalone T/C and less like the 1.4x integral T/C on the 200-400, right?

- A

 

[gpolly]

I have the 100-440 II....Love the sharpness, was pleasantly shocked how sharp it is.

but....i wish it was one stop faster....wish.

200-600 would have to be a major improvement to take this out of my hands. 100-400 on my 7dm2 is an awesome combination. I almost never put the lens on my 5dm2, just not enough focus points to work with on that body. then again my 24-70 2.8 never sees my 7dm2 and it lives on my 5dm2.

attached is a shot with the 7dm2 100-400II 50% crop for size limits, 1/400 7.1 ISO200 at full 400mm. no edits just raw to jpeg conversion.

this little dude is about 5" long....looks like a dragon... ;D ;D

 

[cookestudios]

At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.

Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

5.6 is only a third of a stop faster than those companies' offerings that max out at 6.3.

 

[neuroanatomist]

At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.

Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

5.6 is only a third of a stop faster than those companies' offering that max out at 6.3.

That 'only a third of a stop' requires a front element with a 28% larger area.

 

[cookestudios]

At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.

Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

5.6 is only a third of a stop faster than those companies' offering that max out at 6.3.

That 'only a third of a stop' requires a front element with a 28% larger area.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Typically, when people refer to the "size" of an aperture, they're referring to its transmission capabilities; thus, I was addressing that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.

Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

5.6 is only a third of a stop faster than those companies' offering that max out at 6.3.

That 'only a third of a stop' requires a front element with a 28% larger area.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Typically, when people refer to the "size" of an aperture, they're referring to its transmission capabilities; thus, I was addressing that.

Typically when people refer to the size of the aperture of a telephoto lens in the context of its cost, they're referring to the corresponding size of the front set of elements, which are a significant contributor to the lens' cost.

 

[cookestudios]

At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.

Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........

5.6 is only a third of a stop faster than those companies' offering that max out at 6.3.

That 'only a third of a stop' requires a front element with a 28% larger area.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Typically, when people refer to the "size" of an aperture, they're referring to its transmission capabilities; thus, I was addressing that.

Typically when people refer to the size of the aperture of a telephoto lens in the context of its cost, they're referring to the corresponding size of the front set of elements, which are a significant contributor to the lens' cost.

Ah, missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[9VIII]

I'm actually sort of happy with my Samyang 800f8 mirror lens.

On the 5D2 it has worse detail and way less colour than the 400f5.6 on the T3, but, as far as compact and lightweight telephoto lenses go, maybe not so bad for $300. I'm sure it's better than cropping off a kit lens... If you ever manage to get anything in focus.

I'll take it out tomorrow and shoot some geese nesting in the dugout.

It would be awesome if you took a shot of something common (like bottle of water, can of beer, a sheet of paper) so I would have some comparsion with my 55-250mm IS STM with teleconverters on crop body...

Ok, Finally.

Full image and then 100% crops, all off of the Canon 1100D.

The can shots show just how shallow depth of field is even at f8 when you have a 1280mm FOV.
With the close set I just wanted to fill the frame the other set is from 30 paces (about 30 yards). No colour correction on these.
Samyang 800f8 1/1500 ISO400

 

[9VIII]

And some wildlife.

First I tried to get a comparison with geese but ended up with ducks.
The duplicate picture of the duck has a tiny bit of extra colour saturation, I think it helps with white balance and makes the image much more natural.
EDIT: Images off the Samyang are ISO 400 pushed almost one stop (+0.83) in post, so it's really more like ISO 800. the Canon 400f5.6 image is bumped up by +0.17.
Samyang 800f8 1/1500 ISO400

This is probably from the same position, but there might be a differece of a few meters.
Canon 400f5.6 1/1500 ISO400

There's a pair of hawks nesting on the home quarter and they screech at me almost the entire time I go for a walk in the back pasture.
Yesterday I barely managed to snap this through the trees (no leaves yet), the bird was obviously uncomfortable being this close.
My hit rate with BIF using the Samyang 800f8 is about 1 in 20. Racking focus is the only way I've managed decent shots regardless of whether I'm on my belly or standing, though I don't have much practice.
I just did a bit of extra noise correction and the same colour correction as with the duck above. My default sharpening is "off" but I doubt it would make much difference at this level of detail.

It's not much but everything considered even getting a thumbnail quality image feels like an accomplishment.

Samyang 800f8 1/2000 ISO 800