Here are Some Interesting Lens Mentions We've Received [CR1]

[mikekx102]

The 14mm f/2.8L mkII is over a decade old, and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 is a good competitor, so an EF 14mm f/2L doesn't sound that far fetched.

No, it sounds awesome! One of the main weaknesses with the Sigma is its autofocus and I'm sure canon could better it. But it would be a crime to not correct the Coma fantastically with this lens.

Bring it on Canon!

Also, if this rumour isn't just rubbish, what time frame could we expect with this?

 

[tron]

The 14mm f/2.8L mkII is over a decade old, and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 is a good competitor, so an EF 14mm f/2L doesn't sound that far fetched.

No, it sounds awesome! One of the main weaknesses with the Sigma is its autofocus and I'm sure canon could better it. But it would be a crime to not correct the Coma fantastically with this lens.

Bring it on Canon!

Also, if this rumour isn't just rubbish, what time frame could we expect with this?

3 to 30 years 8)

 

[tron]

The 14mm f/2.8L mkII is over a decade old, and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 is a good competitor, so an EF 14mm f/2L doesn't sound that far fetched.

I was thinking about the same. But that lens would be ultra expensive.

In addition, I believe they have to make a 14 2.8L III to improve upon the II version.

 

[kiwiengr]

One understands the new lens is a 50mm f1.2 L IS (with one 1.4 TC, and 3 x 2.0 TC's)....

 

[NancyP]

cue ahsanford
"Where's my 50 1.4 IS????"

 

[criscokkat]

cue ahsanford
"Where's my 50 1.4 IS????"

It's already in his bag, it's just waiting for the mirrorless body with IBIS.

 

[Antono Refa]

The 14mm f/2.8L mkII is over a decade old, and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 is a good competitor, so an EF 14mm f/2L doesn't sound that far fetched.

I was thinking about the same. But that lens would be ultra expensive.

While electronics improves quickly at the same price point, optics does not. A new & improved lens will be significantly more expensive. Main question is whether it would sell well enough.

 

[Grimbald]

Would love a 14mm F2.0 ... Given the superb image quality of the 16-35 III, I'm sure Canon is capable of creating a next to perfect stellar piece of glass in that focal lenght.

 

[Michael Clark]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

 

[Talys]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

This is actually not true. I own both the 100-400LII and the Sigma 150-600, and although I the 100-400LII is my preference 95%+ of the time, that is because it's much smaller and easier to get good a handheld shot with, it has superior (more consistent and faster) autofocus, it has mode 3 IS, and it has a vastly superior MF ring.

Plus, in virtually all cases cases, getting close enough to take a 400mm photo will yield a sueprior photo to a 600mm photo.

However, you can't always get closer, and on two tripod shots, if a bird is perfectly framed and focused at 600mm, losing 1/3 of the optical resolution will make it an inferior photo. Likewise, at 560mm f/8, the Canon will only take superior photos to the Sigma at f/6.3 if there's a lot of light. If it's a question between ISO 320 and ISO 640, the Sigma shot will be better after post every time (assuming perfect focus).

The big difference is that for me the Sigma takes perfect photos on a tripod, while the 400 is great either handheld or with a monopod. More often than not, I'm out looking for interesting bird shots, not looking to shoot a one specific bird shot, and a handheld/monopod lens yields more opportunities. But if I know what I'm shooting and I need the reach (for instance, there's a body of water separating me and the subject), the Sigma is a great deal -- especially given the price.

For the Nikon 200-500, I think it's actually a bit disappointing at 500; unlike the Sigma (mine is razor sharp at 600), the Nikon seems a little soft, at least on the copy I was playing with.

 

[tron]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

This is actually not true. I own both the 100-400LII and the Sigma 150-600, and although I the 100-400LII is my preference 95%+ of the time, that is because it's much smaller and easier to get good a handheld shot with, it has superior (more consistent and faster) autofocus, it has mode 3 IS, and it has a vastly superior MF ring.

Plus, in virtually all cases cases, getting close enough to take a 400mm photo will yield a sueprior photo to a 600mm photo.

However, you can't always get closer, and on two tripod shots, if a bird is perfectly framed and focused at 600mm, losing 1/3 of the optical resolution will make it an inferior photo. Likewise, at 560mm f/8, the Canon will only take superior photos to the Sigma at f/6.3 if there's a lot of light. If it's a question between ISO 320 and ISO 640, the Sigma shot will be better after post every time (assuming perfect focus).

The big difference is that for me the Sigma takes perfect photos on a tripod, while the 400 is great either handheld or with a monopod. More often than not, I'm out looking for interesting bird shots, not looking to shoot a one specific bird shot, and a handheld/monopod lens yields more opportunities. But if I know what I'm shooting and I need the reach (for instance, there's a body of water separating me and the subject), the Sigma is a great deal -- especially given the price.

For the Nikon 200-500, I think it's actually a bit disappointing at 500; unlike the Sigma (mine is razor sharp at 600), the Nikon seems a little soft, at least on the copy I was playing with.

A minor correction: Sigma is not 5.6 at 600mm it is 6.3 so there is not going to be a difference between iso 320 and iso 640. More like iso 400 and 640 (2/3rds of a stop). No that a big deal.

 

[Talys]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

This is actually not true. I own both the 100-400LII and the Sigma 150-600, and although I the 100-400LII is my preference 95%+ of the time, that is because it's much smaller and easier to get good a handheld shot with, it has superior (more consistent and faster) autofocus, it has mode 3 IS, and it has a vastly superior MF ring.

Plus, in virtually all cases cases, getting close enough to take a 400mm photo will yield a sueprior photo to a 600mm photo.

However, you can't always get closer, and on two tripod shots, if a bird is perfectly framed and focused at 600mm, losing 1/3 of the optical resolution will make it an inferior photo. Likewise, at 560mm f/8, the Canon will only take superior photos to the Sigma at f/6.3 if there's a lot of light. If it's a question between ISO 320 and ISO 640, the Sigma shot will be better after post every time (assuming perfect focus).

The big difference is that for me the Sigma takes perfect photos on a tripod, while the 400 is great either handheld or with a monopod. More often than not, I'm out looking for interesting bird shots, not looking to shoot a one specific bird shot, and a handheld/monopod lens yields more opportunities. But if I know what I'm shooting and I need the reach (for instance, there's a body of water separating me and the subject), the Sigma is a great deal -- especially given the price.

For the Nikon 200-500, I think it's actually a bit disappointing at 500; unlike the Sigma (mine is razor sharp at 600), the Nikon seems a little soft, at least on the copy I was playing with.

A minor correction: Sigma is not 5.6 at 600mm it is 6.3 so there is not going to be a difference between iso 320 and iso 640. More like iso 400 and 640 (2/3rds of a stop). No that a big deal.

I actually mentioned f/6.3 on the Sigma

What happens for me on the 6DII is that I get better results out of slightly underexposed photos that are under ISO 400 than properly exposed photos at ISO 400+, so at f/5.6, if it's borderline, I will tend to set ISO to 320, underexpose by a third or half stop, and bump it up in post. The end result looks close to base ISO. But if I'm going to be at 640+, there's no point. I might as well just use auto ISO, and let the camera pick 640, 800, 1000, whatever.

You are right, though: there is little difference between 5.6 and 6.3, though there is a huge difference in autofocus speed between the Sigma at 600mm and the Canon at 400mm (not all of it due to the 1/3 stop, of course).

What is a really big difference in usability, because of how much light I usually get, even on a bright sunny day, is the difference between f/5.6 and f/8 on a 400LII at f/5.6 + 1.4TC.

 

[H. Jones]

A 400mm f/2.8 1.4X would definitely be an awesome lens. I'm still on the fence about the 200-400 f/4-- for that kind of money, F/4 just doesn't cut it in certain circumstances, and for the kind of money for a 400mm f/2.8, I'd much rather be able to immediately extend it to a 560mm f/4 for daylight uses. Would be able to wear many hats and thus, even if it's a bit more expensive, might make more financial sense than the current options. It's practically a 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 all in one.

 

[hkenneth]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

I don't have the 100-400 II but my Tamron 150-600 G2 at 500mm f8 is sharper than 100-400 I. Could be sample variation though.

Tanrom G2 at 400mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/39808737550/in/datetaken/
Tanrom G2 at 500mm+ https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/41591501121/in/datetaken/

 

[Michael Clark]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

I don't have the 100-400 II but my Tamron 150-600 G2 at 500mm f8 is sharper than 100-400 I. Could be sample variation though.

Tanrom G2 at 400mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/39808737550/in/datetaken/
Tanrom G2 at 500mm+ https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/41591501121/in/datetaken/

The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II is considerably sharper at 400mm than the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS everywhere except in the exact center of the frame (where they are equal). Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

It's also a bit better than the Tamron 150-600 G2 at 400mm. Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

But the Tamorn drops way off by 600mm, especially in the center of the frame. Whether wide open or stopped down to f/8.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F5-63-Di-VC-USD-G2-Model-A022-Canon__598_1009_1469_1009_1751_0

 

[Michael Clark]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

This is actually not true. I own both the 100-400LII and the Sigma 150-600, and although I the 100-400LII is my preference 95%+ of the time, that is because it's much smaller and easier to get good a handheld shot with, it has superior (more consistent and faster) autofocus, it has mode 3 IS, and it has a vastly superior MF ring.

Plus, in virtually all cases cases, getting close enough to take a 400mm photo will yield a sueprior photo to a 600mm photo.

However, you can't always get closer, and on two tripod shots, if a bird is perfectly framed and focused at 600mm, losing 1/3 of the optical resolution will make it an inferior photo. Likewise, at 560mm f/8, the Canon will only take superior photos to the Sigma at f/6.3 if there's a lot of light. If it's a question between ISO 320 and ISO 640, the Sigma shot will be better after post every time (assuming perfect focus).

The big difference is that for me the Sigma takes perfect photos on a tripod, while the 400 is great either handheld or with a monopod. More often than not, I'm out looking for interesting bird shots, not looking to shoot a one specific bird shot, and a handheld/monopod lens yields more opportunities. But if I know what I'm shooting and I need the reach (for instance, there's a body of water separating me and the subject), the Sigma is a great deal -- especially given the price.

For the Nikon 200-500, I think it's actually a bit disappointing at 500; unlike the Sigma (mine is razor sharp at 600), the Nikon seems a little soft, at least on the copy I was playing with.

A minor correction: Sigma is not 5.6 at 600mm it is 6.3 so there is not going to be a difference between iso 320 and iso 640. More like iso 400 and 640 (2/3rds of a stop). No that a big deal.

Only if the sensor resolution, rather than the lens' resolution, is the limiting factor.

If you have a lens that can resolve 1,000 lp/ih and a camera with 2,000 pixels over the height of that image you can crop it to 67% (the center 1,333 pixels) and it will still be sharper than an uncropped image from the same camera taken with a lens that can resolve less than 667 lp/ih.

Re: about using the 100-400 with a 1.4X. I didn't say anything about using an extender. I said "crop the snot out of it."

 

[hkenneth]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

I don't have the 100-400 II but my Tamron 150-600 G2 at 500mm f8 is sharper than 100-400 I. Could be sample variation though.

Tanrom G2 at 400mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/39808737550/in/datetaken/
Tanrom G2 at 500mm+ https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/41591501121/in/datetaken/

The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II is considerably sharper at 400mm than the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS everywhere except in the exact center of the frame (where they are equal). Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

It's also a bit better than the Tamron 150-600 G2 at 400mm. Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

But the Tamorn drops way off by 600mm, especially in the center of the frame. Whether wide open or stopped down to f/8.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F5-63-Di-VC-USD-G2-Model-A022-Canon__598_1009_1469_1009_1751_0

Yes, the Tamron sharpness drops at 600mm. If you just treat it as a 150-550mm lens you would be happier. But I can understand the motivation for Tamron to push it to 600mm as it sure sounds better in terms of marketing goes.

 

[stevelee]

My 100-400 II came yesterday, and I posted a few 100% crops from the handheld test shots I did:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23603.msg718760;topicseen#msg718760

 

[hkenneth]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

I don't have the 100-400 II but my Tamron 150-600 G2 at 500mm f8 is sharper than 100-400 I. Could be sample variation though.

Tanrom G2 at 400mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/39808737550/in/datetaken/
Tanrom G2 at 500mm+ https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/41591501121/in/datetaken/

The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II is considerably sharper at 400mm than the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS everywhere except in the exact center of the frame (where they are equal). Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

It's also a bit better than the Tamron 150-600 G2 at 400mm. Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

But the Tamorn drops way off by 600mm, especially in the center of the frame. Whether wide open or stopped down to f/8.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F5-63-Di-VC-USD-G2-Model-A022-Canon__598_1009_1469_1009_1751_0

Given the right condition, Tamron G2 can also be sharp at 600mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/41728206442/in/datetaken/

 

[tron]

Any mention of Super tele zoom to compete with 150-600mm or 200-500mm lenses currently present on market?

It's the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II.

Used properly you can crop the snot out of it and still get better IQ than the Sigma C/Sigma S/Tamron 150-600mm offerings.

I don't have the 100-400 II but my Tamron 150-600 G2 at 500mm f8 is sharper than 100-400 I. Could be sample variation though.

Tanrom G2 at 400mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/39808737550/in/datetaken/
Tanrom G2 at 500mm+ https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/41591501121/in/datetaken/

The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II is considerably sharper at 400mm than the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS everywhere except in the exact center of the frame (where they are equal). Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

It's also a bit better than the Tamron 150-600 G2 at 400mm. Wide open or stopped down to f/8.

But the Tamorn drops way off by 600mm, especially in the center of the frame. Whether wide open or stopped down to f/8.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F5-63-Di-VC-USD-G2-Model-A022-Canon__598_1009_1469_1009_1751_0

Given the right condition, Tamron G2 can also be sharp at 600mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143732728@N06/41728206442/in/datetaken/

Using a 20MP Full frame at F/16 is rather extreme way to make the Tamron look sharp! But yes that is a nice and sharp picture.