A Canon Supertelephoto Zoom Lens Coming with EOS 6D Mark II? [CR1]

[Loswr]

tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!

Yeah, at least Canon finally corrected their wrong, unacceptable, utter disrespect toward Canon users with their 28-70/2.8L and 24-70/2.8L lenses which zoomed in the wrong direction, by finally releasing the 24-70/2.8L II that zooms correctly. That was pretty smart of Canon, wasn't it?

 

[arcer]

Actually, the terms are defined quite correctly and it is completely based on focal length. "Telephoto zoom" refers to all zoom lens that can reach 200 or more, while "super telephoto" covers any primes that cover lens 400mm or above and "telephoto" refers to lens covering 100-300mm.

Therefore, you're assumption that it is based on aperture is incorrect and 400/5.6 is a "super telephoto". While all other Canon sites markets the 200-400 as a "Telephoto zoom", only Canon USA made a blatant mistake in putting it in "Super telephoto". Looks like it is a mistake on Canon USA's side and not yours for being misguided.

Reference: All information of the 200-400 "Telephoto zoom" definition were collected from various Canon sites including but not limited to: Canon JP, Canon HK, Canon SG, Canon EU, Canon UK.

Thanks guys for omitting my awesome research in Canon's nomenclature that only took me 5 minutes to confirm online. Way to go, woohoo..... Yeah........

Ok, I'll go back to drawing circles in my corner.

 

[mnclayshooter]

Actually, the terms are defined quite correctly and it is completely based on focal length. "Telephoto zoom" refers to all zoom lens that can reach 200 or more, while "super telephoto" covers any primes that cover lens 400mm or above and "telephoto" refers to lens covering 100-300mm.

Therefore, you're assumption that it is based on aperture is incorrect and 400/5.6 is a "super telephoto". While all other Canon sites markets the 200-400 as a "Telephoto zoom", only Canon USA made a blatant mistake in putting it in "Super telephoto". Looks like it is a mistake on Canon USA's side and not yours for being misguided.

Reference: All information of the 200-400 "Telephoto zoom" definition were collected from various Canon sites including but not limited to: Canon JP, Canon HK, Canon SG, Canon EU, Canon UK.

Thanks guys for omitting my awesome research in Canon's nomenclature that only took me 5 minutes to confirm online. Way to go, woohoo..... Yeah........

Ok, I'll go back to drawing circles in my corner.

Finally... a prospective test candidate capable of conducting the critical circle-drawing task: Do you have a cat? I'm led to believe, based on about 5 minutes of internet research, that cats will go sit in a circle if you draw one on the floor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFiN1I7_Gw

 

[Lee Jay]

Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).

The most expensive lens under 75mm is the 100-400II, at $1,999. The cheapest of the lenses with apertures over 75mm (which are all over 100mm) is the 200/2 at $5,699. That's a huge gap (75mm to 100mm and $1,999 to $5,699). It is logical to place all the expensive ones, all of which have apertures over 100mm in the "super" category, while the others are not.

I wouldn't call the Opteka 650-1300 "super" just because it's focal length is over 400mm. It's $189.95 and basically just a piece of cheap garbage.

Aperture is irrelevant, cost is irrelevant, and your logic is "super" flawed.

It comes from being a telescope guy, where aperture is everything (because you can't change it) and focal length is nothing (because you can change it).

My 279mm lens:

 

[arcer]

Finally... a prospective test candidate capable of conducting the critical circle-drawing task: Do you have a cat? I'm led to believe, based on about 5 minutes of internet research, that cats will go sit in a circle if you draw one on the floor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFiN1I7_Gw

Luckily, those 5 minutes of research does lead to a small view of the intriguing animal behavior of cats with their circles. I used to trap cats with black gaffer tape when I have to clean the house, they seem to be intrigued by the black circle and can have a few hours of fun in their own fantasy world. Tried it multiple times until they got the wiser and know it was a trick all along.

Oh well...... Do you want to hear more of my cat stories? I studied Animal Behavior in my University btw. Wish I got the super telephoto stuff to shoot birds with though. Observing their living patterns are an exhausting but amusing experience.

 

[Loswr]

Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).

The most expensive lens under 75mm is the 100-400II, at $1,999. The cheapest of the lenses with apertures over 75mm (which are all over 100mm) is the 200/2 at $5,699. That's a huge gap (75mm to 100mm and $1,999 to $5,699). It is logical to place all the expensive ones, all of which have apertures over 100mm in the "super" category, while the others are not.

I wouldn't call the Opteka 650-1300 "super" just because it's focal length is over 400mm. It's $189.95 and basically just a piece of cheap garbage.

Aperture is irrelevant, cost is irrelevant, and your logic is "super" flawed.

It comes from being a telescope guy, where aperture is everything (because you can't change it) and focal length is nothing (because you can change it).

Ok, so by your logic since I'm a binocular guy, this is me with my 12x150 spotting scope.

As I stated, your logic is "super" flawed.

 

[Lee Jay]

Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).

The most expensive lens under 75mm is the 100-400II, at $1,999. The cheapest of the lenses with apertures over 75mm (which are all over 100mm) is the 200/2 at $5,699. That's a huge gap (75mm to 100mm and $1,999 to $5,699). It is logical to place all the expensive ones, all of which have apertures over 100mm in the "super" category, while the others are not.

I wouldn't call the Opteka 650-1300 "super" just because it's focal length is over 400mm. It's $189.95 and basically just a piece of cheap garbage.

Aperture is irrelevant, cost is irrelevant, and your logic is "super" flawed.

It comes from being a telescope guy, where aperture is everything (because you can't change it) and focal length is nothing (because you can change it).

Ok, so by your logic since I'm a binocular guy, this is me with my 12x150 spotting scope.

If you have a viewfinder with a magnification of 1.0, then yes.

The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.

 

[AlanF]

No-one is arguing against aperture being important for light gathering. The point at issue is the definition of what is a telephoto or supertelephoto camera lens, and that definition does not depend on aperture.

 

[Loswr]

The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.

Towing capacity is a parameter of primary importance for trucks, since it determines how much stuff you can haul around to get your work done. By your "super" flawed logic, the Porsche Panamera is a better truck than the Toyota Tacoma, since the former has a higher towing capacity.

Or, we could agree with the rest of the world and call the Panamera a sportscar and lenses longer than 300mm supertelephoto lenses.

 

[AlanF]

The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.

Towing capacity is a parameter of primary importance for trucks, since it determines how much stuff you can haul around to get your work done. By your "super" flawed logic, the Porsche Panamera is a better truck than the Toyota Tacoma, since the former has a higher towing capacity.

Or, we could agree with the rest of the world and call the Panamera a sportscar and lenses longer than 300mm supertelephoto lenses.

And a Landrover Defender can out-tow a Dodge Ram

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDhI-K0aAk8

 

[Don Haines]

The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.

Aperture ultimately controls resolving power?????

Let's bring out the squirrels for this one......

Shot 1 is taken with an F2.8 lens and with a 77mm filter, gathers more light than shot 2, taken with an F4 lens and a smaller 67mm filter. Since the mm's of focal length does not matter, shot 1 should out-resolve shot 2. To demonstrate the resolving power of the two lenses, the images are as shot from the same spot, straight out of the camera, no processing other than to crop the two images to the head of the squirrel . (a fake squirrel was used so there would be no motion issues and the pose would be the same)

So obviously, the first shot resolves more detail than the second.....

 

[Loswr]

So obviously, the first shot resolves more detail than the second.....

Neither image resolves the squirrel's nuts, therefore neither was taken with a "super" lens.

 

[Don Haines]

So obviously, the first shot resolves more detail than the second.....

Neither image resolves the squirrel's nuts, therefore neither was taken with a "super" lens.

HEY! This is a family forum.... I'm trying to keep things PG here...... besides, the stuffed animal is not anatomically correct anyway....

 

[Loswr]

So obviously, the first shot resolves more detail than the second.....

Neither image resolves the squirrel's nuts, therefore neither was taken with a "super" lens.

HEY! This is a family forum.... I'm trying to keep things PG here...... besides, the stuffed animal is not anatomically correct anyway....

What are you talking about, Don? I'm talking about nuts...

Something wrong with that?? 8)

 

[unfocused]

...tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!

I'm hoping this was meant to be humorous or sarcastic. Because if it is serious it comes across as seriously unhinged.

 

[unfocused]

You guys seem awfully proud of your big equipment.

 

[AvTvM]

...tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!

I'm hoping this was meant to be humorous or sarcastic. Because if it is serious it comes across as seriously unhinged.

i mean it. Until Tamron gets their act together and equips lenses not only with Canon EF mount but also with correctly turning zoom rings, I will not buy anything from them and advise any Canon user to not buy Tamron lenses. This is a K.O. criterion for me and anybody who needs to zoom IN or OUT fast and correctly on the first attempt in order to get the shot.

 

[unfocused]

This is a K.O. criterion for me and anybody who needs to zoom IN or OUT fast and correctly on the first attempt in order to get the shot.

I've used Tamron lenses before. It's really not that difficult.

 

[Lee Jay]

...tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!

I'm hoping this was meant to be humorous or sarcastic. Because if it is serious it comes across as seriously unhinged.

i mean it. Until Tamron gets their act together and equips lenses not only with Canon EF mount but also with correctly turning zoom rings, I will not buy anything from them and advise any Canon user to not buy Tamron lenses. This is a K.O. criterion for me and anybody who needs to zoom IN or OUT fast and correctly on the first attempt in order to get the shot.

My Sigma 18-35/1.8 turns the "wrong way". It's annoying, but tolerable.

 

[Loswr]

My Sigma 18-35/1.8 turns the "wrong way".

Is it the f/1.8 aperture that makes it an "ultra" wide lens?