A New EF 800 f/5.6L IS II? [CR2]

[Loswr]

Which probably is the reason why Canon won't release any further aps-h bodies (yes-I-know-it-sounds-like-conspiracy-theory-but-to-me-its-more-like-clever-business) :->

Conspiracy theory or not, it makes sense. I got a 1D X instead of a 1D IV, and that was the main reason I got a 600 II instead of a 500 II.

 

[Marsu42]

Which probably is the reason why Canon won't release any further aps-h bodies (yes-I-know-it-sounds-like-conspiracy-theory-but-to-me-its-more-like-clever-business) :->

Conspiracy theory or not, it makes sense. I got a 1D X instead of a 1D IV, and that was the main reason I got a 600 II instead of a 500 II.

Good answer, wrong thread :-> ... but comforting to know I'm not the only one frequently copy/pasting/reposting

 

[rbr]

It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The current 800 already is pretty light, only 1 pound heavier than the 600II, and has the 4 stop IS. Maybe they could shave one more pound off of it, add the IS3 mode, and make it the new color, but I doubt that anyone with the current 800 would go to the cost and hassle of replacing the one they already have for that, especially if it means a price increase.

 

[Loswr]

The current 800 already is pretty light, only 1 pound heavier than the 600II, and has the 4 stop IS.

True...but what if it was lighter than the 600 II? 600/4 = 150mm front element, 800/5.6 = 143mm front element...so lighter is possible.

Also, I think they need to update the 800/5.6 for optical performance. Those who do their research (which I would hope is almost anyone spending $13K on a lens) pretty easliy learn that the bare 600 II is optically better than the 800/5.6, enough better that you can add a TC and it's still better. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the bare 800/5.6, plus it's 40mm longer, lighter and cheaper, and offers f/4 when you use it without the TC. The 600 II + 2xIII is optically better than the 800/5.6 + 1.4xIII, too, and likewise it's longer, lighter, and cheaper. So, with the 600 II performance, I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.

 

[Greatland]

Oh my!! I guess I'll have time to save up for it, before it hits the shelves in 2020 ;D

AMEN to that!! ;D

 

[Daniel Flather]

I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.

The 800 with the 2x TC gets you to 1600mm, can you stack TCs on the 600? I don't own a 600, 800, or a TC, so please enlighten. I think stacked TCs is not a desired option.

 

[dolina]

The rumor's legit. I believe that Canon is developing improved 200 and 800.

As to when they will release such lenses is subject to rumor. Consider these past product cycles

20 year cycle
1988 - EF200mm f/1.8L USM
2008 - EF200mm f/2L IS USM

27 year cycle
1981 - New FD800mm f/5.6L (no previous EF predecessor)
2008 - EF800mm f/5.6L IS USM

Will they shorten the product cycle? Possibly, if they can figure a way to increase demand for very specialized lenses.

Before stocks ran the Series I super teles sold for these prices. Included are today's Series II prices.

300
I - $5,000
II - $6,800
400
I - $8,000
II - $11,500
500
I - $7,000
II - $10,500
600
I - $9,200
II - $13,000

A Series II 200 and 800 will be substantially more than $6,000 and $13,900 respectively. Based on the price difference between the actual Series I and II the new 200 and 800 would be priced at the following ranges.

200/2 Series II = $8,160-9,000
800/5.6 Series II = $18,904-20,850

Then again Nikon was able to update their super teles with shorter product cycles without such a severe price increase.

Now to compare Canon vs Nikon as this is the primary incentive to improve products.

200mm f/2.0

Closest Focusing Distance
Canon - 6.2 ft. / 1.9m
Nikon - 6.2 ft. / 1.9m

Filter Size
Canon - 52mm (Drop-in Gelatin Filter Holder)
Nikon - 52mm (Drop-in Gelatin Filter Holder)

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
Canon - 5.0 in. x 8.2 in./ 128mm x 208mm (maximum lens length); 5.6 lbs./2,520g
Nikon - 4.9 in. x 8.0 in./ 124mm x 203mm (maximum lens length); 6.5 lbs./2,930g

Image Stabilization
Canon - 5-stops
Nikon - 4-stops

800mm f/5.6

Closest Focusing Distance
Canon - 19.7 ft./6.0m
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012

Filter Size
Canon - 52mm (Drop-in Gelatin Filter Holder)
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight
Canon - 6.4 in. x 18.1 in./162mm x 461mm (maximum lens length); 9.9 lbs./4,500g
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012

Image Stabilization
Canon - 4-stops
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012

 

[dolina]

To be honest though there are a whole lot of other lenses that needs updating than the 200 or 800.

 

[vuilang]

I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.

The 800 with the 2x TC gets you to 1600mm, can you stack TCs on the 600? I don't own a 600, 800, or a TC, so please enlighten. I think stacked TCs is not a desired option.

the 800 f5.6 + 2x TC give you F11 (2 stop higher).. at F11, you'll lose AF, which i dont think you want to with any tele. Unless you're shooting the moon

 

[dr croubie]

True...but what if it was lighter than the 600 II? 600/4 = 150mm front element, 800/5.6 = 143mm front element...so lighter is possible.

Also, I think they need to update the 800/5.6 for optical performance. Those who do their research (which I would hope is almost anyone spending $13K on a lens) pretty easliy learn that the bare 600 II is optically better than the 800/5.6, enough better that you can add a TC and it's still better. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the bare 800/5.6, plus it's 40mm longer, lighter and cheaper, and offers f/4 when you use it without the TC. The 600 II + 2xIII is optically better than the 800/5.6 + 1.4xIII, too, and likewise it's longer, lighter, and cheaper. So, with the 600 II performance, I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.

How about the current 800mm vs the 400/2.8 + 2xTC?

Any new 800mm would have to beat both the 400x2 and 600x1.4 combos
...
unless
...
maybe we could be in for an 800mm f/5.0, or even an 800mm f/4.5 or f/4.0? I know canon has some serious superstition about non-whole-stop lenses (except in 50/85mm and vari-aperture zooms), but they could use even a 1/3rd-stop advantage as marketing fodder if the new lens isn't much better than a 600x1.4 (although i've no reason to think it wouldn't be).

 

[Loswr]

I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.

The 800 with the 2x TC gets you to 1600mm, can you stack TCs on the 600? I don't own a 600, 800, or a TC, so please enlighten. I think stacked TCs is not a desired option.

the 800 f5.6 + 2x TC give you F11 (2 stop higher).. at F11, you'll lose AF

Exactly. Also, the current 800/5.6 + 2xIII combo is optically pretty weak. But a new 800/5.6 that delivers optical performance with a 1.4xIII that's equivalent to the other MkII's with the 1.4x, that would beat the 600 II + 2x and likely have a market.

Stacking TC's isn't possible (physically) with the MkIII versions, although a 2xII can be stacked with any 1.4x or 2x behind it, AFAIK. But the optical results are usually not good.

 

[tron]

True...but what if it was lighter than the 600 II? 600/4 = 150mm front element, 800/5.6 = 143mm front element...so lighter is possible.

Also, I think they need to update the 800/5.6 for optical performance. Those who do their research (which I would hope is almost anyone spending $13K on a lens) pretty easliy learn that the bare 600 II is optically better than the 800/5.6, enough better that you can add a TC and it's still better. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the bare 800/5.6, plus it's 40mm longer, lighter and cheaper, and offers f/4 when you use it without the TC. The 600 II + 2xIII is optically better than the 800/5.6 + 1.4xIII, too, and likewise it's longer, lighter, and cheaper. So, with the 600 II performance, I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.

How about the current 800mm vs the 400/2.8 + 2xTC?

Any new 800mm would have to beat both the 400x2 and 600x1.4 combos
...
unless
...
maybe we could be in for an 800mm f/5.0, or even an 800mm f/4.5 or f/4.0? I know canon has some serious superstition about non-whole-stop lenses (except in 50/85mm and vari-aperture zooms), but they could use even a 1/3rd-stop advantage as marketing fodder if the new lens isn't much better than a 600x1.4 (although i've no reason to think it wouldn't be).

A faster than f/5.6 would be monstrous. Plus a f/4.5 wouldn't benefit more with the teleconverters. It still would work in AF only with EF1.4X. And I cannot imagine an 800mm f/4. Unless it is sold with someone to carry it!

 

[dolina]

800mm f/2.8 would have the same front element of the Leica but the physical length would be a good 1 foot shorter. Would weight about 60kg

800mm f/4.0 would have a slightly smaller front element as the 1200mm f/5.6 but the physical length would be a good 6 inch shoter. Would weigh about 16.5kg.

Now the succeeding article is now CR1. Hmmmm...

 

[Daniel Flather]

I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.

The 800 with the 2x TC gets you to 1600mm, can you stack TCs on the 600? I don't own a 600, 800, or a TC, so please enlighten. I think stacked TCs is not a desired option.

the 800 f5.6 + 2x TC give you F11 (2 stop higher).. at F11, you'll lose AF

Exactly. Also, the current 800/5.6 + 2xIII combo is optically pretty weak. But a new 800/5.6 that delivers optical performance with a 1.4xIII that's equivalent to the other MkII's with the 1.4x, that would beat the 600 II + 2x and likely have a market.

Stacking TC's isn't possible (physically) with the MkIII versions, although a 2xII can be stacked with any 1.4x or 2x behind it, AFAIK. But the optical results are usually not good.

Yes, but the only way to 1600mm is the 800 with 2TC. I'm not sure who needs 1600mm, but it's the only way to achieve it with Canon gear, or if you have access to the the EF1200mm with a 1.4TC you're set.

 

[Greatland]

These 800 rumors almost make me laugh,,,,,,or cry.....where are all of the 600's????? Plus it will probably be $20K Yikes!

 

[sagittariansrock]

And I cannot imagine an 800mm f/4. Unless it is sold with someone to carry it!

;D ;D ;D

 

[tron]

800mm f/4.0 would have a slightly smaller front element as the 1200mm f/5.6 but the physical length would be a good 6 inch shoter. Would weigh about 16.5kg.

Now the succeeding article is now CR1. Hmmmm...

The lens looks heavier than the girl behind it ;D

 

[dr croubie]

800mm f/2.8 would have the same front element of the Leica but the physical length would be a good 1 foot shorter. Would weight about 60kg

800mm f/4.0 would have a slightly smaller front element as the 1200mm f/5.6 but the physical length would be a good 6 inch shoter. Would weigh about 16.5kg.

Now the succeeding article is now CR1. Hmmmm...

I can see the leica, it's huge.
But where's the lens in the second photo? I can't see it...

 

[dolina]

Quit staring at the girl and you'll see the lens. ;D

I could use a 1600mm lens considering how difficult and small birds are but I'd hate to carry one around.

I expect the Series II 200 and 800 to come out as early as 2013 before the World Cup in Brazil. Lenses such as these normally debut 12 months before the Summer/Winter Olympics or the World Cup.

800mm f/2.8 would have the same front element of the Leica but the physical length would be a good 1 foot shorter. Would weight about 60kg

800mm f/4.0 would have a slightly smaller front element as the 1200mm f/5.6 but the physical length would be a good 6 inch shoter. Would weigh about 16.5kg.

Now the succeeding article is now CR1. Hmmmm...

I can see the leica, it's huge.
But where's the lens in the second photo? I can't see it...

 

[hsmoscout]

Maybe it'll be a DO lens???