Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]

[ahsanford]

Well, the 70-300 nano is a fine looking lens, and it's actually pretty big, but it definitely isn't an L -- it is much lighter, and there's a lot more of that plastic on it. One thing I surely hope that Canon does not do on a long telephoto that's not an L.... I pray that Canon does not make it focus-by-wire only, like the 70-300 nano =X

I only shoot stills so I naturally want Ring USM on everything. But I'm told the 18-135 nano and 70-300 nano are pretty quick compared to STM, more like Ring USM. And for FBW I hear you -- I do not like needing to power the camera to manually focus.

But, as I said before -- if this new long zoom is non-L, good luck getting Ring USM in 2017. Hasn't happened in a non-L zoom since 2009. I think Ring USM is being saved for the L glass.

I know nano is a win for video, but as a stills shooter, this feels like a takeaway. Someone just posted an 85 prime AF speed test, and we had no problem putting Ring USM in the 85mm f/1.8 USM some 25 years ago. (Guess what? That old prime focuses just about as quickly as the new 85mm f/1.4L IS USM.) So why we can't continue to use that in mid-grade glass is beyond me.

- A

 

[AlanF]

I didn't say that inexpensive Nikon/Tamron/Sigma 500mm+ can't produce sharp shots when handheld, did I?

What you wrote was:

A lot of people would also point out that all the inexpensive 500mm+ lenses are quite acceptable when the subject isn't moving, the camera is on a tripod, and you can use liveview magnification to focus at your leisure. Of course, that won't do for more serious hobbyists.

 

[Don Haines]

@ AlanF and Don... Maybe the problem is that you don't look like serious hobbyists. As we all know, how you look when taking a picture is what determines the quality of the resulting image.

Given your lens choices, I humbly offer a suggestion that may fix the problem.

But I already have a red band on my lens. It came with three free sections of broccoli.....

 

[Tom W]

5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.

 

[AlanF]

5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.

It's a possibility. When I used to use a 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC, I wanted a native 600mm/5.6. Realistically, you could use it native at 600mm or at 840/8 with a 1.4xTC, but not much use with a 2xTC at f/11. The 400mm/4 gives you the wider choice of 560/5.6 and 800/8. The native 600mm would probably give better IQ, however, than 560/5.6 with an extender.

 

[slclick]

5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.

Canon's largest FL for a non L prime is what? 100? Since this is about a non L rumor, it's got to be a zoom.

 

[Don Haines]

5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.

Canon's largest FL for a non L prime is what? 100? Since this is about a non L rumor, it's got to be a zoom.

The longest non-L zoom is 75-300, the most expensive one is $700..... and all of them are F5.6. I can’t see canon straying very far away from this..... at best a 75-400 for $700 to $800.....

If they do decide to compete against the 150-600 or 200-500 lenses, I think the longest you would see is 200-500F5.6, around $2500, and as an L lens.....

 

[ahsanford]

5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.

Canon's largest FL for a non L prime is what? 100? Since this is about a non L rumor, it's got to be a zoom.

You forgot the green-ringed lenses. DO lenses are not L, and there have been two 400 primes with that tech.

But yes, I think it will be a zoom. I suppose some rule-breaking 600 f/6.3 IS could materialize, but I doubt it.

- A

 

[slclick]

5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.

Canon's largest FL for a non L prime is what? 100? Since this is about a non L rumor, it's got to be a zoom.

You're right but they are in a Luxury Class by themselves, right?

You forgot the green-ringed lenses. DO lenses are not L, and there have been two 400 primes with that tech.

But yes, I think it will be a zoom. I suppose some rule-breaking 600 f/6.3 IS could materialize, but I doubt it.

- A

 

[AlanF]

@ AlanF and Don... Maybe the problem is that you don't look like serious hobbyists. As we all know, how you look when taking a picture is what determines the quality of the resulting image.

Given your lens choices, I humbly offer a suggestion that may fix the problem.

But I already have a red band on my lens. It came with three free sections of broccoli.....

I took up Neuro's kind gift of the paint.

 

[Loswr]

Very professional looking...now you look the part of a serious enthusiast!

 

[slclick]

It's like Harry Potter's cloak against that woodgrain.

 

[HankMD]

My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?

1) Because this is a site for Canon users.
2) Sure in tiny book size maybe they're fine. Blow those puppies up to 3x5 ft. posters and they'll look like mush. You'll probably have to stand back at least 10 feet to make them look good.

:

Put a good copy in capable hands, and there's no mush at all.

黑尾鷸 / Black-tailed godwit by O'Summer, on Flickr

 

[AlanF]

Maybe there is no mush but there are also no legs. Presumably the bird was so close it more than filled the frame, which is hardly testing a lens (there are no size or exif data on Flickr to give the information). Even the Tamron 18-400mm would appear tack sharp if the bird was really that close. So, it would be useful to know how far the bird was away so we could judge.

As a matter of interest, I have read that the Nikon 200-500mm is optimised for closer distances, where it is sharper than the Tamron, but the Tamron is sharper for longer distances.