Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom

[andrei1989]

because this is the internet and for any opinion you have there will be someone to criticize it )

 

[ecka]

Heck, if someone buys a tripod and then picks a camera to accommodate that, strange as it would be, does that really offend anyone?

Only if he insists on that being the only right way of doing it.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Heck, if someone buys a tripod and then picks a camera to accommodate that, strange as it would be, does that really offend anyone?

Only if he insists on that being the only right way of doing it.

You're doing it too.

 

[ecka]

Heck, if someone buys a tripod and then picks a camera to accommodate that, strange as it would be, does that really offend anyone?

Only if he insists on that being the only right way of doing it.

You're doing it too.

I'm not saying it's the only way. I'm just telling what works for me and explaining why. Unfortunately, the opposing argument is like - "it couldn't possibly work, because ... !BAG!" . I'm not saying 70-300L is a bad lens, I just think it is not a travel-friendly tool for non-photography-oriented trips.

 

[GP.Masserano]

It is incredible.
It starts talking about supertelephoto zoom and finishes to speak of bags...

Boh... :

 

[privatebydesign]

There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different.

No it isn't!

Remember I have already stated I owned Sigma 150-600 and sold it after one use because it was so weak. Having said that there are plenty of others that also say the same as me, the 100-400 MkII cropped is every bit as good as the third party lenses at longer focal lengths.

Here is a link showing TDP is not the only source: https://youtu.be/lgurGidoSJs?t=5m24s

 

[unfocused]

There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different.

No it isn't!

Remember I have already stated I owned Sigma 150-600 and sold it after one use because it was so weak. Having said that there are plenty of others that also say the same as me, the 100-400 MkII cropped is every bit as good as the third party lenses at longer focal lengths.

Here is a link showing TDP is not the only source: https://youtu.be/lgurGidoSJs?t=5m24s

And yet, there are people like me who own the 100-400 and the 150-600 sigma and find that the sigma compares very favorably, especially if you are using the 100-400 with a 1.4 extender. Blanket statements based on one use by one person can't be reliably extrapolated to every situation. Reviews by Tony Northrop should never be extrapolated to anything as far as I'm concerned.

 

[unfocused]

I'm not saying it's the only way. I'm just telling what works for me and explaining why. Unfortunately, the opposing argument is like - "it couldn't possibly work, because ... !BAG!" . I'm not saying 70-300L is a bad lens, I just think it is not a travel-friendly tool for non-photography-oriented trips.

No, the opposing argument is: we actually own and use these lenses and our real world experience conflicts with your imaginary scenarios. The bag discussion is just one aspect and it's a legitimate concern, but you are so invested in your own opinion that you have no interest in learning from the experience of others.

 

[ecka]

I'm not saying it's the only way. I'm just telling what works for me and explaining why. Unfortunately, the opposing argument is like - "it couldn't possibly work, because ... !BAG!" . I'm not saying 70-300L is a bad lens, I just think it is not a travel-friendly tool for non-photography-oriented trips.

No, the opposing argument is: we actually own and use these lenses and our real world experience conflicts with your imaginary scenarios. The bag discussion is just one aspect and it's a legitimate concern, but you are so invested in your own opinion that you have no interest in learning from the experience of others.

Really? I thought that you only use what fits in your bag. I'm confused

 

[unfocused]

I'm not saying it's the only way. I'm just telling what works for me and explaining why. Unfortunately, the opposing argument is like - "it couldn't possibly work, because ... !BAG!" . I'm not saying 70-300L is a bad lens, I just think it is not a travel-friendly tool for non-photography-oriented trips.

No, the opposing argument is: we actually own and use these lenses and our real world experience conflicts with your imaginary scenarios. The bag discussion is just one aspect and it's a legitimate concern, but you are so invested in your own opinion that you have no interest in learning from the experience of others.

Really? I thought that you only use what fits in your bag. I'm confused

Confused doesn't begin to scratch the surface.

 

[privatebydesign]

There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different.

No it isn't!

Remember I have already stated I owned Sigma 150-600 and sold it after one use because it was so weak. Having said that there are plenty of others that also say the same as me, the 100-400 MkII cropped is every bit as good as the third party lenses at longer focal lengths.

Here is a link showing TDP is not the only source: https://youtu.be/lgurGidoSJs?t=5m24s

And yet, there are people like me who own the 100-400 and the 150-600 sigma and find that the sigma compares very favorably, especially if you are using the 100-400 with a 1.4 extender. Blanket statements based on one use by one person can't be reliably extrapolated to every situation. Reviews by Tony Northrop should never be extrapolated to anything as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed, so why is Alan so anti my supported comments?

Normally I'd agree with you about Mr Northrop too, but he supports his assertion with actual images and confirms his was a blind test (though didn't give the details of the methodology).

Besides, I am not the one who has ever said there is a vast difference between the two options, I merely pointed out that there is empirical evidence from at least two on line testers that support my personal findings that a cropped Canon 100-400 MkII resolves as well as a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 at 600. Even Northrup points out the differences are small and a few steps closer would negate any real differences between the various lenses, and the LensRentals test Alan points to (that only tested to 400mm so is practically irrelevant) comes to the conclusion that "Canon’s 100-400 IS II is, from an MTF standpoint, the best zoom at 400mm".

Which begs the question I have asked, if the Canon 100-400 MkII cropped is in the same resolution league as the third party 600's at 600, what incentive is there for Canon to make another lens to fit in this small sales niche? We know (those that are not in denial) that Canon will not make an f6.3 max aperture lens, so they are effectively limited to a 500mm f5.6, and I just don't see them thinking this is a big enough market to make that when the 100-400 MkII is so good.

 

[unfocused]

Which begs the question I have asked, if the Canon 100-400 MkII cropped is in the same resolution league as the third party 600's at 600, what incentive is there for Canon to make another lens to fit in this small sales niche? We know (those that are not in denial) that Canon will not make an f6.3 max aperture lens, so they are effectively limited to a 500mm f5.6, and I just don't see them thinking this is a big enough market to make that when the 100-400 MkII is so good.

Fair enough. Only time will tell. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that Canon believes there is a market for a 500mm f5.6 zoom. I'm sure my opinion is colored by my own desire. I'd be willing to pay a premium for a 500 f5.5 zoom from Canon, and would buy one even though, as I said, I've got both the 100-400 and the 150-600 Sigma C. But then, in my case there is an ulterior motive - when shooting birds it would guarantee that I have at least one Canon long zoom that I don't have to fight my wife for.

 

[privatebydesign]

Just mulling it over, how about a long overdue upgrade of the awesome but dated 400 f5.6, a very high resolution 500mm f5.6 IS prime?

Now that I can see some logic in. Much smaller and cheaper than the 500mm f4, massive upgrade from the 400 f5.6 non IS. Price that at $2,999 or $3,499 at launch and I can see that selling well and fitting in the Canon lens portfolio without hitting other lens sales.

 

[RGF]

Just mulling it over, how about a long overdue upgrade of the awesome but dated 400 f5.6, a very high resolution 500mm f5.6 IS prime?

Now that I can see some logic in. Much smaller and cheaper than the 500mm f4, massive upgrade from the 400 f5.6 non IS. Price that at $2,999 or $3,499 at launch and I can see that selling well and fitting in the Canon lens portfolio without hitting other lens sales.

500 F5.6 IS would be nice but nearly everything is moving towards zooms.

Waiting for the 600 F4 DO. If I am very very good, perhaps the Canon Santa will develop one for me

 

[privatebydesign]

Just mulling it over, how about a long overdue upgrade of the awesome but dated 400 f5.6, a very high resolution 500mm f5.6 IS prime?

Now that I can see some logic in. Much smaller and cheaper than the 500mm f4, massive upgrade from the 400 f5.6 non IS. Price that at $2,999 or $3,499 at launch and I can see that selling well and fitting in the Canon lens portfolio without hitting other lens sales.

500 F5.6 IS would be nice but nearly everything is moving towards zooms.

Waiting for the 600 F4 DO. If I am very very good, perhaps the Canon Santa will develop one for me

But as I explained I don't see Canon seeing a need for a ?-500 zoom when they make a market beating 100-400 already. So how do they differentiate? That modest 400 f5.6 has been the budget tele bargain for many years.

A 500 f5.6 would be a market differentiator and have the possibility of much higher IQ as the optics of the thing as so much simpler. A 600 f4 DO is going to cost a fortune, >$10,000.

 

[AlanF]

There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different.

No it isn't!

Remember I have already stated I owned Sigma 150-600 and sold it after one use because it was so weak. Having said that there are plenty of others that also say the same as me, the 100-400 MkII cropped is every bit as good as the third party lenses at longer focal lengths.

Here is a link showing TDP is not the only source: https://youtu.be/lgurGidoSJs?t=5m24s

And yet, there are people like me who own the 100-400 and the 150-600 sigma and find that the sigma compares very favorably, especially if you are using the 100-400 with a 1.4 extender. Blanket statements based on one use by one person can't be reliably extrapolated to every situation. Reviews by Tony Northrop should never be extrapolated to anything as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed, so why is Alan so anti my supported comments?

Normally I'd agree with you about Mr Northrop too, but he supports his assertion with actual images and confirms his was a blind test (though didn't give the details of the methodology).

Besides, I am not the one who has ever said there is a vast difference between the two options, I merely pointed out that there is empirical evidence from at least two on line testers that support my personal findings that a cropped Canon 100-400 MkII resolves as well as a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 at 600. Even Northrup points out the differences are small and a few steps closer would negate any real differences between the various lenses, and the LensRentals test Alan points to (that only tested to 400mm so is practically irrelevant) comes to the conclusion that "Canon’s 100-400 IS II is, from an MTF standpoint, the best zoom at 400mm".

Which begs the question I have asked, if the Canon 100-400 MkII cropped is in the same resolution league as the third party 600's at 600, what incentive is there for Canon to make another lens to fit in this small sales niche? We know (those that are not in denial) that Canon will not make an f6.3 max aperture lens, so they are effectively limited to a 500mm f5.6, and I just don't see them thinking this is a big enough market to make that when the 100-400 MkII is so good.

I am indeed anti your comments because they make a sweeping generalization based on selected examples and ignore evidence that doesn't fit. Your argument is:

"My Sigma 150-600mm C is weak and others say the same. Therefore, all such lenses are weak and a Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm cropped is as good as the Sigma at 600mm".

But, my Sigma is not weak, neither is unfocused's or many others'. The logical reasoning should be:

"My Sigma 150-600mm C is weak and others say the same. But some others have copies of the Sigma that are good. Therefore, some such lenses are weak and a Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm cropped is as good as those Sigmas at 600mm but other copies of the Sigma have better resolution than the 400mm Canon cropped".

I have the good fortune to own the Canon 100-400mm II as well as the 300mm/2.8II and 400mm DO II, and I am satisfied to use my copy of the Sigma, which I tested before buying from my local dealer. It's much better than my previous Tamron - it's all down to copy variation in these cheaper zooms.

 

[privatebydesign]

I am indeed anti your comments because they make a sweeping generalization based on selected examples and ignore evidence that doesn't fit. Your argument is:

"My Sigma 150-600mm C is weak and others say the same. Therefore, all such lenses are weak and a Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm cropped is as good as the Sigma at 600mm".

But, my Sigma is not weak, neither is unfocused's or many others'. The logical reasoning should be:

"My Sigma 150-600mm C is weak and others say the same. But some others have copies of the Sigma that are good. Therefore, some such lenses are weak and a Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm cropped is as good as those Sigmas at 600mm but other copies of the Sigma have better resolution than the 400mm Canon cropped".

I have the good fortune to own the Canon 100-400mm II as well as the 300mm/2.8II and 400mm DO II, and I am satisfied to use my copy of the Sigma, which I tested before buying from my local dealer. It's much better than my previous Tamron - it's all down to copy variation in these cheaper zooms.

My full comment, that brought on your ire, was this " That is not what Brian at TDP found." ( http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32535.msg662978#msg662978 ) with a link to empirical evidence. How is that a "sweeping generalization"?

You then criticized me several times across multiple threads, I then pointed out that other testers (which I linked to) and my own use agreed with that first link, essentially your 4th paragraph.

I have made no generalizations, broad or narrow, I have relayed my findings Brian's test results and Tony's test results, you are the one getting bent out of shape because they don't align with your personal findings from one lens. I have no iron in this fire, I don't give a damn. People can buy whatever they want and justify it for any reason they want to, 'because I wanted it' is 100% fine with me. I was just linking to empirical results and pointing out the limitation of the LensRental article you pointed to, nothing more.

 

[ecka]

I have the good fortune to own the Canon 100-400mm II as well as the 300mm/2.8II and 400mm DO II, and I am satisfied to use my copy of the Sigma, which I tested before buying from my local dealer. It's much better than my previous Tamron - it's all down to copy variation in these cheaper zooms.

I'm still waiting for those RAW files

 

[AlanF]

TDP and other sites should have message in capital letters on each review.

GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING - WE TEST ONLY ONE COPY, YOURS MIGHT BE MUCH WORSE OR MUCH BETTER THAN OURS.

TDP has the 200-500 very soft! Other reviews give different results for all the lenses. The only thing that counts is your lens on your body under your conditions of use.

repeated dozens of times by me on CR.

Privatebydesign

My mantra is always that the only lens that matters is the one you have because of copy variation and they perform differently on different bodies under different conditions. And always take with a pinch of salt the results of a single site testing a single lens under their set of conditions on their set up. Lenses vary as do lens testing sites (except Lensrentals who are statistically and operationally sound).

The same is true for anyone posting messages - it's usually only their lens they know. I fully believe your copy was bad and I have seen reports of others being bad.

 

[Don Haines]

The rumor is that Canon is working on a supertelephoto zoom. It does not start if it is low or high cost, and it does not state the technologies used. It could be anything from an economy lens at F8 to a DO 400-800 F5.6 with a built in 1.4X teleconverter.... Nothing is ruled out!

The headline is useless... of course they are working on one.....just like they are also working on new camera bodies, and even working on a new flash!