Canon Still Working on New 800mm Lens [CR1]

[bdunbar79]

Precisely why I'm opting for a 1Dx/5Ds combo for sports in the future vs my 1Dx pair. Cropping is unforgiving.

 

[Loswr]

There is a right sensor for every circumstance, I am shooting in lighting conditions during the day, where I don't need more light, I don't even need f/5.6, it's not even the sharpest aperture of those lenses, f/8 is. The APS-C solution offers me a far ligther and smaller set-up, for a fraction of the price.

Makes sense – if I always shot in bright daylight with fairly close subjects that don't move very fast, APS-C with a 55-250mm might work well. But I find bright daylight generally flat and uninteresting, my subjects are generally distant (840mm, often 1200mm), and I need often shutter speeds over 1/1600 s.

But...keep in mind you're contributing to a thread on a possible 800mm lens – for most to whom such a lens is relevant, 250mm on APS-C won't even come close to being adequate.

 

[Don Haines]

But...keep in mind you're contributing to a thread on a possible 800mm lens – for most to whom such a lens is relevant, 250mm on APS-C won't even come close to being adequate.

A point that many of us (myself included) have overlooked....

A new 800mm lens, be it DO or not, will be big, heavy, and expensive.

 

[Lee Jay]

There is a right sensor for every circumstance, I am shooting in lighting conditions during the day, where I don't need more light, I don't even need f/5.6, it's not even the sharpest aperture of those lenses, f/8 is. The APS-C solution offers me a far ligther and smaller set-up, for a fraction of the price.

Makes sense – if I always shot in bright daylight with fairly close subjects that don't move very fast, APS-C with a 55-250mm might work well. But I find bright daylight generally flat and uninteresting, my subjects are generally distant (840mm, often 1200mm), and I need often shutter speeds over 1/1600 s.

But...keep in mind you're contributing to a thread on a possible 800mm lens – for most to whom such a lens is relevant, 250mm on APS-C won't even come close to being adequate.

I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.

Yeah, it's a third of a stop slower, and if you add in full-frame geometry, it's 1 2/3 stops slower, so it's a lens you don't want to shoot in really low light compared to an 800/5.6 on full-frame, but it's still a lot of resolving power for a really good price and I'll mostly be using it in good light (airshows and such). It out-resolves my 70-200/2.8II + 2x TC III, and it out-resolves itself with the addition of a 1.4x TC demonstrating that the 7DII's small-ish pixels aren't oversampling it.

So, while the 55-250STM (a lens I also own, mostly for video) is a fantastic deal and a lot of reach for very little money, it won't touch an 800/5.6. But the 150-600s that are not available will put a crop camera in the same ballpark, for a tenth the money. Oh...and they zoom out to boot!

 

[AlanF]

I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.

It's a 150-600 equivalent on your 7DII relative to a 5Ds in terms of "reach". The crop vs FF argument has changed radically since the introduction of high megapixel FF sensors.

 

[Don Haines]

I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.

Yeah, it's a third of a stop slower, and if you add in full-frame geometry, it's 1 2/3 stops slower, so it's a lens you don't want to shoot in really low light compared to an 800/5.6 on full-frame, but it's still a lot of resolving power for a really good price and I'll mostly be using it in good light (airshows and such). It out-resolves my 70-200/2.8II + 2x TC III, and it out-resolves itself with the addition of a 1.4x TC demonstrating that the 7DII's small-ish pixels aren't oversampling it.

So, while the 55-250STM (a lens I also own, mostly for video) is a fantastic deal and a lot of reach for very little money, it won't touch an 800/5.6. But the 150-600s that are not available will put a crop camera in the same ballpark, for a tenth the money. Oh...and they zoom out to boot!

I guess we won't be hearing much from you for a while as you will be busy taking pictures... Have fun and don't forget to post!

BTW, I'd love to see Sigma or Tamron produce an 800F8 prime for $1000.... That would sure shake up a few people!

 

[takesome1]

You must be talking about one of the Rebels because the 7D II isn't that much different in size and weight than the 5Ds R or the 5D III.

APS-C.... 55-250mm STM f/4-5.6 (88-400mm equivalent) -----> 375 grams
Full Frame.... 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II -----> 1500 grams

MASSIVE difference, the closest full frame lens is 4 times as heavy as the APS-C equivalent

(the equivalent aperture isn't the same, that's irrelevant to me under 99% of conditions)

You gave an apple and oranges comparison when it comes to discussing the 800mm lens.
If weight and size matters for you then it may be a wise choice in your situation. Your bank account doesn't take a hit either.
But if you think your getting even close to the same IQ because of the warm fuzzy "extra reach" security blanket, be aware that your blanket is wet. It will not even be close. There is a reason people spend huge amounts of cash for the big white lenses, contrary to what some would lead to believe or that it may appear on this forum it isn't for bragging rights.

 

[Lee Jay]

I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.

It's a 150-600 equivalent on your 7DII relative to a 5Ds in terms of "reach". The crop vs FF argument has changed radically since the introduction of high megapixel FF sensors.

That's true, but I don't have a 5Ds and I won't have one either. All the other Canon full-frame sensors thus far are right around 20MP, the same as my 7DII.

 

[AlanF]

I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.

It's a 150-600 equivalent on your 7DII relative to a 5Ds in terms of "reach". The crop vs FF argument has changed radically since the introduction of high megapixel FF sensors.

That's true, but I don't have a 5Ds and I won't have one either. All the other Canon full-frame sensors thus far are right around 20MP, the same as my 7DII.

It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.

 

[Loswr]

I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.

It's a 150-600 equivalent on your 7DII relative to a 5Ds in terms of "reach". The crop vs FF argument has changed radically since the introduction of high megapixel FF sensors.

That's true, but I don't have a 5Ds and I won't have one either. All the other Canon full-frame sensors thus far are right around 20MP, the same as my 7DII.

It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.

Party pooper. People want a free lunch, and think they're getting one with 'crop factor reach'. :-X

 

[Lee Jay]

It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.

People need to learn the difference between contrast (which can be altered in post) and resolution (which cannot). A lower MTF doesn't mean a lower resolution, it means a lower contrast at a particular resolution.

My Sigma 150-600C resolves right at its theoretical limit. It also sharpens up a lot just 1/3 of a stop down, as TDP's example above shots.

You know how far 450km / 280 miles is? Ever shot something from that far away?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36861.msg1453979#msg1453979

 

[TAF]

One thing they could do though is get rid of the IS. Heresy I know but it just gets in the way of the AF system and many current pro cameras don't really need it - I certainly don't. Less complication, a useless element eliminated from the focal path and a couple of switches less - sounds good to me. Most will not agree but I have the lens and frequently hand hold it and I don't want IS. Feel free to open fire!

Interesting concept - since many potential customers for such long lenses might be inclined to use a tripod (or at least a monopod), rendering the IS less useful, perhaps they could develop a separate IS module?

Imagine a line of LONG lenses (starting at 800 and going up into the thousands), without IS, and an IS module you could add when needed. If the IS module was universal (i.e.: useable with both long and short lenses), it would also sell to those folks with say a 28/35/50 that would perhaps benefit from IS at times.

If it wasn't obscenely expensive, I'd buy one for use with my (gasp) Zeiss 50mm f1.4, et al.

Ibis

Unless I missed something (which is always a possibility), Canon has chosen not to take that route.

Which makes the product salable to Canon customers.

I'll bet it would fit in the same form-factor as a 1.4x...

 

[candc]

They haven't yet but most likely will. Its the most feasible way to achieve "is" with non stabilized lenses.

 

[Loswr]

They haven't yet but most likely will. Its the most feasible way to achieve "is" with non stabilized lenses.

Canon has explained the benefits of lens-based IS over IBIS several times, pointing out several weaknesses of the latter.

Of course, if Nikon can reverse course and use fluorite elements after pointing out their potential flaws, why not Canon?

 

[candc]

They haven't yet but most likely will. Its the most feasible way to achieve "is" with non stabilized lenses.

Canon has explained the benefits of lens-based IS over IBIS several times, pointing out several weaknesses of the latter.

Of course, if Nikon can reverse course and use fluorite elements after pointing out their potential flaws, why not Canon?

I agree with that myself. The lenses with stabilization built into them seems to offer more benefit than ibis for the time being but I think developing ibis which is in the early stages is the best overall solution for getting some stabilization in lenses that don't have it built in.

 

[Orangutan]

They haven't yet but most likely will. Its the most feasible way to achieve "is" with non stabilized lenses.

Canon has explained the benefits of lens-based IS over IBIS several times, pointing out several weaknesses of the latter.

Of course, if Nikon can reverse course and use fluorite elements after pointing out their potential flaws, why not Canon?

I agree with that myself. The lenses with stabilization built into them seems to offer more benefit than ibis for the time being but I think developing ibis which is in the early stages is the best overall solution for getting some stabilization in lenses that don't have it built in.

How would that work for long focal lengths? Wouldn't the IBIS travel distance be prohibitive?

 

[candc]

The really long lenses generally have "is" built into the lens and that is probably best. I think most people are looking for some stabilization in the shorter lenses that don't have it built in. The sony a7rii has settings up to 1000mm. I use a canon fd 80-200l with it and the image is rock solid in the viewfinder at 200. Seems to get sharp non blurred images at 1/50s or so. That would be 2 stops by most standards.

 

[AlanF]

It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.

People need to learn the difference between contrast (which can be altered in post) and resolution (which cannot). A lower MTF doesn't mean a lower resolution, it means a lower contrast at a particular resolution.

My Sigma 150-600C resolves right at its theoretical limit. It also sharpens up a lot just 1/3 of a stop down, as TDP's example above shots.

You know how far 450km / 280 miles is? Ever shot something from that far away?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36861.msg1453979#msg1453979

You can see resolution of the lens by looking at the thin converging lines on the chart from TDP, which come in at the left of the central square. The Sigma 150-600mm C on a 7D2 at f/7.1 or f/8 gives out at about number 32 on the chart, after which it can no longer resolve. A 600mm f/4 II at 840mm on a 1Ds III (which has the same fov as the 600 on crop) resolves the lines all the way to the centre square. I don't know what you mean by your Sigma 150-600C resolves right at its theoretical limit, as it clearly can't resolve on a 7DII what a very good lens can at the same field of view on a FF.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

objektivtest.se have measured the MTFs of the 150-600mm S at the resolution of an APS-C sensor, they are low at higher frequency (0.4-0.5), and this what they say:

"APS-C:
With the APS-C format, the lens delivers good sharpness at 150-200 mm and passable at 300-400 mm. But a high-resolution APS-C sensor is less forgiving than a full-frame sensor and photos taken at 500 and 600 mm may not be particularly good for drawing small and fine details, like the plumage of birds or the fur of mammals."

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/sigma-150-600-mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-sports-test/

450km is nothing - most of us have shot the moon at 384,400 km, and then the stars that are light years away.

 

[Loswr]

You can see resolution of the lens by looking at the thin converging lines on the chart from TDP, which come in at the left of the central square.

450km is nothing - most of us have shot the moon at 384,400 km, and then the stars that are light years away.

But I can see the ISS with my lens, therefore it must have truly awesomely massively superlative resolution. Because I say so. If your views contrast with mine, you need to learn about contrast. :

 

[Don Haines]

It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.

People need to learn the difference between contrast (which can be altered in post) and resolution (which cannot). A lower MTF doesn't mean a lower resolution, it means a lower contrast at a particular resolution.

My Sigma 150-600C resolves right at its theoretical limit. It also sharpens up a lot just 1/3 of a stop down, as TDP's example above shots.

You know how far 450km / 280 miles is? Ever shot something from that far away?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36861.msg1453979#msg1453979

no..... but one evening I shot the Andromeda galaxy with a macro lens