Canon Still Working on New 800mm Lens [CR1]

[Don Haines]

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?

I can't remember where I read it, but it was a comparison of the IBIS on an Olympus 4/3 camera against the lens IS of Canon, and the claim was that the IBIS system was superior for wide angles and the IS system was superior for long lengths..... That was about 5 or 6 years ago and both IS and IBIS have improved since then....

 

[Lee Jay]

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. :

The gap between the solar arrays is resolved, and if you do the math, you'll find that it's right at the Rayleigh limit for a lens of this size. In other words, it's resolving right at its theoretical limit.

Let me put it another way. I'm in Denver. Santa Fe New Mexico is about the same distance away. ISS is about the size of a football field. That gap is about 5 yards. So, I'm resolving about 5 yard things in Santa Fe from Denver. I think that's quite remarkable.

 

[AlanF]

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. :

The gap between the solar arrays is resolved, and if you do the math, you'll find that it's right at the Rayleigh limit for a lens of this size. In other words, it's resolving right at its theoretical limit.

Let me put it another way. I'm in Denver. Santa Fe New Mexico is about the same distance away. ISS is about the size of a football field. That gap is about 5 yards. So, I'm resolving about 5 yard things in Santa Fe from Denver. I think that's quite remarkable.

Resolving 5 yards at 280 miles away is just beyond the theoretical limit by my calculations. I calculate that 2 lines 5 yards apart at 280 miles would be separated by a 600mm lens by (600x5)/(280x1760) mm = 6.1 microns (using the standard lens equation). The 7dII has 4.1 micron pixels. The theoretical limit for separation according to the Nyquist theorem is twice the pixel dimension, ie 8.2 microns.

I downloaded your photo of the ISS to check (below). There are four pairs of detectors. You are not resolving all eight of them but you are seeing each pair as a single, unresolved object. We don't know the size of the gap between each pair of vanes as they tilt to face the sun and open the gap. You are resolving the gap, which is greater than 5 yards, because of the tilt. You are not resolving the gap between individual vanes, both because it is beyond the limit and the angle of observation.

 

[TAF]

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. :

The gap between the solar arrays is resolved, and if you do the math, you'll find that it's right at the Rayleigh limit for a lens of this size. In other words, it's resolving right at its theoretical limit.

Let me put it another way. I'm in Denver. Santa Fe New Mexico is about the same distance away. ISS is about the size of a football field. That gap is about 5 yards. So, I'm resolving about 5 yard things in Santa Fe from Denver. I think that's quite remarkable.

I find it remarkable that using ordinary consumer products one can capture a photo such as this.

Since reciprocity applies, the folks up there can capture similar images looking down...

Imagine what they can with more advanced hardware.

What was the exposure settings you used for those photos?

 

[Don Haines]

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. :

The gap between the solar arrays is resolved, and if you do the math, you'll find that it's right at the Rayleigh limit for a lens of this size. In other words, it's resolving right at its theoretical limit.

Let me put it another way. I'm in Denver. Santa Fe New Mexico is about the same distance away. ISS is about the size of a football field. That gap is about 5 yards. So, I'm resolving about 5 yard things in Santa Fe from Denver. I think that's quite remarkable.

Resolving 5 yards at 280 miles away is just beyond the theoretical limit by my calculations. I calculate that 2 lines 5 yards apart at 280 miles would be separated by a 600mm lens by (600x5)/(280x1760) mm = 6.1 microns (using the standard lens equation). The 7dII has 4.1 micron pixels. The theoretical limit for separation according to the Nyquist theorem is twice the pixel dimension, ie 8.2 microns.

I downloaded your photo of the ISS to check (below). There are four pairs of detectors. You are not resolving all eight of them but you are seeing each pair as a single, unresolved object. We don't know the size of the gap between each pair of vanes as they tilt to face the sun and open the gap. You are resolving the gap, which is greater than 5 yards, because of the tilt. You are not resolving the gap between individual vanes, both because it is beyond the limit and the angle of observation.

But on a more important note, given the speed that the ISS tracks across the sky, the distance, atmospheric aberrations, awkward shooting position, etc., it is a darn good job to capture that image as well as it is. Congratulations are in order.

 

[Lee Jay]

I downloaded your photo of the ISS to check (below). There are four pairs of detectors. You are not resolving all eight of them but you are seeing each pair as a single, unresolved object. We don't know the size of the gap between each pair of vanes as they tilt to face the sun and open the gap. You are resolving the gap, which is greater than 5 yards, because of the tilt. You are not resolving the gap between individual vanes, both because it is beyond the limit and the angle of observation.

The gap between the two on one set is smaller than the Rayleigh limit, and it is resolved. The gap between the truss sections is just more than the Rayleigh limit, and it is resolved. In other words, the lens is performing as it should be.

This was not taken during docking operations when the arrays are parked at odd angles. This was taken during normal tracking when the arrays were tracking. Since I know where the sun was when this was taken and since ISSLive is back on line, I know the Beta angle during the shot and the arrays were close to parallel in Beta angle.

 

[TexPhoto]

We wonder if some sort of a supertelephoto zoom above 600mm would be doable and cost effective.

Considering Sigma makes a 300-800mm f5.6 zoom, this seems a little odd to wonder. Its even a pretty good lens. I've used it for Surfing photography and the range is pretty perfect. https://luminous-landscape.com/a-review-of-the-sigma-300-800mm-f5-6-zoom-lens/

 

[Ozarker]

The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.

You did get one point right though, you can get the Crop camera cheaper.

My back can tell you the size and weight argument is right too.

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. Using Length x Width x Height the 7D II occupies a space of 79.81 Cubic Inches compared to the 5Ds R which occupies 82.02 Cubic Inches, a difference of only 2.2 Cubic Inches which is only 2.69%. The 7D II weighs 32.1 ounces compared to the 5Ds R at 32.8, a difference of . 7 ounces which is only 2.13%. The 5D III is only slightly more.

As for extra reach it is true that if you are in a situation which you must crop to the size of a crop body, the 7D II will give you around 15% additional reach over the 5D III. The old 7D gave a little but it required more PP to get it to that level. However compared to the 5Ds R in the same situation I have tested it and have yet to see a benefit from either body. I expected to see a slight resolution boost above the 7D II with the 5Ds R but the difference is so negligible that any method I have used so far show no appreciable difference.

The extra reach advantage only occurs when you must crop and this is usually at your longest focal length. (Again there is no "extra reach" benefit when comparing to the 5Ds and 5Ds R.) However, the extra reach benefit disappears against the 5D III when you can properly frame your subject with the FF. The benefit in IQ of a picture of the FF body when properly framed is far greater than the benefit of "extra reach" using a crop body for a the cropped photo if comparing the two side by side.

I like to photograph birds. I thought my 70D with the 400mm f/5.6L was great. Then I got a 5D III. I don't use the 70D for birds anymore. It sucks compared to the 5D III. That's what I can see. That is all the evidence I need. I've decided if I need more reach I need more lens... not a crop sensor. Others may have a different experience. That's just my experience. For sports? 70D is okay. For birds? Nope. The IQ just is not there. Maybe the 7D II is better.

 

[Ozarker]

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 -----> 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)

Then it is no comparison, how can light gathering ever be irrelevant in photography! As has previously been stated, using that logic a G3X would be even 'better' after all it has a '600mm' lens and weighs 739 grams for the lens, camera and battery.

Or compare the 55-250 with a non L 'equivalent' of similar optical performance¹, the 70-300 IS, it weighs 630 grams.

1: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=358&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

What is always funny to me is grown men worried their camera body and lens are too heavy. The full frame example works out to less than 3.5 lbs.

Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.

Besides, comparing the STM lens to the L is hilarious. Why would one buy any crop lens unless he plans to stay crop forever? I learned that lesson the hard way. And if a man plans to stay crop forever, then why have the argument?

 

[neuroanatomist]

...
Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.
...

Clearly you don't wear (well made) suits and shirts.

Clearly you don't live somewhere where you'll be severely uncomfortable or worse if outside for any length of time (say, the 15 minutes it takes me to walk between some campus buildings) unless, in addition to that well made suit and shirt, you need a long topcoat, scarf, gloves, hat, and on many days snow boots instead of (or in addition to) dress shoes.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I like to photograph birds. I thought my 70D with the 400mm f/5.6L was great. Then I got a 5D III. I don't use the 70D for birds anymore. It sucks compared to the 5D III. That's what I can see. That is all the evidence I need. I've decided if I need more reach I need more lens... not a crop sensor. Others may have a different experience. That's just my experience. For sports? 70D is okay. For birds? Nope. The IQ just is not there. Maybe the 7D II is better.

I don't have any experience of the 70D but here are a couple from my first outing with my 7D2 attached to my Canon 800mm. OOPS! Jpegs - user error with new toy. The first image is 1/800 sec at F6.3 and 1600 ISO, the second is 1/1600 sec at F6.3 and 4000 ISO.
I think it is front focussing a touch - I will have to investigate.

 

[AlanF]

Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.

Do you strip off your clothes in order to carry your camera? Most of us carry a camera and wear clothes rather go around naked.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.

Do you strip off your clothes in order to carry your camera? Most of us carry a camera and wear clothes rather go around naked.

Well, that's a good point!

For me, the weight of the gear really isn't an issue. I've spent so much time carrying my kids around for the past several years that camera gear seems pretty light.

 

[Orangutan]

What is always funny to me is grown men worried their camera body and lens are too heavy. The full frame example works out to less than 3.5 lbs.

Sure, a young, healthy person will not have any problem with 3.5 lbs, but we all get older, and some suffer injury or disease that affects strength. And it's not just a matter of carrying the gear, but holding it steady for extended periods (depending on what you shoot). I'm fortunate that I have no such problems right now, but that will change.

 

[dolina]

4 more years before this rumor becomes true.

Just in time for the 2020 Summer Olympics. Will be released before July.

Will probably come out with the 5D Mark V and the 1D X Mark III that both use CFast.

By then 256GB 3600x CFast will cost about $100. Instead of today's $675.50

SDXC UHS-II will probably be a secondary card for the 5D Mark V.

Sales of point & shoots will continue to shrink. It will be equal to mirrorless or SLR. All three will have equal sales volume. Smartphone shipments will go as high as 2.4 billion from today's 1.44 billion.

All of this will happen by the year 2020.

 

[Ozarker]

Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.

Do you strip off your clothes in order to carry your camera? Most of us carry a camera and wear clothes rather go around naked.

I'm saying that if an extra 3.5 lbs is a problem that the weight is not the problem. Dumbbells are the answer to that problem. 3.5 pounds is less than the net weight of 4 cans of corn. If you think that is heavy then you have some problems. Better go see a doctor.

Hikers walk around the wilderness days at a time with far more weight than that.

 

[Ozarker]

...
Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.
...

Clearly you don't wear (well made) suits and shirts.

Just weigh whatever getup you wear Dild@. I wear overalls, flannel shirts, and work boots. Keep your got dang suit. I don't waste my money on such things.

 

[Ozarker]

I like to photograph birds. I thought my 70D with the 400mm f/5.6L was great. Then I got a 5D III. I don't use the 70D for birds anymore. It sucks compared to the 5D III. That's what I can see. That is all the evidence I need. I've decided if I need more reach I need more lens... not a crop sensor. Others may have a different experience. That's just my experience. For sports? 70D is okay. For birds? Nope. The IQ just is not there. Maybe the 7D II is better.

I don't have any experience of the 70D but here are a couple from my first outing with my 7D2 attached to my Canon 800mm. OOPS! Jpegs - user error with new toy. The first image is 1/800 sec at F6.3 and 1600 ISO, the second is 1/1600 sec at F6.3 and 4000 ISO.
I think it is front focussing a touch - I will have to investigate.

STM lens? I've heard great things about the 7D II. I still would not use an EFS lens on one.

 

[Ozarker]

...
Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.
...

Clearly you don't wear (well made) suits and shirts.

Clearly you don't live somewhere where you'll be severely uncomfortable or worse if outside for any length of time (say, the 15 minutes it takes me to walk between some campus buildings) unless, in addition to that well made suit and shirt, you need a long topcoat, scarf, gloves, hat, and on many days snow boots instead of (or in addition to) dress shoes.

Don't scare him. That much clothing would tire him out very quickly. Are we sure Dilbert is a man?

 

[Ozarker]

What is always funny to me is grown men worried their camera body and lens are too heavy. The full frame example works out to less than 3.5 lbs.

Sure, a young, healthy person will not have any problem with 3.5 lbs, but we all get older, and some suffer injury or disease that affects strength. And it's not just a matter of carrying the gear, but holding it steady for extended periods (depending on what you shoot). I'm fortunate that I have no such problems right now, but that will change.

I don't think we are talking about those sweet folks here. I'm an old man who's had full thickness tears in both shoulders and had them both repaired this year. I'm walking around now with three torn tendons in my right foot including a 1 cm full thickness tear of the Achilles. 3.5 pounds is nothing to me. If there are young healthy guys here complaining about 3.5 lbs they need to put down the video game controllers and work out a little.