Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[Greatland]

The bird shots are pretty poor!

 

[9VIII]

The bird shots are pretty poor!

Comparing the Canon 400f5.6 and the Samyang 800f8, the amount of detail collected is very similar, the primary difference is the lack of contrast from the mirror lens.
That's very good image quality for a lens that costs 4 times less.

 

[slclick]

The bird shots are pretty poor!

Comparing the Canon 400f5.6 and the Samyang 800f8, the amount of detail collected is very similar, the primary difference is the lack of contrast from the mirror lens.
That's very good image quality for a lens that costs 4 times less.

Does cost matter when the image is unusable or undesirable? This is a clear cut case of getting what you paid for.

 

[9VIII]

The bird shots are pretty poor!

Comparing the Canon 400f5.6 and the Samyang 800f8, the amount of detail collected is very similar, the primary difference is the lack of contrast from the mirror lens.
That's very good image quality for a lens that costs 4 times less.

Does cost matter when the image is unusable or undesirable? This is a clear cut case of getting what you paid for.

You think the Canon 400f5.6 is unusable and undesirable? I can get slightly out of focus pictures of birds through a bunch of trees with that lens too.
Actually I can't, it would just focus on the trees.
Therefore, making gross generalizations about results from this one scenario and applying that to all lenses universally brings us to the conclusion that all autofocus lenses are a waste of money at any price.

 

[slclick]

The bird shots are pretty poor!

Comparing the Canon 400f5.6 and the Samyang 800f8, the amount of detail collected is very similar, the primary difference is the lack of contrast from the mirror lens.
That's very good image quality for a lens that costs 4 times less.

Does cost matter when the image is unusable or undesirable? This is a clear cut case of getting what you paid for.

You think the Canon 400f5.6 is unusable and undesirable? I can get slightly out of focus pictures of birds through a bunch of trees with that lens too.
Actually I can't, it would just focus on the trees.
Therefore, making gross generalizations about results from this one scenario and applying that to all lenses universally brings us to the conclusion that all autofocus lenses are a waste of money at any price.

No, no... the mirror lens. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, I just thought it was obvious. So all in all, your harangue wasn't taken personal. But like the 400 5.6... it was nice and sharp!

 

[Lee Jay]

The bird shots are pretty poor!

Comparing the Canon 400f5.6 and the Samyang 800f8, the amount of detail collected is very similar, the primary difference is the lack of contrast from the mirror lens.
That's very good image quality for a lens that costs 4 times less.

I seriously doubt a 400/5.6 shot upresed by 2x would look anywhere close to as blurry as these samples do.

Frankly, between these shots an cropped shots from the 70-300IS (not the L), I'd take the later.

 

[9VIII]

The bird shots are pretty poor!

Comparing the Canon 400f5.6 and the Samyang 800f8, the amount of detail collected is very similar, the primary difference is the lack of contrast from the mirror lens.
That's very good image quality for a lens that costs 4 times less.

I seriously doubt a 400/5.6 shot upresed by 2x would look anywhere close to as blurry as these samples do.

Frankly, between these shots an cropped shots from the 70-300IS (not the L), I'd take the later.

Sample images from both lenses are in my post, you're free to zoom in on the duck.
(The images were taken on different days, so there is a small change in lighting.)
(I should probably also note that the Samyang images were pushed one stop in post, which in hindsight was probably a bad idea given how old the camera is.)

 

[dufflover]

The Sigma 150-600mm S is on special this weekend here in Aus for about $1900. I'm not actually sure how low it has been before but it seems like a good price. I have a twitchy mouse finger now as I have always found my 120-300mm w/ 2x TC sharpness a bit lacking for when I need 600mm reach, or at least the reduced AF performance means the final sharpness is worse (same either way). It's great with the 1.4x though and as I've learnt with my 70-200mm vs 100-400mm usage toss-ups, I don't want to be too hasty in trading away my low-light 400mm for a good 600mm only to lose that fading light option. And this rumoured lens might be just enough to stop and see what Canon may offer, as I can somewhat agree that in experience I do find my Canon lenses just that little bit more reliable in things like AF.