For $1-3,000 and I think prosumer and wildlife enthusiasts would be stoked to finally get the reach from a quality brand, without getting divorced for buying it. Even if it was f8ish, had IS, and a USM...sell in droves, no?
come on, make an affordable 600mm or 800mm!!
- Thread starter stilscream
- Start date
- Status
L
Loswr
Guest
stilscream said:
No, because f/8 lenses will not autofocus on most Canon bodies. As for an 'affordable' 600mm f/5.6 lens, that means an iris diaphragm of 107mm, so it's much like a 300/2.8 lens. The only way to make a truly affordable long lens like that is a mirror design, and that has numerous IQ and performance issues.
Given the recent price trends, it seems apparent that Canon is moving in the other direction, the complete opposite of affordability.
Upvote
0
f/8 does focus in live view, it is just slow. And you will need a tripod.
Look on Amazon. There are some non-Canon brands that make long lenses. I'm not sure if they are really good or not. I was thinking about getting one that to take pictures of the Moon and planets. However, getting a telescope with an adapter would be better at some point.
Look on Amazon. There are some non-Canon brands that make long lenses. I'm not sure if they are really good or not. I was thinking about getting one that to take pictures of the Moon and planets. However, getting a telescope with an adapter would be better at some point.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Yes! Because these third party lenses are less than $3,000. What? They're not?
http://www.adorama.com/SG50045NNKAF.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG80056NKAF.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG200500DEOS.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG300800EOSD.html
Well there is this: http://www.adorama.com/PRO50063EOS.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG50045NNKAF.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG80056NKAF.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG200500DEOS.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG300800EOSD.html
Well there is this: http://www.adorama.com/PRO50063EOS.html
Upvote
0
Well, we'd need at least f/5.6 for AF to function. And I'm all for a 600mm f/5.6L IS, but the lens would need to be as big as the 300 f/2.8 II (and probably cost as much), because unfortunately physics dictates front element size. So it'd still be a pretty hefty lens.
How about this for an interesting idea: an EF-S super tele? Think about it, an EF-S 500mm f/4 could be close in size to the EF 400L f/5.6. If my math is right, a designed for APS-C 500mm f/4 would need a front element of approx. 77-78mm, so with a fudge factor to limit edge distortion plus lens casing, etc., a final lens diameter of 90mm is probably pretty reasonable. So you'd get crazy, crazy reach (800mm eff) in a compact package. Birders/wildlife guys would go nuts.
But the cost? Who knows? I don't think it'd be all that affordable if Canon had to grow fluorite crystals for it. My guess is that it could probably be done for around $3K, and for less if no fluorite element. Part of me wants to see Canon make it just for the hell of it. It's a crazy fun idea.
How about this for an interesting idea: an EF-S super tele? Think about it, an EF-S 500mm f/4 could be close in size to the EF 400L f/5.6. If my math is right, a designed for APS-C 500mm f/4 would need a front element of approx. 77-78mm, so with a fudge factor to limit edge distortion plus lens casing, etc., a final lens diameter of 90mm is probably pretty reasonable. So you'd get crazy, crazy reach (800mm eff) in a compact package. Birders/wildlife guys would go nuts.
But the cost? Who knows? I don't think it'd be all that affordable if Canon had to grow fluorite crystals for it. My guess is that it could probably be done for around $3K, and for less if no fluorite element. Part of me wants to see Canon make it just for the hell of it. It's a crazy fun idea.
Upvote
0
Dianoda said:
But your math isn't right.
A 500mm f/4 lens is a 500mm f/4 lens, no matter what size sensor you put behind it. It still needs an entrance pupil of 500/4=125mm, regardless.
As Neuro has pointed out many times here, there is NO advantage to making lenses for EF-S when it comes to long telephoto lenses, for this very reason. There is nothing to be gained in terms of lens size or therefore, cost.
Upvote
0
I have long wondered the same too. Could there be a way to make more affordable super-teles. With AF and preferably IS. Let's take it a given we can't disobey the laws of physics when it comes to sizes. The front element has to be big to support at least f/5.6 for AF. What else can we do to make it cheaper, and preferably lighter?
Is ditching glass an option? What are modern plastics like? Can we get some of an adequate optical grade. Of course I'm not suggesting I want fluorite performance for a fraction of the cost. But what if it could be made an acceptable quality. No L lens, but "good enough" so that it isn't considered worthless junk. Even take a leaf out of the mirrorless system cheat sheet, and allow easier software correctable "flaws" in the design to make it easier. Lateral CA and distortion can be higher if it helps make the lens simpler and cheaper.
Also could more be made of whatever the trick is Sony used in their 500/8 with AF?
And finally, an example of cheap, high quality, fast optics at a long focal length: the Skywatcher Quattro F4 Imaging Newtonian. They do several models of this, in 200 and 250mm aperture, giving 800mm and 1000mm focal lengths respectively, both at f/4! If you go for the cheap steel body version, the 800mm f/4 is yours for around £400. I wouldn't want to hand hold it though.
Is ditching glass an option? What are modern plastics like? Can we get some of an adequate optical grade. Of course I'm not suggesting I want fluorite performance for a fraction of the cost. But what if it could be made an acceptable quality. No L lens, but "good enough" so that it isn't considered worthless junk. Even take a leaf out of the mirrorless system cheat sheet, and allow easier software correctable "flaws" in the design to make it easier. Lateral CA and distortion can be higher if it helps make the lens simpler and cheaper.
Also could more be made of whatever the trick is Sony used in their 500/8 with AF?
And finally, an example of cheap, high quality, fast optics at a long focal length: the Skywatcher Quattro F4 Imaging Newtonian. They do several models of this, in 200 and 250mm aperture, giving 800mm and 1000mm focal lengths respectively, both at f/4! If you go for the cheap steel body version, the 800mm f/4 is yours for around £400. I wouldn't want to hand hold it though.
Upvote
0
Yeah, I wanted to double that 600mm with an extender, but damn, I paid $3,000 for my car and I am going to pay $12k for a lens or $150 for a POS lens and not much in between in the non-mirror 600mm or more.
I have tried older tamron, but canon knows what they are doing. Color accuracy is great even on the cheapest lenses.
Are older non-IS versions worth the money?
I have tried older tamron, but canon knows what they are doing. Color accuracy is great even on the cheapest lenses.
Are older non-IS versions worth the money?
Upvote
0
stilscream said:
I just got the FD600 f4.5 and the edmika adapter, total cost including shipping the lens from japan and the adpater from canada came in around $1800. manual focus only but damn it is sharp and my copy is in really mint condition not a scratch on the paint and the glass is crystal clear. only problem is my kenko 1.4TC wont fit on it because of the tab at the back
Upvote
0
I had a Tamron 200-500mm Zoom, they are available, and a fairly decent lens. The big issue is that they are so long that they are extremely difficult to hold still, even on a medium duty tripod. Its f/6.3, and difficult to get the shutter speed up, but the price is right.
Frankly, my 100-400mm L will run circles around it, but it cost $500 more.
Here is a image of my Petunias from close to MFD. Its been several years since I had it, and I did not save most of the images after I sold it.
Its one of the few good quality lenses for a low price.
Frankly, my 100-400mm L will run circles around it, but it cost $500 more.
Here is a image of my Petunias from close to MFD. Its been several years since I had it, and I did not save most of the images after I sold it.
Its one of the few good quality lenses for a low price.
Upvote
0
I have considered the likes of the Tamron 200-500 and Sigma 50-500 and similar in place of the 100-400L I still have as my benchmark. I've never been convinced the extra 100mm is good enough to be worth it.
One time I did dabble with a used copy of the original Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 (no IS) lens. It was old, with a 1987 date code, and it looked it with lots of cosmetic body damage. But that did bring the price down into the ball park of a new 100-400L so I got it to play with for a bit. An actual 600mm lens with AF has never been cheaper.
Here's a direct comparison I did against the 100-400L on a duck that made the local news!:
7D + 100-400L at 400mm at f/8
7D + EF 300mm f/2.8 + Sigma 2x for 600mm at f/8
Both above are 100% crops although I think the forum is shrinking them further. I think they were from camera jpeg so arguably you could process them harder if you use raw.
You could also try using it like a macro...
This is not a crop! Resize only. 7D 600mm f/8.
I didn't keep it in the end. It was too heavy I never wanted to carry it anywhere. Also I felt excessively restricted by the lack of zoom. I suppose if I were to look at this again, the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (with 2x on it), with or without OS, could be interesting, but I'm also holding out to see what the 200-400 extender is like, and at what price! Somehow I don't think it'll deliver the "affordable 600mm".
One time I did dabble with a used copy of the original Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 (no IS) lens. It was old, with a 1987 date code, and it looked it with lots of cosmetic body damage. But that did bring the price down into the ball park of a new 100-400L so I got it to play with for a bit. An actual 600mm lens with AF has never been cheaper.
Here's a direct comparison I did against the 100-400L on a duck that made the local news!:
7D + 100-400L at 400mm at f/8
7D + EF 300mm f/2.8 + Sigma 2x for 600mm at f/8
Both above are 100% crops although I think the forum is shrinking them further. I think they were from camera jpeg so arguably you could process them harder if you use raw.
You could also try using it like a macro...
This is not a crop! Resize only. 7D 600mm f/8.
I didn't keep it in the end. It was too heavy I never wanted to carry it anywhere. Also I felt excessively restricted by the lack of zoom. I suppose if I were to look at this again, the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (with 2x on it), with or without OS, could be interesting, but I'm also holding out to see what the 200-400 extender is like, and at what price! Somehow I don't think it'll deliver the "affordable 600mm".
Upvote
0
I had a used non-IS Canon 600mm f/4. HEAVY, and with the big Wimberly head and heavy duty tripod, it was too much for me to carry around.
You merely have to see one to realize that its going to be exquisitely expensive to manufacture.
You merely have to see one to realize that its going to be exquisitely expensive to manufacture.
Upvote
0
I would love Canon to make a 500mm f/5.6 (or f/6.3 and use the same tricks sigma et al. do to make it autofocus) and price it somewhere remotely attainable for the enthusiast.
A 400mm 5.6 can be had for under £1000, so if it was around £2000 for a 500mm f5.6 would that be too much to ask?
This would be the lens I would save to buy.
A 400mm 5.6 can be had for under £1000, so if it was around £2000 for a 500mm f5.6 would that be too much to ask?
This would be the lens I would save to buy.
Upvote
0
That would be interesting. Although with a 300mm with a 1.4 is a 420mm f/5.6.
The other option is this type of lens, but I know nothing about the quality of it. This is what I was talking about when I said to look on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001GKLLRY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1328748392&sr=8-3
it is an f/8-32 however, so you would have slow liveview focus only.
The other option is this type of lens, but I know nothing about the quality of it. This is what I was talking about when I said to look on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001GKLLRY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1328748392&sr=8-3
it is an f/8-32 however, so you would have slow liveview focus only.
Upvote
0
Or, and here's a shocker, how about canon let us use autofocus at f8 - even if it is not good in low light?
Considering what the 5DII does with an f5.6 lens in low-moderate light, I wonder what it would do at f8 in the types of situations you'd mostly use these lenses.
I guess some have done it with 3rd party at 6.3 or with taping the 2x on an f4 (I, like many I've seen comment have never gotten this to work).
I bet it works OK. The argument used to be 'get a 1D body', but seriously I don't think it is too much to ask for in a $3000 body, realistically.
Considering what the 5DII does with an f5.6 lens in low-moderate light, I wonder what it would do at f8 in the types of situations you'd mostly use these lenses.
I guess some have done it with 3rd party at 6.3 or with taping the 2x on an f4 (I, like many I've seen comment have never gotten this to work).
I bet it works OK. The argument used to be 'get a 1D body', but seriously I don't think it is too much to ask for in a $3000 body, realistically.
Upvote
0
i put the EG-S focus screen in my 5D2 and using the 600f4.5 its quite easy to MF accurately... It solved the AF issues i was having with the camera anyway 
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Caps18 said:
This reminds me of a lens I bought back in the 70's. I was working at a small newspaper and another photographer and I each bought these 400 mm lenses from an outfit that advertised in the back of Popular Photography. They were very cheap (under $75) came with a 2x converter and worth every penny.
I think the glass was made from recycled Coke bottles.
They were pre-set lenses, which if you don't know what that means, it meant that there were two aperture rings. You turned one of them to the f-stop you wanted to shoot at and then you focused the lens wide open and spun the other ring to the pre-selected f-stop before you shot. It really didn't matter, because you pretty much had to use them wide open anyway.
Even by the standards of the 70s they weren't sharp, but in an emergency, when you really needed a long telephoto, they were better than nothing (just barely, though).
These look like a modern-day version of those lenses.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
