come on, make an affordable 600mm or 800mm!!

[Caps18]

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.

I don't disagree, but would still like a fair test done. And it would be nice if there was some way to allow f/8 lens focusing for the center point on sunny days of the 5D...

I have a telescope from the 80s that I have been able to connect to my camera. It is 900mm, but the quality of the focus you get is quite blurry. You can make out a license plate, but it doesn't come close to a 300 f/4 + 1.4x + 2x.

I will post some pictures of the Moon I took with that setup this weekend.

 

[KeithR]

so if it was around £2000 for a 500mm f5.6 would that be too much to ask?

£2000 (ish) will get you a new, UK stock Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS: that and a 2x gets you out to 600mm for not a huge amount more, or - as I'm doing at the moment pending getting a 2x - you can stack two 1.4s for a 588mm f/5.6 - handholdable, too.

Or, if you happen to have a Kenko 1.5 in the TC stack, you've got 630mm at f/5.6 (that's a handholdable 1008mm, with AF, with the "crop factor" played in).

The 588mm (940mm with crop factor) option works pretty well, really.

 

[Hillsilly]

Sir Frans Lanting started off with a mirror lens. Didn't seem to hurt him.

I've got an old MF Minolta 400mm f5.6 lens that I connect to micro four thirds camera. This essentially becomes an image stabilised 800mm f5.6 (in 35mm talk when you factor in the 2x crop factor). Image quality is very good for a cheap-ish option. But its not perfect. In a lot of high contrast situations I get some noticeable purple fringing. But with a 2x teleconverter, that's 1600mm and its still ok. With two 2x teleconverters, you get to 3200mm and you can take some identifiable pictures of Venus and Jupiter (although they are still very small, and the image quality is ordinary). I should buy some Canon teleconverters and see how the old lens with cheap teleconverters compares with a newer lens.

I'd love for Canon to make an affordable 600mm or 800mm with autofocus.

 

[torger]

"Affordable" is a relative term. Due to the very large glass elements required, long telephoto lenses can never be cheap. But clearly, Canon has the most expensive tele lenses compared to the competitors, possibly the best too though. Is the higher price due to the fluorite glass?

Here in Sweden a Canon 600/4 costs about €120k, while a Nikon 600/4 costs €80k. None of them is exactly cheap, but if you borrow money to finance your bird photography hobby, €80k vs €120k still makes a difference.

The version I was considerably less expensive, so clearly it is possible to make a lower cost lens if you compromise a little bit with the image quality. There is a middle-ground cost-and-quality-wise between mirror designs and the highest end flourite designs...

 

[jimmy156]

so if it was around £2000 for a 500mm f5.6 would that be too much to ask?

£2000 (ish) will get you a new, UK stock Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS: that and a 2x gets you out to 600mm for not a huge amount more, or - as I'm doing at the moment pending getting a 2x - you can stack two 1.4s for a 588mm f/5.6 - handholdable, too.

Or, if you happen to have a Kenko 1.5 in the TC stack, you've got 630mm at f/5.6 (that's a handholdable 1008mm, with AF, with the "crop factor" played in).

The 588mm (940mm with crop factor) option works pretty well, really.

hmm i hadn't really given that Sigma much thought, although i have heard very good things about it! I'm not against Sigma at all, i have a 120-400mm as my long lens.

What teleconvertors are you using Sigma/Canon/other? This would actually be a viable uprgade for me if i can earn a bit more money!

 

[Maui5150]

Great in theory, but I think you underestimate the cost of producing glass that size as well as once these lenses get so large, and extended, manufacturing defects increase greatly. 12 inches out if one of the lenses is off by a smidge, that error is amplified greatly.

Secondly, the demand for these lenses is soft. Most of the users are high end sports photogs or nature photogs who can write off expensive lenses. For the average joe, look at the complaints and whines people have on the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II and then think just how heavy a 600mm is by comparison, not to mention that a decent tripod to hold this lens will be up there as well.

The EF 600 F/4 IS weights almost 12 pounds alone.

 

[torger]

Has anyone tried the 300/2.8 with tele converters? Not exactly cheap, but insanely sharp. It seems from test chart crops like that lens with a 2x III TC produces almost as good results as a 600/4 version I.

 

[xROELOFx]

Has anyone tried the 300/2.8 with tele converters? Not exactly cheap, but insanely sharp. It seems from test chart crops like that lens with a 2x III TC produces almost as good results as a 600/4 version I.

i use my 300 with the 1.4x extender. it's really really good! i don't have the 2x extender, so i don't know who the results from that combination are.

check the lens gallery for some example pictures of the 300 + 1.4x: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2603.msg68617.html#msg68617

 

[frisk]

Getting an affordable 800mm lens is certainly doable....getting a high-quality one is certainly doable. The hard task is to get a high-quality, affordable one.

I have one 800 mm lens myself - an old Vivitar preset lens, adapted for EOS, and it was very affordable

As for the quality, well, actually, it was surprisingly good, compared to what I expected....well, my expectations were not that high, but once I put it on a heavy tripod, it did actually surprise me. I did try to add a 1.4extender, and a 2x extender (as well as an absurd combination of a 1.4 and 2x extenders, resulting in the equivalent of a 2240mm lens....but by that time the quality was pretty bad, as the following photos show:

The view from my office (wide-angle, 10mm):

Same scene, 135mm

Same scene, with the 800mm lens - as I said, not all bad, and this is on a pretty lousy tripod.

Same scene, with the 800mm lens and a 2x extender - getting pretty bad.

Same scene, with the 800mm lens, the 2.0extender and the 1.4 extender....not usable for anything , but it was fun.