Development Announcement of a New 800mm f/5.6L IS II [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div style="float: right; margin:0 0 76px 0px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=17057">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We received a short and sweet message that a development announcement for an EF 800 f/5.6L IS II is slated for 2014, but it wasn’t confirmed if it would come with the rest of the Photokina announcements.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>The talk of a new 800mm lens has been around for a while, and I imagine its release has everything to do with how soon stock of the current lens is depleted. It makes little sense to produce the lens with different materials than the 300mm, 400m, 500mm and 600mm lenses.</p>
<p>Unknown source, so take this with the usual grain of salt.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542293-REG/Canon_2746B002AA_EF_800mm_f_5_6L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[PureClassA]

Great! Now with a 25% price reduction on the old lens, I'll finally be able to sell a kidney and afford it

 

[Jim Saunders]

Is there any big performance gain to be had, or is it a question of it being half a kilogram lighter and two thousand dollars more expensive? Don't get me wrong though, the weight savings is surely worth it for some.

Jim

 

[scyrene]

If they could get the weight under 4kg I'd be tempted to sell the 500 II and upgrade (after the price came down a little). I pretty much never use it bare - 1000mm is my usual walkaround focal length for birds in good light now. An 800 f/5.6 - 1120 f/8 (with the 1.4x extender) should offer slightly better image quality, as the 2x extender does reduce sharpness a little.

I know a guy who uses the current 800 handheld and gets awesome shots, although he pays for it the next day sometimes.

 

[climber]

Which year was current 800mm f/5.6 lens released? Probably don't long ago. If so, do you think will be soon announcement of new shorter big whites like 300, 400,...

I'm just curious. Don't have money at the moment for neither of them.

 

[mackguyver]

Great! Now with a 25% price reduction on the old lens, I'll finally be able to sell a kidney and afford it

I was planning to buy a new car, but maybe I'll hold out for this lens! I'm actually kicking myself for not buying one during the Canon USA refurb sale (the one before last) when it was 15 or so percent off during the sale. It's an amazing lens on a monopod.

 

[jrista]

Is there any big performance gain to be had, or is it a question of it being half a kilogram lighter and two thousand dollars more expensive? Don't get me wrong though, the weight savings is surely worth it for some.

Jim

I'm not sure if there will be a significant weight difference. I think the 800 f/5.6 L was the first to use the fluorite lens design, although I don't know that it's barrel design used the lighter/stronger materials. If there is any weight reduction, I think it would be small.

There was quite a significant difference in IQ, particularly in the corners, between the old and new Mark II lenses for the 300 through 600 lenses, though. They are amazingly sharp, even with teleconverters attached. The 600/4 II with a 1.4xIII TC is on par with, if not better than, the old 800/5.6, so I would expect the IQ improvement on the 800/5.6 II to surpass the quality of the 600/4II+1.4xIII.

And who knows, maybe Canon will find a way to reduce weight even more. They have competition from Nikon on that front now as well, so they may have something up their sleeve.

 

[jrista]

Which year was current 800mm f/5.6 lens released? Probably don't long ago. If so, do you think will be soon announcement of new shorter big whites like 300, 400,...

I'm just curious. Don't have money at the moment for neither of them.

The 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4 have all been updated over the last couple of years. They ARE new, and they are all using current, cutting edge optical technology. Given that the prior versions lasted for over half a decade at least, and if you go back to the original optical design before IS was added, over a decade...I don't think we'll be seeing any more new great white after the 800 is updated for quite some time.

If you want a 300 or 400, you'll just have to shell out the cash. They are truly pheonomenal lenses, and I don't think I've ever seen a sharper lens than the 300 f/2.8 L II...that sucker will make you bleed!

 

[wtlloyd]

Great news, because in other threads, the argument was about to shift to exactly which type of green cheese the moon is made of.

 

[scyrene]

Is there any big performance gain to be had, or is it a question of it being half a kilogram lighter and two thousand dollars more expensive? Don't get me wrong though, the weight savings is surely worth it for some.

Jim

I'm not sure if there will be a significant weight difference. I think the 800 f/5.6 L was the first to use the fluorite lens design, although I don't know that it's barrel design used the lighter/stronger materials. If there is any weight reduction, I think it would be small.

There was quite a significant difference in IQ, particularly in the corners, between the old and new Mark II lenses for the 300 through 600 lenses, though. They are amazingly sharp, even with teleconverters attached. The 600/4 II with a 1.4xIII TC is on par with, if not better than, the old 800/5.6, so I would expect the IQ improvement on the 800/5.6 II to surpass the quality of the 600/4II+1.4xIII.

And who knows, maybe Canon will find a way to reduce weight even more. They have competition from Nikon on that front now as well, so they may have something up their sleeve.

It appears the 800mm has a protective front element, as did the previous versions of the 500, 600, etc. Removal of this in the mark IIs decreased weight - per Brian at TDP. That plus a little off the barrel/different materials could shave off 500g, taking it to 4kg. That would be reasonable, I'd say.

 

[KyleSTL]

Which year was current 800mm f/5.6 lens released? Probably don't long ago. If so, do you think will be soon announcement of new shorter big whites like 300, 400,...

I'm just curious. Don't have money at the moment for neither of them.

Current 800mm f/5.6L
Announced - Jan 2008 (http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_800_5p6_is)
Shipping - May 2008

...but it has the OLD white Canon color.

 

[jrista]

Is there any big performance gain to be had, or is it a question of it being half a kilogram lighter and two thousand dollars more expensive? Don't get me wrong though, the weight savings is surely worth it for some.

Jim

I'm not sure if there will be a significant weight difference. I think the 800 f/5.6 L was the first to use the fluorite lens design, although I don't know that it's barrel design used the lighter/stronger materials. If there is any weight reduction, I think it would be small.

There was quite a significant difference in IQ, particularly in the corners, between the old and new Mark II lenses for the 300 through 600 lenses, though. They are amazingly sharp, even with teleconverters attached. The 600/4 II with a 1.4xIII TC is on par with, if not better than, the old 800/5.6, so I would expect the IQ improvement on the 800/5.6 II to surpass the quality of the 600/4II+1.4xIII.

And who knows, maybe Canon will find a way to reduce weight even more. They have competition from Nikon on that front now as well, so they may have something up their sleeve.

It appears the 800mm has a protective front element, as did the previous versions of the 500, 600, etc. Removal of this in the mark IIs decreased weight - per Brian at TDP. That plus a little off the barrel/different materials could shave off 500g, taking it to 4kg. That would be reasonable, I'd say.

Ah, yeah, removal of the protective meniscus would reduce weight. And a 500g savings would be pretty significant overall, given how light the first 800/5.6 was.

 

[Haydn1971]

Yay ! Another opportunity to push the price up by 25%

What exactly is up with the currently massively priced lens that's just 6 years old ?

 

[jrista]

Yay ! Another opportunity to push the price up by 25%

What exactly is up with the currently massively priced lens that's just 6 years old ?

It's been one-upped by both Nikon's new 800/5.6 and Canon's own 600/4 L II?

Fundamentally, I think Canon wants to get all their great white L series telephotos on the same playing field...the 800 introduced the large fluorite elements, but it is a bit behind the rest of the lineup in terms of all the other build factors and overall IQ.

 

[Silverman]

...dreaming that Canon will come out with:

800mm 5.6 L IS II
- Build in extender (possibly 1.4x)...
- MFD 5m
- Weight around the 600mm IS II
- pricewise close to the new Nikon 800mm

 

[jrista]

...dreaming that Canon will come out with:

800mm 5.6 L IS II
- Build in extender (possibly 1.4x)...
- MFD 5m
- Weight around the 600mm IS II
- pricewise close to the new Nikon 800mm

You WANT the new 800 to be more expensive? The Nikon is like $18,000...Canon's is currently $13,500. If the price hit around the same as Nikon's new 800mm, that would be a 33% increase in price. I'd hope they would keep any cost increase down to at most 20%...which would mean a price around $16,200.

 

[Lloyd]

I'd hope they would keep any cost increase down to at most 20%...which would mean a price around $16,200.

I have an old 800mm FD lens and would someday like to get a modern version, but at this price I think I will just buy the following and drive closer to the subject.

 

[fotoray]

What sense does it make to put IS on such a big lens that would likely always be mounted on a tripod where IS is not needed? Or even not recommended? Is use of a monopod assumed to be the most frequent user choice? Certainly hand-held, where IS would be most helpful, doesn't seem practical because of quick fatigue with such a big lens.

 

[scyrene]

What sense does it make to put IS on such a big lens that would likely always be mounted on a tripod where IS is not needed? Or even not recommended? Is use of a monopod assumed to be the most frequent user choice? Certainly hand-held, where IS would be most helpful, doesn't seem practical because of quick fatigue with such a big lens.

Some people do handhold these lenses, but even if most don't - IS can help when using a monopod or tripod. On the rare occasions I use a tripod on my 500, the IS still helps a lot with framing shots and preventing excessive shake.

 

[wtlloyd]

On tripod, IS helps shutter slap, wind buffeting (that hood is like a big 'ol windsock) and if shooting at 1200 or 1600 mm 1/2 hour after sunset, you'll be glad to have it. For that matter, you'll be glad to have it at those focal lengths anytime.