EF 800 f/5.6L IS II [CR2]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In the interest of one upmanship, shouldn't it be 850mm?

 

[Caps18]

When are they going to make one with a built in 2x extender...? ;D

 

[Don Haines]

When are they going to make one with a built in 2x extender...? ;D

How about 800F4 with the built-in 1.4X teleconverter.... that would give you 1120mmF5.6, and probably for a reasonably priced $200,000..... After all, many years ago the 1200F5.6 sold for around $100,000, Im sure with updated materials and designs the price could double....

Not a lens I would purchase for a backpacking trip

 

[expatinasia]

Wow, this has got to be a dream lens for those that shoot birds and wildlife.

I bet neuro's already working out how to fit it into his finances...

And, why not. The technology behind a lens like this must be pretty incredible. Kudos to Canon.

 

[AprilForever]

800 f4!!!

 

[Loswr]

I bet neuro's already working out how to fit it into his finances...

Not really. I like having f/4 when I need it, and 840mm f/5.6 when there is sufficient light. I'm actually leaving leaning the other way, toward the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.

 

[jrista]

...maybe give us a non-DO 400 f/4 for the masses...

I'm not sure why this keeps coming up...a non-DO 400/4 will be the same diameter and a bit longer than the 200/2. It won't be 'for the masses,' unless you think 'the masses' can afford a lens that will cost well over $6,000. An 'affordable' 400mm lens will have an f/5.6 aperture, and there are two already (100-400L and 400/5.6), and hopefully we'll see updates to both soon.

Aye. Both need some serious IS attention, and some improvement in IQ would be very welcome. I'd happily get rid of my 100-400L in favor of a new 400/5.6 L IS with at least four stops of hand holdability.

 

[jrista]

Wow, this has got to be a dream lens for those that shoot birds and wildlife.

I bet neuro's already working out how to fit it into his finances...

And, why not. The technology behind a lens like this must be pretty incredible. Kudos to Canon.

Actually, the 600/4 L II + 2x TC on a FF (either 5D III or 1D X) pretty much fulfills the dream. It is astonishingly sharp even with the TC, and mind blowingly sharp without it. For those times when you need to photograph a bigger bird, and prefer not to move (which usually scares off the birds), having the ability to go shorter than 1200mm or 840mm is extremely handy.

 

[jrista]

I bet neuro's already working out how to fit it into his finances...

Not really. I like having f/4 when I need it, and 840mm f/5.6 when there is sufficient light. I'm actually leaving the other way, toward the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.

"actually *leaning* the other way"??

Anyway, completely agree. I prefer the versatility of the 600 vs. the 800. The next lens on my list is also the 300/2.8 II, as 600mm is often a bit too long and heavy for wildlife work.

 

[Loswr]

"actually *leaning* the other way"??

Yep, typo, now fixed. Thanks!

They'll have to pry the 600 II from my cold, dead hands. Or release a MkIII, whichever comes first...

 

[dgatwood]

What I really want to see is a collapsible high-end telephoto lens. The long telephoto lenses are just impractically long; nobody's camera bag can hold a lens that's 18 inches long. But most of the space is air, which means that the vast majority of space taken up by these lenses is wasted. If Canon instead built their non-zoom telephoto lenses with multiple telescoping, locking segments, these lenses might actually be practical to carry around.

 

[jrista]

What I really want to see is a collapsible high-end telephoto lens. The long telephoto lenses are just impractically long; nobody's camera bag can hold a lens that's 18 inches long. But most of the space is air, which means that the vast majority of space taken up by these lenses is wasted. If Canon instead built their non-zoom telephoto lenses with multiple telescoping, locking segments, these lenses might actually be practical to carry around.

I think diffractive optics will solve that problem eventually. All of Canon's DO lenses are physically shorter than their non-DO counterparts. Sometimes significantly. Canon must have over a dozen patents related to grating and particle dispersion DO technology...only a matter of time before they have it perfected enough to use in a high end lens like the 800 or 600.

 

[eml58]

It will be interesting to see how Canon handle the Converter situation with the 800f/5.6.

Nikon are selling their 800f/5.6 with a dedicated 1.25x Converter, the other interesting thing with the Nikon 600 & I think the 800, is the Lens Hood comes in two pieces that fit inside each other, I noticed it recently on a trip where a Nikon user had the new 600f/4, seemed a sensible idea to me, at least it gives the opportunity to cut down the overall length of the Lens when in use if light onto the front element isn't an issue. With the Nikon 800f/5.6 retailing at US$18K, I imagine the Canon 800f/5.6 will be at least as expensive & with a built in 1.4x similar to the 200-400f/4 it will likely be a 20k Lens.

 

[jasonsim]

I bet neuro's already working out how to fit it into his finances...

Not really. I like having f/4 when I need it, and 840mm f/5.6 when there is sufficient light. I'm actually leaving leaning the other way, toward the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.

I've got the 300mm f/2.8L IS II and the 600mm II and think the combo goes together well. The decision on which to use is really tough when I need 600mm. If I need to be mobile I go with the 300mm II + 2x III. When I can go with a large tripod, I choose the 600 II.

Now if only the 7D II would come out and make that 300mm f/2.8 II even more useful!

Kind regards,
Jason

 

[dolina]

Guaranteed it will breach the Nikon price. I have yet to see any Nikon or Canon equivalent lens price below the competition if it is newer.

So expect a 800mm IS II that surpases $18,000. I am thinking a nice round $20,000 at 3kg.