Specifications & Images of the Upcoming Canon Lenses

[littleB]

I'm also curious to see if the 90 and 135 extend.

Have a look a 50, 90, and 135 pictures near the front lens. 50 and 90 show some closed barrel, will extend.
135 looks solid, will not extend.

 

[keithcooper]

The problem may well be that you likely won't get the tilt you want at macro magnifications

The tilt tables (and J distance) become increasingly difficult work out and to apply at close focus distances, and I use the iterative method I also describe for focusing with tilt.

I've been experimenting with the TS-E 90 and 65mm of extension (and the 24 and 17) and this is my desk after quite a few different settings. The lines near the pencil are the focal planes at ∞ with and without full tilt and focus adjustment - note that the tilt doesn't give that much effect at 90mm. The magnification with the tubes is not quite 1:1 (nearer 0.75 x)

If I get a chance I'll do a write up over the weekend, but my suspicion is that the obtainable effects are not going to be as pronounced as many might wish...

If I am looking at this right, the sensor plane vs focal plane has about a 30° angle between them, correct? To me I think that would make a huge difference. To be honest that is about the result I was expecting. I'm not expecting these lenses to be miracle workers ;D

Not quite - there are two tilt indicators on either side of the knob - tilt is 10º for the 135 and 8º for the 50mm

 

[keithcooper]

Using tilt and tubes for macro

If it's of interest for those looking at the macro features of the new lenses, especially if you want more magnification, I've written up some quick experiments about the sorts of effects you can get.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tilt-tubes-macro/

The new lenses won't change this very much, but should still be capable of some interesting results in areas where the current 90mm for example shows its age.

Hope it's of some interest to those less familiar with such lenses?

 

[keithcooper]

I'm also curious to see if the 90 and 135 extend.

Have a look a 50, 90, and 135 pictures near the front lens. 50 and 90 show some closed barrel, will extend.
135 looks solid, will not extend.

135 could extend as the current 90mm does, i.e the whole section beyond the DOF scale moves forward

 

[littleB]

I'm also curious to see if the 90 and 135 extend.

Have a look a 50, 90, and 135 pictures near the front lens. 50 and 90 show some closed barrel, will extend.
135 looks solid, will not extend.

135 could extend as the current 90mm does, i.e the whole section beyond the DOF scale moves forward

Yeah, could be the case. Can't tell this from pictures.

 

[Drainpipe]

Re: Using tilt and tubes for macro

If it's of interest for those looking at the macro features of the new lenses, especially if you want more magnification, I've written up some quick experiments about the sorts of effects you can get.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tilt-tubes-macro/

The new lenses won't change this very much, but should still be capable of some interesting results in areas where the current 90mm for example shows its age.

Hope it's of some interest to those less familiar with such lenses?

The article helped me wrap my head around this a little more. Seriously appreciated!

 

[Jack Douglas]

A bit off topic but relating to macro. How difficult might it be for Canon to add a macro feature to say the 400 DO F4 II? I've had tubes on the 300 2.8 but the magnification is not great. For walk around butterflies etc. a longer telephoto is advantageous and MFD as it stands is poor.

Jack

 

[keithcooper]

A bit off topic but relating to macro. How difficult might it be for Canon to add a macro feature to say the 400 DO F4 II? I've had tubes on the 300 2.8 but the magnification is not great. For walk around butterflies etc. a longer telephoto is advantageous and MFD as it stands is poor.

Jack

tubes have more effect at shorter focal lengths, whilst supplementary lenses work better at longer ones - the problem is that long white lenses have big front elements. See this from Canon

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/close-up_lenses.do

 

[Jack Douglas]

A bit off topic but relating to macro. How difficult might it be for Canon to add a macro feature to say the 400 DO F4 II? I've had tubes on the 300 2.8 but the magnification is not great. For walk around butterflies etc. a longer telephoto is advantageous and MFD as it stands is poor.

Jack

tubes have more effect at shorter focal lengths, whilst supplementary lenses work better at longer ones - the problem is that long white lenses have big front elements. See this from Canon

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/close-up_lenses.do

Thanks Keith. I am aware of this and since there is no option for a close up lens that only leaves tubes and having used them as you say the magnification is minimal. Could Canon alter the lens internally to have a closeup option available or is that a physical impossibility? I have the 24-70 F4 so that's kind of where the macro idea came from. Even though it's not great I do like having that; it's handy at times but with the 400, oh that would be super handy since MFD is poor.

Jack

 

[keithcooper]

A bit off topic but relating to macro. How difficult might it be for Canon to add a macro feature to say the 400 DO F4 II? I've had tubes on the 300 2.8 but the magnification is not great. For walk around butterflies etc. a longer telephoto is advantageous and MFD as it stands is poor.

Jack

tubes have more effect at shorter focal lengths, whilst supplementary lenses work better at longer ones - the problem is that long white lenses have big front elements. See this from Canon

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/close-up_lenses.do

Thanks Keith. I am aware of this and since there is no option for a close up lens that only leaves tubes and having used them as you say the magnification is minimal. Could Canon alter the lens internally to have a closeup option available or is that a physical impossibility? I have the 24-70 F4 so that's kind of where the macro idea came from. Even though it's not great I do like having that; it's handy at times but with the 400, oh that would be super handy since MFD is poor.

Jack

With any long optical design, the MFD is essentially given by how much movement of groups you are prepared to devote to focus range for the design. This goes against the desire to make the long whites shorter/lighter for their main market.

The 300/2.8 has gone from an MFD of 3m to 2m over its 3 versions so there is an improvement - to 1.5m with the f4 IS [ http://www.eflens.com/ef-lenses/ef_300_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm.html ] compare this to the design of the 180/3.5 macro [ http://www.eflens.com/ef-lenses/ef_180_f35l_macro_usm.html ]

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Keith. I guess the answer is it's not feasible. I'm not knowledgeable in optics but wondered if there was some internal trick that would accomplish what a close up lens does.

Jack

 

[BeenThere]

Jack
Try the 100-400mmII for best in class close focus. MFD is about 3 ft set to 400mm. Actually less than 400mm when focused this close but still pretty good for butterflies when walking around. This lens designed to have a good MFD.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Jack
Try the 100-400mmII for best in class close focus. MFD is about 3 ft set to 400mm. Actually less than 400mm when focused this close but still pretty good for butterflies when walking around. This lens designed to have a good MFD.

If it had been available a couple + years back I'd probably own it and may still get it. However, now it's the 400DO II that serves me very well except for MFD (800 is my choice for practically all songbird type shoots, FF). The 300 2.8 was pretty handy for butterflies but it's getting sold soon. You see, there is this unfortunate reality of $$.

I spent 3 years shooting 600 feeling short so going to 560 isn't exactly what I'd have preferred and now I'm loving 800 with manageable weight.

Jack

 

[BeenThere]

Unfortunately, never is there one lens to rule them all.

 

[mclaren777]

It sounds like the 85mm IS will cost somewhere between $1600-2000, which is great news in my book.

Translated from Japanese...

"Although there is not information on the domestic price yet, in the UK it seems that EF 85 mm is 1569 pounds, TS-E lenses are 2499 pounds each, M100 is 449 pounds body only."

http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2017/08/blog-post_28.html

 

[hne]

It sounds like the 85mm IS will cost somewhere between $1600-2000, which is great news in my book.

Translated from Japanese...

"Although there is not information on the domestic price yet, in the UK it seems that EF 85 mm is 1569 pounds, TS-E lenses are 2499 pounds each, M100 is 449 pounds body only."

http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2017/08/blog-post_28.html

More likely advertised at either $1499 or $1599, considering the quotients of £/$ of RRP/MSRP on other high valued Canon gear that tend to be within 5% of each other right now.

 

[keithcooper]

"Although there is not information on the domestic price yet, in the UK it seems that EF 85 mm is 1569 pounds, TS-E lenses are 2499 pounds each, M100 is 449 pounds body only."

At £2.5k each, I suspect any business case for the new TS-E lenses is going to be difficult for me to make given the sorts of work I do (I've been told I can have one if I sell my 11-24...)

The 85 just isn't remotely useful for any paying work (no weddings/portraits/babies/pets ;-) ) compared to what I've already got covering that FL

 

[jdavidse]

"Although there is not information on the domestic price yet, in the UK it seems that EF 85 mm is 1569 pounds, TS-E lenses are 2499 pounds each, M100 is 449 pounds body only."

At £2.5k each, I suspect any business case for the new TS-E lenses is going to be difficult for me to make given the sorts of work I do (I've been told I can have one if I sell my 11-24...)

The 85 just isn't remotely useful for any paying work (no weddings/portraits/babies/pets ;-) ) compared to what I've already got covering that FL

The problem I see is now there will be 5 quality L, updated TS-E lenses. Most people can only afford 1 of such a specialty lens. Do they really expect to sell that many of these? It seems like not just an expensive niche product, but a niche divided 5 ways.

 

[jdavidse]

Just out of curiosity, which TS-E would everyone get, if you could only own 1? And why?

 

[keithcooper]

Just out of curiosity, which TS-E would everyone get, if you could only own 1? And why?

17mm - has earned me far more money than the 24mm (my second choice)

17mm just gets more 'wow' shots from clients - harder to use well, and I can crop if too wide (not that many clients want 50MP files)

If you meant just the new ones, probably the 90 (if I can't keep my Mk1) or possibly the 135 (I have an old Zeiss 135/3.5 that I've sometimes used) 50 just leaves me wondering what I'd actually use it for