Superzoom Development Mentioned Again [CR2]

[ahsanford]

PS - I think some are confused with the wording of the subject here. The rumor is about a "superzoom," i.e with a large zoom multiplier, like the 28-300 is a 10X superzoom. A "supertelephoto" is a really long lens that I can't afford, like the 800/5.6L.

We're not confused at all. We know what superzooms are and we're changing the subject to a zoom we'd rather have instead.

- A

 

[9VIII]

I don't see 200mm on the long end as being "super"telephoto. It's going to have to be over 400mm considering the 100-400 already on the market. I'd love to see a zoom go to 600 to compete with the Sigma's super zoom.

Supertelephoto and Superzoom are different things. Anything with a 10x zoom range is definitely "Superzoom" territory for an SLR, even if that's 20-200mm.
The SX60HS is just a 3.8-247mm lens, so a 200mm lens is getting close, they just use really sharp glass and really small sensors on those compact superzooms, and they probably choose the wide angle focal length by putting the lens as close as possible without hitting the shutter.

 

[Don Haines]

I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.

+1

I don't even shoot above 200mm (95% of my work under 100mm) and I find that Nikon to be a serious shot across the bow to Canon. I'm shocked we're not talking about it more. That's a landgrab move by Nikon to gobble up the reach-obsessed amateur wildlifers out there. Canon has no rebuttal after 400mm other than 'Crop your shots to get 500mm, switch back to APS-C, enjoy teleconverters, or buy a $10K lens'. All of those are tradeoffs that this new Nikon sails right past.

Consider: even a 500mm IS f/5.6 prime for $1400 would be a steal for us. I know that lens won't be of the highest quality, but one would presume -- critically -- that it's AF would be better than the Sigmas and Tamrons.

- A

For a EF lens, a super zoom could be 18-200mm or 16-150mm. As long as its close to ~10x its a super zoom.

A super zoom does not have to go to 600mm or 400mm or even 200mm.

Canon already makes an 18-200mm EF-S superzoom..... it is terrible throughout the range....this is most definitely a lens that needs updating!

 

[TeT]

I have seen a couple of users of this lens. Both were extremely happy. Both were freelance professionals. Both only used it when on assignments. I have caught glimpses of it in world news reports that caught photographers in background as well...

It is not a birding, sporting event, portrait, soccer mom or backyard lens... It is a journalists/correspondents/freelancers perfect tool.

If you made it conventional instead of the push pull and a little lighter; the improved optics may expand its customer base...

 

[TK]

I rented a 28-300 for an assignment a few weeks ago. We had a good day with it; it is heavy but got the images we needed...

 

[Steve Todd]

I'm very interested in the possibility of Canon doing a makeover of the 28-300. It's been my go-to travel lens since purchasing one in Oct 2006. In fact, it currently sits atop my 1DX used during my most recent road trip to Tucson and Tombstone just last week. A MKII version, ala the 100-400II would be super....bring it on!

 

[unfocused]

There are times when I would love to have this lens – just yesterday for example, while shooting an event that required I switch back and forth between the 70-200 and 24mm. But, the ideal version would probably be too heavy and slow and expensive for my tastes.

I'd be happy with 28-200mm if I could get a constant f4, although 250mm would be better.

 

[dsut4392]

There are two uses of this lens

1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28

2. a "safari" lens for tracking wildlife. Image a lion is walk toward your vehicle as it goes closer you want to keep shooting without changing lenses or cameras. Prior to the 28-300L there was the 35-350 non IS lens. I like the focal length of the latter.

To be successful I think Canon will need to improve IQ (the 28-300L was not very consistent lens to lens, like the old push pull 100-400). Some weight loss would be nice is not essential. Perhaps slightly longer?

your #2 reminds me of when I went on safari in Tanzania. I was standing on the roof of our vehicle, photographing an approaching leopard with my old Zuiko 500/8 reflex adapted to a canon crop body. Got a nice head & shoulders shot before it got closer than the minimum focal distance...gulp, I think I had better get back in the car now!

 

[unfocused]

And how on earth is this even a top 10 ask from the market right now?

Maybe, but this is a photojournalists lens and even though the photojournalist market is shrinking daily, it's still a sizable and influential group. If Canon produces the lens, then it simply means their market research shows a demand. Also, we have no idea if it would be a refresh or something entirely new.

...I find that Nikon to be a serious shot across the bow to Canon. I'm shocked we're not talking about it more. That's a landgrab move by Nikon to gobble up the reach-obsessed amateur wildlifers out there. Canon has no rebuttal after 400mm other than 'Crop your shots to get 500mm, switch back to APS-C, enjoy teleconverters, or buy a $10K lens'. All of those are tradeoffs that this new Nikon sails right past.

Consider: even a 500mm IS f/5.6 prime for $1400 would be a steal for us. I know that lens won't be of the highest quality, but one would presume -- critically -- that it's AF would be better than the Sigmas and Tamrons.

Agreed. Although getting a 500mm IS f5.6 for $1,400 is probably optimistic. Even at $1,800 it would be tempting.

I wonder if there is any reason to believe this might not be an EF lens. Given the upgrade Canon gave to the 7DII, it's not outside the realm of possibility that we could see a high quality EF-S in the 18-250 range.

 

[sjprg]

I for one really like the 28-300L and it stays on my 1DSIII 80 % of the time. with the 100-400 and the 100mm Macro taking the rest of the time.
For short range I use a Sony A7R with a FE 24-70 which make a great hiking camera. and for specialized landscapes the 800E with a 24mm 1.2 Nikon serves. There just is no way one camera can cover all the needs of every person.

 

[vlim]

I'd almost be just as happy with either.
Sure, Canon doesn't have a small 600mm lens, but with a bit of cropping the 100-400MkII is basically as good as the competition. At least in my mind I consider it a "640mm equivalent" lens.
I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.

The idea of a short-to-long focal length lens is almost as interesting as a 500mm. I don't know if I would want to trade off the macro capability of the 100-400MkII, but if Canon could make a decent 28-300 that would be useful for different reasons.
I almost think they'd be better off ditching the extra wide angle and go for 40-300, which is still a fair bit wider than the 70-300 but should allow for much better optics than 28-300. Make it a constant f4 and you've got a highly desirable lens.

Apparetnly the new Nikon is a very very good telephoto lens, look at these tests by Brad Hill in some very tough conditions...

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#200-500_AF_Tracking

 

[douglaurent]

An update would be absolutely welcome, the old version is too big, too heavy, too expensive and not wide enough. It's also not much sharper than the Tamron 28-300 or Sony 24-240, who show it's possible to develop something better. If a new version is starting at 24mm, is lighter and sharper, i am also willing to pay much more than the Tamron or Sony cost now.

 

[Loswr]

An update would be absolutely welcome, the old version is too big, too heavy, too expensive and not wide enough. It's also not much sharper than the Tamron 28-300 or Sony 24-240, who show it's possible to develop something better. If a new version is starting at 24mm, is lighter and sharper, i am also willing to pay much more than the Tamron or Sony cost now.

+1

I had the 28-300L for a while, I found it useful but it was optically surpassed by the 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300L combo. If they could bring a 24-200 (or longer) with optical performance close to the latter combo, and a size about that of a 70-300L, I'd be all in.

 

[HankMD]

I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.

From what I've seen it crops relatively well, in experienced hands (i.e. good stabilization):

Original:
https://flic.kr/p/ycdGEA

Cropped:
https://flic.kr/p/z9fobi

It's funny to see a few local photographers with 600 and 800mm Nikkon "Super Blacks" dabbling with the 200-500mm zoom. Must be having back problems.... ;D

 

[siegsAR]

I really want the 28-300, if it will be updated I'd surely take a second look - on weight for that matter. For now my 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 IS will stay.

Honestly if Canon will release a 30/40 - 300 that would be awesome for me to pair with the 16-35 F4.

 

[mrsfotografie]

For my next holiday trip I will take the Tamron 28-300 VC PCD (540 g), Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II (205g), and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (190 g). Total = 935 grams for a narrow aperture superzoom, and the wide angle + low light complements. The Canon 28-300L alone weighs 1670g And I haven't yet begun to compare the volumes these lenses occupy. Now, please Canon - which of these is the winner combination for travel? ;D

 

[donmarkuso]

However, the 28-300 L is the lens I use most of the time. The pump-zoom is super fast, ultra durable, the focus pretty good and the weight prevents shakes. And I do not need to change lenses all the time. This fact keeps the sensor clean. Using it with a 7DII it is just a perfect combination. It already is my second one. I just bought a new one after years of using it and I did sell the old one for a pretty good price. 'Loss': 300 USD.

A wide angle zoom and the 28-300 and two 7DII with battery grip plus two 600RT flashes are a really good equipment for me as a journalist. What else do you need?

I really do not know what Canon could make better with the 28-300L, but if it was a 24-300 L 3,5-4,5 it would be outstanding. Maybe a built-in 1.4x Converter? I would buy it right away. :-*

 

[MrFotoFool]

If they could improve the quality as they did between the version 1 and 2 of the 100-400L I think there would be a large market for this lens. (Some of you think there is no market, but I think there is). It would be the ultimate travel lens. A lot of people who travel with family want L quality photos but do not want to carry a camera backpack and change lenses. This covers an almost ideal range of focal lengths for full frame (though I am surprised the person above likes it on the crop sensor 7D2). However, I find 24 is the perfect wide angle focal length on full frame. A 24-300 (or even 280 or 250) with great optics would be a killer. Personally, I do not like variable aperture and would rather have a constant 5_6 than a 4 or 4_5 to 5_6.

 

[mrzero]

Nice to see some users of the current 28-300mm L superzoom coming out of the woodwork here. It is probably too big/heavy for my own casual use, but hopefully Canon is hearing some of these voices who would be interested in an all-in-one option for their full-frame needs.

 

[TheJock]

I think Canon have from 28mm up to 400mm very well covered at the moment, and since Nikon have the 200-500 and Tamron/Sigma have their 150-600mm offerings, we can hope to see direct competition in that area (the 500mm+ area).
At least that’s what I’m hoping (read praying 8) ) for!!! Even if it’s a heavy 300-600 with IQ like the 100-400 II and costs around $3000 I’ll have one immediately.