Two New Big White Lenses Coming Next Year [CR2]

[Loswr]

Isn't the rule that 100mm front element is where it gets expensive?

I doubt that there is any such rigid rule.

 

[H. Jones]

I vote they bring out that rumored 1000mm f/5.6 DO ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30034.0

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon actually does release a 600mm f/4L DO IS and 1000mm F/5.6L DO IS at the same time. The 600 DO looked to be somewhat smaller than even a 400 f/2.8, so I'd imagine that they could pull off a 1000mm DO around the size of a 600mm or 800mm. That would be a much more temping upgrade to the 800mm than simply updating it.

Kinda in the same way that Canon did the 500 and 600 at the same time.

 

[WRS]

I vote they bring out that rumored 1000mm f/5.6 DO ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30034.0

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon actually does release a 600mm f/4L DO IS and 1000mm F/5.6L DO IS at the same time. The 600 DO looked to be somewhat smaller than even a 400 f/2.8, so I'd imagine that they could pull off a 1000mm DO around the size of a 600mm or 800mm. That would be a much more temping upgrade to the 800mm than simply updating it.

Kinda in the same way that Canon did the 500 and 600 at the same time.

That would be spectacular in my opinion and would further broaden an already impressive lens line up.

 

[LonelyBoy]

70-300DOii? No one else wants that? I'll see myself out.

Always seemed like an excellent discreet public candid combo. Though I suppose the 55-250STM does about the same.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The 200/2 and 800/5.6 are both due/overdue to catch up with the other MkIIs which are already (can you believe it?) nearly 7 years old, but in a perfect world we'd get the 600 DO and one of the rumoured lower cost non-L telephotos.

200/2 MkI is close-to-perfect... would MkII IQ get much better... not sure weight reduction alone would merit "trading up"

Weight reduction (it's currently heavier than the somewhat larger 300/2.8L II), Mode 3 IS, fluorine coating, perhaps some small improvement in IQ, latest (2010) paint colour!

 

[Khalai]

70-300DOii? No one else wants that? I'll see myself out.

Always seemed like an excellent discreet public candid combo. Though I suppose the 55-250STM does about the same.

I want that! The original 70-300 DO is a lackluster, but if they could bring it close to 70-300L IQ, I'll be all over it!

 

[Steve Dmark2]

I also wanna have an update about the small whites!!
My wishes: 300mm 4L IS II with build in teleconverter, or the 400mm 5.6L IS.

 

[scyrene]

A 600 4 Do would be a hell of a lens but I am sure it would cost a five figure amount...

If only they made - I am sure they will not - a 600 5.6 DO too, it would be fantastic... Same length with a 600 DO more or less, but with less diameter and weight and cost than a f/4 version... It would make a fantastic portable birding lens...

Well the 600 II already costs five figures so I imagine you're right!

Personally, I'd beg, steal, or borrow a lot to get a 600 DO if it wasn't ludicrously expensive (for me, that would be ~£12k RRP). I love my 500 II but losing some length would be a boon (and more FL is always welcome).

PS maybe they'll choose a third shade of white for the new releases! ;D

 

[degos]

Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.

I was shooting next to a newspaper photographer at the weekend who had the first-generation EF 300/2.8 and 600/4. No IS, nothing. Just lots of black gaffer tape to keep things in place.

He said they keep cannabilizing other ones in the office to keep a few going since Canon don't service them anymore, but they're razor-sharp and they actually sent the 'replacement' Mark IIs back because they drained the camera batteries much faster and weren't discernably better in terms of IQ.

Instead they spend the budget on new bodies when they pass the shutter-life rating, discarding them rather than sending for rework.

 

[Khalai]

Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.

I was shooting next to a newspaper photographer at the weekend who had the first-generation EF 300/2.8 and 600/4. No IS, nothing. Just lots of black gaffer tape to keep things in place.

He said they keep cannabilizing other ones in the office to keep a few going since Canon don't service them anymore, but they're razor-sharp and they actually sent the 'replacement' Mark IIs back because they drained the camera batteries much faster and weren't discernably better in terms of IQ.

But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?

 

[degos]

But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?

Yes, I guess it's another thing that can fail and make the lens inoperative. Plus there's a host of other circuitry in modern lenses.

I've never heard a 1DX ( might have been a Mark 2 ) with such an insane frame-rate as when he fired with the ancient 600, I wonder how much current the modern lenses draw in comparison.

 

[Khalai]

But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?

Yes, I guess it's another thing that can fail and make the lens inoperative. Plus there's a host of other circuitry in modern lenses.

I've never heard a 1DX ( might have been a Mark 2 ) with such an insane frame-rate as when he fired with the ancient 600, I wonder how much current the modern lenses draw in comparison.

Also, all new big white lenses are notábly lighter than predecessors, that might intrigue someone as well

 

[Steve Balcombe]

But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?

Yes, I guess it's another thing that can fail and make the lens inoperative. Plus there's a host of other circuitry in modern lenses.

But the old 300/2.8 has focus-by-wire - if that fails you have no way at all to focus. The IS versions have conventional ring USM so if AF fails you can still focus manually. And if IS fails you can normally still shoot without it.

This kind of discussion reminds me of conversations I used to have with people who ran very old cars. One justification was that when they broke down they could carry out running repairs at the roadside. Sure, I would say, but my modern car has never broken down...

 

[LonelyBoy]

But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?

Yes, I guess it's another thing that can fail and make the lens inoperative. Plus there's a host of other circuitry in modern lenses.

But the old 300/2.8 has focus-by-wire - if that fails you have no way at all to focus. The IS versions have conventional ring USM so if AF fails you can still focus manually. And if IS fails you can normally still shoot without it.

This kind of discussion reminds me of conversations I used to have with people who ran very old cars. One justification was that when they broke down they could carry out running repairs at the roadside. Sure, I would say, but my modern car has never broken down...

I've had the same argument about car windows, manual vs powered. No matter how reliable power windows are (mine have never failed, including a VW), I know people who rant about manufacturers "forcing" them to buy "another thing that fails". Nevermind that my old Civic had its driver's side manual window fail...

 

[Loswr]

I've had the same argument about car windows, manual vs powered. No matter how reliable power windows are (mine have never failed, including a VW), I know people who rant about manufacturers "forcing" them to buy "another thing that fails". Nevermind that my old Civic had its driver's side manual window fail...

Yeah, but you could just pull off the door panel, and use some duct tape and a paperclip to fix that Civic roll-up. Try that with a power window...

8)

 

[RGF]

The 600/4 DO seems likely. Nikon recently launched an 800/5.6 lens, so I could see the possibliity of a 800/5.6 II from Canon.

But who knows...maybe they'll surprise us with something novel. How about a 400-800mm f/5.6L + 1.4x TC, modeled on the 200-400/4+1.4x?

if they came up with a 400-800 zoom, based upon the 200-400 zoom, I think they would make it F8. The 200-400 was a stop slower than the fast prime at the long end. Think Canon would do that again to avoid make the lens a monster.

 

[RGF]

600 f/4 IS w/1.4X TC built in. Or better, dual select-able 1.4X TC's built in.

Interesting point. Do you think Canon will introduce a new lens (has to be a great white, probably due to size constraints) with a built in 1.4 converter?

 

[RGF]

If they come out with the 600 DO F4 with first ships in early January I will grab one for a trip to Africa. Would be nice to reduce the weight and size of my bag.

 

[Loswr]

The 600/4 DO seems likely. Nikon recently launched an 800/5.6 lens, so I could see the possibliity of a 800/5.6 II from Canon.

But who knows...maybe they'll surprise us with something novel. How about a 400-800mm f/5.6L + 1.4x TC, modeled on the 200-400/4+1.4x?

if they came up with a 400-800 zoom, based upon the 200-400 zoom, I think they would make it F8. The 200-400 was a stop slower than the fast prime at the long end. Think Canon would do that again to avoid make the lens a monster.

That would have to be 400-800 without a built in TC, so not really based on the 200-400. It would already a bit of a stretch for Canon to release a native f/8 dSLR lens (built in TC means 'native'), but I can see it happening now that bodies even down to the xxD line have f/8 AF points across the frame. But I highly doubt that Canon would release a lens with a native f/11, unable to autofocus (except for live view) on any current Canon dSLR. I suppose it would be possible after Canon switches over entirely to mirrorless (which might happen sometime before we catch up with Buck Rogers).

 

[Sharlin]

It would already a bit of a stretch for Canon to release a native f/8 dSLR lens (built in TC means 'native'), but I can see it happening now that bodies even down to the xxD line have f/8 AF points across the frame.

Down to the xxxD line, even! The T7i/800D inherited the f/8 capability of the 80D.