Come on canon, make a production model EF1200mm f/5.6 IS USM L!

[Fast Glass]

How many would like to see a production model EF1200mm f/5.6 IS USM L with reworked optics, and of coursea more resonable price tag. Could be a bit lighter to.


Ihave a Minolta 600mm f/6.3and usealmost exclusively with a 2X extender.I would love to see a new 1200mm L.

[jeffersonposter]

Would have to be DO glass to be much lighter, but would still cost as much as a BMW M3 and would be tripod only even with IS. Intriging thought though. How bout it Canon!


JeffersonPoster

[mpphoto12]

To be honest, i dont think its necessary. Even with a new model of the lens, how much cheaper could they make it? Not Much. So i dont think there is a high demand for it. MOst people use the 800 5.6 more often due to IS and eve nthen its a beast and too much length. I see it as obnoxious and too big to be a lens. Its more of a telescope to me. I think canon should work on making more lenses such as maybe a 120-300 2.8 like sigmas. or maybe a new lens like a 70-300 2.8. That would be cool becasue it might be expensive but it is reasonable and do-able for sure.


--Matt

[Fast Glass]

I thought too that 1200mm was not necessary, at least for themost of us. Until I tried my hand at small bird photography! You can almost never have to much focal length!


As for cost, they could make it a lot cheaper. The only reason they charged so much for the 1200mm is because it was made on demand, Sigma makes a 200mm-500mm zoom which is far more complicated to design and make and they can sell it for $29,000. I think iftheyintroduced a production model they could sell it for something around what the Sigma costs.

[powers_brent]

The only reason they charged so much for the 1200mm is because it was made on demand





It is made on demand because the flourite crystals take so long to grow. A whole year right?

[crosbyharbison]

Photographers should get that "grow your own crystals" kit they had when I was a kid, wait a year, then ship them to canon to refine. Should be a whole lot cheaper, right?

[Daniel Browning]

As long as we're dreaming, I'd like an 800mm f/11 IS MF (manual focus) for $2,000.

[LoneSierra]

As long as we're dreaming, I'd like an 800mm f/11 IS MF (manual focus) for $2,000.









And I'd like a 10-500mm 1.8....how about it!? [:P]

[Jon Ruyle]

And I'd like a 10-500mm 1.8....how about it!? /emoticons/emotion-4.gif


I'm not interested unless it has IS and costs under $2000.



As long as we're dreaming, I'd like an 800mm f/11 IS MF (manual focus) for $2,000.


As I'm sure you're aware, Daniel, one can buy refracting telescopes with specs not too different from that (sans IS, of course) for far less than $2000. (I just bought a 750mm f/9.4 for $399)


Of course forget hand holding. And they tend not to have enough travel to be useful for stuff that isn't far away.


I agree with you. It would be nice to have a long slow IS lens made to work with my camera.

[Bob]

WHY!


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 6pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 6pt;"]


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 11pt;"]Buy a 800mm and crop the image to 1200mm, less cost, lessweight and better optics.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

[Jon Ruyle]

Buy a 800mm and crop the image to 1200mm, less cost, lessweight and better optics.


Good point. In fact, canon should just throw out its entire telephoto lineup. People who want reach are obviously best served by just buying a 50mm lens and cropping.

[Fast Glass]

Good point. In fact, canon should just throw out its entire telephoto lineup. People who want reach are obviously best served by just buying a 50mm lens and cropping.






<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Ha,Ha!! I'v done that!!

[Benjamin]

Nice idea! Just one tiny little thing that comes in the way - how much would it be?


If for $3,000, sure, I'll get it even I don't need it at all. But if it's comes at a price which you can easily buy a little house, then NO, completely not necessary.

[Fast Glass]

Nice idea! Just one tiny little thing that comes in the way - how much would it be?


If for $3,000, sure, I'll get it even I don't need it at all. But if it's comes at a price which you can easily buy a little house, then NO, completely not necessary.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






I was thinking something more like $30,000.

[Benjamin]

I was thinking something more like $30,000.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Yeah, maybe a little house is too much. But the one ("http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116642-USA/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html) right now selling at B&amp;H used is a wholly $120,000!!![:|] I just can't think of any circumstance that I might confront to thirst for this lens as much as I would pay $120,000 for it - not even if I were a multi-millionaire. Considering the rather ridiculous price, there're surely better alternatives. i.g. getting the 800/5.6L IS lens for free in conparison, add a 1.4x converter results in almost the same focal length and it remains AF on 1 series bodies. Buying a 600/4L IS and add 2x concerter results in exactly the same focal length and AF on 1 series bodies, IQ may suffer though but still, can't imagine the difference to be worth $100,000...

[ShutterbugJohan]

That would be cool; maybe they could also develop a 500/5.6L IS USM as a low-cost wideangle lens. :-)

[Fast Glass]

I was thinking something more like $30,000.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>





Yeah, maybe a little house is too much. But the one ("http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116642-USA/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html) right now selling at B&amp;H used is a wholly $120,000!!!/emoticons/emotion-8.gif I just can't think of any circumstance that I might confront to thirst for this lens as much as I would pay $120,000 for it - not even if I were a multi-millionaire. Considering the rather ridiculous price, there're surely better alternatives. i.g. getting the 800/5.6L IS lens for free in conparison, add a 1.4x converter results in almost the same focal length and it remains AF on 1 series bodies. Buying a 600/4L IS and add 2x concerter results in exactly the same focal length and AF on 1 series bodies, IQ may suffer though but still, can't imagine the difference to be worth $100,000...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



$120,000 is totally unjustifiable. $30,000 is still extremely expensive, but, if youneed the ultimate reach it is still not totally ridiculus! What I would like to see is Canon introduce it for $30,000 and get pro's buying it and then lower the price to mabye $15,000.

[cian3307]

And I'd like a 10-500mm 1.8....how about it!? /emoticons/emotion-4.gif
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



It would of course have to have IS, weigh less than 500gand cost less than $1,000 before I'd be interested[;)]





Oh, and throw in weather sealing as well.........

[Bob]

Jon,


They call it a non 1D body = 800mm goes to a 1280mm

[Jon Ruyle]

Jon,


They call it a non 1D body = 800mm goes to a 1280mm





Sorry for being so obtuse [^o)], but I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

[powers_brent]

Jon,


They call it a non 1D body = 800mm goes to a 1280mm





Sorry for being so obtuse /emoticons/emotion-40.gif, but I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.









<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>









1.6 Crop factor

[Jon Ruyle]

I understood that you were saying *something* about crop factor.


It almost sounds as if you are asserting that because the 1200mm is about 1.6 times as long as the 800, it is redundant. (I don't really think you mean this, though... because by the same argument, almost all of Canon's lenses are redundant).


?

[Bob]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Hi Jon,<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]No not redundant, but would I own a 400mm, a 500mm and a 600mm lens?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] <o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]No, I would crop the 400mm to get the field of view up to 600mm and maybe 800mm depending what I was going to do with the photo and how much resolution I needed for the details in the image.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]If you have a 21mp body and crop its image by &frac14;, (for example, a 200mm lens&rsquo; image cropped to 400mm), the resulting image would be 5.25mp.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Not bad for a small photo &ndash; less or equal to 8X10 inches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The point is the lens has to have enough difference in the field of view, or some other property, to provide value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] A $120K vs. an $8K lens needs to give the photographer more of an advantage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Most of these large lenses are used by photographers who are stationary for long periods of time, taking mages in a very fixed field of view &ndash; photographing third base action from the first base line, etc. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]These kind of photos usually get printed anywhere from 75dpi (news print) to 150dpi (magazine / books), so resolution is not the greatest.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Cropping an 800mm to 1200mm is not 2x as in my example above, but about 1.5x.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] So you could get a 7mp to 8mp image and save the cost, weight and the hassle of transporting the larger lens around.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]So who would by this large lens beside the Canon marketing department? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]I&rsquo;m sure there are a few who would.<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"]<o:p></o:p>

[alexniedra]

would I own a 400mm, a 500mm and a 600mm lens?


No, you would crop - just like you said. But the working professional (most of the time) does not have the time to crop his or her images to the desired "focal length". When sports photographers are working on deadline, their editors are not going to crop their images to get added reach - It wastes precious time. For many pros, getting the (great) shot right out of the camera is paramount.


But, I know what you mean.



So who would by this large lens beside the Canon marketing department?


Good question. But I'll try to provide an answer. Sports Illustrated owns too copies. A $240,000 investment in optics? [H]


James Jannard, founder of Oakley and RED Digital Cinema owns a copy as well. Canon Professional Services owns one too.


- Alex

[Fast Glass]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Hi Jon,
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]<span style="font-size: small;"]No not redundant, but would I own a 400mm, a 500mm and a 600mm lens?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]<span style="font-size: small;"]No, I would crop the 400mm to get the field of view up to 600mm and maybe 800mm depending what I was going to do with the photo and how much resolution I needed for the details in the image.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]<span style="font-size: small;"]If you have a 21mp body and crop its image by &frac14;, (for example, a 200mm lens&rsquo; image cropped to 400mm), the resulting image would be 5.25mp.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] Not bad for a small photo &ndash; less or equal to 8X10 inches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] The point is the lens has to have enough difference in the field of view, or some other property, to provide value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] A $120K vs. an $8K lens needs to give the photographer more of an advantage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] Most of these large lenses are used by photographers who are stationary for long periods of time, taking mages in a very fixed field of view &ndash; photographing third base action from the first base line, etc. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"]These kind of photos usually get printed anywhere from 75dpi (news print) to 150dpi (magazine / books), so resolution is not the greatest.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]<span style="font-size: small;"]Cropping an 800mm to 1200mm is not 2x as in my example above, but about 1.5x.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"] So you could get a 7mp to 8mp image and save the cost, weight and the hassle of transporting the larger lens around.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]<span style="font-size: small;"]So who would by this large lens beside the Canon marketing department? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"]I&rsquo;m sure there are a few who would.<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I hate to crop my images not so much because of the IQ loss, but for the optical compression andDOFis not the same. I have used 600mm with 2x with a 1.6 to give me 1920mm! This may sound like a ton of mm's but it is amazing how quickly it shrinks in small bird fotography! To give you an idea, 1920mm allows you to stay about 15' away from small bird and fill up the frame. I personallyprefer the 35mm DOF, but there are times Ineed to crop then I reach for the 1.6 crop body.There are other uses like the Olympics, many times you just can't get closer and even with a 1.6 crop body andyou stillmight not have enough focal length. Or just for the super flat compression. I also like touse 1200mm's in macro for the tremedous isolating power of 1200mm.The use of 1200mm's is legit, just not worth $120,000!


SOOOOOO, with that out of the way. How many would like to see Canon release a new and inproved 1200mm lens?

[alexniedra]

How many would like to see Canon release a new and inproved 1200mm lens?



Good question. I guess it would be cool, but...


I don't think it's going to pull through. There's just too much of a risk for Canon if they offer such a costly lens in regular production. They have to grow a lot of fluorite to make such a lens, and if nobody (or few people) buys one, Canon would be in trouble.


If they were to develop a new 1200, I believe that it would still be produced on a per-order basis.

[Fast Glass]

How many would like to see Canon release a new and inproved 1200mm lens?



Good question. I guess it would be cool, but...


I don't think it's going to pull through. There's just too much of a risk for Canon if they offer such a costly lens in regular production. They have to grow a lot of fluorite to make such a lens, and if nobody (or few people) buys one, Canon would be in trouble.


If they were to develop a new 1200, I believe that it would still be produced on a per-order basis.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



The problem isn't the Fluorite. When Canon made the 1200mm for $99,000 they maxed out or nearly maxed out the production. If you calculate how long the1200mmwas in production, how manypeople own it and the18 month turnaround. You will find that they maxed out there production line +- a couple of people, who chances are also bought it. Anyone who is seriously considered buying a 800mm L for $11,000would also seriously consider a 1200mm Lfor $15,000. I'm sure Bryan would be tempted by it as well!


How many people would like to see Canon introduce a EF 1200mm f/5.6 IS USM L for $15,000?

[Jon Ruyle]

How many people would like to see Canon introduce a EF 1200mm f/5.6 IS USM L for $15,000?


Even I would buy it at that price (in a heartbeat) if it had decent color correction, and maybe even if it didn't.


But I've never heard of a fast fluorite 8" lens for anything near that cheap. Even slow 8" lenses- with cheaper glass and inferior color correction- can be over $20K.

[peety3]

How many would like to see a production model EF1200mm f/5.6 IS USM L with reworked optics, and of coursea more resonable price tag. Could be a bit lighter to.





You want what? They only sold &lt;100 of them the first time around. The economy is tanked, and they've shelved (though more recently resumed) a factory. And now you want them to design something lighter, with more optics in the middle (IS), with refreshed optics, and yet you want it cheaper than the last one? Meanwhile, every lens that seems to have been updated/refreshed lately has a much bigger price tag.

[Fast Glass]

It's something called mass-production. It's very easly done if they mass produce it. The only reason they charged $99,000 for the old1200mm is because they could, not because it cost them $80,000 to make. Flourite is grown, there not paying someone $65 an hour for ayear to make it. When they makeflourite for there other lens they make thousands of them at a time,because they don't grow overnighteither. All they have to do is let some moreFlourite grow for a longer period of time, just more than one at a time.They never did sell anything close to 100 1200mm lenses,theyhad an 18 month turnaround for life of it's production they wouldn't have madenearly 100 lenses. It's not an absurd idea at all to make a lens like that, my guess is that they probablly would sell more 1200mm's lenses than 800mm's lenses for that price.

[peety3]

Fine, let's say they mass-produce this supposed lens. What's the rent on the warehouse where they grow thousands of 8" fluorite lenses? What's the quality-control rejection rate on such a large lens? What's the amortized cost of the huge polishing machinery, given the amount of time the machine will need to polish such a large element to the proper specifications? How many other lenses could they turn out in the same amount of time if they're manufacturing more mainline lenses?


Enough from me, don't let me discourage you from contacting Canon and asking them to make this lens.

[Fast Glass]

I respect your opinion, you have some verygood points. But it's very possible. All it take is enough people wanta 1200mm lens.

[Bob]

It's something called mass-production. It's very easly done if they mass produce it. The only reason they charged $99,000 for the old1200mm is because they could, not because it cost them $80,000 to make. Flourite is grown, there not paying someone $65 an hour for ayear to make it. When they makeflourite for there other lens they make thousands of them at a time,because they don't grow overnighteither. All they have to do is let some moreFlourite grow for a longer period of time, just more than one at a time.They never did sell anything close to 100 1200mm lenses,theyhad an 18 month turnaround for life of it's production they wouldn't have madenearly 100 lenses. It's not an absurd idea at all to make a lens like that, my guess is that they probablly would sell more 1200mm's lenses than 800mm's lenses for that price.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Fast Glass,


How do you know how much it cost Canon to make a lens, how much they pay their employees,and theircycle time for this lens?

[Fast Glass]

Canonsaid that its a 18 month turnaround. I was just giving a thipothetical example if they mass-produce it they could reduce the cost. If I have insulted anyone, I opolagize.

[Colin]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that mass production would make it cheaper. However, it only reduces their cost per unit. That would mean that they could sell it for less and make more money IF that lower cost meant higher sales.


But, if they mass produce it, how much cheaper can they make it, and if they make it that much cheaper, how many more units are they going to sell?


Let's say that they REALLY make a lot of them, and they can get the sales price at the end user side down to $30k. How many people are going to buy a $30k lens that is utterly useless for the majority of photography applications due to it's physical dimensions, weight, and narrow focal length? My guess is, the same people/companies that buy the $90,000, because it's either cost-no-object application-specific purchases, or cost-no-object, affluent novelty collection purchases. It's kind of a neat unit to have, if you've got the space, and the budget, for a sliver of applications, but really, not very practical.


Seriously, i'd invest in a setup that would allow me to attach my camera to a decent telescope before i'd spend the same money on that product. I can't claim to know what others would do, but that's my opinion [:)]