Canon Releases Six New L-Series EF Lenses and Two New Extenders

Pretty exciting news!!


http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Press-Release/Canon-2010-Summer-Lens-Announcement.aspx





http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0 901e024801e8289


Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM lens


Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens


Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens


Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens


Canon Extender EF 1.4x III & Canon Extender EF 2x III





Canon also to exhibit two new Super-Telephoto lenses:


EF 500mm F/4L IS II USM and


EF 600mm F/4L IS II USM are being developed


http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug26e.html





Rich

I'm not sure whether to be happy or sad. I've just recently purchased a 300mm f/2.8 and both extenders. On the bright side I've got a great lens at 60% of the listed retail for the new version, but this is the second time I've purchased an expensive lens only to find it updated within a year.


Looking forward to any review of the Canon Extender EF 2x III to see if image quality is in any way improved, that may be a worthwhile upgrade.

I did the same thing, I purchased my 300mm f/2.8L IS and both extenders a few months ago.

No EF- 24-70mm f/2.8L IS yet or 1Ds MkIV, maybe there will be more announcements?





Well.., Here's the new lineup:


http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup





Rich

Time to start saving for the 500mm F/4L IS II USM, hopefully by the time I get there Canon aren't ready to release version III.

Rich, forget about the new 300mm 2.8 II, it will be selling for about $7000!!!, I'm not excited about those new lenses, I feel sad because they are too xxxx expensive[:(]

I know, it's not even going to be feasible to upgrade. [:(]

That's why I'm not too disappointed I purchased when I did.

Good Point! I guess that means that it will hold it's value better!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfnz

That's why I'm not too disappointed I purchased when I did.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

as a 300mm 2.8 IS I owner too, I am not disappointed at all, the 400mm 2.8 II will be selling for about $10000 plus, then how much is it going to be for the 600mm 4.0 IS II? $20000? that's just too much for most of the people, I remember Daniel said adding new features helps reduce camera's price, but not glasses, sad.

(as I said in a different forum)


Does anyone see the irony? They announced these lenses along with the 60D. So, here's a plastic low-ish end body. And here are 6, no make them 8, lenses that most folks who will buy said body will never be able to afford.


Eh? [*-)]


Tony

It's really 6 Lenses with 2 Extenders.


Where's the new Flagship Full Frame Body; 1Ds MKIV ? What's it going to cost, $8000?


I think they will make a big splash with more announcements before Photokina.





Rich

I am pretty excited about the 70-300 mm f4.0-5.6 IS. I've been seriously considering buying the 70-200 mm f/4 IS. If the IQ is similar,the extra 100 mm for a few hundred dollars may be a bargin. And I was also looking at both extenders. Can't wait for the reviews and actual price points on all of these. If nothing else, maybe the prices of the 70-200 f4 IS/extenders (mrk II) will come down.


I am disappointed that there weren't any new consumer/prosumer primes released. I had read rumors that the35 mm f/2 or the 50 f1.4would be updated, potentially with IS. I would have considered both of those.


As for the300/400/500/600 primes just released....the list of things I would buy if I ever won the lottery just expanded. Too bad, I don't even play the lottery. [:P]

Wow - that's quite a few lenses! But I'm really not at all wow-ed by these additions to the lineup. [:(]


The 8-15mm fisheye zoom? The fisheye look has it's place, sure - but that place isn't worth a $1400 spot in my camera bag.


The new 300mm and 400mm primes are nice, sure. But the original versions were steeply priced, these even more so.


The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is potentially the most interesting of the lineup, but franklyI'm pretty thoroughly<span class="bbc_u"]unimpressed by this new lens. It's only 24% shorter and 24% lighter than the 100-400mm L, and gives up 100mm on the long end - and I think most people buy the 100-400mm for the long end. Yes, it has better IS than the 100-400mm. But not a faster aperture, and unfortunately it's still variable aperture - a 70-300mm or even 100-300mm with a constant f/4 would have been better. I changed out my 300mm f/4L IS for the 100-400mm because I wanted the extra 100mm. The 100-400mm is relatively large/heavy, so I got the 70-300mm DO for times when carrying the 100-400mm isn't practical. I've got $2K just waiting to be spent on a new lens, but I see absolutely no need for this 70-300 L - if I'm going to give up 100mm on the long end for portability and convenience, a 24% savings in size/weight isn't worth it when I can save nearly 50% in size/weight with the 70-300 DO.



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I am pretty excited about the 70-300 mm f4.0-5.6 IS. I've been seriously considering buying the 70-200 mm f/4 IS. If the IQ is similar,the extra 100 mm for a few hundred dollars may be a bargin. And I was also looking at both extenders

---

Keep in mind that you're getting 100mm but your losing a stop of light, going from f/4 to f/5.6. An f/5.6 apertureat the long end means if you add one of those new extenders (or an old one) to this new 70-300mm L, you will lose autofocus capability unless you have a 1-series body (and even a 1-series body will not AF with this new 70-300mm L + 2x Extender, since that will be f/11 at the long end).


The new extenders, hmmmm... The possible bright spot for me in these announcements is an optically improved 2x III Extender - I'll wait until Bryan gets one in his hands and tests it with the 70-200mm II. The 100-400mm is optically superior to the 70-200 II + 2x II Extender, but if the 70-200mm II + 2x III is optically equal to the 100-400mm that would give a weather-sealed 140-400mm f/5.6 with 4-stop IS (well worth losing 2/3 of a stop at the short end).
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is potentially the most interesting of the lineup, but franklyI'm pretty thoroughly<span class="bbc_u"]unimpressed by this new lens. It's only 24% shorter and 24% lighter than the 100-400mm L, and gives up 100mm on the long end - and I think most people buy the 100-400mm for the long end. Yes, it has better IS than the 100-400mm. But not a faster aperture, and unfortunately it's still variable aperture - a 70-300mm or even 100-300mm with a constant f/4 would have been better. I changed out my 300mm f/4L IS for the 100-400mm because I wanted the extra 100mm. The 100-400mm is relatively large/heavy, so I got the 70-300mm DO for times when carrying the 100-400mm isn't practical. I've got $2K just waiting to be spent on a new lens, but I see absolutely no need for this 70-300 L - if I'm going to give up 100mm on the long end for portability and convenience, a 24% savings in size/weight isn't worth it when I can save nearly 50% in size/weight with the 70-300 DO.


This lens is intriging to me and it will come down to image quality. I think this announcement pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for DO technology. Canon does not seem to be pursuing it anymore and that is probably due to all of the negative things written about it over the last few years. If I can get better IQ without the necessary post processing required from the 70-300 DO I am going for it. Holding off on buying the DO will have been a good thing for me. For outdoor shooting at 300, f/5.6 is fine. I can't see myself needing 300 indoors anyways. I own a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and use it mostly for indoor sports because outside as a walk around lens it is too heavy. I welcome the size and weight reduction of this new lens. But again it is going to come down to IQ so I can't wait to see some samples.


Tom
<div>






</div>



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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

I think this announcement pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for DO technology.

---

I'm not sure on that one -DO lenses are niche lenses, intended for those for whom size/weight are a premium worth sacrifices (in terms of money or IQ). This new 70-300mm L is 43% longer and 46% heavier than the 70-300mm DO - so the 'need' for the smaller/lighter DO lens is still there.


About 8 months ago, Canon filed patents on a 300mm f/2.8 and a 400mm f/4 with a pair of DO elements in each lens. Patents are not necessarily indications that such lenses will be produced, but it's clear that Canon is still doing R&amp;D for DO lenses.



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

I welcome the size and weight reduction of this new lens. But again it is going to come down to IQ so I can't wait to see some samples.

---

That's a great point - the 70-200mm II @ 100-200mm has significantly better IQ than the 100-400mm @ 100-200mm. If the new 70-300mm L has a similar margin of improvement throughout the overlap with the 100-400mm, that would make it more attractive. The new 70-300mm is an interesting lens, especially compared to the 70-300mm non-DO - but personally, not that attractive to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

For outdoor shooting at 300, f/5.6 is fine. I can't see myself needing 300 indoors anyways.

---

</div>


It usually is, yes. And 300mm indoors, especially on a crop body - not too useful. But for nature shooting, 300mm isn't usually long enough - my 100-400mm is often zoomed out to the long end, and even then I often want more reach. When I bring the 70-300 DO, I'm already compromising on focal length and IQ for size/weight convenience, so even if this new lens isn't a compromise on IQ it's still a compromise on focal length and I'm not gaining nearly as much convenience.

Yawn....

Maybe this will lower the price of the current 300mm 2.8. I love the lens and never want to take it back when I rent it... Maybe it'll make the market at bit better for us cheapies [:)]

Dang, Canon is working hard to keep Brian busy with the reviews. They must have been jealous that he started reviewing Nikon too.


Ahh, college kid budget. I'll be sticking with craigslist and all the trust worthy sellers on these forums for my lens purchases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

I think this announcement pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for DO technology.

---

I'm not sure on that one -DO lenses are niche lenses, intended for those for whom size/weight are a premium worth sacrifices (in terms of money or IQ). This new 70-300mm L is 43% longer and 46% heavier than the 70-300mm DO - so the 'need' for the smaller/lighter DO lens is still there.


Once extended to 300mm its about the same length. Looks like the new one does not need to extend.


About 8 months ago, Canon filed patents on a 300mm f/2.8 and a 400mm f/4 with a pair of DO elements in each lens. Patents are not necessarily indications that such lenses will be produced, but it's clear that Canon is still doing R&amp;D for DO lenses.


My point is that what was announced does not include DO. How much longer are we willing to wait for better DO. At this rate it will be 6-8 years sinceinitial release.
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

I welcome the size and weight reduction of this new lens. But again it is going to come down to IQ so I can't wait to see some samples.

---

The new 70-300mm is an interesting lens, especially compared to the 70-300mm non-DO - but personally, not that attractive to me.


If I just bought a 70-300 DO I might agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

For outdoor shooting at 300, f/5.6 is fine. I can't see myself needing 300 indoors anyways.

---

</div>


It usually is, yes. And 300mm indoors, especially on a crop body - not too useful. But for nature shooting, 300mm isn't usually long enough - my 100-400mm is often zoomed out to the long end, and even then I often want more reach. When I bring the 70-300 DO, I'm already compromising on focal length and IQ for size/weight convenience, so even if this new lens isn't a compromise on IQ it's still a compromise on focal length and I'm not gaining nearly as much convenience.


If you mean wildlife than we really need 500-600 minimum because nothing is really long enough. I don't think this lens isintended to compete at that level.


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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I am pretty excited about the 70-300 mm f4.0-5.6 IS. I've been seriously considering buying the 70-200 mm f/4 IS. If the IQ is similar,the extra 100 mm for a few hundred dollars may be a bargin. And I was also looking at both extenders

---

<div>


Keep in mind that you're getting 100mm but your losing a stop of light, going from f/4 to f/5.6. An f/5.6 apertureat the long end means if you add one of those new extenders (or an old one) to this new 70-300mm L, you will lose autofocus capability unless you have a 1-series body (and even a 1-series body will not AF with this new 70-300mm L + 2x Extender, since that will be f/11 at the long end).



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

---

I definitely willbe looking at what range that is f/4 and what range is f/5.6.The70-300 Lis also 1 lb lighter than the 100-400, but ~0.75 lb heavier than the 70-200 f/4. It is short and somewhat stumpy, but, if I am readingthe MTF chartscorrectly, the optics should be very good (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300_f_4_5_6l_is_usm#Overview). I had been planning to get a 70-200 f/4 this year and then start saving for a 100-400....this could be a nice compromise.


I have a 7D, could you explain the extenders not working at certain apertures?
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

When I bring the 70-300 DO, I'm already compromising on focal length and IQ for size/weight convenience, so even if this new lens isn't a compromise on IQ it's still a compromise on focal length and I'm not gaining nearly as much convenience.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

It'll be interesting to seehow much better the new 70-300mm Lwill be over the 70-300 DO in terms of IQ. Since Canon slaps the L lable on the new 70-300, it should be better than the DO. But would it be better enough to justify the size, weight and price increase over the DO is another question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodger

Ahh, college kid budget. I'll be sticking with craigslist and all the trust worthy sellers on these forums for my lens purchases.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Good idea. Sooooo anybody want to sell their 300mm f2.8 for like 1000$? [:d] haha

Ok the announcment says "The EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens carries on this tradition with improved image quality, lighter weight, improved Image Stabilization and enhanced durability"


My 300mmF2.8l and 500mmF4.l are both razor sharp now. Is there going to be another level of sharpness and qualitythat we can expect? Will my fingers bleed when I pickup these lens because they have gotten to sharp?Lighter weight would be welcome but for a few thousand dollars I can deal with an extra pound.


The extenders look the most interesting. I wouldn't mind an extedner upgrade if itimproves quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodger

Ahh, college kid budget. I'll be sticking with craigslist and all the trust worthy sellers on these forums for my lens purchases.

---

Ditto! But seriously, you can't beat great savings from trustworthy, reputable resellers on Craigslist. I'm saving tons of money over retail stores in Toronto by purchasing used. [:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The 8-15mm fisheye zoom? The fisheye look has it's place, sure - but that place isn't worth a $1400 spot in my camera bag.

---

Yeah, fisheye is definitely an in-your-face effect. Most would say to use it sparingly. [:D] I've been thinking about getting one for starry timelapse videos (to complement the 24mm f/1.4 II).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

It's only 24% shorter and 24% lighter than the 100-400mm L, and gives up 100mm on the long end - and I think most people buy the 100-400mm for the long end.

---

I definitely would have preferred a new version of the 100-400. Even more, I would have liked to see a 500mm f/5.6 L IS for around $2,500. But Canon doesn't seem to tailor lenses to my specific tastes and budget. [:D]



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darklord

It'll be interesting to seehow much better the new 70-300mm Lwill be over the 70-300 DO in terms of IQ.

---

To me, there isn't really any comparison. The way I see it, the 70-300 DO answers this question: "What is the sharpest, highest quality telezoom I get in four inches and one and a half pounds, no matter the cost?" There are already many lenses that are both cheaper and higher quality, but none that fit the size/weight profile.


Like the others, I am really curious about how the new 70-300 will compare to the 70-200 f/4 L IS. If it stays around f/4 at 200mm, and the image quality is comparable (especially resolution and bokeh, I can live with a bit more distortion), I'll definitely buy it: it would be worth the extra weight and cost to me.
</div>

Wow I read this on another site and my attention went straight to the 70-300L. (Mostly because the rest is way out of budget-range probably)


I always thought the 100-400 was going to be my first purchase in the future, but now I'm really wondering.


The new 70-300:


I hope it's as sharp and good as the latest new L-lenses. We'll have to see.


It's weathersealed which is a big plus.


It's fairly small, which helps with stabilizing it. The length of the 100-400 makes it a pretty long swing if you're following an airplane at 400mm.


It's internal focus and zoom, I don't know but I just like the look and handling a lot.


4-stops image stabilizer, very nice!


0.21x magnification which is not that bad.


I hope it will not be too expensive. Somewhere around the 100-400 price? [A]



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is potentially the most interesting of the lineup, but franklyI'm pretty thoroughly<span class="bbc_u"]unimpressed by this new lens

---

I would be too if I had just bought the DO version [:P]



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I can save nearly 50% in size/weight with the 70-300 DO.

---

Isn't the new 70-300L smaller than the 70-300 DO fully extended?? [A]


Anyway, pretty big updates!


To be honest the 60D doesn't really blow my mind. Too much consumer functions which I probably would not need. And for the price/specifications ratio I'd rather have the 7D.


A fish-eye zoom is a nice idea, however spending big money on a fish-eye...hmmm [^o)]


Jan
</div>



</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I hope it will not be too expensive. Somewhere around the 100-400 price? [img]/emoticons/emotion-13.gif[/img]



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

---

Looks like ~$1,500 released in late October (bottom of the write up on it on this link). I wonder what it will be going for on amazon, etc..


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Press-Release/Canon-2010-Summer-Lens-Announcement.aspx

If that's true, it's very promising. Now I'm really interested in some reviewing [:P]

When I first read about this this morning, I was alittle disappointed. I was expecting an entirely different announcement coming our way like a 135mm IS or an updated 100-400mmor 35mm. So, originally I thought the only thing that looks good to me are the updated extenders.


Now that I've had time for the wheels to turn a bit ...I'm wondering if it would be worth my ditching my 100-400mm &amp; 70-200 f/4 IS along with my 1.4ex II and just go with thenewCanon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM &amp; the new 1.4ex III and/or 2x III (?) I guess this announcement gave me more to think about than I initially realized! It will be interesting to see the reviews when they come out.

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM &amp; the new 1.4ex III and/or 2x III (?

---

Unless you have a 1-series body, the AF will not work with the extenders on this lens.


I guess most of the people who love the rumors are bummed that there isn't a 24-70 f2.8L IS for the 3rd or 4th year in row [:P] Especially since rumors were getting much more "truthful" and "reliable" [A]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

If you mean wildlife than we really need 500-600 minimum because nothing is really long enough. I don't think this lens isintended to compete at that level.

---

Certainly it's not intended to compete with 500mm and 600mm supertele primes. But, given that 400mm is the longest Canon lens obtainable for less than $4K, and given the new 70-300mm L's price, I'd say it is intended for a market with a high degree of overlap with the 100-400mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

If I just bought a 70-300 DO I might agree.

---

Good point. But then, I paid little enough for it that I can sell it with no loss and probably a profit. That, plus the fact that I've got around $2K in cash just waiting for the right lens to come along, means if I wanted to buy this new lens that really wouldn't stop me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

Once extended to 300mm its about the same length.

---

Sure, the DO lens extends ~2.25" for a fully-extneded length of ~6.25". But as I stated previously, it's not the extended length that matters to me - it's the length of the lens in the bag when not in use - just 4" for the DO - that matters.



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

if I am readingthe MTF chartscorrectly, the optics should be very good

---

</div>





Yes, looking at the MTF charts, this new 70-300mm L is very sharp, and seems to compare favorably to the 70-200mm II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

...could you explain the extenders not working at certain apertures?

---

It's not that extenders don't work at certain apertures - it's that autofocus doesn't work at certain apertures. The AF system in most Canon dSLR bodies requires a maximum lens aperture of f/5.6 for AF to work (except the 1-series, which can AF with an f/8 aperture). If you use a 1.4x extender with an f/5.6 lens, the maximum aperture becomes f/8 and AF doesn't work. The camera will 'know' that the aperture drops below f/5.6 at the long end and will thus not autofocus with an extender in place (unless certain pins on the extender are 'taped over' to trick the camera).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Wertman

Once extended to 300mm its about the same length. Looks like the new one does not need to extend.

---

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by <span>Sheiky

It's internal focus and zoom, I don't know but I just like the look and handling a lot.

---

</div>


Tom, Jan - where are you getting the information that this lens doesn't extend with zooming? Physically, it's 143mm in length - only 0.2mm different than the 70-300mm non-L/non-DO lens, which extends over 2" with zooming. The new 70-300mm is over an inch shorter than the non-extending 70-200mm f/4 lenses, and yet it has a 100mm longer focal length? I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I just don't buy that this new lens doesn't extend with zooming. It's internal focusing, yes. But I think it has to extend with zooming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Unless you have a 1-series body, the AF will not work with the extenders on this lens.

---

Has Canon stated that the extenders will work with this lens, at all?





I don't believe that I read anywhere that this new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is compatible with the extenders. Doesn't mean it won't be - currently as Bryan states, "As a rule, but subject to change, the compatible lenses include fixed focal length L lenses 135mm and longer, zoom L lenses at least 70mm on their wide end and Canon TS-E Tilt-Shift lenses." It depends on the physical configuration of the mount end of the lens, and whether or not there's room for the protruding optical element of the extender to fit into the back of the lens. I'll point out that the extenders do not fit into the back of the 70-300mm non-L lenses, and that the new 70-300mm L lens is the same physical length as the old 70-300mm non-DO, meaning a pretty compact design. Canon might have designed in room for the extender to fit, but since they'll know the new lens+1.4x won't AF on non-pro bodies, and the new lens+2x won't AF on any body, they might not have bothered (but conversely, they do specifically indicate that the 100-400mm is compatible with the extenders (albeit it has the same limitations on AF).
<div>Just like the zoom extension, we may be making a lot of unwarranted assumptions.</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Tom, Jan - where are you getting the information that this lens doesn't extend with zooming?

---

You're right, my imagination and drooling played a big role in saying this I think [:P] If I would look at the picture I would be tempted to say it as well, but indeed I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I just don't buy that this new lens doesn't extend with zooming.

---

I hope so too! I would love internal zooming on this lens. Perhaps extended zooming looks horrible on this one hihi [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

It's not that extenders don't work at certain apertures - it's that autofocus doesn't work at certain apertures. The AF system in most Canon dSLR bodies requires a maximum lens aperture of f/5.6 for AF to work (except the 1-series, which can AF with an f/8 aperture)

---

General question: Do you need to look at the absolute maximum aperture of a lens in this case? In other words, the 70-300 has f4 maximum so you could theoretically use it with an 1.4x extender on a non 1D series body? Or do you work with the f5.6 aperture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Unless you have a 1-series body, the AF will not work with the extenders on this lens.

---

Has Canon stated that the extenders will work with this lens, at all?

---

Man you're sharp this evening! [Y] Well Canon extenders perhaps not, but some of the third party extenders might work? Of course it's a question if you'd really want it.


We'll see John, but as you might have noticed, I'm very looking forward to see/hear more about this lens[;)]


Seeing that the 70-200 f2.8IS II already downed like 500 euros on the original price. I'm looking forward to this 1500 dollar beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

You're right, my imagination and drooling played a big role in saying this I think [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] If I would look at the picture I would be tempted to say it as well, but indeed I'm not sure.


I hope so too! I would love internal zooming on this lens. Perhaps extended zooming looks horrible on this one

---

Looking at the specs and the 143mm physical length makes me very doubtful that it's internal zoom. It's a rotating zoom, not a push-pull, but I think it's still going to extend.


Now, a black extension from a white barrel...I'm not sure about that... [:S]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I definitely would have preferred a new version of the 100-400. Even more, I would have liked to see a 500mm f/5.6 L IS for around $2,500. But Canon

---

I, too, would like to see a $2500 500 f/5.6. But I'm gonna say some stuff you probably already have thought of, Daniel.


As a telescope guy, I'm always thinking a slow lens with a given aperture should be cheaper than a fast one. But often with camera lenses, the reverse is true. I used to think this was just marketing or some other kind of silliness, but there may be more to it than that.


For telescopes, we expect resolution to be proportional to aperture (as it will be with roughly fixed rms error or strhel ratio etc, other things being equal). For camera lenses, we expect resolution to be proportional to focal length. Thus, an 800 f/5.6 is expected to have double the angular resolution of an 400 f/2.8 (ie, it must have far higher optical quality according to the kinds of metrics telescope people use).


In short, a 500 f/5.6 will be a very high quality lens with 90mm of aperture. If canon made one, it might cost more than $2500.


(Or maybe this is all hogwash, and Canon doesn't make a 500 f/5.6 because their marketresearchshows that no one but you and me would buy one [:)])

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Canon doesn't make a 500 f/5.6 because their marketresearchshows that no one but you and me would buy one

---

...and me makes three. Heck, I'd settle for a 400mm f/5.6 with 4-stop IS - they've already got a pretty sharp but aging 400mm f/5.6, so that's a low bar, right? Canon, are you listening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Heck, I'd settle for a 400mm f/5.6 with 4-stop IS

---

Dibs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

I used to think this was just marketing or some other kind of silliness, but there may be more to it than that.

---

Now that you mention it, I think my position on this was wrong all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

As a telescope guy, I'm always thinking a slow lens with a given aperture should be cheaper than a fast one. But often with camera lenses, the reverse is true. But often with camera lenses, the reverse is true.

---

Good point. There are a few exceptions, but they're not very heartening. For example, the 600mm f/4 costs only 8% more than the 400mm f/2.8 and has 10% more aperture area. So on the surface it seems like this is a case where longer/slower equals shorter/faster (I was clinging to it as a beacon of hope [:D]). But if you dig deeper, I don't think it is, becausethe 400mm is noticeably sharper at f/2.8 than the 600mm is at f/4 (in image space, not angular resolution, of course), at least according to Bryan's tests and Canon's MTF.


Maybe the reason is overall length. Telescopes can be much longer than photography lenses because they only have to sit in one place. You don't need to lug them around on a monopod or handheld. The length of the 800mm f/5.6 is only 120mm longer than the 400mm f/2.8, despite a difference of 400mm in focal length.


So maybe the sharpness/cost benefit of the slower f-number is entirely lost on all the extra effort (cost/aberration) required to reduce physical length. Or stated another way, the natural shortening benefit of faster f-numbers more than offsets it's sharpness/cost disadvantage.


I'll have to ask my lensmakeracquaintanceif this theory is true.

This is me, backpedaling a little after spending some time looking at the new 70-300mm L's MTF charts. [:$]


Got me thinking...it's not going to replace my 100-400mm, certainly. But, it's only 1.5" longer than the 70-300mm DO...my main issues with the old 70-300mm non-DO were build quality, and the L is a huge improvement there, with FTM and internal focusing, and of course weather-sealing.


Hmmm....