new super telephoto lenses???

[George Spiridakis]

Hello guys,


i have a question about the new telephoto lenses of Canon. Does anyone knows when Canon will produce it's new super telephoto lenses? (the new 300 f/2,8 400 f/2,8 400f/4 500 f/4 600 f/4). I am going to buy or at least i think to buy the EF 500 f/4 but some friends of mine told me that Canon will probably release the new lenses this summer. I don't want to spend so much money now and in a few months later the new lense to be released...


any help apreciate...

[alexniedra]

This is the way I (and many others) like to put it: The best lens is the one that's available to you now.


The current super telephoto lenses are simply outstanding in terms of their image quality. They are super sharp, all are very fast for their focal length, and they focus "just like that". You can't go wrong.



Think about it this way: If you were to wait until the "potential" release of new lenses, imagine all of the photo opportunities you will miss just to get an improvement over an already superb line of lenses.


I would suggest just going for it. The lenses you are considering are simply outstanding.

[neuroanatomist]

This guy "knows" everything.


Of course, there was a "take it to the bank, this one's for sure" statement about the forthcoming release of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lens. That was in February, 2009 as I recall. If you were waiting for that and didn't already have a good lens in that focal length range, you'd have missed a lot of shots by now!

[crosbyharbison]

If yourbusinesscan afford to wait 4 months I'd say go for it. IfSeptembercomes along and no new lens then I'd get the 500 then. If anything the new version will be $2000 more expensive and the older model will hold its value well. Just look at the 70-200 2.8 IS market.

[Fast Glass]

500mm f/4, why not the 600mm f/4? If I were to spend that much money I would get the best I could afford.


John.

[Brendan7]

500mm f/4 has better IQ. The 600mm is called the "backbreaker". A strong guy can actually hold the 500.

[alexniedra]

Yes, you're totally right - The 500mm is definitaly sharper wide open. Results become very similar when the 600mm is stopped down to f/5.6.


But, what I really think it comes down to is the focal length. I think that both lenses perform superbly, and those who need 500mm and f/4 will go with the 500mm, and those who need 600mm and f/4 will go for the 600mm. I don't think that the 500mm's optical performance is so impressive (relative to the 600mm) that it becomes the deal-breaker. It can definitaly sway your decision though.

[btaylor]

George as the other guys have said - the current crop of super telephoto primes Canon have to offer are simply outstanding - especially the 500mm f/4L IS. I think if it is updated it would obviously have some revised optics and more than likely the new gen image stabliser. Although most people would use such an enormous lens on a decent tripod so IS may not be a primary requirement for the 500 f/4.


Like the others, I say go for it. I'd LOVE to have the 500mm f/4.

Of course, there was a "take it to the bank, this one's for sure" statement about the forthcoming release of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lens. That was in February, 2009 as I recall. If you were waiting for that and didn't already have a good lens in that focal length range, you'd have missed a lot of shots by now!
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Put me in that boat... still waiting... still missing shots... still wishing I bought the 24-70 6 months ago... still in the same vicious cycle.


I just get so much benefit from IS that I'd really hate to buy a non-IS version and the new one come out soon after.


To George, do as I say not what I do. [:$]

[Tim]

From the ISO 12233 charts, the 400 f2.8 with the 1.4 converter is nearly identical to the 500 f4 in IQ, both wide open. If I had the money to spend, I'd get the 400 f2.8 and 1.4 TC, this gives you the absolute best sports lens plus an outstanding wildlife lens with or without the TC.

[Jon Ruyle]

I disagree. I think the 500 f/4 looks easily better than 400 x 1.4.


But heck, if that was true, what would be the point of the 500 f/4?