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

[neuroanatomist]

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?

[Mark Elberson]

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

Dibs!

[Daniel Browning]

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.

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 []). 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.

[neuroanatomist]

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....

[Tom Wertman]

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.

Sounds premature at this point since we have not had a chance to hold it, try it or even see some samples. For those of us who know you just bought the DO it also sounds a bit like sour grapes. Maybe not but that is how you come across.


I'm probably mistaken about not extending, although it would be nice. Good point, I read too fast.


I think DO is dead for a few reasons: 1) nothing in over 4 years from Canon or Nikon. 2) newest releases don't have it as of today. 3) smaller sensor development with higher resolution over the past 4 years may have killed it alone because I think they would highlight its shortcomings regarding IQ. 4) high price for inferior IQ from 200-300mm (my opinion based on samples I saw). 5) bad press


If the new lens is better the price of a used 70-300 DO is going to plummet.


Tom

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

This is the BEST time for those who want to buy the 300 f/2.8L IS, 400 f/2.8L IS and 500 f/4L IS and 600 f/4L IS.Since new lenses cost so much, the prices of the old ones would stay the same until they're all sold out. If you wait, your only option is to go with the new and very expensive lens.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

This is the BEST time for those who want to buy the 300 f/2.8L IS, 400 f/2.8L IS and 500 f/4L IS and 600 f/4L IS.Since new lenses cost so much, the prices of the old ones would stay the same until they're all sold out. If you wait, your only option is to go with the new and very expensive lens.

[neuroanatomist]

Sounds premature at this point...

<div>Yes, it definitely was. [:P] It's not what I was hoping for, but that's no reason to bash it! </div>

Sounds premature at this point since we have not had a chance to hold it, try it or even see some samples. For those of us who know you just bought the DO it also sounds a bit like sour grapes. Maybe not but that is how you come across.

Well, I'll admit that I was really hoping for a 35mm f/1.4L II. Overall, of the 50% of the announced lenses that cost less than several thousand dollars, two are teleconverters, one is a fisheye zoom (why??), and one is the lens we are discussing. That part is sour grapes, for sure. I'll have to content myself with the hope that some shorter and improved primes (and one notably absent zoom) are announced with a 1DsIV (before Photokina??).


I don't plan on pre-ordering the new 70-300. But it's not sour grapes - I really like my 70-300mm DO for it's size - it's incredibly convenient, equivalent to the 17-55mm and 24-105mm, fits perfectly in a Lowepro Lens Case 1W slip-locked to the side of a Lowepro Toploader Pro 65AW for a quite versatile, convenient and small (for a dSLR) kit. But I had no illusions - I knew was sacrificing IQ in favor of a smaller size, compared to the 100-400mm. With this new lens, it seems likely that I wouldn't besacrificing IQ, although the size decrease compared to the 100-400mm is less than for the DO lens.

If the new lens is better the price of a used 70-300 DO is going to plummet.

If I'd just bought the DO lens new, I'd definitely be feeling sour - you're right! But since this new lens will likely debut at full MSRP ($1500), and I paid 35% less than the going retail cost of the DO, I can sell it for half the cost of the new lens and still come out even. (As a side note, when the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II came out at a cost of several hundred more than the MkI, the retail price of the MkI went up, and the used lens prices rose in parallel). Either way, a hundred dollars or two is not that big a deal for me, so it's win-win.


I think you were wise not to jump on the DO, though, Tom - you're right in that if this new lens has better IQthan the DO(as I'm sure it well and the MTF charts support), and you are fine with the larger lens, this new 70-300mm L might be great for you (and perhaps me, as well, we'll see...)!

[Richard Lane]

I'll.... hope that some shorter and improved primes (and one notably absent zoom) are announced with a 1DsIV (before Photokina??).

I also think that this is going to happen! We all know that the 1Ds MkIV is right around the corner. What better place to announce it, then at Photokina at the end of September?


If true, as most people speculate, then I can't imagine Canon is going to announce their new Flagship Body and then say.., oh.., by the way the 1Ds MKIV, will also work great with our new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS, or our upgraded big white lenses and extenders ...., NOT!


So.., I think there will be some new and exciting prime and/or zoom lenses announced, to compliment their new 1Ds MKIV.





Rich

[canoli]

Man this is one #$%#% expensive hobby!


$500 for the new TCs eh? yikes. I understand they're supposed to be much better than the current models...and at nearly twice the price I certainly expect them to be.


And what's with the vari-aperture "L"? I thought that was an oxymoron - "L" glass is supposed to be constant aperture, that's what makes is a "luxury!" It's a nice-looking hunk of glass and all but I'll be danged if I'm going to pay $1500 for f/5.6 - unless we're in the super-tele line of course. I can't see spending anywhere near a thousand dollars for a lens that doesn't open up past f/4. Ridiculous!


Seriously, f/4 is bad enough. I just bought the 70-200 f/4 because I figured I'd carry it more often than my 2.8. The jury is still out since I've only had it a week, but at $600 at least I don't feel I got robbed. But $1500 for a 4-5.6...and I'm guessing by 200mm it'll be 5.6. Ugh. I don't know Canon, you lost me with this round of products...