Canon's new lenses to be introduced at PMA

[dougj]

"LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., January 23, 2008 - Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging, today announced the launch of two new telephoto lenses for use with its EOS SLR cameras: the EF200mm f/2L IS USM*/** and the EF800mm f/5.6L IS USM*/**, the world's longest focal length lens with an Optical Image Stabilizer system.*** The Company, which exhibited prototypes of the lenses during PhotoPlus Expo in New York last October, is launching them at the PMA tradeshow (booth E101) at the Las Vegas Convention Center, January 31 to February 2.

“The development of these two new lenses continues to show how Canon actively responds to the imaging needs of our professional and advanced amateur customers. We are proud to provide the right equipment to help photographers capture the best and brightest images under all conditions,â€

[pdbolton]

Think I'll just jump right out there and buy one of each as soon as they hit the market. I can fit the cost somewhere in my military retirement/social security budget, probably between paying for the medications that keep me mobile and the cost of food that keeps me alive. All joking aside, why would Canon put IS on two new lenses, or for that matter any lens, if you have to use a tripod to support it. Tripods are significantly lighter that these lenses, at least mine is but I use a monopod most of the time anyway. You would think they would invest the money, the technology is already there, into puting IS in their camera bodies like the rest of the top camera makers, except Nikon. Sure could reach out more to the vast majority of amateur photographers out there in the world today. I would surely buy an IS camera body before I buy an IS lens even if the price was a little higher than now. Guess I'll just wait and see if Canon will eventually come around.

[jestev]

Think I'll just jump right out there and buy one of each as soon as they hit the market. I can fit the cost somewhere in my military retirement/social security budget, probably between paying for the medications that keep me mobile and the cost of food that keeps me alive. All joking aside, why would Canon put IS on two new lenses, or for that matter any lens, if you have to use a tripod to support it. Tripods are significantly lighter that these lenses, at least mine is but I use a monopod most of the time anyway. You would think they would invest the money, the technology is already there, into puting IS in their camera bodies like the rest of the top camera makers, except Nikon. Sure could reach out more to the vast majority of amateur photographers out there in the world today. I would surely buy an IS camera body before I buy an IS lens even if the price was a little higher than now. Guess I'll just wait and see if Canon will eventually come around.

I'd be pretty surprised if Nikon and Canon came out with in-body IS/VR after developing the technology a decade ago for lenses. The companies doing in-body are those that didn't make the in-lens technology before digital. In-lens stabilization also seems to work better.

[ewhalen]

Think I'll just jump right out there and buy one of each as soon as they hit the market. I can fit the cost somewhere in my military retirement/social security budget, probably between paying for the medications that keep me mobile and the cost of food that keeps me alive. All joking aside, why would Canon put IS on two new lenses, or for that matter any lens, if you have to use a tripod to support it. Tripods are significantly lighter that these lenses, at least mine is but I use a monopod most of the time anyway. You would think they would invest the money, the technology is already there, into puting IS in their camera bodies like the rest of the top camera makers, except Nikon. Sure could reach out more to the vast majority of amateur photographers out there in the world today. I would surely buy an IS camera body before I buy an IS lens even if the price was a little higher than now. Guess I'll just wait and see if Canon will eventually come around.

Canon and Nikon lenses with IS work on FILM cameras where you can't get IS on the film.

[dougj]

Canon and Nikon are in a difficult spot with DSLR IS/VR. They've had to give in and include it on their compact digitals, but there is more pressure for them to include it in their DSLRs.

Both claim their superteles have special IS/VR modes for tripod use, mirror slap correction, etc. but the rest of the lenses for the most part don't need this. Assuming they introduce bodies that incorporate stabilization, they would need to continue manufacturing the current IS/VR lenses until the orders decline a lot. And start introducing new lenses, which is probably where the big costs are. Canon is verrrry slow to replace lenses.

[leejungil]

These both have been highly anticipated by me to add into the fleet of Canon Prmies that I am lacking. Cant wait to get my hands on both of these White Big Guns...



Cheers, Jerry

[marxz]

the way I see it is that the advantage of in lens optical stabilisation is that the stabilisation element lies at the optical center of the lens requiring very minimal movement in only two axis/dimensions around that point.
By its very nature the in lens stabilisation element is pitched and yawed (ie as the front of the stabilisation element is raised the back part falls as the front turns left the back part points right) all around this point maintaining the projected image in as close to optimal focus on the sensor/film plane.


Doing optical stabilisation in camera requires a moving lens element built in to the camera or a moving sensor plane......

For a in camera optical system you would need to find space in the shutter box area for said lenses (no small ask) resulting in a larger camera body.

Also to achieve the same level of stabilisation as an in lens system you now have to move the stabilisation element in in three axis (and the third axis is NOT centered on the element rather levered around the optical center point of the lens), loss of the third axis would compromise the effectiveness of the system to some degree making it inferior to in lens stabilisation.

These "in camera" elements would require not just larger degrees of movements than an in lens system but that it would have to move in three axis/dimensions to optimally stabilise the image (so the lens would not just have to pitch and yaw along the vertical and horizontal axis it would have to swing so as to maintain the corrected focus, failure to do this would only stabilise the image around a small part of the center of the image plane. Even then I could see that effectively you would have a fixed shape lens that as it pitched would cause focal errors that might (or might not) be too small to notice at the end of the day. Also the lenses would have to pitch and yaw around a point that was the equivalent of the center of the lens so you would need a system that not only could do such "levered" movements but also it would need to know what the central image point of each and every lens you're using at each and every point of it's focal range for zooms ... ie you'd need a whole new set of specially designed lenses or maybe some sort of internal laser system that /might/ be able to dynamically calculate this on the fly with existing lenses (and that's a maybe type hypothetical theoretically situation I just made up on the spot).

Additionally the in camera lenses would have to have a neutral effect on the focal point of the mounted lenses.... or else its buy a whole new set of lenses that factor in focal adjustment of the in camera stabilisation elements.


Many of these same issue arises for sensor movement stabilisation (this is the most common type of "in camera" stabilisation system after lens based optical), if the sensor can't change its pitch and yaw (i.e. it can only move left/right & up down) then focusing issues will again arise that would make it substandard to in lens stabilisation.
And again you would need to pitch and yaw the sensor quite a substantial amount around an axis set by the central optical point of the lens as opposed to the central point of the sensor plane. And AGAIN to optimise this to the degree of an in lens systems you would either need to ditch your whole lens collection for a lens systme that tels the camera where its optical center point is or have some tricky "frikkin sharks with laserbeams" type way of dynamically calibrating this)

as for electronic stabilisation (as opposed to mechanical) it's pretty clear that this will always be substandard approach for standard photography (I believe (?) it's used in astronomical observations (due to long exposure times usually along with lens based stabilisation for each sub image for multi night exposures) as instead of a single image being captured during a shutter release you would have to sample the sensor output (take an individual massively underexposed image) several dozen to hundred of times that the shutter is open, do alignment of these dozens or hundreds of images in camera. The camera would still need vibration sensors as the individual images would almost certainly be too under exposed to do image feature matching alignment then at the end the individual "imageletts" would have to be merged... with so many under exposed images each of them would barely be off of the noise floor of the sensor resulting in a final image that could potentially be so noisy you'd have been better off just upping the ISO.

It's also possible to use "liquid lenses" for in camera stabilisation, these jell like lenses can be distorted using electrical current.
Because you can alter the shape of the lens in three dimensions it would overcome all the shortfalls of in camera optical system as the stabilising lens would not need to actually move arround .... except they currently only work in tiny tiny tiny lenses (arround the 1mm diameter size) mounted in a few cell phone cameras (if the system has even hit the market at all)


so basically I'd leave the in camera IS/VR systems to the happy snappers and gladly use A: a tripod and/or B: in lens stabilisation

[jniemann]

Hi people. Sorry to resurrect this thread, but something has been bugging me about this whole EF-800mm thing.

My thinking is that I would be surprised if there is much of a difference in performance between the 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter and the "new" 800mm f/5.6. Think about it - the two lenses are actually about the same size (and, apparently the 800mm is lighter). I bet the front element on the 800mm is the same size as (or perhaps even smaller than) the 600mm.

It seems to me that Canon decided that they could make a tarted-up 600mm with a built-in teleconverter and charge a lot of money for it (and sell it to the Bulbmoguls of this world ).

Seriously, these lenses have the same light-gathering ability. The 800mm is just a "magnified" version of the 600. I concede that its possible that Canon have improved the design a bit, or used better materials for the 800, but other than that, the perfomance should be roughly the same.

Now, if Canon came out with an 800mm f/4L, then that really would be special ! It would also be a lot bigger and heavier.

It reminds me of the 300mm f/4L and the 400mm f/5.6L. If you see these two side by side, they are roughly the same size and have the same-sized front element. I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparison between the 400/5.6 and the 300/4+1.4x, but I bet there isn't much of a difference.
Actually, in the secondhand market, you can buy a 400/5.6 for less than a 300/4 and teleconverter !

If I am wrong about this, then I am happy for someone to show me why, but please don't say things like "..but the 800mm will be "sharper" without some sort of rational explanation to back up your assertion.

Ahh, that feels better. I had to get that off my chest. Rant mode off.
Bye now.

[dougj]

I was surprised with the 800mm as well. The photogs that use the long glass are already using & stacking TCs, so it's not like Canon will open up a new market for 800mm glass. I wish they had upgraded the 100-400 instead.

I agree about the 300/4 vs 400/5.6 being a bit odd. B & H lists the 300 for about US 100 more, but it has IS while the 400 does not. The 300/4 is reported to be one of Canon's best teles for IQ. I borrowed one for a few shots and was impressed, a TC is reported to not be a problem at all. So buy a 300/4 + a TC for ~ $200 more and you get a 300/420 lens with IS and excellent IQ.

In another area, it'll be interesting to see how Canon sorts out their 70-200 lenses. They now have 4 of them and a lot of potential buyers are confused.

In the '200mm introduced at PMA' department, I stumbled across one the legendary 200/1.8L lenses a couple of weeks ago. Although used ones are available for a rather impressive sum, this little jewel was in unused, mint condition.

It's owned by a fellow that owns a camera store in Singapore, and proudly on display in one of the showcases. When asked how much the lens cost, I wasn't sure if I was given the lens price or that of the store. He quickly added that the lens was not for sale....

[jniemann]

I was surprised with the 800mm as well. The photogs that use the long glass are already using & stacking TCs, so it's not like Canon will open up a new market for 800mm glass. I wish they had upgraded the 100-400 instead.

Exactly. It is hard to see who the target market for the 800/5.6 is, other than the "More money than sense" crowd. Most photographers would realize that they can use their 600mm lens and carry a TC with them for when they need the longer focal length.
With an 800mm lens, you only get one focal length, so its not as versatile.
And I can't imagine anybody would want to carry a 600mm lens and an 800mm at the same time.

I agree about the 300/4 vs 400/5.6 being a bit odd. B & H lists the 300 for about US 100 more, but it has IS while the 400 does not. The 300/4 is reported to be one of Canon's best teles for IQ. I borrowed one for a few shots and was impressed, a TC is reported to not be a problem at all. So buy a 300/4 + a TC for ~ $200 more and you get a 300/420 lens with IS and excellent IQ.

I use the 300/4L with the 1.4x TC and its no problem - you barely even notice its there. Of course, you notice the 2x TC, because the lack of AF gives it away

In the '200mm introduced at PMA' department, I stumbled across one the legendary 200/1.8L lenses a couple of weeks ago. Although used ones are available for a rather impressive sum, this little jewel was in unused, mint condition.

It's owned by a fellow that owns a camera store in Singapore, and proudly on display in one of the showcases. When asked how much the lens cost, I wasn't sure if I was given the lens price or that of the store. He quickly added that the lens was not for sale....

The 200 f/1.8 (or f/2) lens has an obvious application ... indoor sports (and other similar scenarios), so It makes sense that Canon brought back this lens (albeit in a slightly different form).

[dougj]

The only advantage I can think of for the 800mm is image quality. I think the IQ would have to be significantly better than the 600mm + a 1.4 TC to get the serious long lens shooters attention and money. If the IQ is not noticeably better, the 600mm + TC should win based on versatility and cost.

I agree, the lack of a fast 200mm was a big gap in the lens lineup. Although f/2 instead of f/1.8, Canon claims the IQ and other features are excellent. At least some photogs will compare it to the f/1.8 version with a bit of a critical eye. In reality though, there really isn't a choice, and those that really need this FL & aperture, and can afford it, will buy it.