Feeding the insatiable beast (new EOS lenses)

This thread is having a colorful and long life, who cares it is on something which may not be even born, it was educative however and here are my conclusions:

 

- Even though close contact with a DO lens is extremely rare and some

(obviously not credible) tests may say otherwise, these lenses ARE good, will BE better, and eventually will become CHEAP. This deduction roots from 2nd law of thermodynamics which is beyond the breadth of this forum, so don't ask for elaboration.

 

- There is no chance that these lenses can share the same fate of mirror lenses of some time, which were ligt too but did not succeed since mirrors were middle age technology and not exciting to anybody at all.

 

- Any improvement is improvement, expense is unimportant, somebody who can, and should afford exist somewhere, look at Fortune magazine for evidence.

 

- You need everything (re. Adam Smith for more). Even IS on a lens that will spend all of its life on a tripod is useful, there can be an earthquake anytime.

 

- THE technology is already being appreciated and embraced; latest reports from Germany tell that BMW is going to buy patents of DO and IS for their lightweight and image stabilised windscreens of offroad vehicles. And Nasa is planning to use multidiffractive x-ray optics on next generation of space telescopes and according to leaked MTF information, it will put an end to debates about extraterrestrial life. Resulting photos will allegedly be used in new 'Space life, as Canon sees it' ad campaign.

I disagree with Samuel. Weight and size are issues, especially in the post-9/11 travel world. (See prior threads on that subject.) And even before 9/11 being efficient in your packing and travel was prudent. Further, even a world class athlete can appreciate the two pound difference between a Gitzo 1228 and a Bogen 3021. Those of us who are physically challenged appreciate it even more.

 

Certainly there are people who feel as if they must have every new "toy" on the market as soon as it comes out and Mr. Canon and Mr. Nikon (and others) profit handsomely from this. But this does not mean that we should summarily turn our noses up at new technology.

 

20 years ago the Canon A-1 was the #2 camera body in the lineup. Today, all of its features plus autofocus and then some can be found in the lowly Rebel line. The truth is that you can take an outstanding photograph with an A-1 or a Rebel -- you don't need to have an F-1 or EOS 1V to do that. The truth also is that today's technology allows us more opportunities to take outstanding photographs because our requipment can respond more quickly and automatically to variable situations.

 

Several years ago I predicted that 35mm SLR cameras have come about "as far as they can go" and the next frontier, apart from digital imaging, will be to use new technology to make lenses better, faster, lighter and more compact. This prediction is beginning to come to fruition.

 

Does this mean I will promptly go out and buy a DO lens? Heck no. It's going to take a bit for the technology to be stablized and improved and prices to fall and I can wait (just as I did until this year to buy my D30 at a $700 savings). But I welcome the improvements and also welcome the chance to lighten up my load and possibly free up space in the camera bag.

Firstly, none of the DO lenses, rumoured or otherwise, is small and lightweight in any meaning of the word. Secondly, none has ever bought the higher end Canon gear due to its small size and low weight so why is it so important now? 11. of September? Give me a break!

Maybe because it provide a rational argument for buying the latest toy? I�m not at all for rational argument for buying lenses. Its just pathetic anyway. If you want a lens why not buy it? No justification needed.

Its amazing that people who have otherwise embraced heavy and large gear without any thought for size and weight suddenly goes wild about a slight reduction in length as long as it is connected to some exciting technology. Consumerism? Lets look at the realities. The reduction of length for a DO lens is no more than the length differences between a Pentax 300/2.8 and a Canon 300/2.8 IS. That the Pentax weights 50% more with half the glass is another issue but fact remains that the DO advantage can be achieved by conventional means. Again, Canon lenses are large.

 

A Canon EOS-1 with booster is the same weight and size as a Pentax 67II; a camera generally described as a monster. Canon L-lenses are of the same size as Pentax medium format lenses. The diameter of Canon EF lenses is comparable to lenses of the 6X4.5 format. I usually stop in awe at the Canon booth in larger camera store �admiring� the size of the products. I find them huge and I�m used to medium format.

To me it seems like utter madness owning a 1,5 kg 35mm slr (maybe even two) and heavy and large L-lenses and the spend $4000 extra solely for saving a few grams on a 400mm lens that also sport questionable optical qualities (at least questioned by some). If weight is that important, all the weight could be saved elsewhere and even saving money in the bargain. Not to mention how much weight you save by choosing a Dynaxx7 and the Minolta 400/4.5 lens instead; that�s mind bogling compared to the 400/4 DO savings. Hell, you could buy that Minolta combination to augment your Canon gear, when weight was the paramount factor, and still earn close $4000 in the bargain! I�m convinced that 99% of the Canon shooters would be more happy with a conventional 400/4 IS at $2500 and a few grams more.

 

Somebody mentioned Fritz Pølking above: Pølking made an issue out of the fact in his book that 600/4 lenses were too heavy. If Pølking or anybody else believe that a 200-600/4 DO IS is going to weight significantly less than any 600/4 on the market they must be dreaming. Neither the 200-600 or the 500/2.8 are going to solve any weight issues.

The fact remains that whether a 600/4 weights 6 or 7kg is of no importance. Neither is going to be used on casual hikes; both will be used for planned shots. I have yet to see anyone choosing 600/4 lenses for their weight. However, whether your 400mm lens weight 1 or 2kg may make all the difference in the world: a 1kg lens could go with you always whereas you�ll think twice of a 2kg lens.

 

The moral of the story is that Canon have had great success in selling large and heavy gear. The size and weight issue hasn�t detracted from the success and will hardly do so in the future. I mean, there is more weight to be saved on camera bodies than on DO lenses.

At one time I owned a Canon 600/4L and 300/2.8L. I now own a Canon 500/4.5L and 300/4L, mainly because of size and weight issues, so size and weight ARE issues important to some of us. The fact that they cost significantly less didn't hurt, but it wasn't the main factor in my decision to "downsize".

I agree with Bob. Size and weight do matter. I just bought a 500 because I needed more reach than my 300 could provide. The 600 would have been nice, but I felt that it was just too heavy. I like to hike around and shoot subjects that are not sitting next to the road. I can do this with my 500 on a gitzo 1325. However, the weight of this combination is still heavy and at the absolute limit of what I can comfortably carry. I have no doubt that the few extra pounds of a 600 and a heavier tripod would result in my leaving the lens in the car or at home more often. 3 or 4 extra pounds (1-2 Kg) doesn't sound like much when discussing it on photo.net. But in the field (at least for me) it makes a big difference.

Umit, I actually have a Zeiss diffractive optic for X-rays. The focal

length is about eight meters, so it's ideal for close-ups of gnat's

eyebrows in the field. It weighs about a tonne all-in, but it seems

that weight is of no consequence for most nature photographers

so thats not a big deal. It cost me just over a million dollars, and

is a bit of a collectors item being rather rare, but I could let you

have it for two million euros. Let me know if you're interested.

Of course weight and size is important. That�s why I don�t own an F5 or EOS-1 or those popular small 2.8 zoom lenses. That is also why I sold my 300/2.8 and plan to buy a 400/5.6 next month. But I�m in a minority. . The weight saved by the 400/4 DO is equal to removing the booster of your EOS-1. Not to mention using a lightweight EOS. Removing the booster is totally free but perhaps boring from a consumerist point of view. Hence, I cannot see the current (and rumoured) incarnations of DO to be anything but curiosities. Because lenses exist in three dimensions reducing the length by a few centimetres won�t do much as long as the lenses (and cameras) are larger than most others in terms of volume. I�m sure DO will one day be used in compact lenses and hopefully they will be matched with compact bodies.

 

Sure 1kg may count. In a worst case scenario you can save a kg on each camera body. You can save at least 1kg by replacing those 2.8 zooms with lighter alternatives for those situations where weight is important. And isn't a 300/4IS with converter lighter than the 400/4 IS DO? You can save a hell of lot of kg's without spending $4000.

But what about those nature photographers who have a spare $6000 in their pocket and nothing to spend it on. My suggestion is that they should be thankful to Canon and immediately go out an buy a new 400/4 DO and sell me their old, dated technology, big and heavy 500/4L IS for 1/2 price. If they want to throw in a D30 now that they've upgraded to the EOS-1D, well, it is the holiday season and gift giving is quite appropriate this time of year...

>Afraid of technology?<

 

Not annoyed by technology fetishism?

 

Struan, do you also have an x-ray flash for that? 2M euoros is reasonable and weight is no concern but what about af speed? don't tell me it is MF.

Bob,

 

you took the words right out of my mouth! And regarding the huge number of responses to this thread, it seems the photo.net community is much more interested in new toys than in going out and doing nature photography.

Flash? sure - some days we run the synchrotron in single-bunch

mode and then you get a flash every microsecond or so. It's

plenty bright, at least in the narrow technical sense. The flash

costs another few million though, so you should consider total

system costs before committing yourself. We don't do AF as

such, instead we have student-assisted focus: you adjust the

motorised focus slit and get a postgraduate student to shout out

the readings on an electrometer. It's faster than the autofocus

on an F4 :-)

 

Seriously though, diffractive optics have been around for a while,

even for visible light. Canon's true innovation is making it work

for a wide range of wavelengths rather than for monochromatic

light, and a wide range of acceptance angles for wide-field

imaging (I know a 500 mm might seem like a narrow angle, but

it's huge compared to the milliradians I deal with).

 

To me, it seems daft to complain about price and marketing

strategy for the first lens ever to incorporate this new

whizzz-bang. I just hope there are enough first-adopters to push

the technology down into the affordable range before my knees

give out completely and I stop climbing mountains.

Hans, you are correct that many of us are fascinated by equipment. But, keep in mind that the insatiable beast is prodded along with millions of dollars of marketing and advertising money. To be able to resist this entirely would be a remarkable feat. And keep in mind we are constantly reminded by certain "contract photographers" about how we can get pictures that were not possible in the past using the latest greatest equippment. Just look at the ads. Heck! One camera company dares to suggest that using a third party lens makes you look like an amateur. They have managed to convince themselves (and probably many consumers) that being an amatuer is a bad things. How silly!

 

The best "pro" advice concerning a purchase, thatI have seen in print in the year 2001 is the advice to spend $200 on film and processing and go out and practice a new technique, or improving one's vision.

 

Thank goodness for advice such as that.

There are some good reasons for going with the D30 vs. EOS1D.

 

Yes, the 1D is built like a tank and can fire faster and longer.

 

However, the D30 is much cheaper, built well (though not like a tank) and the magnification factor is 1.6x vs. 1.3x on the 1D. Thus a 300 2.8 w/2x on a D30 is a 960 f/5.6 vs. 780 f/5.6 with the 1D.

 

Of course, landscape shooters would be happier with the 1d!

Just received an e-mail from a guy working at Canon Professional Services at the european Canon HQ. The official Canon statement is that the development of such lenses is not true and Canon CPS Germany made a mistake.

 

So maybe we'll get some more news around the next Olympics...

Ha ha ha......... what a good laugh I had reading these threads and then arriving at the last one by Hans Martins stating that the Germman publication of these purported new DO lenses was a fake !!

Sucker punched.....every one of you ! My, my, how rumors fly. What valuable lesson have we learned here today kids ?

I didn't say the german CPS publication was a fake. It was real. It was published, only the publication was changed within 24 hours by CPS. The official Canon comment was that a mistake was made by CPS germany.

 

My guess is that these lenses are being developped. But maybe only in an experimental stage. Maybe they will once come into production, maybe they will never be. But I think Canon engineers are working on such lenses. If not to put them into production, then at least to gain knowledge about the techniques necessary for both development and production.

I would be very suprised if the 400/ DO IS was developed in a vacuum. Almost certainly others were paralell developed. Only one got the initial green light; quite possibly to test the waters.

All manufatcturers have plenty of cameras and lenses never reaching the production stage. Eg. Pentax have zoom tilt/shift lenses and Image Stabilization teleconverters.

Speaking of feeding the insatiable beast, I recently received an e-mail message from a well known nature photographer. He is now extolling the virtures of his 500mm f/4 lens and a different tripod. It seems on a recent trip he left his 600mm f/4 and it heavier tripod behind thanks to the great pictures he is getting from the 500mm f/4. So now people have switched from the EOS1 to the EOS3 to the EOS1v on his recommendation. And they have switched to the 600mm f/4 IS on his recommendation. They can now switch again to the 500mm f/4 IS lens.

 

OK, I never switched because I own Nikon stuff. But, I can think of a pro Nikon photographer who has jumped from one body and lens to another with equal speed and equal disregard for the financial whipping that one must take.

 

Imagine the fun they will have when they go digital!!! Switch, switch, switch, until you have only enough money left to live in a crummy rented garage and eat cold beans for dinner.

My guess is that the mistake was Canon Germany talking about development plans that Canon want to keep secret, not talking about a product which isn't in the planning or development stage. It makes no sense at all for Canon Germany CPS to invent lenses out of thin air. Obviously these lenses have been discussed in internal Canon communications. It's possible that these lenses will never appear, either because Canon have abandoned plans for them or because their development (and/or final cost) turns out to be too expensive. However I'd be very suprised indeed if the 400/4 DO is the only DO lens Canon ever develop unless it turns out to have real problems in the field or they can't get the costs down.

 

As for following recommendations of "well known photographers", don't forget that many of them are enthralled by the latest gadgets just like the rest of us. We all (?) rave over our latest lens/body purchase being the best thing since sliced bread. Usually it isn't and time gives us a better perspective on what's important and what's not. I'm FAR more inclined to believe a review when the reviewer has owned and used the equipment for two years, rather than for two weeks, or even two months. I'm also far more inclined to put faith in reviews written by independant photographers than those closely associated with any particular camera company. Not that I believe that any of the well known names give deliberately biased information, it's just that distance gives perspective and if you're too closely associated with a product or system it's really hard to be totally objective, no matter how hard you try and how good your intentions are.

 

It's also sometimes difficult, I think, for a full time professional photographer

to get into the mind of an amateur who isn't feeding his/her family

with the money he/she makes from photography - and who can't deduct

lens expenses from their income tax! Drawing a distinction between "the best"

and "second best" when the cost differs by perhaps $1000 and performance

differs by 10% needs more than

a purely technical perspective. When you are working with "the best" it's

not always easy to evaluate just how good images obtained with "second

best" can be, since you're not shooting with the "second best" lenses

often enough to evaluate them properly.

 

Note these are general comments, not directed towards anyone in particular. Both Nikon and Canon (not sure about Minolta etc.) have photographers closely associated with their products, both in the nature and non-nature fields of work.

"I don't know a single serious wildlife shooter who doesn't make use of carbon fiber tripods, either."

 

-----------------------------

 

I believe the sample you used to reach the above conclusion is not representative of the true population of serious wildlife photographers. For example: allow me to introduce myself. I am a serious amateur wildlife photographer who has to get by with a Gitzo 1410 tripod. I simply can't afford to spend the extra money for the appropriate carbon fiber model -- not now, and not in the future. Moreover, I see no reason to, given the fact that the 1410 works very well for me.

 

By the way: My supertele is a manual focus Nikkor. MANUAL FOCUS!!?? OH, THE HUMANITY!! In spite of the fact that I miss some photos that others might capture, I'm no less serious than you are. Obviously, wealth does not equate with seriousness in photography.

Size and weight are VERY important, whether you fly or not. I am not a large person (5'8, 105lbs), so carrying a lot of weight for a long time is a problem for me (I am the petite blond mentioned earlier...;-)). Someone else said "I'll reconsider my stance when you want to run up a mountain with your 400mm lens". Well, that's exactly what I DO with my gear. I hike miles with it into the middle of nowhere, and when I'm carrying 20% of my own weight in camera gear, saving a few pounds here or there can seem extremely attractive. I can not use shoulder-bags or photobackpacks, because they tire me out due to placing the weight too high up (I use a belt system).

 

As for the airlines, I believe that I should be allowed my camera gear without any penalty. I may take to hiding it inside my shirt and pretend just to be fat instead....As was said earlier, why should I be discriminated against (105lbs + 25lbs camera gear) when fat people (300lbs+) aren't?

"I hike miles with it into the middle of nowhere, and when I'm carrying 20% of my own weight in camera gear, saving a few pounds here or there can seem extremely attractive."

 

 

Right. However, I'm cynical about this because as far as I'm can tell the most popular gear among nature photographers are the heaviest and largest available.

 

I have a nature photography book wherein the author state that he is a sucker for light-weight field gear and will use any oportunity to take advantage of such equipment. Still, the photographer used the Nikon F4, at the time of writing the heaviest and largest 35mm slr known to man. To me it seems that 99% of all photographers are making priorities on all other features before weight. Eg. having a camera with 100% viewfinder coverage instead of 95% in spite of doubling the weight. Or having lenses each with three motors and servos + electronics with the associated power consumption and spare batteries.

People who are carrying high-end Nikons or Canons up mountain tops have proven that weight and size are less important than whatever other advantages this gear give them. Hence, I can't see the fuzz about DO lenses that take weight and size back to the level 35mm gear has always been.

In my opinion the consumer buy what he wants. Then use "rational" arguments for justifying purchase; if the latest toy is big and bulky then size and weight doesn't really matter that much. If it is smaller and lighter then weight is important.