Feeding the insatiable beast (new EOS lenses)

More news to make you really unhappy with your last telephoto lens

purchase and another reason to get that second job... You know maybe

technophiles and equipment junkies should stick with Nikon unless they

have huge bank balances. They extract money from you at a slightly

slower pace.

<p>

From <a

href="http://www.eosseries.ifrance.com/eosseries/en/eos_news.html">

http://www.eosseries.ifrance.com/eosseries/en/eos_news.html</a>

<p>

"<em>Canon Professional Service Germany announce in his "Profile"

Issue n°18, 2 new DO

lenses.

 

Canon EF 500mm f/2,8 DO IS USM

Canon EF 200-400 f/4 DO IS USM

 

No price, no availability announced.</em>

For me, that just might be the last straw.

<b>E</b>mpty <b>O</b>ut <b>S</b>avings?

I think Tom has actually figured out what 'EOS' means.

Eh, neither one is better and eventually the DO lenses will drop in price. I don't feel bad. I've got a 70-200 2.8L, and I'd love to have the IS, but I'm fine without it.

 

Just don't buy it. They won't progress the technology unless someone is interested, so even if 10 of those get bought (it'll be more than that) then Canon will consider continuing research.

I just love reading your posts Carl...<p>

 

The 500mm f/2.8 sounds like a lens that would actually sell. The biggest market for these super-telephotos with ridiculous prices isn�t the professional market, but the reams of amateur EOS 3 and 1V owners who call themselves wildlife photographers, take a safari every ten years and do little else in between. In reality, price doesn�t really matter that much for these users (in fact I�m convinced many make a purchase decision based on whatever has the highest price), but the product that they buy must be seen to be the best. An insanely expensive lens that is unique to the Canon line and thoroughly trumps Nikon et al, will go down nicely in the US market, I suspect.<p>

 

The 400 f/4 DO thingy is senseless from any point of view -- the weight of equipment doesn�t matter to anyone who shoots seriously, or NG staff wouldn�t take along a hundred flash guns to light a cave (obviously some people are obliged to say weight matters -- after all, Canon doesn�t hand out all those favours to Michael Reichmann for nothing), but a 400mm lens with a miserable f/4 aperture for a ludicrous sum of money?! And it's not as if it's <em>small</em> small; the thing's still massive. Well, it�s your cash, I suppose. (What does the 300 f/4 sell for in comparison?)<p>

 

Chin up, Canon, and stumble onwards: the competition died ten years ago anyway...

I have to agree that the 400/4 DO doesn't seem like much weight/size savings at 1940 g. Wasn't that supposed to be the attraction of the DO technology, and what you're gaining for a loss in sharpness? My FD 400/4.5 SSC is 1300 g, and the EF 400/5.6L is 1250 g.

I will wait for the 600 f/2 that weighs 4 pounds and costs $89.95. I am sure my wait will be the same as if I actully save up enough to afford what the new 500 will cost.

I can't even imagine what that 500 f/2.8 is going to sell for. Yikes.

 

Weight certainly does matter, to people who shoot seriously most of all. Art Morris has a 500 f/4 IS to complement his 600 f/4 IS for situations where the weight difference is more important than the extra focal length. That's six grand for less than three pounds of difference. And I don't know a single serious wildlife shooter who doesn't make use of carbon fiber tripods, either.

Well, there is hope yet. The last time Canon produced a breakthrough lens element, the Fluorite lens element, it too was originally available only on Canon's priciest tele lenses. Today, it can be found in Canon's extremely sharp and very affordable 70-200/4L. If history is any indicator, we will eventually see prosumer DO lenses.

 

And yes, weight does matter. I don't think anyone willingly carries extra weight when there is a lighter alternative. People carry the weight because up until now there hasn't been any alternative, particularly with telephoto lenses. Why do you think carbon fiber tripods are so popular?

Yes, people are willing to take extra weight even if theres lighter alternatives. The Nikon F5 is of the same weight and size as medium format cameras. Canon L lenses the same weight and size as Pentax medium format lenses. The Canon 300/2.8 IS is significantly larger than most other 300/2.8 lenses. In 35mm photography, large size sells. Big is beautiful!

The main reason for the 4/70-200 L over the 2.8 version is weight, even in this "low weight" class. Weight absolutely matters, except you only shoot from the parking lot. So, the DO is a thing that could make a difference, one day after waiting for reasonable prices...

The 400mm/f4 DO lens is roughly 3 times as expensive as an equivalent conventional lens (the Minolta 400mm/f4.5 AF is about US$2000 new). The 500mm/f2.8 DO is obviously well into the 5-digit range, probably like $50K as a wild guess.

 

The price of course needs to come way down, which may happen over (a long) time. And we still need to see responses from regular users under everyday normal conditions. If DO lenses are at least as good as traditional lenses quality-wise and are not outragously expensive, they can become popular some day. Otherwise, they will remain a specialty item for some professionals and the extreme rich.

Bob, the linkish you provide thanks to yourself for but the website for me it is too hardest to understand!

Hi all,

I just got news that the 200-400 is a print error. It should read 200-600 mm 4,0/f.

Nice isn't it.

I will immediately start playing the lottery ;-).

Cheers

Nikon used to make a 300/2, a 200-400/4, a 1200-1700; possibly none sold more than a hundred, may be less. No one is going to buy similar beasts for the sake of a few grams and it would be foolish to expect massive drops in price, big glass never has been cheap and companies would shoot themselves in foot if they have done that, (selling big glass cheap with equivalent quality).

 

Marketing in this era seems to have created a 'semi-technical buyers segment' as you can see many around, whose 'technical' background depends the on the 'marketing' information released by the companies rather than formal training or formal self learning or even experince but whose buying criteria depends on extrapolations from pseudo scientific knowledge they gathered, which is destined to be fooled by the same 'marketing'. A non tech consumer shouldn't expect a lens to be excellent by looking at its optical formula and how many fluorite elements it has, I can not distinguish slides that are shot with a 70-200 Canon or a 80-200 Nikkor (which does not state any fluorite in its specifications)

 

Canon should be appreciated for all the effort on research and courage, and competence but I do take 'competition' from Japanese companies with a grain of salt, rather I consider it to be a monopoly maximising their profit creatively.

At present, the real issue is whether anyone needs any of these new lenses NOW in order to justify the initial investment. (Of course, the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys!)

 

HOWEVER---the issue for the future is whether these modifications will be improved and applied across the line. If so, and the cost falls, it's something to watch for the future.

 

Weight *does* matter and in post-9/11 travel, SIZE also matters. Anything that will do the same job and take up less real estate in my camera bag is worth a look, especially if it is a cost effective solution.

 

For example: I have a 300 (non IS) f/2.8L and 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (plus a 70-200 f/2.8 L). Of course, adding the 2x gives me a 600 f/5.6 on the 1V and EOS3. However, put it on a D30 and I have the equivalent of a 960mm f/5.6 which should work quite nicely for shore birds and other wild things. The D30 cost me $2375. That's less than a third of the cost of a 600mm lens.

<I>The 500mm/f2.8 DO is obviously well into the 5-digit range, probably like $50K as a wild guess.</I>

<P>

Am I the only one that thinks the 500/2.8 DO will be priced MUCH more reasonably? I'd guess at around $10K street, just slightly more than the 600/4, and leading to inevitable "should I get the slightly lighter 500/2.8 DO or the slightly sharper 600/4?" threads. Personally, I don't think a 500/2.8 is too exciting; the extra stop (over the 500/4) is made up by faster, less grainy films today, anyway. Of course, I'm still shocked by the price of the 400/4 DO, as I'd figure it would cost about the same as a 300/2.8 :-/.

<P>

I must admit the 200-600/4 sounds extremely useful for wildlife, though. But I don't plan to buy it, either.

These lenses will sell. New technology always costs a lot but the price tends to become lower over time, especially for Canon equipment. I hope these lenses sell so well the used market is flooded with 300 f/2.8L's, 500 f/4L's and 600mm f/4L's. Maybe then I could afford one of them.

This is obviously about more than weight, otherwise people would be asking, "should I go for the 3750 g manual focus FD 600/4.5 at $2400 plus about $500 for a T-90 or $750 for an F-1N with a motor drive in outstanding condition, or the 5360 g autofocus, slightly faster and sharper EF 600/4.0L IS USM for $10K with nothing else included."

 

I actually got lucky and got my FD 600/4.5 for about half that price in "like new" condition.

This document

<a href="http://cps.twmd.de/profile/download/pdf/p18.pdf">http://cps.twmd.de/profile/download/pdf/p18.pdf</a> (in German) is cited as the source of the information.

My German wasn't good enough to find the reference however!<b> Note:

The reason I couldn't find the reference is that Canon have now revised the page and removed the references to the 500/2.8

and 200-400/4 lenses!</b>

<p>

I wouldn't be suprised at a 200-600/4 DO. I'd heard that rumor before.

<p>

It will be interesting to see if these are "real" lenses or demonstrations of technology that nobody can afford, like the 1200/5.6L. Sure they exist, but in quantities of 10s or maybe 100s? Canon has a record of bringing out "super" lenses for the Olympics I think.

<p>

Sure a 500/2.8 is an interesting lens, but it's got to be big. There no way to make the front of the barrel smaller than 7.5". If it's not significantly shorter and lighter than a 500/4L I doubt it will sell unless it's also a similar price. The 400/4 DO may be small and light, but it's not smaller or lighter than the 400/5.6L and it's 4x the price. If the 500/2.8 vs 500/4 follows the same trend, I don't think they'll sell a lot! I really don't think there are too many users who are in dire need of a lens 1 stop faster than their existing 500/4.

<p>

If Canon really want DO technology to fly, they're going to have to make it cheap and put it in some affordable (<$2000) lenses rather than staking out new high-tech ground with ever bigger, faster and more expensive optics. If it's as good (and potentially inexpensive) as they claim, they're also going to have to be careful not to destroy sales of their conventional L series lenses (at least until they've sold out their inventory!).

Exactly, Bob. If Canon wanted the DO lenses to be something else than statement products they would have emphasised the small size and low weight by making something useful like a 500/5.6. Such a lens could have been made light enough (with the help of magnesium) and small enough to be the only super telephoto convenient for casual trekking. With IS and the progress in film the last decade (you could use a 400/5.6 lens these days for something you needed a 400/2.8 a decade ago) such a lens could be a genuine alternative. It would be relatively affordable as well. However, the marketing trade-off on such a lens would be nothing compared to a 500/2.8.

Hi Bob,

i looked at the document but haven't found any reference to the above

mentioned lenses. If you send me the text, I'll be happy to post a

translation.

 

I am just a bit puzzled at the rather negative remarks here concerning the market introduction of these lenses.

Firstly, what is most peoples problem, that you haven´t got the cash to buy these toys.? Bad luck, I haven't neither, but on the other hand, i can't afford to buy a Porsche as well and still I don't mind these things being produced. So what's the problem? If you guys won't profit from the new technology, the next generation of photographers surely will.

Well, I guess you are firstly underestimating the financial resources of many photographers (I have a wealthy friend and photo enthusiast who already called his dealer to order the 200-600)

and secondly, I guess that diligent lecture of many professional's publications will reveal to you the overwhelming wish for such a zoom-lens.

I also do assume, that Canon doesn't build what the can't sell. They have surely made extensive market research on this and have come to the conclusion that there is indeed a market for the lenses.

And finally, I guess this technology will ONLY pay off in the big and heavy glass. A saving of 36 percent of a 500gr (a 320 gr lens) lens would be hardly impressive nor would anybody notice. A 36% weight-saving in a 3kg (1920gr) lens will surely be appreciated by all professionals who have to drag this lens all over the world.

The reduced weight and dimensions will also surely pay off with the new airline carry-on regulations.

So don't bitch about new technology, just do as I and enjoy the pretty marketing folders until you win the lottery.

cheers

Most manufacturers make things that don't sell. Loss leaders are made by camera, car, audio and other manufacturers. These are products that are great for the image of the company. Canon have made lenses like the 50/1.0 and 1200/5.6 - lenses that for all practical purposes have no market but good for marketing - thats their purpose.

 

I do believe that smaller weight is a good thing but I doubt it has any impact on the market. Eg. Nikon shaved 2kg off a 600/4 lens without anyone going bananas over the fact here at photo.net. I gues if they achieved this by using DO elements or whatever the technophiles would have been all over the placewith praise. Its amazing that nobody really mention low weight as a primary feature until it is connected with some technological features.

 

As for super zooms I doubt theres a big market for them. To my knowledge the Pentax 600/4 outsell the Pentax 250-600/5.6, the only modern super zoom in existence. The latter is after all only one stop slower than the 600/4 and cost not that much more. This leads us to the price of a 200-600/4 DO IS. It must be significantly higher priced than the already expensive 600/4 IS - perhaps double the price of that lens?

 

I'm sure these lenses would be bought by the rich and perhaps by organisations and newspapers (particularly the zoom) but it's pretty obvious to me that these are statement products and not intended for large volumes. Over time I'm sure that DO will be destilled into more sensible lenses.

Lets not forget that the 400/4 DO IS weights the same as the Minolta 400/4.5 and Minolta hasn't even tried to save weight. By employing magnesium and other lightweight material a 400/4 lens could be made at the same weight or even less than the DO lens by conventional means.

 

Personally, I would embrace IS and even Canon when they employ this technology into genuinely compact and lightweight lenses intead of these monsters.

 

And lets face it; Canon has never been famous for their small and lightweight cameras and lenses so why is it so important now?

The cynic may suggest that this makes another rational argument for consumerist to justify the latest toy.

Hi Pal (sorry for the missing sign),

I do not completely agree with you.

First, I know a lot of people who own the 50/1,0. To be precise here

I know 7 people who have the lens and love it.

And mine is just a small sample. I assume thus that Canon did actually make money with that lens.

But it is really ridiculous to argue on that basis. My point is simply that companies usually produce a prototype for demonstration purposes but they do not produce something which is not sellable in a serial production. That would be simply too expensive. The famous 1200 is not an example here as it is produced only on order.

But don't be sad, eventually even your 500/5,6 will come out, if you are not the only guy wanting to buy this ;-).

I already imagine any sports photography agency and sports photographer jumping for both lenses as they'd eb really useful for them.

And to your last point, of course is Canon famous for its small cameras and cheap consumer lenses. Iwouldn't be dominationg the mass market otherwise.