Feeding the insatiable beast (new EOS lenses)

[p_l_jensen]

We are not talking about cheap consumer stuff here but expensive high-end stuff. The Canon high-end stuff isn�t famous for small size and low weight. Therefore it would be nice if Canon used the DO technology to make a real lightweight alternative for their super telephotos. How about a 400/5.6 DO IS, 500/5.6 DO IS, and 600/5.6 DO IS? These would have been real alternatives to their other super telephotos. I can�t really see the need for a 500/2.8.

Again, loss leaders are common in all industries. Eg. The new Volkswagen flagship Phaethon will loose money on every car built. It is well know that the camera industry is a hard business. That�s why there�s so few camera manufacturers. Last year, all Japanese camera manufactures lost money. The 35mm slr sector is the least profitable. That�s why there are even fewer 35mm slr manufacturers. I don�t know if Canon will make money on these lenses but its not ridiculous to argue on that basis.

No super telephoto is manufactured on serial basis. All of them are handmade in small series in tune with demand. Believe me, there are not that many buying 600/4 lenses.

[bobatkins]

I really don't mind Canon producing anything they want to as long as it doesn't distract them from producing lenses that most working photographers could actually afford and use! I'm sure they have a limited R&D budget just like every other company and pouring cash into a 500/2.8 might well mean that other projects don't get done. I'd like to see IS in some fast normal lenses for hand held shooting in low light. A 50/1.4 IS would blow the 50/1.0 out of the water in terms of both price and performance. Of course such a lens would kill sales of the 50/1.0... And how about an IS version of the 35-350 L zoom? There are other examples that would make a lot more Canon users happy than a 500/2.8 DO.

 

There are always people out there who will buy one of anything just because they have the cash and like new toys, but it's hardly a market that a company can depend on in the long run.

 

Of course engineers and photographers don't run camera companies. Accountants and marketers do. Creating the right image and "impressing the market" may well add to the bottom line just as much as producing products people actually need and want.

[meikel]

Hi Pal,

again, I must insist that I don't believe that this is a tech-demo only.

Of course I don't know where you get your information from, but it is interesting that you mention the new VW Phaeton in this course. VW does want to make money with this car and a possible loss thru this car will be very hard to justify in the next shareholder meeting. I know this more or less first hand as my uncle works in the team which designed the Phaeton.

A friend of mine, the already mentioned well-to-do photo enthusiast, who works for a big pharma-company also supports the idea that Canon actually aims at a profit with these lenses.

I guess the market here lies simply not in nature photography but press and sports which is a huge market.

Thus, I can well imagine making profit out of these lenses.

I must apologize for my misleading statement above, i meant by ridiculous rather my trial to state 7 sold lenses as evidence of a profit Canon possibly made with the 50/1,0.

Anyway, we won't solve this and don't have to.

I just think that Canon possibly made an extensive market research and I know from the discussions in the german nature photography community that indeed many pros wished for the 200-600 for a long time.

A very famous photogrpaher Fritz Poelking has been literally demanding it for at least 6 years in his publications. Several european pros also stated they would immediately change the system if one manufacturer would produce such a lens.

And I personally would not buy a 400/5,6 IS DO but rather the 400/4,0 IS DO as it just give me more possibilities with the extenders on.

But that is of course personal taste.

cheers

[markci]

I just want a little 8-pound 600 f/4, thank you very much.

[david_goldfarb]

If you'll settle for 600/4.5 and 8.25 pounds, you can have it in manual focus.

[greg_erker]

Pal,

 

I think there are two types of loss leaders. The first is when

you are losing money on every lens made (i.e. it costs $6000 to

manufacture a $5000 lens). The second is when you are making a

profit on each lens sold but over the life of the product it isn't

enough to pay for the R&D and tooling costs.

 

Which are you suggesting in regard to the Canon lenses and the

VW?

 

Regards - Greg E.

[harry_casimatis]

Pal, I checked the weight and the length of the 400mm f4.5 Minolta ($1830) and it's almost the same as the new Canon 400mm f4 lens. The Canon R&D department should fall on their swords for that one!

 

Michael, I would like a 200-600mm F4 lens as well but price is always the consideration.

[philippe]

I don't really belive the idea with the loss leader just for marketing reasons. Ok, this might happens in all kind of industries, but up to now Canon did this kind of strategy with known technology, eg. in the 1200/5.6 or the 50/1.0 case. But why should they try to develop a new technology (DO - is it really new - Bob you might know this better), build a super expensive lens that does not seem to be much lighter than eg. the Minolta? Furthermore, Canon usually brings out first the second row products (EOS3 then 1v, 75-300 IS then the others...), here this does not seem to be possible, probably because they were not able to make it "cheap" enough. A more specialized lens is might used to test the marked?

 

There are several of these not fully logical aspects in this story. To me, this green ring lens seems to be still a kind of prototype check the need and the different applications. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more ideas behind closed doors for this technology and rather the nicely spread rumours for the hypthetical 500/2.8 or the 200-600/4 serve the marketing needs. I read the french site and the cited publication and it does not contain any mentioning of these lenses.

[struan_gray]

I think that some of the responses here have their nature

blinkers on. A 500/2.8 would be a nice tool for many sports

photographers and fashion shooters, and they have the budgets

to cover the price. I'm prepared to bet that it will cost less than

the salary, travel and lodging costs for a staff photographer at the

Olympics or the World Cup.

 

My dream nature lens would be a light, compact 200/2 IS with

matched 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Maybe DO will let this

happen. Maybe I'll be able to afford it if it does. Wait and see.

[vesa_perala]

The following is copied from the Yahoo EOS-list. It seems that

German Canon removed the 200-400(600) and 500/2.8 lenses from

the text.

 

We don't know if the "slippage" was made by purpose (to appertize

us) or if it was a rumour with no reality behind it or a real

mistake of a real product plan.

 

-----------

 

Check out this! www.pitkajarvi.net/dolenses.htm

 

The Profile-magazine really slipped the new DO lens info accidentially

out....compare the text and see it yourself

 

-----------

 

Vesa

[vesa_perala]

"Pal, I checked the weight and the length of the 400mm f4.5 Minolta ($1830) and it's almost the same as the new Canon 400mm f4 lens. The Canon R&D department should fall on their swords for that one! "

 

Well, f4.5 is not f4.

 

Actually f4.5 could be "full" half stop slower than f4. Also, there is no IS in the Minolta lens (thus less glass). I don't know the real build quality difference between these lenses but I think we could also compare the 400/4 DO IS USM to the Canon 300/2.8L IS USM + 1.4x.

 

Vesa

[isaac sibson]

You seem to be forgetting that DO doesn't JUST make the lens smaller and lighter. The other interesting property of it is that the spectrum spread is in the opposite direction to refractive elements, therefore it is possible, with appropriate care for the refractive elements, to build a lens with NO chromatic aberration whatsoever. Look at the 400mm F4 DO for example. There's a fluorite element in that lens, but it is a NEGATIVE element. This is the first time fluorite has ever been used in a negative element, because for normal refractive lenses, you gain most by having it in a large positive element. Thus, if Canon can get these lenses right, they should be phenominally sharp.

 

Sure, a 500mm F2.8 doesn't hold a great deal of interest to me (I can't carry it or afford it). However, I think Canon just need to be given a little time to sort out the technology, and apply it to more lenses, as they did with Fluorite. When Fluorite was first introduced in the FL-F 300mm F2.8 SSC, it was very expensive, and the idea of their being (relatively) affordable zoom lenses (70-200 F4L, 100-400L IS, 100-300 F5.6L, other early EF L series (eg 50-200L)) containing the material would have seemed pretty far fetched. I suspect with DO that the price will come down rather quicker than Fluorite did. In 5 years time, who's to say that Canon won't have 10+ DO lenses available?

[vesa_perala]

(Fluorite was used also in the FL-F 300/5.6 (with green stripe) from 1969 and the initial price was 100'000 yen (FL300/2.8 Florite was 390 000 yen at 1974). The FL200/3.5 - no fluorite - released 1966 was 30000 yen initially. Well, that was just fyi and slight nitpicking.)

 

I agree Isaac and believe there will be improvements in the DO manufacturing technology which will reduce the cost faster than with fluorite elements where the material itself (the raw glass) is the expensive part (that's what I believe, anyway).

 

So perhaps it is currently difficult to make perfect DO-elements and the yield is not very good (they get relatively many bad units). On the other hand the development cost (including production preparation) must have been high. So because there is no competition Canon can keep the price high to "milk" the early birds (and to keep the production volumes low).

 

Vesa

[umd]

Uhm, I did not know chromatic aberrations were still a problem even after the invention of low dispertion glass some decades ago. I must apologise for my ignorance about 'positive' and 'negative' elements and my inability to imagine what happens when a fluorite is placed 'positively' or 'negatively' just by looking at it on paper though I am convinced it is a kickass concept and surely will make lenses 'phenomenally sharp' when applied 'with appropriate care'. The guy knows what he is talking about.

[bill_green2]

Every lens has a purpose. Do you need the extra stop shooting a sleeping moose at noon? Probably not, but ask a sports shooter how much they would pay for a 500/2.8 IS that weights 8 lb. and you could probably start taking bids! Remember the "pro" EOS bodies don't focus particularly well with anything slower than f2.8 on a fast or erratically moving object. If I get 5 fps with focus tracking out of my EOS 3 with something moving at me quickly then I'm a happy camper. Throw on a f/5.6 or even f4 lens on there and the hit rate starts heading towards zero.

 

You can recover shutter speed with faster film, but autofocus speed needs light.

[umd]

Uhm, I did not know chromatic aberrations were still a problem even after the invention of low dispertion glass some decades ago. I must apologise for my ignorance about 'positive' and 'negative' elements and my inability to imagine what happens when a fluorite is placed 'positively' or 'negatively' just by looking at it on paper though I am convinced it is a kickass concept and surely will make lenses 'phenomenally sharp' when applied 'with appropriate care'. This guy knows what he is talking about.

[p_l_jensen]

Yes, this is a very likely scenario. Similar stories exist in the car industry. Eg. the Audi A8 is a loss leader but built nevertheless because it boost the image of the manufacturer and work as a test bench for manufacturing of new technology; in this case aluminium space frame. Similar thinking is most likely behind the DO lenses. It gives Canon the opportunity to gain experience in new design and manufacturing processes. At a later stage the accumulated experiences can be destilled into volume products that take advantage of the benefit of the DO technology (compact lenses) instead of the obvious statement products the rumored DO lenses represents.

[raul_lithgo]

These new lenses are a source of laughter for me. I can read the reviews now of certain pros who use Canon equipment. You know who they are. They started by switching you to the EOS3, then a bit later to the EOS-1v. Then to the IS telephotos. And then the new tele-extenders that can be joined together easily. And ,of course, you can never buy a 3rd party lens because that screams AMATUER, and you would never want to be taken for one of those rubes, would you? And on and on it goes. Soon it will be the DO/OS lenses. You follow their lead and you spend your fortune on equipment and never have the resources to travel, experiement and just enjoy photography.

 

The reality is that one of the best photographers I know (an amatuer, not a pro) uses old manual-focus Pentax gear. He has built a wonderful system using used K-mount lenses for maybe 1/4 the price of new gear by Canon or Nikon. He just purchased his first autofocus body, the new flagship Pentax body. Why? He likes the slanted top plate and it takes all of his K-mount lenses.

 

Give Canon credit, their marketing plan is the best in the business.

[george_rhodes]

Vesa,

 

I have a lot of experience with the Minolta 400mm f4.5 you mentioned. It is 2/3 stop faster than f5.6 and its sharpest f stop is f4.5, wide open. It's a very solid lens and is the sharpest lens in the 300-600mm range that Minolta has ever made. If I'm not mistaken amd I remember correctly, I think it is actually slightly lighter in weight than the Canon, but also slightly longer in length. A pretty nice lens. I'm very interested in the new Canon 400mm DO, which appears to have several advantages over the Minolta, one being simply that it's part of the EOS system. I'll be very interested in reading user reviews up the road. Wow, what a lens. Its only down side at this point seems to be its high price.

[frederic_desmette]

Hi everyone

Just read all those intervention ��..about future lens.

I want to remind everybody that the 400F4 DO has had a first test in the latest issue of Chasseur D`images (French Magazine)

And the result were NOT GOOD!! Apparently the lens is not very sharp!! Chasseur d`image even mention that the 100-400 is usm is much more sharper then the new 400f4. Think of this what you want.

Regards

[p_l_jensen]

I wouldn't pay any notice whatsoever to CDI test. They are the most notoriously unreliable lens testers out there. Their reputation is even worse than Photodo.

My experience, which happens to be in tune with most other user experiences, are usually the oposite of those of CDI tests; the good CDI tested lenses are bad ones and vice versa.

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, I don't know, I think the CDI tests are pretty accurate. I have never found a lens which they tested *** to be very good, and I've always been happy with lenses that were **** or ***** (performance marks). That's a pretty good record. You just have to realize that they don't give extra for a fast aperture if it results in pictures that aren't sharp. However, they may have gotten a bad sample of the 400/4 DO.

[jay_horton]

Since this is turning into a Canon wish list, I'm wondering if the new DO technology will enable Canon to build a pro-quality wide angle lens that weighs less than a pound and cost less than a grand? Boy, that would be something. Maybe a revoloutionary optical design like a 24mm f2.8.........Maybe they could even squeeze in USM?

 

 

Oooooohhhhh.......

[samuel_dilworth]

Jay, that was below the belt, man!

 

Weight isn�t as important as Canon have led you to believe.

 

If you are unable to spend thousands of dollars to save a pound or two, I have a better idea that costs much less -- eat less junk food and hit the gym on a regular basis. Soon you�ll be carrying around much less weight than your friend with the DO lens.

 

You�ll tell me that won�t save you with the airlines (I think it�s peculiar that carry-on weight is so strictly controlled while 260 lb lard buckets pay no more for their ticket than petite blondes... but that�s another story). Well, in 1999 I had the privilege to meet and perform the duty of unpaid translator for a small team of BBC wildlife photographers and cameramen in the town of Tefé far up the Amazon river. (They were shooting some recently discovered fish species, amongst other subjects, and using Tefé as a base to the surrounding tributaries.) They came into Tefé on a regular Varig flight (a national airline, not taxi service), and their photographic gear filled the back of a Chevy pickup truck. If you need the gear, you need the gear, regardless of weight. There�s no point in inflicting difficulties upon yourself of course, but I view 8 grand as a larger difficulty than a trivial amount of weight.

 

A mountain biking friend of mine paid more than my bike�s value for a *very* fancy set of titanium bolts, hubs, handlebar and seatpost, in an endeavour to shed a few ounces, but at least in mountain biking speed is of the essence. The next time you have to run up a mountain with your 400mm lens, let me know and I�ll reconsider my stance on weight. (And tell you to take up running before breakfast...)

[peter_phan]

The Tefé story is interesting, but you have to remember that their situation was predicated on the fact that there wasn't really any alternative. If you wanted the equipment, you carried the weight. That was the status quo. What we are seeing with DO technology is a new benchmark for lens size and weight, and it bodes well for future photographers.

 

I remember my my first cell phone was a brick. My current cell phone is so light and small I can slip it into my shirt pocket without fear that it will rip my shirt open. I remember the first video camera I used; we affectionately called it the "shoulder bruiser" because you had to carry it on your shoulder. My current video camera is a lightweight wonder that I hold in the palm of my hand. I don't need to run up mountains with these items to appreciate their diminished size and weight.

 

We also mustn't forget that we are talking about two significant lens advancements here: DO and IS. It's funny how IS seems so passe now that it hardly seems worth mentioning now that DO is in the spotlight.