A future in the Canon 200mm f1.8 lens?

[r._j.]

Does anyone know anything of an IS 200mm f1.8 (or similar)

lens being introduced now that (a) the non-IS version has been

discontinued, and (b) Nikon have re-introduced their MF 200mm f2 lens

in an AF version?

 

Incidentally, the amount of time Nikon took in replacing their MF

200/2 with an AF 200/2 was immense, so even if Canon bring out an IS

200/1.8 it could be a while away.

 

But those of us who shoot indoor sports (ice skating, ice hockey,

martial arts tournaments, gymnastics, etc) could do with such a lens.

 

Comments (not too abusive, please!) appreciated....

[bobatkins]

It's not a hot rumor, in fact as far as I know it's not a rumor at all. When Canon bring out a new lens, they don't usually drop the old one first. At least they didn't with the 300/4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 or 600/4.

 

When they drop a lens, it seems to stay dropped (50/1.0L, 100-300/5.6L).

 

Whether they'll ever bring out a substitute is anyone's guess. I'd say a 200/1.8DO IS might be as likely as anything to make it smaller and lighter. Canon don't seem to have given up on DO yet.

[jbq]

Looking at the block diagram of the 300/2.8 and the 300/2.8 IS, the rear of the lens is quite different, and it's fairly obvious that Canon had to go back to the drawing board in order to be able to add IS.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i> At the risk of becoming un-popular for starting another unsubstantiated rumour about a "supposedly not-far-off" Canon product..... </i> </p>

<p> You are at risk that the thread will be soon be deleted by Bob. From the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/policy?topic_id=1545">forum policy</a>: "Please note that chat threads and speculative posts about what Canon might or might not be planning, or what you think they should be planning will typically be given a short life (sometimes measured in hours, not days)". </p>

<p> A personal note: I'd rather see a 300/2 IS DO. </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[michael_peters1]

Well I'm going to speculate as to why it's dead. The digital era.

 

With digital slr's, it's trivial to bump up the iso. Yes, that means more noise - but it is easier to clean up noise than it is to add depth of field, and on a tele lens like that - the depth of field at f1.8 has to be extremely shallow. I'm sure there are artistic applications for that, but I suspect not for indoor sports.

 

I suspect that with indoor (or any) sports the advantage of f1.8 is to use a faster shutter speed, it is not done for shallow depth of field. So in the digital era, bumping up the iso may result a better image than shooting that wide.

 

Anyone with real experience with indoor sports want to school me on this?

[yakim_peled1]

>> You are at risk that the thread will be soon be deleted by Bob.

 

Hummmmm........ I guess I was mistaken.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[digitmstr]

>>With digital slr's, it's trivial to bump up the iso<<

 

Yes but, let's not forget that AF is related to lens aperture. Fast lenses are here to stay. My take on the 200 f/1.8 is that it was too "esoteric" for most users, even pros, just like the 50 f/1.0 (though the 50 wasn't as good obviously). At some point, market comes into play and if they don't sell enough... On the opposite side you have the 300 2.8 IS, the 70-200 2.8 IS, etc... all great sellers and well regarded lenses.

 

I was hoping that Canon would relax a bit with this ULTRA fast lens race and come up with a 50 f/1.2L and an 85 f/1.4L which focused faster than the 1.2 they make today. I would gladly give up 1/3 the f-stop for the AF speed. Whereas now we are "stuck" :) with the 50 f/1.0-1.4 and the 85 f/1.2-1.8.

[eos 10 fan]

Just curious: What was the final price, from reputable dealers, of the 200/1.8L before it was dropped by Canon?

 

Thanks

[mark u]

I wouldn't expect them to revive the 200 f/1.8 or similar soon. However, if we reach the point where a 1.6 crop sensor is considered a permanent feature of the DSLR line - even for a "pro" body, then such a lens effectively provides a very similar angle of view and DOF capability on the crop sensor as the canonical (pun intended) 300 f/2.8 does on full frame - and ideal for many sport shooters. Of course, a replacement would have to offer IS as well. Nikon has provided VR on its new lens, and the role for it is clear, given Nikon's stated commitment to 1.5 crop factor DSLRs.

[simon_kull]

question of dan funk:

 

i just travelled to beijing a few weeks ago and saw this beauty in a pro photo shop posted for about 4000 us$ (depends what exchange rate you take). i don't know what it costs in the US itself, but seems a good price to me considering 1.8.

cheers saimen

[matthew_goldstein]

Recently closed my eyes, crossed my fingers and bought a very lightly used 200mm f/1.8 for approx $3500 on the net. Worth the risk and every penny spent. I use this lens almost exclusively at ice hockey games and can shoot at 1/500 and either ISO 800 or 1600, depending on how low the overhead lights are in the rink. The "professional" event photographers usually show up with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and their results are always significantly inferior to mine. Because they print at the event, they apparently cannot shoot at ISO 3200 due to noticeable noise in 8x10 photos. At ISO 1600, they just cannot get enough shutter speed. Their motion photos are rarely sharp. My shots, down to the ice drops spraying up around the skates, are crispy. If you are shooting fast-moving indoor sports in anything short of a professional venue (which are typically brighter), this lens is phenomenal and well worth the [gulp] price.

[eduardo2]

Bob, Check this link out:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007EE8S/qid=1091638796/br=3-1/br_lfncs_ce_1/026-2139336-5144418

 

It shows the 50/1.0 available on amazon.co.uk...........maybe its a different version, I don't know.

[bobatkins]

I suppose it's possible that there are a few 50/1.0L lenses left on dealers shelves (they weren't big sellers!).

<p>

However as far as I know it's an officially discontinued lens (along with the 200/1.8L), meaning they are no longer in production and no longer listed in the current Canon lens catalog on on the Canon website (Canon USA at least). Also still available new from a few places, though no longer made or listed, is the 35-350L zoom (replaced by the new 28-300L IS). I don't know if any new 200/1.8L lenses are still around, but I doubt it.

<p>

BTW I usually do delete "rumor" threads, but this isn't really a rumor thread. It's more of a discussion about the 200/1.8L and a lament for its passing. There are no rumors!

[gary_ferguson1]

I wonder if Canon's lens line up isn't due for a major overhaul. The "L" designation isn't particularly useful and could be replaced with something more meaningful, there's a couple of lenses (like the 85mm f1.2) that don't deliver distance information for the new generation flash, IS needs to plug a couple of gaps, the wide angle range would benefit from a general clearout and facelift, and then there's DO lenses and the APS sized digital issue cluttering things up on the sidelines.

 

Put it all together and it's crying out for a major rationalisation, to the lenses, the features, and to the nomenclature.

[bobatkins]

They don't do "major overhauls" and there's nothing wrong with the "L" classification as far as I can see.

 

I'd expect them to make slow, gradual changes, like replacing the 35-350L with a 28-300L IS as they did earlier this year. Expect one or two new lenses each year, every year, and expect a few of the old ones to be dropped. Expect to see more IS lenses and even maybe a few DO lenses (though I doubt they'll ever get hugely popular).

 

The only real hole I see right now is a true wideangle for the 1.6x DSLRs, and that may well be addressed at Photokina in October.

[r._j.]

Bob, as I am not hugely familiar with DO glass, what is the issue with this type of optic? I notice you've drawn attention to it as something of a fizzer or white elephant before. Is the 400/4 lens the only Canon DO glass - at this stage, anyway?

[joeb]

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=9996

 

Cannon has added a second DO lens, the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.

[john_nastelin1]

So when's the last time Canon has introduced a new fast (f/2 or faster) prime lens? Not very recently. Today, the market wants zooms and we can't fault Canon for obliging. So, as much as I'd love to see a 200mm/f1.8 IS or 50mm/f1.2 IS lens, I'm not holding my breath. I'm just trying to save my pennies and grab what's still available.

[jbq]

I'm not holding my breath for short IS primes shorter than about 100mm, because the constraints added by an IS design would make it hard or impossible to keep the kind of design that makes those lenses so excellent (i.e. gaussian or very short telephoto designs).

[gary_ferguson1]

"there's nothing wrong with the "L" classification as far as I can see"

 

Bob, there's everything wrong with the "L" classification. Here's just one example, tell me how the consumer is helped by designating the 24mm T&S lens as an "L", but not the 45mm and 90mm T&S lenses? What useful information should a prospective buyer infer from this distinction?

[jbq]

The 24mm has 2 "special" elements, an aspheric and a UD. Almost all L lenses have at least 2 special element, with at least one of those made with special glass (UD/SUD/CaF2). A notable exception is the 85/1.2L, whose unusualness comes from not being a telephoto design.

 

There are also very few non-L lenses with special glass (actually, I'm not sure if there are any).

[bobatkins]

"L" lenses either have fluorite and/or "UD" glass and/or polished (as distinguished from replicated plastic) aspheric elements.

 

"L" not necessarily a designation for a "better" lens, though all "L" series lenses are pretty good!

 

The 45 and 90mm T/S lenses use neither UD glass, fluorite or aspheric elements, hence they are not "L" series. The 24 T/S has a ground and polished aspheric element, hence it is an "L" series lens.

[gary_ferguson1]

Bob and Jean-Baptiste, of course you're exactly right in what you say, but neither of you really answer the question. How does a narrowly feature based "L" description give the prospective buyer any useful information on the lens's benefits?

 

In short, it doesn't.

 

On the contrary the "L" designation suggests that the 24mm is somehow superior to the 45mm and the 90mm, when in reality it's no such thing, neither better made nor better performing. The "L" description may once have had some relevance, but it no longer serves a practical purpose and should be replaced with something more meaningful.

[yakim_peled1]

>> So when's the last time Canon has introduced a new fast (f/2 or faster) prime lens?

 

While not f/2 or faster, and while there is a faster one in the Canon line-up, I'd certainly call the 400/4 a fast lens.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[johnsilvey]

Last Fall, I bought a 200mm F1.8. I also borrowed an 85mm F1.2 from a friend. I used these 2 lenses (and only these two) to shoot a very-low-light indoor Christmas concert, put on by my daughter's high school band. You can see the results at this web site:

 

http://www.bowiephotos.com

 

Scroll down to below-the-slideshow, click on the arrows to select "Band", then select either of the two Winter Concert photo galleries. All of the EXIF data is included down below the pictures. This last weekend, I shot the most challenging indoor action I've ever shot - a "Flyball" competition. This is a competitive dog event in which the dogs run a length of hurdles, hit a platform on a box at the end of the course which pops a tennis ball out, they grab the ball, then sprint back over the hurdles. They are timed by a computer-monitored light beam. There are 10 divisions, with 1 being the fastest, 10 being the slowest. The slowest dogs are cute-sy puppies, dogs-just-starting-training, basset hounds, etc. The fastest are border collies. The border collies move at the speed of light - I would estimate 3 to 5 times the speed of humans. The lighting was low. We struggles for the first day, shooting with 10D's and 1D's and 1D Mark II's, first with 70-200 F2.8's, then with 200 F1.8's. We got 'some' yield - approx. 2 out of 10 pics was okay, and the other 8 had to be culled. On the second day, I shot with the 1D Mark II and the 85 F1.2. The improved results were incredible. It changed from a painful experience to a rewarding, ultimate sports-action experience. We're in the process of posting those pics commercially right now - the URL will be "http://www.fotofresh.com". Look for the 8/15/2004 date pics - ignore the 8/14/2004 pics and the earlier dog->flyball pics.

 

- john silvey

jsilj1@bowiephotos.com<div></div>