A modest holiday rant and wish-list for manufacturers of Big Glass �.

[mark_chappell]

I have a Canon 500/4 IS, which gets a lot of use and is a fine piece of equipment. But

it is not perfect and it seems to me there are several improvements that Canon (and

probably everyone else who makes big teles) could incorporate. These range from

easy to fanciful, and for fun I thought I�d see if anyone else has had similar musings.

 

1. CLOSER FOCUSING! For nature work, practically every piece of big glass could use

some help here. For small birds, lizards, etc., a 500 should focus to 3 meters or less

(with appropriate scaling for other focal lengths). For me, extension tubes are a

bothersome and all-too-frequent fact of life. Downside: a wider focusing range

probably would reduce autofocus speed.

 

2. A handle. Yep, the tripod foot on a big telephoto usually is designed as a carrying

handle. But during the delicate and critical operation of mounting the lens to the

tripod, you have to heft and maneuver the heavy lens by its barrel � not so easy if you

have small hands or are wearing gloves, especially since one hand is usually busy

tightening clamps, etc. Downside: more weight and bulk (but not much).

 

3. Focus lock buttons that are readily accessible. That is, placed around the center of

the lens and not way out at the far end near the focus ring. And make them easier to

activate (the Canon buttons are stiff enough to require quite a firm push, which can

easily shove the lens off-target). One can use custom functions to get around this but

it shouldn�t be necessary.

 

4. Better front lens caps. The leather lens condom/feed bag style is a puzzle. It�s a

pain to put on and take off, and once off, where do you put the thing? A simple

leatherless large cap would be a great improvement. The feed bag is so klutzy I leave

it in the car, so after walking through bushes I sometimes find that the hood has

scooped up a nice collection of spider webs, dead leaves, etc. This would not be an

issue if a simple leather-free cap were available (I know you can get these custom

made but for a $6K lens the manufacturer should do it right in the first place).

 

(more fanciful):

5. I use teleconverters (or extenders depending on preferred jargon) routinely, but

hate the business of swapping between 1.4X and 2X � you have to juggle the camera

body, converters, front and rear caps, the lens itself�. I think it�s only a matter of

time until I drop something. How about a multi-power converter? A zoom converter

is a nice concept but likely would entail so much optical compromise the results

would be undesirable. But a mechanism that had two sets of optics (? internal turret

arrangement?) would greatly cut back on the swapping. Downside: such a gizmo

would be bulky and costly � but maybe not much more than the combination of 1.4X

and 2X, and would be easier to use.

 

6. A 2.8X converter. Presumably this won�t be as good optically as a 2X but probably

better than stacking a 1.4X and a 2X. Most lenses would lose autofocus but

sometimes one simply wants or needs more reach than a 2X can offer.

[gregory_nicholson]

"Focus lock buttons that are readily accessible" If everything on the camera and lens is controlled electronically why don't you also ask for a way to manually focus with the rear thumb wheel? (sorry, I know nothing about EOS gear)

[ken_briggs]

Something I'd like to see is an IS (Image Stabilizer) 1X or 1.4X teleconvertor to use with my non-IS 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 lenses. I think Canon could sell a zillion of them.

[alex_lofquist]

I realise that hoisting and seating a large lens onto a tripod can be tricky at best. My quasi-solution is to mount my Sidekick onto my 500 f/4 before loading it onto my BH-1. This way I can see just how the thing is going into the A-S mounting (in the side configuration).

 

I hang the "feedbag" on the hook at the bottom of the centerpost. I then use it to place other items (TCs, filters, microfiber cloths, extension tubes) until they are needed. I don't carry the equipment this way, but put the lens hood back on if moving more than a few feet. The glass is too expensive to risk inadvertant damage because of haste.

 

As far as near-focussing goes, there is only so much motion allowable when using IF (internal focussing) designs. The best optical/mechanical solution is an extension tube. A 25mm works very well for me in most near situations.

 

 

There were 3X converters made back a quarter century ago. The lack of demand and quality caused their demise.

 

I sounds as though you need a good photo-vest to carry incidental items. I never switch TCs unless the lens is on the tripod, then removing the camera to attach/remove the TC. The same applies when using an extension tube.

 

"Big Glass" can have more than its share of problems, but where would we be without it?

[mark_chappell]

Hi, Alex. Thanks for the suggestions. I've tried the mount-sidekick-first option but

that still seems klutzy (for me, anyway). Nice idea for hanging the lenscap from the

tripod. My tripod lacks a centerpost, alas. How do you avoid it swinging in the wind

when hanging, and scaring things?

 

As to the close focusing, I think it can be done. Canon's 300/4 IS gets down to a little

over a meter and I think the Nikon equivalent is also pretty good in that regard.

 

I remember seeing ads for 3X converters long ago, but I also fairly frequently see

discussions on this forum about stacking TCs (the most recent one within the past

couple of weeks), and some well-known photographers do it with good results when

needed. I'd bet a manufacturer could build a better 'pure' 2.8X converter than we

can jury-rig from a 1.4X and a 2X.

 

Finally, I've got a vest and it helps. Nevertheless, there always seems to be a phase in

the TC swap routine where I've got a camera in one hand, a TC in the other, and no

easy way to put the second cap on the TC prior to stowing it in the vest.

 

But hey, it's still a lot of fun regardless of minor hassles!

[klix]

Mark - for me, I wish for something you can probably relate to:

 

Add AFS and change max aperture to f2.8 on the Nikon 80-400mm VR -- on a Nikon D1X (or D2X if/when it comes out), mounted on a Bushhawk shoulder mount -- Oh, what a birds-in-flight rig that would be!!!

 

Cheers!!!

[mark_chappell]

Hmm. Lessee... a 'straight' 400 f2.8 weighs maybe 10 pounds, so a zoom 80-400

f2.8 might weigh 11 or 12..... add 2 or 3 pounds for the camera.... I don't think I

could hand-hold that puppy very long, with or without Bushhawk!

 

But if you include halving the weight in your wish list, it's a nice concept.

[andrew robertson]

More and much cheaper DO lenses from Canon!

 

I love the concept, size, weight, and handling of the 400 f/4 DO IS lens, but the

freakin thing is $5000! Bring it down to $3000 and we have ourselves a serious

option here. I would also like to see bigger DO lenses. They could probably make a

500 f/4 DO IS lens that weighed well under a hundred ounces.

 

I could also use a 50 f/1.2L IS USM. The image stabilizer would make this a nighttime

lens without peer. Canon, since you guys discontinued the giand hunk o' glass known

as the 50mm f/1.0L, almost every other camera company is beating you! What

happened to always having the fastest glass? Isn't that what the huge honking EOS

mount is all about?

 

The IS teleconverter won't happen, though. It'd kill Canon's big glass market. Sure

would be awesome though.

[douglas_greenberg]

Kenko makes a 3x "professional grade" teleconverter. I own one and once in a blue moon it comes in handy to get really distant or close-up shots with my big glass long lenses (MF). Optically it's pretty darned good. The problem, of course, is that you lose three stops of light so its usefulness is limited.

[Mike D]

Nikon could sure use a 1.0 VR teleconverter for its big glass since it doesn't have stabilization on its big lenses.

[mark_lagrange3]

Boyz and their toyz ... I wanna 600/2.8 IS DO!

 

... and by the way ... a partridge in a pear tree is not very photogenic! :)

[alex_lofquist]

More likely, a parsnip in a pantry.

 

As to hanging things from your tripod that has no hook from the centerpost, try a triangular "hammock" used by some amateur astronomers to hold eyepieces and such. This mounts between the legs, and can be of fabric or rigid plastic, and fastened with Velcro strips. I think that this could be home made to fit your system. Don't pay any attention to wags that tell you that "they are not hanging right".

[ryan_taylor1]

I'll second the idea about the leather, feed-bag cap thing. It baffles me. Why not just a regular plastic lens cap? Sure, it would be big, but it would still be a lot more efficent to put on and off than the current design.

[jason_elsworth3]

Smaller, lighter and cheaper please.

[keith_merrill]

I shoot with a pentax 645nII and use the 600 f5.6 lens sometimes, its got a handle on the top of the lens that is very helpful.

[george_rhodes]

Just a comparison that came to mind while reading Mark's wish list, for the F.W.I.W. archive and anyone who may be interested. Don't ask me what it means, because I don't know. I guess I have too many figures floating around in my head.

 

Canon 400mm f4 DO IS: Diameter 5.0", Length 9.2", Weight 4.3 lbs., Close focus distance 11.5'. Focus hold buttons toward front of lens, on lens front side of focus ring. AF SLR Lens Test Guide quality rating of 3.43. Image stabilized. Digital camera bodies currently available. B&H current price $4,494.95.

 

Minolta 400mm f4.5 APO: Diameter 4 5/16", Length 10 13/16", Weight 67 3/4 oz., Close focus distance 9.8'. Focus hold buttons slightly in from center of lens barrel, on camera side of focus ring. AF SLR Lens Test Guide quality rating of 3.82. Not image stabilized. No digital camera bodies currently available. B&H current price $1,799.95

[don_baccus]

1. Closer focusing ... someone above mentioned the limitations of internal focusing systems. Canon's old non-IS teles all focused to 1/10th the focal length (i.e. 300/2.8 down to 3 meters, the 600/4 down to 6 meters) and this is related to the internal focusing system. A big, big advantage of the internal focusing system is that you only have to push lightweight, small elements around instead of physically cranking out the "dinner plate" front element. The benefit for autofocus cameras is obvious, I'm sure ... think of the motor size/power draw needed to move the "dinner plate" front assembly, which is where most the weight is.

 

So your wish is a nice one but there's a good reason for the limitation.

 

2. If you want handles on your supertelephoto lens all you need to do is to buy yourself a Canon EF 1200/5.6 :)

 

4. The "feedbag" does have the advantage of being usable with the hood on, too. It is a major pain, though, no doubt about it!