# Two New Big White Lenses Coming Next Year [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2017)

```
We’re told that an internal presentation roadmap from Canon includes two “big white” lenses coming in 2018. The slide in question did not mention specific focal lengths, likely to help prevent what I’m typing right now.</p>
<p>One of the big white lenses could logically be the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-br-at-canon-expo/">EF 600mm f/4 DO IS that Canon showed back at the 2015 Canon Expo</a>.</p>
<p>The second of the two remains a mystery at this time. There has always been some rumblings about an updated EF 200mm f/2L IS and EF 800mm f/5.6L IS, but nothing has come to fruition.</p>
<p>2018 is a World Cup of football/soccer in Russia and the Olympic Winter Games in South Korea and Canon generally makes a professional gear splash for these events.</p>
<p>We also have Photokina to look forward to in September of 2018.</p>
<p>The previous release of “big whites” saw two releases in pairs. First the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II & EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II came, followed by the EF 500mm f/4L IS II & EF 600mm f/4L IS II a few months later.</p>
<p><em>image credit // <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/canon-is-working-on-600mm-do-br-telephoto-lens-with-its-latest-optical-tech">popphoto</a></em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## ethanz (Jul 19, 2017)

The 300 2.8, 400 2.8/4, 500, 600, and 200-400 are all fairly new by big white standards, I don't think they would replace those yet.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

Big white? 

C'mon, we all know what the _one_ of them is... 8)

- A


----------



## Lt Colonel (Jul 19, 2017)

How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 19, 2017)

Would an updated 28-300 (in the same body as the 100-400ii) be a "big white"? Or is it not big enough? It would dovetail with the speculation about the possible prototype in the other thread. And it's logical, if they made it again share a body with the 100-400 and could piggy-back on that relatively recent release and manufacturing.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2017)

Actually, I was wondering if a 200-500 f5.6 would be big enough. While some folks have hoped for this to be a "C" lens (as in "consumer") I've argued that it makes more sense to make it white and attach a higher price tag to it.

Makes sense to pair it with the rumored 7DIII.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 19, 2017)

Lt Colonel said:


> How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D


A "Little" White.


----------



## leadin2 (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Big white?
> 
> C'mon, we all know what the _one_ of them is... 8)
> 
> - A



Be careful what you wished for, this looks more like EF-S or EF-M lens. ;D ;D


----------



## Khalai (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Big white?
> 
> C'mon, we all know what the _one_ of them is... 8)
> 
> - A



You are missing a green ring and TC inside. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 DO IS USM TC 2x


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

leadin2 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Big white?
> ...



I don't care if it's hot pink -- if it's sharp, relatively small, internally focusing and has fast/reliable/modern AF, I'm in on day one.

But I'm OT, sorry. This is a big white thread.

- A


----------



## neonlight (Jul 19, 2017)

Haven't heard about the 1000mm f(5.6?) DO for a while... would they bring this out ahead of an 800 f/5.6L update?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 19, 2017)

Lt Colonel said:


> How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D


why not go a little longer? 500mm f/5.6 IS USM L.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 19, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Lt Colonel said:
> 
> 
> > How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D
> ...



That would get my money!


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Lt Colonel said:
> 
> 
> > How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D
> ...


Or they could go to a little longer 600mm 5.6L (or a second smaller in diameter and lighter DO version)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2017)

The 600/4 DO seems likely. Nikon recently launched an 800/5.6 lens, so I could see the possibliity of a 800/5.6 II from Canon. 

But who knows...maybe they'll surprise us with something novel. How about a 400-800mm f/5.6L + 1.4x TC, modeled on the 200-400/4+1.4x?


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2017)

A 600 4 Do would be a hell of a lens but I am sure it would cost a five figure amount...

If only they made - I am sure they will not - a 600 5.6 DO too, it would be fantastic... Same length with a 600 DO more or less, but with less diameter and weight and cost than a f/4 version... It would make a fantastic portable birding lens...


----------



## camerone (Jul 19, 2017)

oh, the things Canon could do with diffractive optics...


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 19, 2017)

The 200/2 and 800/5.6 are both due/overdue to catch up with the other MkIIs which are already (can you believe it?) nearly 7 years old, but in a perfect world we'd get the 600 DO and one of the rumoured lower cost non-L telephotos.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Big white?
> 
> C'mon, we all know what the _one_ of them is... 8)
> 
> - A



yup.. you're getting a 50mm f0.25.. and approx 15lbs weight. 

Big.. not necessarily long


----------



## Tom W (Jul 19, 2017)

Still kind of wondering if Canon will choose to compete directly with the Sigma 150-600 like Nikon is, or if they're going to leave low-budget birders out of the equation. Seems to me that it would be a great use for DO optics if it could keep weight down, which is essential in this category.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> leadin2 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



A new canon 50mm is always on topic, regardless of thread.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Big white?
> ...


Ernst Abbe worked out that for complicated lenses (more than one element, or air as a part of the lenses optical path) that f0.5 is a hard limit. Faster than that and you have to have a one piece solid lens which makes focusing and aperture control problematic.

So it looks like ashford will have to settle for a 50mm f0.5. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 19, 2017)

800F5.6 DO lens.....
400F5.6 DO lens......


----------



## Jopa (Jul 19, 2017)

Need to set myself a reminder to put the 200/2 on eBay in December. I think that one is most likely to update - it needs new brighter paint! 
The 600/4 - I'm not sure if I sell mine I will be able to afford a DO version...


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 19, 2017)

Lt Colonel said:


> How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D



Don't care about the 400 5.6, but would love an updated 300 f/4 is that played well with a 2x extender.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 19, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Lt Colonel said:
> ...



It would be less versatile than a 400mm f/4 + TCs. A 400 DO II f/4 + 1.4xTC = 560mm f/5.6. 400 DO + 2xTC = 800mm f/8, whereas 500mm f/5.6 + 1.4xTC = 700mm f/8. OK, you could have 500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/11 but it would not AF and would be above the DLA for high density sensors.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 20, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The 200/2 and 800/5.6 are both due/overdue to catch up with the other MkIIs which are already (can you believe it?) nearly 7 years old, but in a perfect world we'd get the 600 DO and one of the rumoured lower cost non-L telephotos.



Even money on the 200 f/2 being up for a refresh.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 20, 2017)

AlanF said:


> It would be less versatile than a 400mm f/4 + TCs. A 400 DO II f/4 + 1.4xTC = 560mm f/5.6. 400 DO + 2xTC = 800mm f/8, whereas 500mm f/5.6 + 1.4xTC = 700mm f/8. OK, you could have 500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/11 but it would not AF and would be above the DLA for high density sensors.



A 400/4 would also be a lot more expensive.


----------



## H2Oplanet (Jul 20, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The 200/2 and 800/5.6 are both due/overdue to catch up with the other MkIIs which are already (can you believe it?) nearly 7 years old, but in a perfect world we'd get the 600 DO and one of the rumoured lower cost non-L telephotos.



200/2 MkI is close-to-perfect... would MkII IQ get much better... not sure weight reduction alone would merit "trading up"


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Jul 20, 2017)

didnt they mention a new 70-200 mark 3 was in the works??


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

BigAntTVProductions said:


> didnt they mention a new 70-200 mark 3 was in the works??



They did, good memory. 

But is that a 'big' white? Is a 70-300L a big white? There's a bit a price delta between a $1500-2000 zoom and the big dogs that are north of $5k...

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> BigAntTVProductions said:
> 
> 
> > didnt they mention a new 70-200 mark 3 was in the works??
> ...



Why the hell would they upgrade 70-200 II for? That lens is stellar and quite recent. There are many others much older lenses due to upgrade. E.g. new 50mm prime


----------



## ERHP (Jul 20, 2017)

600 f/4 IS w/1.4X TC built in. Or better, dual select-able 1.4X TC's built in.


----------



## padam (Jul 20, 2017)

The other could be the EF-M 600mm f/5.6 DO IS lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It would be less versatile than a 400mm f/4 + TCs. A 400 DO II f/4 + 1.4xTC = 560mm f/5.6. 400 DO + 2xTC = 800mm f/8, whereas 500mm f/5.6 + 1.4xTC = 700mm f/8. OK, you could have 500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/11 but it would not AF and would be above the DLA for high density sensors.
> ...



Would it? A 500/5.6 would be pretty close in size of glass to a 400/4 of the same specs.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > BigAntTVProductions said:
> ...


It is. But Nikon showed how to make it even better (although for a higher price).
And Tamron and Sigma are coming closer and closer. 

and a 70-200/2.8 is a main workhorse to a lot of pros. So they are looking for the best available.



> There are many others much older lenses due to upgrade. E.g. new 50mm prime


You are right here but the questions are which lenses are Canons cash cows, and where are they losing ground to their main competitor, Nikon.
I'd also like to see more new primes in the mid price range. 
But as you mentioned the 50 mm lens you can see that Canon seem to feel no need to act, although the competition is there for several years now.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 20, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> So they are looking for the best available.



If I was a pro I would probably choose a best bang for a buck. I doubt the clients would spot a difference between the 70-200 I vs 70-200 II vs 70-200 III


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> There are many others much older lenses due to
> You are right here but the questions are which lenses are Canons cash cows, and where are they losing ground to their main competitor, Nikon.
> I'd also like to see more new primes in the mid price range.
> But as you mentioned the 50 mm lens you can see that Canon seem to feel no need to act, although the competition is there for several years now.



Sigma and Tamron are potent competition as well, considering recent Art or SP lenses. They come natively with EF mount, so many Canon shooters do not need to switch entire systems, just lenses.

Canon's 50mm dept. is quite outdated with recent offerings such as Sigma 50/1.4 Art, Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 or perhaps even Tamron 45/1.8 VC USD. While I really like my 50/1.2L, I would welcome improved sharpness and faster AF anyday for a 1/3 stop. Give me 50/1.4L, 55/1.4L or 58/1.4L with similar performance as 35/1.4L II and I'll be happy camper. And no aspherical design please, for smooth bokeh, while you're at it Canon, thanks. Take a look at Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 please, they did outstanding job w/o aspherical elements there


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > So they are looking for the best available.
> ...



Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.

I've got 70-200 II second-hand in mint condition and 6 months warranty for 1600 €. And they'll have to pry that lens from my cold dead hands, if they want to part me with it.

70-200 III would be rather minor improvements (current one is very sharp wide open, any improvements will be rather difficult to accomplish within certain budget) with major price hike. Thanks, but no thanks


----------



## Jopa (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.



That's exactly my thoughts.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

the off centre sharpness can be improved a bit, but not by much. A price hike is almost in order. Look a the Nikon's 70-200 latest and greatest price. Honestly, I do not see much point in upgrade. I am very happy with my 70-200 L II lens. 

p.s. I purchased my lens slightly used from a very nice old gentleman living in Mornigton, Victoria, Australia, for A$1,500,00 (US$1,200) with a bonus Canon 2x Extender II included. Brian is now in his late 80's and no longer is able to walk mid to long distances due to ongoing lungs issues 
I would like to take this opprtunities to express my gratitude to all older generation forum members. We have so much to learn from you, guys. Thank you for your patience and generocity!




Khalai said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> the off centre sharpness can be improved a bit, but not by much. A price hike is almost in order. Look a the Nikon's 70-200 latest and greatest price. Honestly, I do not see much point in upgrade. I am very happy with my 70-200 L II lens.
> 
> p.s. I purchased my lens slightly used from a very nice old gentleman living in Mornigton, Victoria, Australia, for A$1,500,00 (US$1,200) with a bonus Canon 2x Extender II included. Brian is now in his late 80's and no longer is able to walk mid to long distances due to ongoing lungs issues
> I would like to take this opprtunities to express my gratitude to all older generation forum members. We have so much to learn from you, guys. Thank you for your patience and generocity!



I use this lens as a wedding portrait machine, usually wide open. While I hate its weight after a longer use, I love the output of that lens. Centre sharpness is amazing, borders could be better, but I won't pay over 2500 € for that. If thye could somehow make it under 1 kg of weight though, that would be some feat! But physics is merciless I'm afraid...


----------



## Jopa (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > the off centre sharpness can be improved a bit, but not by much. A price hike is almost in order. Look a the Nikon's 70-200 latest and greatest price. Honestly, I do not see much point in upgrade. I am very happy with my 70-200 L II lens.
> ...



The sharpness on the 5DsR is mind blowing. I'm seriously considering to sell the 200/2 because of the versatility (and usability) of the 70-200 II.


----------



## Joakim (Jul 20, 2017)

I didn't see anyone mention the 300-600 with built in TC they patented a few years ago.

The 200 F2 and 800 F5.6 both lack an II version so my money is in 1 of these (likely the 200, as the 800 is less versatile than a 600 F4) as well as the 600 DO.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

shooting in studio with the 200mm prime is definetely not the most flexible option out there unless your studio is very, very large. shooting outdoors is a different story and 200/2.0 is a very special lens. very sharp, virtually distortion free and vignetting free by F2.8. for outdoor enviromental portraiture the 200/2L is a nice tool, I suppose. quite a bokeh machine too. for my style of shooting, 135mm prime is a more versatile lens to use. If I were you, I would consider selling the 200/2.0 but you love shooting outdoors and wide open and 200/2.0 is a great lens that is more than capable of delivering that ultimate image quality you are pursuing. 
zooms are not primes 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

stopped down a bit, the 70-200 L II is as sharp though.




Jopa said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.


I Am with you and also with the other thoughts you've posted here.

What I wanted to say is, that those f2.8 zooms are the typical lighthouse and reference lenses where everybody wants to shine.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.
> ...



Canon did their job well then. 16-35/2.8 III, 24-70/2.8L II and 70-200/2.8L II are all very sharp lenses, albeit some people miss IS on that 24-70. I do not, seeing results from peers with IS, I'm glad Canon went IS-less way for better image quality.

Yes, there is a room for improvement in off-centre image quality in those lenses, but at what cost? Are we really willing to pay +1000 € for a lens that is slightly sharper in the corners (and its predecessor is already acceptable as well), much bigger and heavier? Because physics is physics, unless there is some opto-scientific breakthrough such as superhigh transmissive, chromatic aberration free, optically excellent compound with extreme refractive index compared to current technology available...


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...


 I had the non-IS 70-200 2.8 Unfortunately it was stolen. If I had it I would not buy the II. It had very good IQ. It was my first zoom that had fixed lens IQ (judging by b/w enlargements)


----------



## Lt Colonel (Jul 20, 2017)

It's interesting to watch this thread run though a dump of wishes, mine included, and then trail off "big whites" onto other wants, wishes and needs. These should provide free focus group marketing research for Canon if they are listening. One would think this group is a reasonable microcosm of Canon users worldwide; maybe. I predict that no matter what the mystery lens is, I'll be in the 1/3 (or more) of folks who will not be able to justify the expense as a hobbyist photographer. 

I hope it is a groundbreaking, gee-whiz gotta have new lens, so we can help the other 2/3 finance it by getting a deal on your used gear.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> ...
> Are we really willing to pay +1000 € for a lens that is slightly sharper in the corners
> ...


Me not, and if you think about the "normal" enthusiasts, that buy a xxD and some decent lenses they are still just dreaming about lenses north of say 1.000 $/€ because they simply cannot afford or justify such an invest.

And here I am totally with you that such enthusiasts would welcome improvements in the midprice lenses, esp. those old prime designs from the last century. 
But it seems that Canon doesn't see any interesting sales numbers here. Otherwise there would be products already available, so I suppose.

Let's hope that we won't have to wait very much longer for those... *sigh*


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Jul 20, 2017)

Therefore, why they should replace their cash cows? It still a decent lens. They should replace their old lenses, like 50L. I doubt the sale of 50L for a month could equal the half of the 70-200 II thesedays. Because of it was no longer a money maker, they have to make it a money maker again right? I think the profit would be bigger that way than replacing an already great also money maker lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.



Don't forget to save money for back and wrist surgery. 

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 20, 2017)

AlanF said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Isn't the rule that 100mm front element is where it gets expensive? The whole fact that you can use TCs to turn one into a 700/8 and the other into an 800/8 should illustrate the difference. And it's why the 150-600s turn into f/6.3 at the long end.


----------



## snoke (Jul 20, 2017)

Will Canon's competitor to 150-600 or 200-500 or ... be a "bit white lens" next year?
Or will it be a big black lens?
Or just not be at all?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.
> ...



I'm saving for the Canon AG-E1 Anti-Gravity Accessory that canon will release with it, which I would buy even though it wouldn't shoot 4K video.


----------



## ethanz (Jul 20, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



I've thought about that too. Like a tripod that moves with you without legs or carrying it.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Canon ML (MagLev) lens series?


----------



## WRS (Jul 20, 2017)

I vote they bring out that rumored 1000mm f/5.6 DO ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30034.0


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



I doubt that there is any such rigid rule. For example, the 150-600mms you quote - the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary does indeed have a 95mm front element, but the Sports has a 105mm front element and costs only $900 more, which includes better construction, weather sealing and more expensive glass components.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

AlanF said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the rule that 100mm front element is where it gets expensive?
> ...


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 20, 2017)

WRS said:


> I vote they bring out that rumored 1000mm f/5.6 DO ;D
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30034.0



I wouldn't be surprised if Canon actually does release a 600mm f/4L DO IS and 1000mm F/5.6L DO IS at the same time. The 600 DO looked to be somewhat smaller than even a 400 f/2.8, so I'd imagine that they could pull off a 1000mm DO around the size of a 600mm or 800mm. That would be a much more temping upgrade to the 800mm than simply updating it. 

Kinda in the same way that Canon did the 500 and 600 at the same time.


----------



## WRS (Jul 20, 2017)

H. Jones said:


> WRS said:
> 
> 
> > I vote they bring out that rumored 1000mm f/5.6 DO ;D
> ...



That would be spectacular in my opinion and would further broaden an already impressive lens line up.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 20, 2017)

70-300DOii? No one else wants that? I'll see myself out.

Always seemed like an excellent discreet public candid combo. Though I suppose the 55-250STM does about the same.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 21, 2017)

H2Oplanet said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > The 200/2 and 800/5.6 are both due/overdue to catch up with the other MkIIs which are already (can you believe it?) nearly 7 years old, but in a perfect world we'd get the 600 DO and one of the rumoured lower cost non-L telephotos.
> ...



Weight reduction (it's currently heavier than the somewhat larger 300/2.8L II), Mode 3 IS, fluorine coating, perhaps some small improvement in IQ, latest (2010) paint colour!


----------



## Khalai (Jul 21, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> 70-300DOii? No one else wants that? I'll see myself out.
> 
> Always seemed like an excellent discreet public candid combo. Though I suppose the 55-250STM does about the same.



I want that! The original 70-300 DO is a lackluster, but if they could bring it close to 70-300L IQ, I'll be all over it!


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jul 22, 2017)

I also wanna have an update about the small whites!!
My wishes: 300mm 4L IS II with build in teleconverter, or the 400mm 5.6L IS.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 22, 2017)

tron said:


> A 600 4 Do would be a hell of a lens but I am sure it would cost a five figure amount...
> 
> If only they made - I am sure they will not - a 600 5.6 DO too, it would be fantastic... Same length with a 600 DO more or less, but with less diameter and weight and cost than a f/4 version... It would make a fantastic portable birding lens...



Well the 600 II already costs five figures so I imagine you're right!

Personally, I'd beg, steal, or borrow a lot to get a 600 DO if it wasn't ludicrously expensive (for me, that would be ~£12k RRP). I love my 500 II but losing some length would be a boon (and more FL is always welcome).

PS maybe they'll choose a third shade of white for the new releases! ;D


----------



## degos (Jul 26, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.



I was shooting next to a newspaper photographer at the weekend who had the first-generation EF 300/2.8 and 600/4. No IS, nothing. Just lots of black gaffer tape to keep things in place.

He said they keep cannabilizing other ones in the office to keep a few going since Canon don't service them anymore, but they're razor-sharp and they actually sent the 'replacement' Mark IIs back because they drained the camera batteries much faster and weren't discernably better in terms of IQ.

Instead they spend the budget on new bodies when they pass the shutter-life rating, discarding them rather than sending for rework.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 26, 2017)

degos said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.
> ...



But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?


----------



## degos (Jul 26, 2017)

Khalai said:


> But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?



Yes, I guess it's another thing that can fail and make the lens inoperative. Plus there's a host of other circuitry in modern lenses.

I've never heard a 1DX ( might have been a Mark 2 ) with such an insane frame-rate as when he fired with the ancient 600, I wonder how much current the modern lenses draw in comparison.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 26, 2017)

degos said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?
> ...



Also, all new big white lenses are notábly lighter than predecessors, that might intrigue someone as well


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 26, 2017)

degos said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > But you can always turn the IS off to save some juice in batteries. But once you paid for it, it makes a little sense to turn it off, right?
> ...



But the old 300/2.8 has focus-by-wire - if that fails you have no way at all to focus. The IS versions have conventional ring USM so if AF fails you can still focus manually. And if IS fails you can normally still shoot without it.

This kind of discussion reminds me of conversations I used to have with people who ran very old cars. One justification was that when they broke down they could carry out running repairs at the roadside. Sure, I would say, but my modern car has never broken down...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 26, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> degos said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



I've had the same argument about car windows, manual vs powered. No matter how reliable power windows are (mine have _never_ failed, including a VW), I know people who rant about manufacturers "forcing" them to buy "another thing that fails". Nevermind that my old Civic had its driver's side manual window fail...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> I've had the same argument about car windows, manual vs powered. No matter how reliable power windows are (mine have _never_ failed, including a VW), I know people who rant about manufacturers "forcing" them to buy "another thing that fails". Nevermind that my old Civic had its driver's side manual window fail...



Yeah, but you could just pull off the door panel, and use some duct tape and a paperclip to fix that Civic roll-up. Try that with a power window...

  8)


----------



## RGF (Jul 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 600/4 DO seems likely. Nikon recently launched an 800/5.6 lens, so I could see the possibliity of a 800/5.6 II from Canon.
> 
> But who knows...maybe they'll surprise us with something novel. How about a 400-800mm f/5.6L + 1.4x TC, modeled on the 200-400/4+1.4x?



if they came up with a 400-800 zoom, based upon the 200-400 zoom, I think they would make it F8. The 200-400 was a stop slower than the fast prime at the long end. Think Canon would do that again to avoid make the lens a monster.


----------



## RGF (Jul 27, 2017)

ERHP said:


> 600 f/4 IS w/1.4X TC built in. Or better, dual select-able 1.4X TC's built in.



Interesting point. Do you think Canon will introduce a new lens (has to be a great white, probably due to size constraints) with a built in 1.4 converter?


----------



## RGF (Jul 27, 2017)

If they come out with the 600 DO F4 with first ships in early January I will grab one for a trip to Africa. Would be nice to reduce the weight and size of my bag.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2017)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 600/4 DO seems likely. Nikon recently launched an 800/5.6 lens, so I could see the possibliity of a 800/5.6 II from Canon.
> ...



That would have to be 400-800 without a built in TC, so not really based on the 200-400. It would already a bit of a stretch for Canon to release a native f/8 dSLR lens (built in TC means 'native'), but I can see it happening now that bodies even down to the xxD line have f/8 AF points across the frame. But I highly doubt that Canon would release a lens with a native f/11, unable to autofocus (except for live view) on any current Canon dSLR. I suppose it would be possible after Canon switches over entirely to mirrorless (which _might_ happen sometime before we catch up with Buck Rogers).


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> It would already a bit of a stretch for Canon to release a native f/8 dSLR lens (built in TC means 'native'), but I can see it happening now that bodies even down to the xxD line have f/8 AF points across the frame.



Down to the xxxD line, even! The T7i/800D inherited the f/8 capability of the 80D.


----------

