# Canon U.S.A. Introduces Its First Two 8K Broadcast Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 11, 2019)

> UHD-DIGISUPER 51 and 7×10.7 KAS S Lenses Provide Cutting Edge Imagery Solutions for Sports and Event Production
> MELVILLE, NY, November 6, 2019 – Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the launch of its first two 8K Broadcast lenses: the UHD-DIGISUPER 51 (SP51x15.5B), a long-zoom field lens, and the 7×10.7 KAS S, a portable zoom lens. These two new zoom lenses are compatible with 8K broadcast cameras equipped with 1.25-inch sensors.
> “8K broadcasting equipment is the newest frontier for covering sporting events and documentary productions around the globe,” said Kazuto Ogawa, president and chief operating officer, Canon U.S.A., Inc. “Through the addition of our first 8K broadcast lenses, Canon is cementing our position on the cutting edge of the latest ultra-high-resolution digital imaging solutions.”
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 11, 2019)

Canon usually supplies lenses for the Olympics and Sony supplies the cameras. Since the Olympics will be broadcast in 8K, I'm sure they are rushing to get them ready. Canon works with Sony on things like this, they even show the lenses on Sony cameras in their advertisements.


----------



## felipeolveram (Nov 11, 2019)

“If you want a video camera get a video camera” this thing will fit nicely in my carry on /s all jokes aside this is cool!


----------



## Jack Jian (Nov 11, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


8K res on a tiny 1.25 inch sensor is helluva sharp & ultra high resolving power.


----------



## Trey T (Nov 12, 2019)

Video showing setup of a typical Sony “hard” camera with canon lens use in sporting events. 2008 was a very exciting time when 2/3” sensor was considered “large” sensor and 5DII changed the way Indi films (and Hollywood) were made


----------



## Trey T (Nov 12, 2019)

Another video ... the operation


----------



## bdbender4 (Nov 12, 2019)

Refreshing to see _real_ video equipment for _real_ video, rather than the endless arguments about which manufacturer has crammed the least-compromised video features into which still camera. And Canon certainly knows how to make real video equipment and nice lenses. Although the names UHD-DIGISUPER 51 (SP51x15.5B) 7×10.7 KAS S aren't exactly catchy...


----------



## sanj (Nov 12, 2019)

Wow. How time flies. It seems like yesterday where people were saying we do not need 4k!


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Use this to shoot video and please give me 30MP's in my 1DXMKIII at 15fps for RAW stills. This is so easy to do. Come on!!!!!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 12, 2019)

Ha!...apparently this is called a "portable zoom lens". By that I'm guessing Canon means that it "can" be moved sometimes....


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 12, 2019)

sanj said:


> Wow. How time flies. It seems like yesterday where people were saying we do not need 4k!



I have a 5Dmk3. Last time I shot video was my niece's birthday on 2012. Shot it FHD, and nobody complained. As my computer screen's highest resolution is 1920x1200. I don't have a TV. I shoot family events, and send photos @ 3MP. That's the comfort zone of having no complaints about long download times, or not having enough pixels for 18x24cm prints. They've learned to ask for full resolution photos on the rare occasion they want to print larger.

But yes, we (read: all of us) need 4K. Every vlogger, and every last photographer.

Sure.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ha!...apparently this is called a "portable zoom lens". By that I'm guessing Canon means that it "can" be moved sometimes....


The actual standard is "one handle [to carry]" for portable and "two handles" for semiportable equipment.


----------



## Tremotino (Nov 12, 2019)

So what is this? a 500k$ lense?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 12, 2019)

Tremotino said:


> So what is this? a 500k$ lense?


Yeah...it'll look mighty funny on a 6DII.


----------



## melgross (Nov 12, 2019)

8k, sigh. Really, for almost everyone, 4K is a waste. I sit about 14 feet from my 61”1080p Tv, and I can only see a bit over 480 from that distance. In order to actually see the full 1080p resolution, I have to stand about 6 feet away. 4k means about 3 feet. 8k means about 18 inches.

isnt anyone paying attention to the angle of resolution a person can actually see? I suppose not, as Tv sales continue to drop, manufacturers continue to increase unneeded resolution, when studies have clearly shown that people prefer 1080p with wide band color to 4K with sRGB. And while color standards are DCI-P3 for 4K as opposed to sRGB for 1080p, most 4K sets can’t do more than sRGB.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Nov 12, 2019)

sanj said:


> Wow. How time flies. It seems like yesterday where people were saying we do not need 4k!


It probably was!


----------



## sanj (Nov 12, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I have a 5Dmk3. Last time I shot video was my niece's birthday on 2012. Shot it FHD, and nobody complained. As my computer screen's highest resolution is 1920x1200. I don't have a TV. I shoot family events, and send photos @ 3MP. That's the comfort zone of having no complaints about long download times, or not having enough pixels for 18x24cm prints. They've learned to ask for full resolution photos on the rare occasion they want to print larger.
> 
> But yes, we (read: all of us) need 4K. Every vlogger, and every last photographer.
> 
> Sure.


There are others with better screens and those who shoot video for other than birthdays where 4k comes mighty handy. FYI


----------



## sanj (Nov 12, 2019)

melgross said:


> 8k, sigh. Really, for almost everyone (who shoots more than their cat or birthdays), 4K is a waste. I sit about 14 feet from my 61”1080p Tv, and I can only see a bit over 480 from that distance. In order to actually see the full 1080p resolution, I have to stand about 6 feet away. 4k means about 3 feet. 8k means about 18 inches.
> 
> isnt anyone paying attention to the angle of resolution a person can actually see? I suppose not, as Tv sales continue to drop, manufacturers continue to increase unneeded resolution, when studies have clearly shown that people prefer 1080p with wide band color to 4K with sRGB. And while color standards are DCI-P3 for 4K as opposed to sRGB for 1080p, most 4K sets can’t do more than sRGB.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 12, 2019)

sanj said:


> There are others with better screens and those who shoot video for other than birthdays where 4k comes mighty handy. FYI



Yes, some might find it handy. As in a lot of photographers *do not need 4K*.

How hard was that to understand?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2019)

I want a OLED screen, but the prices are too high, and burn in is still a pretty common issue. The IQ of the OLED screens is remarkable when sitting next to a Samsung QLED Screen that they named to try and confuse buyers with OLED.

I also hate all of the remotes, none of them are easy for me to use with the loss of feeling and control in my fingers..

The Amazon Fire TV remote seems to be fairly good, but has limited functions, and voice control is not there yet. There are some remotes I have not tried, it seems to be difficult to be able to try out a remote when looking at a TV set, they are all locked away.

As far as 4K is concerned, what I see is better contrast which makes the image appear much clearer. It really does not make any difference to me as to 4K or 2K, but a clearer image and better color depth and contrast do make a big difference, and right now, there is no choice, all the new ones are 4K, even the $300 55 inch LG models I've seen at Costco are 4K, its no longer a selling point, its just standard, even my Fire TV streaming device is 4K. My internet is too slow to do more than one 4K user, and not fast enough for 8K, so I'm likely getting lower resolution in many cases. Live sports seem best.


----------



## sanj (Nov 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Yes, some might find it handy. As in a lot of photographers *do not need 4K*.
> 
> How hard was that to understand?



4k is not used by photographers. How hard was that to understand? Aware of a term - Videographers? Google it.


----------



## Trey T (Nov 13, 2019)

Tremotino said:


> So what is this? a 500k$ lense?


Likely $100K


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 13, 2019)

sanj said:


> 4k is not used by photographers. How hard was that to understand? Aware of a term - Videographers? Google it.



Some photographers also shoot video, even 4K video. If you weren't a moron, you would have understood that before this post.


----------



## sanj (Nov 13, 2019)

Moron! Ah well. I went by what you said. You said, "photographer" and that makes it clear who the moron is. 
So all good. Now you admitting we need 4k. It is obvious to me that you do not shoot video because even moron like you know the benefits of 4k when shooting video. But I forget you shoot kiddy birthday parties. LOL. Sure you do not need 4k. Carry on!


----------



## sanj (Nov 13, 2019)

I thought this discussion was over 4 years ago. I guess some people never step out of their caves.


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> 8k, sigh. Really, for almost everyone, 4K is a waste. *I sit about 14 feet from my 61”1080p Tv, and I can only see a bit over 480 from that distance.* In order to actually see the full 1080p resolution, I have to stand about 6 feet away. 4k means about 3 feet. 8k means about 18 inches.
> 
> isnt anyone paying attention to the angle of resolution a person can actually see? I suppose not, as Tv sales continue to drop, manufacturers continue to increase unneeded resolution, when studies have clearly shown that people prefer 1080p with wide band color to 4K with sRGB. And while color standards are DCI-P3 for 4K as opposed to sRGB for 1080p, most 4K sets can’t do more than sRGB.



Okay, and who’s fault is that that you’re sitting outside the proper viewing distance? Move closer or get a bigger screen.

Yes, I understand part of the point that you’re trying to make: that most people are not going to be close enough to or have big enough screens to see the difference in resolution. But regardless, it’s coming, at least for screen resolution. 4K sets are already the majority of what’s being made/sold on the consumer front and it won’t be too long before 8K is normal and supplants 4K screens. The move to 4K happened much faster than anyone anticipated. It’s just the way the manufacturing is moving.


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 13, 2019)

sanj said:


> Moron! Ah well. I went by what you said. You said, "photographer" and that makes it clear who the moron is.
> So all good. Now you admitting we need 4k. It is obvious to me that you do not shoot video because even moron like you know the benefits of 4k when shooting video. But I forget you shoot kiddy birthday parties. LOL. Sure you do not need 4k. Carry on!



“Photographer” isn’t just used to describe a stills shooter. MANY that shoot video/film are referred to and refer to themselves as photographers, also.


----------



## melgross (Nov 13, 2019)

Ah, more lack of knowledge. Do you know how close you have to get to a screen to actually see detail? Apparently not.


----------



## melgross (Nov 13, 2019)

RunAndGun said:


> Okay, and who’s fault is that that you’re sitting outside the proper viewing distance? Move closer or get a bigger screen.
> 
> Yes, I understand part of the point that you’re trying to make: that most people are not going to be close enough to or have big enough screens to see the difference in resolution. But regardless, it’s coming, at least for screen resolution. 4K sets are already the majority of what’s being made/sold on the consumer front and it won’t be too long before 8K is normal and supplants 4K screens. The move to 4K happened much faster than anyone anticipated. It’s just the way the manufacturing is moving.


So, I should sit 18 inches away from a 61” 8k screen? Or 3 feet from a 4K screen?
im planning on getting a new one at some point not that far away, and I understand very well that 4K is it. There’s is no longer a viable 2k choice, and I understand that. But even a 75”, which is about what I can put there, won’t make much difference.

its easy for you, with no idea of what my room is, or the audio/video system I use to just throw out the line of “move closer”, but that’s not helpful. To see 4K with clarity for all the detail (an individual pixel level is needed for that) I need a 200”+ size screen. That’s the way it is. 8 i requires a 400”+ screen.

its interesting that with photographers here claiming to “need” higher resolution in their cameras, to not understand the concept of viewing distance, is disturbing.


----------



## flip314 (Nov 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> So, I should sit 18 inches away from a 61” 8k screen? Or 3 feet from a 4K screen?
> im planning on getting a new one at some point not that far away, and I understand very well that 4K is it. There’s is no longer a viable 2k choice, and I understand that. But even a 75”, which is about what I can put there, won’t make much difference.
> 
> its easy for you, with no idea of what my room is, or the audio/video system I use to just throw out the line of “move closer”, but that’s not helpful. To see 4K with clarity for all the detail (an individual pixel level is needed for that) I need a 200”+ size screen. That’s the way it is. 8 i requires a 400”+ screen.
> ...



I sit 18" away from a 50" screen (which I use as a computer monitor), and I notice a huge difference from the 4K resolution as compared to 1080p (even on my previous smaller 32" 1080p you could easily see pixels at that distance)... Not sure I'd notice 8K, but I do notice the downsampled chroma (enough that I'm going to upgrade to something better). Granted I'm mainly using it for productivity and not video, so it is a completely different situation than yours


----------



## jvillain (Nov 13, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Yes, some might find it handy. As in a lot of photographers *do not need 4K*.
> 
> How hard was that to understand?


When the customer says they wanted it delivered in 4K you shoot atleast 4K. How often do customers ask for 4K? More than 50% of the time now, since for years 4K TVs have been the standard. If it was only 25% of the time I would still own the gear becuase I can mark it up with out really doing any extra work. And we're just a small shop. If you are shooting for any one big like Netflix etc it is shoot 4K or go home with the exception they will some times make for Arri cameras.


----------



## sanj (Nov 13, 2019)

4k is not shot necessarily to submit in 4k. Shooting in 4k and delivering in 2k has a huge advantage with grading and composition possibilities. And so funny to be discussing 2k/4k when even Iphone shoots on 4k and we are on a thread about 8k equipment.


----------



## sanj (Nov 13, 2019)

RunAndGun said:


> Okay, and who’s fault is that that you’re sitting outside the proper viewing distance? Move closer or get a bigger screen.
> 
> Yes, I understand part of the point that you’re trying to make: that most people are not going to be close enough to or have big enough screens to see the difference in resolution. But regardless, it’s coming, at least for screen resolution. 4K sets are already the majority of what’s being made/sold on the consumer front and it won’t be too long before 8K is normal and supplants 4K screens. The move to 4K happened much faster than anyone anticipated. It’s just the way the manufacturing is moving.


I do not think it happened faster than anyone anticipated. It happened gradually and many companies and consumers anticipated and adapted it. Bottom line: It works better and is not expensive, so it will be popular.


----------



## sanj (Nov 13, 2019)

jvillain said:


> When the customer says they wanted it delivered in 4K you shoot atleast 4K. How often do customers ask for 4K? More than 50% of the time now, since for years 4K TVs have been the standard. If it was only 25% of the time I would still own the gear becuase I can mark it up with out really doing any extra work. And we're just a small shop. If you are shooting for any one big like Netflix etc it is shoot 4K or go home with the exception they will some times make for Arri cameras.



Yes, sir. Actually more than 50%. It is in vogue and required by many, even if they do not understand it. They think if they ask for 4k, they get their monie's worth. They think shooting 4k is 'professional' Of course, people shooting a birthday party are not required. Just saying. (BUT if they were shooting it professionally, 4k would very likely come into consideration.)


----------



## melgross (Nov 13, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I sit 18" away from a 50" screen (which I use as a computer monitor), and I notice a huge difference from the 4K resolution as compared to 1080p (even on my previous smaller 32" 1080p you could easily see pixels at that distance)... Not sure I'd notice 8K, but I do notice the downsampled chroma (enough that I'm going to upgrade to something better). Granted I'm mainly using it for productivity and not video, so it is a completely different situation than yours


It’s different for a computer monitor. We need to stay close, and even move to 10”, or even closer at times, for detail. But really, are you going to do that with a Tv? Most people put the Tv on, or right up to a wall, and their seat is back at the other wall, wherever it may be. I see people with 43” TVs sitting 12 feet, or more, away. Usually we’re stuck with a seating plan we have, regardless of where the Tv ends up. I planned my room out, and where I sit is as ideal, from a number of reasons.


----------



## melgross (Nov 13, 2019)

jvillain said:


> When the customer says they wanted it delivered in 4K you shoot atleast 4K. How often do customers ask for 4K? More than 50% of the time now, since for years 4K TVs have been the standard. If it was only 25% of the time I would still own the gear becuase I can mark it up with out really doing any extra work. And we're just a small shop. If you are shooting for any one big like Netflix etc it is shoot 4K or go home with the exception they will some times make for Arri cameras.


These days I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not 75%. But that doesn’t mean it’s useful to the viewer. We all have had the experience when 1080 came out, and now with 4K, when going into a store and walking closer until we saw all the detail, and were surprised at just how close we needed to be to see that detail.


----------



## Dantana (Nov 13, 2019)

melgross said:


> These days I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not 75%. But that doesn’t mean it’s useful to the viewer. We all have had the experience when 1080 came out, and now with 4K, when going into a store and walking closer until we saw all the detail, and were surprised at just how close we needed to be to see that detail.


Sure, but it's not an 8K display. It's a tool for 8K acquisition. It's always better to acquire at a higher quality than what you exhibit at.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 14, 2019)

These types of lenses are what our parent company REALLY looks forward to!

I've used these types of super-zooms during football (i.e. soccer) and hockey games (i.e. on local cable station broadcasts of Major Junior teams which is one stop below pro hockey/soccer) and they are FANTASTIC! They have super smooth zoom and very little shake (i.e. internally stabilized) on arms with proper rocker switches and MANUAL focus/iris dials! The clarity of the Fujinon and Canon super-zooms is incredible BUT be prepared to pay between $120,000 US to $250,000 US PER LENS !!!

We purchase quite a few of these super-zoom even though we do have onsight optics grinding/polishing technology! We tend to build custom lenses ONLY for polycarbonate and acrylic (plastic) for our aerospace applications. For GLASS lenses, we tend to goto Zeiss, Schneider Kreuznach, Leica, Fujinon and Canon and lately they've ALL been getting up there in price. A set of Zeiss Master Primes is in the $260,000 US range. At one time we even offered to pay Panavision for their Primo lenses (they usually rent only!) and they privately said $850,000 might get them interested in selling rather than just renting! AND.....for that set, with us using 40+ c700 cameras that's quite a few tens of millions of dollars JUST for lenses!

These super-zooms, somewhere around $250,000 US, seem like a good compromise between lens SPEED (i.e. light gathering power) and zoom capability AND PRICE when compared to cinema lenses. I think my colleague already got a call from our Canon rep about these a few weeks ago since we tend to buy 10 to 20 of them at a time.

In terms of portability, we use 3-axis gyroscope platforms built into ball-domes and moveable robotic armature assemblies which we can bolt directly on planes, trains, automobiles, ships, subs, spacecraft and "other" vehicles. One nutcase we know built a Fujinon super-sports zoom onto a POWERED EXOSKELETON which bore the brunt of these incredibly HEAVY (100+ lbs) lens plus base setups so he could do Steadicam-like shots with a sports super-zoom!

---

In conclusion, these are the BEST pro sports zooms money can buy BUT you're getting into 6-figure price categories!

.


----------



## melgross (Nov 14, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> These types of lenses are what our parent company REALLY looks forward to!
> 
> I've used these types of super-zooms during football (i.e. soccer) and hockey games (i.e. on local cable station broadcasts of Major Junior teams which is one stop below pro hockey/soccer) and they are FANTASTIC! They have super smooth zoom and very little shake (i.e. internally stabilized) on arms with proper rocker switches and MANUAL focus/iris dials! The clarity of the Fujinon and Canon super-zooms is incredible BUT be prepared to pay between $120,000 US to $250,000 US PER LENS !!!
> 
> ...


From what I recall, Canon has had about 75% of that market. That is, broadcast.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 14, 2019)

melgross said:


> From what I recall, Canon has had about 75% of that market. That is, broadcast.




It seems to be a regional preference as to Fujinon vs Canon for B4 mount (2/3rds inch and larger) sports zooms. Some stadiums like Fujinon and some like Canon. I can work with either as my MAIN CONCERN is the placement and size of the MANUAL iris/focus dials/rockers and the zoom-in/zoom-out rocker switches. In sports broadcast I am all MANUAL operations oriented and only a FEW sports zoom camera operators go for auto focus or auto iris modes.

OUTSIDE of sports, I've hooked up our Fujinon and Canon sports zooms to the underside of wings or onto the bow of a ship and within the underbelly of a Tier-4 HALE aerospace-craft and gotten FANTASTIC 4k imagery! Kinda like a WESCAM system but BIGGER with multi-axis gyroscopic stabilization!!!

They TRULY ARE some of the BEST lenses money can buy but OMG i've seen the purchase orders and their prices are an eye watering six figures! To think in that smallish container is $10 million dollars worth of glass just curdles the mind of our insurance company!

.

Good thing it ain't my money! 

.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 14, 2019)

Will it work on my EOS R?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Will it work on my EOS R?


No. 

They are designed for 1.25” sensors which means they don’t have the image circle to cover the R sensor.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> they don’t have the image circle to cover the R sensor.



Cheapskates.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 14, 2019)

Jack Jian said:


> 8K res on a tiny 1.25 inch sensor is helluva sharp & ultra high resolving power.


The article did say "tri-sensor" cameras, so we are talking 3 monochrome sensors behind a dichroic prism (with electronic registration to eliminate CA) so the resolution is not that hard to believe. Shallow depth of field is NOT desirable for broadcast use, so keeping the sensors as small as possible is desirable to maximize DOF and also to minimize system weight. All mirrorless fans note that these lenses have a long back throw to accommodate the prism.


----------

