# New Lens Information for Photokina



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 2014)

```
<div style="float: right; margin:0 0 76px 0px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/new-lens-information-for-photokina/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Some new ideas as to what lenses Canon will announce for Photokina in a couple of weeks.</p>
<p>First up an EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/a-new-pancake-lens-cr1/" target="_blank">We were told about this one a few days ago</a>, and it may be in pancake form and an EF-S mount, which makes a bit more sense. The second lens mentioned is a 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, which <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/a-new-pancake-lens-cr1/" target="_blank">we were told about at the same time as the pancake</a>, but didn’t have the focal length. The third lens is a new EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II, which would be a great lens to see and we had no previous information that it was coming. It’s good to see the DO patents amount to a new DO product.</p>
<p>There is no 100-400 replacement or ultrawide f/2.8L zoom being announced for Photokina. A full frame ultrawide zoom at the same time as the EOS 7D Mark II doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I think a new 100-400 definitely would. Here’s hoping it does indeed come this year.</p>
<p><strong>EOS 7D Mark II Availability

</strong>We’re told that the EOS 7D Mark II won’t be immediately available, but will most likely reach market by the end of October.</p>
<p><strong>Large Sensor PowerShot

</strong>I also added a [CR3] to the 1″ sensor <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/new-large-sensor-powershot-rumor-cr2/" target="_blank">PowerShot camera rumor from a few days ago</a>. This camera is indeed coming and will be about the size of the “S” series camera.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2014/08/ef-s24mm-f28-stmef24-105mm-f35.html" target="_blank">DCI</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## dolina (Aug 29, 2014)

A new 400/4.0 is more believable than a new 800/5.6

When's Photokina again?


----------



## noncho (Aug 29, 2014)

EF-S 24 2.8 - I have 22 2.0 for M - No, thanks.
24-105 - slow FF kit - No, thanks.
400 4.0 DO IS II might be interesting, but I guess I won't like the price.

So, let's see what Sigma have prepared for Photokina.


----------



## Omni Images (Aug 29, 2014)

Still waiting on news of a new 400mm F5.6L IS
Can't afford the F4 let along the F2.8 .. though if I have the AU$7or so K for the F4 I could scrape together the extra 3 or 4 K for the 2.8 ... and I would.
But as it is now the F5.6 is going for around AU$1700 ... just in my price range, and I'm sure many more, I'd even go to AU$2K for a new version with IS and the better optics etc of a 20 years develpments since the original version came out.
So come on Canon a new 400mm F5.6L IS II with a closer min focus 1.8M at least would be good. !!!


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 29, 2014)

noncho said:


> 24-105 - slow FF kit - No, thanks.



An EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS *S*TM could be an indication FF sensors with DPAF are coming.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 29, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> Still waiting on news of a new 400mm F5.6L IS
> Can't afford the F4 let along the F2.8 .. though if I have the AU$7or so K for the F4 I could scrape together the extra 3 or 4 K for the 2.8 ... and I would.
> But as it is now the F5.6 is going for around AU$1700 ... just in my price range, and I'm sure many more, I'd even go to AU$2K for a new version with IS and the better optics etc of a 20 years develpments since the original version came out.
> So come on Canon a new 400mm F5.6L IS II with a closer min focus 1.8M at least would be good. !!!




If it is not broke don't fix it! I hope Canon Never messes with the 5.6 400. It is a perfect lens for the size, weight, price and does exactly what it does with no crap added. IS will only add weight and Jack the price sky high out of most peoples price range, if you want newer optics and IS look at the 2.8 II USM or the new f4 and be ok to pony up the crazy extra cost but don't ruin it for everyone else who can't afford, don't want IS, carry extra weight. In USA you can find them used for $900 in great condition and the sharpness is so good you can crop the crap out of the image even on a 1.6 sensor, that is why the 5.6 is a perfect BIF lens, all you have to do is point it and get center spot focus then hit the shutter....amazing Bird pictures easily!


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2014)

If the 24 is a pancake I'll be disappointed that it's in EF-s mount, but I can see the sense in its application on say a 100D.

Have to say that if the 7DII is going to be shipped late October I'm _amazed_ that such a large and diverse organisation that's needed to build it like Canon can keep such tight wraps on the whole thing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

Great! Three lenses in which I have absolutely no interest. Canon is saving me money all over the place!

There are three lenses that interest me right now and, would you believe it, they're all Tamrons!


----------



## rs (Aug 29, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105 - slow FF kit - No, thanks.
> ...


+1

It would make sense for a lens like this to become the kit lens for a future cheap FF body with DPAF. 6D mk II, or do Canon have plans to introduce a fourth FF DSLR? Nikon already have four and have a fifth in the pipeline (D4S, D810, D610, DF, and possibly the rumoured D750)


----------



## wildpix (Aug 29, 2014)

That actually makes some real sense that they'd be released together. A lighter weight Pro Body with a lighter weight alternative to a 600mm f/4 equivalent lens.


----------



## rs (Aug 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Great! Three lenses in which I have absolutely no interest. Canon is saving me money all over the place!
> 
> There are three lenses that interest me right now and, would you believe it, they're all Tamrons!


If Canon were to introduce any three lenses, you can guarantee that a fair share of photographers out there will have zero interest in the products.

Each one of these rumoured lenses, if well executed, could have a great reputation and sales for their segment - regardless of whether they suit my needs or yours.


----------



## seamonster (Aug 29, 2014)

24mm 2.8 EF-S pancake is ok *EXCEPT* that 2.8 probably not be fast enough for the poorer high ISO noise on APS-C. 40mm pancake on full frame? Sure crank it up to 3200, even 6400...on APS-C...not so much...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2014)

EF-S 24mm F2.8?  Why not F2?  My zoom lenses already have F2.8 aperture, and I want at least F2 primes.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 29, 2014)

Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm? 

For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity. The Japanese might be under the same spell. What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.

PATHETIC if this rumor proves true.

Ok, now come the slavish apologist RemarkS.


----------



## glottis (Aug 29, 2014)

Yes, F2.8 doesn't make any sense. Why don't I use the F3.5 on the kit lens? The difference is negligible. I'll consider buying it if it's F2


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2014)

noncho said:


> 400 4.0 DO IS II might be interesting, but I guess I won't like the price.



+1 I would love to have such a lens and it would be absolutely fantastic if it works well with a 1.4 TC. It would very likely be beyond my reach though, cost wise. Especially if it quickly earns a good reputation and it doesn't devalue as much as the current model.


----------



## rs (Aug 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
> 
> For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity. The Japanese might be under the same spell. What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.
> 
> ...


There have been one or two standard EF zooms which end at f/5.6 in the past:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56ii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56ii_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56iii_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56iv_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~80_35~56v_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56ii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56ii_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~90_4~56iii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~105_4~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~105_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~135_35~56is_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56pz.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56ii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~80_4~56iii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~105_45~56.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~105_45~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~135_4~56_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_38~76_45~56.html

As full frame edges towards being more affordable, the demand for such a lens increases. Please remember that 105mm f5.6 on a FF body is the equivalent of 65mm f3.5 on a 1.6x crop.


----------



## rs (Aug 29, 2014)

glottis said:


> Yes, F2.8 doesn't make any sense. Why don't I use the F3.5 on the kit lens? The difference is negligible. I'll consider buying it if it's F2


Size. If it truly is a pancake, it'll be a much nicer size for the 100D/SL1 than an 18-55


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
> 
> For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity. The Japanese might be under the same spell. What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.
> 
> ...


Well MFT cameras have been charging much more for what is basically is that lens. I find it really funny because they laugh all the way to the bank.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
> 
> For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity. The Japanese might be under the same spell. What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.
> 
> ...



Consumer demand tells a different story; price is an important factor meaning the glass is slow - which is fine for most people anyway. Check out all the Canon EF f/x-5.6 consumer zooms from the film era:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/standard_zoom.html


----------



## glottis (Aug 29, 2014)

rs said:


> glottis said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, F2.8 doesn't make any sense. Why don't I use the F3.5 on the kit lens? The difference is negligible. I'll consider buying it if it's F2
> ...


If they can make an F2 for the M, there's no reason why they cannot do the same for EF-S


----------



## docsmith (Aug 29, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > 400 4.0 DO IS II might be interesting, but I guess I won't like the price.
> ...



Agreed. If this lens is sharp (w/ w/o 1.4 TC), light and compact for ~$7k it will find itself into many kits as it would be a great lens, especially for travel. I may even find its way into my kit.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 29, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
> ...



I think distinguishing dSLR's from smartphones makes better sense than making a lens with relatively deep DoF as a starting point at the long end.

I'm not sure going back to the good old days of film, flash bulbs, no radio control, no AF, and on and on is a great plan either.


----------



## Zv (Aug 29, 2014)

The 40mm pancake turned out to be quite popular so maybe this 24mm one will too .... but wait EF-S? Now that just seems a little bit silly to me. Why restrict it to crop only? And without IS? This thing had better be under $100 because otherwise why would anyone need this? The kit lens does f/3.5 IS at 24mm, right? And if you want a quality 24mm prime there's the ~ $500 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS (which is pretty small already IMO).

The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense. 

And a 400mm DO version 2?  because the the original was so popular right?? Right? 

Where is the 100-400 replacement and where is our 50mm IS? 

I have a feeling the next rumor will say "Sorry no 7D replacement, just a white powershot with instagram built in".


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

rs said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Great! Three lenses in which I have absolutely no interest. Canon is saving me money all over the place!
> ...



The 100-400L replacement is already 10 years overdue. A 24-70/2.8 IS is also way overdue. Yet, they're looking at a 400/4DO II that maybe a few thousand people will buy, ever while these mainstream lenses are missing?


----------



## rs (Aug 29, 2014)

glottis said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > glottis said:
> ...


The 44mm flange distance and 24mm focal length already makes for plenty of complexity to meet the size requirements of a pancake lens. Throw into the retrofocus mix a relatively large aperture, and you've got something even harder to pull off. The M mount with its 18mm flange distance doesn't have such issues.


----------



## sjp010 (Aug 29, 2014)

EF-S is a bummer on that 24mm. It still will be appealing for ASP-C users, but it could have lived a double life as a FF lens too. Was hoping for something comparable to the Voigtlander 20mm pancake but with AF.


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 29, 2014)

Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.


----------



## Azathoth (Aug 29, 2014)

A EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake? Oh yes, please, please, please ! 

But make it cheap Canon. 8)


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 29, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> Still waiting on news of a new 400mm F5.6L IS
> Can't afford the F4 let along the F2.8 .. though if I have the AU$7or so K for the F4 I could scrape together the extra 3 or 4 K for the 2.8 ... and I would.
> But as it is now the F5.6 is going for around AU$1700 ... just in my price range, and I'm sure many more, I'd even go to AU$2K for a new version with IS and the better optics etc of a 20 years develpments since the original version came out.
> So come on Canon a new 400mm F5.6L IS II with a closer min focus 1.8M at least would be good. !!!



even i would love a update to existing 400 5.6, but that is a perfect lens as it is. i use it regularly for shooting shy lizards from a distance. another lens that want to see is ef 60mm f2.8 usm with internal focus. that lens would certainly make its way into my bag to accompany 150mm macro.


----------



## andrewflo (Aug 29, 2014)

Interesting news. A lot less excited about these lenses than the 100-400mm and 24mm pancake *EF* lens that have been rumored about.

But still good to hear some new toys coming onto the market


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 29, 2014)

An EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake makes a lot more sense than an EF version given the size of the existing 24mm EF lenses, plus it gives the APS-C users the same FOV as a 40mm pancake for FF. Canon could have make a EF 24 f/4 pancake, but that's a bit slow on FF and even worse for APS-C.

I'm not surprised that Canon is bringing out a new consumer line of lenses -- a line that falls below the L's and the midrange EFs (24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS). The camera market is not growing like it has been for the last 15 years, and FF camera prices are falling. With falling FF prices, we'll start to see the reintroduction of consumer lenses for FF cameras. Do people expect consumers to pony up $1000 to buy a FF camera and then $1000s more for lenses? These lenses, which were ubiquitous with film cameras, did not sell well with their lower IQ and expensive FF bodies, but most consumers will be satifsfied with 24-105 or a 28-300 (rumored), and they might supplement it with another lens or two.


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 29, 2014)

RickWagoner said:


> Omni Images said:
> 
> 
> > So come on Canon a new 400mm F5.6L IS II with a closer min focus 1.8M at least would be good. !!!
> ...



Just because it isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. Adding IS would add little if any weight and significantly increase application and value. Sure the price would be higher than the current model at introduction, but it would settle down over time. And once a 400/5.6 IS was announced, there'd be a lot more of the current model in excellent condition up for sale at record low prices.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?


Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used. 6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation. It's how big companies make money. Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 29, 2014)

Update to the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses.

A 50mm 1.2 without significant focus shift issues, and sharp edge to edge.

The endlessly missing ~14-24mm 2.8.

I guess these are lusted after by too few...


----------



## mrzero (Aug 29, 2014)

Zv said:


> The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.



I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose. Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization. So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need. If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags. I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000). Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
> ...



I think the logic is ok. You are talking about what people will accept, not what they want.

I'm thinking about how dSLR's continue losing ground, and that putting out mediocre lenses which will produce disappointing results for new buyers accelerates that.

I'm committed to Canon. I'm satisfied with my gear, in some cases extremely pleased. I'd recommend Canon. Their CPS is fantastic.

But I do think it is ok to point out blunders and express disappointment.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Just because a lens is slow does NOT mean that's it's optically lousy.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
> ...



Mac, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I do wonder how Canon would slot this lens. Since the 24-105 "L" already sells for around $600 in white box form, it seems like it would be hard to make this lens competitive in price, unless it is really, really cheap. 

Maybe they are looking to stop selling the 24-105 "L" as a kit lens, wait for the supply to dry up in the market and then in a few years introduce a 24-105 "L" II at a significantly increased price? If that happens, we'll all be patting ourselves on the back for getting the 24-105 "L" when it was cheap.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> There is no 100-400 replacement



The unicorn is dead. Long live the unicorn!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

unfocused said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


I'm not sure either, unless they sell this for $300-400 or something. Perhaps they see it as a 28-135 IS replacement more than a 24-105 replacement.

Also, some day the mythical full frame Rebel may actually be released


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm not sure either, unless they sell this for $300-400 or something. Perhaps they see it as a 28-135 IS replacement more than a 24-105 replacement.



Bingo.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 29, 2014)

7D2 in October or later - they better bring it out at a reasonable price for pre-Christmas purchase. 
I wish that they would refresh the (really clunky sounding) IS on the 300 f/4L. Then I could snap up a cheap copy of the original 300 f/4L, which is another classic lens like the 400 f/5.6L. 

I was wishing for a lightweight 50mm, but I think that I am going to continue playing with my legacy lens collection, and keep thinking about the fabulous but HEAVY Sigma Art. Next up: Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P-C. My current walk-around 50 MF lens is a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2.

People, the amateur videographers who don't do manual focus pulls will love the 24-105 STM.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
> ...



Well, I am a 6d shooter, and I can assure you that I would never have invested the money to go full frame if I had any intention whatsoever of shooting a FF equivalent of the Rebel's cheapo kit lens. 

If they want to offer a less-expensive kit lens with a FF camera, they should simply offer a kit that includes a 50mm f/1.4. That could be done in a white box for just a couple hundreds bucks over body-only price and might be very popular.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 29, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Mac, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I do wonder how Canon would slot this lens. Since the 24-105 "L" already sells for around $600 in white box form, it seems like it would be hard to make this lens competitive in price, unless it is really, really cheap.
> 
> Maybe they are looking to stop selling the 24-105 "L" as a kit lens, wait for the supply to dry up in the market and then in a few years introduce a 24-105 "L" II at a significantly increased price? If that happens, we'll all be patting ourselves on the back for getting the 24-105 "L" when it was cheap.



+1. I'm guessing the 24-70 f/4 IS will replace the 24-105 f/4 as the de facto kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 II would then sit between the 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I figure that the 24-105 is targeted to be sold it kits primarily. Think of a 1000-1500 FF kit with a this 24-105 consumer zoom.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Aug 29, 2014)

I'm really surprised Canon did not continue with the prime IS lens trend. Maybe sales weren't what they expected? 

They could have released a 50mm f2 IS and 85mm f2 IS and done pretty good I think as long as they were reasonably priced.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...


I don't mean any disrespect to you or any other 6D shooter, but there are probably 4 6D owners looking for a reasonably-priced zoom for every 1 owner like you. Or at least that's what Canon is banking on if they release this lens.


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 29, 2014)

It's been 10 years since Canon brought out a lens with DO technology.

The 400 DO II would be a intriguing surprise.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.
> 
> Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.



I doubt if it will be much better than a 300 and 2xTC, but it certainly won't be noticeably better, it at all, than the 300 and 1.4 TC (to make 420mm and f4). Now if you like the horrible bokeh the DO can create and don't want a lens as flexible or as high quality as the 300 then have at it. 

I cannot see a reason for this other than Canon's refusal to give up on DO, meanwhile there is a good market out there for other premium headline catching lenses, the MkII 100-400 will be a cash cow whatever price it comes in at and a 400 f5.6 with IS would clean the wallets of those scared off by a new 100-400 price point. The 45 and 90 TS-E's are desperately overdue, the 2.8 ultrawide zoom has been a sore point in the Canon lineup since, oh, ever, but they clearly can now make good ultrawides so what's the excuse for this delay? The MkII 800 is a headlining niche lens that is sorely wanted by those that need it, to have your longest lens outperformed by your second longest and a TC is an embarrassment. The 85 f1.2 could do with a spruce up, the 50 f1.4 is crying out for the "slow it down and put IS in it" treatment, it just goes on and on........

Canon's lens strategy gives me more concern than their sensor strategy.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Or maybe Canon is planning on creating a FF version of the rebel.


----------



## Woody (Aug 29, 2014)

Why release an EF 24-105 lens with the 7D2? Makes little sense to me.

Personally, I am keen on a lightweight EF 28-300 lens like the Tamron version.


----------



## thedman (Aug 29, 2014)

But wait! We were told in this CR2 back in May that the next "L" lens announcement would be the 100-400 replacement! Or wait, maybe it was this CR2 from January 2009.

The way this site keeps falling for rumors of a new 100-400 is becoming reminiscent of this:


----------



## Zv (Aug 29, 2014)

mrzero said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.
> ...



This already exists - it's called an EF 24-105 f/4L IS and costs around $600 if you shop around.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



oh exactly - this is totally an 28-135mm replacement.

@YuengLinger .. have you looked at most kit lenses for crop and full frame cameras (nikon's 24-85mm VR for instance) lately?

canon needs a small light full frame kit lens that is modern - they only had a 28-135mm. and the 24-105L isn't it either.

This allows them to make a lightweight full frame kit, and cheaper one.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.
> ...



it takes years to design and develop a lens. I think the last time any of the big two commented on how long was nikon - and they said it takes 7 years from start to finish.

DO is such a tactical advantage to canon - and we don't know if they correct bokeh related issues, and most that have used the later models of the 400DO have found it no wanting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



It depends on what lens, it would take a design team about three hours to design a 50mm f1.8 IS, and considering they have the glass, they have the parts, they have everything, they could probably have a working model just after lunch.

Now the DO dead end has taken 13 years to come up with an update for a lens that will still appeal to about 20 people, which do you think would make Canon more money, selling a handful of 400 f4 DO's that still perform like crap and depreciate like a Syrian bankers domestic property portfolio, or a mass appeal 50 that costs next to nothing to make and can be slotted into the $499 slot?

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.


----------



## Zv (Aug 29, 2014)

It should be a 24-135 if anything with similar but better build quality to the current 28-135. That would make it mid priced. But again, why not just ship the 7D2 with the already existing 24-105L?? Surely the price difference can't be that much? If I was in the market for a 7D2 I'd want some weather sealed lenses to go with it. Maybe it's for a 6D kit? 

Ah well not like I'm gonna buy one. It's nice to hear about new lenses so I guess it's a good thing.


----------



## wildpix (Aug 29, 2014)

It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time? It'll take a lens release to show it... 



privatebydesign said:


> Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.


----------



## Zv (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1 the last thing anyone wanted to hear / read on CR were the words "diffractive" and "optics" this close to frikkin photokina!


----------



## Slyham (Aug 29, 2014)

A lot of bad mouthing the 24-105 IS STM. Put this lens on a 6D II with DPAF and I am jumping to FF.

[list type=decimal]
[*]We are only talking about a 1 stop difference, from 4 to 5.6, between this lens and the 24-105 L.
[*]I expect the lens to be good optically. That is why I shoot with a DSLR.
[*]Being a T1i and 18-135 shooter, I am used to shooting at 5.6. Going FF will give me faster shutter speeds because of the ISO improvements.
[/list]


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

wildpix said:


> It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time? It'll take a lens release to show it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 29, 2014)

The suggested lenses are a huge disappointment to me. Where's the 14-24, 35 II, 135 II (or mk1 with IS), 100-400. I don't question Canons reasons as they know what will sell better than me, but still disappointed..


----------



## mrzero (Aug 29, 2014)

Zv said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



I said small, light, and affordable. See: http://j.mp/1n45eEb That isn't the 28-105 that I use, but the size is about the same. I really don't want to waste bag space on a slow midrange zoom. I know the 24-105 and I've used it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.
> 
> Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.



Yes this would be totally cool! 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> wildpix said:
> 
> 
> > It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time? It'll take a lens release to show it...
> ...





"...DO is DOA"

How do you actually know that!!

If Canon do bring about an improved 400DO it maybe a signal that they have reached the end of the line with weight reductions on the big whites with current designs.
I am sure there would be a big market for a sharp 3kg 500/4DO or a 2kg 300/2.8DO.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I'm sorry I didn't realize you worked on canon's lens design teams and know even before the lens is released that it isn't ready for prime time.

the usual L refresh rate was always around a decade - 13 years while a bit long, isn't extraordinarily long.

and I'm sure canon knows how many will buy it and the margins far more than you or I.


----------



## thedman (Aug 29, 2014)

mrzero said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > mrzero said:
> ...



Isn't that what the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 is?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> "...DO is DOA"
> 
> How do you actually know that!!
> 
> ...



I assumed he works for canon 

since he emphatically knows even before the lens comes out.

canon's released how many DO patents since the 400/4 DO came out - apparently it's no better.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > wildpix said:
> ...



I don't, but I'd bet a lot of money on the fact that it hasn't overcome the biggest hurdle it makes for itself. The issue is intrinsic to the design, I believe the only way around it is to do something in post to work around it. 

Now if it is released I am sure we will have a lot of testers and early adopters say it is the greatest lens ever, I then suspect that a year or so latter they will be on eBay.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> I'm sorry I didn't realize you worked on canon's lens design teams and know even before the lens is released that it isn't ready for prime time.
> 
> the usual L refresh rate was always around a decade - 13 years while a bit long, isn't extraordinarily long.
> 
> and I'm sure canon knows how many will buy it and the margins far more than you or I.



I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.
> 
> It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.
> 
> Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.



Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction. This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements. For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent. Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements. Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.
> ...



I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.


----------



## Vossie (Aug 29, 2014)

The market for a 400 f/4 would be very small if it would not be considerably cheaper than the 300 f/2.8 II, taking into account how well the 300 takes TC's.

Maybe this whole rumor is just a distractive move and Photokina will bring some higher anticipated products... I hope so ???

On the other hand, if these will be the announcements, my wallet will be happy :


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



And yet, many owners just love them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?



You say a lot of dumb things. I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO. Not so much the 70-300.


----------



## PicaPica (Aug 29, 2014)

> ultrawide f/2.8L zoom being announced for Photokina. A full frame ultrawide zoom at the same time as the EOS 7D Mark II doesn’t make a lot of sense,



that argumentation makes no sense either.

why should the millions of FF owners have to wait until a new FF camera is announced to get a ultrawide zoom?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?
> ...



And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions. Oh that is because we weren't talking about the 5D, you are the one that tried to prove something without actually having any examples of it and yet I am the one you say says dumb things, you da man.

So you have talked to a couple of owners, that is convincing, I am looking at what owners are prepared to lose to get rid of them, I believe mine is a bigger sample and a more accurate indicator of lens performance.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Also, some day the mythical full frame Rebel may actually be released



Isn't that the 6D?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.



Perhaps in real money terms, but I would say the 70-300 DO is probably the greatest depreciating lens from new in terms of percentage. 

Which is interesting because both these lenses tend to get really bad reviews, and this is reflected in the second hand values. Yet Canon sensors get bad reviews against Exmor yet they still outsell the other brands. My guess is that this is because in the case of the DO lenses people are dissatisfied with the results they get, whereas with the cameras they are quite happy. So I suppose the moral of the story is that the buying public will ignore a bad review if it's BS.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yes, I did. Since you're memory seems to be failing you, here it is:







And, if you prefer to see them at native (but different) sizes, here's that one too:


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 29, 2014)

Canon already has an *EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM.* Full Frame lens.

Canon already has an *EF-M 22mm f/2 STM* in the M mirrorless mount.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make an *EF-S 22mm f/2 STM* ???

BTW 24mm = 38.4 FF and 22mm = 35.2 FF, so why a 24mm for an APS-C camera ???


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

So apart from neither camera being in the list and it being tripod mounted you nailed it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

At birding spots I frequent, I see lots of big black lenses, even more big white ones with red rings, and one with a green ring. The guy using the 400 DO loves it...because of the combination of long focal length, fast aperture (for 400mm), and a size/weight that his arthritic hands can manage. For him, the last is the most important criterion, aperture second. He has a 100-400L too, and uses that during flare ups – he feels the main advantage of the 400/4 is the aperture, and that the IQ isn't much better with the DO. Of course, that's totally anecdotal. 

Still, it will be interesting to see what Canon can do with a MkII version.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.



I don't care about your request (which changes every time), I care about a controlled test demonstrating the point. And I provided that.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.
> ...



Well you did care enough to argue the point, and you failed.

My request hasn't changed, I just broadened it to include more cameras to make it easier. Here is the original request:



> Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage.



If by showing tripod mounted shots from a 20D and a 5D you think you have demonstrated the 7D's resolution advantage when hand held you have a different understanding of Engish than I do, or, to quote you, "Idiot".

Here is the link and the quote in context.



> date=1409191281]
> 
> 
> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## jasonsim (Aug 29, 2014)

It makes lots of sense that they come out with a new 400mm DO, since the first one that still sells MSRP for $6500 cannot be kept in stock anywhere; it flies off the shelves!

At the price they wanted for the 400 DO, another $500 got you a new 500mm f/4L IS USM. It made no sense then, and little now. The 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM with 1.4x III and 2x III will best it for less money. 

Canon really needed a 400mm f/5.6L IS USM! 

How dumb!


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## helpful (Aug 29, 2014)

Yes, please, the 400mm DO version II is what I've been praying for for years and years!!!

If it's as sharp at 4.0 as the other premium new Canon lenses, a lightweight 400mm f/4.0 would be my dream come true. As good as it is, a 400mm f/2.8 is too heavy to run around with 12 hours a day. Busy events have too many people in the way just to sit there with a heavy lens on a tripod, so I desperately want this rumor to be true.

This is my number one desired lens in this focal length.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If by showing tripod mounted shots from a 20D and a 5D you think you have demonstrated the 7D's resolution advantage when hand held you have a different understanding of Engish than I do, or, to quote you...



I gotta jump in here. Your request would be completely pointless. I have to ask:
-What is the purpose for you wanting a handheld test?

If you do a handheld test, you're going to get variability with each shot due to the simple nature of human physiology. Do you choose one random shot? Do you take 30 shots and pick the best? How does it work? That's why actual testing is done with tripods. See for how many tests Bryan over at the-digital-picture.com has used a camera hand held (hint: it's zero) . 

Using a tripod eliminates the variability of shake or movement. Alternatively, you could shoot with a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate shake or movement, but at that point, it's the exact same as if you placed it on a tripod anyway. 

So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question. What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld? What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> I gotta jump in here. Your request would be completely pointless. I have to ask:
> -What is the purpose for you wanting a handheld test?



It's always nice to meet people for whom the theoretical best possible results are practically, routinely achieved. From your question, I assume 100% of your shots are taken from the sturdiest possible tripod. 

My auto manufacturer put a sticker on my car that said it achieves 26 mpg highway. Our road trip average is closer to 20 mpg. Our other car is rated for 36 mpg highway, and delivers ~34 mpg. Same EPA-mandated rating system, same driver, both cars maintained per recommendations, etc. Yet the real-world vs. spec'd performance differential is different. 

The issue is the claim that smaller pixels deliver higher resolution that is predicted by the difference in pixel sizes. The point is that in real world use, smaller pixels don't deliver as differentially higher resolution as pixel size alone would predict.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2014)

"There is no 100-400 replacement"

100-400 II - more mythical than the Octopus in Goonies and the Abominable Unicorn Sasquatch


----------



## Woody (Aug 30, 2014)

I am most curious about the 1" sensor camera from Canon. The Sony RX100 has an awesome sensor. Now we'll know if Canon has the capability to produce a camera with the same performance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question. What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld? What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?



I believe there is a fundamental disconnect between what people are told they will be able to achieve, and what they actually will achieve in day to day use. I think tech heads argue about every single electron a pixel is capable of recording and that is so far removed from the practical aspects of how we use our cameras that much of the raw data we get from tests, analysis, over thinking and opinions is not only not helpful, it has now become counter productive.

We, here, are generally enthusiasts, but it is frightening how so many of even us have no core understanding of photography basics and have swallowed hook line and sinker every morsel of garbage that comes out of our personal favourite posters mouth wrapped in some equation and well balanced argument that seems to make sense.

The reason for my challenge is to illustrate how far removed from actual day to day camera use these bench tests are. I don't want or need to post the results, whatever I post will be argued over as irrelevant or flawed anyway, even if it is how I would actually use both cameras! I already did the tests for myself years ago, I want everybody who can to borrow a camera to do the tests for themselves to see how much difference it makes to not use perfect technique, because that is the shooting situation most of us find ourselves in most of the time.

I have a very heavy tripod, it leaves the studio about six times a year, how many wildlife and landscape photographers shoot at midday when they have the "best" light and contrast, how many bird shooters do BIF with a tripod, how many of us use manual focus all the time, or a remote release, ever take your camera off base iso, shoot outside your lenses optimal aperture, use IS, push shutter speed, fail to optimally expose? 

All these factors will impact IQ, often good IS will give you sharper images than more pixels, who ever says that? How important is information like that to an enthusiast who is just looking to get help on a purchase? Many of us have the knowledge to truly help those people, but our hands on experience s constantly questioned and belittled by people with more time, typing skills, and equations.

A 7D and 300 f4 might resolve more detail than their cropped 5D MkIII on a test bench, for years people were saying you'd get 60% more "reach", now the consensus is down to a more reasonable 20% (which IMHO is still way too high), but what will you actually achieve when you are trying to take pictures of your kid playing soccer? I would argue that rather than advise the person to buy a crop camera for the "additional reach" they would actually get very similar results by simply cropping, after all nobody on soccer sidelines is shooting with "perfect technique", or don't get the 7D, get a 1.4 TC or the 400 f5.6, but no, for years the 1.6 "crop factor", that magical "60% more reach" meme has ruled the roost.

That is the point of the "challenge" to separate fact, actual results, from the fiction we are too often sold.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question. What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld? What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?
> ...



blah blah blah

i have such real world tests, but too upset and depressed at the moment to dig them up now since the new people cut down the old growth oak I took them on

but ROmy has already posted many real world comps between 7D and 5D series and he surely got more detail out the 7D 

maybe if you actually were the amazing, ultimate, real world, non-'lab nerd' you'd actually be able to get decent results out of your equipment in something less than lab conditions, no?

some of the 'lab only, numbers, nonsense guys' that post here also have real world portfolios ten times the size and many of the mockers and serious artistes and ultra-pros.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> but ROmy has already posted many real world comps between 7D and 5D series and he surely got more detail out the 7D



So he has, thanks for that, that really put me in my place, thanks for pointing those real world 7D and cropped 5D MkIII images, I hadn't seen them before.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=352724


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.
> 
> Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.



FYI: You're an Idiot

And just so we're clear, that's Arthur Morris - the most famous bird/wildlife photographer in the english speaking world - calling you an idiot, not me. Just so you know. Also, Canon knows their own business better than you ever will and you have literally no stake whatsoever in whether they want to pursue this technology (or not! its still a rumor!) so I can't even begin to imagine why you would be taking the possibility of a new 400mm f4 DO as some sort of personal affront.


----------



## dolina (Aug 30, 2014)

Hand held test are largely pointless. Each person has their own fitness and strength level.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2014)

dolina said:


> Hand held test are largely pointless. Each person has their own fitness and strength level.



Only if you never hand hold. If you do hand hold, ever, the test will show you what you will get, that is the point!

I am not asking anybody to do a hand hold test for me, I am suggesting they do it for themselves and put the "reach advantage" myth to death once and for all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2014)

Steve said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.
> ...



Thanks Steve.

One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

I tried one for a day, I am happy I didn't get one and I don't feel like an idiot....

P.S. Don't let Franz Lanting hear you say that about Arthur Morris.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 30, 2014)

RickWagoner said:


> If it is not broke don't fix it! I hope Canon Never messes with the 5.6 400. It is a perfect lens for the size, weight, price and does exactly what it does with no crap added. IS will only add weight and Jack the price sky high out of most peoples price range, if you want newer optics and IS look at the 2.8 II USM or the new f4 and be ok to pony up the crazy extra cost but don't ruin it for everyone else who can't afford, don't want IS, carry extra weight. In USA you can find them used for $900 in great condition and the sharpness is so good you can crop the crap out of the image even on a 1.6 sensor, that is why the 5.6 is a perfect BIF lens, all you have to do is point it and get center spot focus then hit the shutter....amazing Bird pictures easily!




How would making a new 400 5.6 IS ruin the current non-IS version?


----------



## Omni Images (Aug 30, 2014)

My thinking also MichaelHodges
Sure it's not broke, but it's old technology for sure ... I'd pay a few extra hundred $s for a new version ... if price is that big of a deal a second hand one would still be an option.
But surely now after 20 years a tweak here and there on what is such a great lens would be about due and make it the all time BEST lens for image quality V price .. it kills it already.
IS .. maybe will cost em what ? 20 bucks ... $50 to add, weight not even an issue ... new lens coating .. perhaps a tweak to the lenses themselves .. REALLY would want to see a closer min focus distance down to perhaps 1.8m
This is the only thing stopping from buying this lens over the 300 F4 .. it focus's down to 1.8m ... you can get that close to birds and other wildlife so a 1.8m focus is not an outrageous ask. 1.2 if we could....

So in closing I would like to see a new 300F4 and a 400F5.6 with new gen IS and lens coating along with a close min focus for both.
I'm not a fan of the 100-400 ... I would buy a prime over the zoom any day. I doubt any birders would even use the 100-399mm anyway .....


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



+1


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.



Nope, you said "horrible bokeh". There are several pictures in that post (and elsewhere on the internet) showing the bokeh of the lens. It is not, in any way, "horrible".



privatebydesign said:


> What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.



No, its probably because it isn't actually a problem in real world shooting situations and you are blowing it way out of proportion. Bryan from The Digital Picture had this to say about it:

"The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (OOF blur quality), *but I have seldom encountered this problem*. Specular highlights can have a target-appearance at worst - concentric circles instead of a smooth blur. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than Canon's other 400mm Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background."



privatebydesign said:


> If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.



One thing I will agree with you on is that I think the lens is too expensive and a new version isn't likely to be cheaper. It would be stellar if it was priced at about 2/3 or 1/2 of the 300 f2.8 IS II. One of the promises of DO technology is that it is easier to eliminate chromatic aberration (a huge problem with traditional optical designs lens manufacturers have struggled with for decades that, curiously, doesn't completely invalidate the entire technology...) so fluorite lens elements aren't needed for high end telephotos which should make them cheaper to manufacture but, well, Canon. *shrug*

One last thing - that photo you posted is pretty disingenuous. Were you just not going to mention that it was taken with the very different 70-300 f4-5.6 DO? Just going to allow that to be inferred by people who didn't bother to do a reverse GIS? The 70-300 DO exhibits far more problems than the 400 f4 DO and is reviewed a lot more harshly for a number of reasons related to its IQ. If you've got a sample that demonstrates the absolutely horrendous disaster that is the 400 f4 DO, I'm all eyes, but make sure its the _400 f4 DO_ and not that other lens.


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 30, 2014)

Wow, good catch.
Upvote for you! 
For folks who don't know, in Windows a right click on image, and "Search Google for this image" is about as easy as can be.




Steve said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.
> ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 30, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Wow, good catch.
> Upvote for you!
> For folks who don't know, in Windows a right click on image, and "Search Google for this image" is about as easy as can be.
> 
> ...



Thanks, for killing another internet lie.

And no thanks for making me want the 400 DO even more


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I would have thought that people who have enough money to sink into Canon lenses would keep it sophisticated. How naïve of me.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was poorly phrased but just so you know, this is an extremely offensive, classist thing to say. A person's worth and personality does not track with the size of their bank account.


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 30, 2014)

Steve said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I would have thought that people who have enough money to sink into Canon lenses would keep it sophisticated. How naïve of me.
> ...



True. Didn't mean it that way.


----------



## Steve (Aug 30, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> True. Didn't mean it that way.



I didn't think you did, I'm just a bit sensitive. As a relatively poor person, the whole "more money = better than" culture we have here in the US gets to me sometimes.


----------



## ewg963 (Aug 31, 2014)

Zv said:


> The 40mm pancake turned out to be quite popular so maybe this 24mm one will too .... but wait EF-S? Now that just seems a little bit silly to me. Why restrict it to crop only? And without IS? This thing had better be under $100 because otherwise why would anyone need this? The kit lens does f/3.5 IS at 24mm, right? And if you want a quality 24mm prime there's the ~ $500 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS (which is pretty small already IMO).
> 
> The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.
> 
> ...


+10000000000000000000000000


----------



## Ekpil (Aug 31, 2014)

What do we need....
Still waiting for the new *EF 600mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x* (600mm 4.0 / 840mm 5.6)

There is no need for a new EF 800mm /5.6


----------



## dolina (Aug 31, 2014)

Ekpil said:


> What do we need....
> Still waiting for the new *EF 600mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x* (600mm 4.0 / 840mm 5.6)
> 
> There is no need for a new EF 800mm /5.6


Ships in volume 2020... that's when the new 800 is needed.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2014)

No 100-400 replacement! This is the first time in a long long time that the rumour has been no replacement. Four years of saying it will come and now "no it won't".

First 100-400 rumour that I believe and I will be the first to laugh if it is wrong again


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> No 100-400 replacement! This is the first time in a long long time that the rumour has been no replacement. Four years of saying it will come and now "no it won't".
> 
> First 100-400 rumour that I believe and I will be the first to laugh if it is wrong again



I think everybody's got it wrong and it will be a 400-100L, and it will be reverse engineered from the original.


----------



## jrista (Sep 2, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I think it really depends on how it reviews, and how light weight it really is. The original 400 DO had certain problems due to the diffraction grating approach they used. If Canon figured out particle dispersion DO, then the IQ could rival that of standard optics, but in a much smaller package.

If it reviews well, I think plenty of people would buy one. The original reviewed ok, with the exception that the softish glow caused by the diffraction grating was usually mentioned as the primary detractor.


----------



## Vgramatikov (Sep 2, 2014)

400/4 DO is nice.

I need 200-500 4.0-5.6 L I S 8)


----------



## tayassu (Sep 2, 2014)

Vgramatikov said:


> I need 200-500 4.0-5.6 L I S 8)



As far as I remember, there is a pretty good 200-560 4.0-5.6 L IS...


----------



## chitownjeff (Sep 2, 2014)

thedman said:


> But wait! We were told in this CR2 back in May that the next "L" lens announcement would be the 100-400 replacement! Or wait, maybe it was this CR2 from January 2009.
> 
> The way this site keeps falling for rumors of a new 100-400 is becoming reminiscent of this:



I heard it's going to be beta tested at the next Olympics


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 2, 2014)

tayassu said:


> Vgramatikov said:
> 
> 
> > I need 200-500 4.0-5.6 L I S 8)
> ...



If only every wish were answered that perfectly


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I am not asking anybody to do a hand hold test for me, I am suggesting they do it for themselves and put the "reach advantage" myth to death once and for all.



Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do.

Three cameras (5D, 20D [same pixel size as 5DII]), T2i [same pixel size as 60D/7D]), two different lenses (100-400L, 70-200/2.8L IS II), two different targets, all handheld, all with AF, all the same result - smaller pixels win easily.

Neither lens was shot at optimal aperture or focal length (70-200 at 200mm and f/4, 100-400L at 300mm and f/5.6).


----------



## Marauder (Sep 3, 2014)

The 400 f4 DO is a surprise. It's "cool" in one way as it shows Canon is still working on DO lenses, so it might prove quite popular if it can combine great IQ in a smaller and lighter package. But it's only "interesting" to me from a technical perspective, in the same way the 200-400 w/1.4 extender is--interesting to read about and dream about, but way beyond the price I can afford. A 100-400 replacement though is something I could realistically save for and purchase, so I do hope they do release one soon! I'd think the 100-400 is more *due  * for replacement than the 400 f4 DO and it is likely to be a bigger 'volume' seller.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 3, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I am not asking anybody to do a hand hold test for me, I am suggesting they do it for themselves and put the "reach advantage" myth to death once and for all.
> ...



+1

it's trivial to show the difference, even using AF and hand-held
sure in some cases AF may miss enough it won't matter or you set shutter too low, etc. but there are plenty of times you can get the advantage real world


----------



## zlatko (Sep 3, 2014)

I would love to see Canon make a higher quality version of the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8, and an IS version of the 85/1.8. Make them as good as the 35/2 IS.


----------



## macogley (Sep 3, 2014)

I would also really love to see an IS 50mm. Even a f2.0 if it was tack sharp wide open.

I shot my first all prime weddings last week and reluctantly used the 50mm 1.8 as I hear so much bad news about the 1.4 and the 1.2 is totally out of my price range. 

I got by and the shots are decent but nothing compared to the 100mm f2.0 that I reached for whenever possible.

Not hearing much noise about a new 50 though despite so many rumours in recent years. 

The Sigma 50 Art looks awesome but the size / weight makes it really unappealing for me.


----------

