# Any more Super telephoto lenses with built in extender?



## RGF (Sep 13, 2017)

Do you expect to see another drop in extender like the 200-400? 

Will this be common place on the next gen Great Whites?

Will Canon have multiple drop in extenders (such as 1.2, 1.4 combined to give 1.7)?

Will Nikon beat Canon to the multiple drop in extenders?

Of course all this is asked in pure fun. Rumors and speculation are great entertainment, especially when they are CR0.0001


----------



## Ryananthony (Sep 13, 2017)

There are many more educated then I, so to them I ask this question. Would it be possible for Canon to create a 2x teleconvertor that only loses 1 stop for example? Or possibly a 1.4 that doesn't lose anything?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> There are many more educated then I, so to them I ask this question. Would it be possible for Canon to create a 2x teleconvertor that only loses 1 stop for example? Or possibly a 1.4 that doesn't lose anything?



No, is the short answer. Physics gets in the way of getting something, longer focal length, for nothing, slower aperture.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 13, 2017)

A 600 f4 DO with built in 1.4x ...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> There are many more educated then I, so to them I ask this question. Would it be possible for Canon to create a 2x teleconvertor that only loses 1 stop for example? Or possibly a 1.4 that doesn't lose anything?



_f_-number = _focal length_/_aperture_

So, if you double the focal length with same size aperture, you inevitably double the _f_-number


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 14, 2017)

RGF said:


> Do you expect to see another drop in extender like the 200-400?
> No
> 
> Will this be common place on the next gen Great Whites?
> ...



From what I understand, Canon is working on a camera and lens combo for birds to take photos of birders.


----------



## RGF (Sep 14, 2017)

Eldar said:


> A 600 f4 DO with built in 1.4x ...



Can't come soon enough (assuming quality is excellent)


----------



## centuaryseries (Sep 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Do you expect to see another drop in extender like the 200-400?
> ...



Oh, I do so hate "spoilers".


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 14, 2017)

It is interesting to me that all the major camera and lens makers have two extenders: 1.4x with one stop loss and 2x with two stop loss. However, Nikon is alone (as far as I know) in offering a third option: 1.7x with one and a half stop loss. This seems like a pretty good alternative to me, assuming the quality is just as good as the 1.4x.

A lot of us (I presume) are also waiting to see how Canon will answer the Nikon 200-500.


----------



## RGF (Sep 15, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> It is interesting to me that all the major camera and lens makers have two extenders: 1.4x with one stop loss and 2x with two stop loss. However, Nikon is alone (as far as I know) in offering a third option: 1.7x with one and a half stop loss. This seems like a pretty good alternative to me, assuming the quality is just as good as the 1.4x.
> 
> A lot of us (I presume) are also waiting to see how Canon will answer the Nikon 200-500.



DO version of this lens, 30% lighter and 30% more expensive?


----------



## Talys (Sep 15, 2017)

RGF said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > A 600 f4 DO with built in 1.4x ...
> ...



No, Canon must not make this lens. I dream of such a wonders, and my wife would kill me if I spent the $10,000+ to buy it


----------



## AlanF (Sep 15, 2017)

Marry in haste, repent at leisure.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 15, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> There are many more educated then I, so to them I ask this question. Would it be possible for Canon to create a 2x teleconvertor that only loses 1 stop for example? Or possibly a 1.4 that doesn't lose anything?



Your F number is the focal length of the lens divided by the (approximate) width of the big element. If you put in a 2X teleconverter, you double the focal length, but the width of the big element remains the same, so the F stop has to double as well...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> A lot of us (I presume) are also waiting to see how Canon will answer the Nikon 200-500.



^^ This ^^ 

I realize a 200-400 + TC is a different class of lens, but I can't state enough how important a vanilla longer zoom (without a T/C) for Canon is. I've said it many times, but to shoot first party glass longer than 400mm on Canon FF, you have the choice of using a teleconverter or $9000 needs to leave your pocket. That is a laughable choice.

Canon has to know at this point that people want to shoot longer than 400mm without the drawbacks of a T/C. A something - 500mm or 600mm lens simply needs to be offered.

I recognize how 600mm + EF's f/5.6 narrowest max aperture rule = big entrance pupil = huge cost, but I think even a $3k 200-600 f/5.6 IS would sell very well. It would:


Unlock much more of the frame to be used with AF


Eliminate the T/C hit to IQ


Obviate the need for photographers to dismount in the field and put a T/C on. I recognize this need might not come up often, but simply having the reach onboard is preferable.

Sigma and Tamron won't make this happen for Canon, though. I believe Nikon's move of a shockingly affordable $1400 200-500 f/5.6 VR -- if anything -- is the straw that will break the camel's back here and get Canon to offer something similar. It may not be -500mm, it sure as hell won't cost $1400, but Canon ought to respond here.

- A


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 15, 2017)

More engineering and technology than physics. 2x teleconvertor that only loses 1 stop: One or more elements must be microscopic black holes to bend the light with little light loss. Carrying such a teleconverter around might be challenging.

1.4 that doesn't lose anything: Now, currently understood physics does preclude that.



privatebydesign said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > There are many more educated then I, so to them I ask this question. Would it be possible for Canon to create a 2x teleconvertor that only loses 1 stop for example? Or possibly a 1.4 that doesn't lose anything?
> ...


----------



## RGF (Sep 16, 2017)

Talys said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



What does she want? Maybe both of you could have a dream met?


----------



## RGF (Sep 16, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> More engineering and technology than physics. 2x teleconvertor that only loses 1 stop: One or more elements must be microscopic black holes to bend the light with little light loss. Carrying such a teleconverter around might be challenging.
> 
> 1.4 that doesn't lose anything: Now, currently understood physics does preclude that.
> 
> ...



I like the idea of black hole lens. It would suck all the trolls into it and we could have meaningful discussions 8)


----------



## unfocused (Sep 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of us (I presume) are also waiting to see how Canon will answer the Nikon 200-500.
> ...



I am inclined to believe those that say a 600mm f5.6 would be prohibitively expensive. I'd be very happy to see Canon release a 200-500 f5.6 zoom for $3,000 or less. In fact I'd rather pay that much and get a stellar 500 mm "L" lens equal in quality to the 100-400 II than settle for a "consumer" version that compromises sharpness, focus speed or build quality.

I'm actually optimistic that we will see this lens released alongside the 7D III.


----------



## Talys (Sep 16, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Marry in haste, repent at leisure.



LOL. ;D



RGF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Haha. The bargaining begins


----------



## scyrene (Sep 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I've said it many times, but to shoot first party glass longer than 400mm on Canon FF, you have the choice of using a teleconverter or $9000 needs to leave your pocket. That is a laughable choice.



To play devil's advocate a little, I'd ask why exceeding 400mm is so important. Or to put it another way, given long lens users often say 'there's no such thing as too much focal length', there's bound to be a cutoff where it gets expensive. Why is it imperative to offer 500mm below that threshold, rather than 400mm? You could say of Nikon 'why don't they offer 600mm under this arbitrary price threshold?'.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 16, 2017)

Canon makes broadcast lenses with TC's and has announced new ones recently. They had a difficult time getting the 200-400 to market, and probably grossly overspent their budget. I think they may still be shy of trying again.


----------

