# EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 6, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12178"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12178">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 800 f/5.6L IS II


</strong>More mentions of a new 800mm lens  hitting the Canon lineup in the next 12 months. I’m told Canon is not to be outdone by Nikon and their upcoming lightweight 800 f/5.6 VR. A new “6 stop” IS system is also being tested in prototype EF 800 f/5.6L IS II lenses, but may not be . The weight of Canon’s next 800 will be less than the current EF 600 f/4L IS II, which is the way it was with the current 800 and the previous 600.</p>
<p>There are other suggestions that the supertelephoto lineup could become more crowded with zooms, and new 400mm primes. With the production and development issues of the current set of new “big whites”, a timetable for such lenses is nearly impossible to nail down.</p>
<p><strong>Built-in Converters


</strong>The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x with the built-in 1.4 teleconverter is not the only lens planned to have the technology. It will definately be the first, and may be the only one for a while, but the concept is being tested with other zooms as well as prime lenses.</p>
<p>One possible configuration mentioned is a lens similar to the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. With Canon’s weight saving materials, the viability of a hand holdable 300 f/2.8 zoom has improved.</p>
<p>While there’s nothing imminent outside of the much talked about EF 200-400 f/4L IS, it looks like the 1.4 built-in teleconverter could become a broad feature in Canon’s lens lineup.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## dolina (Dec 6, 2012)

New 400mm primes are true but when?

Assuming this will become an actual product, 6 stops of IS means 1/12th of a second.

Stops
1 - 1/400
2 - 1/200
3 - 1/100
4 - 1/50
5 - 1/25
6 - 1/12

From the current 1/50 of the actual 800mm IS.

It would be nice to have it sell at a reduced weight of more than 28%. 

Below 3.5kg anyone?


----------



## Mendolera (Dec 6, 2012)

6-Stop IS... Nice 800mm at 1/13s

Wondering what will cost less 2013 BMW 328 or a new 800mm.. :


----------



## kubelik (Dec 6, 2012)

referring to Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 OS as a point of comparison for a future Canon 120-300 f/2.8 IS +1.4x is laughable. they're aimed at almost entirely different markets and buyers. please, don't get people excited about the possibility of a f/2.8 telephoto zoom coming from Canon in the $3K price range. this thing is likely going to cost $9K, and probably won't arrive until christmas 2016.


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 6, 2012)

kubelik said:


> referring to Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 OS as a point of comparison for a future Canon 120-300 f/2.8 IS +1.4x is laughable. they're aimed at almost entirely different markets and buyers. please, don't get people excited about the possibility of a f/2.8 telephoto zoom coming from Canon in the $3K price range. this thing is likely going to cost $9K, and probably won't arrive until christmas 2016.


I don't think any reasonable person would think a Canon zoom would be priced similarly to a third-party zoom of the same specifications. By competitor, Craig is stating it would be so on a focal length, aperture, and feature standpoint. You buy third-party gear for the better price, and name brand gear for the quality (in most cases) at a higher cost. If one party does not have a piece of equipment with similar specifications that the other does (think Canon 200mm f/2L, 8-15mm Fisheye or Sigma 50-500mm, 12-24mm, 120-300mm), there is no competition in that segment.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 6, 2012)

<oblig>
Yeay!

Now, what about a good ultra wide lens to compete with the Nikkor 14-24mm?
</oblig>


----------



## sanj (Dec 6, 2012)

Come to papa...


----------



## kubelik (Dec 6, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> I don't think any reasonable person would think a Canon zoom would be priced similarly to a third-party zoom of the same specifications. By competitor, Craig is stating it would be so on a focal length, aperture, and feature standpoint. You buy third-party gear for the better price, and name brand gear for the quality (in most cases) at a higher cost. If one party does not have a piece of equipment with similar specifications that the other does (think Canon 200mm f/2L, 8-15mm Fisheye or Sigma 50-500mm, 12-24mm, 120-300mm), there is no competition in that segment.



Kyle, I get what you mean. but I feel that your last sentence, while generally accurate, leaves out the issue of price. not only does a piece of equipment need similar specifications, it needs to be somewhere in the same ballpark in terms of price. these days it doesn't feel like canon and sigma are even playing in the same time zone. I realize why this is a mutually beneficial arrangement from a business standpoint, as the consumer I can't help wishing for a more competitive landscape. I guess that's where Sigma is starting to go with new lenses like the 35 f/1.4; I can only hope that this trend continues. I'd love to see Sigma try their hand (as they have in the past) with high quality superteles with their new quality and design measures in place.


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 6, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Kyle, I get what you mean. but I feel that your last sentence, while generally accurate, leaves out the issue of price. not only does a piece of equipment need similar specifications, it needs to be somewhere in the same ballpark in terms of price. these days it doesn't feel like canon and sigma are even playing in the same time zone. I realize why this is a mutually beneficial arrangement from a business standpoint, as the consumer I can't help wishing for a more competitive landscape. I guess that's where Sigma is starting to go with new lenses like the 35 f/1.4; I can only hope that this trend continues. I'd love to see Sigma try their hand (as they have in the past) with high quality superteles with their new quality and design measures in place.


I can definitely see your point. The new Sigma 35 f/1.4 seems to perform just as good as the Canon 35mm f/1.4 for a much lower cost (TDP ISO 12233 Comparion - just posted today). As long as 3rd party manufacturers continue to challenge Canon in the build quality, image quality, and features department, Canon will eventually be forced to lower costs. We will all win when 3rd parties can consistently manufacture good lenses.


----------



## kubelik (Dec 6, 2012)

thanks for the digital picture link. I'd actually say, as far as shooting ISO 12233 charts goes, the Sigma wins over the Canon all the way up until f/5.6, where it's dead even. not a huge difference, but it is beating a lens that costs about 50% more, and it's winning where, let's be honest, we all want to use a f/1.4 lens: at apertures wider than f/2.8.

I am excited to see how Canon responds when they issue the new 35 f/1.4 L II. will it still follow the current trend and essentially double the existing price of the 35 f/1.4 L?


----------



## drummstikk (Dec 6, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x with the built-in 1.4 teleconverter is not the only lens planned to have the technology. It will definately be the first, and may be the only one for a while, but the concept is being tested with other zooms as well as prime lenses.



Way back before I was yelling at kids to get off my lawn, some lenses came with a "matched multiplier," which would, at least in theory, give better results than a generic 1.4X converter. Examples that come to mind would be the Nikon 300mm f/2.0 and the Tamron 300mm 2.8. This seems like an interesting throwback to an old (but good) idea.

A 70mm~210mm f/2.0 w/ built-in matched 1.4X would extend to (in rounded numbers) 100mm-300mm f/2.8. This would of course be very pricey, but it would also be a daily workhorse for a lot of people, especially news and event photographers.

I'd sell a liver for such a lens. (You can get by on just one.)


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 6, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x with the built-in 1.4 teleconverter is not the only lens planned to have the technology. It will definately be the first, and may be the only one for a while, but the concept is being tested with other zooms as well as prime lenses.
> ...


You would have to, based on the price of the PRIME 200mm f/2, and the fact it would be the first f/2 zoom ever with an image circle for a 35mm format.

I believe the rumor is the possibility of a 120-300mm f/2.8 1.4x TC (to give 168-420mm f/4 with the TC engaged). The overall dimensions of the lens might not be very different from the 70-210mm you stated (especially with regards to objective lens size), but the pricing for the two and internal design would be very different. Either way, this theoretical lens would be a baby Siglauncher (aka. Sigzilla, 200-500mm f/2.8).

But now that I think of it, wouldn't the 120-300mm (168-420mm f/4) conflict with the 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x USM? Is there a point (for Canon) to produce both? Wouldn't the 120-300mm have to be cheaper to justify its existence? I know it's just a rumor, I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## corpusrex (Dec 6, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x with the built-in 1.4 teleconverter is not the only lens planned to have the technology. It will definately be the first, and may be the only one for a while, but the concept is being tested with other zooms as well as prime lenses.
> ...


Eeek!! Dont sell your liver!


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 6, 2012)

Off topic, but somewhat relevant to earlier comments:

Teen sells own kidney to get hands on iPad 2
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20068762-10391704.html


----------



## scottc (Dec 6, 2012)

I would be so intrigued by an L series 120-300 2.8 competitor! I've been tempted quite a few times over the past few months to pull the trigger on the Sigma, but haven't because of it's AF problems (which are even worse w/a tele converter).


----------



## kubelik (Dec 6, 2012)

scottc said:


> I would be so intrigued by an L series 120-300 2.8 competitor! I've been tempted quite a few times over the past few months to pull the trigger on the Sigma, but haven't because of it's AF problems (which are even worse w/a tele converter).



scotty, if you're waiting for Canon to actually show up with one of these ... you're in for a long wait


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 7, 2012)

Are they going to build in the 1.4x extender into the 800mm as well? Maybe the 2x?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> Are they going to build in the 1.4x extender into the 800mm as well? Maybe the 2x?



No, since it's already f/5.6.


----------



## mws (Dec 7, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> I'd sell a liver for such a lens. (You can get by on just one.)



You have more then one liver?


----------



## dolina (Dec 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > Are they going to build in the 1.4x extender into the 800mm as well? Maybe the 2x?
> ...


If it was integrated it would make me think of upgrading. So long as the weight's below 3.5kg.


----------



## sanj (Dec 7, 2012)

mws said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > I'd sell a liver for such a lens. (You can get by on just one.)
> ...



He perhaps does not know his kidney from his liver...


----------



## drummstikk (Dec 7, 2012)

sanj said:


> He perhaps does not know his kidney from his liver...



You, perhaps, have not seen a certain episode of "The Simpsons" . . .


----------



## M.ST (Dec 7, 2012)

I don´t want a EF 800 with a build in TC.

The prototype is not so heavy as the version one and has an improved IS system.


----------



## EOBeav (Dec 7, 2012)

I heard they're going to kit this with the next Rebel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> I heard they're going to kit this with the next Rebel.



I heard there will be an EOS-M + EF-EOS M adapter bundle with the 800/5.6 II.


----------



## Kernuak (Dec 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > I heard they're going to kit this with the next Rebel.
> ...


That's not quite as silly as it sounds, a pro photographer I know has actually been using a Nikon 1 with his 200-400 for photographing golden eagles when he needs extra reach and the quality was actually better than I would have expected.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 7, 2012)

mws said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > I'd sell a liver for such a lens. (You can get by on just one.)
> ...



You can donate part of your liver as a living donor...you can get by on just half


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 8, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > EOBeav said:
> ...


That's only because the pixel density of the Nikon 1 is greater than any other interchangable lens camera Nikon makes. Putting a super tele on an EOS M is pointless because the pixel density is the same as the 7D (which is considerably better than the EOS M in almost every single way), 60D, T2i, T3i and T4i.


----------



## rpt (Dec 8, 2012)

serendipidy said:


> mws said:
> 
> 
> > drummstikk said:
> ...


He probably meant to say kidney...


----------



## sanj (Dec 8, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > He perhaps does not know his kidney from his liver...
> ...



No have not. You right. I do not get Simposons where I live.  Would love for you to tell me more. Is this a dialogue he uses? If yes, I am sorry to have missed the joke...


----------



## rpt (Dec 8, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> I'd sell a liver for such a lens. (You can get by on just one.)


Doh! Now I get it. You're a lawyer! You've got the disclaimer in parenthesis!


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 8, 2012)

Does that refer to one liver or one lens? ;D


----------



## rpt (Dec 8, 2012)

serendipidy said:


> Does that refer to one liver or one lens? ;D


 ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 8, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > That's only because the pixel density of the Nikon 1 is greater than any other interchangable lens camera Nikon makes. Putting a super tele on an EOS M is pointless because the pixel density is the same as the 7D (which is considerably better than the EOS M in almost every single way), 60D, T2i, T3i and T4i.
> ...


I completely agree with you, but pixel density is the only reason a Nikon 1 has an advantage over other cameras. And the EOS M has no advantages over other Canon cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> ...the EOS M has no advantages over other Canon cameras.



Except size and weight. Because a slight reduction in those is so important for a body attached to an 800/5.6 lens.


----------

