# Development Announcement of a New 800mm f/5.6L IS II [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 19, 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/?p=17057">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We received a short and sweet message that a development announcement for an EF 800 f/5.6L IS II is slated for 2014, but it wasn’t confirmed if it would come with the rest of the Photokina announcements.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>The talk of a new 800mm lens has been around for a while, and I imagine its release has everything to do with how soon stock of the current lens is depleted. It makes little sense to produce the lens with different materials than the 300mm, 400m, 500mm and 600mm lenses.</p>
<p>Unknown source, so take this with the usual grain of salt.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542293-REG/Canon_2746B002AA_EF_800mm_f_5_6L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2014)

Great! Now with a 25% price reduction on the old lens, I'll finally be able to sell a kidney and afford it


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 19, 2014)

Is there any big performance gain to be had, or is it a question of it being half a kilogram lighter and two thousand dollars more expensive? Don't get me wrong though, the weight savings is surely worth it for some.

Jim


----------



## scyrene (Aug 19, 2014)

If they could get the weight under 4kg I'd be tempted to sell the 500 II and upgrade (after the price came down a little). I pretty much never use it bare - 1000mm is my usual walkaround focal length for birds in good light now. An 800 f/5.6 - 1120 f/8 (with the 1.4x extender) should offer slightly better image quality, as the 2x extender does reduce sharpness a little.

I know a guy who uses the current 800 handheld and gets awesome shots, although he pays for it the next day sometimes.


----------



## climber (Aug 19, 2014)

Which year was current 800mm f/5.6 lens released? Probably don't long ago. If so, do you think will be soon announcement of new shorter big whites like 300, 400,...

I'm just curious. Don't have money at the moment for neither of them.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 19, 2014)

PureClassA said:


> Great! Now with a 25% price reduction on the old lens, I'll finally be able to sell a kidney and afford it


I was planning to buy a new car, but maybe I'll hold out for this lens! I'm actually kicking myself for not buying one during the Canon USA refurb sale (the one before last) when it was 15 or so percent off during the sale. It's an amazing lens on a monopod.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> Is there any big performance gain to be had, or is it a question of it being half a kilogram lighter and two thousand dollars more expensive? Don't get me wrong though, the weight savings is surely worth it for some.
> 
> Jim



I'm not sure if there will be a significant weight difference. I think the 800 f/5.6 L was the first to use the fluorite lens design, although I don't know that it's barrel design used the lighter/stronger materials. If there is any weight reduction, I think it would be small.

There was quite a significant difference in IQ, particularly in the corners, between the old and new Mark II lenses for the 300 through 600 lenses, though. They are amazingly sharp, even with teleconverters attached. The 600/4 II with a 1.4xIII TC is on par with, if not better than, the old 800/5.6, so I would expect the IQ improvement on the 800/5.6 II to surpass the quality of the 600/4II+1.4xIII.

And who knows, maybe Canon will find a way to reduce weight even more. They have competition from Nikon on that front now as well, so they may have something up their sleeve.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

climber said:


> Which year was current 800mm f/5.6 lens released? Probably don't long ago. If so, do you think will be soon announcement of new shorter big whites like 300, 400,...
> 
> I'm just curious. Don't have money at the moment for neither of them.



The 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4 have all been updated over the last couple of years. They ARE new, and they are all using current, cutting edge optical technology. Given that the prior versions lasted for over half a decade at least, and if you go back to the original optical design before IS was added, over a decade...I don't think we'll be seeing any more new great white after the 800 is updated for quite some time. 

If you want a 300 or 400, you'll just have to shell out the cash. They are truly pheonomenal lenses, and I don't think I've ever seen a sharper lens than the 300 f/2.8 L II...that sucker will make you bleed!


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 19, 2014)

Great news, because in other threads, the argument was about to shift to exactly which type of green cheese the moon is made of.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any big performance gain to be had, or is it a question of it being half a kilogram lighter and two thousand dollars more expensive? Don't get me wrong though, the weight savings is surely worth it for some.
> ...



It appears the 800mm has a protective front element, as did the previous versions of the 500, 600, etc. Removal of this in the mark IIs decreased weight - per Brian at TDP. That plus a little off the barrel/different materials could shave off 500g, taking it to 4kg. That would be reasonable, I'd say.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 19, 2014)

climber said:


> Which year was current 800mm f/5.6 lens released? Probably don't long ago. If so, do you think will be soon announcement of new shorter big whites like 300, 400,...
> 
> I'm just curious. Don't have money at the moment for neither of them.



Current 800mm f/5.6L
Announced - Jan 2008 (http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_800_5p6_is)
Shipping - May 2008

...but it has the OLD white Canon color.


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Jim Saunders said:
> ...



Ah, yeah, removal of the protective meniscus would reduce weight. And a 500g savings would be pretty significant overall, given how light the first 800/5.6 was.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 19, 2014)

Yay ! Another opportunity to push the price up by 25%

What exactly is up with the currently massively priced lens that's just 6 years old ?


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> Yay ! Another opportunity to push the price up by 25%
> 
> What exactly is up with the currently massively priced lens that's just 6 years old ?



It's been one-upped by both Nikon's new 800/5.6 and Canon's own 600/4 L II? 

Fundamentally, I think Canon wants to get all their great white L series telephotos on the same playing field...the 800 introduced the large fluorite elements, but it is a bit behind the rest of the lineup in terms of all the other build factors and overall IQ.


----------



## Silverman (Aug 19, 2014)

...dreaming that Canon will come out with: 

800mm 5.6 L IS II 
- Build in extender (possibly 1.4x)...
- MFD 5m
- Weight around the 600mm IS II
- pricewise close to the new Nikon 800mm


----------



## jrista (Aug 19, 2014)

Silverman said:


> ...dreaming that Canon will come out with:
> 
> 800mm 5.6 L IS II
> - Build in extender (possibly 1.4x)...
> ...



You WANT the new 800 to be more expensive? The Nikon is like $18,000...Canon's is currently $13,500. If the price hit around the same as Nikon's new 800mm, that would be a 33% increase in price. I'd hope they would keep any cost increase down to at most 20%...which would mean a price around $16,200.


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'd hope they would keep any cost increase down to at most 20%...which would mean a price around $16,200.


I have an old 800mm FD lens and would someday like to get a modern version, but at this price I think I will just buy the following and drive closer to the subject.


----------



## fotoray (Aug 19, 2014)

What sense does it make to put IS on such a big lens that would likely always be mounted on a tripod where IS is not needed? Or even not recommended? Is use of a monopod assumed to be the most frequent user choice? Certainly hand-held, where IS would be most helpful, doesn't seem practical because of quick fatigue with such a big lens.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 19, 2014)

fotoray said:


> What sense does it make to put IS on such a big lens that would likely always be mounted on a tripod where IS is not needed? Or even not recommended? Is use of a monopod assumed to be the most frequent user choice? Certainly hand-held, where IS would be most helpful, doesn't seem practical because of quick fatigue with such a big lens.



Some people do handhold these lenses, but even if most don't - IS can help when using a monopod or tripod. On the rare occasions I use a tripod on my 500, the IS still helps a lot with framing shots and preventing excessive shake.


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 20, 2014)

On tripod, IS helps shutter slap, wind buffeting (that hood is like a big 'ol windsock) and if shooting at 1200 or 1600 mm 1/2 hour after sunset, you'll be glad to have it. For that matter, you'll be glad to have it at those focal lengths anytime.


----------



## dolina (Aug 20, 2014)

Actual shipping date: Sometime in 2020


----------



## Menace (Aug 20, 2014)

dolina said:


> Actual shipping date: Sometime in 2020



Ha ha - really hope not!


----------



## dash2k8 (Aug 20, 2014)

$13,999 is not a tag I can afford... envious of you who can discuss buying it!


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2014)

fotoray said:


> What sense does it make to put IS on such a big lens that would likely always be mounted on a tripod where IS is not needed? Or even not recommended? Is use of a monopod assumed to be the most frequent user choice? Certainly hand-held, where IS would be most helpful, doesn't seem practical because of quick fatigue with such a big lens.



These lenses, now that they are so light, are eminently hand holdable. I hand hold my 600/4 II all the time, with and without a 1.4x TC. The IS is invaluable for hand-held work like that. Even when used on a tripod, there are things, like vibrations caused by wind, that IS is still useful for.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> fotoray said:
> 
> 
> > What sense does it make to put IS on such a big lens that would likely always be mounted on a tripod where IS is not needed? Or even not recommended? Is use of a monopod assumed to be the most frequent user choice? Certainly hand-held, where IS would be most helpful, doesn't seem practical because of quick fatigue with such a big lens.
> ...


To add to jrista's comments, I have used most of the big whites and the 800mm is barely hand holdable. Yes, it can be done, but not for more than a few minutes and anything beyond that is not going to be great because your hands won't be steady enough. At 800mm (or longer with extenders), however, IS is a huge help even on a tripod to help frame your subject and to reduce vibrations during the shutter release. The IS on the 800 also makes it a great lens on a monopod even for action work where you're moving positions, which would not be the case without IS.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> These lenses, now that they are so light, are eminently hand holdable. I hand hold my 600/4 II all the time, with and without a 1.4x TC. The IS is invaluable for hand-held work like that. Even when used on a tripod, there are things, like vibrations caused by wind, that IS is still useful for.



I thought all the whites version II had an detection inside to find out if they are used on a tripod, and if that's the case then IS would be switched off. Or am I wrong ?


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 20, 2014)

FEBS said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > These lenses, now that they are so light, are eminently hand holdable. I hand hold my 600/4 II all the time, with and without a 1.4x TC. The IS is invaluable for hand-held work like that. Even when used on a tripod, there are things, like vibrations caused by wind, that IS is still useful for.
> ...



It doesn't turn the IS off, it just prevents it from going into the feedback loop that caused problems in the early IS lenses.


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2014)

FEBS said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > These lenses, now that they are so light, are eminently hand holdable. I hand hold my 600/4 II all the time, with and without a 1.4x TC. The IS is invaluable for hand-held work like that. Even when used on a tripod, there are things, like vibrations caused by wind, that IS is still useful for.
> ...



The "tripod sensing" really just checks for a certain minimal mount of vertical shake, and if the shake is below that threshold, it throttles IS. If you have wind vibrating the lens, that usually pushes the shake above that threshold, and IS will still operate. Personally, I just use IS Mode 3, and I've never changed it. It works when I need it to, and that's all that matters.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 20, 2014)

It took some time to find it, but Canon did give some in-depth information about IS and its tripod sensing, at least for series II lenses (here):

*"Improved Performance During Tripod Use:* Unlike many other IS lenses that essentially shut off the IS function automatically when tripod use is detected, the new IS II super-telephoto lenses automatically compensate for subtle camera vibrations at shutter speeds from 1/30th to 1 second. Therefore, it is unnecessary to shut off IS during tripod use. This feature will be particularly welcomed by nature and landscape photographers who often use tripods for field work, and who also often use relatively slow shutter speeds. (The IS mechanism is automatically disabled when tripod use is detected and the shutter speed is longer than 1 second.)"

Edit: Also, here's some more info from Canon's press release on the existing 800mm, which was released with the 200 f/2 IS:

Both were the first to use the new 4-stop IS, and here's what they say about the construction:

"The Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM is not only the longest focal length lens available with OIS, it is also virtually the same physical size as the EF 600mm f/4L IS USM (461mm vs. 456mm), while weighing nearly 2 lbs. less (4500g/9.9 lbs. vs. 5360g/11.8 lbs.). *These outstanding features were made possible by the use of a lightweight magnesium alloy lens barrel construction* and a state-of-the-art super-telephoto optical system featuring 2 fluorite elements as well as Super UD and UD glass elements. The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM is well-suited for a wide variety of long-range photo applications such as wildlife and nature photography as well as sports and documentary photojournalism."


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 20, 2014)

For me, the maximum focal length that still allows autofocus is important.
I have the 600 II with a 5D3 so can use autofocus at 1200mm at f/8 with a 2x extender. The 800mm f/5.6 can only autofocus with the 1.4 extender (1120 mm at f/8). All things considered, I like the flexibility offered by the 600 f/4 versus the 800 f/5.6.


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2014)

Kestrel said:


> For me, the maximum focal length that still allows autofocus is important.
> I have the 600 II with a 5D3 so can use autofocus at 1200mm at f/8 with a 2x extender. The 800mm f/5.6 can only autofocus with the 1.4 extender (1120 mm at f/8). All things considered, I like the flexibility offered by the 600 f/4 versus the 800 f/5.6.



Same here, I like being able to use 1200mm f/8 when I need to, and for a lot of the birds I shoot, it's necessary.

However, I do suspect that the 800/5.6 + 1.4x will produce better IQ than the 600/4 + 2x...and for some people, having that extra bit of IQ is everything. I know of some bird photographers who refuse to use teleconverters, ever, period, because they don't like how it affects their sharpness.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 20, 2014)

Hi raptor3x, jrista and macguyver thanks a lot for your detailed explanations of IS and tripod. Learned again from CR.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Kestrel said:
> 
> 
> > For me, the maximum focal length that still allows autofocus is important.
> ...


I didn't find 1600mm at f/11 to be too great with the 800mm, but I didn't have my loaner long enough to really play with it. Also, with the 7D, the 2560mm effective focal length made finding your subject in the VF just about in impossible, and even with IS, manual focusing was a guess.

Also, when you get into these extremes, you need to be shooting in cold, clean alpine air, or humidity and other environmental conditions will wreck your image.


----------



## jrista (Aug 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Also, when you get into these extremes, you need to be shooting in cold, clean alpine air, or humidity and other environmental conditions will wreck your image.



Depends on what your shooting. I have no need to shoot wildlife at 1200mm, 600mm is actually more than plenty. Sometimes deer and the like get so close out of curiosity that I can't even get a shot. 

With waders and other larger, shy birds, that might be a problem. Depends on whether where you live is humid or not. I live in Colorado. We've had some hot years, but most of the time it's not blistering (80 degrees or cooler) and it's pretty dry up here in general. The only time I've had problems with water vapor being a problem was when the temperature was near or over 100 degrees...then it's a problem even at 600mm.

The real benefit of 1200mm comes into play when your photographing small birds. With just the 600mm, even at a relatively close distance, with a full frame, they are quite small. Moving to 1200mm with passerines isn't because they are far away...it's just to increase their size relative to the frame, but your still relatively close. More than close enough that water vapor in the air isn't going to be a problem between lens and subject (it might wreck your background boke...but that's a whole different deal.)


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Also, when you get into these extremes, you need to be shooting in cold, clean alpine air, or humidity and other environmental conditions will wreck your image.
> ...


Agreed, and that must be nice to have few issues with humidity. I lived in CO for a while and certainly miss a lot or things about it. Here in Florida, the humidity is highest during the best light, and is usually over 80%, so shots beyond 50 feet or so start getting soft. With birds, it seems like you need every millimeter you can get and I'm sure 1200mm helps a lot for the little birds in particular. I didn't feel like 800mm was enough for a lot of birds. Sometimes, you need millimeters to shoot from further away (gators for me, grizzlies for you), though, and that's when air quality, temperature (shimmer), and humidity become a real pain.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 20, 2014)

jrista said:



> The real benefit of 1200mm comes into play when your photographing small birds. With just the 600mm, even at a relatively close distance, with a full frame, they are quite small. Moving to 1200mm with passerines isn't because they are far away...it's just to increase their size relative to the frame, but your still relatively close. More than close enough that water vapor in the air isn't going to be a problem between lens and subject (it might wreck your background boke...but that's a whole different deal.)



Absolutely. As I've said, I use 1000mm as my normal birding focal length now, and it's often not quite enough. Passerines are tiny and skittish, and getting them with good feather detail requires a long focal length coupled with a fairly close distance - I suppose under 50 metres. I've included some shots I took this year at 1000mm - all will be cropped. Any extra focal length is welcome! See my Flickr for better/more details.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 21, 2014)

The question is will it be a complete redesign or a partial one? To completely redesign the lens is expensive with new tooling being a key factor for a focal lengh that is not a huge seller. 

The nifty fifty 1.8 should be redesigned to incorporate a metal mount S/H lenses on Ebay etc. always show the MK1 metal mount lenses selling much higher than the MK2 plastic mount version. The gap in price between the 1.4 and 1.8 provides for a lens that could be priced between the two with higher grade materials.


----------



## dolina (Aug 22, 2014)

Menace said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Actual shipping date: Sometime in 2020
> ...


I'm sure it'll happen that way. Notice how many rumored lens replacements have been posted on CR? They've been rumored to come out every quarter or so for a few years already.

So I expect very much that a new lens will be out by 2020 or even 2019 for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.


----------



## Menace (Aug 27, 2014)

dolina said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Well I really resisted getting a used one from my local Canon dealer despite being in near new condition as I'm not in desperate need of native 800mm range at present. 

Mind you, tomorrow if a job requires it, it will be a different story


----------



## dolina (Aug 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Also, when you get into these extremes, you need to be shooting in cold, clean alpine air, or humidity and other environmental conditions will wreck your image.


especially if the subject is ways away. I much prefer the subject be less than 20m.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2014)

dolina said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Also, when you get into these extremes, you need to be shooting in cold, clean alpine air, or humidity and other environmental conditions will wreck your image.
> ...



Gosh, if I restricted myself to 20m I'd get almost no shots at all! I don't find air quality a problem until the subject is a couple of hundred metres away (in sunshine/warm weather) or more. Maybe it's just the different climates?


----------



## dolina (Aug 27, 2014)

scyrene said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


if your relative humidity tends to be 80% or greater and temp ranges from 35°c or greater with a lot of coal and diesel (think "rolling coal" trend in the US) emissions then it will be a problem 

Btw your statement is confusing. 20m is too great a distance?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2014)

dolina said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Lol, I've never experienced 35ºC! It's often very humid here but not terribly warm. And pollution levels are low to moderate most of the time. Fair enough 

And I meant, if the maximum distance was 20m. I rarely encounter birds that close, especially the more unusual ones.


----------



## dolina (Aug 27, 2014)

scyrene said:


> And I meant, if the maximum distance was 20m. I rarely encounter birds that close, especially the more unusual ones.


In which case I prefer the subject be that close. I dont bother taking photos of birds further than that as I'd just delete them anyways.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2014)

dolina said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > And I meant, if the maximum distance was 20m. I rarely encounter birds that close, especially the more unusual ones.
> ...



Haha, fair enough. Each to their own


----------

