# Canon EF 200 f/2L IS & EF 800 f/5.6L IS [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 13, 2013)

```
<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=13082"></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=13082">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>New white lenses?</strong>

There has been some talk in the last little while about these two lenses possibly being replaced sooner than later. From personal experience, I know that Canon has discontinued the lens hood for the <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">EF 800 f/5.6L IS</a>, this hood also worked with the 400 f/2.8L IS. Another lens that has become quite hard to get is the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 200 f/2L IS</a>. I have talked to Canon Canada and they’ve been out of stock for a while with no ETA. That’s not always a perfect way to measure replacement of a lens, but with the more expensive ones, it usually is (I’d say 90%).</p>
<p>We’ve been told both lenses would be replaced after the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x is officially announced and production has started.</p>
<p>Current stock levels on the <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">EF 800 f/5.6L IS</a> remain good, but how many $13,000 lenses do they sell? Replacements for both would make sense as Canon could use the same exterior materials that they’re using in the 200-400, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732108-USA/Canon_4411B002_EF_300mm_f_2_8L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 300 f/2.8L IS II</a>, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732109-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 400 f/2.8L IS II</a>, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754507-USA/Canon_5124B002_500mm_f_4L_EF_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 500 f/4L IS II</a> & <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754508-REG/Canon_5125B002_EF_600mm_f_4L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 600 f/4L IS II</a> lenses.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## cdang (Mar 13, 2013)

The 200 f2L IS is definitely coming.. Since I just bought it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 13, 2013)

I'm kind of surprised to hear about the 200 f/2L IS being up for replacement already. The current model is already considered to be pretty close to optically perfect and has an effective IS system. I also doubt that it is a high volume lens at its current price, and Canon seems incapable of designing replacements that are even close to the price of current models.

This seems like a bit of a head scratcher to me, although I wouldn't be sad to see some MK I's at reduced prices on the used market.


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 13, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm kind of surprised to hear about the 200 f/2L IS being up for replacement already. The current model is already considered to be pretty close to optically perfect and has an effective IS system. I also doubt that it is a high volume lens at its current price, and Canon seems incapable of designing replacements that are even close to the price of current models.
> 
> This seems like a bit of a head scratcher to me, although I wouldn't be sad to see some MK I's at reduced prices on the used market.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## facedodge (Mar 13, 2013)

plus one... how can the 200mm f/2L IS be made better?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 13, 2013)

facedodge said:


> plus one... how can the 200mm f/2L IS be made better?



+1, only possible way is to lower its weight, but a 200/2 will never be light for a 200mm lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 13, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm kind of surprised to hear about the 200 f/2L IS being up for replacement already. The current model is already considered to be pretty close to optically perfect and has an effective IS system. I also doubt that it is a high volume lens at its current price, and Canon seems incapable of designing replacements that are even close to the price of current models.
> 
> This seems like a bit of a head scratcher to me, although I wouldn't be sad to see some MK I's at reduced prices on the used market.



The newer hood design needs a different front to each lens. The newer lenses don't have a protection element, which the mkI lenses do. The newer ones are a complete redesign, mechanically and optically. The newer ones are a LOT lighter, the new 400 f2.8 is hanholdable and the new 500L is amazingly light in weight. The newer lenses are better in every regard, sharper, less vignetting, better TC results, better IS and faster AF. There are newer coatings (SWF or what ever Canon now call it), Flourite coatings to reduce dust attraction and make them less flare prone.

Sure the new ones are expensive, but they are slowly coming down in price. If you couldn't afford a white tele before the mkII's the increase in price isn't going to make any difference. There's plenty of great condition S/H copies of the mkI lenses available. 

All Canon lenses are rediculously over priced in their first year...but there's plenty of muppets who want to pay this premium to brag the newest toys. Wait a few years, let the initial batch issues get ironed out and then snag a bargain. Just remember that well looked after Canon lenses are usually worth more over time. Most of my lenses from 6 years back, which I bought new are now worth more S/H than what I originally paid for them. The same is true with the big whites. If you buy a mkI 500L S/H...it will never loose you money and probably go up in value over time. Where as the resale value of DSLR camera bodies drop like a lead ballon over time.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 13, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> All Canon lenses are rediculously over priced in their first year...but there's plenty of muppets who want to pay this premium to brag the newest toys.



+1 
LOL! Love the term "muppets"... apt!


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 13, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> This seems like a bit of a head scratcher to me



Yup...dun't make sense....more like CR0.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 13, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> facedodge said:
> 
> 
> > plus one... how can the 200mm f/2L IS be made better?
> ...



+2, but perhaps the return of the Legendary F/1.8?


----------



## bseitz234 (Mar 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > facedodge said:
> ...



Sharpness and IS of the f/2, at a wide open f/1.8? I'd pay MarkII supertele price for that... as soon as I was able to save that much.


----------



## Studio1930 (Mar 13, 2013)

I own the 200 f/2 and have for some time now. It is my main lens that I use as it is just hard to find anything that works better (for me). As for a replacement, I can see where they would significantly reduce the weight and improve the IS by a few stops. Those two things alone would make it a great purchase but the MK1 will still be a great lens as well. I don't think a newer version would reduce the value of the MK1 so don't expect to see mine up for sale at 1/2 price.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 13, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> I don't think a newer version would reduce the value of the MK1 so don't expect to see mine up for sale at 1/2 price.



I can take it off your hands at 3/4th the price, but only for you, a stranger from CR... seriously I'll be doing you a favor, but I am generous like that. :


----------



## Studio1930 (Mar 13, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> Studio1930 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think a newer version would reduce the value of the MK1 so don't expect to see mine up for sale at 1/2 price.
> ...


LOL. That's nice of you, I think. :-\ Seriously though, the lens hood for this lens is between $400-700 depending on where you buy it and what type you get. Crazy!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/548376-REG/Canon_2346B001_ET_120B_Lens_Hood_for.html


----------



## jrista (Mar 13, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> facedodge said:
> 
> 
> > plus one... how can the 200mm f/2L IS be made better?
> ...



A lot of people thought the previous crop of 300, 400, 500, and 600mm lenses couldn't be made better. In every respect, including and in particular IQ, all of those Mark II lenses ARE better than their predecessors. Sometimes by a significant degree. For example, the new EF 600mm f/4 L IS II is sharper than the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS, even when a 1.4x TC is used, according to a review by Art Moriss, a world-renown bird photographer who puts his gear through the greatest of tests every time he uses them. In another article, Art also notes that he will be moving from the 800mm to the 600mm thanks to the fact that it is overall, in pretty much every way, a better lens (closer MFD, better sharpness, lighter weight, etc. etc.) If you read through his blog, he has quite a few good things to say about the new generation of telephoto lenses from Canon.

I see no reason the 200mm f/2 and the 800mm f/5.6 couldn't be updated to be just as superior to the current versions as the new generation of recently released Mark II lenses are to their predecessors. Lighter, better IS, faster AF, significantly improved center to corner sharpness, etc.


----------



## jasonsim (Mar 13, 2013)

I've had both these lenses and glad that I sold them off before the new ones come out. For the 800mm, Nikon just came out with theirs, so it makes sense for Canon to respond. Especially since most wildlife photographers are trading the 800mm in the the 600mm f/4L IS II ( I did ). They need to redesign the 800mm to make a compelling reason for us to buy it over the less expensive 600mm II. Make it lighter, thinner, give it the mode 3 IS, better weight distribution, etc. 

The 200mm could also be refreshed to reduce weight, mode 3 IS, new coatings, more fluorite, etc. Make it start at f/1.8!!!

But looking at this from Canon's perspective, this is economic genius...refresh two already great lenses, give them a new paint job and sell them for double the price!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 13, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I'm kind of surprised to hear about the 200 f/2L IS being up for replacement already. The current model is already considered to be pretty close to optically perfect and has an effective IS system. I also doubt that it is a high volume lens at its current price, and Canon seems incapable of designing replacements that are even close to the price of current models.
> ...



Actually the newer 300 f/2.8L IS and 400 f/2.8L IS are NOT sharper than the mark I's.


----------



## jrista (Mar 13, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Not in the center. They are in the corners, which is where a lot of the improvement in the Mark II's went.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 13, 2013)

True. But I crop all of my sports photos, so that's why I didn't notice any improvement.


----------



## KyleSTL (Mar 13, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> But looking at this from Canon's perspective, this is economic genius...refresh two already great lenses, give them a *new paint job  * and sell them for double the price!


Seriously, who wants these two old lenses that clash with the new big whites?!? 

In all seriousness, I think between weight, coatings and paint (in that order of importance) are more than enough to justify replacement. I think when they are replaced and we see the image quality improvements on the 800mm it will make sense, I mean, think how good the 600mm II is with the 1.4x tele at the same focal length - how good will a native 800mm II look? For the 200mm, I can't see that the image quality will increase that much (at least given current pixel density). Maybe in the near future when there is a >24MP FF camera, it might show all the difference between the I and II superteles.


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 13, 2013)

Highly doubt they will replace the 200 f/2 with a Mk2 anytime soon. Uses the same IS as current gen MKII's as well as AF system and hardware. Was released in q2 2008 I think it's a bit soon to re-tool the whole line. 

What I see happening if ANYTHING is: a new box to match the current generation of greatwhite boxes so they stack and a slight color change to the new white (easy change).


----------



## dolina (Mar 13, 2013)

It makes little sense. I'm amazed this got a cr2. It should be replaced in 2018 or later.

There are more higher volume lenses they need to update than thee two.

Unless they cut the weight by at least 25% I see little reason to upgrade.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 13, 2013)

Expect re-designs for these 2 lenses lighter like what Canon did with the recent updates to 400 f2.8, 500 & 600 F4. 

One negative is that prices of these 2 lenses will go up and the 800 f5.6 may be similar or higher in price to the Nikon.

Could be time to buy to buy these lenses before they're replaced.


----------



## JoeDavid (Mar 13, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> I own the 200 f/2 and have for some time now. It is my main lens that I use as it is just hard to find anything that works better (for me). As for a replacement, I can see where they would significantly reduce the weight and improve the IS by a few stops. Those two things alone would make it a great purchase but the MK1 will still be a great lens as well. I don't think a newer version would reduce the value of the MK1 so don't expect to see mine up for sale at 1/2 price.



+1 here. I doubt Canon could justify the huge price for an upgrade to those of us that already own one. The current version is that good. I doubt they would reduce the weight very much. From the current version's manual: "Designed for lighter weight with major parts made of magnesium alloy".


----------



## eos650 (Mar 13, 2013)

I hope the rumor is wrong on the 200mm. I've had mine for less than six months. Part of my buying decision was that it has been on the market less than five years and I expected it to remain current for several more.

I'm some what concerned about losing value, but knowing Canon the new version would cost much more, so I maybe not.

I'm most concerned about obtaining parts and service for my existing lens, once it's been discontinued. I personally would not buy a discontinued lens without a hefty discount, just for this reason.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 13, 2013)

eos650 said:


> I hope the rumor is wrong on the 200mm. I've had mine for less than six months. Part of my buying decision was that it has been on the market less than five years and I expected it to remain current for several more.
> 
> I'm some what concerned about losing value, but knowing Canon the new version would cost much more, so I maybe not.
> 
> I'm most concerned about obtaining parts and service for my existing lens, once it's been discontinued. I personally would not buy a discontinued lens without a hefty discount, just for this reason.



ALmost NEVER will the previous version decrease in used prices when a new is released. If you don't own one of these, buy it now as the used prices will go up when the new one hits the market (I'm somewhat speaking to myself on that one also)


----------



## RGF (Mar 13, 2013)

Canon will try to exceed Nikon's price on the 800 F5.6. May go even as high as $20,000. 

First there was FPS war
Then MP war
No high price war.

When will this stop


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 13, 2013)

If either of these two lenses were under $5,000 I might care. As it is, no way.


----------



## jthomson (Mar 13, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> If either of these two lenses were under $5,000 I might care. As it is, no way.



+1


----------



## bear (Mar 13, 2013)

Reason for new version is probably limited usability with extenders.
I compared my old 200/1.8L with 200/2L IS and f/1.8 is sharper with 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 13, 2013)

bear said:


> Reason for new version is probably limited usability with extenders.
> I compared my old 200/1.8L with 200/2L IS and f/1.8 is sharper with 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders.



Really? I just did a comparison a week ago over at TDP, and it seems very far from it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=432&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=458&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

With 1.4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=432&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=458&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

Am I missing something?


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 13, 2013)

Viggo said:


> bear said:
> 
> 
> > Reason for new version is probably limited usability with extenders.
> ...



Was going to quote this as well.. Thanks. Good review btw=).


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 13, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> I own the 200 f/2 and have for some time now. It is my main lens that I use as it is just hard to find anything that works better (for me). As for a replacement, I can see where they would significantly reduce the weight and improve the IS by a few stops. Those two things alone would make it a great purchase but the MK1 will still be a great lens as well. I don't think a newer version would reduce the value of the MK1 so don't expect to see mine up for sale at 1/2 price.



the price of used mk1s will probably INCREASE since i bet the new one will be knocking on the door of $10k  :'(


----------



## dgsphoto (Mar 13, 2013)

It's not the lens that Canon is replacing, it's the price.

The only way they can jack up the price is by changing the costume and launching the same lens as a new lens with a new tan (an extra layer of some all new magical coating), new clothes and accents on...

Or maybe they will change from 200/2 to 200/1.8 and jack up the price close to 10K.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 14, 2013)

cdang said:


> The 200 f2L IS is definitely coming.. Since I just bought it.



Same here, expect to have it delivered tomorrow. But honestly, I don't think I'd be able to afford the premium price of a new one. 

Does anybody know if any other telephoto L lenses were updated 5 years after the mark I version had been released?


----------



## Radiating (Mar 14, 2013)

dgsphoto said:


> It's not the lens that Canon is replacing, it's the price.
> 
> The only way they can jack up the price is by changing the costume and launching the same lens as a new lens with a new tan (an extra layer of some all new magical coating), new clothes and accents on...
> 
> Or maybe they will change from 200/2 to 200/1.8 and jack up the price close to 10K.



Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

I've spoken to several different sources at Canon and they all confirm one thing about Canon, they're not a company that makes cameras, they're a company that makes money. 

Canon will sonner spit in the face of every one of their customers and set those customers on fire if it makes them money than release a good product. 

The 5D Mark III was ready over a year before it was released but Canon just sat on the design until Nikon released their new body because they knew they could charge top dollar for their current product.

The ONLY reason Canon released the 24-70mm f/2.8 II was NOT in any way shape or form to help it's customers with a great lens but because the old lens was getting too expensive to make because they were all being sent in for warranty.

Canon has also sat on the 7D2 design, until Nikon fired off the D7100. The EOS M was designed as cheaply as possible with the highest profit margin possible because Canon thought their customers were idiots. It didn't work.

Like I said, Canon itself admits at all levels that it has no interest in making quality products, it only care about making as much money as possible and it will sell you a ton of garbage and call it gold as long as it can. Canon is sitting on every product you can dream of but they won't sell you any of it until they think you'll stop buying their old junk, or they know they can price gouge you like crazy for the replacement. They have a ton of decade old lenses that are a complete embarassment to even keep selling (100-400 cough cough), and Canon won't replace them until the year Nikon comes up with a much better one, which in the case of Nikon's 80-400 they just did, by a huge margin.

The only reason the entry level primes were replaced (24,28,&35mm primes) is because Canon banked on the fact they could charge double to movie maker for them. The 35mmm f/1.4 was an aging embarassingly old decade+ old design, and the 35mm f/1.4 II was coincidence slated for rlease the same year Sigma slammed Canon with their 35mm f/1.4. Canon has had the replacement fully tested and ready for 3 years now, but just sat on the redesign.

Their idea for a 24-105mm replacement? Add macro and charge double. At Canon innovation means sitting on the products they know need to be updated until the last possible moment, or realeasing gimicky new products that they try to justify ridiculous price gouging for. Canon 1DC? A 1DX that costs double with special firmware. Canon cinema 24, 50 & 85mm primes? Existing L primes with updated coatings, very minor tweaks and a new case that cost 5 times as much.

Price gouging or dragging their feet, that's the Canon way. This will be price gouging because there is no competetive reason to update their lenses. Prepare for a $9,000 + 200mm f/2.0 IS II. Lighter, with better coatings etc.


----------



## jrista (Mar 14, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Price gouging or dragging their feet, that's the Canon way. This will be price gouging because there is no competetive reason to update their lenses. Prepare for a $9,000 + 200mm f/2.0 IS II. Lighter, with better coatings etc.



Maybe not a competitive reason...but a technological one for sure. Older lenses are not necessarily capable of resolving enough detail to support higher density sensors. That fact is often clearly demonstrated in the MTFs of older canon lenses that have just been replaced (like the 24-70/2.8)...sometimes the differences are very significant, and often HUGE in the corners. Canon has stuck with an 18mp APS-C sensor for a long time for a reason...it is pushing the limits of what their current lenses are capable of (particularly in the corners, and improved corner performance is a common theme in all of Canon's recent lens releases), and going to smaller pixels will reveal more "softness" (that is really a misnomer, a higher resolution sensor will still do better with current lenses...but its a perception thing...people see "soft" and plain and simply don't like it.) 

I would say Canon is updating the bulk of their L-series line of lenses for TECHNOLOGICAL reasons. It's been a decade or more on quite a number of their L-series lenses, and at least that long since any significant improvements in optics and multicoating. Canon only recently (relatively speaking) developed SWC, or Subwavelength Coating, a nano-tech coating that reduces the TOTAL transmission loss in a lens from several percent at least to less than 1% at most. That significantly improves microcontrast in all situations and reduces flare considerably in the worst of situations. They have started using multiple fluorite lens elements as well as aspheric elements in place of multiple UD elements and element groups to reduce weight and produce superior aberration control. Most lens updates going back a number of years were primarily for the addition of IS, with only minor improvements in the optics themselves, so resolution wise, Canon's lenses have been the same for 10-20 years.

Technologically speaking, if Canon really intends to push into the 40, 50, 60mp sensor range or farther on the FF side, and 20-30mp on the APS-C side, refreshing their line of lenses for significantly superior optics is a smart thing to do. This new line of lenses should last for the next decade, maybe two?

These lenses aren't cheap because there is a lot of R&D invested in them. Canon is refreshing the bulk of their lens line, and along the way has designed and patented a lot of new technologies that will likely find their way into new lenses as well. All that R&D costs millions. Personally, I'd rather have Canon be smart and savvy about where they take their DSLR technology, and release lenses that are up to snuff for higher density sensors BEFORE they hit the market...than have them go the Nikon route and have the bulk of their customers complain about insufficient IS or poor optics that prevent taking tack-sharp photos with the likes of the D800, D600, or D3200. 

*Canon has a cohesive, long-term vision for their photographic equipment*...something I wouldn't say the competition does nearly as well (or doesn't do at all...just look at how Nikon has named their DSLR cameras over the last decade to see how addled that corporate brain is...). Brand new lenses cost a lot of money...its a hell of a lot of extremely advanced optical technology (and I'd argue that Canon has the best DSLR optics on the planet right now, with the HIGHEST QUALITY, backed up by the BEST SUPPORT in the industry) that cost a crap-ton of money to design and develop. If you want the best of the best, and want it right now...well, PAY UP! If not...the prices will drop soon enough, once the high demand and backlog have subsided.

I believe you, @Radiating, have Greener Grass syndrome. You look across the fence and see something in those fields of Nikon D800's and think Nikon is doing everything right and Canon is doing everything wrong. You should hop around the net for a while and read various Nikon forums for a while. Those guys bitch so much about their Nikon gear, you'd think they were Canonites in Nikon clothing! There is no greener grass. Nikon has a few cameras with a whopping good sensor, and a COUPLE of their recently released lenses are great (like the 80-400). A LOT of Nikon stuff, however, including the vaunted D800 and D600, have had more than their fair share of problems. The only significant "problem" to hit the 5D III was the light leak issue, and Canon responded quickly. Check out the number of problems the D800 and D600 have and are still having, and read all the forums where Nikon users are STILL complaining about such issues (as well as complaining about the horrible support experiences they have had on a regular and continuing basis with Nikon customer support.)

There is no greener grass, every brand has its problems, its lagging technology, its missteps and glitches, etc. Right now, when it comes to lenses, Canon's new releases are the creme of the crop. They are lighter, better balanced, have the best IS available, support the fastest and most precise AF (especially when paired with a new Canon body that supports new AF drive functionality), offer unparalleled sharpness, and are ready for the future. I'd happily give up a couple stops of low ISO DR for that. A lens can last for a lifetime. Camera bodies come and go. I think Canon will have the best of all worlds...lens, sensor, AF, ISO, everything...soon enough.


----------



## bear (Mar 14, 2013)

Viggo said:


> bear said:
> 
> 
> > Reason for new version is probably limited usability with extenders.
> ...



Lens copies are not all the same. My 200/1.8L is sharp with very good contrast wide open, even, that it's cosmetic condition is below average.
http://www.ephoto.sk/fototechnika/recenzie/objektivy/canon-ef-200mm-f-1-8l-usm/

Sample with 2x III extender:
7D: http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/galeria/13cec2e3b0a180acbf20bbfbdcc1d98c.jpg
Fullframe: http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/galeria/a390adbc5a65e07bf5cdf993fa287f92.jpg

Sample with 1.4x III extender:
7D: http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/galeria/726b7d2faddb1f6a146c753b1b121484.jpg
Fullframe: http://img.ephoto.sk/images/content/galeria/433ee0bee9c11c03aa1d62cf4fa290d2.jpg

200/2L IS that I tested was Canon presentation sample (these lenses are often not handled with care).


----------



## ddashti (Mar 14, 2013)

Updates to these lenses? It'll definitely be a good thing, but how many of them will be sold at the probable "higher" price tag?


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 14, 2013)

While its a well written piece there are a few plot holes that you failed to fill.

All companies are in business to make money, not just Canon. Canon makes "Imaging Products" as their bread and butter, not Cameras. 



> At Canon innovation means sitting on the products they know need to be updated until the last possible moment, or realeasing gimicky new products that they try to justify ridiculous price gouging for. Canon 1DC? A 1DX that costs double with special firmware. Canon cinema 24, 50 & 85mm primes? Existing L primes with updated coatings, very minor tweaks and a new case that cost 5 times as much.



The Cine primes are that price for a reason, very very very very very TIGHT tolerances. The L lenses and the Cine lenses are NOTHING alike and not made to the same specs. The 1Dc has a few differences other then "special firmware", it is mainly related to cooling the sensor and buffer for recording. It is also a smaller market, with a smaller supply, meaning the tooling costs more and as such the part costs more. I work in Precision manufacturing and design, When I tell a client it will cost $10,000 to mill a piece out of aircraft grade aluminum for their project they gladly pay. Same goes for cine people, their lenses and clients.



> The ONLY reason Canon released the 24-70mm f/2.8 II was NOT in any way shape or form to help it's customers with a great lens but because the old lens was getting too expensive to make because they were all being sent in for warranty.



Mk1 24-70 costing too much to produce because of warranty repairs that late into the manufacturing cycle?!? That makes little to no sense at all (gimme some of what you are smoking!). The tooling costs for that lens and parts were paid years ago, the lifetime of that lens was 10 years (manufacturing). 10 years easily pays for tooling on equipment like that. I never had an issue with mine in the 6 years I had it nor did the group of about 100 photographers I know who still own one.



> Canon has also sat on the 7D2 design, until Nikon fired off the D7100. The EOS M was designed as cheaply as possible with the highest profit margin possible because Canon thought their customers were idiots. It didn't work.



D7100 is not an equivalent to the proposed 7DII. It will be on par with a rumored D70. The 7DII is more of a Mini 1Dx.



> Like I said, Canon itself admits at all levels that it has no interest in making quality products, it only care about making as much money as possible and it will sell you a ton of garbage and call it gold as long as it can. Canon is sitting on every product you can dream of but they won't sell you any of it until they think you'll stop buying their old junk, or they know they can price gouge you like crazy for the replacement. They have a ton of decade old lenses that are a complete embarassment to even keep selling (100-400 cough cough), and Canon won't replace them until the year Nikon comes up with a much better one, which in the case of Nikon's 80-400 they just did, by a huge margin.



No interest in making quality products? That is suicide from a management and sales standpoint. A company as large as Canon _would *Never* admit at all levels that it has no interest in making quality products_ as the second people hear that they will go to another company that is committed to quality and has a reputation as such. Everything they make is quality. If it was not, why did canon sell the most DSLR's last year? If they did not make quality gear and have a commitment to it why is their camera division not being sold off or put out of business? If you say "I don't care about my job, I am just going to wing it and take home as much as I can" to your boss, clients etc. what do you think they would say?


----------



## ewg963 (Mar 14, 2013)

facedodge said:


> plus one... how can the 200mm f/2L IS be made better?


 +1


----------



## ewg963 (Mar 14, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I'm kind of surprised to hear about the 200 f/2L IS being up for replacement already. The current model is already considered to be pretty close to optically perfect and has an effective IS system. I also doubt that it is a high volume lens at its current price, and Canon seems incapable of designing replacements that are even close to the price of current models.
> ...


 +1 I got a kick out of the term "muppet"


----------



## sanj (Mar 14, 2013)

Well said RM633. Except we do not know what the 7d2 will be like...


----------



## jasonsim (Mar 14, 2013)

Yes, he had two bad copies of the 200mm f/1.8L.

My 200mm, if there are any takers:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1195617/0#11401209



Viggo said:


> bear said:
> 
> 
> > Reason for new version is probably limited usability with extenders.
> ...


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 14, 2013)

sanj said:


> Well said RM633. Except we do not know what the 7d2 will be like...



Nor the 70D. But I can guarantee with 100% certainty that the 7DII will not be what Canon puts out to compete with the D7100. They are two wholly different animals.


----------



## dolina (Mar 26, 2013)

I believe the rumor that a new Canon 200mm IS & 800mm IS will be released, as soon as 2020.

These are the various reasons why it will happen then

1) Nikon's 200 VR2 & 800 VR are still at a disadvantage when it comes to lens weight to Canon. VR are now the same number of stops to Canon's IS. Only advantage of the Nikons are the the optical coating and the dedicated TC of the 800mm VR.

2) Both Canon lens were announced in 2007 and shipped 2008. These make both lens 5-6 years old. All the Series 1 super teles with IS were made obsolete by 2011 when the Series 2 super teles with IS were announced. That's a 12 year product cycle.

3) 200/1.8, the predecessor of the 200/2 IS, was announced in 1988 and discontinued in 2003. That's a good 15 years.

4. Here is a list of L lenses that need to be updated due to their lens age. All these lenses probably sell more volume in a week than either white primes in its whole production run.

1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

5. Here is a list of non-L EF lenses that need to be updated due to their lens age. All these lenses probably sell more volume in one day than either white primes in its whole production run.

1987 EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II
1991 TS-E45mm f/2.8
1991 TS-E90mm f/2.8
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
1995 EF 28 f/1.8 USM

6. As mentioned on 4 & 5 both lenses are not volume sellers. So whether they update this tomorrow or next decade they it wouldnt sell all that much.

I'd only upgrade if they can reduce the weight a further 25% or more and increase the f-number to say by 1/2 or a full stop.

Now, I could be wrong so dont bother reading this anymore.


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

dolina said:


> I believe the rumor that a new Canon 200mm IS & 800mm IS will be released, as soon as 2020.
> 
> These are the various reasons why it will happen then
> 
> 1) Nikon's 200 VR2 & 800 VR are still at a disadvantage when it comes to lens weight to Canon. VR are now the same number of stops to Canon's IS. Only advantage of the Nikons are the the optical coating and the dedicated TC of the 800mm VR.



Canon also uses nanocoatings, like Nikon's Nano Crystal Coat. It is called SWC by Canon, Subwavelength Coating. All of Canon's new lenses use SWC on multiple elements. Nikon has no advantage there. Flare control on newer Canon lenses is second to none, and one of the biggest reasons I love Canon glass.



dolina said:


> 2) Both Canon lens were announced in 2007 and shipped 2008. These make both lens 5-6 years old. All the Series 1 super teles with IS were made obsolete by 2011 when the Series 2 super teles with IS were announced. That's a 12 year product cycle.



Canon's EF 800 f/5.6 L IS was the first lens to use Canon's 4-stop IS system. That is the same 4-stop IS system that is used in the new Mark II generation of Canon teles and superteles. It is also the same 4-stop IS system used in the EF 200mm f/2 L IS. The IS system of both the 800/5.6 and 200/2 is most certainly not out of date. It is actually the current state of the art, and the system that paved the way for the Mark II 300, 400, 500, and 600 lenses. 



dolina said:


> I'd only upgrade if they can reduce the weight a further 25% or more and increase the f-number to say by 1/2 or a full stop.



Weight is probably only area where there can really be significant gains, although the current 800mm lens already made a fair bit of headway on that front by being almost two pounds lighter than the old 600mm f/4 L lens. Canon might be able to improve IQ as well. The 600mm f/4 L II is slightly better than the 800mm with a 1.4x TC, so there is probably something Canon can do to put the 800mm back on top. Is it worth it, though? The margin is very slim...and as a prime supertelephoto, the current 800mm is still a phenomenal lens. I've never used the 200/2, but from what I've seen, it too is a phenomenal lens capable of producing some unbelievably good images with the most mind-blowing boke you've ever seen.

When it comes to aperture, if the difference is f/1.8 vs. f/2, it is trivial, and doesn't really matter. With the insanely good high ISO performance of Canon cameras these days, a third of a stop bump in ISO is trivial.

As for the 800mm, Canon doesn't usually use intermediate f-stops for maximum aperture on their prime lenses. It would either be f/5.6 or f/4. An f/4 800mm lens would require a 200mm entrance pupil. That is GARGANTUAN! The single largest entrance pupil in Canon's entire lens lineup is the 600mm f/4, with a 150mm entrance pupil. An 800mm f/4 would require a 33% increase in front element size. The diameter of the 600mm II is 168mm, so the front element is probably exactly 150mm in size. Can you imagine a lens with a 200mm front element?!? The barrel diameter would probably be 220mm! Not only would such a lens be HUGE, it would be heavy, even with Fluorite elements...much heavier than the current 800mm f/5.6 L (which is actually still fairly light...lighter than the previous EF 600mm f/4 L by a fair margin, again thanks to Fluorite elements, as the current 800 is still a modern design).

It would certainly be an amazing lens, an EF 800mm f/4 L IS. But it would be a significant feat of engineering to make it practical for anything outside of relatively permanent, stationary use on one hell of a beasty tripod. That is nothing to say of the cost. The EF 600mm f/4 L IS II costs $13,000. The current EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS costs $13,500, and it has a smaller entrance pupil than the 600mm. I can only figure an EF 800mm f/4 L IS would cost...$25,000...maybe $35,000? 

I don't see either of these lenses getting an increase in maximum aperture. Its either not logical, or not practical.


----------



## dolina (Mar 28, 2013)

SWC was introduced with the EF24mm f/1.4L II USM in the 2008 announcement. A year after 200 & 800.

200 & 800 do not have IS mode 3 & Power Focus amongst other things. New paint job is also missing. It also lacks a Kengsington lock.

200 has 5-stops of IS 
- http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/Camera-Lenses/EF200mm-f2L-IS-USM-Lens
- http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200805/200805.html
- http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/200mm_f2l.do
- http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/image_stabilization_lenses.do

The current 400/2.8 is 16% lighter than the 800 and does not have the separate optical front element that serves as protector. It is now integrated onto the super hard front element. This is one component that can be removed in the 200 & 800 to lessen weight.

1/3rd or 1/2 stop is a difference between stopping the action and having slight blurring. ISO can only do so much even on the flagship 1-Series. Shutter speed dictates whether the subject is frozen or has subject motion blur. ISO determines exposure amongst other things.

Canon lenses with less fractional stops.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/wide/ef_28_18_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_f1.2l_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_18.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_18ii.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/2006_ef_85_f1.2lII_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_85_18_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_200_18l_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_500_45l_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/macro/ef_50_25.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/macro/ef_180_35l_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ts-e/ts_e24_35l.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ts-e/ts_e24_f35lii.html

“Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm." - Yoda

Advances in materials science will allow for lighter 800 at a faster f-number than what was possible today.  It'll be out in 2020, more than enough times for the optical boffins to figure things out.

$35,000 would be cheap, by 2020. 

I can see a 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 5.0 or 5.2 f-number in the future.

By 2020 I may not be doing photography anymore as serious as today but still...



jrista said:


> Canon also uses nanocoatings, like Nikon's Nano Crystal Coat. It is called SWC by Canon, Subwavelength Coating. All of Canon's new lenses use SWC on multiple elements. Nikon has no advantage there. Flare control on newer Canon lenses is second to none, and one of the biggest reasons I love Canon glass.
> 
> Canon's EF 800 f/5.6 L IS was the first lens to use Canon's 4-stop IS system. That is the same 4-stop IS system that is used in the new Mark II generation of Canon teles and superteles. It is also the same 4-stop IS system used in the EF 200mm f/2 L IS. The IS system of both the 800/5.6 and 200/2 is most certainly not out of date. It is actually the current state of the art, and the system that paved the way for the Mark II 300, 400, 500, and 600 lenses.
> 
> ...


----------



## jrista (Mar 28, 2013)

dolina said:


> SWC was introduced with the EF24mm f/1.4L II USM in the 2008 announcement. A year after 200 & 800.



Ah, it does look like SWC was introduced Sept. 2008. I thought it was introduced in 2007. Touche.



dolina said:


> 200 & 800 do not have IS mode 3 & Power Focus amongst other things. New paint job is also missing. It also lacks a Kengsington lock.



Paint job? Really? You want a new version just for a paint job? ???

No, they do not have mode 3 IS. Again, not sure we really need these lenses to be replaced just for that. I do believe the 800mm has power focus...it certainly has all the controls and the ring for it...from a switches, buttons, knobs, and rings standpoint, the 800mm lens looks the same as the 600 II, 500 II, 400 II and 300 II. I cannot tell if the 200 has it or not...I wouldn't be surprised if it does not...I'm not sure there is enough room to support it. As for the Kensington lock, I believe all of Canon's current telephoto lenses have that. At least, according to photos on TDP (the-digital-picture.com), it appears they do.



dolina said:


> 200 has 5-stops of IS
> - http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/Camera-Lenses/EF200mm-f2L-IS-USM-Lens
> - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200805/200805.html
> - http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/200mm_f2l.do
> - http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/image_stabilization_lenses.do



Actually, according to everything I've read here in the states, Canon calls it a 4-stop IS. I believe the official rating is for 4 stops of improved hand-holdability (rated in slower shutter speed). Most review sites, including TDP, label it as "state of the art 4-stop IS" as well:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_200mm_f_2l_is_usm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

That said, most review sites seem to get as much as or even more than 5 stops in reality, assuming one has incredibly steady hands. Officially, at least here in the US, Canon's current image stabilization system is rated at 4 stops. I know some people who have unsteady hands due to medical reasons who cannot get more than 4 stops improved hand-holdability. It may simply be differences in economy or culture...in the US, I could see some selfish idiot sap suing (and, thanks to the evil hordes of trial lawyers here, getting a class action and winning) over "miss-rated hand-holdability gains from Canon's '5-stop IS system'".  

Either way, I believe the IS system in the 800/5.6 and 200/2 is the exact same system in all the other new white telephoto primes...whether it is a 5-stop or 4-stop benefit.



dolina said:


> The current 400/2.8 is 16% lighter than the 800 and does not have the separate optical front element that serves as protector. It is now integrated onto the super hard front element. This is one component that can be removed in the 200 & 800 to lessen weight.



I know the front elements have an hydrophobic and anti-oil coating to prevent water drops and fingerprints from sticking. I had not heard the front element was super hard. There does not seem to be any official information from Canon regarding that (at least, not on the US site). Everything I've heard from people who actually own these lenses is that they were just as fragile as any other lens' front element, and many lament the loss of the protective front glass.



dolina said:


> 1/3rd or 1/2 stop is a difference between stopping the action and having slight blurring. ISO can only do so much even on the flagship 1-Series. Shutter speed dictates whether the subject is frozen or has subject motion blur. ISO determines exposure amongst other things.



Shutter speed is adjusted in accordance to BOTH or EITHER aperture AND ISO! This is BASIC exposure theory!  If you need a faster shutter, you can either open up, or boost ISO. The simple fact of the matter is, if you need a higher shutter speed, increasing ISO is the only really side-effect-free way to do it for small changes like one or two thirds stops. Opening up the aperture has a key side effect: it changes your depth of field and has a key impact on sharpness and IQ. You could open up a third, a half, even two thirds of a stop, but if you NEED something like f/8 for an appropriate DOF or for maximum sharpness, your going to crank up ISO anyway. Redesigning a lens so you can get f/4.5 instead of f/5.6, just so you have a reason to redesign a lens, is impractical. If you need a 1/3rd second faster shutter, the safest way to achieve that is by boost ISO by 1/3rd of a stop. The difference would be imperceptible with something like the 1D X or 5D III at any "normal" ISO settings (800, 1600, 3200, 6400). With something like the 1D X, you could probably push ISO to 12800 and still not notice much noise. 



dolina said:


> Canon lenses with less fractional stops.
> 
> http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/wide/ef_28_18_usm.html
> http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_f1.2l_usm.html
> ...





dolina said:


> I can see a 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 5.0 or 5.2 f-number in the future.



I was talking about the high end white telephoto prime lenses. Canon has a lot more lenses with fractional stops in the zoom lens arena as well. I was only considering the 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 800mm tele and supertelephoto lenses the discussion pertained to, though. I said "prime lenses", thought that would be understood in context.



dolina said:


> “Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm." - Yoda
> 
> Advances in materials science will allow for lighter 800 at a faster f-number than what was possible today.  It'll be out in 2020, more than enough times for the optical boffins to figure things out.



Again, the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS paved the way, from a materials standpoint, for what we have now in the entire telephoto lens lineup. It was the first lens to use two fluorite elements to replace several of the heavier and less effective UD elements. It was also the first lens to use a titanium and magnesium body to further reduce weight. Outside of IS Mode 3, the overall design of the lens barell, the general layout and all of the key features, were all introduced on the this lens. The advancements in materials science and lens ergonomics & functionality were made FOR this lens in the first place. They are now just being applied to the rest of Canon's white telephoto prime lineup. Oh...with a whiter paint job (oh, yeah! Love that white paint! Serious materials science advancements there!! ), and a late-activated IS mode.

As for material advancements to make an 800 f/4 viable...well, they may have already been made. I don't see why one couldn't use fluorite elements for EVERY element (although the design of such a lens would have to be pretty different). That might reduce weight a bit more. Thing about fluorite is it is much more fragile than optical glass. I'm not sure an all-fluorite lens would be nearly as rugged as any one of Canon's current lenses. I could imagine many lens repairs with broken fluorite elements thanks to a bump or a drop, which would be considerably more expensive to repair.

I think more than materials science would be making the lens practical from an ergonomics and balance standpoint. How do you balance a lens that needs a 200mm front element? I guess the use of diffractive optics could play a role. To date, while considerably shorter in length which would certainly help from a balance standpoint, DO lenses have inferior IQ to a standard optical design. Assuming Canon does use to particle dispersion to achieve diffraction rather than a diffraction grating, IQ will improve...but the lens is still intentionally introducing diffraction, which is going to impact IQ. It may be viable, though...an EF 800mm f/4 IS DO lens with similar weight and decent balance...for photographers who are more interested in hand-holding it, which is going to degrade IQ anyway, than for photographers who demand the best IQ possible.



dolina said:


> $35,000 would be cheap, by 2020.



Sure, and by then, an 800/4 lens would cost $80,000. 



dolina said:


> By 2020 I may not be doing photography anymore as serious as today but still...



Hmm...odd. That is only seven years away. I couldn't imagine NOT doing photography at that point in time. Hell, I couldn't imagine not doing photography in 2040. I'd be in my 60's, able to retire soon. Hell, I figure I'll probably do more photography between 2040 and 2060 than any other time in my life...as I'll finally be free to do so whenever I want!


----------



## dolina (Mar 29, 2013)

200mm & 800mm do not have Power Focus. I have both and the feature is not present. I use 300/400/500/600 Series II Super Teles and they have this feature. In fact the 400's in my drybox with the 200/300/800.

Printed user manual states 5-stops of IS.

You are taking about exposure. I am more interesting in freezing a football player in full run vs having a slightly blurred football player in full run. You obviously do not shoot action photography where a fast aperture is ideal and often required for shutter speeds of 1/1000 or faster.

High-end white telephoto prime lenses with fractional f-number stops.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_200_18l_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_500_45l_usm.html

If you can't afford a $80,000 lens then you're not the market for it. 

Change of interest and priorities can change your hobbies.  

By 2020 I expect to hit 400-500 Philippine birds and not require the latest 800mm or longer lens by then.


----------



## jrista (Mar 29, 2013)

dolina said:


> 200mm & 800mm do not have Power Focus. I have both and the feature is not present. I use 300/400/500/600 Series II Super Teles and they have this feature. In fact the 400's in my drybox with the 200/300/800.



You and I may be thinking of other features. When you say "Power Focus", I am thinking of the focus preset feature. Set a certain focus, save it, then have the ability to return to that focus with a twitch of the focus preset ring. The lens will return to your saved focal plane automatically. I believe this setting can be set with fast or slow focus return, allowing for nice, smooth focal transitions when recording video.

The 800mm f/5.6 L IS DOES have that feature. I know for a fact the Mark II 300mm, 500mm, and 600mm lenses have that, too, as I've used all of them as well. The only one I have not used is the new 400mm II, however based on photos of these lenses, it appears to have all the same controls as well. According to the US manual for the EF 200mm f/2 L IS lens, it also has the focus preset feature. See page 8 in the following manual:

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003440/01/ef200f2lisusm-en.pdf 

If this "focus preset" feature is not the same feature as "Power Focus", then I am not sure what you are talking about.



dolina said:


> Printed user manual states 5-stops of IS.



I think there are differences between UK and US markets. On the US web site for Canon, it clearly states 4-stop:



> This ultra-fast telephoto, a new member of Canon legendary L-series lenses, has totally new optics to provide better image quality. It uses fluorite and UD lens elements for excellent chromatic aberration correction and consists of 17 elements in 12 groups. *The built-in Optical Image Stabilizer gives it up to 4 stops of stabilization correction.* The inner USM and optimized AF algorithms result in fast and quiet autofocusing, and the circular aperture can even produce beautiful out-of-focus images. This ultra-high-performance lens also improves its durability - better dust- and water-proofing. The EF 200mm f/2L IS USM is outstanding for many available-light applications, including indoor sports, theater work, fashion, and candids at events.



The exact same lens on the UK site is listed as 5-stop:



> *Five-Stop Image Stabilizer*
> 
> Canon’s five-stop compensation Image Stabilizer technology allows the use of shutter speeds *up to five times slower* with no perceptible increase in image blur. Automatic panning detection automatically turns off the Image Stabilizer in either the horizontal or vertical direction when following moving subjects. Tripod detection automatically switches off IS when the camera is supported.



Either way, I don't believe Canon has DIFFERENT IS systems for both markets. It is the same IS system, regardless of whether it is marketed as 5-stop in the UK or 4-stop in the US. It's all just marketing. It is also very likely that the chances of getting up to five stops of hand-holdability at 200mm on a system designed for four stops at 800mm is just a happy coincidence. At 200mm your angle of view is much wider, so camera shake is magnified by a much lesser degree. As I've mentioned, most reviewers seem to get around 5 stops or more of hand-holdability anyway with ALL of Canon's lenses that use the 4-stop IS system. It's all just marketing...but that isn't my point.

My point is, Canon's current IS system was *originally designed for the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS lens*. The technology was innovated *with that lens*. It is now simply being propagated to the rest of Canon's line of modern white telephoto and supertelephoto prime lenses as part of their current refresh. There haven't been any significant advancements in image stabilization systems in the 3-4 years since it was first introduced. It was over a decade since Canon first introduced their 2-stop IS system before they first introduced the 4-stop IS system.



dolina said:


> You are taking about exposure. I am more interesting in freezing a football player in full run vs having a slightly blurred football player in full run. You obviously do not shoot action photography where a fast aperture is ideal and often required for shutter speeds of 1/1000 or faster.



Your now claiming you are talking about exposure in terms of quantity of light on the sensor. I know what your talking about, and I am saying it does not matter. Not when we are talking about a third or a half or even two thirds of a stop. It would matter if we were talking about differences in exposure of over a stop. If we were debating the merits of exposure value (as determined solely by shutter and aperture, i.e. quantity of light at the sensor), the difference between an f/2.8 and an f/5.6 lens is very significant. But we aren't talking about that.

What you are actually talking about, and the point I was always discussing, is the ability to achieve a faster shutter speed. The argument was that only an f/4.5 lens would allow you to achieve an additional two thirds stops faster shutter speed. I'm saying that is wrong. ISO is one of TWO factors that affect shutter speed (which is what we are really talking about here, not exposure value.) I shoot birds, which most is most definitely action, and most definitely requires high shutter speeds. I'd argue that I need higher shutter speeds to freeze the constant micro-motion of a bird than is necessary to freeze a running baseball player or leaping basketball player. Even at 1/1600th, I often capture motion blur of small passerines...even just turning their head, they can move half a centimeter or more in a tiny fraction of a second. 

When I need a high shutter speed, I either open up the aperture, OR I increase ISO. BOTH allow the use of a faster shutter. In the context of the current discussion, your statement is that you would only buy a new 800mm lens if its max aperture was bumped up by a third or half a stop, _so you could get faster shutter speeds._ If THAT is your argument for a new lens, then you don't understand the purpose of high ISO, or why Canon put more effort into achieving cleaner high ISO settings in the 5D III and 1D X instead of improving DR at the lowest ISO settings. Increasing the ISO setting by a third or half a stop is TRIVIAL...you won't notice any additional noise, especially with one of Canon's newer DSLRs. If you are at 1/1000s at ISO 1600, and you need 1/1250s or 1/1600s, you don't _absolutely require_ a lens with an f/4.5 aperture. You can jack up ISO to 2000 or 2500, and achieve the necessary shutter speed. Your EV will be different...lesser by a one or two thirds of a stop...but again...trivial difference, it doesn't matter. 

If you were arguing for an 800mm f/2.8 lens...that is a significant difference. Bumping ISO up by two stops will probably have a visible impact on noise, and your EV would change by a significant amount. But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about changing the max aperture of an 800mm lens from f/5.6 to...f/5, f/4.8, maybe f/4.5? Not worth it. Not worth the cost, when you can get that extra few thirds stop _shutter speed_ with a trivial increase in ISO (which, for all intents and purposes, is free...or maybe requiring the sale of a current camera and the purchase of a 5D III or 1D X.) 




dolina said:


> High-end white telephoto prime lenses with fractional f-number stops.
> 
> http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_200_18l_usm.html
> http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_500_45l_usm.html



You keep bringing up decades-old lens designs. I mean, 20 years or older. I don't see how those are relevant to a discussion of MODERN prime telephoto lenses...or even the last generation...? I mean, you might as well drudge up some old FD lens designs while your at it...I'm sure we can figure out a way to blend them into the conversation somehow...and you could probably find some f/6.3 max aperture ones...



dolina said:


> If you can't afford a $80,000 lens then you're not the market for it.



Erm, its not an $80,000 lens...its a $13,500 lens. And, as it stands, I AM in the market for it.  Actually, I'm in the market for the EF 600mm f/4 L II and a 2x TC, which is just as good if not better than the 800/5.6. Which is also a $13,000 lens. You get what you pay for. I WANT the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II. It is pretty much the pinnacle of lens design right now, in my opinion. Superb IQ wide open, very light weight, optimally balanced for excellent hand-held usability, incredible image stabilization (which seems capable of at least five stops in my personal experience with this lens and the and 500mm f/4 L II, and over five stops in my personal experience with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II). 

I'm honestly not sure of the practicality of an 800mm f/4 L IS...the thing would be a beast, would be very heavy, would be difficult to balance with such a huge front element, etc. etc. I'd be curious to see how an 800mm f/4 DO lens performed...I believe such a lens might be hand-holdable and decently balanced. I'm not sure a DO lens can perform as well as a standard L series lens...but, maybe 15 to 20 years from now, we might all get a chance to try one out.


----------

