# A New EF 800 f/5.6L IS II? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 22, 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=11694"></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=11694">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>In development?


</strong>I received a suggestion that Canon is currently developing a new EF 800 f/5.6L IS to take advantage of the new weight saving technologies in the newest supertelephoto lenses.</p>
<p>No mention of timeline, or if the EF 200 f/2L IS is also on the replacement cycle. If you remember, the 200 launched with the 800 back in January 2008.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Viggo (Oct 22, 2012)

Oh my!! I guess I'll have time to save up for it, before it hits the shelves in 2020 ;D


----------



## Etienne (Oct 22, 2012)

How about these upgrades: a 135 f/2.0L IS, or a 200 f/2.8L IS ?


----------



## untitled10 (Oct 22, 2012)

Etienne said:


> How about these upgrades: a 135 f/2.0L IS, or a 200 f/2.8L IS ?



Would love to see the latter, still black with better iq the the 70-200 is ii maybe c;


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 22, 2012)

$15K? $20? The weight savings is probably one reason, but the change in the white paint is probably a driving force, too. C'mon, who wants big, expensive lenses that don't match in color, right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2012)

Gonna be an expensive beast! Let me guess...development announcement in 2013, announced launch in 2014, actual launch in late 2015. 

Start saving now...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 22, 2012)

The current 800 is $20300 here already, the new one will be seriously expensive...


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 22, 2012)

Too soon. The 400/5.6 and 300/4 are in a need of a refresh for marketing.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 22, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11694\"></glusone></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=11694\">Tweet</a></div>
> <strong>In development?
> 
> 
> ...



I sure hope 200 f/2L gets a replacement soon, so that I can finally pick it up at a decent price!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2012)

drjlo said:


> I sure hope 200 f/2L gets a replacement soon, so that I can finally pick it up at a decent price!



Recent history suggests you should buy it now. For the 70-200 II, 24-70 II, and the 300-600 II lenses, prices of the MkI went *UP* when the new lens came out...


----------



## PackLight (Oct 22, 2012)

I hope they do a better job with this lens than they did with the 500mm f/4 II and 600mm f/4 II.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm surprised they would replace the 200mm f/2 so quickly. I thought it was only a few years old.


----------



## tron (Oct 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Oh my!! I guess I'll have time to save up for it, before it hits the shelves in 2020 ;D


 ;D


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 22, 2012)

Why would Canon invest in updating a supertele such a short time after it's release?

It sells enough copies (times enough profit) to justify an investment? The new Nikon 800mm f/5.6 is set to steal that many sales?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 22, 2012)

KitsVancouver said:


> I'm surprised they would replace the 200mm f/2 so quickly. I thought it was only a few years old.



As Neuro pointed out, it'll probably be 2014/2015 before we actually get any of these lenses up for sale, although it could be even later. That doesn't even talk about serious volume, just a trickle of the lenses into the hands of retailers.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 22, 2012)

PackLight said:


> I hope they do a better job with this lens than they did with the 500mm f/4 II and 600mm f/4 II.



What's wrong with these? You're selling yours for a cheap price  ?



neuroanatomist said:


> Start saving now...



Which probably is the reason why Canon won't release any further aps-h bodies (yes-I-know-it-sounds-like-conspiracy-theory-but-to-me-its-more-like-clever-business) :->


----------



## altenae (Oct 22, 2012)

PackLight said:


> I hope they do a better job with this lens than they did with the 500mm f/4 II and 600mm f/4 II.



???????
Please explain. 
I am very very happy with this lens. 
It's awesome. 

Or do you mean the delivery time after announcement. 
Edward


----------



## PackLight (Oct 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > I hope they do a better job with this lens than they did with the 500mm f/4 II and 600mm f/4 II.
> ...



What? I didn't say anything was wrong with the 500mm f/4 II or the 600mm f/4 II (except the price of course).

I said I hope Canon does a better job. For instance make it lighter, an 8 stop IS (is it possible), or could it even have better optics.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 22, 2012)

altenae said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > I hope they do a better job with this lens than they did with the 500mm f/4 II and 600mm f/4 II.
> ...



You mean improve on the delivery time of the 200-400mm? Lets hope.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 22, 2012)

PackLight said:


> an 8 stop IS



My vote goes to a 10-stop IS :-> ... but I'd really like to know if there are any absolute mechanical or physical limitations to IS, too - Dr. Neuro please?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Which probably is the reason why Canon won't release any further aps-h bodies (yes-I-know-it-sounds-like-conspiracy-theory-but-to-me-its-more-like-clever-business) :->



Conspiracy theory or not, it makes sense. I got a 1D X instead of a 1D IV, and that was the main reason I got a 600 II instead of a 500 II.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Which probably is the reason why Canon won't release any further aps-h bodies (yes-I-know-it-sounds-like-conspiracy-theory-but-to-me-its-more-like-clever-business) :->
> ...



Good answer, wrong thread :-> ... but comforting to know I'm not the only one frequently copy/pasting/reposting


----------



## rbr (Oct 22, 2012)

It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The current 800 already is pretty light, only 1 pound heavier than the 600II, and has the 4 stop IS. Maybe they could shave one more pound off of it, add the IS3 mode, and make it the new color, but I doubt that anyone with the current 800 would go to the cost and hassle of replacing the one they already have for that, especially if it means a price increase.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2012)

rbr said:


> The current 800 already is pretty light, only 1 pound heavier than the 600II, and has the 4 stop IS.



True...but what if it was _lighter_ than the 600 II? 600/4 = 150mm front element, 800/5.6 = 143mm front element...so lighter is possible.

Also, I think they *need* to update the 800/5.6 for optical performance. Those who do their research (which I would hope is almost anyone spending $13K on a lens) pretty easliy learn that the bare 600 II is optically better than the 800/5.6, enough better that you can add a TC and it's _still_ better. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the bare 800/5.6, plus it's 40mm longer, lighter and cheaper, and offers f/4 when you use it without the TC. The 600 II + 2xIII is optically better than the 800/5.6 + 1.4xIII, too, and likewise it's longer, lighter, and cheaper. So, with the 600 II performance, I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.


----------



## Greatland (Oct 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Oh my!! I guess I'll have time to save up for it, before it hits the shelves in 2020 ;D


AMEN to that!! ;D


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.




The 800 with the 2x TC gets you to 1600mm, can you stack TCs on the 600? I don't own a 600, 800, or a TC, so please enlighten. I think stacked TCs is not a desired option.


----------



## dolina (Oct 23, 2012)

The rumor's legit. I believe that Canon is developing improved 200 and 800.

As to when they will release such lenses is subject to rumor. Consider these past product cycles

20 year cycle
1988 - EF200mm f/1.8L USM
2008 - EF200mm f/2L IS USM

27 year cycle
1981 - New FD800mm f/5.6L (no previous EF predecessor)
2008 - EF800mm f/5.6L IS USM

Will they shorten the product cycle? Possibly, if they can figure a way to increase demand for very specialized lenses.

Before stocks ran the Series I super teles sold for these prices. Included are today's Series II prices.

300
I - $5,000
II - $6,800
400
I - $8,000
II - $11,500
500
I - $7,000
II - $10,500
600
I - $9,200
II - $13,000

A Series II 200 and 800 will be substantially more than $6,000 and $13,900 respectively. Based on the price difference between the actual Series I and II the new 200 and 800 would be priced at the following ranges.

200/2 Series II = $8,160-9,000
800/5.6 Series II = $18,904-20,850

Then again Nikon was able to update their super teles with shorter product cycles without such a severe price increase.

Now to compare Canon vs Nikon as this is the primary incentive to improve products.

200mm f/2.0

Closest Focusing Distance	
Canon - 6.2 ft. / 1.9m
Nikon - 6.2 ft. / 1.9m

Filter Size
Canon - 52mm (Drop-in Gelatin Filter Holder)
Nikon - 52mm (Drop-in Gelatin Filter Holder)

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight	
Canon - 5.0 in. x 8.2 in./ 128mm x 208mm (maximum lens length); 5.6 lbs./2,520g
Nikon - 4.9 in. x 8.0 in./ 124mm x 203mm (maximum lens length); 6.5 lbs./2,930g

Image Stabilization
Canon - 5-stops
Nikon - 4-stops

800mm f/5.6

Closest Focusing Distance	
Canon - 19.7 ft./6.0m
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012

Filter Size
Canon - 52mm (Drop-in Gelatin Filter Holder)
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight	
Canon - 6.4 in. x 18.1 in./162mm x 461mm (maximum lens length); 9.9 lbs./4,500g
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012

Image Stabilization
Canon - 4-stops
Nikon - Under development since Jul 11, 2012


----------



## dolina (Oct 23, 2012)

To be honest though there are a whole lot of other lenses that needs updating than the 200 or 800.


----------



## vuilang (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.
> ...


the 800 f5.6 + 2x TC give you F11 (2 stop higher).. at F11, you'll lose AF, which i dont think you want to with any tele. Unless you're shooting the moon


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> True...but what if it was _lighter_ than the 600 II? 600/4 = 150mm front element, 800/5.6 = 143mm front element...so lighter is possible.
> 
> Also, I think they *need* to update the 800/5.6 for optical performance. Those who do their research (which I would hope is almost anyone spending $13K on a lens) pretty easliy learn that the bare 600 II is optically better than the 800/5.6, enough better that you can add a TC and it's _still_ better. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the bare 800/5.6, plus it's 40mm longer, lighter and cheaper, and offers f/4 when you use it without the TC. The 600 II + 2xIII is optically better than the 800/5.6 + 1.4xIII, too, and likewise it's longer, lighter, and cheaper. So, with the 600 II performance, I see no real need for the continued existence of the current 800/5.6.



How about the current 800mm vs the 400/2.8 + 2xTC?

Any new 800mm would have to beat both the 400x2 and 600x1.4 combos
...
unless
...
maybe we could be in for an 800mm f/5.0, or even an 800mm f/4.5 or f/4.0? I know canon has some serious superstition about non-whole-stop lenses (except in 50/85mm and vari-aperture zooms), but they could use even a 1/3rd-stop advantage as marketing fodder if the new lens isn't much better than a 600x1.4 (although i've no reason to think it wouldn't be).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2012)

vuilang said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Exactly. Also, the current 800/5.6 + 2xIII combo is optically pretty weak. But a new 800/5.6 that delivers optical performance with a 1.4xIII that's equivalent to the other MkII's with the 1.4x, that would beat the 600 II + 2x and likely have a market. 

Stacking TC's isn't possible (physically) with the MkIII versions, although a 2xII can be stacked with any 1.4x or 2x behind it, AFAIK. But the optical results are usually not good.


----------



## tron (Oct 23, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > True...but what if it was _lighter_ than the 600 II? 600/4 = 150mm front element, 800/5.6 = 143mm front element...so lighter is possible.
> ...


A faster than f/5.6 would be monstrous. Plus a f/4.5 wouldn't benefit more with the teleconverters. It still would work in AF only with EF1.4X. And I cannot imagine an 800mm f/4. Unless it is sold with someone to carry it!


----------



## dolina (Oct 23, 2012)

800mm f/2.8 would have the same front element of the Leica but the physical length would be a good 1 foot shorter. Would weight about 60kg







800mm f/4.0 would have a slightly smaller front element as the 1200mm f/5.6 but the physical length would be a good 6 inch shoter. Would weigh about 16.5kg.






Now the succeeding article is now CR1. Hmmmm...


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> vuilang said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...



Yes, but the only way to 1600mm is the 800 with 2TC. I'm not sure who needs 1600mm, but it's the only way to achieve it with Canon gear, or if you have access to the the EF1200mm with a 1.4TC you're set.


----------



## Greatland (Oct 24, 2012)

These 800 rumors almost make me laugh,,,,,,or cry.....where are all of the 600's????? Plus it will probably be $20K Yikes!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 24, 2012)

tron said:


> And I cannot imagine an 800mm f/4. Unless it is sold with someone to carry it!



;D ;D ;D


----------



## tron (Oct 24, 2012)

dolina said:


> 800mm f/4.0 would have a slightly smaller front element as the 1200mm f/5.6 but the physical length would be a good 6 inch shoter. Would weigh about 16.5kg.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The lens looks heavier than the girl behind it ;D


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 24, 2012)

dolina said:


> 800mm f/2.8 would have the same front element of the Leica but the physical length would be a good 1 foot shorter. Would weight about 60kg
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see the leica, it's huge.
But where's the lens in the second photo? I can't see it...


----------



## dolina (Oct 25, 2012)

Quit staring at the girl and you'll see the lens. ;D 

I could use a 1600mm lens considering how difficult and small birds are but I'd hate to carry one around.

I expect the Series II 200 and 800 to come out as early as 2013 before the World Cup in Brazil. Lenses such as these normally debut 12 months before the Summer/Winter Olympics or the World Cup.



dr croubie said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > 800mm f/2.8 would have the same front element of the Leica but the physical length would be a good 1 foot shorter. Would weight about 60kg
> ...


----------



## hsmoscout (Oct 29, 2012)

Maybe it'll be a DO lens???


----------



## dolina (Oct 29, 2012)

hsmoscout said:


> Maybe it'll be a DO lens???



Don't say bad words!


----------

