When will Canon get Longer?

[MDJAK]

Seems as if one wants a longer zoom than 100-400 without using a teleconverter, Canon just can't fill the bill.

Yes, I'd rather have a long prime, but those are just unaffordable.

When, if ever, will Canon match some of the aftermarket manufacturers and come out with a zoom reaching 500, or even more?

My current longest reach is my 70-200 with my 1.4 teleconverter. Sometimes, it just ain't enough. Not crazy about the design of the 100-400.

Size does matter, ya know.

[Tom W]

Sigma makes the 50-500 zoom. It has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 at the long end, but is designed to fool Canon cameras into allowing autofocus at this aperture.

The 77 mm filter size doesn't allow much longer than 400 mm at f/5.6 (400/5.6=72 mm; 425/5.6=76 mm). So if you want to get longer, you will be looking at a considerably larger lens diameter.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't have one, though. I'm considering buying a 600/4 in another life.

[CoolToolGuy]

Another option is the Tamron 200-500.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=335379&is=REG

It is designed for the frame size of DSLRs, which keeps the size and cost down.

I am hoping Canon comes up with a zoom longer than 400mm. The 100-400 L is an aging design that needs updating.

Have Fun,

[KennyG]

Why are you worried about the design of the 100-400L? It is one of Canon's best lenses and the push-pull does not create any problems.

The main reason Canon do not do zooms above 500 is cost versus quality. To get the same or similar levels of quality that you get from the 100-400 in say a 200-500 would put it out of the reach of most people. Third party manufacturers have less to worry about when it comes to maintaining a quality line like Canon's L series and will do unacceptable things like have the lens lie about its aperture. Lenses like the Tamron 200-500 and Sigma 50-500 (had one) are nowhere near the quality of Canon. You do get what you pay for.

I would like to know why you think there is something wrong with the 100-400.

[tommykjensen]

I would like to know why you think there is something wrong with the 100-400.

I know You asked MDJAK this question. But for me the problem with this lens is the push/pull zoom. I have tried it once and I simply don't like that type of zoom.

[Moostyman]

Maybe this lense on Ebay would suit your search for length. Its not Canon but 1300mm is 1300mm.:confused:


http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30070&item=7502910931&rd=1

:rolleyes:

[MDJAK]

Kenny, I don't think there is anything wrong with the 100-400. While I'm not crazy about the push-pull feature, I'm sure I'd get used to it quickly.
And I've seen examples of photos that people have taken with it on this forum and they are beautiful.

I was just pondering why Canon allows other manufacturers to reach 500mm with their zooms and they don't. I readily admit I'm not technically saavy enough to know the limitations on producing a lens of this length while keeping the quality.

I am a FIRM believer in you get what you pay for; otherwise, I'd get one of those other lenses.

[KennyG]

I know You asked MDJAK this question. But for me the problem with this lens is the push/pull zoom. I have tried it once and I simply don't like that type of zoom.

I suppose it depends on your type of photography as to whether it is of benefit. It is much harder to use a twist zoom when photographing action than it is to use the push-pull. That is why the 100-400 and the 35-350 were designed that way and why the same method has been carried over to the 28-300. Anyone who has to rapidly change focal lengths comes to appreciate the benefit of push-pull zoom. I use it as naturally as a twist zoom and simply don't consider the mechanics when shooting.

[RichardtheSane]

I also see the push/pull zoom as an advantage when shooting any sort of action.

I find it so much easier to zoom in and frame my subjects effectivley with my 100-400L that I ever did while using my 100-300 USM lens. It is quicker and more accurate so in the long run (IMHO) it is a better tool for the job than a twist zoom.

I do love the twist zoom in my 70-200L but I wouldn't want to be 'twisting' over a longer zoom range!

[Belmondo]

I agree with Kenny. The push-pull is an advantage IMHO. Your support hand is always in the right position. With a twist-zoom lens, it is not---after you change your zoom, you have to reposition your support hand.

[Tom W]

I was just pondering why Canon allows other manufacturers to reach 500mm with their zooms and they don't. I readily admit I'm not technically saavy enough to know the limitations on producing a lens of this length while keeping the quality.

I am a FIRM believer in you get what you pay for; otherwise, I'd get one of those other lenses.

Other manufacturers cheat - they use an f/6.3 lens at 500 mm, but write the lenses' firmware to tell the camera that its max aperture is really f/5.6. A 500 mm lens with a true f/5.6 aperture would need a front element diameter of 89.3 mm, with the actual barrel diameter slightly larger. You'd probably not be able to find a front filter for that, and would have to resort to rear filters instead. Canon will not build an f/6.3 lens and have it report an incorrect max aperture to the camera. In fact, they're probably working on a way to circumvent the cheaters and render their zooms inoperable. :)

That said, I suspect that Canon will have a longer zoom in the not-to-distant future. Perhaps something like a 200-500 f/4-5.6, or even a 500 mm f/5.6 IS prime. If there's a real market - they aren't going to build something that won't sell. I'd jump on a 500 or 600 f/5.6 lens if the price were right.

[MDJAK]

And I actually thought just the opposite when I recently tried the 100-400. When pulling on the zoom all the way, I felt my hand was too far extended. But what do I know?


I'm on this forum to learn from you guys. I just got done reading 35 pages from Photoworks.com about the 1 series camera. Wish I paid more attention in school so I could understand it the first time around. Just printed the entire document to read during my boring easter at relative's house. When I'm not shooting the kids on their egg hunt, that is.

[trevor51590]

Maybe this lense on Ebay would suit your search for length. Its not Canon but 1300mm is 1300mm.:confused:


http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30070&item=7502910931&rd=1

:rolleyes:

how does something like that not break off the lens mount? lol that thing is huge!

[MDJAK]

I've read that some people don't use filters at all, instead relying on the hood to protect the lens.


When you say how big it would have to be (I think you said 89?), can you give me a comparison? Would that be as large as the 300 F2.8, or larger?

[MrChad]

Are there a large no. of mfg. making zoom lenses larger then the Canon 100-400m?
(I don't think this is a Canon issue.)

If you need a zoom that big and that pricey I would imagine you could afford a body for it too, right? So if you purchased a $2500-4000 lens (who cares who makes it) a good body for it is spare change at that point right? But last I checked no one save for the 3rd party lenses makes an ubber long zoom. I would imagine lens size vs. image quality issues crop up at those focal length beyond 400mm for zooms.

The size of a Canon 500mm L prime is scary enough, a zoom L in that range would likely need to come with a Canon Segway-IS-tripod in order to be mobile with the lens.

[Tom W]

And I actually thought just the opposite when I recently tried the 100-400. When pulling on the zoom all the way, I felt my hand was too far extended. But what do I know?


I'm on this forum to learn from you guys. I just got done reading 35 pages from Photoworks.com about the 1 series camera. Wish I paid more attention in school so I could understand it the first time around. Just printed the entire document to read during my boring easter at relative's house. When I'm not shooting the kids on their egg hunt, that is.

Don't shoot the kids!! Oh, you mean with the camera. :)

I don't mind the push-pull zoom on the 100-400. I can go either way on that. But what's more important with that lens is that people like KennyG and RFMSports get the type of zoom that they need. They're both pros shooting racing action and need the zoom that works best for that purpose. Its their bread and butter.

[Tom W]

I've read that some people don't use filters at all, instead relying on the hood to protect the lens.

I'm one of them - I only use filters when I either need my polarizer, or when I'm going into an exceptionally dirty environment.


When you say how big it would have to be (I think you said 89?), can you give me a comparison? Would that be as large as the 300 F2.8, or larger?

The 300 f/2.8 requires an approximately 108 mm front element diameter to be able to achieve f/2.8 at that focal length. From my Canon lens book, I can tell you that the actual physical diameter of the lens housing is about 128 mm (about 5 inches). That same 5 inch diameter and 108 mm front element diameter would allow for a 600 f/5.6 lens. Of course, it would be big and heavy and expensive, but still cheaper than the 600 f/4.

Glass diameter increases quickly for long, fast lenses. Here's a hint based on the focal length and f/stop. The focal length divided by the maximum f/stop equals the approximate required diameter for the front-most lens element. A 400 f/4 would be 400/4 or 100 mm in diameter.

[mjordan]

I got use to the push/pull on the 100-400 but I don't like where the manual focus ring is. When I'm holding the lens I cup the far end in the palm of my left hand. I find that the focus ring is right on the edge of my hand and as I push and pull and follow action, my hand is turning the focus ring just a little and sometimes throws off my focus. If I support the lens with my fingers so that my palm is not touching the the lens, my hand gets tired quicker than it does the other way.

At least the Canon 100-400 can be snugged down with the tension ring and doesn't have "lens creep" like the zooms I had in the 70's. :D

Mike

[MDJAK]

BY MR. CHAD: "If you need a zoom that big and that pricey I would imagine you could afford a body for it too, right?"


Well, stop imagining, Mr. Chad, as my body is the 1Ds MKII.

[Chris1le]

At least the Canon 100-400 can be snugged down with the tension ring and doesn't have "lens creep" like the zooms I had in the 70's.

It is the tension ring that is my only gripe with the 100-400. Although it does prevent "lens creep", it also prevents intentional zooming sometimes. Also when loose there is nothing more disturbing than tilting the camera one way or another and hearing the lens slam against the stop. Couldn't Canon have cushioned that somehow? Those with the 100-400 know what I'm talking about.

[ScottE]

It is true that the Sigma 50-500 manipulates the feedback to the camera so that an f/6.3 lens will autofocus on Canon cameras. The fact remains that the 50-500 has no problem with either autofocus or exposure, so the method works.

As far as quality goes, I have compared photos from a 50-500 with those from a Canon 100-400 lens and the photos from the Sigma are as sharp or sharper than those from the Canon.

Personally I would love to see Canon bring out their own version of the 50-500, only include image stabilization. If the price was reasonable and the otical quality as good I would choose it over the 100-400 any day. Who cares if it is f/5.6 or f/6.3? One third of a stop does not make any significant difference when taking photos.

As far as long telephotos go, remember that Sigma also produces a 300-800/5.6 lens. I have never seen one, but I understand that the optics are quite good. Again, why wouldn't a Canon IS version of that lens be a hit with bird and wildlife photographers?

Scott

[CoolToolGuy]

Why are you worried about the design of the 100-400L? It is one of Canon's best lenses and the push-pull does not create any problems.

I would like to know why you think there is something wrong with the 100-400.

I am not a pro, so perhaps the needs and desires of folks like Kenny and RFMsports are of more interest to Canon than mine. But motorsports is my favorite type of shooting and the 100-400 L left me wanting.

It is not long enough for my liking (but then I am outside the fences, so that should be understandable), I really don't care for the push-pull (I roam from spot to spot, and it slides as I walk), and I would prefer a faster (or constant) maximum aperture.

I got the 400 f5.6L because it is lighter and I was spending a lot of time with the 100-400 zoomed all the way out anyway.

As fate would have it, I stumbled into an outstanding deal on an FD 600mm f4.5 with the Canon FD-EOS converter, and now I am actually wondering whether I have too much lens. With the conversion factor of the adapter, the 600 becomes a 756mm lens, and with the crop factor that rises to the equivalent of 1,210mm. But that's a problem I'll deal with - in fact, a 1D might deal with that in fine fashion.

A 200-500 from Canon would fill the bill nicely. I can only hope. . .

Have Fun,

[Skip Souza]

Canon R&D appears to be seriously exploring Diffractive Optics. This could handily reduce the physical sixe of long lenses i.e. EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. This produces an attractively sized package for the focal length. Reasearch may develope DO lenses well into the 500+ range that don't look like a SCUD rocket launcher. Of course there will always be the cost.

[Tom W]

Canon R&D appears to be seriously exploring Diffractive Optics. This could handily reduce the physical sixe of long lenses i.e. EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. This produces an attractively sized package for the focal length. Reasearch may develope DO lenses well into the 500+ range that don't look like a SCUD rocket launcher. Of course there will always be the cost.

That's true, and the 400/4 DO is about the same length as the 300/4. But, there's no way around the diameter vs. f/stop issue. Still, just as the 100-400 is pretty compact, a larger 200-500 or 200-600 f/4-5.6 could be considerably shorter than its designated focal length would suggest.

[RJSorensen]

The push/pull 100-400 is THE lens for things in flight and or on the move. It is a fine lens for what it was designed for. Even with a TC on it and manual focus . . . it is just fine. The best I have.

[mvonditter]

I know You asked MDJAK this question. But for me the problem with this lens is the push/pull zoom. I have tried it once and I simply don't like that type of zoom.

I on the other hand love it. I have both the 100-400 IS as well as the 35-350 L. The later lives on my 1Ds 99% of the time. Most versatile lense out there IMHO.:)

[Arsonist lolol]

Maybe this lense on Ebay would suit your search for length. Its not Canon but 1300mm is 1300mm.:confused:


http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30070&item=7502910931&rd=1

:rolleyes:

I'd like to see that on the XT :)

[mvonditter]

Kenny, I don't think there is anything wrong with the 100-400. While I'm not crazy about the push-pull feature, I'm sure I'd get used to it quickly.
And I've seen examples of photos that people have taken with it on this forum and they are beautiful.

I was just pondering why Canon allows other manufacturers to reach 500mm with their zooms and they don't. I readily admit I'm not technically saavy enough to know the limitations on producing a lens of this length while keeping the quality.

I am a FIRM believer in you get what you pay for; otherwise, I'd get one of those other lenses.

I agree....here is a sample of a photo with the 100-400 IS L.:)

[Skip Souza]

I know You asked MDJAK this question. But for me the problem with this lens is the push/pull zoom. I have tried it once and I simply don't like that type of zoom.
Large amounts of e-mail (spam) have tried to convince me that their product will greatly increase the length of my push-pull:lol: . I have followed the instructions to click here for a longer unit many times without one millimeter increase in focal length.:p :p :p False advertising at it's worst.

Seriously I would kill for a 100-400L. I would prefer it to be in a smaller package.

[mvonditter]

I am not a pro, so perhaps the needs and desires of folks like Kenny and RFMsports are of more interest to Canon than mine. But motorsports is my favorite type of shooting and the 100-400 L left me wanting.

It is not long enough for my liking (but then I am outside the fences, so that should be understandable), I really don't care for the push-pull (I roam from spot to spot, and it slides as I walk), and I would prefer a faster (or constant) maximum aperture.

I got the 400 f5.6L because it is lighter and I was spending a lot of time with the 100-400 zoomed all the way out anyway.

As fate would have it, I stumbled into an outstanding deal on an FD 600mm f4.5 with the Canon FD-EOS converter, and now I am actually wondering whether I have too much lens. With the conversion factor of the adapter, the 600 becomes a 756mm lens, and with the crop factor that rises to the equivalent of 1,210mm. But that's a problem I'll deal with - in fact, a 1D might deal with that in fine fashion.

A 200-500 from Canon would fill the bill nicely. I can only hope. . .

Have Fun,

Well? Here is a shot at Monza 2003 with my 35-350L. At max natch. He is doing about 130KMH.;)

[danphoto1]

I love the 100-400 and the push pull when I shoot outdoors and even use it with a 1.4 multiplier.on the 1`D and 1DMKII it get's the job done for me. Most of my soccer shots

[radar-eclipse]

Yeah, Vivtar and Sigma made some great push pull zooms some twenty years ago or so. I love push-pull, but hate Canon's tension ring crap. How can they do so many great things, and not get something like that right.

[radar-eclipse]

mvonditter, nice mooner. I have a similar shot with a 500 f/4 IS and I think I needed a 1.4 TC. It's a lot of fun and amazing to think about all the lines in the figure of the moon and what might be going on up there, ya know?