What If: EF 200mm f/1.4L IS

Jahled wrote in post #12547846
I think you have a limited grasp of lens technology. I don't exactly have a qualification in the subject, but have grasped enough to realise what might seem feasible in your head; quickly gets quite ridiculous: Check out this completely pointless Sigma: http://www.dpreview.co​m …1/08013101sigma​250500.asp

Just because you cannot afford it doesn't mean it is pointless.

tkbslc wrote in post #12569665
He took that into consideration by comparing to the other huge lenses. 200/1.4 would have a 142mm aperture, just like a 400mm f2.8 and a 800mm f5.6/ So the elements would be roughly that size, but on a shorter lens.

It seems possible to me just based on the fact that the 200mm f1.8 was very good and that is a 23 year old design. Adding 2/3 a stop with 23 years worth of technology doesn't sound like too great a stretch. I do wonder if it would end up like the 50mm f1.0, though, where it was just one step too far and the optical quality suffered greatly.

Bingo!

I know enough about lens technology to know how these f-numbers are labeled.

Anyhow f/1.8 to f/2.0 or f/1.0 to f/1.2 are 1/3rd of a stop difference.

alt4852 wrote in post #12570007
i think the real question is what's the purpose of it? the 200mm f/2L IS's DOF is already extremely thin. also, with high ISO noise being so manageable now, who actually needs that extra stop of light and is willing to carry around such a behemoth at 200mm to get it?

f/1.4 telephoto + 4-stop image stabilization + cameras with ISO25600 = overkill

200mm is a moderately long focal length. a lens of this size would probably have to live on a monopod and that defeats the purpose of a 200mm for most applications. as for teleconverters.. if you want a 400mm f/2.8, buy a 400mm f/2.8.

True that the DoF is extremely thin at minimum focusing distance but what if the subject is 10 meters further from the minimum focusing distance?

In that instance focusing distance increases DoF ever so modestly.

Also there is never an instance of too much light in indoor events nor for high speed events. Thus the question of a f/1.4 200mm.

taxsux wrote in post #12620463
Key words.. "what if" "would you" "assuming" . You guys are a bit harsh lol

Several posts, no one answered the simple question. Lol

If Canon makes one and there spare cash, why the hell not!

I have agree with you. I posted this on FM and got a verbal lashing myself.

Not possible, not that "light", not that "cheap".

The question is... "what if" with these parameters.... would you buy this lens?

We are living in an age where the 600mm and 400mm weigh less than 4kg! Three decades ago they weighed double that!

Fricks wrote in post #12620474
We already have a 200 2.8, 200 f/2, and a 200 f 1.8 do we need a another 200?

It is a rather popular focal length so why not?

So far the turn out on the pole is rather striking.

It follows the Pareto Principle.

Thinking aloud can be dangerous, but here goes....

canon keeps playing it safe. most if not all companies do. the F2.8 zooms have been around for how long now?


I wish everyone who bought a 70-200mm over the years demanded an updated version at


F2.4...

we should at least see a 24-70mm F2.

we are not talking a hole that is THAT big here... and the lens would not be that big guys.

complacency is the KILLER of good ideas.

pyrojim wrote in post #12621391
Thinking aloud can be dangerous, but here goes....

canon keeps playing it safe. most if not all companies do. the F2.8 zooms have been around for how long now?


I wish everyone who bought a 70-200mm over the years demanded an updated version at


F2.4...

we should at least see a 24-70mm F2.

we are not talking a hole that is THAT big here... and the lens would not be that big guys.

complacency is the KILLER of good ideas.

Not to bite your head off but are you willing to carry 2-4x the current weight of these focal lengths?

As you increase the aperture you also increase the weight.

Check out the weight difference between a 400/5.6 vs 400/4, 300/4 vs 300/2.8, 70-200/4 vs a 70-200/2.8 or 24-105/4 and the 24-70/2.8.

The weight reduction of the 200/2.0 vs the 200/1.8 and the 400mm IS II vs 400mm IS are a main selling point for the updates.

This is absolutely laughable. A 200 f/1.4 would be monstrous and heavy to boot. Probably around 15-20+ pounds?

Probably a 8-9 ponder like the 400mm or 800mm

dolina wrote in post #12543737
No one has patented, prototyped or made production copies of a f/1.4 200mm lens.

Actually, Canon has made lenses in this focal length and aperture range for several years now. However, they're unknown to DSLR hobbyists, because they're not for EOS cameras. They're for high-definition television cameras. The lenses actually exist and can be purchased right now, but they cost more than most automobiles.

DC Fan wrote in post #12622237
Actually, Canon has made lenses in this focal length and aperture range for several years now. However, they're unknown to DSLR hobbyists, because they're not for EOS cameras. They're for high-definition television cameras. The lenses actually exist and can be purchased right now, but they cost more than most automobiles.

those are not prime lenses. do they have an image circle that corresponds to a 35mm Canon CMOS sensor?

I am too lazy to google the answer.

taxsux wrote in post #12620463
Several posts, no one answered the simple question. Lol

if you're looking for a yes/no response, this thread does have a poll. what you're reading is just everyone's reasoning behind it.

dolina wrote in post #12621307
So far the turn out on the pole is rather striking.

It follows the Pareto Principle.

pareto principle.. aside from the fact that coincidentally, it's current sitting at 80/20, how?

pyrojim wrote in post #12621391
we should at least see a 24-70mm F2.

we are not talking a hole that is THAT big here... and the lens would not be that big guys.

complacency is the KILLER of good ideas.

it's because the market for lenses like that would be mostly hobbyists with too much money to burn. i can assure you most professionals do not want or need heavier equipment. a 24-70 f/2L IS or a 70-200 f/2L IS offer very little benefit for the extremely high weight penalty. studio and portrait photographers will stick with sharp primes since they're smaller, lighter, and cheaper, and event photographers will most likely pass due to how cumbersome they would be. if you don't know what i'm talking about, please carry two cameras with 3+ pound lenses and flashes on your shoulders for 12-14 hours straight and report back about how it isn't that big or that heavy.

once again, with sensors capable of reaching ISO25600 and 4-stop IS on many lenses, wider apertures on zooms are simply the least efficient way to make brighter photos.

i don't think it's a matter of complacency. it's more a matter of people who would rather canon improve current models. if they updated the 24-70L and added IS and made it tack-sharp, i don't think the market for a f/2 version would exist.

dolina wrote in post #12623270
those are not prime lenses. do they have an image circle that corresponds to a 35mm Canon CMOS sensor?
I am too lazy to google the answer.

But you - or someone - wasn't too lazy to post an identical message on the Fred Miranda forums.

alt4852 wrote in post #12570007
i think the real question is what's the purpose of it? the 200mm f/2L IS's DOF is already extremely thin. also, with high ISO noise being so manageable now, who actually needs that extra stop of light and is willing to carry around such a behemoth at 200mm to get it?

f/1.4 telephoto + 4-stop image stabilization + cameras with ISO25600 = overkill

200mm is a moderately long focal length. a lens of this size would probably have to live on a monopod and that defeats the purpose of a 200mm for most applications. as for teleconverters.. if you want a 400mm f/2.8, buy a 400mm f/2.8.

I don't think this is something that somebody who cares about IQ would say - as an owner of the 200 f/2L IS on Canon's best high ISO camera, my experience has been that the 200 f/2L IS is unusable as soon as the sun goes down

smorter wrote in post #12624324
I don't think this is something that somebody who cares about IQ would say - as an owner of the 200 f/2L IS on Canon's best high ISO camera, my experience has been that the 200 f/2L IS is unusable as soon as the sun goes down

i'd really love to know what in the world you're shooting.

this isn't the greatest example, but it's the only one i had loaded on photobucket. i was running around dc with a friend and i hadn't brought any lighting equipment with me because it was a really spontaneous trip. i don't remember the exact settings, but it was a 5D2 + 35L at f/1.4 around 1/15th at ISO6400 or something like that. the photo was taken around 4:30am. yes, that sky was pitch black.