Canon Super Telephoto lens

[Daniel Belasco]

Due to rising Yen against the US $ better get that lens quick.
e.g. 500mm f4 IS now about $6400 up from $5200-5600 not that long ago.

[Ed Cordes]

I was browsing various on line sellers a few days ago and noticed this price shift. I paid about $5500 for my 500 in 2005. A friend of mine is interested in getting one now and has to wait longer to secure the funding. Frankly, i am surprised by this as there are a lot of rumors that replacement upgrades for the big white lenses are coming soon!

[Pao Dolina]

I see prices plunging again come the Holidays. New Super teles come the Feb.

[LouBuonomo]

doing better on my glass then my portfolio :)

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Makes me wonder why camera prices don't go up.

[Alfred Forns]

... we don't have the price for the new Mk4 Axel :)

[Daniel Belasco]

If new superteles do come I think the prices will be super high! Just look at the 800 f5.6 at 11.5k. It's also up about $800 the last month.
If we get new super telephoto lens I think it would be different focal lengths or different maxium apertures. How do you improve the 500mm f4 IS. New IS systems are only slightly better the the 1999 version in the 500 f4.
A 500mm f5.6 IS would be nice for travel IMHO--at least for me. I think a lot of super telephoto lens are now used for things like birding whereas before they were mostly for sports and geared towards professional sports photographers. Maybe Canon sees a shift in their marketing efforts to some degree. Just look at the 7d. Looks like it was specifically designed for birders!
dan

[Axel Hildebrandt]

... we don't have the price for the new Mk4 Axel :)

Very true, Canon didn't make the Mark III more expensive and the 7D seems to priced reasonably.

[Norm Dulak]

Makes me wonder why camera prices don't go up.

Axel:

It's the same as the relationships between razors and blades, and printers and ink.

Norm Dulak

[Jamie Strickland]

dont be asking why the camera prices are not going up, canon might see this and decide that's a good idea ;) lol

the 500L was 5600 bucks 5-6 months ago when I got mine now its going for 6400USD which is crazy, so its going up about 100 bucks a month

your better off buying / selling lenses right now than investing in the stock market I think :D

[Pao Dolina]

I think the Super Tele replacements would take over the peak prices of the current super teles. I can't see prices exceeding $12,000 for any focal length unless of course they make them all a whole stop faster

[Roger Clark]

I paid about $5400 for my 500 f/4 about 9 years ago, so when you think about it, after inflation, the price has been going down!

Roger

[Jia Liu]

Compare to Nikon counterpart, the price is still low :)

[Bill Coatney]

Is there any reliable source for the "new" super telephotos that were referenced to be coming out in February??

I ask merely because I am about ready to buy a new 500.

Thanks

[William Malacarne]

Normally when Canon is going to release something new they will offer rebates on the existing stock....not raise the prices.

Bill

[Arthur Morris]

I surely do not see them offering a new digital 800 f/5.6 lens any time soon. And BTW, the new IS system on that lens is far better than the IS on the older super teles... I never made a sharp image with my 500 or 600 but have done so with the 800.... Not consistently, but at times....

Note: I meant to write "I never made a sharp image with my 500 or 600 at 1/6 second but have done so with the 800.... Not consistently, but at times...."

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I surely do not see them offering a new digital 800 f/5.6 lens any time soon. And BTW, the new IS system on that lens is far better than the IS on the older super teles... I never made a sharp image with my 500 or 600 but have done so with the 800.... Not consistently, but at times....

I don't understand what you mean that you never made a sharp image with a 500 or 600. Do you mean handheld or am I missing something?

[Arthur Morris]

Axel, My brain was working faster than my typing fingers. I meant to write, 'I never made a sharp image at 1/6 second with my 500 or 600 but have done so with the 800.... Not consistently, but at times....

[Pao Dolina]

Is there any reliable source for the "new" super telephotos that were referenced to be coming out in February??

I ask merely because I am about ready to buy a new 500.

Thanks

Hi Bill

The super teles that are speculated to be updated are the 300, 400, 500 & 600. As Artie correctly pointed out Canon would most likely not update the 800 by next year as it was sold in 2008 as compared to the fast long lenses that were introd in 1999. So far everything points to a decade to decade product cycle for super teles.

I expect the new super teles to have better IS, better IQ, better AF, less weight and maybe just maybe a faster aperture. As for price... Hopefully they'll takeover the prevailing super tele prices rather than adding to it. I am hoping to see a lighter 500. The 800 though lighter than a 400/600 can be a hassle to transport with other gear.

[Bill Coatney]

Thank you Pao

Now the question is to go ahead an buy an "old" lens or wait for the "new" models.

[Andy Wai]

[...]
I expect the new super teles to have better IS, better IQ, better AF, less weight and maybe just maybe a faster aperture. As for price... Hopefully they'll takeover the prevailing super tele prices rather than adding to it. [...]

Given the trend with the 200/2, 800, TS-E 17 and 24, that seems rather unlikely...

Andy

[Pao Dolina]

Given the trend with the 200/2, 800, TS-E 17 and 24, that seems rather unlikely...

Andy

The 200 dipped to $4700 and 800 dipped to $10700 some months ago. They went up again due to a lot of cost related reasons. I expect them to be discounted again by the holidays and continue to be "discounted" until new super teles will come out.

As Artie aptly pointed out the 300 400 500 and 600 antiquated as compared to the 200 and 800. Though it cost more I am glad that I followed Artie's recommendation and bout an 800 rather than a 600 + extender 1.4.

If you have the money on hand and need (not want) it now then get it now. If you can wait then wait. :eek:

[Norm Dulak]

I find this discussion on prime lenses to be interesting, but at the same time discouraging. All long lenses are tanks, and I find the idea of dealing with an 800 mm prime lens to be especially unappealing.

You have to find your target with that lens, and that is not always so easy. Far better is the Sigma 300-800 mm lens with a mount for whatever camera you may have. You can start at 300 mm to acquire your target, and then zoom to the degree needed to perfectly frame your image. That's far better that dragging a heavy prime 800 mm rig back and forth to compose, assuming that wildlife would stand still for you!

The IQ advantage offered by prime lenses over zooms has also vanished with modern technology. The modern Sigma 300-800 mm f/5.6 DG EX lens is simply the best lens available. Of course it doesn't offer stabilization, but only Rambo would attempt to hand hold it.

Norm Dulak

[William Malacarne]

Norm

Yes 3 pounds difference in weight is no small amount.....:)

Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens weight is 9.9 lbs (4.5kg)

Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 weight is 12.9 lbs (5.87 kg)

Bill

[Norm Dulak]

Norm

Yes 3 pounds difference in weight is no small amount.....:)

Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens weight is 9.9 lbs (4.5kg)

Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 weight is 12.9 lbs (5.87 kg)

Bill

Bill:

You've made a true but minor point in the face of what I've said. The essential fact is that with the Sigma lens, once you've established your position based upon your knowledge of wildlife behavior, your subject and your location, you don't have to move your setup, and difference in lens weights therefore becomes irrelevant.

But of course if you don't know the facts concerning your subject and the location and decide to chase after the subject, weight would become an issue.

Norm Dulak

[Arthur Morris]

Norm,

re:

I find this discussion on prime lenses to be interesting, but at the same time discouraging. All long lenses are tanks, and I find the idea of dealing with an 800 mm prime lens to be especially unappealing.

Are you aware that the Canon 800mm f/5.6 L IS lens weighs only 9.9 lbs, just 20 ounces more than the Canon 500mm f/4 and far less than the Sigma lens that you tout below as "simply the best lens available"?

You have to find your target with that lens, and that is not always so easy.

With practice finding the subject in the frame with a long lens gets easier over time.

Far better is the Sigma 300-800 mm lens with a mount for whatever camera you may have.

I am assuming that that would be your opinion rather than fact....

You can start at 300 mm to acquire your target, and then zoom to the degree needed to perfectly frame your image.

I do agree to some degree; there are some great advantages to long zoom telephotos like the lens that you mention and the Nikon 200-400 VR, especially for folks doing large mammals either in the American West or in Africa. The advantave of having zoom capablilities is far less for folks who do birds. In that vein I have been strongly suggesting to Canon for many years that they need to add a long telephoto lens or two to their lineup.

That's far better that dragging a heavy prime 800 mm rig back and forth to compose, assuming that wildlife would stand still for you!

Not sure if you have noticed but I have been making lots of great images for almost a year now with my 800 f/5.6L so the situation is not as dire as you imply....

The IQ advantage offered by prime lenses over zooms has also vanished with modern technology.

Agree.

The modern Sigma 300-800 mm f/5.6 DG EX lens is simply the best lens available.

According to you??? Best for whom and for what purpose??? And as you mention below, it does not have any type of VR or IS. And as I mentioned above, it is a heavy beast.

Of course it doesn't offer stabilization, but only Rambo would attempt to hand hold it.

Yes. 12.7 pounds (I thought that it actually weighed more than that) is quite a load.

Respectfully,

[Norm Dulak]

Artie:

Thanks for your input. It's always good to have your thoughts on almost any thread.

Now that our thoughts and opinions are out there, others can decide for themselves which is best, zoomed or fixed. But both lenses are excellent in their own ways, and both have their plusses and minuses.

Norm Dulak

[Rodney Flowers]

Norm,
You said,

You have to find your target with that lens, and that is not always so easy.

I carry my Canon 600 around with the 1.4 extender the majority of the time and I don't find this to be an issue. Only once in a while do I have trouble finding the subject.

Also you said,

and then zoom to the degree needed to perfectly frame your image.

I believe this is a good point. I had my 600 with a 1.4 extender on it last spring on the beach in Florida and could have used a zoom lens at one point. After laying on the beach for awhile some of the birds were getting too close to fit in the frame. Of course I did not want to take my extender off on the beach so I just had to seek out other subjects that were farther away. In that case a zoom lens would have been really nice.

For me a lighter prime is a better choice because I usually go out hiking to see what I can find. I enjoy getting the exercise and pictures at the same time. If I had extra money I might buy a 300-800 zoom for those occasions when I sit in one place.

[Norm Dulak]

Norm,
You said,
I carry my Canon 600 around with the 1.4 extender the majority of the time and I don't find this to be an issue. Only once in a while do I have trouble finding the subject.

Also you said,
I believe this is a good point. I had my 600 with a 1.4 extender on it last spring on the beach in Florida and could have used a zoom lens at one point. After laying on the beach for awhile some of the birds were getting too close to fit in the frame. Of course I did not want to take my extender off on the beach so I just had to seek out other subjects that were farther away. In that case a zoom lens would have been really nice.

For me a lighter prime is a better choice because I usually go out hiking to see what I can find. I enjoy getting the exercise and pictures at the same time. If I had extra money I might buy a 300-800 zoom for those occasions when I sit in one place.

Rodney:

It seems that you basically agree with some of the attributes of the Sigma lens that I pointed out. But there is no question that if you enjoy moving about as you do, your lens is more manageable.

Norm Dulak

[Ed Erkes]

IMO, there is no adequate substitute for the compositional flexiblity of a zoom lens in the following situations:
1) During fast action, with animals of the same size moving toward or away from you
2) Shooting various subjects of different sizes arriving at the same position (i.e. perch, waterhole)
3) Composing to fill the frame for one animal, when suddenly another animal moves in for interaction wtih the first
4) When it is difficult for the photographer to change position to follow a moving animal (using a blind for example)
5) When you want more compositional choices with a subject at one positon than simply a horizontal or vertical
6) When you really would have preferred your image of a bird to not have clipped wings (images that I have jokingly referred to as suffering from a "fixed focal length appendectomy"--with "appendectomy" being derivative of appendage rather than appendix)


These situations occur often (probably more often than not) in my photography experience. A good photographer can get great images with a lot of different lenses, but if you start using zooms, you might wonder how you ever got along without them. I also feel that the ability to zoom out to view a larger area of the scene can be a definite advantage in quickly locating a subject that arrives--and then zooming in for the desired composition.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Ed, I agree with you on all counts (but not so strongly with the last point). You might want to go with "appendagectomy."