EOS 1.6x telephotos?

[Peter Hancock]

Has anyone heard any rumours about Canon producing longer focal length
lenses for 1.6x crop digital cameras?  It bugs me to carry round the
great lump of a 100-400L when half the light it gathers is wasted.
Pentax have announced a nice-looking 60-250 f4.  Sigma are starting to
move, with a 50-150.  However, since the Canon bodies don't have
body-integral IS, we're rather limited to Canon lenses.  With Canon
having abandonded the depth mode that caused me to buy EOS originally, I
might actually think about changing systems when my 10D gets past it.

Peter

Sorry for rubbish below.

--
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
for messages of this kind.

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Malcolm Stewart]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Hancock" <p.j.b.hancock@...>
To: <eos@...>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: EOS 1.6x telephotos?


Has anyone heard any rumours about Canon producing longer focal length
lenses for 1.6x crop digital cameras?  It bugs me to carry round the
great lump of a 100-400L when half the light it gathers is wasted.
Pentax have announced a nice-looking 60-250 f4.  Sigma are starting to
move, with a 50-150.  However, since the Canon bodies don't have
body-integral IS, we're rather limited to Canon lenses.  With Canon
having abandonded the depth mode that caused me to buy EOS originally, I
might actually think about changing systems when my 10D gets past it.

Peter
--------------------------------------------


Hi Peter,

All I've heard about are the few lenses in the pipeline such as the EF 50
f1.2L.

What's wrong with Canon's EF 70-200 f4L?  Don't know how it compares with
your 100-400L in weight, but it sort of compares in spec with the Pentax
lens you cited.

Malcolm
Milton Keynes, UK


*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Skip Middleton]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Hancock" <p.j.b.hancock@...>
To: <eos@...>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:34 AM
Subject: EOS 1.6x telephotos?


Has anyone heard any rumours about Canon producing longer focal length
lenses for 1.6x crop digital cameras?  It bugs me to carry round the
great lump of a 100-400L when half the light it gathers is wasted.
Pentax have announced a nice-looking 60-250 f4.  Sigma are starting to
move, with a 50-150.  However, since the Canon bodies don't have
body-integral IS, we're rather limited to Canon lenses.  With Canon
having abandonded the depth mode that caused me to buy EOS originally, I
might actually think about changing systems when my 10D gets past it.

Peter


What about the 70-200 f4 IS that was just introduced?  Or the 70-300
f3.5-5.6 DO IS?
Canon probably doesn't see the need to introduce lenses that match other
mfrs, mm for mm.  One could drive oneself nuts trying to fill each micro
niche.
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Bob W8IMO]

Malcolm Stewart wrote:

>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> All I've heard about are the few lenses in the pipeline such as the EF
> 50 f1.2L.
>
> What's wrong with Canon's EF 70-200 f4L?  Don't know how it compares
> with your 100-400L in weight, but it sort of compares in spec with the
> Pentax lens you cited.
>
> Malcolm
> Milton Keynes, UK

I've been thinking about these lenses and just happened to have the
weight info available.....
70-200 f/4 L IS    1.675#( 26.8oz)  /  760g
100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS  3.1# (49.6oz) / 1380g

Sure, the 70-200 is a full frame lens but it is just a bit more than
half the weight of the 100-400 and it is f/4 throughout the zoom range.


Bob

--

                           /////
                          ( O O )
--------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@...------
Curiosity killed the cat although I was a suspect for a while........
   



*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Henning Wulff]

At 10:34 AM +0000 11/24/06, Peter Hancock wrote:
>Has anyone heard any rumours about Canon producing longer focal length
>lenses for 1.6x crop digital cameras?  It bugs me to carry round the
>great lump of a 100-400L when half the light it gathers is wasted.
>Pentax have announced a nice-looking 60-250 f4.  Sigma are starting to
>move, with a 50-150.  However, since the Canon bodies don't have
>body-integral IS, we're rather limited to Canon lenses.  With Canon
>having abandonded the depth mode that caused me to buy EOS originally, I
>might actually think about changing systems when my 10D gets past it.

A 100-400 of similar aperture, build quality and IS but designed as
EF-S would be of the same size and weight as the current lens. All
lenses of 85mm or so and more cover the standard 24x36 size or better.

Designing a 15mm lens for FF is a lot harder than for EF-S, but when
you get to 100mm or more it makes essentially no difference, so why
would Canon limit themselves by producing longer focal length EF-S
lenses.

--
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@...
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Peter Hancock]

Well, I guess if none of you guys can see the point, that might explain why Canon can't, either.

Malcolm asked: What's wrong with Canon's EF 70-200 f4L?

Answer: it's 200mm, as opposed to 400mm.  Stick a 2x on it and it becomes a 400 f8, as opposed to the 400 f5.6 that I have.  And sure, 200 x 1.6 is 320, but then 400 x 1.6 is 640.  It's still a full frame lens, so wastes half the light.  I realise that the optical difficulty is at the short end, but the weight is at the long end!  There is some gain, of course, because the optical quality in the centre is always going to be better.  Anyhow, no rumours, it seems, so if Canon don't want to compete, might have to start looking elsewhere.  I guess they figure that anyone who wants a nice telephoto should buy a 5D to attach it to.  Seems like a relatively short term strategy to me: there's nothing that magical about 24x36 frame size and a sensor that big is always going to be more expensive as are the lenses to cover it.  They will also presumably always be a bit less noisy, but given how good noise reduction software is now, not much of an issue.  Given a system costing, say, £5K and one costing £10K and weighing twice as much, I reckon most would suffer a tad more noise.   There will always be a few lugging view cameras up mountains!  No rush, my 10D still does very nicely.

Peter  

--
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
for messages of this kind.

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Henning Wulff]

>Well, I guess if none of you guys can see the
>point, that might explain why Canon can't,
>either.
>
>Malcolm asked: What's wrong with Canon's EF 70-200 f4L?
>
>Answer: it's 200mm, as opposed to 400mm.  Stick
>a 2x on it and it becomes a 400 f8, as opposed
>to the 400 f5.6 that I have.  And sure, 200 x
>1.6 is 320, but then 400 x 1.6 is 640.  It's
>still a full frame lens, so wastes half the
>light.  I realise that the optical difficulty is
>at the short end, but the weight is at the long
>end!  There is some gain, of course, because the
>optical quality in the centre is always going to
>be better.  Anyhow, no rumours, it seems, so if
>Canon don't want to compete, might have to start
>looking elsewhere.  I guess they figure that
>anyone who wants a nice telephoto should buy a
>5D to attach it to.  Seems like a relatively
>short term strategy to me: there's nothing that
>magical about 24x36 frame size and a sensor that
>big is always going to be more expensive as are
>the lenses to cover it.  They will also
>presumably always be a bit less noisy, but given
>how good noise reduction software is now, not
>much of an issue.  Given a system costing, say,
>£5K and one costing £10K and weighing twice as
>much, I reckon most would suffer a tad more
>noise.   There will always be a few lugging view
>cameras up mountains!  No rush, my 10D still
>does very nicely.
>
>Peter

I believe I explained why there's no point and no
advantage to designing telephoto lenses for
smaller senor cameras.

No size advantage. No weight advantage. No cost
advantage. Just a smaller market.

The 'wasting half the light' argument doesn't
fly. All long lenses could cover larger areas,
but are baffled to avoid too much extraneous
light bouncing around. For the smaller sensor
sizes tighter baffels could be installed, but the
EF lenses are already well baffled, so that isn't
going to gain you much.

--
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@...
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

[Bob W8IMO]

Peter Hancock wrote:

>Well, I guess if none of you guys can see the point, that might explain why Canon can't, either.
>
>Malcolm asked: What's wrong with Canon's EF 70-200 f4L?
>
>Answer: it's 200mm, as opposed to 400mm.  Stick a 2x on it and it becomes a 400 f8, as opposed to the 400 f5.6 that I have.  And sure, 200 x 1.6 is 320, but then 400 x 1.6 is 640.  
>
Hmmmmm, the Pentax you mention is f/4  so whats so great about it other
than the 250 end?  the Sigma is 150 at the long end.   Lets see 200 -150
means the Canon is 50mm longer at the long end.  And it is an L IS lens
which means it might be better optically and mechanically...

>It's still a full frame lens, so wastes half the light.
>
I don't understand  "wastes half the light"    The sensor gets waht it
needs to form an image.  

> I realise that the optical difficulty is at the short end, but the weight is at the long end!  There is some gain, of course, because the optical quality in the centre is always going to be better.
>

> Anyhow, no rumours, it seems, so if Canon don't want to compete, might have to start looking elsewhere.
>
I think Canon is very interested in competeing.  What are they not
competeing against?  A very small market niche?
Look elsewhere, where?   If yhere was a lucrative market for long
digital optimized lenses all of the lens makers would be there with
product.  Digicams ahve been out for a while and I don't see Canon,
Nikon, Pentax, Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, etc rushing to market with them.

> I guess they figure that anyone who wants a nice telephoto should buy a 5D to attach it to.  Seems like a relatively short term strategy to me: there's nothing that magical about 24x36 frame size and a sensor that big is always going to be more expensive as are the lenses to cover it.  They will also presumably always be a bit less noisy, but given how good noise reduction software is now, not much of an issue.  
>
I think there is a slow move to full frame sensors.  Technology doesn't
happen overnight.  You don't wake up one morning and find a highly
sophistamacated doowackey, to quote Homer Simpson, available in any
phase of electronics.  There is research and development that have to be
done.  Then putting theory into practise takes a bit of time.

There might not be anything magical about 24 X 36 mm but why are so many
1ds and 5D bodies being sold?  When the 5D was announced they were very
scarce since all the Canon weddingshooters were buying them before they
were in the stores.

You can fix things with software.  But after 40 years in the computer
industry I know that while software can fix things, the finished product
is far better when the basic starting point doesn't need a lot of
fixing.......


>Given a system costing, say, £5K and one costing £10K and weighing twice as much, I reckon most would suffer a tad more noise.   There will always be a few lugging view cameras up mountains!  No rush, my 10D still does very nicely.
>
>Peter  
>
>  
>
Bob

--

                           /////
                          ( O O )
--------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@...------
Curiosity killed the cat although I was a suspect for a while........
   



*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************