p.3 #1 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
Today I "poked" again those few of my contacts who have frequent dealings with Canon Canada. Nobody knows anything about 200-400L, but some are harbouring a sort of wishful idea that it might appear in stores this summer.
Thankfully, I am not running out of long lens options, so I do not have to wait for the arrival of that "messiah" zoom. For all we know, Canon might have shelved the project until some future date, as it is less likely that they would have aborted it completely.
p.3 #4 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
PetKal wrote:
Today I "poked" again those few of my contacts who have frequent dealings with Canon Canada. Nobody knows anything about 200-400L, but some are harbouring a sort of wishful idea that it might appear in stores this summer.
Thankfully, I am not running out of long lens options, so I do not have to wait for the arrival of that "messiah" zoom. For all we know, Canon might have shelved the project until some future date, as it is less likely that they would have aborted it completely.
Should make an appearance at the Winter Olympics I'd say
p.3 #11 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
Right or wrong, Nikon seems to be positioning their 800 as the ultimate dSLR lens accross all systems, from Canon to Tamron.....and the best is usually very pricey.
p.3 #14 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Anybody seen the MTF curves of this lens? Makes Canon's 800 look decidedly second rate
MTF curves aside, I do not think 800L is the Canon's best achievement as far as lenses go. Therefore, it wouldn't come as a shock to me if Nikkor 800 turns out to be a better performer.
Hopefully, Canon will get serious with 800L MkII, if we live long enough to see it.
p.3 #15 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
PetKal wrote:
MTF curves aside, I do not think 800L is the Canon's best achievement as far as lenses go. Therefore, it wouldn't come as a shock to me if Nikkor 800 turns out to be a better performer.
Hopefully, Canon will get serious with 800L MkII, if we live long enough to see it.
Canon stated the 800L was their best lens when released, although the mk II have surpassed it. They said it was optically superior to the 600 mk I.
I believe they will do a mk II within a few years, but expect another massive price hike, to well over $15K.
p.3 #16 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Canon stated the 800L was their best lens when released, although the mk II have surpassed it. They said it was optically superior to the 600 mk I.
I believe they will do a mk II within a few years, but expect another massive price hike, to well over $15K.
Upon its release, Canon also said 1DMkIII was their best focussing camera ever.
It would not surprise me at all if 800L MkII price catches up to Nikkor 800.
Now, get a hold of this: Nikkor 800 is 100 g heavier than 800L. One reason for sure is that they've got 20 elements in their 800, while 800L has "merely" 14. Now, Nikon also couldn't drop the front objective protective meniscus as a weight saving measure, because the first optical element is made of delicate fluorite.
In addition, Nikkor 800 has not improved on the 800L MFD, they are basically identical.
p.3 #17 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Anybody seen the MTF curves of this lens? Makes Canon's 800 look decidedly second rate
Any MTF that pegs the curves at 1.0 is highly suspect. Either its creator is deeply ignorant of the basic laws of optical physics (esp. diffraction), thus incompetent to be producing MTFs, or has discovered how to break fundamental laws of physics (but decided not to tell anyone else and become the famousest scientist ever). Both Canon and Nikon are guilty of publishing complete rubbish for MTFs --- these days, there's no lack of computing power to properly calculate the design behavior of the lens (or, even better, measure real production samples). Both companies clearly have highly competent engineers; it's a pity they let the marketers control their technical literature.
p.3 #18 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
mpmendenhall wrote:
Any MTF that pegs the curves at 1.0 is highly suspect. Either its creator is deeply ignorant of the basic laws of optical physics (esp. diffraction), thus incompetent to be producing MTFs, or has discovered how to break fundamental laws of physics (but decided not to tell anyone else and become the famousest scientist ever). Both Canon and Nikon are guilty of publishing complete rubbish for MTFs --- these days, there's no lack of computing power to properly calculate the design behavior of the lens (or, even better, measure real production samples). Both companies clearly have highly competent engineers; it's a pity they let the marketers control their technical literature....Show more →
You seriously think the marketing department produced the MTF curves or influenced them? They may be theoretical rubbish, but this is what would have come from their lens simulation software. You do realise the MTF curves for the mk II superteles are very close to 1 as well over most of the sensor.
p.3 #19 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You seriously think the marketing department produced the MTF curves or influenced them? They may be theoretical rubbish, but this is what would have come from their lens simulation software. You do realise the MTF curves for the mk II superteles are very close to 1 as well over most of the sensor.
This might be what would come out of lens simulation software in the 1970s, but presumably a major optics manufacturer has access to slightly more up-to-date computing resources that could actually estimate an MTF that looks vaguely like a realistic, measured MTF. Leica releases "computed" MTFs, too, but they at least do it right (including proper diffraction physics in the calculations, and producing results that match actual lens performance). Zeiss releases measured MTFs. The only reason I can imagine for Canon/Nikon releasing MTF curves that are hilariously unphysical (and don't provide much actual info about real lens performance, once all fairly good lenses are pegged near 100%), is that marketing decided the results looked better --- any physicist/engineer should be ashamed to put their name on something so ludicrous!
