Canon’s new super telephotos

[mongo]

For all the canonites in AP.

More use of fluorite (less ultra low dispersion glass), less weight, sharper and clearer results expected. Cost seems to stay roughly the same.

Whilst Mongo uses Nikon because it is too late to change to canon (given the heavy investment in Nikon gear), he has always said – credit due where it is due. In Mongo’s view, Canon make better lenses than Nikon but possibly not as good camera bodies. Mongo has always believed that fluorite elements used by canon gives them a slight edge over Nikon (who gave up on using fluorite in preference for low dispersion glass decades ago).

More info here : http://photo.net/equipment/canon/500-600-II/preview/

[Tannin]

Nikon's reluctance to use flourite is peculiar. All the other top-class lens makers use it freely. Notice it particularly in spotting scopes, which generally lead a harder life than cameras. I never have worked that out.

[mongo]

Nikon's reluctance to use flourite is peculiar. .... I never have worked that out.

Neither has Mongo. The original excuse (as Mongo understands it) was that Fluorite is too unstable re temperature and is more fragile than ED glass generally. Well, Mongo thinks history and a score of successful Canon lenses has proved Nikon wrong about that. However, Mongo suspects that Nikon will not change its ways now because to do so (despite the potential benefits of better optical performance) would be to admit they got it wrong in the first place. Saving face can some times be a big barrier to progress.

[Lance B]

But none of the other lens makers, like Pentax, Olympus, Zeiss, etc use flourite lenses either, as far as I know. I know for sure that Pentax doesn't. I could be wrong about the other's though.

However, I do diagree about your blankey statement that Canon lenses are superior, as there are some Nikon lenses better than Canon and visa versa, just as there are some Pentax lenses better than N & C and some Zeiss better as well.

[Tannin]

But none of the other lens makers ...l

You don't call Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss "lens makers" then?

[mongo]

Sorry Lance, Mongo did not wish to upset anyone and certainly does not intend to get into one of those N –v - C arguments. Its bad enough that Mongo, a Nikon user is defending the virtues of Canon products. But Mongo is a lens and technology enthusiast - he goes where that takes him without loyalties to any brand or name. It is only impracticality that has kept him from pursuing that fully.

Mongo agrees with you that the statement, in hindsight, may have been too blanket or general. Nearly every maker has a jewel – a Ferrari in the fleet of cars. Pentax make the best 85mm f1.4 that Mongo knows of (with possibly some Leicas equal to this in this range), Tokina 90mm f2.5 macro, Nikon’s 70-200mm f2.8 (with possibly some Leicas equal to this in this range), Canon’s 500mm f4, Leica’s 180mm f2 and many more. These are the ones Mongo feels he can comment on with reasonable certainty although he accepts that these are often matters of opinion only. However, many have MTF and objective measures which go beyond opinion and Mongo is not uninfluenced by these more objective factors.

Having said all that, would Mongo knock back any Nikkor lens ?? no way ! but if he had to spend the same money buying a lens and had a real choice – that might be another matter.

However, what Mongo originally said related to strictly N and C products in comparing the two.

Mongo would have to say, with paw on heart, that in a direct comparison of N and C equivalents, that the number of Canon lenses that Mongo would choose for performance over the Nikon lenses would be greater particularly in the 300mm upwards range . In many of those cases (but not in all) , Mongo puts it down to C’s choice of lens element material – including and particularly Fluorite. The wider angle race is a closer affair.

Mongo originally posted this link for those who may be interested in what is now on offer. It was also, he supposes, a way of saying he would love these as he thinks they are the best of this range on offer and wishes he had his time all over again – that’s all. So , there will be no long debates on these matters by Mongo – he wants to go out this afternoon (all things being OK) to take photographs – that is what these bits of metal and glass are for and not to waist good energy over.

If Mongo is wrong about all of this, the world will not end tomorrow.

PS – It would be nice if this did NOT develop into one of those N-v-C things. Just be pleased that Canon have added 2 more goodies to choose from (cash permitting) . Just accept that perhaps every maker may have something special to offer in their arsenals of goodies and whoever has the biggest one really does not matter.

[JM Tran]

the military forces and the associated contractors and suppliers use fluorite for the reasons Mongo stated, but on a far bigger and more expensive scale than all the photographic and camera makers combined

[bricat]

Thank you Mongo. I think I will wait for the 200-400 with 1.4 extender and then I won't have to worry about the long end anymore.

[Tannin]

I see that the new 600/4 weighs the same as the old 500/4! (Well, close enough to the same.) That's a huge achievement. I want one!

(Err ... has anyone got 12 grand to spare? I'm a bit short this week.)

[Art Vandelay]

I won't buy into the fluorite argument, but I understand how a lens would last longer when not subject to decay and build up of plaque. Perhaps Nikon owners need to brush and floss more as a substitute.

As for lenses, they all sound good. The 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x would be right up my alley................ Too bad the price wont be.

[kiwi]

Nano Nano

I agree (though i had a little sick) that Canon's lens range is superior in general, though Nikon I think have better pro zooms 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400 currently

I think thr high end Nikon bodies are probably still one cycle ahead on Canon. But that's only hearsay.

[Bennymiata]

I admire you Mongo.
It takes a big man (animal) to admit that something they don't own, might actually be better or cheaper than what they do own.
Not many people will do that.

Having said that, when I decided to move away from Pentax, it was because I couldn't get the lenses or other accessories that I required.
I looked through all the different systems, and decided that Canon had the lenses I wanted, for a price I could afford, and that there were so many accessories available for them (both OEM and aftermarket) that weren't available for Pentax, Sony etc.
While the Nikon system and their cameras are also very good, it was lenses like the 100-400L and 24-105L that really grabbed me.

[KeeFy]

Actually, i feel only Canon's telezooms are superior. Nikon wide angle to short zooms own canon big time!

[I @ M]

I won't buy into the fluorite argument, but I understand how a lens would last longer when not subject to decay and build up of plaque. Perhaps Nikon owners need to brush and floss more as a substitute.

Has to be one in every crowd!!!

Start a new thread in off topic around drinking water Art --- I dare you.

[Lance B]

You don't call Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss "lens makers" then?

If you read my post you would see that I did mention Zeiss and I was unsure if they used flourite, but if they do, then I am mistaken. However, is it extensively used, or just in one or two? But the reason for some lens makers not using it has to be a reasonable one otherwise they defintely would, I am sure.

[Lance B]

I won't buy into the fluorite argument, but I understand how a lens would last longer when not subject to decay and build up of plaque. Perhaps Nikon owners need to brush and floss more as a substitute.

As for lenses, they all sound good. The 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x would be right up my alley................ Too bad the price wont be.

Thanks for the good laugh, Art!

[Xenedis]

Actually, i feel only Canon's telezooms are superior. Nikon wide angle to short zooms own canon big time!

I cannot comment either way, but it should be noted that Nikon's 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are both newer than Canon's 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 respectively.

Canon's 24-70/2.8 is the oldest lens of the four, having been on the market since 2002.

[Lance B]

Sorry Lance, Mongo did not wish to upset anyone and certainly does not intend to get into one of those N –v - C arguments. Its bad enough that Mongo, a Nikon user is defending the virtues of Canon products. But Mongo is a lens and technology enthusiast - he goes where that takes him without loyalties to any brand or name. It is only impracticality that has kept him from pursuing that fully.

Mongo agrees with you that the statement, in hindsight, may have been too blanket or general. Nearly every maker has a jewel – a Ferrari in the fleet of cars. Pentax make the best 85mm f1.4 that Mongo knows of (with possibly some Leicas equal to this in this range), Tokina 90mm f2.5 macro, Nikon’s 70-200mm f2.8 (with possibly some Leicas equal to this in this range), Canon’s 500mm f4, Leica’s 180mm f2 and many more. These are the ones Mongo feels he can comment on with reasonable certainty although he accepts that these are often matters of opinion only. However, many have MTF and objective measures which go beyond opinion and Mongo is not uninfluenced by these more objective factors.

Having said all that, would Mongo knock back any Nikkor lens ?? no way ! but if he had to spend the same money buying a lens and had a real choice – that might be another matter.

However, what Mongo originally said related to strictly N and C products in comparing the two.

Mongo would have to say, with paw on heart, that in a direct comparison of N and C equivalents, that the number of Canon lenses that Mongo would choose for performance over the Nikon lenses would be greater particularly in the 300mm upwards range . In many of those cases (but not in all) , Mongo puts it down to C’s choice of lens element material – including and particularly Fluorite. The wider angle race is a closer affair.

Mongo originally posted this link for those who may be interested in what is now on offer. It was also, he supposes, a way of saying he would love these as he thinks they are the best of this range on offer and wishes he had his time all over again – that’s all. So , there will be no long debates on these matters by Mongo – he wants to go out this afternoon (all things being OK) to take photographs – that is what these bits of metal and glass are for and not to waist good energy over.

If Mongo is wrong about all of this, the world will not end tomorrow.

PS – It would be nice if this did NOT develop into one of those N-v-C things. Just be pleased that Canon have added 2 more goodies to choose from (cash permitting) . Just accept that perhaps every maker may have something special to offer in their arsenals of goodies and whoever has the biggest one really does not matter.

I have always said that no lens maker has the monopoly on making fine lenses and Nikon certainly has no monopoly on that. I used to shoot Pentax and some of their lenses were the finest in their particular class:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-05-02.shtml

The Pentax A*135mm f1.8 and A*85mm f1.4 (I think this is the one your are referring too?) are also top of their tree, so to speak.

Zeiss makes some gems, as does Leica and f course Canon. The Vivitar 105mm f2.5 Series 1 Macro is another little gem.

All I was saying was that blanket statements are quite a dangerous thing to make!

[Tannin]

All I was saying was that blanket statements are quite a dangerous thing to make!

You mean ... er .... maybe like saying that "none of the other lens makers ... use flourite lenses"? In that case, I agree with you!

[Doninoz]

In the early 70's I bought my first Nikon, an F2 Photomic (I still have it). From that I went to the F3H (I think late 80's) and F4e in 1992. I had a large range of Prime lens but no zooms, ranging from Nikkor-Fisheye to the 600mm F4. My favourite lens was the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 lens which I still have. I have kept the 24mm Nikkkor f/2, the Nikkor 135mm F2.8 and the Nikkor H 300mm F4.5. Sadly the 24mm has mold in it and it is too expensive to get serviced so that's the end of that one!

When I went digital (2004), I wanted to go Nikon but I found that there was a lot of edge noise on the nikon digitals at that time. As a customer of the now defunct Digital City, I was allowed to take out and try the different models. Amazingly I settled on a Canon fixed lens camera, the Canon PowerShot Pro1...an 8 megapixal camera with an L series lens. It had a powerful macro and a 7 times optical zoom. It had an aperture of F2.4 at wide angle and F3.5 at telephoto.

I eventually sold that (because of the fixed lens) and bought a 20D. Even though I loved the 20D, I missed the Pro1 for some of it's abilities such as macro. Since then I have had several Canons including the 1D MKII, the 5D MKI and now the 5D MKII.

With my experience with Nikon and Canon, I feel betrayed by Nikon because their lens seemed to deteriorate when they started their digital range of cameras. The early lens from Nikon that I mentioned above, run rings around all the current Nikon lens (and even a lot of the canon lens) of today and I have used them with an adapter ring on my Canon's to see how they performed (manual everything of course). Even though I get a bokeh and some vignetting the actual focused areas are absolutely amazing and super sharp! Even the feel of the lens and looking at the quality of the glass just seems better.

But I feel that Nikon is dragging the chain when it comes to all things digital! That's why I chose Canon. Lenses make or break a photo and I break less with Canon!

Good things never last unless we fix them for eternity into images that all can see. Photographs remind us what we forget! Besides, no-one will believe that I was "this close" or it was "that big" unless I can show them indubitable proof.