|
NikosR
|
 |
« on: October 17, 2007, 06:32:16 AM » |
 Reply
|
Michael thinks that it will be humongous and require a sherpa to carry around but I suspect it won't be any heavier or really larger (maybe somewhat longer) than the 600 f4 lens. Any educated guesses?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Nikos
|
|
|
|
mahleu
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2007, 06:51:03 AM » |
Reply
|
I'm pretty sure it will be quite similar to the FD mount 800
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Gregory
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2007, 10:22:52 AM » |
Reply
|
I'm just an enthusiast but I suspect that it'd be the fabled 800 DO, lightish and beautiful.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gregory's Blog: An Aussie in HKEquipment: Canon EOS 1D Mark III, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 DO |
|
|
santa
Jr. Member
 Offline
Posts: 88
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2007, 11:21:30 AM » |
Reply
|
It's an Alaskan Portrait Lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Monito
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2007, 11:28:54 AM » |
Reply
|
It looks like it will be just about the same length and size as the 600 mm f/4. The 800 mm is at the back (with the 6m minimum focusing distance), the 600 mm is second from the back, and the 200 mm f/2 is up front in this high resolution 5436 x 4080 picture: Canon 2008 Super Tele Group |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
MonitoPhoto (Landscape, Architecture, Portraits: Halifax, Nova Scotia)
|
|
|
|
Ray
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2007, 01:27:11 AM » |
Reply
|
Lenses are usually lighter if the maximum aperture is narrower, so one would expect the extra weight due to the longer focal length to be offset by a 1 stop slower lens, compared to the 600/4.
It's a pity the 40D does not have auto-focussing capability at f8. This 800mm lens plus 1.4x extender would give an effective reach in 35mm terms of 1800mm.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 18, 2007, 01:28:47 AM by Ray »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
juicy
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2007, 04:43:49 AM » |
Reply
|
Hi! It's a pity the 40D does not have auto-focussing capability at f8. This 800mm lens plus 1.4x extender would give an effective reach in 35mm terms of 1800mm. Yes, that's a pity. Even more pity is that 1200mm f5.6 + 2x + 40D would give you 3840mm eqv but even less autofocus capability. But I guess that with such magnification you might be able to focus manually. Probably the hardest part would be to figure out what to shoot with these combos... Cheers, J |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BernardLanguillier
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2007, 04:54:51 AM » |
Reply
|
Not to mention the Nikkor 1200-1800 that is not an AF lens anyway.
cheers,
Bernard
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A few images online here! |
|
|
|
sojournerphoto
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2007, 04:58:34 AM » |
Reply
|
Lenses are usually lighter if the maximum aperture is narrower, so one would expect the extra weight due to the longer focal length to be offset by a 1 stop slower lens, compared to the 600/4. It's a pity the 40D does not have auto-focussing capability at f8. This 800mm lens plus 1.4x extender would give an effective reach in 35mm terms of 1800mm. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]I've got an 1800mm telescope (f12 Maksutov). It fills the frame on my 5D with the moon very nicely:) [a href=\"http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1014/1257210808_2964bfd463_o.jpg]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1014/125721...964bfd463_o.jpg[/url] Mike |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 18, 2007, 05:00:55 AM by sojournerphoto »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
juicy
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2007, 05:49:48 AM » |
Reply
|
Don't know about the availability or price of the Nikkor 1200-1800mm but last time I saw the Canon 1200mm listed it would have bought 15 pieces of 1Ds2/3-bodies.
More seriously, the new 800mm might be better served when married with a better camera than 40D. With the new 1Ds3 you would get aprox similar resolution compared to the 40D if cropped but with much better viewfinder and AF.
Cheers,
J
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ray
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2007, 06:24:29 AM » |
Reply
|
Don't know about the availability or price of the Nikkor 1200-1800mm but last time I saw the Canon 1200mm listed it would have bought 15 pieces of 1Ds2/3-bodies.
More seriously, the new 800mm might be better served when married with a better camera than 40D. With the new 1Ds3 you would get aprox similar resolution compared to the 40D if cropped but with much better viewfinder and AF.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] That's probably true. The 1Ds3 has the pixel density of a 20D and there's not much resolution difference between a 20D and the 40D; probably only noticeable on test charts. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
luong
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2007, 01:06:39 PM » |
Reply
|
Michael thinks that it will be humongous and require a sherpa to carry around but I suspect it won't be any heavier or really larger (maybe somewhat longer) than the 600 f4 lens. Any educated guesses?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Think of it as a 600 f4 with a built-in TC 1.4x and it sounds quite reasonable. What is a pity, though is that the pro Canon bodies seem to need f2.8 to use all their AF sensors. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
madmanchan
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2007, 02:59:31 PM » |
Reply
|
You must be referring to the cross-type behavior of some of the AF sensors.
All of the AF sensors of all 1-series bodies are horizontal-line sensitive at f/5.6, so AF can be used with the 800 f/5.6 for all sensors. However, only the central one will be vertical-line sensitive as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
seberri
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2007, 03:23:13 AM » |
Reply
|
Lenses are usually lighter if the maximum aperture is narrower, so one would expect the extra weight due to the longer focal length to be offset by a 1 stop slower lens, compared to the 600/4.
It's a pity the 40D does not have auto-focussing capability at f8. This 800mm lens plus 1.4x extender would give an effective reach in 35mm terms of 1800mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] normally if you can afford a 800mm, you have another body than the 40D |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Sheehy
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2007, 06:40:10 PM » |
Reply
|
normally if you can afford a 800mm, you have another body than the 40D
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] I know of at least one person using a $6k tele and a 40D. The 40D resolves the center of the lens better than any Canon DSLR except the 400D. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
juicy
|
|
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2007, 01:01:52 PM » |
Reply
|
I know of at least one person using a $6k tele and a 40D.
The 40D resolves the center of the lens better than any Canon DSLR except the 400D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Hi! Maybe 40D has better AF-performance than it's predecessors. 1-series bodies are light-years ahead of 10D and 20D when tracking moving subjects, flying birds for example. Cheers, J |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mahleu
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2007, 01:17:43 PM » |
Reply
|
normally if you can afford a 800mm, you have another body than the 40D
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] You can't buy another stop of light. If I needed the range i'd put my long lens on a crop body. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Tim Gray
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2007, 01:41:20 PM » |
Reply
|
You can't buy another stop of light. If I needed the range i'd put my long lens on a crop body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Depends on the "crop" factor and difference in resolution. Eg: I could crop a 1ds3 down to the effective crop of my 1d3 at 1.3 and still have more resolution (if I recall crop on 22 mpx down to 1.3 is about 16 mpx, compared to the 10 for a 1d3. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Evans
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2007, 06:22:32 PM » |
Reply
|
Tim, The 1DS3 is 21 megapixels - cropped to a true 1.3 that would give 14.7 mp. I think the 1d3 is actually a 1.27 crop (I'm not certain on this) and if so then cropping to that from the 1DS3 would give you about 15mp. Lin Depends on the "crop" factor and difference in resolution. Eg: I could crop a 1ds3 down to the effective crop of my 1d3 at 1.3 and still have more resolution (if I recall crop on 22 mpx down to 1.3 is about 16 mpx, compared to the 10 for a 1d3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Lin
|
|
|
|
macgyver
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2007, 07:57:42 PM » |
Reply
|
You can't buy another stop of light. If I needed the range i'd put my long lens on a crop body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Spoken like someone who knows what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
