2004 Prophecies....

Canon introduces a 800mm IS DO f/4 lens, or f/5.6 800, which floods ebay with used 600mm IS lenses, and I pick one up for a song.

Geo wrote:

Gloria Hopkins wrote:I'm no prophet, but I'm guessing this is the year that George finally comes to Florida to buy me that dark German beer

ROFLMAO ... no Cutsie poo ( that saying will follow you FOREVER ).. its the other way around girl - YOU are the one plying me with the beer ... don´t forget it

Geo

Does that mean you're not comin' down Geo? You're gonna break this poor simple country girl's heart

To stay on topic: prophecies for this year - I get a job! Then a digital camera! Then a life!!!!

If Canon does manage (or at least try) to fix DO as mentioned by E.J., I'd (wild speculation here) think they might use the opportunity to replace the 100-400L with a 200-400 f/5.6 DO. Would presumably be very light for the length, and the limited focus range would help offset DO sharpness problems. Limited focus range would also probably allow getting rid of push-pull construction!

There was talk of a 200-400 f/4 DO lens a couple of years ago during the DO release hoopla. I don't see Canon competing that closely with the fixed length 400/4 DO. Unless they really do something to beef up the image quality!

Seems likely Canon will release at least one new DSLR in the year, but I have no clue (not even a guess I'm happy about) what it will be beyond the rumors already recounted.

DaveC wrote:Canon introduces a 800mm IS DO f/4 lens, or f/5.6 800, which floods ebay with used 600mm IS lenses, and I pick one up for a song.

Good luck with that one.

If Canon does produce any more DO lenses in the near future I doubt they will be in the 800mm range, particularly with digital cameras. An 800mm prime with the 10D would become a 1280mm prime lens and too much length for many situations. A shorter lens is more likely to be the recipient of any new technology in my view, and would be more flexible with the use of the high quality converters.

All that being said the re-sale value of a 600/IS should hold pretty strong, even with the introduction of anything new.

MikeBinOK wrote:. . . they might use the opportunity to replace the 100-400L with a 200-400 f/5.6 DO. . . .

No stinking f5.6, please, I want f4! A 200-400 would be great for flight shooting, and for that use, and for using TCs from a blind for flexible framing, the extra stop of speed is very useful.

By the way, the 400 DO is so unsharp that an image I made with it in January with a 1.4x, wide open, has already sold for a calendar otherwise populated by Art Wolfe, Nobert Wu, etc. It works fine with the 2X II as well. The lens isn't Canon's sharpest, but it's sharp enough. Even the 100-400 is sharp enough, and in my testing (the only lens testing I've ever done), the 400 DO is well ahead of the 1-4, though it trails the extraordinarily sharp, but slow 400 f5.6L.

There has never been a sharpness problem with the DO lens - it is very sharp. The problem is that OOF specular highlights blow up and make any image that has them a throwaway - essentially a useless lens along a coast where there are wet things that could be OOF. There is a reason why that lens doesn't have a red ring and that is why.

E.J. wrote:
There has never been a sharpness problem with the DO lens - it is very sharp. The problem is that OOF specular highlights blow up and make any image that has them a throwaway - essentially a useless lens along a coast where there are wet things that could be OOF. There is a reason why that lens doesn't have a red ring and that is why.

Interesting, when DO first came out, I remember some people praising the sharpness, but later I heard complaints about the sharpness, or thought I did. I even thought I remembered E.J. making such comments, obviously I misremembered! Not so much that sharpness was awful, but that it was mediocre.

I think opinion is unanimous about the OOF highlights and (especially) the incredible cost of the current DO lens. I hope Canon can wave a wand and come up with a solution, though I'm not betting any money on it!

I seem to recall seeing an interview with a Canon engineer that said they would next look at DO for use in wide-angle lenses (which seems bizarre to me!). But I don't have high confidence in my memory for DO trivia right now!

I never said it wasn't sharp or at least didn't intend to - quite the opposite, its very sharp but the OOF highlight thing is a real bummer.

http://www.canon.com/technology/intervi ... ns_p1.html

Well, my DO trivia memory isn't totally shot--The above interview with Canon engineers gives us the party line on the DO lens, including some interesting details, especially the anecdotes about locating the "mystery material" that makes the DO lens work.

If you check the very last bit of the interview, it says that next for DO is a wide angle lens--This will be the only way to completely eliminate chromatic aberration.

But I don't advise y'all to sell your 16-35s, 17-40s, and 20mm lenses just yet......

..

Geo wrote:If you can get your rear over here, then all the beer is on me... promise!

So can anyone take you up on this offer? How long a trip is needed to visit you when you are in the Arctic?

..

How about Nikon VR teleconvertors, or doesn't anyone use Nikon anymore

Fowlerms wrote:How about Nikon VR teleconvertors, or doesn't anyone use Nikon anymore

I'll take one at .667X, 1.0X, 1.4X, 2.0X and 3.0X.