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. :D

[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:D

[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.:D

[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!!! :D

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

[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.

:lol: 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. :D

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/columns/sm-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.

[mongo]

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/columns/sm-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! :)

You are right - Mongo had forgotten the Pentax 135mm f1.8 – also quite renowned. Should also let you know that Mrs Mongo has the original Pentax A*300mm f4 lens – a gem. Mongo also had the Vivitar Seris 1 105mm f2.5 (purchased new years ago) . A super lens. Sold it last year still as new in its box to an AP member who has made great use of it. Mongo must say, though , that the best of these (approximate 105 mm macros range) in his opinion, is still the original manual Tokina 90mm f2.5 – now rare.

It was extremely interesting to read the material on some Pentax classics in the link you provided

No arguments from Mongo on blanket statements – they can be cause for swift scrutiny and Mongo has since qualified his statement to something he believes to be closer to what was intended. :)

[arthurking83]

This general acceptance of the fact that Nikon doesn't use fluorite in any of it's lenses is not exactly true and correct. They have at least one (admittedly very little known) lens that uses fluorite lenses, and as far as I know of it, the only lens that uses all fluorite lenses in it's optical design.
The lens is the little known 105 f/4.5 UV lens, and the use of only fluorite lenses is mostly due to the UV transmission quality of that substance. Normal glass generally tends to inhibit the transmission of UV, or at least dull it to a major degree.

I've never really seen any real evidence that the use of fluorite in the construction of a camera lens generally entails higher quality images.

Nikon's telephoto lenses are proof that the non use of fluorite has not harmed their performance in any way(and that have the ability to out resolve the pixel cramming ability of the D3x!)

I'm pretty sure that Nikon is fully aware of both the performance and marketing advantage of fluorite in the manufacture of lenses.

I'm not entirely sure of Leica's lens range(as they make nothing for Nikon) but I'm sure I'm correct when I say that Zeiss don't use any fluorite elements in any of their camera lenses.(they may or may not use them in their spotting scopes, but I know nothing of them)
They do advertise the use of T* coatings tho, and the purpose of this T* coatings is to reduce reflections.

Voightlander's 125 APO is APO due to the use of ED lens elements(2 of them according to literature), and I suspect very high attention to design detail. But not a single Fluorite lens element!(at least not in the literature about the lens).

One of the main purposes of fluorite in the lens is to assist in the focusing of different wavelengths of light(ie. what makes an apochromatic lenses).
So how does Voghtlander(or how did they, as this lens is no longer manufactured) achieve this with only the use of ED(Extra low Dispersion) coatings instead of fluorite?

if you really want to see(visualise) the purpose of this APO design of a lens, then I strongly urge anyone with an interest to head over to Photozone and check out the analysis of the Voightlander 125/2.5 lens and particularly note the lack of any LoCa's in the sample image.

While it's easy for us armchair critics to question the manufacturers intentions and reasons for their process and workings, I think the proof is always in the product itself.

as an example of how this works. Nikon 200 f/2 ED easily has the best quality images of any 200mm lens that I've ever seen, with the ability to resolve insanely minute detail from the likes of just about any modern DSLR, and yet only uses ED and Super ED lenses in the construction of this lens. Definitely no fluorite.
Traditionally the 300/2.8 was the showcase lens for Nikon for the introduction of new lens technologies(such as ED coated lenses and Nano coating, etc, etc), whereas this seems to have migrated to the 200/2 now with their use of Super ED glass(in the literature for the lens on Nikon's web site).

Apart from endless arguments in semantics, to be honest, I see no reason for the use of fluorite in lenses, when there are obvious other methods for producing high quality optics.
If there's any advantage in using it, then it should produce a real and measurable advantage on the final image result.(which I doubt we'll ever really see in the real world)
If the purpose of fluorite in any (camera)lens elements is to serve the marketing department in gaining an upper hand, then it's a wasted resource.

[Lance B]

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

Sigh. You need to re-read my original post again. I said, "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."

A blanket statement is a statement intended as if it were fact, whereas my statement actually questioned whether I was right, as I wasn't sure. Big difference.

[Lance B]

This general acceptance of the fact that Nikon doesn't use fluorite in any of it's lenses is not exactly true and correct. They have at least one (admittedly very little known) lens that uses fluorite lenses, and as far as I know of it, the only lens that uses all fluorite lenses in it's optical design.
The lens is the little known 105 f/4.5 UV lens, and the use of only fluorite lenses is mostly due to the UV transmission quality of that substance. Normal glass generally tends to inhibit the transmission of UV, or at least dull it to a major degree.

I've never really seen any real evidence that the use of fluorite in the construction of a camera lens generally entails higher quality images.

Nikon's telephoto lenses are proof that the non use of fluorite has not harmed their performance in any way(and that have the ability to out resolve the pixel cramming ability of the D3x!)

I'm pretty sure that Nikon is fully aware of both the performance and marketing advantage of fluorite in the manufacture of lenses.

I'm not entirely sure of Leica's lens range(as they make nothing for Nikon) but I'm sure I'm correct when I say that Zeiss don't use any fluorite elements in any of their camera lenses.(they may or may not use them in their spotting scopes, but I know nothing of them)
They do advertise the use of T* coatings tho, and the purpose of this T* coatings is to reduce reflections.

Voightlander's 125 APO is APO due to the use of ED lens elements(2 of them according to literature), and I suspect very high attention to design detail. But not a single Fluorite lens element!(at least not in the literature about the lens).

One of the main purposes of fluorite in the lens is to assist in the focusing of different wavelengths of light(ie. what makes an apochromatic lenses).
So how does Voghtlander(or how did they, as this lens is no longer manufactured) achieve this with only the use of ED(Extra low Dispersion) coatings instead of fluorite?

if you really want to see(visualise) the purpose of this APO design of a lens, then I strongly urge anyone with an interest to head over to Photozone and check out the analysis of the Voightlander 125/2.5 lens and particularly note the lack of any LoCa's in the sample image.

While it's easy for us armchair critics to question the manufacturers intentions and reasons for their process and workings, I think the proof is always in the product itself.

as an example of how this works. Nikon 200 f/2 ED easily has the best quality images of any 200mm lens that I've ever seen, with the ability to resolve insanely minute detail from the likes of just about any modern DSLR, and yet only uses ED and Super ED lenses in the construction of this lens. Definitely no fluorite.
Traditionally the 300/2.8 was the showcase lens for Nikon for the introduction of new lens technologies(such as ED coated lenses and Nano coating, etc, etc), whereas this seems to have migrated to the 200/2 now with their use of Super ED glass(in the literature for the lens on Nikon's web site).

Apart from endless arguments in semantics, to be honest, I see no reason for the use of fluorite in lenses, when there are obvious other methods for producing high quality optics.
If there's any advantage in using it, then it should produce a real and measurable advantage on the final image result.(which I doubt we'll ever really see in the real world)
If the purpose of fluorite in any (camera)lens elements is to serve the marketing department in gaining an upper hand, then it's a wasted resource.

That's a damn good post, Art!

[DNA]

I think the top end lenses are just as good as each other. It's more the quality of the photographer that makes the ultimate difference to the images captured. :)

[pmack]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

[Doninoz]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

???!

[mrDooba]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

You can read my thoughts :eek::eek::eek:

[KeeFy]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

KeeFy thinks so too.

[Tannin]

Tannin doesn't like to see people complaining about Mongo.

[William]

Mongo is a friend of William's, William likes the way Mongo speaks in 3rd Party as well :D

[Tannin]

I've never really seen any real evidence that the use of fluorite in the construction of a camera lens generally entails higher quality images.

One of your least sensible posts, Arthur. :eek:

Look a bit harder and it is easy to see the difference. A very effective way to do this is to compare two otherwise identical high-quality optical systems, one using fluorite and the other one not. (This lets us sidestep quality variations due to other causes.) Both Swarovski and Leica manufacture Fluorite and non-flourite models which are essentially identical - the flourite models are obviously better, and hugely better when looking directly into the light.

If you can be bothered, we can see if we can scare up someone with a Swarovski APS-80 to compare with my APS-80HD - I've made this comparison before on birding trips, and it's light and day. Seen it done on the web with formal reviews too: same answer. Same deal with the Leica optics - the flourite version costs an extra $1000 or so and is easily better.

Most of the world's top-ranking optics makers, however, reckon they know more about it than you and I do - 'cause they use flourite wherever the performance advantages are judged compelling enough to outweigh the quite significant extra cost and difficulty of manufacture.

It's not just camera lenses, it's anything in high-quality optics where improved control of CA is cruical. For reasons beyond my limited understanding of optics, flourite always seems to be used in long focal length, high magnification optics, but not in wide-angle designs. So it's near-universal in high-quality optical microscopes, high-quality spotting telescopes, and top-class binoculars, also used in astronomical optics and around 80% of the world's top-quality super-telephoto lenses.

The unquestioned best three telescope manufacturers - Swarovski, Leica, and Zeiss - all use flourite. All of the major miscroscope manufacturers use it (including both Olympus and Nikon).

It is apparently quite difficult to work, as you have to do a lot of operations at very low temperatures, and it also requires care to mount properly - it isn't as resistant to high temperatures as orthodox glass, which is why Canon super-teles are white. Nevertheless, properly made, fluorite lenses seem to be perfectly usable in the field - we don't see reports of mass failures of (for example) Canon teles or Swarovski scopes after a heat wave, and they remain in service for many decades.

[Xenedis]

On the issue of fluorite lenses and white barrels, some people believe the use of white by Canon is a marketing exercise.

While I have little doubt that the visual presence of Canon's white lenses has brand recognition benefits, the reason for white barrels is more scientific than marketing-oriented.

In a nutshell, fluourite doesn't like heat.

White reflects heat.

The result is that the lens's innards are kept cooler.

Some clever chap decided to conduct an experiment, whereby he left both a black and white lens in the sun, and then took thermal images of the lenses after they'd been exposed to the sun's heat.

More details (and photos) can be found at the following dpreview.com thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12671815

[Tannin]

^ In that case, why don't Swarovski fluorite lenses meltdown on hot days? They are a dark olive green. Zeiss ones are black, if my memory serves. But all of the Leica ones are silver.

I don't deny that there is sense in having a white lens - hell, if nothing else, it's more pleasant to touch on a hot day - but I bet that the marketing department love it even more than the engineers. :)

Link to entire thread ---> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=12671815

[Stingray]

Darren is wondering where he's gonna get $1200 for the 600mm :(
very nice lenses :)

[Tannin]

^ I'll give you the missing "0". Put your $1200 in front of that zero and you'll have enough. :eek:

[mongo]

pmack finds it painfull reading peoples thoughts in the third person

Pmack is in for a steep learning curve. Mongo does it no other way. You should try living a little on the wild side too.

[Art Vandelay]

Art enjoys the quirkiness of Mongo's posts. Art has also just flicked on his music box and listening to Lou Reed, thanks to the reference above. Though he is unsure which part Mongo plays in that little ditty.

[davearnold]

Dave copes with Mongo speak well, because it is usually of good value and informative, and Dave learns from it :D

[pmack]

pmack handled it fine before, but things have changed. mongo hasn't changed, pmack has.