New super tele lenses worth the upgrade?

According to Canon new lens upgrades tend to sell better than their replacements. 100 macro IS L and the new 70-200 f/2.8 mrk. ii are - correctly - used as examples. And they were both much more expensive than the lenses they replaced.

Seaclam said:

It's like car performance. You can get x amount of horsepower for say 500 bucks, but to get another 100 HP, it'll caost you say $2000 and then it just gets worse from there. You have a situation where the current, soon to be old, versions are spectactular to begin with, but also cost a pretty penny. You are going to see a lot of people simply not buying the new lenses for two big reasons. One, the new "further in the stratophere prices", especially in this economy and two, the fore mentioned insane quality of the currently owned models.

--

Photography, like many other hobbies, persuits and art forms, is first and foremost about having fun and exploring.

Click to expand...

Too many people had issues, including me, with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS on the long end, which was were I was a lot of the time. Too soft. That was well known, so the upgrade fixed that. But the super-tele's are a different story. They are fantastic as they are right now. Nobody, I mean the proverbial nobody, complains about the IQ of the super-tele's.

maiaibing said:

According to Canon new lens upgrades tend to sell better than their replacements. 100 macro IS L and the new 70-200 f/2.8 mrk. ii are - correctly - used as examples. And they were both much more expensive than the lenses they replaced.

Seaclam said:

It's like car performance. You can get x amount of horsepower for say 500 bucks, but to get another 100 HP, it'll caost you say $2000 and then it just gets worse from there. You have a situation where the current, soon to be old, versions are spectactular to begin with, but also cost a pretty penny. You are going to see a lot of people simply not buying the new lenses for two big reasons. One, the new "further in the stratophere prices", especially in this economy and two, the fore mentioned insane quality of the currently owned models.

--

Photography, like many other hobbies, persuits and art forms, is first and foremost about having fun and exploring.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Photography, like many other hobbies, persuits and art forms, is first and foremost about having fun and exploring.

Marcus Antonius said:

U own both the 500 F4 and 600 F4? Strange combination. I'd say owning a 300 2.8 and 500 F4 would be a more reasonable combination but that might me just my logic.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how much difference 100mm makes in terms of the 500 to 600mm. 20% more magnification and 44% more pixels on your subject.

I also have the 300mm2.8is. While I agree the 500/300 is a nice combination especially if you are traveling with your equipment, for smaller subjects a 600 is very nice to have.

I bought a 10 years old used 500mm a little over a half year ago. While I could certainly use a weight reduction and an upgraded IS system (especially the new mode), I can not find the money to upgrade to the new lens - it will most likely be 3 or 4 times what I payed for my old 500 and I do not earn an income from my photographs. Besides, except for the weight of the lens, I don't feel I need an upgrade. The mk I is a fantastic lens !

I am not sure about what the new lenses will do for the prices of the old lenses on the used-market. A lot of pro sports shooters are using the current 400 f2.8 and they will probably want to upgrade to ease the pain of carrying the lens so a lot of used lenses may end up on the market meaning a decrease in used price. I think the situation may turn out to be the exact opposite for the 500mm. Many will probably hold on to their old lens because they are happy with it and once the mk I can not be had new longer, new 500mm-want-to-haves only have two options: Pick up a used mk I or a new and significantly more expensive mk II. This could end up driving up the used price on the mk I lens.

The only thing about the mk II lenses that make me worry a bit is that Canon will stop production of spare parts for the mk I at some point in time just as they did with lenses that were replaced by the IS big whites. If the AF or IS unit of my 500mm break after spare part production has stopped, I will be stuck with an expensive paper weight :-(

Absolutely not! How can the new 300L Mark II be worth twice what I paid for it new 3 yrs ago? Are you kidding me Canon? $7,000 for a 300 and $11,000 for the 400? Lens need to be affordable, that so people will buy them. Maybe your PR dept needs to be fired.
--
JB Faulconer

Well I already have a Sigma 120-300/2.8 which is both lighter and smaller than the current Canon 300/2.8 and it is not a whole lot of fun to hand hold. Not to say I do not get use out of it; especially for stuff like kids sports like baseball and cheerleading in dim lighting. I have also used it with a 1.4 TC which it takes very well.

While I am sure the IS on the new Canon 300 is better I am still not sure how much that would increase my keeper rate.

If anything I am considering getting the now old, but recently new 800. It has the new IS and many peeps report it can be used with a monopod and still retain good IQ. My only real question is would the new 400/2.8 be a better choice.

But the high cost of both still has me waiting.

carlk said:

In this case "upgrade" to the 300/2.8 II may be a possibility if the IQ of 3002/8 II + 2x tc III is as good or better than 500 +1.4tc. You might be able to get better results with the much lighter weight and better AF and IS. Current high pixel density sensors should compensate for the slight loss of reach.

I have been debating myself wheter I should get 300/2.8 or 500/4. The handheldability is always a concern for me. I think 300/2.8 +2x tc, if it turns out to be as good as what we have expected, may make it an easy decision.

TomFla said:

I am happy with my 500 as well. While the improvements sound nice the poor image quality I get with my 500 is more the result of the guy behind the camera pressing the shutter release than any fault of the lens.

The lower weight might help me keep a BIF in the FOV better; but I am not sure of that. Same for faster AF and better IS, they might not be the cause of any problem I have with IQ.

Bottom line is I am not sure upgrading to a new 500 would increase my keeper rate.
--
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.

Perhaps Canon think they have to upgrade these top of the range lenses to keep up with the higher pixel densities of the latest sensors and the sensors they expect to produce over the next few years.

I'm projecting a price of USD 7,900 for the 500 MKII and around USD 9,900 for the 600 MKII. I would expect the 800mm MKI to go up a bit to make room for the new lenses. It might end up at around USD 11,900 or so. They haven't shown any reluctance to raise prices lately as evidenced by all the new L-Series lenses.

I had to work part-time for two years, even though I'm technically retired, to earn enough to purchase my 500 MKI five years ago. In my book, glass is forever, cameras are not. I'd rather have the latest camera body than chase after progressively more expensive lenses.

What I really want is to see what, if anything, is to replace the 100-400 and what it's going to cost. My old 100-400 earned more money than all my other lenses combined. If the replacement is as large and expensive as the Nikkor 200-400, it will be unfortunate and out of my reach.

On the other hand, as someone else mentioned, there will be a lot of really nice pre-owned super teles out on the market in the next few months. I may have to finally look seriously at the current model 400 f/2.8.

Hope you all get what you want and, possibly, what you deserve.

40d_dane, I agree with you completely. The new 400 2.8 goes from arround 12.5 lbs. to 8.5 so I think a lot of 400 2.8's on the used market. The 500 f4 only loses 1/2 lb so the weight savings won't be that greta so I think the used prices on the 500 f4 I will hold up.
I use the 500 f4 IS a lot. Check out my bird galleries at:

http://belasco.zenfolio.com

about half taken with the 500 f4, other with the 100-400, except the Ospries taken with the 400 F5.6

I'm with you Fredlord. I'm keeping my 500 f4 IS. I also own the 100-400 and consider it an excellent lens. I too would like and would buy a 100-400 f5.6 replacement. If they went 100-400 f4 or 200-400 f4 I couldn't afford that! But a 200-500 f5.6 would be nice.
My 100-400 has make a few dollars too.
I'm a bird shooter and if interested you can check out my site at:

http/ belasco.zenfolio.com

I doubt very much that canon will upgrade the 100-400 to F/4. That would make it very expensive and a competitor to the 400mm F/4.

But I will welcome an update to the 100-400mm. I expect that this year or early next year since the lens seems to be har to come by these days.

Belasco wrote:
The 500 f4 only loses 1/2 lb so the weight savings won't be that greta

Where did you get this info?

I am hoping for 1lb (0,5kg) weight reduction with the new 500/4 and 2lb (1kg) weight reduction for the 600/4.

Btw I also use the 500/4 and 100-400 combo. I am quite happy with them, but of course the 500 could be lighter and the 100-400 could be a little sharper. I'm not in love with the push-pull either. But it's the lens I use most, practicality and portability win.