Well, it’s about time: A Canon 200-400mm lens

Updated with thoughts about teleconverters and existing lenses…
Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS Lens with built-in 1.4x TC
Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS Lens with built-in 1.4x TC | Photo from dpreview.com

I don’t have to think about switching to Nikon any more?

For years now Nikon has had one lens that makes nature photographers who use any other brand salivate: the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR lens.  Well, evidently Canon listened to all the complaints–or realized they could make a killing–and they have come up with their own 200-400 with an interesting trick up its sleeve: a built-in 1.4x teleconverter (I imagine that explains the “hump” on the side of the lens barrel).

No word on what size hole it will leave in your wallet, but it is supposedly shipping this year.  Canon made a similar announcement last fall for the development of new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and today Canon has released weights for each (both reduced, the 600mm dramatically so compared to the original 60mm f/4L IS).  However, it’s the 200-400 that really has my attention.  I’ll try to get on the list at CPS to test one as soon as they start shipping.

To my mind, the biggest question is will this new lens accept teleconverters?  Sure, it has a 1.4x built in, but can you put a 2x teleconverter on it so it becomes a 400-800mm f/8?  Or stack another 1.4x with the internal teleconverter engaged to have a similar 392-784mm f/8 range?  (I mention the latter option because it’s at least possible the image quality would be higher.)

Whither the DO?

At present, the longest lens I own is the 400mm f/4 DO IS.  It’s light-weight, extremely compact, and with a little toning the images that it produces are stellar.  The lens remains sharp with a 1.4x TC (560mm f/5.6) and with proper technique I’ve made good images with the 2x teleconverter (800mm f/8).  Hell, I’ve even stacked teleconverters, although the quality declines noticably at that point.  When I heard about the 200-400mm f/4, the first question that popped into my head was whether this would be the lens that replaces the 400mm DO.  If it can accept teleconverts, I’d hedge my bet that the answer is “probably.”

But for those who simply want a walk-about zoom lens, there’s already a surprisingly good alternative to the 400mm DO, albeit a stop slower.  Last fall, Artie Morris began posting about using the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mk. II with the 2x teleconverter to make a 140-400mm f/5.6 zoom, and I tested the combination myself and was duly impressed.

For a lot of wildlife photography, the new 70-200mm with a 2x, combined with a standard telephoto (400mm, 500mm, 600mm, etc.) will pretty much “do it all.”  Does that mean that a dedicated 200-400mm zoom is even necessary anymore–that Canon missed its window of opportunity?  Alternatively, are the 400mm DO’s days are over?  Only a side-by-side comparison of all three will do.

Canon Press Release

LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., February 7, 2011 – Canon Inc. today announced the development of a new super-telephoto lens, the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER l.4x, for use with all EOS SLR cameras. A prototype of the new lens will be exhibited at the CP+ tradeshow, held in Pacifico Yokohama, from February 9 – 12, 2011.

The EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER l.4x is being developed as an L-series super-telephoto lens with an integrated 1.4x extender and high-performance Image Stabilizer technology. The new lens will offer exceptional flexibility by incorporating a built-in 1.4x extender that increases the maximum focal length to 560mm for sports and wildlife photography. High-quality images with high levels of resolution and contrast will be possible through the use of advanced optical materials such as fluorite crystal. The new lens will also include dust- and water-resistant construction designed for extended usage under harsh conditions.

Canon will continue to respond to the needs of various users ranging from beginners and advanced amateurs to professional photographers, in an effort to enrich their photographic expression with SLR cameras by continuing to develop attractive new lenses with improved optical technology.

(press release from the Canon USA Web site)

Another option for focus calibration: LensAlign MkII

LensAlign MkII rendering
LensAlign MkII rendering courtesy RawWorkflow/Michael Tapes

Michael Tapes, the entrepreneur who invented the “LensAlign Focus Calibration System” e-mailed me a few weeks back and said that he had a new product coming, but by reading the information I was under a NDA.  However, many of the details of the LensAlign MkII, which replaces the LensAlign Lite (I reviewed the LensAlign Pro earlier this fall), are available on Michael’s blog.  I just received a prototype yesterday, and will be writing a review of the new product and comparing it to its “bigger brother.”  Final production versions will retail for $79.95 and will ship in the United States for $6 as it comes flat/disassembled to fit inside of a Priority Mail envelope.  This conceivably means that it can be taken apart easily for travel, something the LensAlign Pro simply cannot do.

Stay tuned for more!

Datacolor: Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Datacolor SpyderChekr
Datacolor SpyderChekr

Earlier in the month, Datacolor announced the SpyderLensCal, a product that was a clear imitation of the LensAlign autofocus microadjustment calibration tool from RawWorkflow.  Although it would be unfair to dismiss it outright as I’ve not actually worked with one, SpyderLensCal has several shortcomings compared to the LensAlign, including the inability to confirm that it is parallel to the camera.

Now, Datacolor has announced another product that seems to be an homage to a competitor: the SpyderChekr is aimed squarely at X-Rite’s ColorChecker Passport that I reviewed early this year.  The gestalt of the two products is the same: a plate of pigmented squares with known color values is embedded into a hinged case to be carried on location and photographed under the lighting conditions for the photo shoot.  Then, in RAW conversion either in Adobe Camera RAW or Adobe Lightroom, the photo of the unit is exported to the manufacturer’s software to be profiled.  That profile is then applied, at the user’s discretion, to the photos from the shoot.

However, there appears to be a fundamental difference in the way that Datacolor approached the SpyderCheckr compared to the SpyderLensCal: price point.  The SpyderLensCal is priced to undercut what has been the only game in town, the LensAlign, and to do so by $20 at an MSRP of $59.00.  To get down to that price, Datacolor clearly cut corners.  The SpyderCheckr, on the other hand, has been announced at $129.00, a full $30.00 more than the X-Rite product, and actually builds upon the idea of camera calibration by adding some interesting features.

The Datacolor product can be mounted on a tripod, whereas X-Rite’s hinged case was designed to support the color charts, like the fold-out arm in a picture frame.  A tripod thread adds versatility.  The color charts in Datacolor’s SpyderCheckr can be flipped over to reveal gray-balance targets.  That means that one could photograph the necessary color chart for camera calibration and a greay-balance target in the same frame.  X-Rite’s passport does include a gray-balance target, but it is mounted opposite the color charts, so they could never be together in the same photograph.

SpyderChekr's reversible charts

Furthermore, that Datacolor’s color charts are reversible means that they are also user-replaceable should they begin to fade or become scratched.  The Datacolor Web site for the SpyderCheckr suggests that these spare color charts will be available for sale “early in 2011.”

There are some differences between the SpyderChekr and the ColorChecker Passport that do not make one superior to the other, but are of interest just the same.  First of all, the Datacolor product is physically larger.  In fact, I believe it is close to the size of a traditional Gretag-Macbeth (now X-Rite) color chart.  This means that it won’t fit in a camera bag quite as easily.  Even when I’m not working on a studio shoot, I always carry the X-Rite product in my bag, because it is small and easy to hand-hold.  However, I can’t mount it to a tripod (or light stand), so that may be irrelevant for some.   Another difference is that X-Rite’s ColorChecker Passport creates DNG profiles for its camera calibration, whereas Datacolor’s software manipulates the Hue/Saturation/Lightness sliders in Adobe Camera RAW / Adobe Lightroom.  I’m inclined to believe that DNG profiles may be a better route, but I’m not a technical expert on this particular part of Camera RAW / Lightroom, so I will just offer that they are different routes to achieve the same objective: more faithful color.

Many of the design and operational differences between the two products are actually outlined in a chart on page six of Datacolor’s SpyderCheckr manual, although you’ll notice a natural bias for their own product!

Finally, if you’d like to watch a video explaining the features and the supporting software for Datacolor’s SpyderChekr, you can watch this PhotokinaTV’s video featuring David Tobie, product technology manager for Datacolor:

Datacolor announces product similar to LensAlign

Datacolor SpyderLensCal
Datacolor SpyderLensCal - image from datacolor.com

Have I seen this before?

Yesterday, Datacolor announced a new addition to its “Spyder” line of calibration tools: the Spyder LensCal.  In many ways, it’s a spitting image of the LensAlign Pro I briefly reviewed here earlier this summer, and significantly less expensive at a suggested price of $59.00 (the LensAlign Pro sells for $180, while lensAlign Lite goes for $80).

While the design of the two systems is uncannily similar–an autofocus target with a ruler to the right–there is a significant difference between them: I see no way to confirm that the camera and the focus target are perfectly square to one another with the SpyderLensCal.  This is a significant advantage for the LensAlign, and in fact begs the question of just how accurate the Datacolor product could be if it is not feasible to make the target and camera square.  If they are skewed, so too will the out-of-focus areas, and the reliability of the product comes into question.

Furthermore, the SpyderLensCal offers no advice about the distance that should separate the camera from the target (only that it be “a fixed distance”), nor do they offer any clues about how much depth of field should be expected to be in front or fall behind the “0” point of the ruler.  (While the depth of field for many lenses is pretty much 49% in front of where you focus, and 51% behind it, with extremely wide focal lengths, such as 16mm, the depth-of-field shifts to become 40% in front and 60% behind the point of focus.)  I can already envision many of Datacolor’s customers having to rely upon LensAlign’s Web site for their online “Distance Tool.”

Of course, it will be interesting to see how these models really stack up once they can be compared side-by-side.  The SpyderLensCal will begin shipping in about three weeks, during Photokina.