New Lenses in January [CR1]

[tron]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS?  the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.  I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm.  for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6.  why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

+1.  right behind you on that.

+1 +1 +1

If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.
But, maybe other companies will produce such a lens.
One of our cardiotechnicans owns an 70-200 Tamron 2.8 with an lot of letters behind. A lens of about 700 Euros. The lens makes wonderful pictures. My 70-200 2.8 LII too. But I paid nearly 2500€ for it.
So maybe tamron or another company will produce such a lens for us.
Maybe not as sharp as the original 7k Canons. But maybe a buyable 3,5k one...

If the 400 f/4L will cost so much (which I find very likely by the way) it will have to be a stellar lens. Otherwise the light and small 400/4.0 DO will suddenly look more interesting 

[jthomson]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS?  the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.  I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm.  for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6.  why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?

Sigma could probably do it.  Their 120-300mm F2.8 was around $3000  before the recent remodeling. 
So they could do a similarly priced 400mm f4, maybe even a bit cheaper as primes use less glass, but their 300mm f2.8 prime was about the same price as the zoom so I would expect they'd charge a little more for a 400mm.

Sigmas' 500mm zooms are only f6.3 which is why they are not hugely expensive.  Their 500mm f4.5 is around $5000

[tron]

Sigmas' 500mm zooms are only f6.3 which is why they are not hugely expensive.  Their 500mm f4.5 is around $5000

In that case a 500mm f/5.6 lens would have reasonable cost say 2-3.5K  even with stabilizer add on it...

[Steinn]

I should like to see a 400/5.6IS or a /4.5 as they in the FD-days

[neuroanatomist]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS?  the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.

The Sigma xxx-500mm zooms aren't 500mm f/5.6, they are 500mm f/6.3.  Sure, that doesn't sound like much...but 500/5.6 = 89mm, whereas 500/6.3 = 79mm.  So, that innocent-sounding 1/3-stop translates to some elements needing to be 27% larger in area (which, of course, is the exact reason those less expensive Sigma zooms only open up to f/6.3).  I wouldn't expect Canon to start releasing f/6.3 max aperture lenses anytime soon, and likewise, I expect high cost barrier to get over 420mm with a Canon lens that can AF on most bodies will remain in place.

[tron]

What if Canon with their know-how improve the quality of their 400 f/4.0 DO lens? That would produce an expensive lens but it would outshine others in terms of portability.

[kubelik]

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS?  the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.

The Sigma xxx-500mm zooms aren't 500mm f/5.6, they are 500mm f/6.3.  Sure, that doesn't sound like much...but 500/5.6 = 89mm, whereas 500/6.3 = 79mm.  So, that innocent-sounding 1/3-stop translates to some elements needing to be 27% larger in area (which, of course, is the exact reason those less expensive Sigma zooms only open up to f/6.3).  I wouldn't expect Canon to start releasing f/6.3 max aperture lenses anytime soon, and likewise, I expect high cost barrier to get over 420mm with a Canon lens that can AF on most bodies will remain in place.

still, the Sigma 500 f/4.5 is only $5K, and so a Sigma 500 f/5.6 would be, in my book at least, probably a reasonably-priced lens (especially for the length).  Frankly though, I'd be happy with a true 480mm f/5.6, or 450mm f/5.6 ... anything to get out of the 400-420 range

[FarQinell]

<p>The second is said to be an EF 400 f/4L IS, no mention of it being a DO lens. With the price of the coming EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, mixed with the also expensive 400 f/4 DO IS, there is probably a big market for a 400 f/4 prime that is “affordable”.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]
[/quote]

Maybe this new 400/4 - if it ever comes - could have an integral 1.4TC - like the long awaited 200-400/4!
Don't hold your breath though you probably would have to wait years for it!

[jthomson]

Got into a bit of an arguement on another forum.
Produced this graph to back up my lens pricing.
Thought you might like to see it as well.
The blue dots are the following data taken from B&H
The Red dots are the estimated prices for new lenses based on the regressed equation of the data.


 B&H   $   (L/f)   Lens
1049   ( 36)   100mm f2.8L IS
5999   ( 100)   EF-200 f2L IS
7249   ( 107)   EF-300 f2.8L IS II
11499   (143)   EF-400 f2.8L IS II
10499   (125)   EF-500 f4L IS II
12999   (150)   EF-600 f4L IS II
13899   (143)   EF-800 f5.6L IS

[neuroanatomist]

Nice graph, but flawed (sorry!). Maybe it won't change the conclusion, but you're plotting iris diaphragm max diameter (focal length / f-number), and while that seems reasonable for a telephoto lens design, it breaks down for other lens designs. So, the 100L Macro that anchors the bottom of your regression curve isn't a valid data point (consider - what would the 14L would do to your curve, L/f = 5, $2124?).

The 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 are current and should be included, as should the other tele primes, the 135L and 200/2.8L II.  I'd like to see the re-plot including those but excluding the 100L Macro.

[jthomson]

Revised graph without the 100mm macro IS.  This is a telephoto but it does shift the cost up a little.
The 200mm f2.8L, 300mm f4L and 400mm f4.6L weren't included as they are all old designs, they are  not weather sealed and 2 of them don't have IS. 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks!

Revised graph without the 100mm macro IS.  This is a telephoto but it does shift the cost up a little.
The 200mm f2.8L, 300mm f4L and 400mm f4.6L weren't included as they are all old designs, they are  not weather sealed and 2 of them don't have IS.

No, the 100L Macro is not a telephoto lens design.  I'm not talking about the focal length.  Compare the block diagrams on Canon's 'museum' (note the relative sizes of elements in front of vs. behind the iris diaphragm), and/or read Roger Cicala's articles on lens design types.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.

Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.

[neuroanatomist]

Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.

Only a 500/5.6 has even a chance at coming in under $5K, and a 600/5.6 would cost more than the 300/2.8.  Are those 'cheaper' enough to matter?

Honestly, Canon's real 'cash cow' lens is the 18-55mm Rebel/xxxD kit lens, followed closely by the 55-250mm. I infer that because Canon released MkII versions of both lenses where the only changes were aimed at a small reduction in the unit production costs, which puts more cash in the cow.

As has been discussed (ad infinitum!), pricing takes expected sales volume into account with an inverse relationship.  Also, the superteles, with their stand-out white paint (that Canon just made even whiter) are advertising for Canon at every sporting event.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.

Only a 500/5.6 has even a chance at coming in under $5K, and a 600/5.6 would cost more than the 300/2.8.  Are those 'cheaper' enough to matter?

Personally (= hobbyist, with my current income), I would consider <$5K cheap enough to matter.

Honestly, Canon's real 'cash cow' lens is the 18-55mm Rebel/xxxD kit lens, followed closely by the 55-250mm. <snip>

As has been discussed (ad infinitum!), pricing takes expected sales volume into account with an inverse relationship.

My impression is Canon doesn't sell enough superteles for those to be cash cows, which is another way to say pretty much the same thing.

... which is why I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).