Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC

[neuroanatomist]

<li>Teleconference insertion</li>

I like the idea of being able to insert a Teleconference. If we all get one, then we could confer over each shot.

+1  I teleconference when shooting with my 600 II, but I have to use my iPhone and BT headset for that - having a built in option means one less accessory to carry.   

[J.R.]

<li>Teleconference insertion</li>

I like the idea of being able to insert a Teleconference. If we all get one, then we could confer over each shot.

+1  I teleconference when shooting with my 600 II, but I have to use my iPhone and BT headset for that - having a built in option means one less accessory to carry.   

Yeah what an awesome feature...  And people say canon isn't innovating...  Take that Sony! 

[kirispupis]

I am right now diligently saving up for the 200-400/1.4x with hopes of purchasing one early next year.  A 300-600/5.6 sounds like an interesting lens, but personally I would prefer the 200-400 and would not consider purchasing a 300-600 because the 5.6 aperture limits AF and light as would the f8 aperture with the extender even more.

A 600/4 with an extender is a different issue, though I expect it to sell for $15k-$16k - making it far beyond my budget.  Still, paired with the 200-400 that would be a dream wildlife combo.

[vlim]

Now they handle the technic, Canon might think about a line of zooms with built in converter

i would like to see a 70-300 f/4 IS with x1.4

[9VIII]

600f4+1.4TC? Yes please!
If an 800f5.6II was significantly lighter and optically superior, then that would be my preferred choice, but as is I would take either one.

[AlanF]

Now they handle the technic, Canon might think about a line of zooms with built in converter

i would like to see a 70-300 f/4 IS with x1.4

Why? It's unlikely to be as good as the old 100-400 at 400, and probably much worse than a new 100-400mm II, and even less likely to be seen.

[Vern]

I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.

Been wishing for this since the 200-400 w built-in 1.4 was announced. Actually, I think there is a good rationale for building a 1.4 into all the superteles above 400mm. The added weight/cost will not outweigh (puny) the extra usability for the intended consumers. I know I often switch the 1.4 on and off my 600 when stalking wildlife and it requires too much fiddling around - even if you get 'good' at it. I'm less enamored of the big zooms just b/c I need the speed and reach of the primes in 99% of my photo situations. Having a built-in 1.4 gives you that little bit of quick flexibility to frame the shot better. And quickly switch from say a whitetail at 40 yards (600) to a chickadee at 15 yards (840).

[jrista]

I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.

Ditto, that would be amazing. Not that I would buy one...I can't imagine selling the 600/4 II I just bought this year, and the existing TC's work excellent on it...but the convenience of just flipping a switch would indeed be nice.


I'm intrigued by the 300-600 f/5.6 TC. Quite intriguing. I never expected to see a zoom in such a focal length from Canon. Maybe we never will, but the fact that they are researching it is indeed intriguing.

[jrista]

The FD version was 150-600/5.6.  So should this be.  300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough.  Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.

You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.

[hoodlum]

I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.

Been wishing for this since the 200-400 w built-in 1.4 was announced. Actually, I think there is a good rationale for building a 1.4 into all the superteles above 400mm. The added weight/cost will not outweigh (puny) the extra usability for the intended consumers. I know I often switch the 1.4 on and off my 600 when stalking wildlife and it requires too much fiddling around - even if you get 'good' at it. I'm less enamored of the big zooms just b/c I need the speed and reach of the primes in 99% of my photo situations. Having a built-in 1.4 gives you that little bit of quick flexibility to frame the shot better. And quickly switch from say a whitetail at 40 yards (600) to a chickadee at 15 yards (840).

The problem is that the added cost to us is significantly greater than the cost for Canon to add the 1.4x TC capability.  It is a cash cow for them and so it is no surpise they would want to extend this to longer focal lengths.  Just don't be surprised when you see the price.

The Tamron can't get here soon enough.

[jrista]

I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.

Been wishing for this since the 200-400 w built-in 1.4 was announced. Actually, I think there is a good rationale for building a 1.4 into all the superteles above 400mm. The added weight/cost will not outweigh (puny) the extra usability for the intended consumers. I know I often switch the 1.4 on and off my 600 when stalking wildlife and it requires too much fiddling around - even if you get 'good' at it. I'm less enamored of the big zooms just b/c I need the speed and reach of the primes in 99% of my photo situations. Having a built-in 1.4 gives you that little bit of quick flexibility to frame the shot better. And quickly switch from say a whitetail at 40 yards (600) to a chickadee at 15 yards (840).

The problem is that the added cost to us is significantly greater than the cost for Canon to add the 1.4x TC capability.  It is a cash cow for them and so it is no surpise they would want to extend this to longer focal lengths.  Just don't be surprised when you see the price.

The Tamron can't get here soon enough.

Initial prices can indeed be scary high, but if you wait, and time your purchase well, you can get unbelievably incredible deals. I bought the 600mm f/4 L IS II this year. The lens listed for $12799 at the time, and one sale had it for around $12500. I purchased mine for $10,860 thanks to a sale in a Canadian store. Even after the import costs, it was still less than $11,000. Just because the list price is a shocker, doesn't mean you actually spend that much buying it. I suspect a 300-600 f/5.6 will land in the realm of $13000 to $15000. I suspect people will buy it for around $11000 to $13000 over the long term, until an official price drop occurs a few years down the road.

[ME]

I dont think it will happen. But it's fun to dream. Besides, there is already the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with built-in 2x teleconverter. That means 400-1000@f5.6. And you get all of that for only $26,000. And it weighs only 34.54 lb. What more could you ask for?

[eml58]

The 300-600 is a possibility, but I'de not hold my breath waiting, I could only imagine a quite small market, but when you consider the size of the 200-400, I wouldn't imagine the 300-600 being much bigger in size than the current 600, slightly heavier, as is the case of the 200-400 over the 400f/2.8 II. Price ?? I'de imagine a similar premium that we have on the 400f/2.8 to the 200-400f/4, So around 20% more expensive than the current 600f/4 II.

The 600f/4 (1.4x) I see as a definite, Nikon are offering their own Long Lenses now with a dedicated Converter as part of the package, albeit it's similar to what is currently being offered but tuned to the particular Lens, which I feel is a good idea.

Having the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) I immediately saw the possibilities for Canon with the built in 1.4x Converter especially if it was offered as a "Build to Order" option on the 400/500/600/800, that way they could keep the standard no converter Models as they currently do, and the current prices, but have the more expensive "Option" for those that see the benefit and can afford it of the Built in Converter & don't mind waiting 6 months for a Special Build Option.

If they offer it up I'm certainly offloading my current 600f/4 II & jumping into the 600 with the Built in Converter, great idea.

Need Gura Gear to make a slightly longer Battaflea 32L Bag then, currently the 600f/4 fits one side, just (but not with the 1.4x Attached), and the 200-400f/4 the other side.

[scyrene]

If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.

[jrista]

If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.

Personally, I totally agree. But I think it depends on what you shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer, I am pretty happy with a fixed focal length, or at least one that can be changed with a TC if needed, especially when I am mobile.

However, if I was a sports photographer, sitting in a fixed location, I could see the value of having not only a supertele zoom lens, but one with a built in TC to instantly change that zoom range when I felt I needed it. Sometimes you might want to get right in on a pitcher's face at 840mm, where as at other times you might want the relatively "wide" field of 300mm when tracing a runner to a base while the ball is being thrown in (just to throw out an entirely random, fabricated example. ;P)

It seems the 200-400/4+TC has taken pretty well to wildlifers, but I think the focal range fits there. I think a 300-600/5.6+TC could fit in very well with sports photographers, especially those with a 1D X.