December 11, 2017, 12:52:26 AM

Author Topic: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]  (Read 10820 times)

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5831
  • USM > STM
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2017, 11:41:46 AM »
It's not just Canon playing around with a 200-600 lens idea.

https://www.dailycameranews.com/2017/11/sony-fe-200-600mm-lens-works/

That a 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS would be offered for $1200 from anyone, let alone Sony, is madness.

You either chip away at the long end of the FL scale and cap it at 500, you allow f/6.3 or f/8 max aperture at the long end, or it costs a mint. 

(all lenses below are f/5-6.3)
Tamron 150-600 --> 95mm front filter --> $869, 1399 (for the two versions)
Sigma 150-600 C --> 95mm front filter --> $989
Sigma 150-600 S --> 105mm front filter --> $1799

Theoretical Canon 200-600 f/5.6 IS --> 107mm front filter + a dire threat to 100-400L sales = pricey.

Hypothetical Canon 200-500 f/5.6 IS --> 90mm front filter + a small threat to 100-400L sales = doable, but still not cheap. 

- A

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2017, 11:41:46 AM »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5831
  • USM > STM
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2017, 11:45:10 AM »
Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

And Nikon's adverts will all but write themselves:

"Buy a Canon 200-500 lens or buy a Nikon D500 + 200-500 lens for the same money."

If this is an enthusiast wildlifer's tool, the economics matter.  If it's just another L superwhite, perhaps less so.

- A

SkynetTX

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2017, 12:37:17 PM »
Even an EF-S 200-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM would be good. An EF 200-500 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM or an EF 200-600 f/4.5-6.3 IS USM would be even better to complement the 70-200 lenses. Whatever it will be let's hope it will not be equipped with focus-by-wire technology. If it will have STM or NanoUSM focus motor I surely won't buy it no matter how cheap it will be and will wait for a third party lens that supports FullTime Manual focusing instead.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6293
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2017, 01:19:37 PM »
Take a look at Canon's current "non-L" telephoto lenses....

$200 - EF-S 55-250 (F5.6)
$200 - EF 75-300 (F5.6)
$300 - EF-S 55-250 STM (F5.6)
$400 - EF-S 18-135  (F5.6)
$450 - EF 70-300 (F5.6)
$500 - EF 70-300 II (F5.6)
$600 - EF-S 18-135 IS (F5.6)
$700 - EF-S 18-200 (F5.6)

Clue number 1 - they are low cost.
Clue number 2 - They are all F5.6

Odds are that this new "Non-L" telephoto lens will be low cost and F5.6. That rules out all the 500mm and 600mm variants. About the biggest thing you could see that would maintain that F5.6 size and keep low cost would be something that ends at 400mm and is not a superzoom.... the 70-300 sells quite well, a 70-400 would be a likely upgrade.

The best camera is the one in your hands

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6588
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2017, 01:24:05 PM »
It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......

And there in lies a point I have never been able to fathom. How is $1,500-2,000 cheap or good value if it isn't a good performer?

For a touch more money get a secondhand EF 300 f2.8IS MkI and a TC.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3175
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2017, 02:11:37 PM »
It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......

And there in lies a point I have never been able to fathom. How is $1,500-2,000 cheap or good value if it isn't a good performer?

For a touch more money get a secondhand EF 300 f2.8IS MkI and a TC.
The 300/2.8 MkI = 2xTC weighs a thumping 3.275 kg with hood attached. The TDPs copy at 600mm isn't as good as a Sigma 150-600mm sport https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 and my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C approached my 300mm/2.8 MkII + 2xTC in terms of IQ.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2017, 02:14:46 PM »
My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2017, 02:14:46 PM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3812
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2017, 02:25:30 PM »
We will have to agree to disagree.

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

Canon needs a cheap competitor to the Nikon 200-500.  It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap, because this attracts people to the Nikon system as a lens that is made for hobbyists but marketed as good enough for pros (even though it isn't).

What people who are already in the hobby want in that space want is a superior lens to the Sigma 150-600, at a price that they can afford...

Canon doesn't need a cheap competitor to the Nikon. Canon users can already buy a cheap competitor to the Nikon. In fact they have several choices from Sigma and Tamron. In fact, those lenses offer an extra 100mm in length and at least two are cheaper than the Nikon while offering optics that are at least as good.

No evidence at all that the Nikon combination is hurting Canon. In fact, given a choice between a weak 500mm offering and a superior 400mm zoom, the smarter choice is the 100-400II for not much more money.

Why should Canon offer a compromised and more expensive alternative to the Sigma and Tamron that won't net them much profit if any, just because Nikon fell into that trap.

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

And Nikon's adverts will all but write themselves:

"Buy a Canon 200-500 lens or buy a Nikon D500 + 200-500 lens for the same money."

If this is an enthusiast wildlifer's tool, the economics matter.  If it's just another L superwhite, perhaps less so.

- A

Again, I disagree. Ignore the fact for a minute that neither Canon nor Nikon market their products in that way, and think about the logic here for a minute.

Buy a Nikon and get soft images, or invest in a lens that will give you sharp images from that $10,000 safari.

I guess it all boils down to the market and the capacity of the buyers. I see Canon focusing on enthusiasts who have the resources and desire to invest in high quality products because the cost of that investment is just a part of their overall investment. If you are over 50 (which I am by a long shot) you are likely inundated with daily solicitations from travel companies offering trips of a lifetime costing thousands of dollars for a week to 10 days. That, I believe, is the likely market for these lenses -- enthusiasts who travel to Alaska, Africa, Australia, Central America, the U.S. National Parks, etc. etc., and want to bring back professional quality images. The people who are going on the thousands of workshops being offered by pro photographers who can no longer earn a living from selling their pictures, but are reduced to being overpriced tour guides for enthusiasts with disposable income.

The great unknown, as I said before, is what the market will bear. The entire trend in the photo industry is toward higher end enthusiasts with disposable income. I don't see Canon bucking that trend, rather I see them pushing the limits with products that test where the upper limits are.   

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5831
  • USM > STM
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2017, 02:36:39 PM »
My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?

Because birders are unreasonable souls and $9k+ prime will do a better job.   ;D

In truth, a 200-500mm f/5.6 for $1400 (even a 500 f/5.6 prime at that price) will have to make some tradeoffs in the optical design, AF system, IS, construction, etc. to hit that price point.

Some see that Nikon for what it is -- a gift of a lens that lets you shoot 500mm FF with first party AF and without a teleconverter.  Even a 'B' lens optically would be a steal at that price if the AF works reasonably well.

Others would say it's IQ or bust and point out more expensive options that might do a better job (e.g. 100-400L II + T/C).

Again, there's no pleasing folks here, but Canon would be wise to have a better price point strategy than this menu of options of shooting longer than 400mm FF on the EF mount with first party AF:

400 f/5.6L prime + 1.4x T/C III = $1278
300 f/4L IS + 2x T/C III = $1778 
100-400L II IS + 1.4x T/C III = $2428

(then a cliff emerges)

400 f/4 IS DO II + 1.4x T/C III = $7328
500 f/4L IS II = $8999
600 f/4L IS II = $11499

Again, the Nikon value proposition is a compelling one: 500mm f/5.6 + IS + first party AF without the drawbacks of T/C use for $1400. 

- A
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 02:40:46 PM by ahsanford »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5831
  • USM > STM
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2017, 02:39:16 PM »
Canon doesn't need a cheap competitor to the Nikon. Canon users can already buy a cheap competitor to the Nikon. In fact they have several choices from Sigma and Tamron. In fact, those lenses offer an extra 100mm in length and at least two are cheaper than the Nikon while offering optics that are at least as good.

No evidence at all that the Nikon combination is hurting Canon. In fact, given a choice between a weak 500mm offering and a superior 400mm zoom, the smarter choice is the 100-400II for not much more money.

Why should Canon offer a compromised and more expensive alternative to the Sigma and Tamron that won't net them much profit if any, just because Nikon fell into that trap.

Agree, of course, Canon is not forced to do anything.  Nikon is gambling they can steal budding birding/wildlife enthusiasts over to their side of the ledger and (likely) sell more D500 bodies in the process.

If Canon has data to suggest that might be happening, they can either fold their arms and say 'bah humbug!' or they can revisit plans for a longer/cheaper zoom and (possibly) accelerate 7D3 timing.

- A

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6588
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2017, 03:00:27 PM »
It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......

And there in lies a point I have never been able to fathom. How is $1,500-2,000 cheap or good value if it isn't a good performer?

For a touch more money get a secondhand EF 300 f2.8IS MkI and a TC.
The 300/2.8 MkI = 2xTC weighs a thumping 3.275 kg with hood attached. The TDPs copy at 600mm isn't as good as a Sigma 150-600mm sport https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 and my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C approached my 300mm/2.8 MkII + 2xTC in terms of IQ.

My Canon 300 2.8IS MkI and 2x TC MkII blew the socks off my POS 150-600 Sigma in resolution, focus speed and accuracy. Just goes to show the value of a sample of one or two.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Lurker

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2017, 04:12:24 PM »
Quote
My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?

1) Because this is a site for Canon users.
2) Sure in tiny book size maybe they're fine.  Blow those puppies up to 3x5 ft. posters and they'll look like mush. You'll probably have to stand back at least 10 feet to make them look good.

 ;)  ::)


reef58

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2017, 04:38:04 PM »
Canon would have to give this lens away at non-existent margins (much like I suspect Nikon is doing the same with their 200-500 5.6 VR).

Consider me exceptionally skeptical of this rumor.

A 600 f5.6 requires an apparent aperture of over 107mm (exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 ) a 500 f5.6 can get by without 'bending the figures' with a smaller than 90mm apparent aperture. There is no way on earth Canon can be competitive with a 200-500 in a 200-600 of the same aperture. They can't fudge the figures like the third parties do either.

In my opinion that leaves a 200-600 f5.6 >$4,000 'cheap lens' option and a 200-500 f5.6 $2,500 competitive option. You can't make a 107mm front element down to the price range of a 90mm front element out of anything but the bottom of a beer glass, and that would suck anyway.

You can buy a 4" APO refractor nowadays for less than $1000 (ED Glass), so it can be done on a budget.

Hmm, so $1,000 for the big bit of glass and a tube that doesn't focus much closer than the moon and has an image circle smaller than APS-C?

Makes my figures sound even more realistic  ;)

I am not sure where you get the focusing information but that is incorrect.  That being said my point was for an ED front element for the lens we referenced the costs is less than $1,000, so the lens could be manufactured for a reasonable costs if it is built similar to the 70-300L.  It doesn't have to cost $5000.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2017, 04:38:04 PM »

neonlight

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 61
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2017, 05:19:39 PM »
Some thoughts ...
Got to be less than $/£2000 to protect 100-400II
Preferably xxx-600mm.
If f5.6 has to be expensive but if plasticky, not weather sealed might trade off build for reach
Could this be an EF-S 200-600 only? Perhaps but unlikely.
My guess: EF 200-600f/5.6 fly by wire STM plasticky thingy. Will give adequate quality, cost £/$2500 (some folks may pay for the reach over the 100-400) Another guess - black, not compatible with TC?

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3175
Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2017, 05:28:06 PM »
It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......

And there in lies a point I have never been able to fathom. How is $1,500-2,000 cheap or good value if it isn't a good performer?

For a touch more money get a secondhand EF 300 f2.8IS MkI and a TC.
The 300/2.8 MkI = 2xTC weighs a thumping 3.275 kg with hood attached. The TDPs copy at 600mm isn't as good as a Sigma 150-600mm sport https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 and my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C approached my 300mm/2.8 MkII + 2xTC in terms of IQ.

My Canon 300 2.8IS MkI and 2x TC MkII blew the socks off my POS 150-600 Sigma in resolution, focus speed and accuracy. Just goes to show the value of a sample of one or two.

You are absolutely correct about basing an opinion on one or two copies - you must have had a rubbish copy of a 150-600mm.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2017, 05:28:06 PM »