A Canon Supertelephoto Zoom Lens Coming with EOS 6D Mark II? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

We’re told that the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=200-600">much discussed Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS</a> (or similar focal range) could possibly be announced alongside the Canon EOS 6D Mark II. All this source did was confirm to us that the new supertelephoto zoom lens will not be an “L”, but should complete quite favourably against the Sigma and Tamron offerings.</p>
<p>The announcement date is unknown, but the latest guess is a February CP+ announcement for the EOS 6D Mark II.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[neuroanatomist]

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.

 

[Sharlin]

I wonder if they're going to go with something a bit unorthodox like 550mm. Plus there's probably going to be some "rounding down" involved with the f/5.6 figure, as usual.

 

[mnclayshooter]

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.

f6.3 with 95??mm front element = 598mm maybe more in line? IIRC 95mm is the f.e. size on the tamron, which coincidently is also f6.3 on the long end.

 

[neuroanatomist]

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.

f6.3 with 95??mm front element = 598mm maybe more in line? IIRC 95mm is the f.e. size on the tamron, which coincidently is also f6.3 on the long end.

Given that Canon has repeatedly stated lenses require f/5.6 for AF on their dSLRs, and that Tamron/Sigma 'spoof' the body to allow AF, I really doubt Canon will release an f/6.3 lens for dSLRs. I could see a 200-500mm f/5.6 or even a 200-550mm f/4.x-5.6 as Sharlin suggests, since with rounding that could come in with a 95mm filter thread.

 

[mnclayshooter]

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.

f6.3 with 95??mm front element = 598mm maybe more in line? IIRC 95mm is the f.e. size on the tamron, which coincidently is also f6.3 on the long end.

Given that Canon has repeatedly stated lenses require f/5.6 for AF on their dSLRs, and that Tamron/Sigma 'spoof' the body to allow AF, I really doubt Canon will release an f/6.3 lens for dSLRs. I could see a 200-500mm f/5.6 or even a 200-550mm f/4.x-5.6 as Sharlin suggests, since with rounding that could come in with a 95mm filter thread.

Where I was headed, albeit without directly stating it, was the more recent provisions of f8 capable AF... with the probability of the 6D being "crippled" as some like to say it compared to the 5D and 1D lines, maybe they have a plan to allow it to get to f6.3 or possibly a center point only f8?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Where I was headed, albeit without directly stating it, was the more recent provisions of f8 capable AF... with the probability of the 6D being "crippled" as some like to say it compared to the 5D and 1D lines, maybe they have a plan to allow it to get to f6.3 or possibly a center point only f8?

An EF zoom lens that won't AF on all Canon dSLRs is probably a non-starter. Even if the 6D can AF at f/8, a Canon EF f/6.3 lens is not at all likely. Especially as a 'budget' option, if it won't AF on Canon's xxxD bodies, forget it.

 

[sanj]

Like.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Sigh...another zoom instead of a 400 or 500mm (less than $2K) prime.

 

[ahsanford]

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.

Agree. It would appear that the f/5.6 EF focusing requirement and 600mm do not coexist without an astronomical delta in price. Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6 VR would appear to be what is in order here.

Leave the 500-600 range to the Tamrons and Sigmas, which are f/6.3 on the long end.

- A

 

[unfocused]

I admit I'm both skeptical and hopeful. I'd love to have an option from Canon. I have the Sigma contemporary and it's actually quite good, if lacking a bit of contrast in my opinion. But, even that one is a heavy lens. Weight being a major reason why I chose the contemporary over the sports model.

But, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of Canon releasing a "bargain" 600mm zoom that is f5.6. For the reasons others have stated, it seems like it starts out as a pretty expensive proposition. I would hope they won't release a poorly performing lens. It's likely to be at least as expensive as the Sigma sports and maybe more, at the very cheapest. It seems like they would be better off to stick to 500 mm, paint it white, add a red ring and sell it for $2,500 - $3,000.

 

[Haydn1971]

Could this actually be something like a 150-450mm with f5.6 at the long end, with a built in flip extender that takes the f5.6 beyond the barrier to a higher f stop when in use ? That could come with an 82mm front element.

 

[ahsanford]

But, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of Canon releasing a "bargain" 600mm zoom that is f5.6. For the reasons others have stated, it seems like it starts out as a pretty expensive proposition. I would hope they won't release a poorly performing lens. It's likely to be at least as expensive as the Sigma sports and maybe more, at the very cheapest. It seems like they would be better off to stick to 500 mm, paint it white, add a red ring and sell it for $2,500 - $3,000.

+1. Make a 100-400L II in a 200-500 package and charge the corresponding price for it. $2,500 seems about right. ...or they make some plastic fantastic that is clearly sub-par to the big whites. I don't see it.

Canon should not lose one wink of sleep over the Tamron and Sigma offerings -- they are margin-prohibitive lenses that they can leave for the little guys to make.

I continue to see the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR (with first party AF, which is critical!) as the real threat to pull-through, stealing body sales from Canon, etc. It's a very, very solid lens for $1400 that is a clear and a present danger to Canon amateur wildlifers and birders, sales in the 7D brand, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon was selling that at cost in a gambit to boost D500 sales.

- A

 

[Gert Arijs]

I'm thinking of buying the Sigma Sport. Not the Tamron, even if the G2 is better, because Tamron zooms the other way (Nikon way) and Sigma zooms the right way (Canon way). It's very confusing for me to use two types of zooming directions. That was the only reason I switched from Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 to the Canon lenses...
Having an option from Canon over Sigma would be welcome!

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Sigh...another zoom instead of a 400 or 500mm (less than $2K) prime.

Totaly my words

 

[Steve Dmark2]

But making a competitor for Tamron and Sigma 150-600 makes sence in a commercial point of view.
And to make it competitor in price it can not be an L Lens.
So it will be not have

• Solid lens body
• Weather Sealing
• Perfekt IQ

Still, AF is always better, when putting a Canon lens on a Canon Body.


But still i'm not gonna buy it.
IF canon is never making an update of their 2k primes (300mm, 400mm)
I gonna buy the 100-400 IS ii first because it is a L-Lens.

Cheers,

 

[AvTvM]

I continue to see the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR ... a very, very solid lens for $1400 ...
I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon was selling that at cost in a gambit to boost D500 sales.

LOL! Nikon and Canon would be the last corporations selling anything "at cost". At max. they are only calculating 80% gross margin, instead of 100% ... i estimate "at cost" for that Nikon lens around 800.


As far as a Non-L Canon 200-xxx zoom is concerned, I'd also think along the lines of 200-550/4.5-5.6 ... also do not believe they'd make an f/6.3 EF lens. On the other hand, they just launched the second EF-M lens with f/6.3 on the long end ... but of course on mirrorless EOS-M system f/8 is no focusing issues.

 

[j-nord]

I'm not convinced Canon will cut any significant corners on a lens that costs around $2k. This could be a 'budget' L lens that comes in a bit under the 100-400ii performance but offers a longer end with out a TC/f8 AF.

 

[[email protected]]

Having had my 100-400 + 1.4x TC III glued to my 5D4 for the past few weeks, I'm pretty happy with doing wildlife at f/8 at about 600mm.

Give me an f/8 prime in that flavor, and you could have a filter size of 82 and a pretty reasonable price, especially without L build elements. If it beat the 100-400+TC in image quality - which means it'd be pretty darned good - $2k would be about right.

If the IQ isn't that good, then I think people would stick to the zoom.

I have difficulty seeing an f/5.6 600 primary element being reasonable in terms of girth, price or weight, but I would be happy to be wrong.

 

[ahsanford]

LOL! Nikon and Canon would be the last corporations selling anything "at cost". At max. they are only calculating 80% gross margin, instead of 100% ... i estimate "at cost" for that Nikon lens around 800.

C'mon. You know there's a lot more in a company's profit than how much it costs to build vs. how much it is sold for. There are middle men, tariffs, commissions, partnerships, etc. that cut into the manufacturer's profits.

So I am not for a moment saying that particular Nikon lens costs $1400 to make. I'm saying that Nikon may be giving up some/all of it's profit margin for that product to get the end price down to that very attractive $1400 asking price.

B&H, governments, etc. will still get their cut as Nikon cannot stop that from happening, but Nikon can slice into its own profits if they feel it will get pullthrough from other segments. Like Canon users who would give their left nut to get [longer than 400mm] + [retain first party AF] + [not need a teleconverter] for less than $9k.

With lenses, Nikon's usually far too busy trying to plug gaps / keep up with Canon than reach for blue water like this, so I give them credit here. They've shrewdly pegged a product gap and (IMHO) perfectly timed its release alongside the D500. It's a clear-as-day competitive share move, hence my not-so-zany theory Nikon might engineer a way to dangle a very lost cost lens to the 7D camp, birders, etc.

- A