At Least Two Big White Lenses Coming Ahead of Photokina [CR3]

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
2,953
531
Irving, Texas
Great news! I'll have the $ scraped together for the version after this new version.

Seriously, there is no reason why, in 2018, a great white should cost more than a nifty fifty. And there's no reason why a nifty fifty shouldn't also have a switch that turns it into an EF 800mm f/1.2L. C'mon Canon!

Que the Canapoligists in 3, 2, 1...
 

Cryve

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2018
69
15
Germany
unfocused said:
ahsanford said:
Cryve said:
why would canon release a 200-500 5.6 though? it would cannibalize their excelent 100-400 if it were cheaper than that.
Possibly, but it depends on how they do it. A plasticky, non-sealed, non-L 200-500 f/5.6 IS STM for $1500 will not cannibalize the 100-400L II, which would be a much better built instrument.

- A
Who says it has to be cheaper?

An "L" quality 200-500 f5.6 priced at $2,500 to $3,000 would still sell very well. Rather than compete in the overcrowded bargain market, it makes more sense for Canon to produce a stellar 500 f5.6 zoom that makes a nice companion to its other "L" zooms, the 100-400 and the 70-300.
i would love such a lens. if it can be handhold and matches the image quality of the 100-400 II AND could take a n 1.4 extender well i would be all over this lens. wet dream for birdphotographer that likes flexibility and mobility
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,941
468
unfocused said:
Who says it has to be cheaper?

An "L" quality 200-500 f5.6 priced at $2,500 to $3,000 would still sell very well. Rather than compete in the overcrowded bargain market, it makes more sense for Canon to produce a stellar 500 f5.6 zoom that makes a nice companion to its other "L" zooms, the 100-400 and the 70-300.
No one says it has to be cheaper, but Nikon already has a 200-500 f/5.6 IS for $1400. Canon might not want to be off on its own pricing-wise in this market segment as a result.

I'm not saying an 'unresponded to' budget 200-500 is a dire threat to Canon, but it is a hell of a value.

- A
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
ahsanford said:
unfocused said:
Who says it has to be cheaper?

An "L" quality 200-500 f5.6 priced at $2,500 to $3,000 would still sell very well. Rather than compete in the overcrowded bargain market, it makes more sense for Canon to produce a stellar 500 f5.6 zoom that makes a nice companion to its other "L" zooms, the 100-400 and the 70-300.
No one says it has to be cheaper, but Nikon already has a 200-500 f/5.6 IS for $1400. Canon might not want to be off on its own pricing-wise in this market segment as a result.

I'm not saying an 'unresponded to' budget 200-500 is a dire threat to Canon, but it is a hell of a value.

- A
I would argue that Nikon is the outlier here. They've chosen to compete head to head against bargain lenses from Sigma and Tamron and even went under the Sigma Sport. Completely out of character for Nikon, Canon or Sony.

I don't see Canon wanting to devalue its brand in this way and given that they've taken their time to "answer" these bargain zooms, I don't think they see them as a threat. I've got the Sigma contemporary. It's a fine lens but it's no 100-400.

A similar Canon would not entice me to dump the Sigma. But, if Canon made a 500 f5.6 with IS (either zoom or prime) that's as sharp and responsive as the 100-400 zoom, I'd be all over it and happily save my pennies to buy it even at twice the price of the 100-400.

I'm guessing there are a lot of other bird and sports photographers who would do the same.

Still, this is all fantasy. I have no illusion about Canon releasing such a lens this fall. If it ever comes, it will be paired with a 7DIII release.
 

Cryve

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2018
69
15
Germany
unfocused said:
If it ever comes, it will be paired with a 7DIII release.
which is a real possability for this photokina with the newest post from cr claiming that a fullflame mirrorless from canon wont take the spotlight this fall.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
I hope that the 600 DO F4 is announced and available soon.

I can dream can't I?
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,232
250
Southeastern USA
Responding here to a question asked in another thread, heck yes, I'm waiting to see what the mirrorless mount is before making my first Big White (or tilt-shift) purchase.
 

Ladislav

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2013
313
30
37
Czech Republic
unfocused said:
ahsanford said:
Cryve said:
why would canon release a 200-500 5.6 though? it would cannibalize their excelent 100-400 if it were cheaper than that.
Possibly, but it depends on how they do it. A plasticky, non-sealed, non-L 200-500 f/5.6 IS STM for $1500 will not cannibalize the 100-400L II, which would be a much better built instrument.

- A
Who says it has to be cheaper?

An "L" quality 200-500 f5.6 priced at $2,500 to $3,000 would still sell very well. Rather than compete in the overcrowded bargain market, it makes more sense for Canon to produce a stellar 500 f5.6 zoom that makes a nice companion to its other "L" zooms, the 100-400 and the 70-300.
I would go for that lens immediately and sell my Sigma. It would nicely complement my 70-300L and 70-200L MkII. and it would still be in affordable range.
 

davidcl0nel

Canon 5D3, 17 TSE, 35 IS, 100 L, 70-200 2.8 IS II
Jan 11, 2014
132
3
Berlin
www.flickr.com
A 600 DO would be expensive too.
But a 500 DO f/5.6 IS with a diameter of 90mm front element (with 95mm filter size) and a price tag of <1500€ would be nice. I think most of the current buyer of an 150-600 (Sigma, Tamron, ..) buy it because of the affordable maximum zoom value - and could live with 500mm, if it is very very sharp, because you don't need to calculate it for several different mm, you only have 500mm.
If it is >2500€ or so, it is not for consumer anyway. And then I don't care about 6000€ (400 DO) or 10.000€ (400 f/2.8).
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,232
250
Southeastern USA
davidcl0nel said:
A 600 DO would be expensive too.
But a 500 DO f/5.6 IS with a diameter of 90mm front element (with 95mm filter size) and a price tag of <1500€ would be nice. I think most of the current buyer of an 150-600 (Sigma, Tamron, ..) buy it because of the affordable maximum zoom value - and could live with 500mm, if it is very very sharp, because you don't need to calculate it for several different mm, you only have 500mm.
If it is >2500€ or so, it is not for consumer anyway. And then I don't care about 6000€ (400 DO) or 10.000€ (400 f/2.8).

If using a zoom, what need to "calculate"? Just zoom to frame as desired. ???
 

Trigger

I'm New Here
Jul 3, 2018
15
3
Canada
Does "ahead of Photokina" possibly mean sooner rather than later, or just before Photokina?

I was ready to buy a new 500 II this week, but am definitely waiting now to see what these new releases are.
 

davidcl0nel

Canon 5D3, 17 TSE, 35 IS, 100 L, 70-200 2.8 IS II
Jan 11, 2014
132
3
Berlin
www.flickr.com
YuengLinger said:
davidcl0nel said:
A 600 DO would be expensive too.
But a 500 DO f/5.6 IS with a diameter of 90mm front element (with 95mm filter size) and a price tag of <1500€ would be nice. I think most of the current buyer of an 150-600 (Sigma, Tamron, ..) buy it because of the affordable maximum zoom value - and could live with 500mm, if it is very very sharp, because you don't need to calculate it for several different mm, you only have 500mm.
If it is >2500€ or so, it is not for consumer anyway. And then I don't care about 6000€ (400 DO) or 10.000€ (400 f/2.8).
I meant the optical calculation, which is optimized to several points, not always the full range.
A prime lense does not have this problem. ;)

If using a zoom, what need to "calculate"? Just zoom to frame as desired. ???
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
Ladislav said:
unfocused said:
ahsanford said:
Cryve said:
why would canon release a 200-500 5.6 though? it would cannibalize their excelent 100-400 if it were cheaper than that.
Possibly, but it depends on how they do it. A plasticky, non-sealed, non-L 200-500 f/5.6 IS STM for $1500 will not cannibalize the 100-400L II, which would be a much better built instrument.

- A
Who says it has to be cheaper?

An "L" quality 200-500 f5.6 priced at $2,500 to $3,000 would still sell very well. Rather than compete in the overcrowded bargain market, it makes more sense for Canon to produce a stellar 500 f5.6 zoom that makes a nice companion to its other "L" zooms, the 100-400 and the 70-300.
I would go for that lens immediately and sell my Sigma. It would nicely complement my 70-300L and 70-200L MkII. and it would still be in affordable range.
agree. drop the sigma which is okay but not as sharp as the Canon. The Contemporary is rather light, only real benefit
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
Trigger said:
Does "ahead of Photokina" possibly mean sooner rather than later, or just before Photokina?

I was ready to buy a new 500 II this week, but am definitely waiting now to see what these new releases are.
just because it is announced does not mean it will be available. Remember the 200-400, it took a year or more (or so it seemed) between annoucement and first shipment
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
unfocused said:
timmy_650 said:
unfocused said:
ahsanford said:
Cryve said:
why would canon release a 200-500 5.6 though? it would cannibalize their excelent 100-400 if it were cheaper than that.
Possibly, but it depends on how they do it. A plasticky, non-sealed, non-L 200-500 f/5.6 IS STM for $1500 will not cannibalize the 100-400L II, which would be a much better built instrument.

- A
Who says it has to be cheaper?

An "L" quality 200-500 f5.6 priced at $2,500 to $3,000 would still sell very well. Rather than compete in the overcrowded bargain market, it makes more sense for Canon to produce a stellar 500 f5.6 zoom that makes a nice companion to its other "L" zooms, the 100-400 and the 70-300.
If it is too nice then it will hurt your 200-400 f4. which is also that FL. So I don't see that too likely.
The 200-400 "L" is a very specialized lens. I suspect sales of the lens are a tiny fraction of the "affordable" 100-400 f5.6. I think Canon would happily cut into the sales of the 200-400 f4, with a lens that would likely sell at a rate of 100 to 1.
Depends upon the price point and the profit per lens.

At a 100 to 1, sure nearly anything would work, I doubt that a $3000 lens would sell 100 to 1 over the 200-400.

Perhaps 10 to 1 if optical quality was great.

But there are other factors to consider. How differentiate the lens is from their own line up and competition. Will it help Canon claim leadership positioning, provide technical know how for the next generation of lens, ...
 

Trigger

I'm New Here
Jul 3, 2018
15
3
Canada
RGF said:
Just because it is announced does not mean it will be available. Remember the 200-400? It took a year or more (or so it seemed) between announcement and first shipment
Gah. Still, if there is a "III" version on the horizon, even if it's a year away, I feel that buying a 500 II at this time would be unwise.
 

Ladislav

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2013
313
30
37
Czech Republic
RGF said:
unfocused said:
timmy_650 said:
unfocused said:
ahsanford said:
Cryve said:
why would canon release a 200-500 5.6 though? it would cannibalize their excelent 100-400 if it were cheaper than that.
Possibly, but it depends on how they do it. A plasticky, non-sealed, non-L 200-500 f/5.6 IS STM for $1500 will not cannibalize the 100-400L II, which would be a much better built instrument.

- A
Who says it has to be cheaper?

An "L" quality 200-500 f5.6 priced at $2,500 to $3,000 would still sell very well. Rather than compete in the overcrowded bargain market, it makes more sense for Canon to produce a stellar 500 f5.6 zoom that makes a nice companion to its other "L" zooms, the 100-400 and the 70-300.
If it is too nice then it will hurt your 200-400 f4. which is also that FL. So I don't see that too likely.
The 200-400 "L" is a very specialized lens. I suspect sales of the lens are a tiny fraction of the "affordable" 100-400 f5.6. I think Canon would happily cut into the sales of the 200-400 f4, with a lens that would likely sell at a rate of 100 to 1.
Depends upon the price point and the profit per lens.

At a 100 to 1, sure nearly anything would work, I doubt that a $3000 lens would sell 100 to 1 over the 200-400.

Perhaps 10 to 1 if optical quality was great.

But there are other factors to consider. How differentiate the lens is from their own line up and competition. Will it help Canon claim leadership positioning, provide technical know how for the next generation of lens, ...
There are other factors to consider like:

[ul]
  • Many photographers who wanted 200-400 or 100-400 already bought it. 200-500 would not cannibalize those sales which have already been done.
  • For new sales, those lenses could probably still coexist next to each other, the same way as 70-200L f4, 70-300L and 100-400L can coexist while someone could come and say that some can cannibalize sales of another one.
  • Because at the end it is better if Canon product cannibalize sales of another Canon product than if third party product cannibalize sales of Canon product.
[/ul]

But when we talk about big white I don't think it means 200-500/5.6. I think it is about real super expensive big whites. If 200-500 ever happens, I would expect its announcement together with 7D3.
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
151
https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/

AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR ... "innovative Nikon" beating "conservative Canon" on this one, hehe. ;D




Nikon Rumours is hearing that the lens has a length of 24cm (~9.5in) and a price tag of around $4,300.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/06/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-lens-additional-information-price-and-length.aspx/