200mm f/2.0L and 800mm f/5.6L for sure! Those are the only two big whites missing the new body color!
Upvote
0
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.
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.
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
unfocused said:If it ever comes, it will be paired with a 7DIII release.
ahsanford said:Really glad Canon is doing the right thing here.
- A
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.
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).
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. ???
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.
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.
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.
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
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, ...
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/06/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-lens-additional-information-price-and-length.aspx/Nikon Rumours is hearing that the lens has a length of 24cm (~9.5in) and a price tag of around $4,300.