Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom

[RGF]

While I swore I was done buying equipment, I would be very interested in this lens.

Never say never. There is always something interesting around the corner. Of course I suffer from GAS.

 

[masterpix]

When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.

 

[ecka]

EF 300-600mm F5.6L IS USM
:

 

[AlanF]

When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.

I have both the 100-400mm II (had 2 copies) and the Sigma 150-600mm C. You might have done "research", but I use both extensively. My Sigma has fantastic IQ at 600mm, and knocks the 100-400 + 1.4xTC for six. It doesn't focus as fast as the Canon, but it locks on well. And it is close to the native 100-400 at shorter focal lengths. Canon will find it difficult to beat.

 

[Tom W]

200-500 f/5.6 DO IS would be a great hit, especially if it would take a Canon teleconverter. If it can be made reasonably inexpensive. The weight savings would be fantastic.

 

[privatebydesign]

When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.

I have both the 100-400mm II (had 2 copies) and the Sigma 150-600mm C. You might have done "research", but I use both extensively. My Sigma has fantastic IQ at 600mm, and knocks the 100-400 + 1.4xTC for six. It doesn't focus as fast as the Canon, but it locks on well. And it is close to the native 100-400 at shorter focal lengths. Canon will find it difficult to beat.

That is not what Brian at TDP found.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

 

[ecka]

When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.

I have both the 100-400mm II (had 2 copies) and the Sigma 150-600mm C. You might have done "research", but I use both extensively. My Sigma has fantastic IQ at 600mm, and knocks the 100-400 + 1.4xTC for six. It doesn't focus as fast as the Canon, but it locks on well. And it is close to the native 100-400 at shorter focal lengths. Canon will find it difficult to beat.

That is not what Brian at TDP found.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Yes, but you can get those 600mm by cropping them out of 400mm image, easily, with similar (if not better) details. And if you prefer putting your teleconverters to work, then perhaps a 400/5.6L prime is a better tool for the job.

 

[HankMD]

I can live with 200-500 f/5.6 with excellent AF. It'd stop me lusting after Nikon's offer (+D500). As much as I love my 100-400 II with its snappy AF, it can be a bit short for some birds.

 

[AlanF]

When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.

I have both the 100-400mm II (had 2 copies) and the Sigma 150-600mm C. You might have done "research", but I use both extensively. My Sigma has fantastic IQ at 600mm, and knocks the 100-400 + 1.4xTC for six. It doesn't focus as fast as the Canon, but it locks on well. And it is close to the native 100-400 at shorter focal lengths. Canon will find it difficult to beat.

That is not what Brian at TDP found.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

I missed out on buying the Sigma earlier on precisely because of TDP in particular and other sites that test just one copy at just one particular distance using just one method. It was only after I borrowed one from the local dealer and found it so good that I bought it. The only reliable site for me is Lensrentals who test 10 samples of each lens on the very best equipment focussed at infinity - perfect for telephotos.

TDP and other sites should have message in capital letters on each review.

GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING - WE TEST ONLY ONE COPY, YOURS MIGHT BE MUCH WORSE OR MUCH BETTER THAN OURS.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, but you can get those 600mm by cropping them out of 400mm image, easily, with similar (if not better) details. And if you prefer putting your teleconverters to work, then perhaps a 400/5.6L prime is a better tool for the job.

True that cropping is fine when the image is sufficiently large and you are not pixel limited, and then you won't see much difference between 400 and 600mm, and 400mm might even be better. But, if the image is small and you are pixel limited, then 600mm easily beats 400mm.

 

[kirbyzhou]

Something like a 200-600mm DO? If it is less than 1800g or short than 15cm, it will be a great product.

 

[LordofTackle]

Something like a 200-600mm DO? If it is less than 1800g or short than 15cm, it will be a great product.

Less than 15cm??? Boy, you are optimistic
The old 70-300 DO is already 10cm long...and thats only half the max focal length...
The Tamron and Sigma 150-600 superzooms are 25cm or longer in length.

But a new and improved DO zoom lens would be indeed highly appreciated.

-Sebastian

 

[GP.Masserano]

Do you remember what I said a few months ago ???
That Canon would have done well to produce a 200-500 (or 600, but not L Not to produce a lens too expensive) to "make war" to Sigma and Tamron!!!

Foresight???

 

[ahsanford]

As the 100-400L II is more compact / sharper / sealed better / better AF than the various 150-600s, I don't see the 3rd party lenses driving Canon to lose much sleep.

But the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR is another animal entirely. It's not better per se, but it's simply longer and cheaper and bolts natively on a very nice D500 for the birding/wildlife crowd.

That's probably what got Canon worked up about the gap in the lineup. Third party lenses have been feeding off of gaps in the Canon portfolio for some time, but Nikon having a great first-party one-two punch for wildlifers like the D500 + 200-500 VR combo is probably what made Canon flip their plans for a 200-600 (or whatever it is) to go from future concept to live project.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

As the 100-400L II is more compact / sharper / sealed better / better AF than the various 150-600s, I don't see the 3rd party lenses driving Canon to lose much sleep.

But the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR is another animal entirely. It's not better per se, but it's simply longer and cheaper and bolts natively on a very nice D500 for the birding/wildlife crowd.

That's probably what got Canon worked up about the gap in the lineup. Third party lenses have been feeding off of gaps in the Canon portfolio for some time, but Nikon having a great first-party one-two punch for wildlifers like the D500 + 200-500 VR combo is probably what made Canon flip their plans for a 200-600 (or whatever it is) to go from future concept to live project.

- A

Or, there Nikon is severely limited in IQ that doesn't best a cropped Canon 100-400 anyway.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=1052&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Again, if I was in the future projects department of Canon and was looking at what Canon already offer and what the 'competition' offer, I would struggle to give a 200-500 budget tele project any time or money at all.

In summary, for goodness sake stop looking at numbers and start looking at results. Don't forget, for instance, Canon have a 1.6 crop which 'adds' 10mm per 100mm of focal length to any Nikon comparison with their 1.5 crop.

 

[AlanF]

A 1.6x crop gives only 6.66mm of effective focal length per 100mm relative to 1.5xcrop not 10mm.

 

[Jack Douglas]

As the 100-400L II is more compact / sharper / sealed better / better AF than the various 150-600s, I don't see the 3rd party lenses driving Canon to lose much sleep.

But the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR is another animal entirely. It's not better per se, but it's simply longer and cheaper and bolts natively on a very nice D500 for the birding/wildlife crowd.

That's probably what got Canon worked up about the gap in the lineup. Third party lenses have been feeding off of gaps in the Canon portfolio for some time, but Nikon having a great first-party one-two punch for wildlifers like the D500 + 200-500 VR combo is probably what made Canon flip their plans for a 200-600 (or whatever it is) to go from future concept to live project.

- A

Or, there Nikon is severely limited in IQ that doesn't best a cropped Canon 100-400 anyway.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=1052&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Again, if I was in the future projects department of Canon and was looking at what Canon already offer and what the 'competition' offer, I would struggle to give a 200-500 budget tele project any time or money at all.

In summary, for goodness sake stop looking at numbers and start looking at results. Don't forget, for instance, Canon have a 1.6 crop which 'adds' 10mm per 100mm of focal length to any Nikon comparison with their 1.5 crop.

I assume you meant for the 400 to include 1.4X. In that case 560 beats 500 in reach and IQ. Does the 500 take a converter? I would not want that 200-500.

Alan you must have meant 6.6667, no?

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Jack
It's all garbage anyway because it's not crop factor that gives "effective" reach - it's pixel size. The 50 mpx 5DSR has the same resolution as a 20 mpx Canon crop camera.

 

[MrFotoFool]

What about a fixed (non zoom) 600 f/5.6 that is just as sharp as the 600 f/4? It would be smaller and cheaper and it seems to me a big seller.

 

[Don Haines]

What about a fixed (non zoom) 600 f/5.6 that is just as sharp as the 600 f/4? It would be smaller and cheaper and it seems to me a big seller.

Personally, I am far more interested in an affordable long prime than a zoom.... Given the same level of technology and materials, a prime always outperforms a zoom and at a lower cost!