Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[Lee Jay]

At what focal length does the focal length divided by the aperture equal the front element size?

None. The front element has to be larger than the aperture. In long primes it might only be a teeny, tiny bit larger, but it still has to be larger.

The largest aperture is the limiting factor on the size of the front element (the front element can't be smaller than the aperture) and the largest aperture is always at the longest focal length.

 

[sulla]

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

Sure, because for a 200-600mm lens the image circle is limiting, so making a crop format lens will be much cheaper.

Neither is backfocus an issue with telephoto lenses. So, making it an EF-S lens or an EF-M lens also makes no sense from this perspective. The only thing that would make a 200-600 lens cheaper would be to make it slower. Perhaps f/8 works for the EF-M, but then, such a physically long lens on such a small EF-M body?? And for interchangeable lenses, Canon is not going to play the FF-equivalent-focal-lenght game that is so popular with POS...

 

[Xavitxaung]

I repeat, have you ever seen the Canon FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L? What about the price in second hand? A 200-600mm 1:5,6L it is not going to be cheap, it is cheap a Sigma 300-800mm 1:5.6 EX? Even that lens that produces less quality than a Sigma 800mm 1:5,6 EX is quite expensive, so, a Canon L lens like this, IDEM.

 

[arbitrage]

Canon is already selling a 200-560 f/4-f/5.6 lens....do they really need to add 40mm ;D

 

[j-nord]

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

Sure, because for a 200-600mm lens the image circle is limiting, so making a crop format lens will be much cheaper.

Who needs optical physics, anyway... :

Excellent job putting words in my mouth. "Half way decent crop lens" isnt saying much so I dont know why you are taking it as some radical physics/money bending achievement.

 

[RickWagoner]

Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

Can makes a lot of great lens that are not L line for a low budget buyer. They have their 55-250 stm that can be had for $150 new that has killer optics for the price. Why would you call it a POS? Is it just because it does not have the L Label?

 

[GP.Masserano]

I hope it will be NOT "L" (but STM, why not?) and LESS heavy than Sigma...

 

[mb66energy]

Maybe I've got this all wrong, but the Venn diagram circles of 600mm, f/5.6, and "cheaper than the 100-400 II" don't appear to overlap. It has got to be more expensive than we think, slower than we think, or not as long as we think.

...or it will be some plastic nightmare like a non-L EF 75-300 on steroids.

- A

I too think the idea of a "200-600 x-5.6 cheaper than 100-400 ii" is a little too optimistic. Your remark about the EF 75-300 made me think about the EF 100-300 (4.5-5.6) at ca. 300 $/€

I used the following calculation:
Scaling that lens by a factor of two leads to an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6
The volume is increased by a factor of 8 (2³) and results in 8times more material (I use 1/3 of production cost for material)
The surfaces to be machined are increased by a factor of 4 (2²) but I used the assumption that they make 2/3 of production costs.
Base price of the lens is 300 $/€
IS adds another 300 $/€

These (rough) assumptions result in a price of 1900 $/€ which is slightly below the 100-400 ii. But the probability is high that it is a "plastic nightmare"!

 

[nhz]

Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

Can makes a lot of great lens that are not L line for a low budget buyer. They have their 55-250 stm that can be had for $150 new that has killer optics for the price. Why would you call it a POS? Is it just because it does not have the L Label?

and not only that, the 4.5-5.6/55-250STM weighs just 375 gram while the very slightly longer and brighter 4.0-5.6/70-300L weighs 1050 grams.
According to neuro's logic, all the laws of physics (and economics) are thrown out of the window here 8)

 

[nhz]

I too think the idea of a "200-600 x-5.6 cheaper than 100-400 ii" is a little too optimistic. Your remark about the EF 75-300 made me think about the EF 100-300 (4.5-5.6) at ca. 300 $/€

I used the following calculation:
Scaling that lens by a factor of two leads to an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6
The volume is increased by a factor of 8 (2³) and results in 8times more material (I use 1/3 of production cost for material)
The surfaces to be machined are increased by a factor of 4 (2²) but I used the assumption that they make 2/3 of production costs.
Base price of the lens is 300 $/€
IS adds another 300 $/€

These (rough) assumptions result in a price of 1900 $/€ which is slightly below the 100-400 ii. But the probability is high that it is a "plastic nightmare"!

So ... your basic assumption is that there has been no progress in optics or lens production efficiency over the last 25 years (the 100-300 was introduced in 1990)?

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

As much as I want this rumor to be true (and an announcement following soon, so that I can stop eyeing the Sigma 150-600 S ;-)), I don't see all three of the "f5.6", "600mm" and the "cheaper than 100-400II" become true at once. If this rumor has any foundation, it will most likely be a direct equivalent of Nikons 200-500 f5.6.

In any case, this rumor makes the dilemma I am in even worse. Last year, I tried both the Sigma 150-600 C and the Canon 100-400II on my 7D(I). Neither one convinced me, the Sigma was good on the short end, but the long end was severely lacking in crispness. The Canon hat severe CA on the left side of the frame and IQ didn't "wow" me overall to justify the price (maybe mine was a dud?).
In any case, currently I am pondering giving the Siggy 150-600S a try, but then again, it is so close in price to the 100-400II (~1550€ vs. 1900€) that I also consider giving the latter a second chance.
Further, when looking at the the-digital-picture comparison of the Siggy S, it looks outright horrible compared to the C throughout most of the focal range (maybe his was a dud?) and it weighs a ton, definitely not something I can just drop into my carry-on luggage and have room for anything else or would lug around all day without at least a monpod as support.
Spoiled by choice :

And now there is this rumor... maybe I just buy anyone of the above mentioned lenses, and once my return period is up, Canon will announce the best long telephoto zoom ever. ;D

 

[AlanF]

Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

Can makes a lot of great lens that are not L line for a low budget buyer. They have their 55-250 stm that can be had for $150 new that has killer optics for the price. Why would you call it a POS? Is it just because it does not have the L Label?

and not only that, the 4.5-5.6/55-250STM weighs just 375 gram while the very slightly longer and brighter 4.0-5.6/70-300L weighs 1050 grams.
According to neuro's logic, all the laws of physics (and economics) are thrown out of the window here 8)

Neuro knows what he is talking about when it comes to the laws of physics and optics. When you get to long telephotos with wide apertures, the weight of the front lenses and of the stronger barrels needed to hold them becomes the main factor, and these are the same for a crop or a FF lens. For shorter lenses, the weight of the glass is less important and you can get away with flimsy barrels. Both Canon and Nikon struggle to lower the weight of the big telephotos. The Nikon 200-500 is pared down as much as possible and it is 2.1 - 2.4 kg.

Grummbeerbauer, your 100-400 II was a dud. The CA is very well-controlled above 100mm, and if there was CA just on just one side there has to be sever decentering or something.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

Can makes a lot of great lens that are not L line for a low budget buyer. They have their 55-250 stm that can be had for $150 new that has killer optics for the price. Why would you call it a POS? Is it just because it does not have the L Label?

and not only that, the 4.5-5.6/55-250STM weighs just 375 gram while the very slightly longer and brighter 4.0-5.6/70-300L weighs 1050 grams.
According to neuro's logic, all the laws of physics (and economics) are thrown out of the window here 8)

The only thing that's being thrown out of the window here is your understanding of lens design and the physics behind it...well, probably not since for that to happen, you'd have had to possess such knowledge in the first place and that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[mb66energy]

I too think the idea of a "200-600 x-5.6 cheaper than 100-400 ii" is a little too optimistic. Your remark about the EF 75-300 made me think about the EF 100-300 (4.5-5.6) at ca. 300 $/€

I used the following calculation:
Scaling that lens by a factor of two leads to an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6
The volume is increased by a factor of 8 (2³) and results in 8times more material (I use 1/3 of production cost for material)
The surfaces to be machined are increased by a factor of 4 (2²) but I used the assumption that they make 2/3 of production costs.
Base price of the lens is 300 $/€
IS adds another 300 $/€

These (rough) assumptions result in a price of 1900 $/€ which is slightly below the 100-400 ii. But the probability is high that it is a "plastic nightmare"!

So ... your basic assumption is that there has been no progress in optics or lens production efficiency over the last 25 years (the 100-300 was introduced in 1990)?

Yes because physics and production procedures* haven't changed in the last 25 years. And 300 $/€ is the price for a freshly produced unit from 2007 (Source: photozone.de ) - so a conservative assumption.

* Assembly by robots isn't new and finishing optical surfaces isn't done by hand since the 1970s - except for some very special optics.

EDIT: But it will have better quality compared to the 100-300 lens which is really desireable at the long end - this is where progress has been made over the last 25 years: Lens system optimization with powerful computers to get more quality from a given set of material/procedures.

 

[dufflover]

Another skeptic here; also mainly because of the specs vs costs listed. It would definitely be a huge surprise for Canon to release a 100mm+ front diameter lens and not have it cost in the super-tele price range.

Some kind of 500mm/5.6 is much more realistic for that rumoured price.

 

[nhz]

The only thing that's being thrown out of the window here is your understanding of lens design and the physics behind it...well, probably not since for that to happen, you'd have had to possess such knowledge in the first place and that doesn't seem to be the case.

I worked in the field for almost 20 years so yeah, on this forum that means you are an idiot :

 

[scyrene]

If you want long reach for bird photography, you have to choose the right body as well as the lens. The 7DII (as does the 7D) has AF at f/8. The new 80D has superior AF at f/8 by having the 4 points surrounding the centre one active - even better than the 7DII and 5DIII etc. None of them are cheap.

I thought you could have the four surrounding AF points active (as support) at f/8 on the 5D3 too? When I press the M-Fn button and cycle through the options, one of them is the centre point and four surrounding ones highlighted. Is that not the same thing?

 

[nhz]

Yes because physics and production procedures* haven't changed in the last 25 years.

the laws of physics haven't changed (much), but options in lens design have improved a lot over those years and manufacturing has added many new possibilities as well, including options that lower production cost. Even if development and 'tooling' is big part of the cost, when they aim at selling large numbers those production costs per lens can be very important. I bet that this is one of the reasons why Canon is moving towards automated lens assembly.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only thing that's being thrown out of the window here is your understanding of lens design and the physics behind it...well, probably not since for that to happen, you'd have had to possess such knowledge in the first place and that doesn't seem to be the case.

I worked in the field for almost 20 years so yeah, on this forum that means you are an idiot :

You implied that because the EF-S 55-250 is lighter and cheaper than the 70-300L, a 200-600mm f/4.x-5.6 would be lighter and cheaper as an EF-S lens. By logic that apparently makes sense to you, there should be a variety of EF-S/DX-format supertelephoto primes and zooms to choose from...certainly, Sigma and Tamron should have come out with crop versions of their 150-600mm zooms. Clearly an untapped market, you really should offer your suggestions to all those lens manufacturers who clearly don't understand lens design as well as you.

After almost 20 years in the field, you fail to grasp basic concepts of lens design. That's pathetic. If I'd learned so little after 20 years in my field, I'd be ashamed...not proudly demonstrating my lack of knowledge as you're doing here.

 

[pknight]

I do hope it is L. Otherwise Canon would have an excellent 100-400 and a so so 200-600. How someone would chose between them?

In that case, by purchasing a Tamron or Sigma at what would probably be half the price.