What about that EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS from Canon?

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
224
187
Yes because as a photographer I find the EF range of L lenses very limiting...
Well, if you are a wildlife photographer and looking for something longer than 400mm (not exactly long for wildlife), your only options are third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron), used 500mm F4 or spending $10000 for something from Canon.
 

MadisonMike

I'm New Here
May 30, 2019
13
16
Slim chance for an affordable zoom with 600mm f/5.6 aperture. The 200-400 1.4ex lens would probably be a tough sell on many professionals...and that lens costs $11,000. It does have a fixed f/4 aperture, but it also shares the benefits of utility with added complexity of a built in teleconverter.

That said, depending on the size of such a lens, I would absolutely want to buy it immediately. I've been a proud owner of the current 100-400 since 2015 and it has been my most used lens, period. If this lens could match or even exceed the image quality of that lens, I would have no choice but to add it to the bag and possibly part ways with the 100-400.

I don't see Canon launching such a lens around $2000, though. I could easily see this being a $3,000 to even as high as $10,000. It's mostly a pipe dream unless it is a 200-500 f/5.6...then I could see it happening.

Your move, Canon.
I am with you on the Canon 100-400, it was my favorite and most used. The new Sony 200-600 is only a G series and would not be expected to be as sharp or expensive as it's GM cousins. Don't be fooled by the white body, there is a difference in price and expected performance. The Sony GMs are more aligned to L glass and usually cost a bit more. Actually all the Sony glass is kind of expensive so it was a bit of a surprise at the 2k cost of this 200-600 offering.

Competition is a good thing.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,655
2,896
Well, if you are a wildlife photographer and looking for something longer than 400mm (not exactly long for wildlife), your only options are third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron), used 500mm F4 or spending $10000 for something from Canon.
100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII = 140-560mm, and at 560mm as sharp as or sharper than the Sigma Tamron offerings. A 400mm DO II + 2xTC is far less than $10000. Lots of us birders on CR use those, and a smaller number 600mm f/4.
 

Tom W

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2012
198
128
The question I would have with a lens of this nature is, what quality would it have that would steer me away from my Sigma Contemporary 150-600. In terms of size and weight, and price, it's hard to beat.

I mean, that's where many of us birders are at. Something long, adequate brightness (well, I'd like a larger aperture, but not at the cost of weight), easy to carry, and reasonably sharp.

My 150-600 isn't quite as sharp as my 100-400, but in order to get close to 600 with the Canon, I need to deal with an f/8 lens. While the cameras will focus at f/8, you're giving up light which translates into either a slower shutter or higher ISO. In darker scenes, that is a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HankMD
The question I would have with a lens of this nature is, what quality would it have that would steer me away from my Sigma Contemporary 150-600. In terms of size and weight, and price, it's hard to beat.

I mean, that's where many of us birders are at. Something long, adequate brightness (well, I'd like a larger aperture, but not at the cost of weight), easy to carry, and reasonably sharp.

My 150-600 isn't quite as sharp as my 100-400, but in order to get close to 600 with the Canon, I need to deal with an f/8 lens. While the cameras will focus at f/8, you're giving up light which translates into either a slower shutter or higher ISO. In darker scenes, that is a problem.
For me it will be the autofocus tracking speed, if it is anywhere near as good as the 100-400 I will be buying it. The 600 will have to wait until I win a lottery or decide to sell my canon 500 (not likely for a while yet). Currently the A7III with the 100-400 and 1.4 teleconverter is very good so we shall see how it compares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HankMD

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
224
187
100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII = 140-560mm, and at 560mm as sharp as or sharper than the Sigma Tamron offerings. A 400mm DO II + 2xTC is far less than $10000. Lots of us birders on CR use those, and a smaller number 600mm f/4.
I have the 100-400 and 1.4TC. It's good but F8 is not very bright at all and AF is limited. The 400 DO is expensive, not the same category.
 

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
597
65
Adelaide, Australia
One of the new RF lenses already announced is the 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, so they've already broken the old 'no -f/6.3 zooms' rule.
Also the Canon EF-M 18-150mm, which is already out.
AND the Canon EF-M 15-45mm STM IS, which is also f/6.3 at the 'long' end (45mm).
I own the EF-M 15-45mm lens, as well as the EF-M 18-150mm lens (horses for courses).
I also owned the Canon EF-M 18-55mm STM IS, which is f/5.6 at the 'long end' (55mm)
On both my M5 and my M10, there is/was no noticeable difference in focusing speed between f/5.6 and f/6.3
(I owned all 3 of these EF-M zoom lenses at the same time)

On the other hand, the EF-M 22mm f/2 lens focuses notably better in low light / lower contrast situations than any EF-M lens at f/5.6 or f/6.3.
Bright prime EF and EF-S lenses all focus better in low light / lower contrast subjects than the EF-M f/5.6 or f/6.3 lenses.
(I'm talking about lenses such as my EF 50mm f/1.8, the EF 100mm f/2.8 L and EF-S 24mm f/2.8 with the EF-to-EF-M adapter on my M5 and M10).

So there's a lot to say for having 'a bright lens', even though Canon's Dual Pixel Auto Focus (DPAF) is good in regard to AF.
Having said that, the EOS R and EOS RP have better low light focusing ability than the M5 (or M10).
Additionally, I remain impressed how well the non DPAF M10 actually focuses.

I do hope Canon's next iterations of DPAF will be even more powerful, and allow potentially better focus in low light with 'dimmer' lenses.
That, combined with a really nice, long Canon telephoto zoom in RF mount, and a more pro EOS RF mount FF body, would certainly tempt me to more seriously branching into Canon's FF mirrorless line.
The possibility of Quad Pixel Auto Focus (QPAF) with the ability to pick up both horizontal lines and vertical lines well is also alluring....
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
Well, if you are a wildlife photographer and looking for something longer than 400mm (not exactly long for wildlife), your only options are third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron), used 500mm F4 or spending $10000 for something from Canon.
So you are limited to a wide range of manufacturers (none of which are L lenses) or a massive variety of used Canon L lenses stretching across 3 or 4 generations covering all price ranges from $1000-10,000. Hmm, still not feeling limited...

Don’t forget the 100-400 with a 1.4TC matches or bests every other first party lens in resolution/sharpness and has pretty good AF on most modern bodies.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
377
222
So you are limited to a wide range of manufacturers (none of which are L lenses) or a massive variety of used Canon L lenses stretching across 3 or 4 generations covering all price ranges from $1000-10,000. Hmm, still not feeling limited...

Don’t forget the 100-400 with a 1.4TC matches or bests every other first party lens in resolution/sharpness and has pretty good AF on most modern bodies.
Yeah like old tank 500mm f4 is usm 3,5k and 4kg . with 1,4x ,sharper than sigma 150-600
You could put bicycle wheel to end of monopod and push it around :D
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,655
2,896
For me it will be the autofocus tracking speed, if it is anywhere near as good as the 100-400 I will be buying it. The 600 will have to wait until I win a lottery or decide to sell my canon 500 (not likely for a while yet). Currently the A7III with the 100-400 and 1.4 teleconverter is very good so we shall see how it compares.
Is that the Canon or the Sony 100-400mm?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HankMD

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
224
187
Yeah like old tank 500mm f4 is usm 3,5k and 4kg . with 1,4x ,sharper than sigma 150-600
You could put bicycle wheel to end of monopod and push it around :D
Its funny how people always find a way to defend Canon, no matter what. The truth is that Sony suddenly has better option with the 200-600.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HankMD
Sep 29, 2014
6
1
I really think Canon are missing out here. In the UK, at the birding reserves I go to regularly, I see so many Sigma and Tamron x-600 lenses on the Canon hobbyists, and only a few Canon 100-400's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jasonmc89

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,655
2,896
I really think Canon are missing out here. In the UK, at the birding reserves I go to regularly, I see so many Sigma and Tamron x-600 lenses on the Canon hobbyists, and only a few Canon 100-400's.
My anecdotal evidence is the opposite - the white 100-400mm II is the most common in the UK reserves I visit. We obviously go to different places.

Edit: just set up a poll to see what CR owners use.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
377
222
Logic says sigma and tamron sells better . Its 1k cheaper .
Peoples who dont know much about photography surely thinks its lot better ,when 200mm more long than canon.
My earlier comment about pushing around 4kg heavy tube was half joke actually :p
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
467
466
www.flickr.com
I've been looking at the 100-400 mk II for a while now, and every time I compare it's sharpness (via thedigitalpicture) to other competitors, I find myself saying "maybe I don't need the extra reach if the Canon is THAT sharp". I know Canon has said the 100-400 is the toughest to manufacture lens they make, so I really wonder what kind of quality they could squeeze out of a 200-600 and whether or not they could produce one with sufficient quality and weight savings to justify the price they'd have to attach to it. Or maybe the precedent would be negative if they couldn't get the quality to an "L" standard on a big zoom.

I'm really on the fence over this one. I certainly see what Nikon/Sony/Tamron/Sigma have been able to achieve, but I really question whether or not Canon could/would create a lens in that niche. Such a product would need to be both price competitive (it's going to be more expensive than competitors, we know that, but it can't realistically be 5x the money and hit the same target consumers/demographic), but also meet Canon's quality standard without convincing some buyers not to buy a big prime. Obviously the closest comparable is the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC, though the price point means no-one considering a Tamron or Sigma x-600 will be cross shopping that lens. That's a tight niche to target, and I just don't know how much money Canon is leaving on the table by not going down that path. Maybe not that much money. If I was betting, I'd guess this isn't something that will turn up any time soon - though I guess maybe an RF non-L, non-white zoom with an f/6.3 on the long end? Long shot.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,655
2,896
I've been looking at the 100-400 mk II for a while now, and every time I compare it's sharpness (via thedigitalpicture) to other competitors, I find myself saying "maybe I don't need the extra reach if the Canon is THAT sharp". I know Canon has said the 100-400 is the toughest to manufacture lens they make, so I really wonder what kind of quality they could squeeze out of a 200-600 and whether or not they could produce one with sufficient quality and weight savings to justify the price they'd have to attach to it. Or maybe the precedent would be negative if they couldn't get the quality to an "L" standard on a big zoom.

I'm really on the fence over this one. I certainly see what Nikon/Sony/Tamron/Sigma have been able to achieve, but I really question whether or not Canon could/would create a lens in that niche. Such a product would need to be both price competitive (it's going to be more expensive than competitors, we know that, but it can't realistically be 5x the money and hit the same target consumers/demographic), but also meet Canon's quality standard without convincing some buyers not to buy a big prime. Obviously the closest comparable is the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC, though the price point means no-one considering a Tamron or Sigma x-600 will be cross shopping that lens. That's a tight niche to target, and I just don't know how much money Canon is leaving on the table by not going down that path. Maybe not that much money. If I was betting, I'd guess this isn't something that will turn up any time soon - though I guess maybe an RF non-L, non-white zoom with an f/6.3 on the long end? Long shot.
Don't take the relative sharpness of images on TDP as the gospel truth. Only one or at best a couple of copies of each are tested and as Lensrentals tests writes there is often more differences between different copies of a single lmake of lens than there is between lenses from a different manufacturer and but even worse the tests can have obvious inconsistencies in them. Look for example at two lenses I know well, the 100-400mm II and the 400mm DO II. On the 5DSR, TDP has the zoom sharper at 400mm f/5.6 than the prime at f/4, but on the 7DII it's the other way around! Looking at the TDP images put me off buying the 400mm DO II but after seeing proper data from lensrentals I took the plunge and am glad to have both.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,933
1,242
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I've been looking at the 100-400 mk II for a while now, and every time I compare it's sharpness (via thedigitalpicture) to other competitors, I find myself saying "maybe I don't need the extra reach if the Canon is THAT sharp". I know Canon has said the 100-400 is the toughest to manufacture lens they make, so I really wonder what kind of quality they could squeeze out of a 200-600 and whether or not they could produce one with sufficient quality and weight savings to justify the price they'd have to attach to it. Or maybe the precedent would be negative if they couldn't get the quality to an "L" standard on a big zoom.

I'm really on the fence over this one. I certainly see what Nikon/Sony/Tamron/Sigma have been able to achieve, but I really question whether or not Canon could/would create a lens in that niche. Such a product would need to be both price competitive (it's going to be more expensive than competitors, we know that, but it can't realistically be 5x the money and hit the same target consumers/demographic), but also meet Canon's quality standard without convincing some buyers not to buy a big prime. Obviously the closest comparable is the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC, though the price point means no-one considering a Tamron or Sigma x-600 will be cross shopping that lens. That's a tight niche to target, and I just don't know how much money Canon is leaving on the table by not going down that path. Maybe not that much money. If I was betting, I'd guess this isn't something that will turn up any time soon - though I guess maybe an RF non-L, non-white zoom with an f/6.3 on the long end? Long shot.
All valid points. And, with the advent of f8 autofocusing in almost all of Canon's newer DSLRs, the advantages of a 600 zoom vs. a 400 plus 1.4 extender pretty much disappear, especially with the quality of Canon's latest extenders. Now, Canon is offering f11 autofocus on the R series and marketing the value of the 100-400 plus 2x converter, which exceeds the 600 zooms (I'm not sure what kind of hit the image quality takes and how that compares to the 600 zooms)

So all this may mean we won't ever see a Canon direct competitor.

Still, I do believe that Canon might see the value of putting out a 500mm f5.6 zoom. I don't see them doing a bargain lens like Nikon, but rather a 500mm zoom that is slotted somewhere above the 100-400 and has similar quality. Buyers of 100-400 zooms are high value customers with significant disposable income generally insulated from economic downturns. Ideal customers in today's shrinking photography market. A lot, maybe most, of those customers would plop down another $1,000 on top of the price of the 100-400 for an extra 100mm focal length. I think it's logical that Canon could look at that market and decide they can squeeze a little more blood out of the bird, wildlife, sports turnips with a longer lens.