A Canon Supertelephoto Zoom Lens Coming with EOS 6D Mark II? [CR1]

[Don Haines]

If Canon made a non-L 200-600 F6.3 lens, you can bet that it will cost 1.5 times what the sigma sport 150-600 or the V2 Tamron 150-600 will cost...... and if it was F5.6, you can bet on twice the price.....

 

[Lee Jay]

A prime is useless for what I do, so I have a 70-200II+2xIII and a Sigma 150-600C.

The Sigma is great for range and optics, but the usability is a little less than I had hoped. The zoom ring turns too far and the OS is a little jumpy. I'd be willing to spend some money to trade up to a Canon, especially if it would work well with a 1.4x on f/8-supporting bodies.

 

[j-nord]

On the plus side, regardless what this lens turns out to be, maybe this means the 6DII won't be as nerfed as we are generally expecting. Maybe it will have more than the minor incremental bump in AF and fps.

 

[unfocused]

...They've shrewdly pegged a product gap and (IMHO) perfectly timed its release alongside the D500. It's a clear-as-day competitive share move, hence my not-so-zany theory Nikon might engineer a way to dangle a very lost cost lens to the 7D camp, birders, etc.

I think that is very plausible. The thing is, for birders, the lens and camera are essentially a package. Both the Canon "package" (7DII and 100-400 II) an the Nikon "package" (D500 and 200-500) are essentially the same price. (Although you can pick up the Canon set for less if you watch street price specials and refurbished store discounts)

If all I did was birding (or if it were at least my major interest) it could be a hard call, which I agree is Nikon's strategy.

 

[pixel8foto]

LOL! Nikon and Canon would be the last corporations selling anything "at cost". At max. they are only calculating 80% gross margin, instead of 100% ... i estimate "at cost" for that Nikon lens around 800.

C'mon. You know there's a lot more in a company's profit than how much it costs to build vs. how much it is sold for. There are middle men, tariffs, commissions, partnerships, etc. that cut into the manufacturer's profits.

So I am not for a moment saying that particular Nikon lens costs $1400 to make. I'm saying that Nikon may be giving up some/all of it's profit margin for that product to get the end price down to that very attractive $1400 asking price.

B&H, governments, etc. will still get their cut as Nikon cannot stop that from happening, but Nikon can slice into its own profits if they feel it will get pullthrough from other segments. Like Canon users who would give their left nut to get [longer than 400mm] + [retain first party AF] + [not need a teleconverter] for less than $9k.

With lenses, Nikon's usually far too busy trying to plug gaps / keep up with Canon than reach for blue water like this, so I give them credit here. They've shrewdly pegged a product gap and (IMHO) perfectly timed its release alongside the D500. It's a clear-as-day competitive share move, hence my not-so-zany theory Nikon might engineer a way to dangle a very lost cost lens to the 7D camp, birders, etc.

- A

Totally agree - manufacturers will take a hit to profit in order to benefit their overall market share or to enhance reputation against their competitors, particularly if it'll draw new customers in to investing in a system, long term. This seems totally plausible.

 

[ahsanford]

On the plus side, regardless what this lens turns out to be, maybe this means the 6DII won't be as nerfed as we are generally expecting. Maybe it will have more than the minor incremental bump in AF and fps.

This is OT, but I'll bite. What will the 6D2 not get from the 5D4? Or, put another way: 'how will Canon nerf the 6D2 to protect the 5D line'?

Best guess:

• No 4k
• Metering will look a lot more like the 5D3 than the 1DX2 / 5D4
• Different sensor: less than 30 MP and -- critically -- it won't outperform the 5D line in low light like it slightly did with the 6D vs the 5D3. That was a minor embarrassment for Canon, IMHO.
• 1/4000 fastest shutter (this seems to be an inflection point between 'nice' and 'best' in FF, the D750 is similarly nerfed vs. the D810)
• Probably not get all the f/8 AF points the 1DX2 and 5D4 received
• 5-6 fps
• Smaller buffer
• Less metal, more plastic

But, on the pro side, it kind of has to get DPAF and a tilty-flippy, doesn't it?

- A

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I continue to see the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR ... a very, very solid lens for $1400 ...
I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon was selling that at cost in a gambit to boost D500 sales.

LOL! Nikon and Canon would be the last corporations selling anything "at cost". At max. they are only calculating 80% gross margin, instead of 100% ... i estimate "at cost" for that Nikon lens around 800.


As far as a Non-L Canon 200-xxx zoom is concerned, I'd also think along the lines of 200-550/4.5-5.6 ... also do not believe they'd make an f/6.3 EF lens. On the other hand, they just launched the second EF-M lens with f/6.3 on the long end ... but of course on mirrorless EOS-M system f/8 is no focusing issues.

What's ironic is that Tamron actually helped Nikon develop that lens, though it tests superior to the existing Tamron and Sigma super teles. I wouldn't be surprised if some the quid pro quo is what is allowing this improved G2 version of Tamron's own lens.

 

[NancyP]

I am not sure that I see the need for this lens, given the Sigma and Tamron ~$1,000.00 offerings. As soon as you get to much above $1,000.00, the buyer contemplates saving for 100-400 L IS II or shopping for a used 100-400 L IS I "classic" (~$850.00 to $1,000.00 on ebay) and maybe buying a 1.4 x teleconverter (for the older "II" TC, $120.00 to $200.00). Now if Canon can manufacture an optically good but not L quality or build lens that is at least $500.00 to $800.00 less expensive than the 100-400 L IS II plus 1.4 x TC, then that might have a market.

 

[AJ]

If true this would be the most expensive non-L lens by far.
My guess is they'll paint it white with a red pinstripe.

 

[dslrdummy]

I assume that even a non-L 200-500 would still have IS?

 

[RGF]

what is the most expensive non-L lens? Is $1500 in the range of current non-L lenses?

 

[tapanit]

what is the most expensive non-L lens?

The 400/4 DO II, of course. After that... I guess the 70-300 DO.

Then probably TS-E 45/2.8 and TS-E 90/2.8, followed by MP-E 65/2.8 macro.

All "normal" EF lenses I can think of are much cheaper, under $1000.
I may be missing something though.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

• Different sensor: less than 30 MP and -- critically -- it won't outperform the 5D line in low light like it slightly did with the 6D vs the 5D3. That was a minor embarrassment for Canon, IMHO.

Not at all. The 60D beat the 7D in several ways (notably in video) despite being only six months newer; now the 80D beats the 7D2, and this time the improvements include a better sensor which is much more fundamental. They're all crop cameras but there's no reason why the same shouldn't happen with the (roughly) corresponding full frame bodies.

 

[Lee Jay]

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.

Bigger than that, actually, if the patent is applicable.

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/

• Focal length 200.00 340.00 600.00
• F-number 4.60 4.60 5.20

Note that it's actually f/5.2 at 600mm, meaning the entrance pupil is 115.4mm.

 

[Loswr]

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.

Bigger than that, actually, if the patent is applicable.

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/

• Focal length 200.00 340.00 600.00
• F-number 4.60 4.60 5.20

Really doubt that patent is this non-L lens being discussed.

Note that it's actually f/5.2 at 600mm, meaning the entrance pupil is 115.4mm.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

We’re told that the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=200-600">much discussed Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS</a> (or similar focal range) could possibly be announced alongside the Canon EOS 6D Mark II. All this source did was confirm to us that the new supertelephoto zoom lens will not be an “L”, but should complete quite favourably against the Sigma and Tamron offerings.</p>
<p>The announcement date is unknown, but the latest guess is a February CP+ announcement for the EOS 6D Mark II.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

Well to clarify, the older EF 28-135mm USM lens is technically a super telephoto. I personally do not see Canon releasing a 200-600mm lens that is NOT an L lens.. Ever... It is very likely there will be a 200-600mm L lens and an update to the 28-135mm coming soon in a NANO USM flavor as a more budget oriented kit lens. The 24-105mm STM lens they release a year or two ago has just crap optics..

 

[ExodistPhotography]

On the plus side, regardless what this lens turns out to be, maybe this means the 6DII won't be as nerfed as we are generally expecting. Maybe it will have more than the minor incremental bump in AF and fps.

This is OT, but I'll bite. What will the 6D2 not get from the 5D4? Or, put another way: 'how will Canon nerf the 6D2 to protect the 5D line'?

Best guess:

• No 4k
• Metering will look a lot more like the 5D3 than the 1DX2 / 5D4
• Different sensor: less than 30 MP and -- critically -- it won't outperform the 5D line in low light like it slightly did with the 6D vs the 5D3. That was a minor embarrassment for Canon, IMHO.
• 1/4000 fastest shutter (this seems to be an inflection point between 'nice' and 'best' in FF, the D750 is similarly nerfed vs. the D810)
• Probably not get all the f/8 AF points the 1DX2 and 5D4 received
• 5-6 fps
• Smaller buffer
• Less metal, more plastic

But, on the pro side, it kind of has to get DPAF and a tilty-flippy, doesn't it?

- A

I fully expect the 6D2 to be a full frame equivalent to the 80D in a magnesium body, same specifications, features and focusing system. Just a 24MP FF sensor bigger brother to the 80D.. Tilt/Flip screen is still up for grabs..

 

[Loswr]

Well to clarify, the older EF 28-135mm USM lens is technically a super telephoto.

Seems you're confusing the term 'superzoom' with the term 'super telephoto'. Even then, as a ~5x zoom the 28-135 barely fits the current definition of a superzoom. Regardless, the 28-135 is certainly NOT a super telephoto, which is taken as focal length(s) longer than 300mm.

 

[Lee Jay]

Well to clarify, the older EF 28-135mm USM lens is technically a super telephoto.

Seems you're confusing the term 'superzoom' with the term 'super telephoto'. Even then, as a ~5x zoom the 28-135 barely fits the current definition of a superzoom. Regardless, the 28-135 is certainly NOT a super telephoto, which is taken as focal length(s) longer than 300mm.

Canon isn't very good at defining this term. For example, the 100-400 is considered a "telephoto zoom" while the 200-400 is considered a "super telephoto". That might lead you to believe it's an aperture thing, since all the super telephoto's have apertures bigger than 75mm. All but one, that is - the 400/5.6, which has the same aperture as the 100-400.

Frankly, I like the aperture definition better than a focal length definition, and I'd remove the 400/5.6 from the super telephoto list.

 

[arcer]

Well to clarify, the older EF 28-135mm USM lens is technically a super telephoto.

Seems you're confusing the term 'superzoom' with the term 'super telephoto'. Even then, as a ~5x zoom the 28-135 barely fits the current definition of a superzoom. Regardless, the 28-135 is certainly NOT a super telephoto, which is taken as focal length(s) longer than 300mm.

Canon isn't very good at defining this term. For example, the 100-400 is considered a "telephoto zoom" while the 200-400 is considered a "super telephoto". That might lead you to believe it's an aperture thing, since all the super telephoto's have apertures bigger than 75mm. All but one, that is - the 400/5.6, which has the same aperture as the 100-400.

Frankly, I like the aperture definition better than a focal length definition, and I'd remove the 400/5.6 from the super telephoto list.

Actually, the terms are defined quite correctly and it is completely based on focal length. "Telephoto zoom" refers to all zoom lens that can reach 200 or more, while "super telephoto" covers any primes that cover lens 400mm or above and "telephoto" refers to lens covering 100-300mm.

Therefore, you're assumption that it is based on aperture is incorrect and 400/5.6 is a "super telephoto". While all other Canon sites markets the 200-400 as a "Telephoto zoom", only Canon USA made a blatant mistake in putting it in "Super telephoto". Looks like it is a mistake on Canon USA's side and not yours for being misguided.

Reference: All information of the 200-400 "Telephoto zoom" definition were collected from various Canon sites including but not limited to: Canon JP, Canon HK, Canon SG, Canon EU, Canon UK.