A Canon Supertelephoto Zoom Lens Coming with EOS 6D Mark II? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
As sure as the sun and moon follow each other, where Nikon goes, Canon follows, and vice versa. Nikon came out with the very affordable 200-500 so my guess is that this is the Canon equivalent, I'd expect it to be around $1500/1600 with similar, but slightly different specs. It would sit well alongside the 400mm f5.6. I'd guess that the AF won't be as fast as the 400mm so the two will complement quite nicely. Maybe use the 400mm f5.6 for BIF, and the longer zoom for objects that don't move as fast. The only concern is whether most budget wildlife people already have the Sigma or Tamron.
Upvote
0
I think it's gonna be slightly heavier (close to the Sigma sports i think).Macoose said:
Because the front element is bigger, cause 5.6 apperture. They can not beat the light sigma or the Tramon, because this would make it a plastic bomber.
If they want to make it the same weight as
Upvote
0
It’s about time Canon got their act together with this focal length 
Where I used to sit in the local hides with all the other Canon’istas there is now an overwhelming shift to the “dark side”, it must be a fact that Canon are losing money as even the ones who are still shooting with Canon bodies all have large black lenses.
In any form (200-600, 200-550 etc) it will be a very welcome piece of equipment.
Where I used to sit in the local hides with all the other Canon’istas there is now an overwhelming shift to the “dark side”, it must be a fact that Canon are losing money as even the ones who are still shooting with Canon bodies all have large black lenses.In any form (200-600, 200-550 etc) it will be a very welcome piece of equipment.
Upvote
0
As soon as the tests for the new EF 70-300 IS II USM are out and if they are good on both IQ and AF-speed, I will get that new 70-300 lens. Although I am just an occasional shooter of birds and airplanes, I feel I might still want some more reach after that.
The 100-400 IS II USM is too heavy to also be my travel telezoom: the new EF 70-300 IS II USM's size and weight are far more pleasant to carry around in my bag, together with all other equipment in there.
To complement the new 70-300, a dedicated 200-500 or 200-600 would be ideal for my situation.
But just like I need on the EF 70-300 IS II USM, the IQ and AF-speed must be adequate then. A 200-500 or 200-600 that focusses too slow to succesfully capture BIF would be of no use to me then.
I think there may be more potential buyers for this lens that have the same requirements for IQ (of course) but in particular for a reasonably fast AF-speed.
The 100-400 IS II USM is too heavy to also be my travel telezoom: the new EF 70-300 IS II USM's size and weight are far more pleasant to carry around in my bag, together with all other equipment in there.
To complement the new 70-300, a dedicated 200-500 or 200-600 would be ideal for my situation.
But just like I need on the EF 70-300 IS II USM, the IQ and AF-speed must be adequate then. A 200-500 or 200-600 that focusses too slow to succesfully capture BIF would be of no use to me then.
I think there may be more potential buyers for this lens that have the same requirements for IQ (of course) but in particular for a reasonably fast AF-speed.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).
The most expensive lens under 75mm is the 100-400II, at $1,999. The cheapest of the lenses with apertures over 75mm (which are all over 100mm) is the 200/2 at $5,699. That's a huge gap (75mm to 100mm and $1,999 to $5,699). It is logical to place all the expensive ones, all of which have apertures over 100mm in the "super" category, while the others are not.
I wouldn't call the Opteka 650-1300 "super" just because it's focal length is over 400mm. It's $189.95 and basically just a piece of cheap garbage.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Lee Jay said:
Aperture is irrelevant, cost is irrelevant, and your logic is "super" flawed. Incidentally, the 400/5.6 is a supertele lens.
But hey, you can call things whatever you want. You can use a 22-letter alphabet, start counting from 4, and categorize cameras by the number of buttons they have. Just don't expect others to agree with your 'logic'.
Upvote
0
<SARCASM ON>neuroanatomist said:
You are wrong Neuro
For example, a 600F4 is a telephoto lens, but when you use it with a 1.4X teleconverter, it is now a 840mm F5.6 lens and therefore, no longer a telephoto lens as it is now "slow"..... so with any lens, if you add enough teleconverters you can stop it from being a telephoto lens
Wikipedia also has it wrong.... they say "In photography and cinematography, a telephoto lens is a specific type of a long-focus lens in which the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length.[1] This is achieved by incorporating a special lens group known as a telephoto group that extends the light path to create a long-focus lens in a much shorter overall design. The angle of view and other effects of long-focus lenses are the same for telephoto lenses of the same specified focal length. Long-focal-length lenses are often informally referred to as telephoto lenses although this is technically incorrect: a telephoto lens specifically incorporates the telephoto group" and made no mention of aperture.....
<SARCASM OFF>
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Canon definition of supertelephoto lenses:
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/super-telephoto
and as Neuro says the 400/5.6 is one of them.
Telephoto lenses https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/lenses/ef/telephoto/telephoto
and the 300mm primes are there down to 135mm.
Upvote
0
easy.... stack a couple of Vivitar teleconverters and it will no longer be super.....neuroanatomist said:Don Haines said:.... so with any lens, if you add enough teleconverters you can stop it from being a telephoto lens
Yeah, but can you stop it from being "super"?
Upvote
0
Whatever they do, it had better be soon- there's a 200-500 5.6 and a D500 on Amazon calling out to me. Either that or (more likely) one of the Sigmas or the new Tamron.
Upvote
0
Is it just me or does anyone else view this Canon “announcement” as rather strategic considering the new Tamron 150-600 G2?
If the Tammy is equivalent or better than the Sigma Sports then we’re all on a winner, but the ultimate question is how many people will now hold out for an OEM offering?????????
If the Tammy is equivalent or better than the Sigma Sports then we’re all on a winner, but the ultimate question is how many people will now hold out for an OEM offering?????????
Upvote
0
as long as tamron only offers zoom lenses with zoom ring turning the wrong way (nikon style) i will not consider their lenses at all, even if IQ were stellar and price rock bottom. it would be very simple and cause minimal cost to match turning direction of zoom (and possibly also focus) rings on lenses to the respective lens mount. only one cog wheel different plus lettering on lens barrel and/or ring. sigma has learned to do it (after many years).
i had tamron 28-75 and 17-50/2.8 a long tome ago. was ok with their iq, but sold them because of wrong ring turn direction. often lost shots in fast-paced moments, because my muscle memory was programmed for canon turn direction.
tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!
i had tamron 28-75 and 17-50/2.8 a long tome ago. was ok with their iq, but sold them because of wrong ring turn direction. often lost shots in fast-paced moments, because my muscle memory was programmed for canon turn direction.
tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
