Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]

[unfocused]

Some of the logic being used here is...well...just not logical.

Will Canon produce an inexpensive 200-600mm lens to compete against Sigma and Tamron? Possibly. But why? Are they really worried about losing out on the virtually non-existent profit margins that such lenses would offer Canon? With these lenses having been on the market for several years now, most buyers would have to switch from an existing version to the Canon and that switch only happens if the Canon is clearly better. Unlikely to occur at that price point.

On the other hand, a 500mm or 600mm "L" zoom would certainly attract people who have accepted the compromises that the Sigma and Tamron lenses require, but would prefer a better, sharper, faster-focusing native glass lens.

The main arguments against it on this forum seem to be that this lens would undercut other offerings. That argument simply doesn't hold water if you consider it for just a moment.

Undermine sales of the 100-400 II? It's going to cost more than the 100-400 II. So Canon loses sales on a cheaper lens to make sales on a more expensive lens. That's a good trade.

Undermine sales of hugely expensive big whites or the 200-400 f5 teleconverter zoom? If the price is reasonable Canon will sell 1,000 of these lenses for every one lost sale of a big white. That's a good trade.

The only question is the sweet spot between price point and focal length. I think the market could sustain a price point as high as $3,000 for a 500mm f5.6 zoom or $3,500 for a 600mm f5.6 zoom. But, can they build a 600mm f5.6 zoom for $3,500? I don't know.

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

 

[reef58]

Canon would have to give this lens away at non-existent margins (much like I suspect Nikon is doing the same with their 200-500 5.6 VR).

Consider me exceptionally skeptical of this rumor.

A 600 f5.6 requires an apparent aperture of over 107mm (exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 ) a 500 f5.6 can get by without 'bending the figures' with a smaller than 90mm apparent aperture. There is no way on earth Canon can be competitive with a 200-500 in a 200-600 of the same aperture. They can't fudge the figures like the third parties do either.

In my opinion that leaves a 200-600 f5.6 >$4,000 'cheap lens' option and a 200-500 f5.6 $2,500 competitive option. You can't make a 107mm front element down to the price range of a 90mm front element out of anything but the bottom of a beer glass, and that would suck anyway.

You can buy a 4" APO refractor nowadays for less than $1000 (ED Glass), so it can be done on a budget.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon would have to give this lens away at non-existent margins (much like I suspect Nikon is doing the same with their 200-500 5.6 VR).

Consider me exceptionally skeptical of this rumor.

A 600 f5.6 requires an apparent aperture of over 107mm (exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 ) a 500 f5.6 can get by without 'bending the figures' with a smaller than 90mm apparent aperture. There is no way on earth Canon can be competitive with a 200-500 in a 200-600 of the same aperture. They can't fudge the figures like the third parties do either.

In my opinion that leaves a 200-600 f5.6 >$4,000 'cheap lens' option and a 200-500 f5.6 $2,500 competitive option. You can't make a 107mm front element down to the price range of a 90mm front element out of anything but the bottom of a beer glass, and that would suck anyway.

You can buy a 4" APO refractor nowadays for less than $1000 (ED Glass), so it can be done on a budget.

Hmm, so $1,000 for the big bit of glass and a tube that doesn't focus much closer than the moon and has an image circle smaller than APS-C?

Makes my figures sound even more realistic

 

[Talys]

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

Canon needs a cheap competitor to the Nikon 200-500. It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap, because this attracts people to the Nikon system as a lens that is made for hobbyists but marketed as good enough for pros (even though it isn't).

What people who are already in the hobby want in that space want is a superior lens to the Sigma 150-600, at a price that they can afford. There's a big difference between USD $2k, $3k, and $4k in terms of affordability. If they could price it similarly to the 100-400LII, that would definitely get a lot of love, and it would NOT rob sales from it, because there's no way a 600mm is going to be a small, 1.6kg lens with a short MFD.

 

[ahsanford]

I would be much more interested if it was L lens - something like 200-500L IS 5.6 optimized to work well with 1.4 extender but that is a dream which will not happen and if it ever happens it will not be cheap. Depending on quality it would either compete with 100-400 or 200-400 and that's why I don't see this lens coming.

Yet Nikon is selling just that for $1400 right now. We can argue how 'L' that lens is, but Nikon found a way to offer something. I still contend that the Nikon lens (and the threat of body sales lost to the D500) is the bigger threat to Canon than any lens-only dollars lost to Sigma or Tamron.

But I agree a 200-500 5.6 zoom of any sort is a threat to 100-400 sales. Canon could nerf the lens / move it downmarket in comparison with a plasticky 200-600 f/5.6-8 IS sort of offering, provided they fully implement f/8 throughout the SLR line, but as many have said here, Canon holds a famously hard line on EF/EF-S narrowest max aperture being f/5.6 so that every lens works on every body.

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

It's not just Canon playing around with a 200-600 lens idea.

https://www.dailycameranews.com/2017/11/sony-fe-200-600mm-lens-works/

 

[MrFotoFool]

This is one I will be following, as I would like a long lens for occasional wildlife (my only current telephoto is 70-200). If there is any validity to the rumor, it says unequivocally that it will NOT be an L, yet people are still speculating and hoping that it will be. It seems the non-L designation is the most solid part of the rumor. A zoom that goes to 600 would interest me more than one that goes to 500.

 

[MrFotoFool]

And just to show how long this has been rumored, here is an article stating it will be revealed at Photokina 2016!
https://www.dailycameranews.com/2016/04/canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-lens-price-leaked/

 

[Don Haines]

Canon holds a famously hard line on EF/EF-S narrowest max aperture being f/5.6 so that every lens works on every body.

Exactly!

They could make a F6.3 or slower lens, but "every EF lens works on every EF body" means a lot to Canon, particularly when you look across the table to Nikon and Sony and drive yourself insane trying to keep track of what lenses work on which bodies.... simple and understandable translates into increased sales.....

 

[Don Haines]

My prediction here....

It will be a 75-400 F5.6 lens.

 

[ahsanford]

It's not just Canon playing around with a 200-600 lens idea.

https://www.dailycameranews.com/2017/11/sony-fe-200-600mm-lens-works/

That a 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS would be offered for $1200 from anyone, let alone Sony, is madness.

You either chip away at the long end of the FL scale and cap it at 500, you allow f/6.3 or f/8 max aperture at the long end, or it costs a mint.

(all lenses below are f/5-6.3)
Tamron 150-600 --> 95mm front filter --> $869, 1399 (for the two versions)
Sigma 150-600 C --> 95mm front filter --> $989
Sigma 150-600 S --> 105mm front filter --> $1799

Theoretical Canon 200-600 f/5.6 IS --> 107mm front filter + a dire threat to 100-400L sales = pricey.

Hypothetical Canon 200-500 f/5.6 IS --> 90mm front filter + a small threat to 100-400L sales = doable, but still not cheap.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

And Nikon's adverts will all but write themselves:

"Buy a Canon 200-500 lens or buy a Nikon D500 + 200-500 lens for the same money."

If this is an enthusiast wildlifer's tool, the economics matter. If it's just another L superwhite, perhaps less so.

- A

 

[SkynetTX]

Even an EF-S 200-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM would be good. An EF 200-500 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM or an EF 200-600 f/4.5-6.3 IS USM would be even better to complement the 70-200 lenses. Whatever it will be let's hope it will not be equipped with focus-by-wire technology. If it will have STM or NanoUSM focus motor I surely won't buy it no matter how cheap it will be and will wait for a third party lens that supports FullTime Manual focusing instead.

 

[Don Haines]

Take a look at Canon's current "non-L" telephoto lenses....

$200 - EF-S 55-250 (F5.6)
$200 - EF 75-300 (F5.6)
$300 - EF-S 55-250 STM (F5.6)
$400 - EF-S 18-135 (F5.6)
$450 - EF 70-300 (F5.6)
$500 - EF 70-300 II (F5.6)
$600 - EF-S 18-135 IS (F5.6)
$700 - EF-S 18-200 (F5.6)

Clue number 1 - they are low cost.
Clue number 2 - They are all F5.6

Odds are that this new "Non-L" telephoto lens will be low cost and F5.6. That rules out all the 500mm and 600mm variants. About the biggest thing you could see that would maintain that F5.6 size and keep low cost would be something that ends at 400mm and is not a superzoom.... the 70-300 sells quite well, a 70-400 would be a likely upgrade.

 

[privatebydesign]

It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......

And there in lies a point I have never been able to fathom. How is $1,500-2,000 cheap or good value if it isn't a good performer?

For a touch more money get a secondhand EF 300 f2.8IS MkI and a TC.

 

[AlanF]

It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......

And there in lies a point I have never been able to fathom. How is $1,500-2,000 cheap or good value if it isn't a good performer?

For a touch more money get a secondhand EF 300 f2.8IS MkI and a TC.

The 300/2.8 MkI = 2xTC weighs a thumping 3.275 kg with hood attached. The TDPs copy at 600mm isn't as good as a Sigma 150-600mm sport https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 and my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C approached my 300mm/2.8 MkII + 2xTC in terms of IQ.

 

[MrFotoFool]

My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?

 

[unfocused]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

Canon needs a cheap competitor to the Nikon 200-500. It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap, because this attracts people to the Nikon system as a lens that is made for hobbyists but marketed as good enough for pros (even though it isn't).

What people who are already in the hobby want in that space want is a superior lens to the Sigma 150-600, at a price that they can afford...

Canon doesn't need a cheap competitor to the Nikon. Canon users can already buy a cheap competitor to the Nikon. In fact they have several choices from Sigma and Tamron. In fact, those lenses offer an extra 100mm in length and at least two are cheaper than the Nikon while offering optics that are at least as good.

No evidence at all that the Nikon combination is hurting Canon. In fact, given a choice between a weak 500mm offering and a superior 400mm zoom, the smarter choice is the 100-400II for not much more money.

Why should Canon offer a compromised and more expensive alternative to the Sigma and Tamron that won't net them much profit if any, just because Nikon fell into that trap.

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.

And Nikon's adverts will all but write themselves:

"Buy a Canon 200-500 lens or buy a Nikon D500 + 200-500 lens for the same money."

If this is an enthusiast wildlifer's tool, the economics matter. If it's just another L superwhite, perhaps less so.

- A

Again, I disagree. Ignore the fact for a minute that neither Canon nor Nikon market their products in that way, and think about the logic here for a minute.

Buy a Nikon and get soft images, or invest in a lens that will give you sharp images from that $10,000 safari.

I guess it all boils down to the market and the capacity of the buyers. I see Canon focusing on enthusiasts who have the resources and desire to invest in high quality products because the cost of that investment is just a part of their overall investment. If you are over 50 (which I am by a long shot) you are likely inundated with daily solicitations from travel companies offering trips of a lifetime costing thousands of dollars for a week to 10 days. That, I believe, is the likely market for these lenses -- enthusiasts who travel to Alaska, Africa, Australia, Central America, the U.S. National Parks, etc. etc., and want to bring back professional quality images. The people who are going on the thousands of workshops being offered by pro photographers who can no longer earn a living from selling their pictures, but are reduced to being overpriced tour guides for enthusiasts with disposable income.

The great unknown, as I said before, is what the market will bear. The entire trend in the photo industry is toward higher end enthusiasts with disposable income. I don't see Canon bucking that trend, rather I see them pushing the limits with products that test where the upper limits are.

 

[ahsanford]

My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?

Because birders are unreasonable souls and $9k+ prime will do a better job. ;D

In truth, a 200-500mm f/5.6 for $1400 (even a 500 f/5.6 prime at that price) will have to make some tradeoffs in the optical design, AF system, IS, construction, etc. to hit that price point.

Some see that Nikon for what it is -- a gift of a lens that lets you shoot 500mm FF with first party AF and without a teleconverter. Even a 'B' lens optically would be a steal at that price if the AF works reasonably well.

Others would say it's IQ or bust and point out more expensive options that might do a better job (e.g. 100-400L II + T/C).

Again, there's no pleasing folks here, but Canon would be wise to have a better price point strategy than this menu of options of shooting longer than 400mm FF on the EF mount with first party AF:

400 f/5.6L prime + 1.4x T/C III = $1278
300 f/4L IS + 2x T/C III = $1778
100-400L II IS + 1.4x T/C III = $2428

(then a cliff emerges)

400 f/4 IS DO II + 1.4x T/C III = $7328
500 f/4L IS II = $8999
600 f/4L IS II = $11499

Again, the Nikon value proposition is a compelling one: 500mm f/5.6 + IS + first party AF without the drawbacks of T/C use for $1400.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Canon doesn't need a cheap competitor to the Nikon. Canon users can already buy a cheap competitor to the Nikon. In fact they have several choices from Sigma and Tamron. In fact, those lenses offer an extra 100mm in length and at least two are cheaper than the Nikon while offering optics that are at least as good.

No evidence at all that the Nikon combination is hurting Canon. In fact, given a choice between a weak 500mm offering and a superior 400mm zoom, the smarter choice is the 100-400II for not much more money.

Why should Canon offer a compromised and more expensive alternative to the Sigma and Tamron that won't net them much profit if any, just because Nikon fell into that trap.

Agree, of course, Canon is not forced to do anything. Nikon is gambling they can steal budding birding/wildlife enthusiasts over to their side of the ledger and (likely) sell more D500 bodies in the process.

If Canon has data to suggest that might be happening, they can either fold their arms and say 'bah humbug!' or they can revisit plans for a longer/cheaper zoom and (possibly) accelerate 7D3 timing.

- A