AlanF said:
My Canon 300 2.8IS MkI and 2x TC MkII blew the socks off my POS 150-600 Sigma in resolution, focus speed and accuracy. Just goes to show the value of a sample of one or two.
Upvote
0
Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
My Canon 300 2.8IS MkI and 2x TC MkII blew the socks off my POS 150-600 Sigma in resolution, focus speed and accuracy. Just goes to show the value of a sample of one or two.
privatebydesign said:reef58 said:
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
I am not sure where you get the focusing information but that is incorrect. That being said my point was for an ED front element for the lens we referenced the costs is less than $1,000, so the lens could be manufactured for a reasonable costs if it is built similar to the 70-300L. It doesn't have to cost $5000.
Upvote
0
Some thoughts ...
Got to be less than $/£2000 to protect 100-400II
Preferably xxx-600mm.
If f5.6 has to be expensive but if plasticky, not weather sealed might trade off build for reach
Could this be an EF-S 200-600 only? Perhaps but unlikely.
My guess: EF 200-600f/5.6 fly by wire STM plasticky thingy. Will give adequate quality, cost £/$2500 (some folks may pay for the reach over the 100-400) Another guess - black, not compatible with TC?
Got to be less than $/£2000 to protect 100-400II
Preferably xxx-600mm.
If f5.6 has to be expensive but if plasticky, not weather sealed might trade off build for reach
Could this be an EF-S 200-600 only? Perhaps but unlikely.
My guess: EF 200-600f/5.6 fly by wire STM plasticky thingy. Will give adequate quality, cost £/$2500 (some folks may pay for the reach over the 100-400) Another guess - black, not compatible with TC?
Upvote
0
I have the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 on my D500. It is an excellent lens: tack sharp and light enough to hand-hold. I would gladly sell my Sigma 150-600 Sport (heavy beast!) for a Canon 200-600 if it's as good or better than the Nikon 200-500. I love the Sigma on my Canon 5D MkIV, but I'm getting older and it isn't getting any lighter!
Upvote
0
reef58 said:privatebydesign said:reef58 said:
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
I am not sure where you get the focusing information but that is incorrect. That being said my point was for an ED front element for the lens we referenced the costs is less than $1,000, so the lens could be manufactured for a reasonable costs if it is built similar to the 70-300L. It doesn't have to cost $5000.
It going to be a build similar to an L lens......
Even if they made it similar in build to the 70-300 II (non-L), you are looking at taking a $500 lens and doubling the focal length, which means 4 times the glass surface and 8 times the weight of glass....and you are going to need a much beefier lens tube to hold it together and bigger motors to drive it..... That gives you one very heavy monster of a lens in the $2000 range.... More exotic glasses and designs will be needed to keep the weight down.... I can’t see this happening.....
Upvote
0
Phil Lowe said:
I have several friends with the Nikon 200-500. They all love it! Canon could make a similar lens, but it would probably be classed as an L lens....
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
And/or an excellent copy of the 300.
Suffice is to say I made my choice from the lenses I actually owned, the Sigma has gone and the Canon remains.
Upvote
0
I read lots of reviews, and take each individually with a pinch of salt. However, here is a rather deep one comparing the Nikon 200-500mm, Sigma 150-600mm and Tamron 150-600mm on a Nikon.
https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
It seems to be in line with the consensus of other reviews. The Tamron holds its own with the Nikon and the Sigma is good. All of the reviews of the Nikon say the AF isn't good for BIF, and frankly neither of the other two are.
Overall, all three lenses are much of a muchness from the average of all the reviews I have read. There are duff copies of all of these lenses, but the good ones are very good. The Canon 100-400mm II is of much more consistent build quality with very few reports of bad copies.
https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
It seems to be in line with the consensus of other reviews. The Tamron holds its own with the Nikon and the Sigma is good. All of the reviews of the Nikon say the AF isn't good for BIF, and frankly neither of the other two are.
Overall, all three lenses are much of a muchness from the average of all the reviews I have read. There are duff copies of all of these lenses, but the good ones are very good. The Canon 100-400mm II is of much more consistent build quality with very few reports of bad copies.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign
The 300mm/2.8 are all built to a very high standard, and I am sure you have a good copy because there aren't many bad ones. I use a 2xTC a lot on my 400mm DO II, and I used it even more frequently on my 300/28. But, there is a real hit on the higher frequency MTF: see http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-test/ where the 30cy/mm MTF drops to 0.5 for the 300/2.8. And the AF speed takes a huge hit. I use the bare 400mm for BIF.
The 300mm/2.8 are all built to a very high standard, and I am sure you have a good copy because there aren't many bad ones. I use a 2xTC a lot on my 400mm DO II, and I used it even more frequently on my 300/28. But, there is a real hit on the higher frequency MTF: see http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-test/ where the 30cy/mm MTF drops to 0.5 for the 300/2.8. And the AF speed takes a huge hit. I use the bare 400mm for BIF.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
I got to play with the Nikon 200-500, the sigma 150-600, and both the regular and the G2 versions of the Tamron 150-600 on a D500... (nobody had the sigma sport
).All the lenses were very close, but I would give the edge to the G2 Tamron for both AF speed and sharpness. That said, they were all very close and any of them would be a good choice. I ended up deciding on the Tamron G2, mostly because it is compatible with the docking station so you can update the software, plus you can AFMA the lens for three different distances and at 6 different focal lengths.... a far better arrangement than just using two values, one for wide and one for long. (Remember, this was on a D500, I have no idea how it translates to a 7D2 or 5D4)
As has been said before, nobody care about the DR of an out of focus picture.... the effort that Tamron has put into allowing you to calibrate your camera/lens pair is welcome. Canon and Nikon should be learning from this....
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
It's pretty easy, actually. You get people who are interested in birding/wildlife, and are looking for something usable that's in their price range, and for a lot of people who don't buy a lot of photography equipment, they psychologically don't want a third party lens.
The alternatives are a $2000-$3000 first party kit (body + lens), a different brand, or a different hobby.
A lot of people would also point out that all the inexpensive 500mm+ lenses are quite acceptable when the subject isn't moving, the camera is on a tripod, and you can use liveview magnification to focus at your leisure. Of course, that won't do for more serious hobbyists.
Anyways, I was only pointing out that it's important to have something to fill the space, because the absence of it causes some new hobbyists to choose Nikon, even though I think the consensus is that you'd be better off with a Tamron or Sigma, for less money, on Nikon.
Upvote
0
Canon's longest lens which is non L is a 70-300 zoom. Actually they make about 28 versions of this focal length.
What does it take for them to make a (blank)-400 which does not cannibalize the 100-400L? Not faster than f/5 at the wide end? No special coating? Nano USM? *gulp* plastic mount?
I stopped at 400 since it is obvious to anyone that the next size up (500) would require such a large amount of glass....(psst, glass =$$$)
What does it take for them to make a (blank)-400 which does not cannibalize the 100-400L? Not faster than f/5 at the wide end? No special coating? Nano USM? *gulp* plastic mount?
I stopped at 400 since it is obvious to anyone that the next size up (500) would require such a large amount of glass....(psst, glass =$$$)
Upvote
0
Talys said:
A lot of people would point all of that out? What people - trolls? You clearly didn't read Don Haines' comment on his testing of lenses or the link to the in-depth review I had posted just a few back.
The Tamron and Sigma 150-600mms have good IS and do not need a tripod for general use, their AF is precise and fast enough for most purposes and you most certainly do not need live view to focus them. Neither are good for fast moving birds in flight but they are adequate for big slow moving ones. For fast BIF I use a bare 400mm DO II because even that with a TC is too slow on a 5DIV and you need a 1DX for its extra voltage.
When I don't use the 400mm DO II, I use either a Canon-100-400mm II or Sigma 150-600mm C without a tripod and get very sharp shake-free shots, posted in the birds threads, which you can find in my profile summary.
Don't accuse me and others in this forum of not being serious hobbyists because we use cheap, but good, Sigmas and Tamrons.
An afterthought, here are a couple of shots from the 5DSR, which is very demanding for stability, hand held with the Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm. Top is a kestrel I took 5 days ago at 1/400s, 25m away, camera pointed upwards, and bottom a juvenile dunnock at 1/80s earlier this year. In both cases I was standing with no support for the camera or my elbows or leaning against anything. The OS was more than adequate even at these shutter speeds as was the AF without liveview.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Yes!AlanF said:
The forum users are not indicative of the masses..... most people will never spend $2000 on a lens. Outside of forum users, I know 0 people who have a 600F4 or 800F5.6, yet at a camera club meeting over a dozen people showed up with 150-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron, and several of the 200-500 lenses from Nikon.... In my canoe club, I am considered a photography fanatic because I bring along a “huge” pelican case with a camera and two extra lenses.... oh yes, and the Tamron 150-600 gets used handheld in a canoe.....
Upvote
0
Congrats to the book dealMrFotoFool said:
)https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1035&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0
I'd go for the Siggy S as first option to investigate though, if I was in the market for a long zoom right now and found the 100-400+TC too pricey.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
There's no need to be hostile.
I didn't say that inexpensive Nikon/Tamron/Sigma 500mm+ can't produce sharp shots when handheld, did I?
I simply said that on a tripod, when you have a stationary subject, using live view and MF, you can always get very acceptable shots. For BIF, f/6.3 autofocus will just never compete with faster (and much more expensive) lenses, and the proportion of sharp shots is relatively low, even with relatively large and slower moving birds. It's very low with somewhat faster, smaller birds, especially when handheld. But even on a gimbal, the AF on a Sigma 150-600C may not lock in time at f/6.3, especially if it isn't against blue sky.
As you've pointed out before, you own much more expensive lenses than 150-600's. As does Don. But I didn't put it eloquently, and I shouldn't have painted with such a broad brush, so I apologize. I didn't mean it that way; I should have said, for people that want a high keeper rate on small, fast-moving subjects, these lenses aren't good enough.
Anyways, you're missing the point of what I was saying. My point was that a lens to compete with the Nikon 200-500 is important for Canon to have in its portfolio, even if it isn't competitive with the 100-400LII in sharpness and contrast or AF speed, and even if there are good third party alternatives that fill that nice. I say this because there are a lot of hobbyists who want to buy all first-party stuff (that is not me, nor, obviously you, and probably not most people here, but go into the wild, and you'll see plenty of people with Nikons and 200-500's). Even if the lens is the size/quality of Nikon or Sigma/Tamrons' offering, and even if it is somewhat more expensive (but not astronomically so), it will be helpful in persuading people who are not committed to a brand to choose Canon.
The reality of it is that there is a demand for 500mm+ that doesn't cost many thousands of dollars; for this market, AF speed/accuracy, size, weather sealing, and even to a lesser extent, image quality, takes a back seat to focal length.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
Well, the 70-300 nano is a fine looking lens, and it's actually pretty big, but it definitely isn't an L -- it is much lighter, and there's a lot more of that plastic on it. One thing I surely hope that Canon does not do on a long telephoto that's not an L.... I pray that Canon does not make it focus-by-wire only, like the 70-300 nano =X
Upvote
0
Similar threads
