Anyone here think that Canon should have made a 200-600/6.3 rather than a 100-500/7.1?

[dolina]

As the 600/11 is being sold at $699 it is somewhat understandable that Canon would produce a 100-500/7.1 that does not directly compete with it.

But is anyone here thinking that it was a lost opportunity on Canon's part not make their version of the Sony's 200-600/6.3?

It would directly compete with Sigma/Tamron 150-600/6.3 but at focal length that does not overlap with the 70-200.

It would be a cheaper version of the 200-400/4 + 1.4x

The 100-500/7.1 is just so odd.

 

[AlanF]

Nothing odd about the 100-500/7.1. It is a beautifully light lens that is sharper at 500mm than the Sigma 150-600 at 600mm and resolves just as well, despite being shorter (I have tested both on the R5). The Sony 200-600mm is a really nice lens but is slightly on the heavy side for a hand held lens for hiking. Frankly, I would prefer a lightweight prime, like a 500/5.6 or a 600/6.3 to go with the zoom.

 

[dolina]

When the 600/11 & 800/11 was announced at $699 and $899 I was delightfully surprised by the price, weight and compactness.

With how it was on short supply I'm fairly certain that Canon could have jacked up the price by $100-200 and it would still sell very well.

 

[Bdbtoys]

To me the 600/800 f11's were interesting, but didn't hold a candle to the versatility of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1, especially if paired w/ an extender which would net you 420-700 f8-10 & 600-1000 f11-14. The zoom was the clear winner on coverage alone (I think most would go DO's or the L but not both, but could be wrong).

So say a 200-600 f5.6-6.3 came out first, would I have gotten that instead... probably. Would I jump to get it now... perhaps, but not sure.

Here are my 2 current walkabout situations (for general daytime usage)...
I grab the 100-500 for general long range, and that is it. Or I take the 24-70 f2.8 + 100-500 for items where I'm not sure what I'll be running across.
If I can get a 24-105 f4 cheap, which I probably will at some point. I would have a 3rd walk around option of the 24-105 + 100-500 with virtually no overlap.

On all 3 situations I could throw in an extender for more reach at the long end. And if I'm grabbing the 100-500, the 70-200 f2.8 isn't making the bag.

If I instead had a 200-600, I would probably still go with 1 of the 3 options... but could fill in the 70-200 f2.8 as needed, but realistically it probably wouldn't make the bag unless I was forgoing the 24-70 range (but keeping all 3 would be an option).

 

[Czardoom]

My take: The 100-500mm will be a much more popular and better selling lens. I would consider 200-600mm as being very niche. Plus 200-600mm f/6.3 will be heavier and more expensive. So, making the 200-600mm first would have not have been wise, in my opinion.

And who's to say that there won't be a Canon RF 200-600mm at some point? There's no hurry to make such a lens at this point, so if Canon feels it is worth it, they might make it.

 

[SteveC]

My take: The 100-500mm will be a much more popular and better selling lens. I would consider 200-600mm as being very niche. Plus 200-600mm f/6.3 will be heavier and more expensive. So, making the 200-600mm first would have not have been wise, in my opinion.

And who's to say that there won't be a Canon RF 200-600mm at some point? There's no hurry to make such a lens at this point, so if Canon feels it is worth it, they might make it.

I don't see it as an "instead" either. The two wouldn't be comparable. The 200-600 would have much larger glass elements in it. They could very well make such a thing in addition to the 100-500.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

Nope

 

[docsmith]

I don't see it as an "instead" either. The two wouldn't be comparable. The 200-600 would have much larger glass elements in it. They could very well make such a thing in addition to the 100-500.

Exactly. 600/6.3 = 95.2 mm minimum front element size. 500 mm/7.1 = 70.4 mm minimum front element size. These are two very different lenses. But, since the 200-600 is already getting larger, lets just go 600/5.6 = 107.1 mm minimum front element size.

 

[dcm]

Give the progression from a 100-400 f/5.6 to a 100-500 f/7.1, I would have expected a ?-600 f/8 or f/9. Not a 6.3.

 

[RunAndGun]

I think the 100-500 is a more versatile lens. The difference between 100mm and 200mm is more noticeable than 500mm to 600mm, so you get a wider back-end and more zoom range without sacrificing that much on the top-end.

 

[Del Paso]

Nope

+ 1

 

[usern4cr]

I think the 100-500 is a more versatile lens. The difference between 100mm and 200mm is more noticeable than 500mm to 600mm, so you get a wider back-end and more zoom range without sacrificing that much on the top-end.

I have the RF 100-500L and love it. It does covers the 100-200 range, but at f4.5+ instead of f2.8 with the RF 70-200L. In the future, I'm hoping that Canon will come out with the RF 35-135 f2.8L (which was patented) which would be an ideal high IQ single walk-about lens which also covers the 70-135 portrait range at f2.8, and an ideal 2nd lens to pair with the 100-500 so the RF 70-200 f2.8L is even less needed. Then add a RF 15-35 f2.8L (or f4L if they make it) and you'd have an ideal 3 lens setup. Plus Canon will probably come out with a big white RF prime to cover the 600mm f4 or f5.6 range for those that can afford adding it, and use a RF TC to extend it further.

Maybe they'll come out with a RF 200-600 lens, too. Who knows?

 

[john1970]

I own the 100-500 mm lens and for lightweight wildlife photography it is glued on my R5. My favorite thing about this lens is that I can digitally crop the photo at a touch of a button and have a 17 MP picture with a 800 mm FOV. I previously owned the Sony 200-600 mm lens, but as other mentioned found it too heavy. Maybe Canon will release a 600 mm f5.6 with diffractive optics for low weight in the future.