Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom

[ethanz]

The 200-400 is already a great lens with great AF. I'm not sure how they can make a product between that and the 100-400.

 

[ahsanford]

The 200-400 is already a great lens with great AF. I'm not sure how they can make a product between that and the 100-400.

Just leave the 200-400 +1.4x out of this. It's an $11,000 lens. It's for a different class of photographer.

Presently, for Canonites wanting to shoot first party glass longer than 400mm (think amateur wildlifers/birders/etc.), it either requires a teleconverter or $9,000+. THAT is the problem this new lens must address. It's a financial cliff that Nikonians don't have to deal with: they have a 200-500 f/5.6 VR for $1400.

So Canon needs a longer zoom that doesn't cost a mint. They might start with a 200-600 that resembles (stylistically, feature-wise, design-wise, etc.) a larger version of a 100-400L II. That would probably cost over $3k for the f/5.6 reason I mentioned earlier. But they could start there and then consider...

• Reconsidering f/6.3 for an EF lens to keep the lens element sizes down (make a big one-time exception)
• Dropping the L designation and dropping some L Series build quality expectations
• Consider Nano USM or STM instead of ring USM.
• Cap things at 500mm and call it good to contain size/cost
• Sell it at lower margins to keep the cost competitive and retain birders/wildlifers

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

> Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses).

However three of their EF-M lenses do go to f/6.3 on the long end.

So, perhaps the mirrorless 6D replacement that is being rumoured might have a new lens mount too

 

[brad-man]

> Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses).

However three of their EF-M lenses do go to f/6.3 on the long end.

So, perhaps the mirrorless 6D replacement that is being rumoured might have a new lens mount too

Would someone be kind enough to point me to the rumor on this site of the Canon FF ILC people keep talking about. I recall a blip of a rumor about a fixed lens mirrorless offering being contemplated by Canon, but nothing more. A little help?

 

[goldenhusky]

> Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses).

However three of their EF-M lenses do go to f/6.3 on the long end.

So, perhaps the mirrorless 6D replacement that is being rumoured might have a new lens mount too

Would someone be kind enough to point me to the rumor on this site of the Canon FF ILC people keep talking about. I recall a blip of a rumor about a fixed lens mirrorless offering being contemplated by Canon, but nothing more. A little help?

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-full-frame-mirrorless-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31147.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31750.0

related but not exactly what you might be looking for
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31534.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31551.0

AFAIK so far there is no credible information on the Full Frame mirrorless from Canon.

 

[aceflibble]

, as Canon’s longest “affordable” zoom is the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.</p>

And who's to say this new lens will be "affordable"? Realistically, if it was 200-600, it's going to cost more than the 100-400, obviously. And if it does have any unique feature that the third-party lenses of that type lack, then that usually results in a lens costing at least twice what its next-closest contemporary is.

The Canon 100-400 is about £1800 give-or-take in most stores, and the Sigma 150-600 'sport' is around £1500. So I reckon what, £3000 for a Canon 200-600? Of course there's the 200-400 + extender which is about £10000, but that is also fixed f/4. So you'd have you're five-figure version with a fixed aperture, and three grand for a variable aperture version. Seems in-line with everything else, to me.

Now, three grand isn't a big deal in absolute pro circles, but in terms of the full range of photography gear and the full market, it's well out of what can be called "affordable". "Affordable" in market terms means cheap enough that any amateur can buy it and justify buying it. A 6D or used 5D2 is "affordable". The 400mm f/5.6L prime from the early 90s is "affordable". The old 100-400 is "affordable". The current 100-400 is not "affordable" in marketing sense, and any "superzoom" longer than that is going to be even more expensive.


It may well be cheaper than the absolute top lenses and it may well not bankrupt anybody, but common marketing speak like "affordable" still means something very different.

 

[brad-man]

> Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses).

However three of their EF-M lenses do go to f/6.3 on the long end.

So, perhaps the mirrorless 6D replacement that is being rumoured might have a new lens mount too

Would someone be kind enough to point me to the rumor on this site of the Canon FF ILC people keep talking about. I recall a blip of a rumor about a fixed lens mirrorless offering being contemplated by Canon, but nothing more. A little help?

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-full-frame-mirrorless-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31147.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31750.0

related but not exactly what you might be looking for
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31534.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31551.0

AFAIK so far there is no credible information on the Full Frame mirrorless from Canon.

Thanks. That's what I mean. As far as I know there hasn't been a rumor from Canon Rumors for anything other than a fixed lens mirrorless.

 

[RGF]

In my opinion Canon will never make an EF lens slower than f5.6, for the sake of this discussion about a budget tele zoom that means a 500mm limit.

No a quality 150-600 f5.6 is already available from Canon and has been for over 20 years, even now used ones cost over $5,000. An EF version would be substantially more in size and cost than a Sigma 120-300!

Not sure about the F5.6 limit. Can see F6.3.

 

[dufflover]

I'm kinda surprised Canon don't have a 200-500 yet given Nikon has one. And I'd happily sell/trade from my Sigma 120-300/2.8 for that as (as good as that lens is) native and with 1.4x, Canon's modern lenses have had fantastic IQ that I'm sure it'd be noticeably than my current set up with that plus TCs.

 

[unfocused]

In my opinion Canon will never make an EF lens slower than f5.6, for the sake of this discussion about a budget tele zoom that means a 500mm limit.

No a quality 150-600 f5.6 is already available from Canon and has been for over 20 years, even now used ones cost over $5,000. An EF version would be substantially more in size and cost than a Sigma 120-300!

Not sure about the F5.6 limit. Can see F6.3.

A few years ago I would have agreed about the F5.6 limit. But it is clear that Canon has been retooling its enthusiast and pro bodies for multiple f8 focus points. I presumed that was done to keep the 100-400 with a 1.4 converter competitive. But as f8 becomes the standard I don't think you can automatically rule out an F6.3 lens.

 

[Don Haines]

Just remember..... nobody saw the Tamron 150-600 coming out..... everyone was caught by surprise and the lens sold like crazy!

Now we have two versions of the Sigma 150-600 and two versions of the Tamron 150-600.... and Nikon has a 200-500..... and they all sell well!

This proves that there is a market for such a lens in the $1000 to $1500 price range, and if there was a Canon version, it would sell well.

So..... if Sigma can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, and Tamron can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, does anyone on this forum really think that Canon can not do the same? The argument that Canon will never make a DSLR lens slower than F5.6 is seriously flawed!

 

[MrFotoFool]

While I swore I was done buying equipment, I would be very interested in this lens.

 

[jolyonralph]

So..... if Sigma can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, and Tamron can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, does anyone on this forum really think that Canon can not do the same? The argument that Canon will never make a DSLR lens slower than F5.6 is seriously flawed!

Because to make this work is pretty much a dirty hack - ie the lens reports itself as f/5.6 while focusing and only reports its correct aperture when taking the shot. This may work on current cameras but will this hack work on future EOS cameras? Will it even work across the whole range of EOS cameras now?

Third parties can do whatever they can get away with, but Canon at least has to stick to their standards.

They won't release an EF lens that won't work properly on all previous EOS cameras.

 

[aceflibble]

Because to make this work is pretty much a dirty hack - ie the lens reports itself as f/5.6 while focusing and only reports its correct aperture when taking the shot. This may work on current cameras but will this hack work on future EOS cameras? Will it even work across the whole range of EOS cameras now?

Third parties can do whatever they can get away with, but Canon at least has to stick to their standards.

They won't release an EF lens that won't work properly on all previous EOS cameras.

There already are a couple of newer Canon lenses which don't fully play well with some older bodies. Modern IS and STM don't work quite right with anything made before the original 5D, pretty much.

And what the third-parties do is not so much a "dirty hack" as much as it is a smart and honest way to make a slow lens work. It's better than what Canon do where the f-stop of a lens almost never matches the t-stop at all. Yes, Sigma tell the camera it's at f/5.6 when really it's a f/6.3, but it works and Sigma aren't claiming it's an f/5.6 lens. Meanwhile you've got Canon still selling f/1.2 and f/1.4 glass which is actually t/1.8 and t/2, most of their constant-aperture zooms aren't actually quite constant aperture (nor is their t-stop anywhere close to the f-stop, either), and they're essentially blocking certain lenses from autofocusing with some bodies even though a third-party manufacturer has proven it can be made to work.

And if you're going to bring up "dirty tricks", how about you take a look at how far Canon's actual ISO ratings are from their stated values.

Don't pretend Canon has "standards" when they fudge everything just as much as every other company. There isn't a single upright and honest manufacturer out there; that's why they have marketing departments.

 

[Fleetie]

It's better than what Canon do where the f-stop of a lens almost never matches the t-stop at all. You've got Canon still selling f/1.2 and f/1.4 glass which is actually t/1.8 and t/2, most of their constant-aperture zooms aren't actually quite constant aperture (nor is their t-stop anywhere close to the f-stop, either)

Don't pretend Canon has "standards" when they fudge everything just as much as every other company. There isn't a single upright and honest manufacturer out there; that's why they have marketing departments.

I wouldn't expect the T-stop values to be particularly close to the f-stop values.
There are a LOT of elements in most lenses, which means a lot of surfaces at which to lose light to reflection, and a lot of glass to absorb light.

I am sure Canon isn't being deceptive in this respect, and I am also sure they do their *very* best to maximise the T-stops.

 

[docsmith]

They already have a built in 1.4x TC in this range with the 200-400 f/4 1.4xTC.

Please let the new wrinkle be DO. Shorter, lighter, great optics, 200-600 f/4-5.6 DO for around $5k and I will be selling some stock to be first in line.....

 

[jolyonralph]

There already are a couple of newer Canon lenses which don't fully play well with some older bodies. Modern IS and STM don't work quite right with anything made before the original 5D, pretty much.

I'm sure this is possible, but I haven't yet found a Canon EF lens that won't work with the original EOS 650.

The only combination so far that I've found fails is the ancient Canon EF 35-80 f/4-5.6 POWER ZOOM lens (truly awful lens, see http://www.everyothershot.com/old-camera-modern-lens-vs-modern-camera-old-lens-which-will-win/ ) which fails to work at all on the EF-M cameras with the official Canon EF->EF-M adaptor.

 

[arbitrage]

600/5.6 on the long end is not going to happen so lets just rule that out. Because that would give us a front element as big as the 300/2.8. Canon can do that but it will be a big lens and heavy and expensive.

I agree Canon won't release an f/6.3 lens.

So what are the realistic options? There are only two that I can see:
1) 200-500/5.6 just like Nikons (I own that lens (because I love the D500 and hate the 7D2) and it is great but requires 2/3rds stopping down to 7.1 for sharpness to rival the 100-400II/1.4TCIII wide open at f/8). So what is the point really?....maybe better AF versus the 100-400II/1.4TCIII? But it is noticeably larger and heavier than the 1-4?? This could be made as an affordable option over the 100-400II/1.4TCIII

2) Some use of DO....this is the only thing that makes much sense to make it special....but I can't see this being affordable so I'm not sure??

The patents that were published for a 200-600 last year showed a fixed f/5.6 lens with internal zooming which would end up being a 200-400 size, weight and price so really doesn't make any sense either as the 200-400 already becomes a 280-560/5.6 with the flip of the TC.

I think most likely it will be a 200-500/5.6 just like the Nikon to satisfy a lower budget. If Canon can make it tack sharp at 500/5.6 then I will consider it as an alternative or addition to my 100-400II/1.4TCIII. If I have to stop it down like Nikons then forget it.

 

[unfocused]

Let's try this again.

Every enthusiast or pro level body Canon makes will focus at F8. Every body except the 7D II has multiple f8 focus points, so Canon could certainly make an f6.3 lens without having to hack its own autofocus system. If the lens is timed to be released with the 7D III, that body will also have multiple f8 focus points.

So the old rationale no longer applies.

Does that mean Canon will release an f6.3 lens? No. It just means they could if they wanted.

For me, my personal preference would be an f5.6 200-500 mm zoom in the under $3,000 range. I think that's also much more plausible than Canon introducing a cheap lens to compete with Third party offerings.

 

[RunAndGun]

Because to make this work is pretty much a dirty hack - ie the lens reports itself as f/5.6 while focusing and only reports its correct aperture when taking the shot. This may work on current cameras but will this hack work on future EOS cameras? Will it even work across the whole range of EOS cameras now?

Third parties can do whatever they can get away with, but Canon at least has to stick to their standards.

They won't release an EF lens that won't work properly on all previous EOS cameras.

There already are a couple of newer Canon lenses which don't fully play well with some older bodies. Modern IS and STM don't work quite right with anything made before the original 5D, pretty much.

And what the third-parties do is not so much a "dirty hack" as much as it is a smart and honest way to make a slow lens work. It's better than what Canon do where the f-stop of a lens almost never matches the t-stop at all. Yes, Sigma tell the camera it's at f/5.6 when really it's a f/6.3, but it works and Sigma aren't claiming it's an f/5.6 lens. Meanwhile you've got Canon still selling f/1.2 and f/1.4 glass which is actually t/1.8 and t/2, most of their constant-aperture zooms aren't actually quite constant aperture (nor is their t-stop anywhere close to the f-stop, either), and they're essentially blocking certain lenses from autofocusing with some bodies even though a third-party manufacturer has proven it can be made to work.

And if you're going to bring up "dirty tricks", how about you take a look at how far Canon's actual ISO ratings are from their stated values.

Don't pretend Canon has "standards" when they fudge everything just as much as every other company. There isn't a single upright and honest manufacturer out there; that's why they have marketing departments.

Well, T stops and f/stops are completely different. If you're trying to say that T and f should match(sounds kinda dirty, huh?), then you don't understand the difference.