Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom

[Ladislav]

I would love to have something "affordable" (up to $3k) reaching 500+mm from Canon.

Many times I was considering selling my 70-300 L and go for 100-400 L Mk. II and I always abandoned that decision. I love compact size and performance of my 70-300 L and that lens is almost always in my bag just to make sure I have some reach when I need it - and I often do. 100-400 with its size and weight is not comfortable replacement for me as it will require removing another lens from my bag to make a space for it. I also cannot justify to have both these lenses - in my opinion, they are too close to each other.

So anything like 500 prime or 200-500 would be awesome - I would carry that lens only when I knew I would use it. That would remove most of restriction on size on weight. I would strongly prefer if the lens is close in performance and features to current 100-400 Mk. II (that means L glass). But I'm afraid there is not much reasoning for Canon to make anything similar to my expectations in that price range.

Just to make it clear - I can't afford big white.

 

[neonlight]

If I am not mistaken the first rumours mentioned non-L. I'd welcome a 150-500 or something f/5.6, as I often seem to be using the 1.4x with 100-400 II. I agree a 600f/5.6 will be expensive or if not won't get close to L performance, but let's hope it is better than Tamron/Sigma. Could have an extender (150-500 f/5.6 native with 1.4x might work as long as it is at least as sharp as T/S with the extender in line). But that might top it out at over $3000/£3000?

BTW I don't think a 600 f/5.6 will ever be as sharp as the 600 f/4... due to diffraction, but it might be cheaper...

 

[Loswr]

BTW I don't think a 600 f/5.6 will ever be as sharp as the 600 f/4... due to diffraction, but it might be cheaper...

Cheaper, but not cheap...

 

[arbitrage]

BTW I don't think a 600 f/5.6 will ever be as sharp as the 600 f/4... due to diffraction, but it might be cheaper...

Cheaper, but not cheap...

Exactly, based off of front element size of 107mm (same as 300/2.8)we would be looking at 300/2.8 prices. Currently 6K USD!!

 

[GP.Masserano]

I believe that the right choice would be a f5,6 200-500 (true 5,6, not a f6,3 camouflaged...), possibly to use in f8 with 1.4x (with cameras that allow it, as the 80D ecc)
Not a 100-500 which would overlap the 100-400mkII.
And not a 200-600 that would be too heavy and expensive
The frontal lens would be of "human" size, the optical scheme not too complex and the weight acceptable.
On the other hand, anyone who wants to do photos to birds is already accustomed to a weight of 2 kilos and more...

GP

 

[camerone]

something like Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6 would be great, especially if it maybe went beyond 500mm. Just make it out of metal, stuff in great IS, paint it white and there you go.

 

[Plainsman]

What about a fixed (non zoom) 600 f/5.6 that is just as sharp as the 600 f/4? It would be smaller and cheaper and it seems to me a big seller.

...actually a 500/5.6 would be far more useful, cheaper, lighter etc., BUT the days of the big primes must be slowly coming to an end to be replaced by DO zooms e.g. 400-600/4 DO - so that Canon/Nikon can reduce and rationalise their production lines.

 

[kaihp]

BTW I don't think a 600 f/5.6 will ever be as sharp as the 600 f/4... due to diffraction, but it might be cheaper...

Cheaper, but not cheap...

Exactly, based off of front element size of 107mm (same as 300/2.8)we would be looking at 300/2.8 prices. Currently 6K USD!!

I think an x-600 f/5.6L zoom at 6K might be interesting. Canon has the range up to 400mm well covered (100-400, 200-400), so even a 300-600 or 400-600 might make sense.

Compared to a 150-600mm design, would increasing the lower FL to, say, 300m yield a cost saving at all? - the optical formula could probably be improved due to the shorter zoom range.

 

[Loswr]

I think an x-600 f/5.6L zoom at 6K might be interesting. Canon has the range up to 400mm well covered (100-400, 200-400), so even a 300-600 or 400-600 might make sense.

The 200-400L goes to 560mm f/5.6 with the built-in TC, so it would seem an L zoom going 600mm f/5.6 wouldn't add much, unless it was substantially cheaper.

 

[andrei1989]

you're all talking about 3k or 6k as being "reasonable" or "appealing"..but for who??

the tamron and sigma C are somewhere around 1k while the sigma S and the nikon 200-500 are ~1.4k
canon's offering is still 2k and stops at 400mm, if you add the 1.4x then that's another 450€! well outside of the "budget" or "reasonable" definitions.

if this rumor is about a tele zoom then it will be about something to compete with the nikon, so most probably the same 200-500 range and 5.6 aperture, non-L, plastic etc. AND (can i make this bigger) in the same price range!!! (1.5k)

 

[kaihp]

I think an x-600 f/5.6L zoom at 6K might be interesting. Canon has the range up to 400mm well covered (100-400, 200-400), so even a 300-600 or 400-600 might make sense.

The 200-400L goes to 560mm f/5.6 with the built-in TC, so it would seem an L zoom going 600mm f/5.6 wouldn't add much, unless it was substantially cheaper.

CPW says the street price for the 200-400L is 10K USD. Maybe I'm delusionary, but in my book 40% lower cost is 'substantially cheaper'. YMMV.

Neuro, you understand how a lot of this optics stuff scales: what's your swag at how much cheaper a 300-600mm would be vs a 150-600mm (everything else equal of course)?

 

[ahsanford]

CPW says the street price for the 200-400L is 10K USD. Maybe I'm delusionary, but in my book 40% lower cost is 'substantially cheaper'. YMMV.

Neuro, you understand how a lot of this optics stuff scales: what's your swag at how much cheaper a 300-600mm would be vs a 150-600mm (everything else equal of course)?

I defer to the optical folks, but to answer your question, perhaps we could consider the comparison of the 28-300L vs. the 70-300L. Both are 300mm f/5.6L on the long end, though in fairness they were not developed at the same time.

So 28-70mm use on the 28-300 'costs' you a 2" longer lens that is substantially heavier and demonstrably less sharp, but it only takes 3 more elements and 2 more groups over the 70-300L to pull that off.

I've always been of the belief the main drivers for cost and weight in a zoom are [longest FL] and [max aperture], whereas the zoom multiplier punishes sharpness more than cost. The 24-70 f/4 vs. 24-105 f/4 debate would certainly back that up as well.

But what do I know? The 28-300L costs a lot more than the 70-300L, but that might be for unique market reasons -- stills folks hate the resolution on that 28-300L, but video folks don't mind that at all. Perhaps Canon overcharges for that one because it can.

But again, I defer to those who live in the optics world or take this stuff apart for a living. Curious to hear their insights.

- A

 

[Loswr]

CPW says the street price for the 200-400L is 10K USD. Maybe I'm delusionary, but in my book 40% lower cost is 'substantially cheaper'. YMMV.

Neuro, you understand how a lot of this optics stuff scales: what's your swag at how much cheaper a 300-600mm would be vs a 150-600mm (everything else equal of course)?

I defer to the optical folks, but to answer your question, perhaps we could consider the comparison of the 28-300L vs. the 70-300L. Both are 300mm f/5.6L on the long end, though in fairness they were not developed at the same time.

Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k.

I don't think a 300-600 would be significantly cheaper than a 150-600, the long and drives the cost. The lens with thr narrower zoom range (300-600) would deliver better IQ (mainly due to lower distortion).

The 28-300 versus 70-300 is not a fair comparison, the former goes from wide angle to telephoto where is the latter is a telephoto zoom only. The optical challenge of the former is much greater.

 

[neonlight]

Oh dear... Still working on DO improvements. First was the DO. Then the DO II with gunk between two DO elements. Now we've got aluminium oxide on the sharp bits ... all I see is improvements needed to the basic technology that adds costs. For me I hoped DO will provide cheaper/better/lighter but when fighting optics to counteract the downsides I wonder whether DO is really the answer ... :-[

 

[kaihp]

Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k.

I don't think a 300-600 would be significantly cheaper than a 150-600, the long and drives the cost. The lens with thr narrower zoom range (300-600) would deliver better IQ (mainly due to lower distortion).

So you're saying that a zoom with 600/5.6 in the long end is likely to be more than $6k, right? Bummer

Thanks for confirming my gut feeling/intution about the cost/IQ driver.

 

[tron]

Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k.

I don't think a 300-600 would be significantly cheaper than a 150-600, the long and drives the cost. The lens with thr narrower zoom range (300-600) would deliver better IQ (mainly due to lower distortion).

So you're saying that a zoom with 600/5.6 in the long end is likely to be more than $6k, right? Bummer

Thanks for confirming my gut feeling/intution about the cost/IQ driver.

If that will be the price then I would rather see a 600 5.6 DO lens. I know that a 600 4 DO is probably on schedule but a 5.6 DO version would have size (front element diameter) and weight advantages vs the f/4 DO and size (length) and IQ advantage vs the f/5.6 zoom.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k.

I don't think a 300-600 would be significantly cheaper than a 150-600, the long and drives the cost. The lens with thr narrower zoom range (300-600) would deliver better IQ (mainly due to lower distortion).

So you're saying that a zoom with 600/5.6 in the long end is likely to be more than $6k, right? Bummer

Thanks for confirming my gut feeling/intution about the cost/IQ driver.

I believe so. Consider that a zoom lens going to 600/5.6 will have the same 'business end' as the 300/2.8, which costs $6K without the optics needed for a zoom and the additional length.

 

[neonlight]

A 500 f/5.6 needs a 90mm front element. A 600 f/6.3 needs 95mm. Could this lens could be a 150-500 f/5.6 with extender? Although it might be a 200-600 f/something-f/6.3 that won't be very unique... and a 600 f/5.6 will cost too much.

 

[swkitt]

A 500mm at the long end will be enough, people will not prefer a Sigma or Tammy for just 100mm of extra lenght, while they do when all Canon can offer is a 100-400.
What Canon needs in terms of marketing is a 150 or 200-500, at a reasonnable price (compare to the Nikon and 150-600 zooms available from third party).

 

[Loswr]

A 500 f/5.6 needs a 90mm front element. A 600 f/6.3 needs 95mm. Could this lens could be a 150-500 f/5.6 with extender? Although it might be a 200-600 f/something-f/6.3 that won't be very unique... and a 600 f/5.6 will cost too much.

I don't see Canon coming out with an f/6.3 zoom lens for dSLRs, given their oft-stated requirement for f/5.6 to support AF.