Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom

[ahsanford]

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.

Right. So that leaves us with...

• Something - 500mm f/5.6 -- the more reasonable Nikon-like offering that would keep the front element small and the price down (somewhat)
  
  
• Something - 600mm f/5.6 -- this would cost a nontrivial chunk of change and likely price Canon a soid 2-3x above the other options out there.
  
  
• Something - 400mm f/5.6 with an in-line 1.4x -- this would keep the size / cost down, but the effective 560mm f/8 would (a) violate the f/5.6 EF lens rule, and (b) have the typical drawbacks of teleconverters -- slower AF, limited AF points usable, altogether not working with AF through the viewfinder on some older bodies.
  
  
• Something - 400mm f/4 with an in-line 1.4x -- Effectively, a 'budget' flavor of a $12k lens at the same max aperture. Though it would satisfy the f/5.6 rule, I just can't see Canon undermining a big white with a same-speed lesser option. And it wouldn't be that inexpensive anyway -- compare Canon's 400 f/4 vs. 400 f/5.6 today.

My money's on the first option presently. Nikon hit the budget / long sweet spot with that one and it satisfies the f/5.6 rule.

- A

 

[Loswr]

• Something - 500mm f/5.6 -- the more reasonable Nikon-like offering that would keep the front element small and the price down (somewhat)
  
  
  
• Something - 400mm f/5.6 with an in-line 1.4x -- this would keep the size / cost down, but the effective 560mm f/8 would (a) violate the f/5.6 EF lens rule, and (b) have the typical drawbacks of teleconverters -- slower AF, limited AF points usable, altogether not working with AF through the viewfinder on some older bodies.
  

I could see either of these, but the first is much more likely. Given that f/8 phase AF has moved from 1-series only to the xxD series, the latter is a possibility because the lens will natively AF on many bodies.

 

[unfocused]

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.

While I tend to agree, I don't think it can be entirely discounted. There is a reason Canon has been adding multiple f8 focus points to every one of its enthusiast and pro-level cameras. I believe the main reason is to make the 100-400 with a 1.4 teleconverter more competitive.

But, I am also open to the possibility that it would allow them to make a slower superzoom (although they would have to wait until the 7DIII -- perhaps releasing them simultaneously).

I'd be curious if any of the Canon statements you've referenced have been made within the last six months to a year.

Still, I am personally rooting for a 200-500 f5.6 zoom. If it materializes it won't be a "bargain" lens (I just don't seem Canon competing for that segment). They will paint it white, put a red ring around it and sell it for somewhere in the $2,500 to $3,000 range. And, birders will be lining up to buy it.

I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.

 

[ahsanford]

I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.

I appreciate it's only been done on one very expensive lens, but why must that mean that it's only going to be a very expensive lens?

Wouldn't an in-line 1.4x be a clever way to keep the front element size/weight/cost down? Why not implement one in a cheaper lens?

- A

 

[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.

While I tend to agree, I don't think it can be entirely discounted. There is a reason Canon has been adding multiple f8 focus points to every one of its enthusiast and pro-level cameras. I believe the main reason is to make the 100-400 with a 1.4 teleconverter more competitive.

But, I am also open to the possibility that it would allow them to make a slower superzoom (although they would have to wait until the 7DIII -- perhaps releasing them simultaneously).

I'd be curious if any of the Canon statements you've referenced have been made within the last six months to a year.

Still, I am personally rooting for a 200-500 f5.6 zoom. If it materializes it won't be a "bargain" lens (I just don't seem Canon competing for that segment). They will paint it white, put a red ring around it and sell it for somewhere in the $2,500 to $3,000 range. And, birders will be lining up to buy it.

I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.

Fair point - they've been talking up f/8 AF lately. But if we're talking about a price-competitive lens in the range of the 3rd party 150-600mm and Nikon 200-500mm lenses, I only see that coming in at slower than f/5.6 if f/8 AF is available on Rebel/xxxD level bodies.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

While I tend to agree, I don't think it can be entirely discounted. There is a reason Canon has been adding multiple f8 focus points to every one of its enthusiast and pro-level cameras. I believe the main reason is to make the 100-400 with a 1.4 teleconverter more competitive.

But, I am also open to the possibility that it would allow them to make a slower superzoom (although they would have to wait until the 7DIII -- perhaps releasing them simultaneously).

I'd be curious if any of the Canon statements you've referenced have been made within the last six months to a year.

Still, I am personally rooting for a 200-500 f5.6 zoom. If it materializes it won't be a "bargain" lens (I just don't seem Canon competing for that segment). They will paint it white, put a red ring around it and sell it for somewhere in the $2,500 to $3,000 range. And, birders will be lining up to buy it.

I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.

Fair point - they've been talking up f/8 AF lately. But if we're talking about a price-competitive lens in the range of the 3rd party 150-600mm and Nikon 200-500mm lenses, I only see that coming in at slower than f/5.6 if f/8 AF is available on Rebel/xxxD level bodies.

But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and a lying F5.6 to older bodies that do not....

 

[Haulien]

Back in the FD days canon made a fixed aperture 150-600 f/5.6L. Wonder how much it cost back then.

It used to have a slide mechanism for zooming, wonder if we'll see such a thing again for a massive zoom range/lens.

 

[unfocused]

I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.

I appreciate it's only been done on one very expensive lens, but why must that mean that it's only going to be a very expensive lens?

Wouldn't an in-line 1.4x be a clever way to keep the front element size/weight/cost down? Why not implement one in a cheaper lens?

- A

I'm not an engineer or lens designer, but I note that the 200-400 with 1.4x is more expensive than any other 400mm lens, including the f2.8 version. It's also more expensive than the 500mm f4. I don't think pricing decisions are totally arbitrary, so I suspect that engineering and manufacturing the 200-400 was not a cheap date. I'm also not aware of any other manufacturer rushing (or even strolling) into this market niche. Knowing also that the extender on the 200-400 was specifically designed for the lens, all leads me to conclude that adding this feature to a cheaper lens would make the lens not so cheap.

 

[ethanz]

I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.

I appreciate it's only been done on one very expensive lens, but why must that mean that it's only going to be a very expensive lens?

Wouldn't an in-line 1.4x be a clever way to keep the front element size/weight/cost down? Why not implement one in a cheaper lens?

- A

I'm not an engineer or lens designer, but I note that the 200-400 with 1.4x is more expensive than any other 400mm lens, including the f2.8 version. It's also more expensive than the 500mm f4. I don't think pricing decisions are totally arbitrary, so I suspect that engineering and manufacturing the 200-400 was not a cheap date. I'm also not aware of any other manufacturer rushing (or even strolling) into this market niche. Knowing also that the extender on the 200-400 was specifically designed for the lens, all leads me to conclude that adding this feature to a cheaper lens would make the lens not so cheap.

Bingo. There is so much going on in the 200-400. It is priced that high for reasons other than Canon being greedy. It is such a great lens. If this rumored lens is supposed to be "cheaper," no one should expect it to be anything close to the quality, etc of the 200-400.

 

[Loswr]

But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and a lying F5.6 to older bodies that do not....

Yeah......no. Not going to happen.

 

[ecka]

Yes, but you can get those 600mm by cropping them out of 400mm image, easily, with similar (if not better) details. And if you prefer putting your teleconverters to work, then perhaps a 400/5.6L prime is a better tool for the job.

True that cropping is fine when the image is sufficiently large and you are not pixel limited, and then you won't see much difference between 400 and 600mm, and 400mm might even be better. But, if the image is small and you are pixel limited, then 600mm easily beats 400mm.

You might be pixel limited with 400mm, but you are crop limited with Tamrons 600mm due to lack of sharpness. So, you are limited either way, except when 400mm is enough. However, from my experience, most of the time, having a longer lens means less cropping in post, but the cropping is still involved (because no lens is long enough for everything). And having 600mm which you cannot crop as much as 400mm makes them pretty much equal.

 

[AlanF]

A 600mm lens gives 50% more linear magnification than a 400mm. For the increase in length to be negated by a dropping of resolution, the MTFs would have to drop by 33% at 600mm. The higher frequency MTFs could drop by that amount for a poor copy of the lens but good copies it seems from looking at various measurements available appear to drop by about 15-20%. It's similarly true for putting on a 1.4xTC - low frequency MTFs on the 100-400mm II drop by about 10% and higher frequency 20%. In practice, the relative merits of 400vs600mm with the Sigma and 400 vs 560mm with the Canon depend on the lighting and sensor. Under good conditions, the longer focal lengths are better for my gear, but I am happy not to use the extender on the 100-400mm on the 5DSR as f5.6 is better than f/8. With the 5DIV, I tend to use longer focal lengths.

 

[Don Haines]

But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and a lying F5.6 to older bodies that do not....

Yeah......no. Not going to happen.

I would not absolutely say no, it is a possibility. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility....

 

[Don Haines]

Canon has a 100-400 zoom..... A something to 500 zoom is not that significant of a difference to warrant a new lens..

Canon has a fast 200-400 (560) zoom.... a something to 600 zoom at F5.6 is also not a significant enough difference.....

What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6???? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....

 

[Fleetie]

What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6? ??? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....

It'd be bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the 800/5.6L.

 

[Don Haines]

What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6? ??? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....

It'd be bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the 800/5.6L.

I think that with DO tech, they could make it slightly lighter, a bit shorter, and a LOT! more expensive.... perhaps 16K or 17K US..... After all, the Sigma 300-800 is 8K US, so slap on a Canon label and add in DO and you should be able to double the price....

 

[Loswr]

But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and a lying F5.6 to older bodies that do not....

Yeah......no. Not going to happen.

I would not absolutely say no, it is a possibility. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility....

It is a possibility that Canon HQ will be destroyed by an asteroid. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility....

 

[ecka]

A 600mm lens gives 50% more linear magnification than a 400mm. For the increase in length to be negated by a dropping of resolution, the MTFs would have to drop by 33% at 600mm. The higher frequency MTFs could drop by that amount for a poor copy of the lens but good copies it seems from looking at various measurements available appear to drop by about 15-20%. It's similarly true for putting on a 1.4xTC - low frequency MTFs on the 100-400mm II drop by about 10% and higher frequency 20%. In practice, the relative merits of 400vs600mm with the Sigma and 400 vs 560mm with the Canon depend on the lighting and sensor. Under good conditions, the longer focal lengths are better for my gear, but I am happy not to use the extender on the 100-400mm on the 5DSR as f5.6 is better than f/8. With the 5DIV, I tend to use longer focal lengths.

Just look at it
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

 

[Jopa]

But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and a lying F5.6 to older bodies that do not....

Yeah......no. Not going to happen.

I would not absolutely say no, it is a possibility. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility....

It is a possibility that Canon HQ will be destroyed by an asteroid. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility....

It's Japan - Godzilla is a way more serious threat than an asteroid.

 

[Jopa]

A 600mm lens gives 50% more linear magnification than a 400mm. For the increase in length to be negated by a dropping of resolution, the MTFs would have to drop by 33% at 600mm. The higher frequency MTFs could drop by that amount for a poor copy of the lens but good copies it seems from looking at various measurements available appear to drop by about 15-20%. It's similarly true for putting on a 1.4xTC - low frequency MTFs on the 100-400mm II drop by about 10% and higher frequency 20%. In practice, the relative merits of 400vs600mm with the Sigma and 400 vs 560mm with the Canon depend on the lighting and sensor. Under good conditions, the longer focal lengths are better for my gear, but I am happy not to use the extender on the 100-400mm on the 5DSR as f5.6 is better than f/8. With the 5DIV, I tend to use longer focal lengths.

Just look at it
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Wow, very impressive- even with the 1.4tc the canon is sharper: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2