Don Haines said:
nikon also have an 80-400 yet they still made a new 200-500...so why not canon?
Upvote
0
Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
nikon also have an 80-400 yet they still made a new 200-500...so why not canon?
Don Haines said:
This about an inexpensive new class of lens. Overlap is the last thing on Canon's mind with this. This might not even be an L lens, keep in mind. Imagine a (much) larger version of the recent non-L 70-300 IS nano USM, for instance.
Canon has to decide if it merely needs to be 'in the neighborhood' here (a longer version of the 100-400L II magically around $3k) or if it must more directly go toe-to-toe with a near-Nikon price point (strip it down for cost and keep it bone simple). We shall see.
- A
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
ahsanford said:
I think that's a nice summation of the choices. Although I'm not sure why you say "magically" around $3K. Do you believe Canon could not produce a 200-500 "L" 5.6 for around $3,000? I have no idea, but just looking at the cost of the 100-400 "L" it doesn't seem like adding a more than 50% premium to the price is unreasonably optimistic.
From a marketing standpoint, I'm guessing that a $3,000 zoom that is of comparable quality to the 100-400 zoom would sell very well to birders, especially with a new 7DIII that has multiple f8 focusing points and new sensor technology.
As you say, it all depends on what Canon's research shows. Compete head-to-head against the bargain long lenses or go for a higher quality more costly lens that appeals to enthusiasts who don't want to sacrifice quality. My gut tells me Canon is more likely to choose the latter, but of course none of us knows.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Yep, I still think any activity from Canon here is more about Nikon than Sigma or Tamron. Unfortunately, 200-500 sales is not a terribly public piece of data.
So Canon, I'm sure, has been monitoring their own sales for a the 'canary in the mine' for the potential of the D500 + 200-500 actually stealing enthusiast wildlifers/birders away.
My guess of that canary are the sales of the 7D2 and (to a lesser degree) the 100-400L II, but I could be wrong.
- A
Upvote
0
I still say the 600mm Superzooms are a false flag, they don't perform that much better, if at all, than Canon's 400mm lenses.
They're also huge lenses.
What I'm excited to see is Sigma's new 100-400.
The Superzooms all drop sharpness dramatically after 400mm anyway, if Sigma can get the same or better performace at 400mm out of a smaller lens, it's basically going to make all the other lenses obsolete (in size, performance, and cost), and take most of the wind out of Canon's 100-400.
They're also huge lenses.
What I'm excited to see is Sigma's new 100-400.
The Superzooms all drop sharpness dramatically after 400mm anyway, if Sigma can get the same or better performace at 400mm out of a smaller lens, it's basically going to make all the other lenses obsolete (in size, performance, and cost), and take most of the wind out of Canon's 100-400.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
How wedded is Canon to the traditional FL measurements? I know the actual FL is often a bit off from the marked one, but could and would Canon do something like make an X-520mm/5.6 zoom (MARKED as 520) to just twist the dagger a little bit? It would keep the front element under 100mm but still one-up the Nikon (and maybe help justify a higher price).
Upvote
0
ecka said:
A few years ago I had a Sigma 100-300 f4 (constant aperture) that I bought used. It was a good lens - had a really nice feel and balance and was surprisingly sharp for an older style Sigma. I really liked it but after a couple years the autofocus stopped working and the repair places said parts were no longer available.
My guess as to why no one makes this any more is that people are more inclined to buy a 70-200 f2.8L and just put on a 1.4x extender to equal what you are describing.
Upvote
0
As I have said before, I think a 600 f5.6L that is just as sharp but more affordable (and lighter) than the f4L would sell like crazy. I know I would be interested.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
Not going to happen, IMHO.
Right now, we have a choice of:
70-200 f/2.8 --> pro staple tool
70-200 f/4 --> stellar IQ short tele that doesn't cost a mint (best value L lens out there?)
(your possible 100-300 f/4L would fall about here)
70-300L or 70-300 DO --> what folks with much nicer lenses take when they go on vacation :
70-300 non-L (the recent Nano USM) --> a cheaper take on the L or DO lens, an 'EF-S 15-85 short tele', if you will
75-300 non-L --> dirt cheap lenses
...so I just don't see Canon putting out a lens that would straddle the 70-300 / 100-400 span with a fixed max aperture that neither the 100-400L II or the 70-300L were afforded.
(That said, Sigma loves to make nutty 'tweeners' like this: a 50-150 fast zoom for crop, a 120-300 f/2.8 for FF, etc.)
Nor do I see Canon updating the 70-200 f/4 with a 100-300 replacement, because Canon loves to sell small and light f/4 IS zooms alongside identical FL range f/2.8 pro zooms (see 24-70, see 16-35, and 70-200 of course had four versions being sold simultaneously at one point). So, no, I see a straight update to the 70-200 lenses rather than a change in FL with a future replacement.
- A
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
ahsanford said:
I will point out that the canary is a little bird. As in, 'a little bird told me'. Macy's never told Gimbel's, but Gimbel's found out anyway.
Upvote
0
There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different. So, I just popped out into my garden where I have some charts on A4 paper that are stuck to a wall and left out all year and get soaking wet periodically and did a quick comparison.
Here are some crops from shots at 27.5m away, taken on the 5DSR in RAW with no processing other than USM 100% 0.9 pixels. The lines on the charts test the resolution at the pixel limits. Despite the crude set up and some shake at low shutter speeds, you can see quite clearly that my Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm is slightly out performing my canon 100-400mm II at 400mm in terms of resolution. At 600mm, the Sigma is clearly outresolving the 400mms, and there is absolutely no way the 400s compete with 600mm. And, at 600mm, the Sigma is rivalling my 400mm DO II + 1.4x TC. OK, they are just the results from my copies of those lenses. Look at lensrentals comparison of 10 copies of the Sigma at 400mm with the Canon II, and there isn't much between them, and copy variation within makes is more important than difference between makes.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
Top to bottom: Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm 1/250s f/5.6; Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm 1/250s f/6.3; 600mm 1/200s f/6.3; and the DO II at 560mm, 1/320s f/5.6. They are resolving close to the theoretical limts for their focal lengths and 27.5m distance.
At 388 and 400mm, neither can resolve the 1.8 lines/mm circles at the bottom, but they are clearly resolved at 560 and 600mm. You have to click on them to see the differences as the compression on the site makes them all look the same.
Here are some crops from shots at 27.5m away, taken on the 5DSR in RAW with no processing other than USM 100% 0.9 pixels. The lines on the charts test the resolution at the pixel limits. Despite the crude set up and some shake at low shutter speeds, you can see quite clearly that my Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm is slightly out performing my canon 100-400mm II at 400mm in terms of resolution. At 600mm, the Sigma is clearly outresolving the 400mms, and there is absolutely no way the 400s compete with 600mm. And, at 600mm, the Sigma is rivalling my 400mm DO II + 1.4x TC. OK, they are just the results from my copies of those lenses. Look at lensrentals comparison of 10 copies of the Sigma at 400mm with the Canon II, and there isn't much between them, and copy variation within makes is more important than difference between makes.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
Top to bottom: Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm 1/250s f/5.6; Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm 1/250s f/6.3; 600mm 1/200s f/6.3; and the DO II at 560mm, 1/320s f/5.6. They are resolving close to the theoretical limts for their focal lengths and 27.5m distance.
At 388 and 400mm, neither can resolve the 1.8 lines/mm circles at the bottom, but they are clearly resolved at 560 and 600mm. You have to click on them to see the differences as the compression on the site makes them all look the same.
Attachments
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:ecka said:
Not going to happen, IMHO.
Right now, we have a choice of:
70-200 f/2.8 --> pro staple tool
70-200 f/4 --> stellar IQ short tele that doesn't cost a mint (best value L lens out there?)
(your possible 100-300 f/4L would fall about here)
70-300L or 70-300 DO --> what folks with much nicer lenses take when they go on vacation :
70-300 non-L (the recent Nano USM) --> a cheaper take on the L or DO lens, an 'EF-S 15-85 short tele', if you will
75-300 non-L --> dirt cheap lenses
...so I just don't see Canon putting out a lens that would straddle the 70-300 / 100-400 span with a fixed max aperture that neither the 100-400L II or the 70-300L were afforded.
(That said, Sigma loves to make nutty 'tweeners' like this: a 50-150 fast zoom for crop, a 120-300 f/2.8 for FF, etc.)
Nor do I see Canon updating the 70-200 f/4 with a 100-300 replacement, because Canon loves to sell small and light f/4 IS zooms alongside identical FL range f/2.8 pro zooms (see 24-70, see 16-35, and 70-200 of course had four versions being sold simultaneously at one point). So, no, I see a straight update to the 70-200 lenses rather than a change in FL with a future replacement.
- A
Well, currently, the 70-200F4L would be my choice for both, budget and travel short tele. While the sub-$500 non-L options seem like a waste of money really. So, an updated 70-200F4L IS II is very much welcome, if they'll keep the old price
or at least add something extra, like a lens collar, or closer focusing (some kind of pseudo-macro mode).Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
It's the 'I am bringing less volume of gear on a family vaca' sort of lens.
That's zero knock on the 70-300L as a fine optical instrument -- I'm just saying that it is often used as a travel lens due to its size. L quality + 300mm reach + not very big for $1349 is a fairly compelling offering
- A
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I guess some folks are choosing lenses for their backpacks, while other folks are choosing backpacks for their lenses
. IMHO, if 70-300L is enough, then 70-200F4L can do even better + it is lighter. Now, honestly, if it is not a photography oriented trip, then I wouldn't take any of these L lenses. Otherwise, it is the 70-200F4L for me, or the 100-400L'II if I decide to become a professional photographer .
Upvote
0
Similar threads
