Canon Developing a New Slower Supertelephoto Lens [CR2]

[MrFotoFool]

AFAIK STM has the following features compared to (ring) USM:
+ cheaper
+ silent
- slower
- less accurate
- less increments/steps per rotation

Being silent is THE feature for video.
But main feature for Canon is CHEAPER.

This lens would be aimed at wildlife and sports photographers. So I cannot believe they would go with STM instead of USM to save cost if, as you say, STM autofocus is less accurate. Autofocus accuracy would be the key feature and key selling point over Sigma or Tamron 150-600. Well at least one of two selling points, other being sharpness.

 

[slclick]

Is STM in a Superzoom feasible? Not using ring USM might bring down the cost and keep it out of the L category.
Maybe a 150-500 variable aperture. 4.5-6.3? Something like the Bigma but with better AF.

I could be wrong, but I thought the main purpose of STM is for video. Surely a supertelephoto lens would be aimed at still photographers, not videographers.

Yes but isn't it also a budget AF mech? It is accurate just not as fast. Now I know some would call that not accurate as speed is/leads to accuracy. But ymmv.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
IMHO, once the front element is larger than 100mm, the price won't be cheap, so to keep the price down, I think it likely to be a 500mm F5.6 IS... If it's an "L", then might price at between 300mm F2.8 and the 100-400mm II, so that it won't eat into 100-400mm II, 300mm F2.8L IS II, 400mm F4 DO II and may be the future 400mm F5.6L IS.

Have a nice day.

 

[9VIII]

The 500f5.6 would be a dream come true.

It may sound impossible, but we've grown accustomed to some very high standards in IQ, which the best budget telephoto lens in the world was not designed under.
If affordability is the goal, making a "just decent" 500mm lens may be more feasible than it seems at a glance. To give a stark contrast, look here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=278&LensComp=764&Units=E
Including the internal converter the 200-400 has almost five times as many lens elements as the 400f5.6, and the 400f5.6 has half as many elements any other telephoto lens Canon makes.
If Canon can make another supertelephoto lens with just seven elements, or very close to it, that could very well achieve the goal of making a longer lens that doesn't cost a whole lot.

 

[unfocused]

To join the guessing (and wishing) game here. I'd say a 500mm f5.6 IS would make a nice replacement for the 400mm f5.6.

"L" is an arbitrary designation, so it certainly could be classed as an "L" lens and I would expect that Canon would stick a red ring on it knowing it would sell better as an "L" lens. It's going to be the same quality regardless of what they call it.

Price would probably be in the 100-400 II range (somewhere north of $2,000 and less than $2,500 in the U.S.)

I don't think a 400 is long enough these days to entice too many people and an "affordable" 500mm 5.6 would be a nice compromise.

I don't believe a fixed focal length 500 5.6 would undermine the 100-400 II zoom all that much and I doubt if Canon cares that much as long as people buy their lenses instead of Sigma or Tamron. Along that same line, a 500mm would be very competitive with the Sigma and Tamron 600mm zooms (many photographers would trade the extra 100mm focal length for the Canon name)

Plus, a 500 mm f5.6 with a 1.4 converter would give you an +1100 mm equivalent on the 7DII with its f8 focusing. It would likely not only sell very well, but boost 7DII sales as well.

 

[slclick]

reading between the lines.....

 

[hoodlum]

The 400mm f5.6 had a MFD of 3.5M. A 500mm MFD would be even longer and could limit it's appeal.

 

[meywd]

The 400mm f5.6 had a MFD of 3.5M. A 500mm MFD would be even longer and could limit it's appeal.

even the 500 f4 II has an MFD of 3.7M, so I don't think that's going to be a problem.

 

[KateH]

This is certainly an interesting riddle. "Slower than f/4, supertelephoto, not a new 400 f/5.6, 'entirely new' and '
affordable'" are specific claims but still leaves a lot of questions.

300mm f/5.6 seems unlikely; the 300mm f/4 is not terribly large and selling for 1300$ new and 1/2 to 2/3rds that used, it's already quite inexpensive as far as long teles go.

A non-L 100-400 f/5.6 seems like a bad idea- see how sales of the 70-300 f/4-5.6L have been totally overshadowed by the excellent 70-300 f/4-5.6 non-L for half the price. Surely Canon would not want to threaten their flagship 100-400 f/4-5.6L II

500mm f/5.6L does actually seem somewhat probable; the 400mm f/5.6 retails for 1200$ which suggests a 500mm f/5.6 produced in sufficient volume could be well under 2000$- which definitely qualifies as "affordable" compared to the 9000$ 500mm f/4L! The biggest issue with a hypothetical 500mm f/5.6 is it's similarity to the 400mm f/5.6- two high-end, low-volume lenses that similar would cannibalize sales from each other, messing with economy of scale in production and driving prices up and margins down. Not a great business decision for Canon. UNLESS are Canon planning to replace the 400 f/5.6 with a 500mm f/5.6? That actually does make some sense- the 400mm f/5.6 has stiff internal competition from Canon's own (and far more popular) 100-400mm lenses, and arguably even the faster and/or less expensive 300mm primes and zooms.

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

Perhaps it's a 135-500mm f/5.6 non-L STM? There's certainly a lot of pressure in that area from Tamron/Sigma and if Canon intentionally segments it from the 100-400 with slower autofocus (although STM AF can be quite fast) it would be an interesting option.

What I haven't seen anyone guess is that maybe this "Something entirely new" will be a non-L EF-S ultratelephoto? With the great success of the 70D and 7D MKII as semi-pro and sports cameras, perhaps it's time for a high-quality EF-S prime in the 250-400mm range? If Canon could make such a thing be compact, have excellent wide-open performance, and cost well under 1000$ I predict a niche hit.

 

[dhofmann]

Canon could make and sell a 500mm f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens with image stabilization for a very affordable price.

 

[expatinasia]

While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable

Haha! Love it!

How on earth is this a CR2?!

 

[meywd]

While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable

Haha! Love it!

How on earth is this a CR2?!

I guess the source is known for previous hits!

 

[100]

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.

 

[meywd]

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.

No it is not, a 300 f/2.8 with extender is like the the 200-400 f4, if we go by your logic then the 400mm f/2.8 should cost $800

 

[100]

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.

No it is not, a 300 f/2.8 with extender is like the the 200-400 f4, if we go by your logic then the 400mm f/2.8 should cost $800

???
If you add a 1.4x extender to a 300 f/2.8 it becomes a 420 f/4
If you add a 2x extender to a 300 f/2.8 it becomes a 600 f/5.6

 

[Loswr]

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.

No it is not, a 300 f/2.8 with extender is like the the 200-400 f4, if we go by your logic then the 400mm f/2.8 should cost $800

???

A 600/5.6 would be almost exactly like a 300/2.8 + 2x, same front element diameter (300/2.8 = 600/5.6), but a longer barrel meaning a price somewhere a bit north of the current 300/2.8 II.

There's a reason the Sigma and Tamron 600mm zooms are f/6.3, not f/5.6...

 

[meywd]

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.

No it is not, a 300 f/2.8 with extender is like the the 200-400 f4, if we go by your logic then the 400mm f/2.8 should cost $800

???
If you add a 1.4x extender to a 300 f/2.8 it becomes a 420 f/4
If you add a 2x extender to a 300 f/2.8 it becomes a 600 f/5.6

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.

No it is not, a 300 f/2.8 with extender is like the the 200-400 f4, if we go by your logic then the 400mm f/2.8 should cost $800

???

A 600/5.6 would be almost exactly like a 300/2.8 + 2x, same front element diameter (300/2.8 = 600/5.6), but a longer barrel meaning a price somewhere a bit north of the current 300/2.8 II.

There's a reason the Sigma and Tamron 600mm zooms are f/6.3, not f/5.6...

Ok my mistake, wrong logic there.

 

[KateH]

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.

Mmm, I disagree. As far as size, yeah it would require large elements. But designing and manufacturing an f/5.6 ultratele is much easier than an f/2.8. And the slower lens would sell in larger volume, driving production cost lower. Look at Canon's 400s- the f/5.6 400mm is 1200$ but the f/2.8 version is 10,000$.

 

[expatinasia]

While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable

Haha! Love it!

How on earth is this a CR2?!

I guess the source is known for previous hits!

Possibly, but it is a rumour about nothing that could happen any time in 2016 which includes December 2016!!!

It is so funny, it still cracks me up!

 

[Hjalmarg1]

We’re told that Canon is developing a new supertelephoto lens that is slower than f/4. One immediately thinks about an update to the EF 400mm f/5.6L, but we’re told that is not the case and it’ll be a new lens altogether.</p>
<p>While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable”.</p>
<p>This sort of lens is definitely missing from the Canon lineup, both Tamron and Sigma have had a lot of success with 500mm and 600mm zoom lenses.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>

Another 'affordable' option that can compete with the Tamron and Sigma supertelephoto zoom lenses would be very welcomed.
The release of the 100-400mmL II killed many purchases of the fantastic 400L.