Canon Developing a New Slower Supertelephoto Lens [CR2]

[LDS]

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.

The lens diameter is not everything. A front lens designed for, say, a 600/5.6 is different than one for a 300/2.8. A lot depends how many lenses are needed and their design, type and hence production costs to deliver a quality good enough. The 300/2.8 (and the 400) uses 16 lenses in 12 groups - the 400/5.6 uses just 7 lenses in six groups - which also makes it light.

If you can also use less expensive lens "glass", i.e. no fluorite elements but just UD or the like, it will keep costs down as well. The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 have two fluorite elements, while the 400/5.6 uses only UD ones. I don't believe a barrel is more expensive than growing fluorite, cutting and polishing lenses, especially if the barrel is simpler as well, having to support lense lenses. Also, the IS could be less sophisticated than the high-end ones.

You can see also the price difference between the 200/2.8, a simpler UD design, and the 200/2, which uses a far more complex design with fluorite and UD lenses, to gain one stop in exchange for a 8x price increase (of course, it doesn't gain only one stop for that price).

It will be interesting to see if Canon will deliver a prime, to keep the lens number down and possibly deliver a little faster aperture, or will deliver a zoom that will require more lenses, will be heavier, and be a slower one.

 

[Hannes]

A 500/5.6 should be doable but at what price one can wonder. You are looking at a ~90mm front element which is obviously a fair bit bigger than the other <$2k options canon are producing. I'm not sure what canon are deeming reasonably priced but I'm pretty sure it is more than I can afford

 

[docsmith]

Agreed that the 500 f/5.6 IS is most likely to fit all the criteria. Even better, make it a nice compatct 500 f/5.6 IS DO. But the "affordable" is the part of the rumor I have the most problem with. The front element would only be slightly smaller than the 400 f/4 DO, (~90 mm vs ~100 mm). So, is "affordable" ~$4,000?

Also, there was a rumor over a year ago of a 300-600 f/5.6 IS zoom. That would be great as would a Canon 150-600 IS.

But...technically a 400 f/5.6 IS would be "new" as well.

Just to play conspiracy theorist for a second, this is a tantalizing yet vague rumor where it is obvious that they haven't even held the lens (otherwise they'd know the length) from a known source (hence CR2). Could this be a mole hunt by Canon? If so, someone just got busted.

 

[exquisitor]

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.

The lens diameter is not everything. A front lens designed for, say, a 600/5.6 is different than one for a 300/2.8. A lot depends how many lenses are needed and their design, type and hence production costs to deliver a quality good enough. The 300/2.8 (and the 400) uses 16 lenses in 12 groups - the 400/5.6 uses just 7 lenses in six groups - which also makes it light.

If you can also use less expensive lens "glass", i.e. no fluorite elements but just UD or the like, it will keep costs down as well. The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 have two fluorite elements, while the 400/5.6 uses only UD ones. I don't believe a barrel is more expensive than growing fluorite, cutting and polishing lenses, especially if the barrel is simpler as well, having to support lense lenses. Also, the IS could be less sophisticated than the high-end ones.

You can see also the price difference between the 200/2.8, a simpler UD design, and the 200/2, which uses a far more complex design with fluorite and UD lenses, to gain one stop in exchange for a 8x price increase (of course, it doesn't gain only one stop for that price).

It will be interesting to see if Canon will deliver a prime, to keep the lens number down and possibly deliver a little faster aperture, or will deliver a zoom that will require more lenses, will be heavier, and be a slower one.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You should compare 200/2 and 400/4, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 or 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. And longer lens will be always more expensive, because it is bigger and in most cases needs more elements. The light gathering capability and though the diameter of the front lens would be nearly the same.

 

[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.

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$.

If a f/5.6 lens is “much easier than an f/2.8” please explain why the EF f/2.8L II USM (1996) has a MSRP of $749.99. If you add a 2x extender you have a 400 f/5.6 for less than the EF 400 f/5.6L (1993).
Based on that logic a 600 f/5.6L won’t be cheaper than an EF 300 f/2.8L IS II.

They probably could design a cheaper 600 f/5.6 (no weather sealing, less expensive glass, simpler construction) but I imagine it would still cost a lot more than let’s say the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II (MSRP of $2,199) so it will never be a “large volume” lens.

 

[TheJock]

Now that someone’s mentioned the f2.8 200L, would it be possible to create a black bodied 500 f5.6L???? going by the pricing on the former, a black 500mm L could be less than $1,500 with no IS.

 

[scyrene]

Now that someone’s mentioned the f2.8 200L, would it be possible to create a black bodied 500 f5.6L???? going by the pricing on the former, a black 500mm L could be less than $1,500 with no IS.

I'm not convinced. No IS would make it cheaper of course, but I found even the 400 5.6's lack of it very limiting (though many make good use of that lens). Also, with regard to pricing, over here the 200 2.8 is £500-600. The 400 5.6 is ~£1000. So a 500 5.6 non-IS would surely be more like £1200-1500, which is what? $1850-2300? And that's street prices after many years, the RRP is gonna be higher.

I do however think 500mm f/5.6 IS is the most likely. Not *very* likely, but more likely than 600mm f/5.6, for the reasons others have outlined above.

Has anyone considered an EF-S super tele? (Modification: I know it wouldn't be smaller, but it might avoid cannibalising sales of some other lenses, and could be paired with the 7DII. Although it's even less likely than the other options...)

 

[100]

Now that someone’s mentioned the f2.8 200L, would it be possible to create a black bodied 500 f5.6L???? going by the pricing on the former, a black 500mm L could be less than $1,500 with no IS.

The new 100-400 has a MSRP 30% higher than its predecessor, so a new 400 f/5.6L will probably be around 2k$ as well.
A 500 f/5.6 won’t be cheaper so $1500 is out of the question, I think.

Factor in the glass and you’ll see why just 100mm more makes a significant difference.
400/5.6 = 71.5mm front element
500/5.6 = 89.3mm front element
That sounds like a small difference (25%) but a lens element has 3 dimensions. The difference in surface area is:
400mm => π/4*71.5^2 = 4015mm^2
500mm => π/4*89.3^2 = 6263mm^2
That’s 50% more surface area, factor in that a bigger element will need to be thicker as well so the difference in glass volume could be up to 100% and that will have a significant effect on the price of such a lens.

 

[crashpc]

Canon EF-M 80-400mm f/7,2 IS STM as patented. Would be great.

 

[NancyP]

Interesting rumor. I am a happy user of the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. If there were a relatively simple design for 600 f/5.6 L that kept it "light" relative to the f/4, I might be interested. The most recent AF systems do well in low light, and the sensors allow boosting of the ISO.

 

[LDS]

You are comparing apples and oranges. You should compare 200/2 and 400/4, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 or 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. And longer lens will be always more expensive, because it is bigger and in most cases needs more elements. The light gathering capability and though the diameter of the front lens would be nearly the same.

No. I shown how trying to gain a stop at the same focal length will lead to a much more expensive lens because of a much more complex and expensive construction. While accepting a less fast lens could instead greatly decrease the price - it's not a linear proportion.

It is not true that a longer lenses will use more elements - actually it could use less. Check the 200/2.8 and the 400/5.6, the latter has fewer elements.

The more you "bend" the light, the more complex and expensive the lens design will be to correct for aberrations. A larger lens for a fast max aperture needs to bend the light far more than a smaller one for the same focal lenght. In the late XVII century astronomers used lenses with an extremely long focal because they minimized aberrations just because of that - doublets and triplets were not available yet.

Just bigger barrel won't increase the production cost too much (price is another matter...), it's the complexity of building it that will increase the price most - and that depends also on how many lenses will go within it, and the complexity of the focusing mechanism and IS, and the overall weight.

 

[Luds34]

Totally against the rumor, but I've always thought Canon could use a conventional (read non DO) 400mm f/4 IS prime. Something faster then the f/5.6 of the 100-400s and current 400mm non IS prime. And something more attainable then the 400mm f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO. Have it work well with the 1.4x and then you have pushing a 600mm at f/5.6. Could probably be priced around $2k or so. Heck at $2500 it would still be very affordable and probably would have good demand.

Of course it would completely cannibalize many of their great big whites so I doubt we'll see it until they are pushed by the market. Aka it would be great to see Sigma or Tamron try it. Doesn't Sigma have a 300mm f/2.8 that is less then half of the Canon variant?

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm keen to see a Canon EF 500mm f/5.6 IS USM. If Canon does make such a lens, I'd imagine it would be to target the price of the new Sigma 150-600mm. The Tamron is significantly cheaper but does suffer wide open at the long end.

If Canon can deliver a 500/5.6 IS which is lighter and focuses faster than the competing zooms while also living up to the image quality of the 400/5.6L then it will definitely earn its place in the market. I would guess a fair number of 400/5.6 owners might consider upgrading for the extra reach and IS.

 

[exquisitor]

You are comparing apples and oranges. You should compare 200/2 and 400/4, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 or 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. And longer lens will be always more expensive, because it is bigger and in most cases needs more elements. The light gathering capability and though the diameter of the front lens would be nearly the same.

No. I shown how trying to gain a stop at the same focal length will lead to a much more expensive lens because of a much more complex and expensive construction. While accepting a less fast lens could instead greatly decrease the price - it's not a linear proportion.

It is not true that a longer lenses will use more elements - actually it could use less. Check the 200/2.8 and the 400/5.6, the latter has fewer elements.

The more you "bend" the light, the more complex and expensive the lens design will be to correct for aberrations. A larger lens for a fast max aperture needs to bend the light far more than a smaller one for the same focal lenght. In the late XVII century astronomers used lenses with an extremely long focal because they minimized aberrations just because of that - doublets and triplets were not available yet.

Just bigger barrel won't increase the production cost too much (price is another matter...), it's the complexity of building it that will increase the price most - and that depends also on how many lenses will go within it, and the complexity of the focusing mechanism and IS, and the overall weight.

There is no doubt that larger aperture at the same focal length would mean more complexity. You were arguing that 600/5.6 wouldn't be the same as 300/2.8 and could be more affordable than 300/2.8. The truth is it is not possible, because it is quite the same. Just because the effective aperture of these two lenses is equal. And this is 107 mm we are talking about.
About 200/2.8 vs 400/5.6: that's why I've pointed "in most cases". If you look at 400/5.6 design, it uses Super UD element in the front group, whereas 200/2.8 uses only "simple" UD elements. So additional group in the rear group of 200/2.8 could be there for chromatic aberration correction due to lack of Super UD element or for field curvature correction as the 200/2.8 has much wider field of view compared to 400/5.6. In both cases the large elements of the front group, which determine the cost, are very similarly placed in both 200/2.8 and 400/5.6. Even though 400/5.6 costs roughly twice the price of 200/2.8. So much about "affordable" 600/5.6...
500/6.3 IS instead could be really affordable, as it's cost could lie in the same area as 300/4 IS.

 

[lholmes549]

If it was a lens to compete with the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm lenses I'd be very interested.

Of course, this would mean improving on the image quality while trying to keep the lens "affordable", otherwise there's little reason to choose it over the 3rd party options (other than brand snobbery).

 

[pierlux]

Talking about pricing, if we compare the 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (non II, marketed in 1999) to the 300mm f/4 L IS USM (marketed in 1997), we can see their original pricing in yen was 690,000 and 198,000, respectively (source: Canon Camera Museum), i.e. about 3.5 times as much as the f/4 version for the 1 stop faster one. I think it is reasonable to believe that an hypothetical 600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, also taking into account the observations made by other posters concerning fluorite vs. UD elements, number of lenses etc., could be priced approximately 3.5 times less than the current 600mm f/4 L IS II USM, i.e. something around $ 3,250, roughly as much as I said in my previous post.

Not precisely "affordable" in absolute terms, but relatively to the focal lenght I'd say yes, it's affordable. Much higher than any Sigma or Tamron and no zoom, but latest Canon IQ and speed and accuracy and compatibility with any current or future body & firmware and a white dress + red ring and Canon service and all!

And if it's not a prime, but a zoom that reaches 500mm or 600mm @ f/5.6, provided it's really (relatively) affordable, i.e. in the $ 3000-3500 range, I'd be equally happy to wait for it instead of going for the Sigma.

Craig says "CR2" and "more to come"... one can dream, can't I?

 

[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$.

If a f/5.6 lens is “much easier than an f/2.8” please explain why the EF f/2.8L II USM (1996) has a MSRP of $749.99.

Because it's not an ultratele. (I presume you're referring to the 200mm f/2.8L?) And f/2.8 is not ultrafast for a 200mm lens. It's just in a different class- and yet, it's still more expensive than slower lenses in the same FL!

How can there be any debate that slower lenses are easier to design and build that faster ones?

 

[LDS]

There is no doubt that larger aperture at the same focal length would mean more complexity. You were arguing that 600/5.6 wouldn't be the same as 300/2.8 and could be more affordable than 300/2.8. The truth is it is not possible, because it is quite the same. Just because the effective aperture of these two lenses is equal. And this is 107 mm we are talking about.

Yes, because lenses are just plain glass discs, right? C'mon, you have no idea of lens designs. Two lenses of the same diameter may have very different prices. It depends on what material you need to build them with, how much material you need to use, and how you have to work the surfaces. Look at some refractor telescopes, they can be much cheaper than your average camera lenses: this 750mm f/5 costs
$899... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/617026-REG/Celestron_21094_Omni_XLT_150_R.html, and it has a 150mm front lens... sure, no AF, no IS, and minimum focussing distance is not an issue, but also a sub $1000 price.

A 600/5.6 could be built in many different ways, including one that could be cheaper than the 300/2.8, which, at over $6000, it's pretty expensive.

 

[scyrene]

If it was a lens to compete with the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm lenses I'd be very interested.

Of course, this would mean improving on the image quality while trying to keep the lens "affordable", otherwise there's little reason to choose it over the 3rd party options (other than brand snobbery).

Well AF performance is usually better than with third party lenses, right? No reverse engineering. That's a big deal to some people.

 

[Joey]

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.

There are no EFS telephoto lenses (unless you count zooms that extend into the wide-angle range) because there is no reason to limit the market for your new lens to crop sensor users unless there is some benefit to doing so. The reason for making EFS lenses is that it frees you to put elements closer to the sensor than the EF mount allows. Wide angle lens design can be simpler/better when you bring elements closer to the sensor, but telephoto lenses don't need elements that close. So an EFS telephoto would not make sense.