Canon Developing a New Slower Supertelephoto Lens [CR2]

[privatebydesign]

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?

There is no debate. What is being questioned is your subsequent inference that a faster but shorter lens is also more expensive than a longer slower one, and that is not necessarily true to any appreciable degree. We are certainly not going to see your suggestion of a sub $2,000 600mm f5.6 from Canon.

Our best indicator is the very old design of the 400 f5.6 (with a 71mm entry pupil) @ $1,249 vs the newer and IS equipped 300 f4 @ $1,349 (entry pupil 75mm).

If you maintain image and build quality, both of which Canon have in all their recent lens releases, I think you will find entry pupil to be fairly constant in the pricing, 200mm f2 (100mm entry pupil) @ $5,699, vs 300 f2.8 (107mm entry pupil) @ $6,099.

In actual fact the only super-tele entry pupil anomaly is the longer and slower 800mm f5.6 (142mm) which is $1,500 more than the much more popular 600mm f4 (150mm).

 

[exquisitor]

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.

Well, you compare photographic telephoto lenses and telescopes and I have no idea in lens design? Common, that's not serious.
Of course you can do affordable or even cheap 600/5.6, but there is no way it would be comparable in any way to the white L glass. It's always compromise between cost and image quality.

 

[NancyP]

Here's a thought - maybe the Canon folks are considering a high quality mirror lens.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

Well said!

I suspect that you are right....a new 400f5.6 would be optically superior to the new 100-400, but probably not enough so to generate decent sales...... But a 500f5.6, with superior optics and that extra 100mm of reach would stand alone in the Canon glass collection and would probably sell well. I would certainly get one....
And with series 2 prime optical quality, it would play well with teleconverters ( sorry sigma and tamron), and allow 700mm at F8 or 1000mm at F11

 

[davidcl0nel]

The 150-600 Tamrons and Sigmas are sold, because it is an affordable 400+mm Lens with quite good results.
If Canon want to catch them, not the buyer which are satisfied with the new 100-400, they can should build a 500 or 600mm prima with 5.6 or even f/8. Most of the birdies (bird / wildlife photographers) use the 7D2 now and not the 5D3 for Crop reasons, so maybe a crop 600 f/8 can be smaller, much lighter, and build for 1000€?

 

[privatebydesign]

Pondering the dollar per entry pupil mm idea further, the 300 f4 IS costs $18 per mm, the 400mm f5.6 costs $17.50 per mm the other super teles get progressively more expensive up to $91 per entry pupil mm for the 800mm f5.6.

If Canon could make a 500mm f5.6 for around $22-25 per entry pupil mm then that lens would cost between $1,950-2,225. Now I don't know if they could do that, but it certainly seems that a high quality but lower order supertele at 500mm and f5.6 should be doable below a $2,500 price point, and judging by the money many people here spend I would think it wold sell well.

 

[9VIII]

I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...

But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.

 

[RGF]

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...

Good point.

 

[RGF]

Here's a thought - maybe the Canon folks are considering a high quality mirror lens.

Interesting ...

 

[LDS]

Well, you compare photographic telephoto lenses and telescopes and I have no idea in lens design? Common, that's not serious.
Of course you can do affordable or even cheap 600/5.6, but there is no way it would be comparable in any way to the white L glass. It's always compromise between cost and image quality.

It was you to say that a lens cost depends almost on front lens size alone. The telescope example demonstrates it is not true. It's the overall lens design that matters more. Unlike a telescope, a telephoto design "cheats" about the focal length of the light gathering lens group, which is shorter, and then the focal in "increased" by the telephoto group.

That makes the lens more compact, but the design more complex and expensive compared to a lens of the same "aperture" not using this design. Increasing the size of the front group increases costs a lot because the *whole* design becomes far more complex, including the need of far more lenses and more expensive glasses to achieve adequate performance, you've got to "bend" light rays more, and that implies more aberrations that needs to be corrected.

A 300/2.8 and 600/5.6 won't use the same design at all, the former will be far more complex and expensive to build - regardless if the front less diameter is roughly the same.

How much cheaper can be, for example, a 600/5.6 compared to the $12K 600/4? Exactly, it depends on what compromises are made in its design, performance and production (maybe outside Japan...). A non-zoom design will be cheaper than a zoom one, and after all Sigma can sell a 150-600 albeit a little slower for $2K (and even $1K for the cheaper model), and still earn money. Compared to $12K, affordable could mean easily $2-3K - given the prices of the 400/5.6 and 100-400 II, maybe without the "L" badge (the old FD 400/4.5 was not an L lens, although it had UD glasses...) and with inferior performance (AF, IS) - guess Canon has no will to kill the market for any of the big whites offering an alternative, but for less demanding photographers without deep pockets.

But today Canon doesn't offer anything "affordable" beyond 400mm, and it helps Sigma, Tamron & C. to sell their lenses to Canon users, which may also then decide to buy more from them also. With camera sales stale or decreasing, offering lenses in a range previously unreachable but for pro (or rich, or maybe fanatic..) photographers could be a right move to keep customers buying Canon. Wildlife and sport photography is appealing, just often you need a lens long enough... and that's an area smartphones can't really compete (yet?)

 

[LDS]

Pondering the dollar per entry pupil mm idea further, the 300 f4 IS costs $18 per mm, the 400mm f5.6 costs $17.50 per mm the other super teles get progressively more expensive up to $91 per entry pupil mm for the 800mm f5.6.

You have to factor for those lenses the cost of the fluorite crystals, and the smaller production. It will mean a far higher cost per unit. Did you calculate the dollar per entry pupil of the 1200/5.6?

 

[LDS]

I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...

There's a good number of FF users who can't afford the big whites, and will buy competitor's products.
When you also sell a cheaper FF like the 6D maybe an EF-S supertelephoto is not really a good idea. Also I don't know how many users of cameras below the 7D (and maybe the 70D) would be really interested in a big lens which would be anyway more complex to use requiring a good tripod/monopod, head, etc. But, who knows?

 

[privatebydesign]

Pondering the dollar per entry pupil mm idea further, the 300 f4 IS costs $18 per mm, the 400mm f5.6 costs $17.50 per mm the other super teles get progressively more expensive up to $91 per entry pupil mm for the 800mm f5.6.

You have to factor for those lenses the cost of the fluorite crystals, and the smaller production. It will mean a far higher cost per unit. Did you calculate the dollar per entry pupil of the 1200/5.6?

No because that would be a meaningless outlier.

My assumption, and we all know that is the mother of all f--k ups, was that a sub $2,500 500mm f5.6 would be a relatively high volume super tele lens, so manufacturing and R&D costs would benefit from the same economies of scale that push the 400 f5.6 and 300 f4 IS down so low in the $ per entry pupil mm scale. Also in pre EF days Canon made some FD superteles without the most exotic glass, for example there were two versions of the 600mm and 800mm on sale at the same time, one was an L and the other not (same with the 50mm f1.2), so if they set a price point and couldn't hit it with the cutting edge lens compounds they have a precedent for less exotic lens formula. Though it seems to me, given the recent lens releases, the massive investment people have requested Canon put into a modern sensor fabrication plant has already been spent on lens manufacturing and designing upgrades!

I am very happy with the Canon lens selection and can't imagine ever changing brands because of that one system feature.

A native 500 f5.6 with top of the line IS would make a very attractive birding lens (a massive market all its own) and with a 1.4 TC would still AF on bodies that can AF at f8, so making a very nice hand-holdable 700mm f8.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I have the 400 5.6l and if a 500 5.6 came out I will really migrate to it. I have a 1.4 telemk3 converter already and a 500 will give me s 800mm view with my crop body will the converter 1120 mm with is a big plus also when I upgrade to a ff body most likely a 5d mk3 its still a big plus who knows they might even make a 450mm 5.6

 

[Joey]

I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...

But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.

I doubt even Canon's marketing department is that cynical. 'Let's make a cheap but good lens, and prevent our loyal FF customers from using it, hoping to force them to buy a more expensive lens to do the same job and thus wring the most money out of the wealthier market segment.'

They've just released a new nifty fifty at a price point that suggests to me that they're trying to offer good value.

 

[riker]

We could imagine loads of lenses we would LOVE to see so this is a perfect post

EF-S 400/5.6 IS (or 500/5.6)
EF-M 400/5.6 IS (or 500/5.6)
EF 300-600/5.6L IS

These would all sell like candy and we could also call them innovative or at least something new.

 

[Don Haines]

I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...

But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.

I doubt even Canon's marketing department is that cynical. 'Let's make a cheap but good lens, and prevent our loyal FF customers from using it, hoping to force them to buy a more expensive lens to do the same job and thus wring the most money out of the wealthier market segment.'

They've just released a new nifty fifty at a price point that suggests to me that they're trying to offer good value.

There is a pervasive myth about not putting out cheaper products to protect the expensive products, but the reality is, with the vastly higher sales numbers, the real money is in the low priced objects.... Canon makes more money off of Rebels than "pro" bodies, and they make more money from the kit lenses than the "L" glass

 

[Gnocchi]

I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...

But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.

I tend to agree on a efs s/Tele lens. Wouldn't it make sense to make one in an efs mount? Lighter, smaller? Is that possible?

 

[slclick]

An EF-S mount would be the sure way to keep from crippling sales of L glass. But I just can't see a supertele being in the EF-S consumer budget. I keep thinking it'll be one of two things.

Canon's answer to the Bigma. 150-500 variable aperture. or a 500 5.6 Non L

 

[Loswr]

I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...

But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.

I tend to agree on a efs s/Tele lens. Wouldn't it make sense to make one in an efs mount? Lighter, smaller? Is that possible?

There's really no point to an EF-S telephoto lens. The -S best stands for 'small image circle' (that's the original designation, and not all EF-S lenses have a short backfocus distance. With a telephoto lens design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting. A few of the rear-most elements could be made smaller, but the size/weight savings would be quite minor, particularly for a supertele focal length.