Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM

[privatebydesign]

Is it a given that a non-L lens has to be black? Why can't it be white without a red ring?

No reason, there have been non L white lenses already.

Other than the green ring DO lenses?

Yep.

The New FD 600 f4.5 was a big white without a red stripe. There was also a non L version of the New FD 800mm f5.6.

 

[SwnSng]

It's one of my favorite lenses.

 

[iaind]

Is it a given that a non-L lens has to be black? Why can't it be white without a red ring?

No reason, there have been non L white lenses already.

Other than the green ring DO lenses?

Yep.

The New FD 600 f4.5 was a big white without a red stripe. There was also a non L version of the New FD 800mm f5.6.

white EF 40mm stm available in some markets

 

[EdwardNJ]

That lens certainly would be useful for birders on budget. I am still wondering if Canon will ever update their 400mm 5.6 or 300mm 4 or pre historic 50mm Compact macro.

I use my 400 5.6 to photograph eagles and ospreys at a popular spot for birders, I'd have preferred an updated version of the ancient 400mm f/5.6 with IS or even better a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime. I see a lot of photographers there using their zoom lenses maxed out at 400mm or 600mm, the Canon 100-400, the Sigma C and S and Tamron. Ideally a 500 or 600 are good options for birds in flight and wildlife photography in general but the prices of these f/4 primes are way too expensive for a type of photography that will rarely give you any income.

Hopefully this rumor is true and the lenses are actually being tested to be oficially released this year. Most importantly, hopefuly this lens will be sharper than the Sigma Sports at 600mm ;D

 

[EdwardNJ]

I am not too good at reading patents Does this lens focus internally? I guess that would be too much to ask for such a lens.

 

[MrFotoFool]

...I'd have preferred an updated version of the ancient 400mm f/5.6 with IS or even better a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime...

I agree an affordable 500 or 600 f/5.6 would be fantastic. I do not know why it has not been done (by any company). Sigma used to have a very affordable 500 f/7.2, but that was before their recent improvements so the quality I assume was mediocre. I think the f/4 standard is partly left over from the film days when pros had to use ISO 100 slide film. With new digital cameras and their high ISO's, seems f/5.6 would make sense.

 

[East Wind Photography]

...I'd have preferred an updated version of the ancient 400mm f/5.6 with IS or even better a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime...

I agree an affordable 500 or 600 f/5.6 would be fantastic. I do not know why it has not been done (by any company). Sigma used to have a very affordable 500 f/7.2, but that was before their recent improvements so the quality I assume was mediocre. I think the f/4 standard is partly left over from the film days when pros had to use ISO 100 slide film. With new digital cameras and their high ISO's, seems f/5.6 would make sense.

Actually you can have that today. 300mm f2.8L IS II plus the 2x III extender. The combo is excellent and pretty close to my 600mm f4 L IS. I can pair it with my 7d2 and get about 960mm of reach. AND....its all hand holdable

I often miss using the f4 early in the morning or late in the evening. Sometimes I just remove the extender and shoot at f2.8. No rush for Canon to develop such a 600.

 

[wsmith96]

My bet is the F5.6 becomes F6.3....

If they did make that change to F6.3, then that would entice more people who are holding on to older cameras to upgrade to a camera that supports f/8 focusing.

 

[tron]

i know that possibly a 600DO f/4 is on its way but I would love a 600DO f/5.6: cheaper (than a f/4 DO version), smaller (in diameter), lighter. It would be a killer portable bird lens. (For now I use 7DII with a 400DOII as a portable combination...)

 

[IglooEater]

My bet is the F5.6 becomes F6.3....

If they did make that change to F6.3, then that would entice more people who are holding on to older cameras to upgrade to a camera that supports f/8 focusing.

That might just be exactly the point of such a change, more than the increased options for lens design...
With processing software getting so much better so fast, and with the seeming plateau-ing of sensor capabilities, camera brands are gonna have to find other features to sell new rigs, imho.

 

[Don Haines]

My bet is the F5.6 becomes F6.3....

If they did make that change to F6.3, then that would entice more people who are holding on to older cameras to upgrade to a camera that supports f/8 focusing.

That might just be exactly the point of such a change, more than the increased options for lens design...
With processing software getting so much better so fast, and with the seeming plateau-ing of sensor capabilities, camera brands are gonna have to find other features to sell new rigs, imho.

Not only that, but we enthusiasts will buy the best gear that we can afford. For most of us, that rules out a $15,000 lens.... or even a $5000 lens. Tamron and Sigma have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a market for $1200 150-600 telephoto lenses. One could easily make a 600F6.3 prime with superior IQ to the Tamron/Sigma for the same price or better. Slap in some upgraded materials and the Canon name and you could produce a $2000 lens that would sell well.

If they build it, we will come

 

[MrFotoFool]

Realistically the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is so small it is almost meaningless. But psychologically it is a huge difference (to me anyway). Plus I cannot imagine Canon will make a lens that will not autofocus with all EOS cameras. In fact that is one selling point they push for buying genuine Canon lenses (vs third party), that they will never make a Canon camera obsolete.

 

[AlanF]

Realistically the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is so small it is almost meaningless. But psychologically it is a huge difference (to me anyway). Plus I cannot imagine Canon will make a lens that will not autofocus with all EOS cameras. In fact that is one selling point they push for buying genuine Canon lenses (vs third party), that they will never make a Canon camera obsolete.

Sigma and Tamron make f/6.3 lenses that focus on all Canons, and Canon has just introduced improved f/8 lens focussing. So there is no AF compatibility reason against f/6.3. I find it so much easier to hike with my Sigma 150-600mm C than my 600mm f/5.6 (= 300/2.8 II + 2xTC) that I would far prefer a 600 f/6.3 or 560 f/5.6.

By the way the future compatibility argument for Canon lenses is now over since its rivals both have docks for reprogramming their lenses.

 

[Loswr]

Sigma and Tamron make f/6.3 lenses that focus on all Canons, and Canon has just introduced improved f/8 lens focussing. So there is no AF compatibility reason against f/6.3.

Well, no reason other than Canon says a max aperture of f/5.6 is required for AF on many of their cameras. But that's a pretty significant reason. Back in the day, you could spend a few thousand on a 500mm f/4.5L USM, but add a Canon 1.4x TC for a 700mm f/6.3 lens and you'd lose AF except on the EOS 1v and EOS 3 (the only f/8 AF bodies at the time).

For Canon to release an f/6.3 native max lens for dSLRs, they'd either have to update all bodies down to the lowest Rebel with f/8 AF, or state 'we're big fat silly-face liars and have been for years'. I expect the former is more likely than the latter, but either way we're not going to see an f/6.3 lens from Canon any time soon.

 

[AlanF]

Sigma and Tamron make f/6.3 lenses that focus on all Canons, and Canon has just introduced improved f/8 lens focussing. So there is no AF compatibility reason against f/6.3.

Well, no reason other than Canon says a max aperture of f/5.6 is required for AF on many of their cameras. But that's a pretty significant reason. Back in the day, you could spend a few thousand on a 500mm f/4.5L USM, but add a Canon 1.4x TC for a 700mm f/6.3 lens and you'd lose AF except on the EOS 1v and EOS 3 (the only f/8 AF bodies at the time).

For Canon to release an f/6.3 native max lens for dSLRs, they'd either have to update all bodies down to the lowest Rebel with f/8 AF, or state 'we're big fat silly-face liars and have been for years'. I expect the former is more likely than the latter, but either way we're not going to see an f/6.3 lens from Canon any time soon.

If Tamron and Sigma can make back compatible f/6.3 lenses then perhaps, just perhaps, Canon could do the same or would they have to commit mass harakiri to save face?

 

[privatebydesign]

Sigma and Tamron make f/6.3 lenses that focus on all Canons, and Canon has just introduced improved f/8 lens focussing. So there is no AF compatibility reason against f/6.3.

Well, no reason other than Canon says a max aperture of f/5.6 is required for AF on many of their cameras. But that's a pretty significant reason. Back in the day, you could spend a few thousand on a 500mm f/4.5L USM, but add a Canon 1.4x TC for a 700mm f/6.3 lens and you'd lose AF except on the EOS 1v and EOS 3 (the only f/8 AF bodies at the time).

For Canon to release an f/6.3 native max lens for dSLRs, they'd either have to update all bodies down to the lowest Rebel with f/8 AF, or state 'we're big fat silly-face liars and have been for years'. I expect the former is more likely than the latter, but either way we're not going to see an f/6.3 lens from Canon any time soon.

If Tamron and Sigma can make back compatible f/6.3 lenses then perhaps, just perhaps, Canon could do the same or would they have to commit mass harakiri to save face?

That, my friend, is the issue. Long ago Canon made a self imposed f5.6 limit, it was their choice and now they are stuck with it.

What are we if we break the rules we make for ourselves? Multiply that tiny feeling by several million and put the word of a Japanese corporation behind it and you start to get the magnitude of the hurdle any lens marketeer might have.

 

[Loswr]

[quote author=Canon]
With a few notable exceptions — we’ll discuss them below — all EOS DSLRs produced to date require that the effective maximum aperture of a lens or lens + extender combination be f/5.6 or faster to permit autofocus.
[/quote]

Still, Canon could do it if they wanted. Perhaps they're even hinting at the possibility...

[quote author=Canon]
Canon’s AF system can accommodate virtually all EF or EF-S lenses in the system with maximum apertures up to f/5.6. In fact, as of early 2016, there are no lenses in the Canon EF or EF-S system with maximum apertures slower than f/5.6.
[/quote]

Time will tell, but I still think it's quite unlikely.

 

[can0nfan2379]

I wonder if this 200-600 might fill the hole between the 300 2.8 & the 500 II and above (price wise).

I don't know what the sales of the 400 DO II have been like but with the very good 100-400 II coming in at $4000 cheaper and only 1 stop slower than the 400 DO II, it's hard to justify the extra 4k for the DO.

Drop a 200-600 5.6L in the DO's slot and I would personally gladly pay 6k for a lens that is an optically superb compromise between the 11k 600 II and the 5k 300 II.

 

[privatebydesign]

I wonder if this 200-600 might fill the hole between the 300 2.8 & the 500 II and above (price wise).

I don't know what the sales of the 400 DO II have been like but with the very good 100-400 II coming in at $4000 cheaper and only 1 stop slower than the 400 DO II, it's hard to justify the extra 4k for the DO.

Drop a 200-600 5.6L in the DO's slot and I would personally gladly pay 6k for a lens that is an optically superb compromise between the 11k 600 II and the 5k 300 II.

With the 200-400 f4 IS 1.4 it isn't going to happen, or looking at it another way, it already did just not for the money you were hoping.

 

[can0nfan2379]

I wonder if this 200-600 might fill the hole between the 300 2.8 & the 500 II and above (price wise).

I don't know what the sales of the 400 DO II have been like but with the very good 100-400 II coming in at $4000 cheaper and only 1 stop slower than the 400 DO II, it's hard to justify the extra 4k for the DO.

Drop a 200-600 5.6L in the DO's slot and I would personally gladly pay 6k for a lens that is an optically superb compromise between the 11k 600 II and the 5k 300 II.

With the 200-400 f4 IS 1.4 it isn't going to happen, or looking at it another way, it already did just not for the money you were hoping.

I just can't see the 200-600 being consumer grade at the price level near or even double the Tamron/Sigma offerings - not with being 5.6 @600 and internally zooming (constant length at all FL's as per the patent).

I will concede that if Canon did price it in the middle, it probably would cannibalize the 200-400.