Canon lens comparible to a 150-500 or 150-600

[Ontario55]

Is there any talk or thought to Canon coming out with a 100 or 150 to 500 or 600 lens. These lenses are on the market for less than $2,000.00
Seems like there is a market for them
Unless someone wants to go to a 500 mm prime or the 200-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter, which are north of $9,000.00, there doesn't seem to be a lens in that neighborhood
Your thoughts ?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Generally, Canon, and Nikon do not try to compete with the low cost lenses. They can't compete. Their entire system from design thru production is based on high end items aimed at professional photographers.

This has been the case for 50+ years.

They do have consumer grade lenses, but also avoid competing with their high end stuff. They also limit the minimum aperture to f/5.6, which is the specification for fast and reliable autofocus for consumer cameras.

We might see a new 100-400L for $2200, a 150-600mm f/5.6 zoom when done right is going to be big and expensive.

 

[Don Haines]

Generally, Canon, and Nikon do not try to compete with the low cost lenses. They can't compete. Their entire system from design thru production is based on high end items aimed at professional photographers.

This has been the case for 50+ years.

They do have consumer grade lenses, but also avoid competing with their high end stuff. They also limit the minimum aperture to f/5.6, which is the specification for fast and reliable autofocus for consumer cameras.

We might see a new 100-400L for $2200, a 150-600mm f/5.6 zoom when done right is going to be big and expensive.

Even if you forget zoom lenses and stick to fixed focal lengths, which should be a lot less expensive, a 600F5.6 should be the same cost as a 300F2.8, or around $7500 to $8000. A 500F5.6 should be a lot more affordable, only around $5000 or so.... Either lens would have IQ that would embarrass the Tamron, but for 5 times the price it should.

If we see a new 100-400F5.6, and probably for $2500, it will probably resolve more distant detail at 400mm than the Tamron does at 600mm, but once again, for twice the price.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If we see a new 100-400F5.6, and probably for $2500, it will probably resolve more distant detail at 400mm than the Tamron does at 600mm, but once again, for twice the price.

That white paint job and name Canon automatically doubles or triples the price.

 

[Aglet]

I just got a tiny little Olympus 75-300mm for MFT, only weighs about a pound. Yes, very slow with f/5.6-6.7 but it was only $450 new and, attached to a new EM10, it performs fairly well. My intent was to use it as a smaller, lighter (and way cheaper) version of the 100-400 L + 60D when I need to travel with less.
So far, it's looking like a strong performer from 75-200mm (~150-400mm equiv), even wide open. But I think my old L glass is pulling ahead at the long end AND, at least so far, I can get better, more consistent results from the Canon kit as far as sharpness. I still need to learn how to optimize my use of the MFT system to squeeze the most performance from it as the IBIS may be less effective at that focal length.
As a mirrorless bonus tho, I can AF and then MF while the camera EVF instantly zooms my AF spot (to a level I define) so I can focus on a bird partly hidden by a branch.... Can't do that too readily with an SLR.

OTOH, a good friend is very satisfied with the performance from his 150-600m Tamron on his D7100; finds it quite sharp beyond 400mm but does get noticeably soft between 500 to 600mm.

So, even if CaNikon don't make such a lens at that price point, there are viable options.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I define) so I can focus on a bird partly hidden by a branch.... Can't do that too readily with an SLR.

OTOH, a good friend is very satisfied with the performance from his 150-600m Tamron on his D7100; finds it quite sharp beyond 400mm but does get noticeably soft between 500 to 600mm.

So, even if CaNikon don't make such a lens at that price point, there are viable options.

Exactly, the third party lens makers find and fill a gap that they see, and are able to provide customers who do not want to spend $5K or 10K on a near perfect lens, when one that is very good will do the job. Casual uses do not need ultra reliability, they can take care with their lenses and when treated carefully, the low end lenses will last. Still, I do buy old cameras, and when there is a old third party lens in with a camera along with Canon lenses, its almost a sure bet that the old Vivitar, or Sigma lens will not function. They usually have lube gone solid, and getting it out is very difficult. Some also have lube that has gone to liquid and is all over the aperture blades. In either case, its not worth fooling with. I take them apart and save the screws, I always seem to find a need to replace a tiny lost screw, my old 5D I bought this weekend needed 2 screws, and I had them.