Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[docsmith]

A few thoughts about the update:

• So the external teleconverter does not surprise me nearly so much as that it will be dedicated to this lens. That's an odd move.
  
  
• $1700 and non-L... Has a non-L lens ever cost that much?
  
  
• Disagree with 'unlikely to be sealed' -- this lens will used overwhelmingly outdoors, so it's a basic market expectation, isn't it? I think weather sealing has a lot of marketing puffery about it and Canon can still try to claim that it is with less work than they would on a big superwhite. (Canon doesn't have a published weather-sealing standard, do they? I trust claims of weather-sealing like I question what 'All-Natural' means on my granola bar wrapper.)
  
  
  
• And the demotion to CR1 seems appropriate for the 600 + 5.6 + Inexpensive unlikeliness of coexistence that has been discussed throughout this thread.

- A

Also note that the patented formula does not extend when zooming. I still see this as an "L" lens. The patent is also a bit of a beast, 355 mm or ~14 inches.

 

[crashpc]

I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.

I agree...but we're not talking about 500mm f/5.6 or 600mm f/8, we are talking about 600mm f/5.6.

Well, Samyang 650-1300mm f/8-f/16 is for $280 in europe, new. Better lens would cost more of course, but it only depends on how much better and how much more. It is not problem of the glass itself. Pretty complex, so I would not stand for any particular price. It can be anything from $700 to $6000..

 

[ahsanford]

I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.

I agree...but we're not talking about 500mm f/5.6 or 600mm f/8, we are talking about 600mm f/5.6.

Well, Samyang 650-1300mm f/8-f/16 is for $280 in europe, new. Better lens would cost more of course, but it only depends on how much better and how much more. It is not problem of the glass itself. Pretty complex, so I would not stand for any particular price. It can be anything from $700 to $6000..

Aren't all of these dirt-cheap 500mm+ f/8 and narrower lenses typically some optical parlour trick like a mirror lens made from some bush-league Vivatar, Conair, etc. consumer electronics folks?

Doesn't the patent immediately rule those sort of designs out?

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.

I agree...but we're not talking about 500mm f/5.6 or 600mm f/8, we are talking about 600mm f/5.6.

Canon could make a 600 F5.6 for $1000..... but to do so they would have to use poor materials and build it to poor precision. In the end they would have a crappy lens that they would be ashamed of, so I am fairly sure it will not happen. $2000 is about as low as I could see Canon making a "kit lens" quality 600F5.6 for....... and that is most definitely not "L" lens quality......

 

[Loswr]

I'm only saying that clearly - in practice, as everyone can check - an EF-S non-L lens with pretty good optics can be MUCH smaller, lighter and cheaper than a slightly longer/brighter EF L lens, despite the 'fact' that for tele lenses 'the sensor size doesn't matter'.

Ok, so you're basing your statements on the EF-S 55-250 vs the 70-300L. The EF 75-300mm lenses cover a FF image circle, are substantially cheaper than the 55-250, and not significantly larger or heavier (especially when you consider they are 50mm longer), although they are optically inferior. The old EF 55-200mm lens is lighter than the EF-S 55-250 and you can pick up a good used copy for $30. I guess by your pithy logic, I have just demonstrated that FF short telezoom lenses are cheaper and sometimes lighter than similar APS-C versions. :

Of course, we weren't talking about 250-300mm f/5.6 lenses, we were talking about a lens that's supposed to be 600mm f/5.6 at the long end. Ignorantia juris optica et physicorum non excusat.

EDIT: as a side note from a general standpoint, I really can't lose here. If Canon actually does release a 200-600mm f/4.x-5.6 with good IQ for less than $2K, I'll happily admit my mistake and buy the lens. But I can guarantee you it won't be an EF-S lens.

 

[geonix]

If it is really not weather-sealed it is not for me.
I would use a telephoto-lens of that focal range for wildlife mainly. But shooting wildlife also means dusty, rainy, foggy or icy conditions.
The Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses are at least weather-sealed to a level that permits their use in more than only dry and bright sunshine. I would expect nothing less of a canon telephoto lens of that reach.

 

[Loswr]

Well, Samyang 650-1300mm f/8-f/16 is for $280 in europe, new. Better lens would cost more of course, but it only depends on how much better and how much more. It is not problem of the glass itself. Pretty complex, so I would not stand for any particular price. It can be anything from $700 to $6000..

Is there an echo in here?

Heck, Opteka sells a 650mm f/8 lens for under $200 – it's even white already! How hard can it be to add an AF motor, a variable aperture, a zoom mechanism, and a stop of light? Canon charges about a 5x markup for an f-stop, so that's $1000. Say, $200 for the other bits and bobs, $400 in pure profit because Canon is evil, and boom – the 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 comes in at $1600.

;D

 

[Canon Rumors]

A few thoughts about the update:

• So the external teleconverter does not surprise me nearly so much as that it will be dedicated to this lens. That's an odd move.
  
  
• $1700 and non-L... Has a non-L lens ever cost that much?
  
  
• Disagree with 'unlikely to be sealed' -- this lens will used overwhelmingly outdoors, so it's a basic market expectation, isn't it? I think weather sealing has a lot of marketing puffery about it and Canon can still try to claim that it is with less work than they would on a big superwhite. (Canon doesn't have a published weather-sealing standard, do they? I trust claims of weather-sealing like I question what 'All-Natural' means on my granola bar wrapper.)
  
  
  
• And the demotion to CR1 seems appropriate for the 600 + 5.6 + Inexpensive unlikeliness of coexistence that has been discussed throughout this thread.

- A

1) I don't think a dedicated teleconverter is all that odd, Sigma has done it. Take a look at the zoom thing for the new 18-135. It's a good way to get some extra revenue and increase margins. It could also have something to do with the way the rear element sits. Doing new things is what everyone keeps asking of Canon, which they keep delivering.

2) DO Lenses Nothing at 600mm is going to be sub $1000 from Canon and putting it in the $3500+ territory eliminates the intended buyer. I think sub $2000 is a sweet spot for such a lens.

3) I can't think of any Non-L/DO lens that is sealed. Sealing quality tends to differ on a lens-by-lens basis. The 100-400 has to remain relevant as well.

4) It's CR1 because it's a different source than the original.

 

[ahsanford]

1) I don't think a dedicated teleconverter is all that odd, Sigma has done it. Take a look at the zoom thing for the new 18-135. It's a good way to get some extra revenue and increase margins. It could also have something to do with the way the rear element sits. Doing new things is what everyone keeps asking of Canon, which they keep delivering.

2) DO Lenses Nothing at 600mm is going to be sub $1000 from Canon and putting it in the $3500+ territory eliminates the intended buyer. I think sub $2000 is a sweet spot for such a lens.

3) I can't think of any Non-L/DO lens that is sealed. Sealing quality tends to differ on a lens-by-lens basis. The 100-400 has to remain relevant as well.

4) It's CR1 because it's a different source than the original.

1 = Bummer if true. We already have enough lens specificity to cope with: filter sizes, hoods, tripod rings, etc. I hope they didn't do this just to shave an inch off of the length.

2 = I always forget DO lenses are not L lenses. Good call -- that 400mm DO is nearly $7k.

3 = The 100-400 remains relevant regardless of sealing, IMHO, due to its IQ and 'reach vs. physical length' -- it fits in the same space as a 70-200 f/2.8 in your bag and this new 200-600 will most certainly not. I could see both lenses coexisting quite well.

4 = Ah. Got it.

- A

 

[pierlux]

Price under 100-400L lens?

Canon is now making lens with plastic optics. Neat.

This could be really the only way to achieve the goal of a 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 at the price point this rumor is indicating. Engineering plastic body and resin optics. What if gunship01 has nailed it?

I remember Canon already filed a patent for a wideangle L lens with resin elements. Such lens elements should have less dispersion and less aberrations, allowing Canon to avoid fluorite and/or UD elements and equally (or, more realistically, nearly equally) achieve satisfying optical performance.

I am generally optimistic, a while back I hypothesized that a 600mm f/5.6 prime could be feasible at a price point of 3-3.5 k $. Neuro objected that although there was an anorexic possibility for a prime lens at that price point, there were zero chances for a zoom lens, and I agree on the latter, not so for the prime, still think it's feasible.

Now I ask: what do you think of an engineering plastic lens with resin optics? Could it be possible to make such a lens less expensive than the 100-400? And, more important, would you prefer it over the tank-built, weather-resistant 150-600 Sigma Sport? I probably would if, IQ-wise, it was comparable to, or better than, the Sigma. Lightweight would be a BIG bonus, plus you'd have Canon-quality AF... Opinions?

 

[ahsanford]

Price under 100-400L lens?

Canon is now making lens with plastic optics. Neat.

Now I ask: what do you think of an engineering plastic lens with resin optics? Could it be possible to make such a lens less expensive than the 100-400? And, more important, would you prefer it over the tank-built, weather-resistant 150-600 Sigma Sport? I probably would if, IQ-wise, it was comparable to, or better than, the Sigma. Lightweight would be a BIG bonus, plus you'd have Canon-quality AF... Opinions?

Possible? Sure. But would Canon really offer a lens without proper glass optics and charge more than other lenses that do?

Sounds like Cadillac selling a budget/no-frills supercompact sedan. It doesn't make sense for the brand and there will still be cheaper options in that segment.

I still think Canon needs to ride...

• f/5.6 is quicker, allows more AF points or teleconverter use
• First party AF
• General Canon reliablility and build quality

...to a 'Yes we have one, too, but it costs more and it's worth it' value proposition.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Now I ask: what do you think of an engineering plastic lens with resin optics? Could it be possible to make such a lens less expensive than the 100-400?

Do resin optics scale well? Those large elements at the front are a big cost factor. Recall that one issue with fluorite elements is a slightly greater coefficient of thermal expansion than glass (Nikon highlighted the focus problems this causes with 'other makers' use of fluorite in their description of their ED glass, and interestingly let those criticisms stand even after recently starting to use fluorite in their own lenses). Moulded resin/plastic elements can have thermal expansion coefficients an order of magnitude greater than glass.

 

[raptor3x]

It´s a rumor. We´re not sure what beast could this lens be, and if there is some wiggle room for shorter focal lenght or smaller aperture. Also, I believe we discussed price. I believe Canon has some potential to bring lower price lens. If it will happen, there is quite higher possibility, it will rule the market, and wi will outsell many more competitor lenses, which could again mean lower price.
Entrance pupil is not what we argue.

The notion was that making the lens EF vs EF-S would have an impact on the cost, which is simply untrue for lenses in the telephoto range. You can make lenses cheaper by reducing the material quality, using less complex designs, loosening manufacturting tolerances, etc. but changing the image circle will have negligible impact on the size and final cost of the lens because the size, and by extension cost, of the lens is dominated by the entrance pupil requirement.

 

[j-nord]

With the addition that it will be a sub $2k lens of low quality, Ive completely lost interest. Ideally, I'd like a 500/5.6 L IS prime instead, priced around or a bit over the 100-400ii.

 

[pierlux]

Price under 100-400L lens?

Canon is now making lens with plastic optics. Neat.

Now I ask: what do you think of an engineering plastic lens with resin optics? Could it be possible to make such a lens less expensive than the 100-400? And, more important, would you prefer it over the tank-built, weather-resistant 150-600 Sigma Sport? I probably would if, IQ-wise, it was comparable to, or better than, the Sigma. Lightweight would be a BIG bonus, plus you'd have Canon-quality AF... Opinions?

Possible? Sure. But would Canon really offer a lens without proper glass optics and charge more than other lenses that do?

Fact is that when Canon made their first non-metal, plastic lens we all sniffed at it, then it turned out to be "engineering plastic" and... ah, OK! What if they call a plastic lens element "optical grade polycarbonate"? Doesn't it sound more distinguished? That's the way they would act. Probably, the front element would still be glass, maybe flat glass, to avoid scratches. The question is either this rumor is total BS and we're a bunch of idiots at our eleventh page of vapor-nothing, or something's really boiling there. CR guy is not going ballistic I hope, he rated this CR2... The point is Canon are rumored to offer this hypothetical lens at equal or less money than others, not more. What I think Canon really hate is not Sigma and Tamron selling tons of their superteles, it's Nikon with their cheapo one!

 

[sulla]

Aren't all of these dirt-cheap 500mm+ f/8 and narrower lenses typically some optical parlour trick like a mirror lens made from some bush-league Vivatar, Conair, etc. consumer electronics folks?

Doesn't the patent immediately rule those sort of designs out?

No, they are not. They simply are not telepoto lenses. ("telephoto" lenses being lenses that have, - allow for a slight oversimplification - a longer focal lenght than physical length, achieved by having a positive front and negative rear element. This brings optical problems that need to be corrected, but they can be made fast). Those cheapo 500 /f8 lenses are normal lenses, verm much like the EF 50 designs. Thus they are physically (much) longer than their focal length is. They consist only of a couple of lenses. And normal lenses of this focal lenght cannot be made very fast easily.

The canon patent rules this sort of construction out. The Canon patent is a "telephoto" lens.

 

[ahsanford]

The notion was that making the lens EF vs EF-S would have an impact on the cost, which is simply untrue for lenses in the telephoto range. You can make lenses cheaper by reducing the material quality, using less complex designs, loosening manufacturting tolerances, etc. but changing the image circle will have negligible impact on the size and final cost of the lens because the size, and by extension cost, of the lens is dominated by the entrance pupil requirement.

Yet:

• Tamron = 95mm front element = $989
• Sigma Contemporary = 95mm front element = $989
• Sigma Sports = 105mm front element = $1,799

Just because Canon lenses with huge front elements cost a boatload doesn't mean they have to. So as much as I am arguing Canon shouldn't get down in the mud and follow suit with something inexpensive, it is absolutely possible to make a decent 600mm f/6.3 lens for under $1,000. (I understand that f/6.3 is not f/5.6, but you get my meaning). We may just not want to buy such a lens, that's all.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

From a cost perspective, Canon also has the card up its sleeve of ecosystem pullthrough and customer retention, i.e. they could conceivably give the lens away at cost to protect defections to another mount.

The only reason Canon would do this is if Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6, magically sitting at $1,400, is stealing body sales from Canon. I'm not sure that's happening, but it could explain this push for a cheaper long zoom.

- A

 

[crashpc]

If we´re talking mass production, 100-400 non L would be propably greater hit, but who knows.
Cash is waiting...

 

[neonlight]

...so it won't be a white lens? and no IS?