Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[Loswr]

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.

Apparently, nhz's vast almost 20 year experience in the field says differently. : It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.

 

[sulla]

It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard P. Feynman

 

[pierlux]

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?

Moulded resin/plastic elements can have thermal expansion coefficients an order of magnitude greater than glass.

That would be a real problem. You'd have to AFMA your lens every single shooting session.

Or engineer the lens in such a way that the thermal expansion of the mount/barrel compensates for the optical shift of the plastic elements, or alternate optical elements with differential thermal properties. Not an easy task to accomplish, even with computer-aided design. It would be probably easier to develop a new plastic material with low thermal expansion coefficient. I recall I've read some University labs were actually researching in this direction for aerospace implementation.

 

[ahsanford]

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?

Moulded resin/plastic elements can have thermal expansion coefficients an order of magnitude greater than glass.

That would be a real problem. You'd have to AFMA your lens every single shooting session.

Or engineer the lens in such a way that the thermal expansion of the mount/barrel compensates for the optical shift of the plastic elements, or alternate optical elements with differential thermal properties. Not an easy task to accomplish, even with computer-aided design. It would be probably easier to develop a new plastic material with low thermal expansion coefficient. I recall I've read some University labs were actually researching in this direction for aerospace implementation.

It's not just an AFMA thing in which elements would be closer/further from one another depending on the temperature. I'd imagine their shape would actually change as well. No fancy mount/barrel design will address that, one would think.

Also, I work with plastic in my day job, and all kinds of weird variables come into play depending on the material and the forming process. It's not uncommon those materials have trapped residual stresses from molding, have anisotropic material properties, etc. that make 'controlling' it in a temperature changing environment very difficult. That said, I'm no optical engineer or material scientist.

- A

 

[raptor3x]

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

Again, I don't know how to state it any more clearly, at no point have I made any indication at all that the lens in question must be incredibly expensive. It's not that large telephoto lenses can't be made more cheaply than the great white lenses, it's that making a lens for EF-S vs EF will not reduce the manufacturing cost by any significant amount.

 

[pierlux]

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.

Perfectly reasonable, I agree. It's no use repairing the fence after the cattle have escaped.

 

[Speedsurfer142]

Until 2 weeks ago I only owned Canon Glass. The 70-200 IS II is my faforite in combination with my 7DII. Now I also own a Sigma 150-600 sports and this lens is a lot better than I expected. Oke, it is not par with the 70-20 in sharpnes, but it is close. (After calibration with the USB dock.) The autofocus speed is about 90% of the 70-200 and that is absolutely good for me. I shoot rallycars (at speed) windsurfing action and I started birding.

Canon will have to do something verry special to make something like this at this price range. Non L will not be good enough. It must be an L lens for Non L lens money.

Pro vs Con Sigma.
Pro: Sharp even at 600mm.
Fast autofocus that is pretty spot on.
Build quality (on par with Canon L glass) and weather sealed.
Push-pull option (like old 100-400L) but you don't have to use it.
Tripod ring system.
Programable settings
Canon Extender 1.4III works good. (No need for a dedicated extender.)
Cheap €1599 inc. 105mm filter and USBdock.

Con: Heavy (not for hand hold shooting).
Vingetting is strong, bit Lightroon fixes that easy.

 

[AlanF]

It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard P. Feynman

For a successful BS, public relations must take precedence over
reality, for Man can be fooled.

 

[unfocused]

I'm really enjoying this conversation. I was worried what people would find to argue over now that Canon has caught up on dynamic range.

Some random thoughts:

Advice to all forum participants. When you say you have XX years of experience in an industry, you really need to quantify that with some details. If I read that someone says that have 20 years in the lens design industry, but they don't say what they actually did, I just assume they mean they worked the counter at Lens Crafters.



One thing that hasn't been brought up, is the possibility of fudging the f-stop and focal length. The difference between f6.3 and f5.6 is less than a half stop. Perhaps a true 600mm f5.6 lens would be prohibitively expensive, but where is the line? Since f6.3 is practical, maybe an f6 570 mm sold as f5.6 600 mm?



People could save themselves a lot of time if they just re-read the thread from a few months back. I'm not seeing any new information here.




I'm still wrestling with this:

It don't cost that much to make a lens esp if you're making 50,000. Depending on where you are making it and where you are sourcing your parts from esp. Most of the cost is upfront in dyes for the barrels, switches, hoods, and other custom built parts.

Doesn't sound cheap to me. And, by the way it's "dies" not "dyes" (Unless you are talking about soaking the lenses to get that pretty white color)

Motors and electronics are cheap as hell and the cost of R&D is not much but a few people who know what they're doing. Auto focus and IS has already been worked on long before this lens i would assume so that don't cost anything besides those few people to Dial it in for the lens.

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said that a particular enhancement "don't (sic) cost anything"

How much your glass cost depends on who makes it and does that company do the polishing or do you do the polishing. Polishing yourself does not cost that much. Where is it put together can add a bit, esp with local regulations and taxes.

I am reminded of Everertt Dirkson's quote: "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you have real money."

Not much Marketing is needed as most of it today is in the form of youtube videos with the gear coming from a dealer themselves.

Gee I guess all those ads in magazines and television that Canon, Nikon and Sony buy are just a waste of money (or maybe they are free?)

Repairs are cheaper than you want to think, remember all you're doing is paying a few people to repair and you're still getting the parts cheap as hell.

I've seen the pictures of Canon's repair facilities. I didn't notice a lot of eight-year-old kids and undocumented immigrants doing the work. I guess the people I did see must all be paid minimum wage?

I doubt you will be selling 50,000 600mm lenses though...if it is a amazing seller you may sell 5,000 of them.

I have no reason to doubt this number, but I have to wonder, if it only takes 5,000 lenses to make an amazing seller worldwide, then I don't quite understand why people feel that Canon HAS to react to the bargain lenses being offered.


Now, in fairness to Rick, I do believe that we will see a 7DII replacement sooner rather than later. The old 7D was not updated in part because there was nothing to compete with it. With Nikon back in that market I think pride and competitive pressures will prompt Canon to shorten the replacement cycle.



The cool thing about this rumor thread is that people are so sure they are right and everyone else is wrong.

We will have an opportunity a year from now to look back and see who knew what they were talking about and who didn't. (As for me, I've never made any claim to know what I'm talking about.)

 

[crashpc]

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

Again, I don't know how to state it any more clearly, at no point have I made any indication at all that the lens in question must be incredibly expensive. It's not that large telephoto lenses can't be made more cheaply than the great white lenses, it's that making a lens for EF-S vs EF will not reduce the manufacturing cost by any significant amount.

Any amount can be at play. If Canon really didn´t want to save money, why the heck would they make Two rebel cameras and two 5DS cameras etc. With EF-S mount goes another "money saving" than just little bit smaller lens. It is usually lower class. I believe the price difference could be significant.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html

 

[ahsanford]

Now, in fairness to Rick, I do believe that we will see a 7DII replacement sooner rather than later. The old 7D was not updated in part because there was nothing to compete with it. With Nikon back in that market I think pride and competitive pressures will prompt Canon to shorten the replacement cycle.

+1. With Nikon abandoning the 'pro APS-C body' segment for so long, Canon really only needed a 5-year 7D refresh cycle to retain its business over either the D7200 (and successor) line or Canon's own 80D (and successor) line. The D500 really shakes that up, I think.

We have no idea the D500 performs yet, but it's a clear statement of commitment to birders & wildlife folks.

But I'm OT. Apologies.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html

From an FM sale I googled, see below. Yowza -- 9+ pounds.

- A

 

[unfocused]

Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html

From an FM sale I googled, see below. Yowza -- 9+ pounds.

- A

That's quite the push-pull zoom on that baby.

 

[nhz]

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.

Apparently, nhz's vast almost 20 year experience in the field says differently. : It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.

For sure your vast experience as an internet expert trounce everything :

 

[ahsanford]

Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html

From an FM sale I googled, see below. Yowza -- 9+ pounds.

- A

That's quite the push-pull zoom on that baby.

Yeah, those ergonomics resemble a WWI artillery piece. One half expects this this thing to forego a tripod in favor of a angled mount attached to two wooden wagon wheels.

- A

 

[Loswr]

One thing that hasn't been brought up, is the possibility of fudging the f-stop and focal length. The difference between f6.3 and f5.6 is less than a half stop. Perhaps a true 600mm f5.6 lens would be prohibitively expensive, but where is the line? Since f6.3 is practical, maybe an f6 570 mm sold as f5.6 600 mm?

What do you mean when you say f/6.3 is practical? Consider that what Tamron calls 150-600mm f/5-6.3 was patented as a design of 152-582mm f/5.12-6.45. When ahsanford earlier stated, "Tamron = 95mm front element = $989," he really meant 95mm front filter thread – the front element is smaller, closer to the ~90mm you'd expect based on the above non-rouded values of 582 / 6.45. Canon does and will continue to fudge, but you'll need to compared fudged numbers with other fudged numbers.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

I'm waiting for the 100 MP imager. Add a tack sharp 200mm f2.8 with electronic zoom. There, done.
Meanwhile, the war of big zooms will continue. Maybe just fork over a few bucks for one of those mirrorless things with the 100x zoom.

 

[Loswr]

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.

Apparently, nhz's vast almost 20 year experience in the field says differently. : It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.

For sure your vast experience as an internet expert trounce everything :

We were dicsussing your suggestion that there would be significant savings in making a 200-600mm f/4.x-6.3 lens with an image height of 13.7mm vs. an image height of 21.6mm. I see that you've chosen not to respond to the issue at hand, based on your almost 20 years of experience in the field. Perhaps unfocused is right - you've spent 20 years standing behind the counter at LensCrafters.

You could just admit you were wrong, but that's probably too much for you to handle.

 

[Don Haines]

Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html

From an FM sale I googled, see below. Yowza -- 9+ pounds.

- A

That's quite the push-pull zoom on that baby.

Yeah, those ergonomics resemble a WWI artillery piece. One half expects this this thing to forego a tripod in favor of a angled mount attached to two wooden wagon wheels.

- A

Well duh! The brand is Cannon.....