Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[ritholtz]

Canon is ramping up focusing systems with f/8 support. Maybe we can see smaller and cheaper tele lens with f/8 down the line. It can also put dslr more better position than mirrorless which needs faster lens to focus in low light.

 

[nhz]

I'll leave the physics to others, but here is what I can't get past.

Let's say I own a lens business. For this example we will call it "Neuro's Ye Olde Lens Shoppe."

I have two choices. I can make one lens that will cost me $850 to manufacture. Once distribution, marketing, packaging, shipping, warranty service and other costs are added in, I figure I can sell it at an MSRP of $1,800 and offer it as a low-budget lens. I will sell 50,000 at a profit of $200 each – $10 million

On the other hand, I can add about 15% to the cost of manufacture and make a much better lens that I can sell for $2,500. Most of my other costs are embedded and not going to change. (My warranty costs might actually go down, because there will be fewer repairs and replacements of the more expensive lens, on the other hand, I'll have to share more profit with retailers). By investing the extra 15% I now have the following: $200 original profit less $150 added costs plus $700 higher price less additional $200 to retailers for the higher costs item, for a net profit of $550 each. But, I only sell 40,000 units. Thus my $550 profit on 40,000 units is $22 million.

Hmm...since I've already invested 85% of the cost by making a cheap lens, why not add another 15% to my manufacturing costs, put a red ring on it and more than double my profits?

why not? Because when increasing the price by 40%, you are extremely optimistic assuming that you will only sell 20% less units. I would guess that even a 40% decline in sales numbers would be optimistic (of course depends on the perceived value-for-money of the specific product).

In reality is often the other way round: by going below a certain price point (= more or less directly competing with Nikon 200-500, Sigma/Tamron 150-600) you will sell a pretty large number to enthusiasts. Make a high end lens that is way more expensive and the pros (and very wealthy enthusiasts) will be happy, but their numbers are just a few % of the general enthusiast market.

 

[nhz]

CR you're wrong about the date..

The 200-600mm will be announced along with the 7Dmark3 in 2017. it will be STM, look like a longer version of the 55-250 stm. All plastic with a metal mount but weight will be close to the Tamron. it is the same one in the Patent the was filed years back. Hoya is providing the elements least the front element, they already have the contract. The tripod collar is an extra but will ship with lens hood. it will lock for lens creep at 200mm and 400mm. focus down to 6 feet. won't be at the sharpest at wide open. $1,600 or close to.

7d3 is coming around February of 2017 last i heard this week. they're doing final testing on the heat displacement and battery drain for 4k use, just getting the algorithms down in the firmware. 8)

you failed to mention that in order to make the 7D3 and 200-600 a perfect match, the 7D3 will now have a full plastic body similar to entry level Rebels. This also explains all the required heat testing, they need to make sure the 7D3 doesn't completely melt down in operation. 8)

 

[ahsanford]

Maybe I've got this all wrong, but the Venn diagram circles of 600mm, f/5.6, and "cheaper than the 100-400 II" don't appear to overlap. It has got to be more expensive than we think, slower than we think, or not as long as we think.

...or it will be some plastic nightmare like a non-L EF 75-300 on steroids.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Canon is ramping up focusing systems with f/8 support. Maybe we can see smaller and cheaper tele lens with f/8 down the line.

I highly doubt we'll ever see a Canon EF lens with a narrower max aperture than f/5.6. It's one thing to say that the number and type of AF points will vary by lens, quite another to say that a lens will not AF at all on certain bodies.

 

[nhz]

...
It makes sense to us that it would come below the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II as far as price point and quality are concerned. We’re confident such a lens from Canon would still have terrific optical performance and a relatively light weight.

Agree, they need a lower priced alternative to the Nikon 200-500 and Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lenses, there clearly is a lot of sales potential there and for some the 100-400II is a bit too expensive. Looking at lenses like the 55-250STM Canon is very good at offering high optical quality tele zooms with fast AF, low weight and attractive price. With cameras like 80D keeping f/5.6 aperture isn't really necessary anyway so I'd rather see them sacrifice a bit of aperture at the top end to keep the weight and price down.

If it isn't an L lens with maximum image quality into the corners (compared to 100-400II) and extremely rugged build quality, it can lose significant weight compared to the competition.

 

[hendrik-sg]

This rumor ist absolutely inplausible, or has major errors.

- if it is 600 5.6 at the long end, it will need a entrance diameter of 10.6cm at least, compared to the 200-400 4.0 which needs 10.0cm.

- a lens this size will be priced at least 10k$, with the 200-400 it will be a similar couple like 70-200 2.8 and 100-400, similar size, with different lenght and opening

- a lens in this size is expensive to produce, so it will be expensive and all expensive glass is "L" or "do" maybe

 

[unfocused]

I'll leave the physics to others, but here is what I can't get past.

Let's say I own a lens business. For this example we will call it "Neuro's Ye Olde Lens Shoppe."

I have two choices. I can make one lens that will cost me $850 to manufacture. Once distribution, marketing, packaging, shipping, warranty service and other costs are added in, I figure I can sell it at an MSRP of $1,800 and offer it as a low-budget lens. I will sell 50,000 at a profit of $200 each – $10 million

On the other hand, I can add about 15% to the cost of manufacture and make a much better lens that I can sell for $2,500. Most of my other costs are embedded and not going to change. (My warranty costs might actually go down, because there will be fewer repairs and replacements of the more expensive lens, on the other hand, I'll have to share more profit with retailers). By investing the extra 15% I now have the following: $200 original profit less $150 added costs plus $700 higher price less additional $200 to retailers for the higher costs item, for a net profit of $550 each. But, I only sell 40,000 units. Thus my $550 profit on 40,000 units is $22 million.

Hmm...since I've already invested 85% of the cost by making a cheap lens, why not add another 15% to my manufacturing costs, put a red ring on it and more than double my profits?

why not? Because when increasing the price by 40%, you are extremely optimistic assuming that you will only sell 20% less units. I would guess that even a 40% decline in sales numbers would be optimistic (of course depends on the perceived value-for-money of the specific product).

In reality is often the other way round: by going below a certain price point (= more or less directly competing with Nikon 200-500, Sigma/Tamron 150-600) you will sell a pretty large number to enthusiasts. Make a high end lens that is way more expensive and the pros (and very wealthy enthusiasts) will be happy, but their numbers are just a few % of the general enthusiast market.

Well of course only Canon has the kind of information to determine that.

But, we are not talking about a cheap consumer lens here. Once you get in the $1,500 range you have already eliminated the vast majority of customers and are targeting serious enthusiasts only.

These are people with disposable income and a willingness to spend it on their hobby. Will they go for a more expensive lens that is sharper, faster and better made? If they are buying the Canon brand they are willing to pay a premium for quality. Those who are looking for a bargain will spend less money and get the Sigma Contemporary or Tamron, which are likely to be better lenses than a bargain Canon, just as they are better lenses than the bargain Nikon.

Of course this is all just speculation but my point is simply that for a small incremental cost I think it makes more sense to offer a better product.

Let's attack this from the other direction. Just how much could Canon remove from the 100-400 to make a cheaper lens? Replace USM with STM. Make the autofocus less responsive. Use cheaper materials. Drop back a few generations in IS? Eliminate all weather sealing?

Would that save them even 15%. I don't know. And, in the end would it be a lens anybody would want?

 

[crashpc]

I also think this one would be expensive. How about 200-500 f/4.0-f/8.0?
I have my 250mm IS STM with 1,4x TC, making it effectively 350mm f/8 lens.
So 500mm f/8 would totally do it for me. That is 62mm front lens element. And that is doable.....

 

[unfocused]

...Hoya is providing the elements least the front element, they already have the contract....

Maybe it will be a joint venture. "Rebel by Tokina" in the U.S. and "Kiss by Tokina" in Asia. (Not sure about Europe). Both licensed by Canon and using the Canon distribution and warranty network. That way, it can use f6.3 and sell for less than the 100-400 without eroding Canon's brand. Eventually, all Tokina lenses will be re-branded and Canon acquires a majority stake in the company.

 

[nightscape123]

Finally a lens to compete with the Tamron Sigma and Nikon! Hopefully this one is just as good as the other lenses that Canon has released in the past few years!

 

[hendrik-sg]

this are just funny cost and pricing discussions

- The production people will have to produce any product as cheap as possible and as good as necessary.
- the marketing department will position it on the market and pirice it in a way, that it gives the best profit in total, including canibalisation of other products and many other effects, this is their knowledge and what they do their whole life. They will not find much helpful advice in this forum
- As with all consumer products, where prestige, image, label, lifestyle etc are part of what the customers wants, there is almost no correlation of price and production cost, and if there is, it's just in the way, that a product will not exist if it is to expensive to produce

 

[midluk]

Why make a budget lens slower than f/5.6 if it doesn't work on budget xxxD and xxxxD and most other older bodies? So this will likely be not slower than f/5.6.

 

[nhz]

But, we are not talking about a cheap consumer lens here. Once you get in the $1,500 range you have already eliminated the vast majority of customers and are targeting serious enthusiasts only.

These are people with disposable income and a willingness to spend it on their hobby. Will they go for a more expensive lens that is sharper, faster and better made? If they are buying the Canon brand they are willing to pay a premium for quality. Those who are looking for a bargain will spend less money and get the Sigma Contemporary or Tamron, which are likely to be better lenses than a bargain Canon, just as they are better lenses than the bargain Nikon.

Of course this is all just speculation but my point is simply that for a small incremental cost I think it makes more sense to offer a better product.

I think you need to compare with the Nikon 5.6/200-500. Along the lines of many responses in this thread one could argue that this lens should cost at least $5000 or so (just look at what other big Nikon tele lenses cost) but reality it that the price is way lower and I bet Nikon is making a lot of money with it despite the 'way too low' price.

As to people with "disposable income and willingness to spend", the people that I meet in my country who are 'nature/wildlife enthusiasts' rarely are able or willing to spend thousands of dollars/euros on a new lens, the group who spend this amount of money (people with goldplated pensions etc.) is very small compared to the potential market of enthusiast nature photographers, birders etc. And those who have $10.000 lying around for a new lens won't bother and probably buy that 4/200-400L etc. or a xxx-600DO anyway simply because they can afford it.

I don't think Sigma/Tamron lenses are more attractive by definition for those on a budget, and the success of the Nikon 200-500 clearly proves it. People will gladly spend a bit more for a Canikon lens that gives them peace of mind regarding AF, future compatibility etc. I don't think Canon has any serious competition for e.g. their 55-250STM lens from others, why wouldn't they be able to offer a competitive 200-600 lens? Just don't expect 'L' build quality, 'L' optics and a red ring for 'bargain' price, non-L is certainly good enough for the majority of buyers.

 

[Loswr]

...why wouldn't they be able to offer a competitive 200-600 lens?

Because 500mm / 5.6 = 89mm and 600mm / 5.6 = 107mm.

 

[RickWagoner]

RickWagoner just sent me a private message that it will be an EOS M lens with a max f/8 at the long end. He said he knew that as fact. :

ssssshhhh

 

[RickWagoner]

RickWagoner just sent me a private message that it will be an EOS M lens with a max f/8 at the long end. He said he knew that as fact. :

I guess the rolling eyes emoticon is perfect for cases like that ;D ;D ;D

A 500mm lens which by the way would have the same diameter with a Full Frame equivalent lens would balance nicely on a M-series Canon ;D ;D ;D

Well, beyond poking fun at the pithy pronouncements of a poseur with self-declared 'insider knowledge', a 200-600mm zoom with f/8 on the long end would likely be similar in size to the current 300mm f/4L IS, and the M series doesn't require f/5.6 lenses for AF (for example, Canon's M55-200 is f/6.3 on the long end).

now now no name calling..wait till 2017 then if my words don't ring true then you name call.

 

[nhz]

...why wouldn't they be able to offer a competitive 200-600 lens?

Because 500mm / 5.6 = 89mm and 600mm / 5.6 = 107mm.

so what? If the spec is significantly better of course they could charge a higher price than for Nikon 5.6/200-500, e.g. $2000 instead of $1400. Or cheat a bit and offer a lower max aperture at the top end ;-)

 

[RGF]

If IQ is reasonable to very good, Canon will have a winner on their hands. Couple this with the 70-300 L and you got 70 - 600 covered in 2 lens. Sweet !

 

[AlanF]

Finally a lens to compete with the Tamron Sigma and Nikon! Hopefully this one is just as good as the other lenses that Canon has released in the past few years!

The 100-400mm II outperforms the rest, even with a 1.4xTC.