Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[RickWagoner]

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?

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. 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. 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. If Tamron sells the 150-600mm at $1069 then it probably costs them $400 to make it tops, they sell it to the dealer for double or close to making $300-$400 profit and the dealer make a few bucks on the $1069 customer price (usually the dealer buys it 18-20% off retail price in the Lens and SLR market). 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. 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 doubt you will be selling 50,000 600mm lenses though...if it is a amazing seller you may sell 5,000 of them. If it is something like a Canon lens then you can have it on the market for 20 years thus the costs get even cheaper year after year and you will sell lots more esp if it is the $30-$40 to make 50mm 1.8 STM.

If it is a Red L lens then the quality control cost go up, you most likely are making the glass yourself so that goes up, more costly R&D esp with the coatings up front, etc.

 

[unfocused]

I think you need to compare with the Nikon 5.6/200-500...

Keep in mind though that Nikon has been losing market share (as shown in the oft-referenced CIPA charts on this forum). Virtually all of the growth in mirrorless (such as it is), has come out of Nikon's market share, not Canon's.

So they are under far different competitive pressures than Canon.

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. 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. 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. If Tamron sells the 150-600mm at $1069 then it probably costs them $400 to make it tops, they sell it to the dealer for double or close to making $300-$400 profit and the dealer make a few bucks on the $1069 customer price (usually the dealer buys it 18-20% off retail price in the Lens and SLR market). 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. 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 doubt you will be selling 50,000 600mm lenses though...if it is a amazing seller you may sell 5,000 of them. If it is something like a Canon lens then you can have it on the market for 20 years thus the costs get even cheaper year after year and you will sell lots more esp if it is the $30-$40 to make 50mm 1.8 STM.

If it is a Red L lens then the quality control cost go up, you most likely are making the glass yourself so that goes up, more costly R&D esp with the coatings up front, etc.

Look, I'd like to drink the Kool-Aid, but I'm just not sure how Canon produces a lens that's 100mm longer than the Nikon, 200mm longer than their own 100-400, faster than the Sigmas Sport and still does it for less money.

Plus, I don't think the target audience will be all that pleased if the lens is soft at 600 mm and slow focusing.

There are plenty on this forum who say it is hopelessly optimistic that such a lens could be sold for even $2,500.

Whatever the ultimate price, I'm just suggesting that the incremental cost of painting it white and putting a red ring on the lens barrel will be easily offset by the additional revenue that would be generated. Remember, "L" is just a marketing designation.

 

[SteveSHH]

Hoping for EF 200-600mm IS USM (NANO)! Faster AF and cheaper than 100-400mm IS USM II
And kit lens for 7DIII and Price is US$3999.99 retail

 

[RickWagoner]

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.

noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.

 

[Loswr]

...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 ;-)

Because physics.

Oh, and Canon has generally specified that their dSLR AF system requires lenses with f/5.6 or wider maximum aperture. So they're not going to release an EF lens at f/6.3 or narrower.

 

[Loswr]

noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.

lol

 

[RickWagoner]

I think you need to compare with the Nikon 5.6/200-500...

Keep in mind though that Nikon has been losing market share (as shown in the oft-referenced CIPA charts on this forum). Virtually all of the growth in mirrorless (such as it is), has come out of Nikon's market share, not Canon's.

So they are under far different competitive pressures than Canon.

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. 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. 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. If Tamron sells the 150-600mm at $1069 then it probably costs them $400 to make it tops, they sell it to the dealer for double or close to making $300-$400 profit and the dealer make a few bucks on the $1069 customer price (usually the dealer buys it 18-20% off retail price in the Lens and SLR market). 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. 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 doubt you will be selling 50,000 600mm lenses though...if it is a amazing seller you may sell 5,000 of them. If it is something like a Canon lens then you can have it on the market for 20 years thus the costs get even cheaper year after year and you will sell lots more esp if it is the $30-$40 to make 50mm 1.8 STM.

If it is a Red L lens then the quality control cost go up, you most likely are making the glass yourself so that goes up, more costly R&D esp with the coatings up front, etc.

Look, I'd like to drink the Kool-Aid, but I'm just not sure how Canon produces a lens that's 100mm longer than the Nikon, 200mm longer than their own 100-400, faster than the Sigmas Sport and still does it for less money.

Plus, I don't think the target audience will be all that pleased if the lens is soft at 600 mm and slow focusing.

There are plenty on this forum who say it is hopelessly optimistic that such a lens could be sold for even $2,500.

Whatever the ultimate price, I'm just suggesting that the incremental cost of painting it white and putting a red ring on the lens barrel will be easily offset by the additional revenue that would be generated. Remember, "L" is just a marketing designation.

there is a good bit of extra cost that go into the Red L build, esp up front. lots more quality control and R&D costs then the regular lenses. Also Canon usually does not make the non L lenses glass themselves as it would cost them too much but on the L stuff they do (least the lenses i know of). The unit cost for Canon goes down year and year though on most lenses and that is where they make most of their profits on the L line. L Line is not just a lens with a painted red line and added price..sadly this is true.

 

[Loswr]

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

Oh, I don't think we need to wait until 2017.

...Canon has a bunch of 7d3 testers in early forms in the states now btw. I don't know anything about the 6D personally and no one in the state's tests anything mirrorless from Canon ever..so no go for info there also.

Last year i know there were lots of 6d labeled testers out

This is the 80D

24.2MP
49 point focus*

* are true features i know as fact.

 

[RickWagoner]

noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.

lol

i can see how you got to 18,000 posts here...ha

 

[RickWagoner]

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

Oh, I don't think we need to wait until 2017.

...Canon has a bunch of 7d3 testers in early forms in the states now btw. I don't know anything about the 6D personally and no one in the state's tests anything mirrorless from Canon ever..so no go for info there also.

Last year i know there were lots of 6d labeled testers out

This is the 80D

24.2MP
49 point focus*

* are true features i know as fact.

oh noesss i was off by 4 focus points....really?

 

[Loswr]

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

Oh, I don't think we need to wait until 2017.

...Canon has a bunch of 7d3 testers in early forms in the states now btw. I don't know anything about the 6D personally and no one in the state's tests anything mirrorless from Canon ever..so no go for info there also.

Last year i know there were lots of 6d labeled testers out

This is the 80D

24.2MP
49 point focus*

* are true features i know as fact.

oh noesss i was off by 4 focus points....really?

And you knew all about 6D's being tested then three days later you knew nothing about the 6D being tested. Were you hit on the head during that intervening time period? What else did you forget?

 

[RickWagoner]

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

Oh, I don't think we need to wait until 2017.

...Canon has a bunch of 7d3 testers in early forms in the states now btw. I don't know anything about the 6D personally and no one in the state's tests anything mirrorless from Canon ever..so no go for info there also.

Last year i know there were lots of 6d labeled testers out

This is the 80D

24.2MP
49 point focus*

* are true features i know as fact.

oh noesss i was off by 4 focus points....really?

And you knew all about 6D's being tested then three days later you knew nothing about the 6D being tested. Were you hit on the head during that intervening time period? What else did you forget?

no no..
I said i knew 6D labeled testers..did not know if it was 5d or 6d work inside as you could read in my prior posts testers are at times in different bodies for obvious reasons. I also may of forgot to call you and your 18,000 post count as being a troll esp when you go off with name calling like you did. You don't have to believe me, you can completely disregard the 80D information i listed at the time was way more than anyone and anywhere listed, you may even say i was guessing it if you want..but if i can guess that well i would be in Vegas and not on CR with 18,000 posts to me..hehe go troll someone else..

 

[Loswr]

no no..
I said i knew 6D labeled testers..did not know if it was 5d or 6d work inside as you could read in my prior posts testers are at times in different bodies for obvious reasons. I also may of forgot to call you and your 18,000 post count as being a troll esp when you go off with name calling like you did. You don't have to believe me, you can completely disregard the 80D information i listed at the time was way more than anyone and anywhere listed, you may even say i was guessing it if you want..but if i can guess that well i would be in Vegas and not on CR with 18,000 posts to me..hehe go troll someone else..

No, no...I read that, and your other excuses, too. Hey, I could throw a bunch of crap at a wall and some would surely stick.

 

[slclick]

Y'all are making this place look like other forums. Nasty.

 

[RickWagoner]

no no..
I said i knew 6D labeled testers..did not know if it was 5d or 6d work inside as you could read in my prior posts testers are at times in different bodies for obvious reasons. I also may of forgot to call you and your 18,000 post count as being a troll esp when you go off with name calling like you did. You don't have to believe me, you can completely disregard the 80D information i listed at the time was way more than anyone and anywhere listed, you may even say i was guessing it if you want..but if i can guess that well i would be in Vegas and not on CR with 18,000 posts to me..hehe go troll someone else..

No, no...I read that, and your other excuses, too. Hey, I could throw a bunch of crap at a wall and some would surely stick.

If you read that than why would you not quote it fully or even bother using it?....besides to just troll.
that close to the final details? 4 focus points off? you must be great at throwing crap....then again with 18,000 posts you sure do like throwing something

 

[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.

noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.

Have you compared them? I owned both the Tamron 150-600mm and the 100-400mm II, and after comparing them directly sold the Tamron as it wasn't as sharp in the centre wide open at 600mm and the corners were quite poor. Every website that has compared the two comes to the same conclusion, see, for example:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I like the Tamron and think it a very acceptable lens. But, the IQ, AF and iS are not as good as the Canon.

 

[Loswr]

noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.

lol

i can see how you got to 18,000 posts here...ha

Apologies, let me expand on my reply. I was laughing becuase you are claiming the Sigma lenses outperform the 100-400 II, and it's evident that the 100-400 II outperforms the old 400/5.6. Yet previously you claimed,

The sigma won't be as sharp as a 400mm 5.6 cropped to match and if it is then i will poop a brick!

Thus, my out-loud laughter was at the thought of you pooping a brick. Hope that clarifies, and I hope it didn't cause much damage on the way out.

 

[unfocused]

...the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but if you are saying the Tamron outperforms the Sigma Contemporary, that doesn't seem to be what "The Digital Picture" found.

Comparing the Sigma "C" and Tamron: "The Sigma is noticeably sharper at 600mm, especially in the mid and peripheral portions of the image circle...

...Which lens is better? I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here, but I lean toward the Sigma, partially because these lenses are going to most frequently be bought for and used at the 600mm focal length and, at least at f/8, the Sigma holds the optical advantage at 600mm."

And in comparing the "S" and "C" versions:

"I expected the "S" version to be superior optically, but that is not completely how the results turned out...

...Looking at the wide open aperture image quality results... At 600mm, the most important focal length for a significant percentage of the target market for this lens, the "S" has an edge. Stop down to f/8 and image sharpness across the entire focal length range isn't a factor in this lens selection decision.

Oh, and comparing to the Canon 100-400 II:

"The Canon bests the Sigma in sharpness and contrast over the entire shared native focal length range. Add a 1.4x to get the Canon up to 560mm the Canon is still at least as sharp, though the extended Canon lens has a narrower max aperture at 560mm (f/8.0 vs. f/6.3)."

I do own both the Sigma "C" and the Canon 100-400 II, but haven't had a lot of opportunity to use either one. I expect that to change soon as the spring sports season arrives. From the limited use I have had so far I would say this: The Canon is clearly the better lens on a number of fronts, but the Sigma "C" is no slouch either. I intend to use the Sigma when I need more reach (baseball outfielders for example) since it gives me access to all the autofocus points, while the Canon 100-400 with teleconverter limits me to the center point.

It is, however, quite a beast and after a few uses, I am glad I didn't go for the Sports version, which is even heavier. The Canon 100-400 seems a tad more responsive and is a bit easier to handhold, but I find them both to be very worthwhile lenses.

 

[AlanF]

www.objektivtest.se has measured the MTFs of the Sigma 150-600mm Sport, the Tamron 150-600mm and the Canon 100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC III). These were measured on an optical bench, not Imatest, just like the Lensrental measurements and are independent of camera. Here is a Table of collated values. By the way, lenstip finds the Tamron to outperform the Sigma Contemporary at 600mm, but not the Sport. There are several reports that the Sigma Sport is sharper than the Nikon 200-500.

 

[j-nord]

200-600/5.6 sounds promising but seems like its either going to be a 'cheap non-L' (possibly even a crop lens) that cannot compete with the 100-400ii or its going to be at a much higher price point and possibly replace the 200-400 1.4x. I can only dream that it would fill the gap between the 100-400ii and the big whites. As others have been voicing, a 500/5.6 IS prime could be a better alternative priced around the same as the 100-400ii.