Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[traveller]

Wow, this is a popular thread! Six pages in a few hours. Looks like there's still some pent up demand for another long zoom from Canon.

Just to draw a comparison, the last zoom that Canon made that reached 600mm cost 880,000 Yen in 1982.

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm

Lens design has moved on since, but sadly not the laws of physics. I still think that such a lens would be $10,000 plus and weigh over 4kg. With that amount of glass and mechanics, I don't think cheap plastic build quality would cut it. There wouldn't be much point in such a lens in the 'L' range, as they already have the superb 200-400 f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x.

More likely this would be a 200-500 f/5.6, like Nikon's. Personally, I think that it would be better for Canon to price this lens just above the 100-400 II and give it the 'L' treatment. The bottom of the market is already crowded, better to differentiate and go for a higher-end market than try to take on Sigma and Tamron at their own game. The Nikon version doesn't really show the third party lenses a clean pair of heels, as far as I've seen (which, to be fair, is only Internet reviews).

 

[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.

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.

Yes i did compare them quite a bit actually, even had the Tammy on a few different Nikons.

At 400mm wide open shooting a bird at equal distance both were head to head to me, the 100-400ii had more of that finer or micro detail like the 70-300L has if you ever used one of those before but the Tamron does come in at half the price, makes the double price Canon look bad but the canon i would say does not outperform here.

With a Tele at 560mm on the Canon compared to 600mm on the Tamron: First off you're using a poor man's way of getting more reach on a lens that cost double, not really a fair comparison. Also right off the bat if you're using the canon tele then most of your camera bodies won't work so no outperformance there. Even with the 7d2,and 5d3 the Tamron native focus to me is quick as or quicker than the 100-400 with the canon tele, these two cameras work well with the Tamron in Servo unlike my little 70D. Speaking of which on a cheater Kenko Tele and 100-400 on the 70D is crap slow compared to the not so super servo focus tamron on this body. Without the kenko tele the 100-400ii in servo blast the Tamron on the 70D though but now you're back to only 400mm reach so no real out performance there. Every third party lens will play different on different bodies even just slightly, the Tamron seems to work more natural with full frame bodies esp the D750 but works great on a 7D2 also. Still i am happy with the Tammy auto on my 70D for the price even in servo mode. Another thing about adding a tele is the extra glass and the loss of quality, though the 100-400ii does take a tele nicely it just not as nice to knock out the 600mm f/8 Tamron as long as the bird is at an equal closer than further distance, not sure if this makes sense.

The IS is amazing on both lenses esp with the Tamron at 600mm handheld, again we are comparing to very different priced lenses. I respect the 100-400ii myself but to me it does not outperform. To me it is marketed towards a different shooter, someone with a full frame 600 prime on a tripod for birds far away and a 7d2 with a 100-400ii on a strap for BIF. The Tamron is more for someone who don't have the big bucks for a two camera setup or just wants an all around lens for all kinds of birds either on a mono,tri, or handheld on a budget not needing the build quality. I talk about these lens for birds because birders always need and want more reach as you know so that extra built in 150mm at half price means it will be hard to outperform it.

 

[nhz]

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

I guess that for the many who are leaving in droves because of all the nasty comments, there are a few frequent posters who like it even better 8)

 

[RickWagoner]

...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.

as i said IMO (in my opinion) i like the Tammy better, to me it is sharper wide at 400mm, better at 600mm f/8 and the autofocus was lots more on the mark esp in lower light than the Sigma C. It could be i have a bias towards the Tammy though also, maybe...I would recommend both to anyone, either you like Sigmas or Tamrons..some people are more partial to one company. The Sigma Sport came off to me as a sharper lens for shooting WAY out far subjects than the other two 600s and the build quality and weight was on a different level...also a great lens. I agree with you on they're very well worthwhile lenses, esp for the entry level beginning birders. We are lucky to have the performance they all have for the price for sure because years back we just did not have such options. Nikon users did not come close to the performance options of the three 600's at the least us Canon people had the older 100-400 or the legendary 400 5.6

 

[Maiaibing]

Wow, this is a popular thread! Six pages in a few hours. Looks like there's still some pent up demand for another long zoom from Canon.

Just to draw a comparison, the last zoom that Canon made that reached 600mm cost 880,000 Yen in 1982.

And those who hated the pull/push design of the old 100-400mm IS L can at the same time remind themselves that there where once even worse alternatives! (Had no issues with it myself).

 

[unfocused]

...More likely this would be a 200-500 f/5.6, like Nikon's. Personally, I think that it would be better for Canon to price this lens just above the 100-400 II and give it the 'L' treatment. The bottom of the market is already crowded, better to differentiate and go for a higher-end market than try to take on Sigma and Tamron at their own game. The Nikon version doesn't really show the third party lenses a clean pair of heels, as far as I've seen (which, to be fair, is only Internet reviews).

I agree.

 

[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!

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

That may be true, but unfortunately that combo does not AF on my 6D. If I can get a native 600mm lens with AF then that is a win for me.

 

[HighLowISO]

Wow, this is a popular thread! Six pages in a few hours. Looks like there's still some pent up demand for another long zoom from Canon.
....

It's popular because of crap like this:

.....
<p>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.</p>
...

 

[ahsanford]

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.

That may be true, but unfortunately that combo does not AF on my 6D. If I can get a native 600mm lens with AF then that is a win for me.

+1. I may have this wrong, but without this rumored superzoom being offered, all of Canon's options to shoot longer than 400mm either involve:

• Shooting with a 300-400mm lens on crop
• Using a teleconverter (where IQ may be acceptable but the AF may be limited)
• Spending over $9k on a 500mm or higher prime

I don't shoot long glass, so please correct me if I am forgetting about a current lens that would be an exception to the above. (I'm only referring to Canon lenses on Canon bodies here.)

So that's why the lower cost being rumored is great for us but still questionable at that aperture. If you wanted a first party AF lens at 600mm and f/5.6 without a teleconverter, people would pay $3-4k for that, wouldn't they?

- A

 

[neonlight]

Does not seem likely to be lower cost than 100-400 II. If it is a 200-600 f/5.6 top end then the front glass will be 107mm. Bigger than the 100-400. I'd be happy if it were below the 500f/4 but I'd hope it would be an "L" and less than double the price of a 100-400.

 

[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.

That may be true, but unfortunately that combo does not AF on my 6D. If I can get a native 600mm lens with AF then that is a win for me.

+1. I may have this wrong, but without this rumored superzoom being offered, all of Canon's options to shoot longer than 400mm either involve:

• Shooting with a 300-400mm lens on crop
• Using a teleconverter (where IQ may be acceptable but the AF may be limited)
• Spending over $9k on a 500mm or higher prime

I don't shoot long glass, so please correct me if I am forgetting about a current lens that would be an exception to the above. (I'm only referring to Canon lenses on Canon bodies here.)

So that's why the lower cost being rumored is great for us but still questionable at that aperture. If you wanted a first party AF lens at 600mm and f/5.6 without a teleconverter, people would pay $3-4k for that, wouldn't they?

- A

If you want long reach for bird photography, you have to choose the right body as well as the lens. The 7DII (as does the 7D) has AF at f/8. The new 80D has superior AF at f/8 by having the 4 points surrounding the centre one active - even better than the 7DII and 5DIII etc. None of them are cheap.

 

[Haydn1971]

EF-M 200-600mm f6.3 to f8.0 @ £300 ! Sorted ;-)

Seriously though, f5.6 at 600mm ? Not gonna happen, 5.6 x 95mm gives 532mm, so I'd wager a Nikon style 200-500mm f5.6 IS is much more likely

 

[ahsanford]

If you want long reach for bird photography, you have to choose the right body as well as the lens. The 7DII (as does the 7D) has AF at f/8. The new 80D has superior AF at f/8 by having the 4 points surrounding the centre one active - even better than the 7DII and 5DIII etc. None of them are cheap.

Of course. That represents a thoughtful AF setup to allow folks to take the 2nd option on my list -- to use a teleconverter. That's fine, good, and useful, and as I understand it, many people do exactly that.

But are they happy with that setup compared a single lens solution? Isn't there massive value in not needing a TC, getting full native AF use, etc.? One would think that a 200-600 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM with the same build quality/IQ/AF as the 100-400 II would fly off the shelves at a far higher price than the 'budget birder' segment it apparently is aiming to stack up against.

- A

 

[sulla]

ah, if only this was true. Highly doubtful, however.

But then, nobody ever thought a nikkor 200-500 5.6 were ever possible at a price point of 1400 USD, and it is not too bad a lens, though not stellar, I understand.
Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.
Those 2 specs are not too far off.

the difference in entrance pupil and a price cannibalising the big whites has been discussed sufficiently here, but I do not see a real reason why this should not be possible.

 

[Don Haines]

ah, if only this was true. Highly doubtful, however.

But then, nobody ever thought a nikkor 200-500 5.6 were ever possible at a price point of 1400 USD, and it is not too bad a lens, though not stellar, I understand.
Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.
Those 2 specs are not too far off.

the difference in entrance pupil and a price cannibalising the big whites has been discussed sufficiently here, but I do not see a real reason why this should not be possible.

I love the "cannibalizing sales" arguments

Nikon is selling a LOT! of their 200-500 F5.6 lenses.... There are a lot of people who want a long lens, yet can never afford the super telephotos.

Canon could easily come out with their 200-500 F5.6 lens and sell it for somewhere around the same price as the Nikon... or they could make it a bit better quality and sell it for around $2000..... and it would sell well. It may even sell better than all the $6000+ big whites combined.... and the people who really want a $12,000 600F4 are still going to buy one because in the end there is no substitute for a prime with a huge chunk of glass IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. For those who can't afford it, the optical properties are meaningless.

And btw, I went for a walk on the weekend with a friend and has brand new 200-500 Nikon lens.... for him, it was a very expensive lens and he loved it.

 

[ahsanford]

ah, if only this was true. Highly doubtful, however.

But then, nobody ever thought a nikkor 200-500 5.6 were ever possible at a price point of 1400 USD, and it is not too bad a lens, though not stellar, I understand.
Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.
Those 2 specs are not too far off.

the difference in entrance pupil and a price cannibalising the big whites has been discussed sufficiently here, but I do not see a real reason why this should not be possible.

Entrance pupil drives build cost as discussed, and it also drives the cost of accessories.

Presuming they don't rear filter it like the big superwhites, filters for a 107mm front element will not be cheap at all. 105mm CPLs for the landscape crowd start at $200 if memory serves. There's nothing budget about that.

- A

 

[j-nord]

Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

 

[Loswr]

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

 

[Loswr]

It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.

Sure, because for a 200-600mm lens the image circle is limiting, so making a crop format lens will be much cheaper.

Who needs optical physics, anyway... :

 

[Ryananthony]

At what focal length does the focal length divided by the aperture equal the front element size?