Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]

[Loswr]

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.

I thought you could have the four surrounding AF points active (as support) at f/8 on the 5D3 too? When I press the M-Fn button and cycle through the options, one of them is the centre point and four surrounding ones highlighted. Is that not the same thing?

The way it's described on Canon DLC (see p.2), only the center point is active with most f/8 combos. That differs from the 1D X, 5DIII and 7DII where the center point is assisted by 4 surrounding expansion points.

However, when the 80D is used with two specific lens+TC combos – 100-400 II + 1.4xIII or 200-400 + 2xIII (built-in 1.4x disengaged) – will allow 27 AF points at f/8.

 

[crashpc]

Sorry, I don´t buy all this too. While I highly valie neuros input, it seems he´s lens developer, optical engineer, mechanics engineer, semiconductor and sensor developer, famous physicist, marketing and product researcher, and has insider info about each Canon department, economies of scale, sales, ETC.

No offense. I don´t discart you neuro, but all I see is BS arguments, without facts and evidence something of all this cannot be done. It would be long shot, but that´s what I see too often - armchair engineers and fighters telling us something is not possible (still without facts), and then we see the real product where "it" has been done.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens is what I would call best compromise of everything. There still is some space to interchange about every single parameter for others or for price. Even on this lens, there is possible to go lower with quality, weight and size. Why didn´t hey do that? Because there are objective reasons:
1) They decided to make it good quality. Plastic mount? Hell I did my tests. This mount (and lens barrel) can hold 400+g weight right at the front while zooming at full focal lenght and back without any trouble The funny thing is that the inner lens barrel feels tighter the longer it is extended out, while it is more "wiggly" at 55mm position (it was before my tests too). If they made it all from thinner material, it still would work well within specs and normal usage. This one can take some real torture.
2) There are switches and features on the outer barrel, which don´t have to be there. The lens barrel is as large in diameter as the lens mount. There is no point in making the barrel smaller. They could do it, but the lens would look and handle weird. Thick-thin-thick (mount-main lens-front lens element and filter thread). If they really wanted, they COULD make it smaller. It is not the smallest possible design.

The same can be done to longer focal lenght lens being developed by using newer technologies.

I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.
Give me some facts, not personal estimations based on personal beliefs made from small lenses equation made of nothing....

 

[raptor3x]

Sorry, I don´t buy all this too. While I highly valie neuros input, it seems he´s lens developer, optical engineer, mechanics engineer, semiconductor and sensor developer, famous physicist, marketing and product researcher, and has insider info about each Canon department, economies of scale, sales, ETC.

No offense. I don´t discart you neuro, but all I see is BS arguments, without facts and evidence something of all this cannot be done. It would be long shot, but that´s what I see too often - armchair engineers and fighters telling us something is not possible (still without facts), and then we see the real product where "it" has been done.

And yet he's not wrong at all. The issue is that at the telephoto end of the lens spectrum the size of the lens is governed mostly by the size of the entrance pupil and that's going to be the same for a 600mm f/5.6 if it's being designed for a FF sensor or for a cell phone camera sensor. Just look at the recently released Olympus 300 f/4 or Fuji 100-400 and compare them to the size of their FF counterparts.

 

[dolina]

I think it'll cost at par with the Nikon.

 

[-1]

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

If there's any substance in then you might be right in everything but the last. It would most likely be $2k offering targeting the counterparts from Sigma and Nikon. And not a L lense...

 

[crashpc]

Sorry, I don´t buy all this too. While I highly valie neuros input, it seems he´s lens developer, optical engineer, mechanics engineer, semiconductor and sensor developer, famous physicist, marketing and product researcher, and has insider info about each Canon department, economies of scale, sales, ETC.

No offense. I don´t discart you neuro, but all I see is BS arguments, without facts and evidence something of all this cannot be done. It would be long shot, but that´s what I see too often - armchair engineers and fighters telling us something is not possible (still without facts), and then we see the real product where "it" has been done.

And yet he's not wrong at all. The issue is that at the telephoto end of the lens spectrum the size of the lens is governed mostly by the size of the entrance pupil and that's going to be the same for a 600mm f/5.6 if it's being designed for a FF sensor or for a cell phone camera sensor. Just look at the recently released Olympus 300 f/4 or Fuji 100-400 and compare them to the size of their FF counterparts.

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.

 

[RGF]

when can I buy it. ;D

 

[nhz]

The only thing that's being thrown out of the window here is your understanding of lens design and the physics behind it...well, probably not since for that to happen, you'd have had to possess such knowledge in the first place and that doesn't seem to be the case.

I worked in the field for almost 20 years so yeah, on this forum that means you are an idiot :

You implied that because the EF-S 55-250 is lighter and cheaper than the 70-300L, a 200-600mm f/4.x-5.6 would be lighter and cheaper as an EF-S lens. By logic that apparently makes sense to you, there should be a variety of EF-S/DX-format supertelephoto primes and zooms to choose from...certainly, Sigma and Tamron should have come out with crop versions of their 150-600mm zooms. Clearly an untapped market, you really should offer your suggestions to all those lens manufacturers who clearly don't understand lens design as well as you.

After almost 20 years in the field, you fail to grasp basic concepts of lens design. That's pathetic. If I'd learned so little after 20 years in my field, I'd be ashamed...not proudly demonstrating my lack of knowledge as you're doing here.

I guess the way that you deduct things about what I write is similar to the logic by which you know everything about Canon production.

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'.

If the additional rumor from today is correct, Canon is going to prove you totally wrong; maybe in that case you can tone down your supersized ego a little bit?

 

[ahsanford]

So it will be bigger, heavier and more expensive than any of the third party 150-600 zooms.

Dead on arrival anyone?

Not necessarily, Dilbert. It has a few of advantages to go with that weight:

• With shorter total zoom multiplier, one might presume it will be sharper.
• Slightly faster throughout the zoom range
• f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 long end would imply you might be able to teleconverter this lens to 840mm and retain f/8 AF use
• Canon might rear filter this lens, which would only require a tiny 52mm filter, saving filtering costs.

...and I believe (without any data, candidly) that this market is larger than people think. There have got to be people who teleconvertering nicer / more expensive L lenses who refused to use the Tamron or Sigmas for IQ reasons, lack of trust in the AF, and would love to get some AF points back. I think Canon can make a 'slightly premium' / 'very good but not best' L lens sales pitch here.

Or, possibly put another way, at 600mm, the market is full of Hondas, Toyotas, and (with 600+ primes) the occasional Bentley. I think there is plenty of room for a lowest trim-level Audi or Mercedes to get in there.

- A

 

[ritholtz]

So it will be bigger, heavier and more expensive than any of the third party 150-600 zooms.

Dead on arrival anyone?

Tamron lens is one sale for $800 some time back on slickdeals. As if like they are selling per lbs price. It is going to be very interesting how it is going to pan out. Canon might certify this lens as F8 compatible. That will give them some room to sell it for more.

 

[tron]

I do hope it is L. Otherwise Canon would have an excellent 100-400 and a so so 200-600. How someone would chose between them?

In that case, by purchasing a Tamron or Sigma at what would probably be half the price.

... but with worse IQ. Hence the need for an L lens at least in addition to a non-L.
For those who have not followed the EOS system from the beggining, let me tell you that there was an 100-300 5.6 and a 100-300 5.6L ....

 

[mb66energy]

Yes because physics and production procedures* haven't changed in the last 25 years.

the laws of physics haven't changed (much), but options in lens design have improved a lot over those years and manufacturing has added many new possibilities as well, including options that lower production cost. Even if development and 'tooling' is big part of the cost, when they aim at selling large numbers those production costs per lens can be very important. I bet that this is one of the reasons why Canon is moving towards automated lens assembly.

What options?
Flourite? - exists much longer
Special dispersion (anormal, low, ultra low) glasses? - (very) expensive, for the better lenses only
Aspherical? - not too useful for a ultra tele zoom as far as I know
Diffractive elements? - Perhaps a way to keep things compact and cheaper but ... to my knowledge not cheap.

I am shure the 100-300 was assembled semi-automatized 25 years ago or was kept simple to do the assembly in short time.

Another thing: My very rough calculation gave 1900 EUR so it isn't contradictory to "cheaper than 100-400 ii". The only thing I expect is that it is a typical consumer lens concerning the build/haptics and that is the tradeoff.

 

[ahsanford]

Wow. The entire story was just updated on the main CR page, but as it's tied to this thread (and you may be buried in it ) -- I bolded a few juicy bits:

We’ve received a few more bits of information since yesterdays story about a Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS coming in 2016. We’re told that the new lens will likely be announced in August 2016 and will cost around $1700 USD, which would put it just under the Sigma’s 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Sport’s $1799 price tag. This tells us it will definitely not be an L lens, but it should still have great optics and build quality, though weather-sealing would be unlikely at this price point from Canon.

We’re also told that there will be an external dedicated teleconverter for the lens, which would likely be an additional cost. We weren’t told if it was a 1.4x teleconverter or something else.

- A

 

[GP.Masserano]

I would like to remind all of you that an objective 600mm/5.6 has, more or less, the diameter of the front lens of a 300/2.8.
So it is impossible to reduce weight (and price,too...) even if it were not L Series

 

[slclick]

Wow. The entire story was just updated on the main CR page, but as it's tied to this thread (and you may be buried in it ) -- I bolded a few juicy bits:

We’ve received a few more bits of information since yesterdays story about a Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS coming in 2016. We’re told that the new lens will likely be announced in August 2016 and will cost around $1700 USD, which would put it just under the Sigma’s 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Sport’s $1799 price tag. This tells us it will definitely not be an L lens, but it should still have great optics and build quality, though weather-sealing would be unlikely at this price point from Canon.

We’re also told that there will be an external dedicated teleconverter for the lens, which would likely be an additional cost. We weren’t told if it was a 1.4x teleconverter or something else.

- A

Updated yet demoted to CR1

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[RickWagoner]

Anyone know of any photography conventions happening in August? might be an interesting time to announce the 5d4 or whatever...

 

[mb66energy]

I would like to remind all of you that an objective 600mm/5.6 has, more or less, the diameter of the front lens of a 300/2.8.
So it is impossible to reduce weight (and price,too...) even if it were not L Series

The only chance I see is the use of diffractive elements which bend the light with less mass and maybe reduce size (and mass with that). The EF 70-300 DO IS USM comes in mind with 0.72 kilograms. But at 1400 $ it isn't that cheap ...

Only if Canon has found a way to make good diffractive optics at very moderate price ...

 

[gunship01]

Price under 100-400L lens?

Canon is now making lens with plastic optics. Neat.

I'm spoiled with the two "L" lenses I have. Can't backtrack now as the bar is set.

 

[Loswr]

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.