At those prices they are impulse buys for those who have cash rattling around.Price just was pushed out: £699 for the 600mm and £929 for the 800mm.
No dollar figure yet, but if you assume the normal windage between GBP and USD -- these will be very affordable lenses. Wow.
Thanks Joules. £2899 for the 100-500mm is a bit steep. The excellent Sony 200-600mm is only £1699.For those in disbelief, the source:
Canon in attack mode is quite a sight to behold.
Thanks Joules. £2899 for the 100-500mm is a bit steep. The excellent Sony 200-600mm is only £1699.
Also the EF 100-400 II can be had for £1200 on grey market. Very steep indeed. Ok, the Sony is 1kg heavier but it is a lens i would be happy to buy a Sony camera for. Pair it with a cheap A6000 and you already have a very good wildlife kit.
I've been trying to keep an open mind about these, but I'll almost certainly have a 100-500 and a 1.4x which gives me 700 mm at f/10 in a lens which is just a few mm longer than the 600/11 DO when retracted and much shorter than the 800. I also get (with the 1.4x) around three times the maximum magnification for butterflies, snakes etc., and I won't need to buy any new filters! Or indeed a lens hood. The only disadvantage I will have is weight but even that is not a huge difference vs the 800.
To everyone saying these lenses are too limiting to be useful, I'd ask: who is buying superzoom bridge cameras? Someone must be. These lenses' maximum apertures compare favourably to that category. We don't yet know the price - I'd expect it to be reasonable, in which case this is aimed at people who want maximum reach regardless of the drawbacks (especially paired with teleconverters); if they aren't cheap, then there must be some X factor we're not yet aware of to make them enticing.
It's what I expected compared to the 100-400 GM, which also has the much better MFD over the 200-600, Canon may have decided to combine as much as it could from the two (best overall range, minimum focusing distance and overall sharpness with the least weight and size)The 100-500 price is way too high compared to the Sony 200-600. I could have accepted it being more than the 200-600 but it should have been more in line with 100-400II price of $2200. Other than the compact packing size and lower weight, the Sony lens has 600/6.3 vs 500/7.1, internal zoom (pros and cons but I love it), excellent IQ (sometimes I can't tell the images apart from my 600/4), takes a 1.4TC well (100-500 likely will also), fast AF (100-500 likely will also).
100-400 is an amazing lens for sure. And a true beast on the 5DS/R. That's why I worry that the new 100-500 will not be able to match it (due to the same lack of wide open apertures).Is the beginning of the end of the Big White?
I know since the 100-400 came out with it's excellent IQ and IS and good pairing with the 1.4x...... my 600 has seen little use... Specially given the cropability of the 5DSR.. This lens gives me a usable "effective" 100-800 range....
This just seems to be an extension of that same concept... smaller, lighter, more portable -- and most importantly... without giving up IQ...
Am I wrong?
I can see some people - like myself - keeping their old white primes and supplementing with one of these (if flare and bokeh works out). Makes the transition much more affordable.This doesn't end/replace the superwhites. Not at all. This is reach for the masses without needing a loan or teleconverter to get it. This is Canon listening to its users, and we should applaud it, IMHO.
I think RF superwhites will eventually happen. They kind of have to.
And I would be absolutely stunned if the IQ from an f/11 max aperture lens -- even if sharp -- had half the pop / color / contrast / impact of an f/5.6 shot from a proper superwhite.