Patent: Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS

[Hesbehindyou]

So I'm not calling that Nikon lens a gamechanger for IQ, it's just a gamechanger for first-party reach for the dollar in a zoom lens. It's the sort of lens that gets an amateur into birding.

Agreed - and for that reason, I can see Canon developing/releasing a similar lens.

Yes, but this patent may not be that lens. I agree with others that this will be clearly north of $2k for that speed at that FL range.

I've been arguing for Canon to make that similar lens and fill that circled bucket below, but this lens will be priced out of that bucket, I believe. It would sit alongside the 100-400 II as longer variant. No chance it's a cheapo reach lens.

- A

An uninformed guess but using your "this patent may not be that lens" coupled with your chart with a gap for a slow, cheap super-telephoto I would think a 200-600 f?-6.3 non-L could be likely.
- 600 / 6.3 = 95. That's a front element that makes the lens able to compete price-wise with the 3rd party solutions and is the only way Canon can get the price close to the Nikon and 3rd party options.
- keeps people buying the 200-400 1.4, which would be made rather (more) niche otherwise.
- keeps the 100-400 popular
- Canon loves focal length one-upmanship over Nikon:
- 18-135 vs 18-105
- 55-250 vs 55-200
- 200-600 vs 200-500?

My view is that the patent represents one of the options they've explored and the patent for and f6.3 formula is either covered already in that patent (just scale it down?) or, due to reasons of commercial sensitivity and the simpler 'we were working on it for longer', was submitted later so has still not been published.

 

[noncho]

The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

you can see from the measured MTFs that it has to be stopped down to f/ll at at all focal lengths for optimal sharpness, and it is pretty soft at 500mm and f/5.6 and f/8. This is confirmed from shots of a Sieman's chart in Cameralabs:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml

The Nikon is really no better than the Sigma 150-600mm C and weighs nearly a pound more. The 100-400mm II will outperform it all the way up to 400mm and based on comparisons of the Canon with the 1.4xTC at 560mm with the Sigmas and Tamron in Cameralabs and my own direct comparisons of the 100-400 with them, I am sure the Canon beats the Nikon.

A 200-600mm f/5.6 would be too heavy for me. A new 400 or 500 f/5.6 prime would be what I would want.

A nice and affordable 500 5.6 IS would bring me back in Canon telephoto team

 

[tron]

The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

you can see from the measured MTFs that it has to be stopped down to f/ll at at all focal lengths for optimal sharpness, and it is pretty soft at 500mm and f/5.6 and f/8. This is confirmed from shots of a Sieman's chart in Cameralabs:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml

The Nikon is really no better than the Sigma 150-600mm C and weighs nearly a pound more. The 100-400mm II will outperform it all the way up to 400mm and based on comparisons of the Canon with the 1.4xTC at 560mm with the Sigmas and Tamron in Cameralabs and my own direct comparisons of the 100-400 with them, I am sure the Canon beats the Nikon.

A 200-600mm f/5.6 would be too heavy for me. A new 400 or 500 f/5.6 prime would be what I would want.

A nice and affordable 500 5.6 IS would bring me back in Canon telephoto team

As long as it is an L lens with excellent quality fully open

 

[Ladislav]

I don't understand optical design but I thought the rule of thumb is that if lens focal length is X, its length from the front element to the focal pane must be X as well unless it is a DO lens with diffraction optics or it has built in teleconverter. The first would mean probably even bigger price hike than just regular L (judging by 400 DO Mk.II) and second would go against expectations of not having IQ and AF affected by teleconverter.

 

[AvTvM]

So far as I am concerned, the aged EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS still has a role as an inexpensive and light weight BIF lens and hiking-there lens.

Sorry, but I totally fail to see that. EF 400/5.6 without IS is so totally obsolete ever since the 100-400 II came out. 300 grams weight difference are totally meaningless, when considering carrying around 1,25kg of literally dead weight.

EF 400/5.6 L: ØxL 90x256.5mm / 1.25kg / MFD 3.5m / 1:8.33
EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II: 94x193mm / 1.57kg / MFD 0.98m / 1:3,23 / + IS / + better IQ / + zoom goodness

 

[nightscape123]

It seems to me that canon has backed themselves into a corner with this lens. They spent soooo long on a 100-400 replacement that by the time they released it, 150-600 was the new lens to beat. They released the 100-400 ii at a higher price point, though imo it is still worth it, as the lens is amazing. However now canon seems to want to get into the 600mm zoom segment. I don't know how they plan on doing this though as the competition is all at a price point below that of the 100-400. Obviously they can't price this lens below the 100-400, but if they price it higher in the 3-4k range then no one that is buying up the 150-600's is going to get one. People willing to spend that kind of money probably already have to 600 prime, or the 300 f/2.8.

Leaves canon in an odd place imo. They priced themselves out of their own market. Seems the best option would be a non-L lens at ~the 2k price point. Which is just weird.

 

[Loswr]

I don't understand optical design but I thought the rule of thumb is that if lens focal length is X, its length from the front element to the focal pane must be X as well unless it is a DO lens with diffraction optics or it has built in teleconverter.

Only your very first statement appears to be correct.

Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane (sensor) with the lens focused at infinity. The rear nodal point is an optical plane and can be within or outside the physical lens.

By definition, a telephoto lens design is one in which the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (the rear nodal point is in front of the front element). Diffractive optics can be used to produce a telephoto lens even shorter than the standard (refractive) optics.

At the other end, you have retrofocus lens designs for wide angle lenses, where the lens is physically longer then the focal length. Consider a 16-35mm zoom lens, where without a retrofocus design, the entire lens would need to be inside the camera body since the flange focal distance (mount to sensor) for the EF mount is 44mm.

 

[Ladislav]

I don't understand optical design but I thought the rule of thumb is that if lens focal length is X, its length from the front element to the focal pane must be X as well unless it is a DO lens with diffraction optics or it has built in teleconverter.

Only your very first statement appears to be correct.

Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane (sensor) with the lens focused at infinity. The rear nodal point is an optical plane and can be within or outside the physical lens.

By definition, a telephoto lens design is one in which the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (the rear nodal point is in front of the front element). Diffractive optics can be used to produce a telephoto lens even shorter than the standard (refractive) optics.

At the other end, you have retrofocus lens designs for wide angle lenses, where the lens is physically longer then the focal length. Consider a 16-35mm zoom lens, where without a retrofocus design, the entire lens would need to be inside the camera body since the flange focal distance (mount to sensor) for the EF mount is 44mm.

Thanks for explanation. I completely forgot about wide angle lenses violating my expectations.

 

[canonic]

wow ... another patent

 

[JonAustin]

It seems to me that canon has backed themselves into a corner with this lens. They spent soooo long on a 100-400 replacement that by the time they released it, 150-600 was the new lens to beat. They released the 100-400 ii at a higher price point, though imo it is still worth it, as the lens is amazing. However now canon seems to want to get into the 600mm zoom segment. I don't know how they plan on doing this though as the competition is all at a price point below that of the 100-400. Obviously they can't price this lens below the 100-400, but if they price it higher in the 3-4k range then no one that is buying up the 150-600's is going to get one. People willing to spend that kind of money probably already have to 600 prime, or the 300 f/2.8.

Leaves canon in an odd place imo. They priced themselves out of their own market. Seems the best option would be a non-L lens at ~the 2k price point. Which is just weird.

Oh, I don't know. As you have noted, the 100-400 II is substantially more expensive than the longer range Sigmas and Tamrons (and the Nikon 200-500), and yet Canon doesn't seem to be having any problems selling them. IMHO, Canon's only competition in this product space is its own lenses, and in this regard, it has plenty of pricing leeway. I think it's incorrect to presume that "everyone with 'that kind of money' has already bought a [300- 600mm prime];" the implication being that there's no market for a 200-600mm zoom in the $3-4K price range.

Rather than needing to be priced low enough to compete against the Sigma and Tamron offerings, it needs to be priced high enough (depending on how well this theoretical lens performs, if ever produced) to not cannibalize Canon's own higher end (and, presumably, more profitable) products too much.

And I like Jack Douglas' observation about how "real" all this discussion has seemed to make this merely rumored lens! ;D

 

[stormypetrel]

There's a lot of speculation on here about what Canon should or will build when it comes to a super telephoto zoom, and a basic misunderstanding of physics and cost when it comes to this 200 to 600/5.6 spec. 600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8. How much do those cost? I see this as a replacement for the 200 to 400/4. It gathers a speck more light and there would be no need to jack around with the installed TC in the 2 to 4. If they go the DO route they could make it a couple of pounds lighter and less complicated than the cinderblock that is the 2 to 4, which is as heavy as a new 400/2.8, but gathers half the light. That 2 to 4 might be useful for some folks and no doubt it's sharp, but it a lighter more portable 200 to 600 would appeal to many more people. It's amazing to the direction this thread took based on first post. As the new 100 to 400 is functional with a 1.4 TC, I think you can forget about a new Canon lens that mimics the Sigma specs. There is no point when it comes to what it would cost to tool up and make it and then they won't sell as many 1 to 4s. And Canon has no interest in making cheaper telephotos over 300mm from what I've seen over the last couple of decades.

 

[candc]

600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8.

2.8 is 4x as "fast" as 5.6. the focal length doesn't matter.

 

[privatebydesign]

600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8.

2.8 is 4x as "fast" as 5.6. the focal length doesn't matter.

I think you will find he meant the size of the front element is the same.

300/2.8 = 107mm front element
600/5.6 = 107mm front element

Should we reasonably expect a 107mm front element lens from Canon to be priced much less than their current 300mm f2.8?

This is an entirely different lens to the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 lenses, they are f6.3 at the long end and have 95mm front elements, so the price of the Canon will be nowhere near them, if it comes to market.

I suspect Canon have had reasonable success with the 200-400 with TC and are thinking of other ways to tap that market for long high quality zooms. Canon used to make a 150-600mm constant f5.6 zoom, it was a premium lens and even today they cost thousands of dollars. They are very popular with wildlife video shooters and video is a market Canon have actively explored. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm The slower at the short end but no TC zoom is much more useful for video as it allows for uninterrupted long zooms, the 200-400 + TC is much more photo/stills-centric. Video shooters are well used to $10,000 and up lenses.........

A 150-600 f4.5-5.6 can only be a high end lens, it would be priced similar to the 200-400 with TC.

 

[NancyP]

"- keeps people buying the 200-400 1.4, which would be made rather (more) niche otherwise."

I want to see this lens! Probably on a $20,000.00 fork mount in an observatory.

 

[candc]

600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8.

2.8 is 4x as "fast" as 5.6. the focal length doesn't matter.

I think you will find he meant the size of the front element is the same.

300/2.8 = 107mm front element
600/5.6 = 107mm front element

Should we reasonably expect a 107mm front element lens from Canon to be priced much less than their current 300mm f2.8?

This is an entirely different lens to the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 lenses, they are f6.3 at the long end and have 95mm front elements, so the price of the Canon will be nowhere near them, if it comes to market.

I suspect Canon have had reasonable success with the 200-400 with TC and are thinking of other ways to tap that market for long high quality zooms. Canon used to make a 150-600mm constant f5.6 zoom, it was a premium lens and even today they cost thousands of dollars. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm

A 150-600 f4.5-5.6 can only be a high end lens, it would be priced similar to the 200-400 with TC.

That's what I think too. This lens seems to be like a longer version of the sigma 120-300. That lens has a 105mm filter and costs $3700. There is no way this lens would be cheaper. you can bet your "you know what" on that! I don't want to bet mine.

 

[swkitt]

You guys are trying to figure out how much would cost the lens, I make it easy:

If canon make this kind of lens, it's to compete against Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, who already have similar lenses.
Those are priced 1000-2000 $/€, and that is where Canon is gonna try to compete, maybe up to 2500 "for the brandname" but not more. Above that price level, this lens would compete other Canon lenses, not the competition !

I think it will very much look like the Nikon one, in white color ;-)

 

[privatebydesign]

You guys are trying to figure out how much would cost the lens, I make it easy:

If canon make this kind of lens, it's to compete against Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, who already have similar lenses.
Those are priced 1000-2000 $/€, and that is where Canon is gonna try to compete, maybe up to 2500 "for the brandname" but not more. Above that price level, this lens would compete other Canon lenses, not the competition !

I think it will very much look like the Nikon one, in white color ;-)

swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.

 

[swkitt]

swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.

If you try to explain modern things using 20 years old technology, you will have a problem to explain the last 4/300 Nikon, for example. 20 years ago, people would have said it has to measure 300mm long.

About the size of the front lens, I think Canon will bring some design that makes this lens possible with a 95mm front element (or similar size). Maybe it will just be a 200-500 when it comes out, or maybe it will include some kind of DO element that makes it a bit longer focal lenght in the same external size. I think the fact that the lens is IF (internal focus) has something to do with this. This is not a feature that Canon adds to make the lens look better, we have seen they don't do it on the 70-300 or the 100-400. So if they make it IF, it's part of the reason of the focal lenght trick, in my opinion ;-)

 

[tron]

swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.

If you try to explain modern things using 20 years old technology, you will have a problem to explain the last 4/300 Nikon, for example. 20 years ago, people would have said it has to measure 300mm long.

About the size of the front lens, I think Canon will bring some design that makes this lens possible with a 95mm front element (or similar size). Maybe it will just be a 200-500 when it comes out, or maybe it will include some kind of DO element that makes it a bit longer focal lenght in the same external size. I think the fact that the lens is IF (internal focus) has something to do with this. This is not a feature that Canon adds to make the lens look better, we have seen they don't do it on the 70-300 or the 100-400. So if they make it IF, it's part of the reason of the focal lenght trick, in my opinion ;-)

The front element cannot be made smaller. The laws of optics continue to apply... It has to be (focal length) / Fnumber so if you say it will be a 500mm instead of a 600mm sure the front element will be smaller but that's with any kind of lens... or they can increase the f-stop number (old news).

As far as increased focal length (with same length) DO technology does that but the above equation still stands...

See the size of the front element in the recent 400mm f/4 DO II lens...

 

[privatebydesign]

swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.

If you try to explain modern things using 20 years old technology, you will have a problem to explain the last 4/300 Nikon, for example. 20 years ago, people would have said it has to measure 300mm long.

About the size of the front lens, I think Canon will bring some design that makes this lens possible with a 95mm front element (or similar size).

You clearly have no comprehension on optical physics, the word telephoto means a lens shorter than its focal length, and has been around since 1611. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

Front element equals focal length divided by aperture, there is no way around that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

The FD 150-600 f5.6 was a premium lens that still fetches very good money and video users love it. An EF 200-600 f4.5-5.6 will have AF and IS and be a premium lens, it can't not be, and video users will love it, more-so than the 200-400 with TC.