Patent: Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
Such lens could not cannibalize sales of other big whites and 100-400 Mk.II. That either means pretty expensive lens or non-L lens with build and IQ quality of current STM lineup. I don't see how Canon would release anything of quality 100-400 Mk.II with additional reach and huge front element without asking a lot of $$$ for that. Not mentioning anything going close to quality of 200-400 which mostly cover this focal range.
I also wonder how do all these cheaper third party options stand against 100-400 Mk.II with 1.4 III. If the IQ on the long end and AF is similar than there is no reason to match the competition.
New 400L IS or perhaps even 500L IS with 5.6 max aperture seems much more realistic when hoping for something more affordable. I would really love to have such prime.
I also wonder how do all these cheaper third party options stand against 100-400 Mk.II with 1.4 III. If the IQ on the long end and AF is similar than there is no reason to match the competition.
New 400L IS or perhaps even 500L IS with 5.6 max aperture seems much more realistic when hoping for something more affordable. I would really love to have such prime.
Upvote
0
lycan said:N2itiv said:
hmm contradicting yourself? 100-400 = 4x; 200-600 = 3x. So less focal length spread than the one you like so much
Not at all. My math says the spread from 100-400 ='s 300mm. 300-600 has the same difference.
The 200-600 has an actual focal length spread of 400mm. A 400-600mm, as I mentioned, would be better @ only 200mm variation. The closer that FL variation is, the easier it is to correct for and make better optically.
Upvote
0
N2itiv said:lycan said:N2itiv said:
hmm contradicting yourself? 100-400 = 4x; 200-600 = 3x. So less focal length spread than the one you like so much
Not at all. My math says the spread from 100-400 ='s 300mm. 300-600 has the same difference.
The 200-600 has an actual focal length spread of 400mm. A 400-600mm, as I mentioned, would be better @ only 200mm variation. The closer that FL variation is, the easier it is to correct for and make better optically.
Were you correct on that, if a 100-400 is of a certain sharpness, I should expect a similar sharpness 24-324mm lens. That's not how it works.
The multiplier (i.e. 2x, 3x, etc.) is more important than the spread of the FL range in millimeters. There's a reason Canon only has four L zooms with multipliers greater than 3x -- the lenses are sharper that way.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:N2itiv said:lycan said:N2itiv said:
hmm contradicting yourself? 100-400 = 4x; 200-600 = 3x. So less focal length spread than the one you like so much
Not at all. My math says the spread from 100-400 ='s 300mm. 300-600 has the same difference.
The 200-600 has an actual focal length spread of 400mm. A 400-600mm, as I mentioned, would be better @ only 200mm variation. The closer that FL variation is, the easier it is to correct for and make better optically.
Were you correct on that, if a 100-400 is of a certain sharpness, I should expect a similar sharpness 24-324mm lens. That's not how it works.
The multiplier (i.e. 2x, 3x, etc.) is more important than the spread of the FL range in millimeters. There's a reason Canon only has four L zooms with multipliers greater than 3x -- the lenses are sharper that way.
- A
No disrespect intended, but you stick to your methods and I'll stick to mine. Lets agree to disagree.
ahs-look closer and notice we're talking about tele to super tele (long focal lengths). My method is proper if you keep you focal lengths at either end of the FL spectrum. Nothing I stated implied that focal length from wide to super tele should be mixed. That was your interpretation. I suspect Canon learned this w/the 28-300L.
Upvote
0
Canon needs a long telephoto in an EF-S mount with the STM and IS!
The reason why so many bird shooters use Canon is because going back to the day before Tamron announced the 150-600mm there was really nothing great in performance on the market for the lower budget aspiring photographers. Canon had the 100-400I and the 400mm 5.6 that was the go to for a Birder, even the new price for the performance was not bad but the used price was even better. It was not the build quality of the L series that made these two lenses kings, it was the optics for the price. Nikon and Sigma had their competition to these two lenses but they never stacked up in the optics evenly. The day this all changed was the Day Tamron announced the 150-600mm, now finally Nikon and even Sony users can get a great performer for the price. This brings much weight on Canons Sensors and opens up a new world of options for a birder today. Canon needs to do a long tele with the optics of their 55-250mm stm and keep the price around $1200 or lower, this will work perfect for their faster than Nikon Crop bodies and keep them in the Bird photography world as a go to Company as they were just a few years back. If you want L build quality then price the price, but for most if not the vast majority of bird shooters they need a great long optic performer first and not built like a tank. With the 7d2 and the soon to be 80d and 7d3 Canon will have the speed crop bodies for awhile so no reason not to do a crop EF-S lens.
The reason why so many bird shooters use Canon is because going back to the day before Tamron announced the 150-600mm there was really nothing great in performance on the market for the lower budget aspiring photographers. Canon had the 100-400I and the 400mm 5.6 that was the go to for a Birder, even the new price for the performance was not bad but the used price was even better. It was not the build quality of the L series that made these two lenses kings, it was the optics for the price. Nikon and Sigma had their competition to these two lenses but they never stacked up in the optics evenly. The day this all changed was the Day Tamron announced the 150-600mm, now finally Nikon and even Sony users can get a great performer for the price. This brings much weight on Canons Sensors and opens up a new world of options for a birder today. Canon needs to do a long tele with the optics of their 55-250mm stm and keep the price around $1200 or lower, this will work perfect for their faster than Nikon Crop bodies and keep them in the Bird photography world as a go to Company as they were just a few years back. If you want L build quality then price the price, but for most if not the vast majority of bird shooters they need a great long optic performer first and not built like a tank. With the 7d2 and the soon to be 80d and 7d3 Canon will have the speed crop bodies for awhile so no reason not to do a crop EF-S lens.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
JonAustin said:N2itiv said:ahsanford said:N2itiv said:lycan said:N2itiv said:
hmm contradicting yourself? 100-400 = 4x; 200-600 = 3x. So less focal length spread than the one you like so much
Not at all. My math says the spread from 100-400 ='s 300mm. 300-600 has the same difference.
The 200-600 has an actual focal length spread of 400mm. A 400-600mm, as I mentioned, would be better @ only 200mm variation. The closer that FL variation is, the easier it is to correct for and make better optically.
Were you correct on that, if a 100-400 is of a certain sharpness, I should expect a similar sharpness 24-324mm lens. That's not how it works.
The multiplier (i.e. 2x, 3x, etc.) is more important than the spread of the FL range in millimeters. There's a reason Canon only has four L zooms with multipliers greater than 3x -- the lenses are sharper that way.
- A
No disrespect intended, but you stick to your methods and I'll stick to mine. Lets agree to disagree.
Except that he's right and you're wrong. So many people nowadays indignantly clinging to their right to stumble along blindly, guided by their faulty premises.
Two big factors at play here....
When optimizing a zoom lens, it is easier to optimize a narrower range. A 2X range (centered around a particular focal length) should be able to be made sharper than a 3X range lens centered around the same focal length, a 4X range should be able to be made sharper than a 5X range.
The second factor is that on long lenses you do not have to bend the light as sharply as you do on a short lens (the sharper the bend, the harder to control distortion), and that means that you should be able to build a sharper long lens than a short lens.... A 70-210 lens should be sharper than an 20-60 lens, although both are 3X.....
So is a 4X range long lens sharper than a 3X range short lens? Who knows! This is the apples to oranges thing again....
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Agree 100%:
- Just because crop gives you reach does not mean there is no reason to pursue reach photography without a crop sensor. A 6D owner might want to go birding, right?
- Find me a Canon EF-S lens that costs over $1,000 in the US right now. (Hint: doesn't exist.) Why would Canon offer a very pricey optical tool to its customers and lock the wealthiest of them out from buying it?
Unless someone can show me it would be something very compelling -- like half the weight to go EF-S on a supertele zoom -- I think it should be an EF mount design.
- A
Upvote
0
The day they announce a 400F5.6 II is the day I put in my pre-order for the lens and a series III 1.4X teleconverter.AlanF said:
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
You are correct, the Nikon is not a world beater, but it 'gets there' focal-length-wise for $1400 without teleconverters. But it's first party AF should outperform the Tamron and Sigma and easily justify the price.
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.
- A
Upvote
0
All very interesting. Certainly I would consider it. It may be that the price would be high enough that it would not be an alternative to the third-party 150-600mm lenses, but then again, I could see a "mid-range" market in the $2,500.00 to $4,500.00 range for this.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
