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

[ahsanford]

Again, trusting my reading abilities, it's a patent for a non-L. So it won't compete with the big whites or even with 100-400 L ii. It will be cheaper. With cheaper materials, slower Af and not as sharp..... Because it is a non-L

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-07

Egami says (embodiment 1) it is indeed an L lens, but I do not know if that's a literal translation or an assumption on the part of the patent reviewer.

Do you really think (what now appears to be) an internally zooming lens only one stop slower than an $11k+ superwhite, with a > 100mm front element that likely isn't front filterable isn't going to be an L lens?

One would think this would be an L for sure.

- A

 

[lycan]

Again, trusting my reading abilities, it's a patent for a non-L. So it won't compete with the big whites or even with 100-400 L ii. It will be cheaper. With cheaper materials, slower Af and not as sharp..... Because it is a non-L

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-07

Egami says (embodiment 1) it is indeed an L lens, but I do not know if that's a literal translation or an assumption on the part of the patent reviewer.

Do you really think (what now appears to be) an internally zooming lens only one stop slower than an $11k+ superwhite isn't going to be an L lens?

One would think this would be an L.

- A

Well if it is an L, then I take back everything I said because I'd like to keep both nuts

 

[9VIII]

You know what, I'd rather they just built it as a 600/5.6 IS. It would probably be lighter, cheaper and sharper.

A lens with only one focal length? Who'd want something like that?

One could argue people buy the 100-400L / 100-400L II as it's the cheapest 400 prime with IS by a few thousand dollars. Canon gets you to buy the zoom because they don't offer the prime you really want -- a 400 f/5.6L IS.

Apple PCs are frustrating like this as well. If you want a nice mid-level performer (better than a jacked up Mac Mini and slower than a Mac Pro, which is a huge range of performance a lot photographers would fall within), you have a choice of either a suped up laptop sitting in a dock all day or a PC embedded in a large monitor. Both options kind of suck if you just want a desktop and already own a monitor.

Canon's annoying like that with long glass. Great options, but there is no balanced/middle sweet spot -- it's a boatload of $1k - $2k options and then things explode price-wise.

- A

Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight.
Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.


I'd love to see a 500f5.6DO, which might weigh the same, but it would still cost a lot more.

 

[ahsanford]

Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight, and quite frankly nothing ever will.
Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.

Sure.

But.

If you'd just like to tack IS on that lens to walk back your ISO 3-4 stops -- something I'm told is useful for these lenses -- it will cost you another $5700 for the 400 DO II.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight, and quite frankly nothing ever will.
Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.

Sure.

But.

If you'd just like to tack IS on that lens to walk back your ISO 3-4 stops -- something I'm told is useful for these lenses -- it will cost you another $5700 for the 400 DO II.

Sure.

But.

If you'd like to shoot birds -- something I'm told is common for these lenses -- you're probably at at least 1/800 s already so you're not going to see any benefit from IS.

 

[Maximilian]

Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight, and quite frankly nothing ever will.
Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.

Sure.

But.

If you'd just like to tack IS on that lens to walk back your ISO 3-4 stops -- something I'm told is useful for these lenses -- it will cost you another $5700 for the 400 DO II.

Sure.

But.

If you'd like to shoot birds -- something I'm told is common for these lenses -- you're probably at at least 1/800 s already so you're not going to see any benefit from IS.

Please don't tell me you never came across a frozen hummer
And all those tit statues thrown into hatches...
[/sarc off]

 

[Lee Jay]

Anyone want to bet that it won't compete on price with the Sigma 150-600C I just got on a Cyber Monday deal from BuyDig (reputable authorized dealer who got it to me right on time) for $700?

I'd be guessing $3k or so for the Canon. It's basically a 100-400L upscaled by a factor of 1.5 and with the "L" removed.

 

[Maximilian]

Anyone want to bet that it won't compete on price with the Sigma 150-600C I just got on a Cyber Monday deal from BuyDig (reputable authorized dealer who got it to me right on time) for $700?

I'd be guessing $3k or so for the Canon. It's basically a 100-400L upscaled by a factor of 1.5 and with the "L" removed.

Hi Lee Jay!

I really hope you'd be true, but I can't believe it.
Did you ever drill down about producing optical elements?
Did you ever recognize that the price goes up with the diameter in square - at least?

The rule of three is linear, price is not. So if the diameter increases from 77 to 115 we'd have at least 1.5 by 2 so 2.25 for the price. Say $4.500 at a minimum.

Your calculations?

 

[gunship01]

Again, trusting my reading abilities, it's a patent for a non-L. So it won't compete with the big whites or even with 100-400 L ii. It will be cheaper. With cheaper materials, slower Af and not as sharp..... Because it is a non-L

Non-L = No Sale.

 

[wsmith96]

Interesting patent. Given this isn't an L lens, this lens will have to compete against the price of the Sigma and Tamron options. Both providers have raised the quality/price bar pretty high recently. It might be tough for canon to compete cost wise and provide an equal experience.

 

[MrToes]

I would not pay more that $1500 unless this lens out performs the equals of Sigma, Tamron and Nikon! It will have to be tack sharp for anyone to spend anymore that that now day's, on that focal range of lens. Lets hope Canon doesn't get too proud of the color with this one either!

 

[KeithBreazeal]

The stated length of the lens doesn't seem to make sense with the stated focal length. This lens is 14 inches long, which is very close to the length of the 200-400 f/4.

I wonder if this implies that the design is a DO model, providing that shortening.

1) The 200-400 is internally zooming. So that 200-400 length represents what 400mm needs. I'd bet my left nut this 200-600 will not get that royal all-inside treatment. I'd expect this lens to telescope out when shooting long like a 24-something or 100-400 lens.

2) Lengths of other long zooms that aren't DO designs (from TDP: in inches, shortest / longest, both without hood):

• Tamron 150-600: 10.57 / 13.67
• Sigma 150-600 C: 10.55 / 13.66
• Sigma 150-600 S: 11.77 / 15.31

So 14" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Also -- aren't patents for the optical formula only, and tend to leave off length considerations like front filter rings, hood mounts and such?

- A

The lens specs show the same length through the entire zoom range, hence internal focus.

 

[AvTvM]

Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight, and quite frankly nothing ever will.
Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.

Sure.

But.

If you'd just like to tack IS on that lens to walk back your ISO 3-4 stops -- something I'm told is useful for these lenses -- it will cost you another $5700 for the 400 DO II.

Sure.

But.

If you'd like to shoot birds -- something I'm told is common for these lenses -- you're probably at at least 1/800 s already so you're not going to see any benefit from IS.

Sure.
But.
Stabilized viewfinder image with a long focal length even when zsing an antiquazed mirrorslapper with OVF?
Helpful or not to get that birdie in the sky into the frame and to keep that AF point on it at 600mm?
One of the 2 main advantages always quoted by the Canon Defense League in having IS in lens rather than in camera?

That aside, i do not see a need for 400/5.6 IS any more, as that birdie has bern killed with the 100-400 II. Zooms with IS rulez supreme as far as i am concerned. An optically decent and affordable (2999) 200-600/5.6 IS would deginitely be a hot seller (and cannibalize the 100-400 ii a bit). Sp i guess is rather 3999 - no matter what sigma and Tammy may ask for theirs. And nikon don't fit no Canon, and thete is no D400 ... so no problem on that end.

 

[Loswr]

Sure.
But.
Stabilized viewfinder image with a long focal length even when zsing an antiquazed mirrorslapper with OVF?
Helpful or not to get that birdie in the sky into the frame and to keep that AF point on it at 600mm?
One of the 2 main advantages always quoted by the Canon Defense League in having IS in lens rather than in camera?

I use Mode 3 IS on my 600 II, where the IS doesn't kick in until you take the shot. No stabilized VF, I don't have trouble framing and focusing on BIF, even at 840mm or 1200mm.

That aside, i do not see a need for 400/5.6 IS any more, as that birdie has bern killed with the 100-400 II.

The current 400/5.6L is $1000 cheaper than the 100-400 MkII, I agree there's probably not room for a 400/5.6 IS in between. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 400/5.6's 10" length, the zoom's ability to collapse for transport/storage is useful even if the lens is used primarily at the long end.

 

[stormypetrel]

No way this is going to be a lower priced non L lens. It's got to be fat to gather the light, and Canon is not going to build a big fat black lens. It could well be a DO to keep the weight down and make it shorter, but it will be fat like the the 300/2.8. All that points toward something that will cost at least as much as a 400DO, which is a 560/5.6 w/ a 1.4, so a bit slower than 600/5.6. It's probably going to be a dream lens for seabird photography, which is what I'm about. Bring it on.

 

[Don Haines]

Anyone want to bet that it won't compete on price with the Sigma 150-600C I just got on a Cyber Monday deal from BuyDig (reputable authorized dealer who got it to me right on time) for $700?

I'd be guessing $3k or so for the Canon. It's basically a 100-400L upscaled by a factor of 1.5 and with the "L" removed.

Hi Lee Jay!

I really hope you'd be true, but I can't believe it.
Did you ever drill down about producing optical elements?
Did you ever recognize that the price goes up with the diameter in square - at least?

The rule of three is linear, price is not. So if the diameter increases from 77 to 115 we'd have at least 1.5 by 2 so 2.25 for the price. Say $4.500 at a minimum.

Your calculations?

A fixed focal length 600F5.6 should be of similar size and slightly higher priced than a fixed length 300F2.8 and ..... which in Canada sells for $7,860

A zoom lens will be more expensive than a fixed lens.... but even if they keep it to a <sarcasm on> mere <sarcasm off> $8,000, that's not an "affordable" lens. It's got to be non-L to hit that target.....

 

[ahsanford]

Sure.

But.

If you'd like to shoot birds -- something I'm told is common for these lenses -- you're probably at at least 1/800 s already so you're not going to see any benefit from IS.

That's a burn.

I should have known better than to bring a still life shutter speed to a birding shutter speed fight.

- A

 

[scyrene]

Or, perhaps saying this a different way, how would you rate the value of:

100-400L II image quality +
first party reliable/consistent/fast AF +
600mm reach @ f/5.6 without teleconvertered cripplling of your AF spread?

...because there is no way to get that with an EF mount right now without buying a $11.5k 600L II.

In that light, Canon could throw down the gauntlet at $4k or so at launch and many might say "That's better than teleconverters. Sold. Take my money."

- A

This presents a tough choice for 300f2.8 owners. Basically if you're using one of those with the 2X TC it's going to become obsolete the moment a 600f5.6 hits the market. Maybe the 300f2.8+2xTC would still have the IQ advantage, but not AF, and it's much less convenient.
If the 200-600 costs under $4K then it's going to destroy the used market for the 300f2.8.

Depends. A 300+2xTC is also 300mm lens; no 600mm lens can be halved. And I imagine the weight and size are less - the extenders are pretty small, after all.

 

[scyrene]

Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight, and quite frankly nothing ever will.
Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.

Sure.

But.

If you'd just like to tack IS on that lens to walk back your ISO 3-4 stops -- something I'm told is useful for these lenses -- it will cost you another $5700 for the 400 DO II.

Sure.

But.

If you'd like to shoot birds -- something I'm told is common for these lenses -- you're probably at at least 1/800 s already so you're not going to see any benefit from IS.

I have to dispute this actually. I'm open to the possibility that I'm weird and unusual, but I shoot perched birds at 1/320-1/400; birds in flight are more like 1/1600-2000. What do others say? Besides, IS also stabilises the viewfinder*, which can help at long focal lengths with small, distant subjects. Also, it's not as if every 1/800 shot at 400mm will be sharp, IS can still help increase the odds in your favour.

*Edit: I see you mentioned this above.

 

[stochasticmotions]

I really hope that canon comes out with something semi-affordable with a range like the patent. 600 5.6 also means that there is a possibility of using autofocus with a teleconverter at 840...pretty sweet, zoom or prime I would love to see one come out.