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

[swkitt]

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...

I know the equation will still stand, but I can't believe this IF is here for no reason. If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.
In my opinion, the lens will be very similar to Nikon's one with a little extra, related to this IF choice.

 

[privatebydesign]

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...

I know the equation will still stand, but I can't believe this IF is here for no reason. If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.
In my opinion, the lens will be very similar to Nikon's one with a little extra, related to this IF choice.

Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.

If you want that from Canon get a 100-400 MkII, which stands up very well against the others even when cropped to the same framing, or put a 1.4 TC on it for a slower 140-560mm.

 

[JonAustin]

If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.

Sure they can.

 

[swkitt]

Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.

So why does Nikon did it ? They didn't have interest either I guess...
Canon have a big interest in doing it, maybe not because some Canon users are going to buy one tamron lens, but because some users are going to shift to Nikon because they want to get their cheap 200-500.
Is Canon away from the overcrowded 70-300 market or the overcrowded 18-200 market ?

 

[Jack Douglas]

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...

I know the equation will still stand, but I can't believe this IF is here for no reason. If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.
In my opinion, the lens will be very similar to Nikon's one with a little extra, related to this IF choice.

Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.

If you want that from Canon get a 100-400 MkII, which stands up very well against the others even when cropped to the same framing, or put a 1.4 TC on it for a slower 140-560mm.

I agree the 100-400 competes and that's as far as the competition will go on that one. It's going to be pricey, this fictitious lens that will be bought with fictitious $$$.

Jack

 

[ahsanford]

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 ;-)

As I said before, there seem to be two camps on this:

One believes Canon is ONLY (or principally) doing this lens to say "Yes, we have $1,000-$1,500 150-600 as well!"

Others, like myself, are looking at what this patent might represent as a product:

• Enormous front element
• 600mm f/5.6 is only one stop slower than an $11k+ 600 f/4 prime.
• Internal zooming is generally not attempted with budget lenses (UWA zooms might be one exception)
• Same max aperture as the 100-400L II, which is a full stop faster than the Sigma/Tamron lenses.

Nothing on that list above says "budget" to me. It says mid-quality L zoom to me. If this lens is real, Canon is going its own path with this one, just like they did with the 100-400L II.

So I personally reject the notion that Canon has a "how the hell did they make it so cheap" lens like the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 IS on the way.

First party AF + no teleconverters to get to 600mm + f/5.6 = a highly coveted lens, even if much pricier than the other options.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Technically, the Sigma 150-600 S is a bigger lens than the C version and actually packs a 105mm front filter ring. That said, it also costs twice as much (it's $2k).

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.

Sure they can.

ABSOLUTELY they can.

It's a full stop faster at 600mm.
It has first party AF.
It will have better weather sealing.
It has a smaller zoom multiplier than the 150-600 competitors, so one might assume it could made to be sharper.

Sold.

I'm not saying they'll get $5-6k for it, $2500-3500? Yeah, I could see that.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.

So why does Nikon did it ? They didn't have interest either I guess...
Canon have a big interest in doing it, maybe not because some Canon users are going to buy one tamron lens, but because some users are going to shift to Nikon because they want to get their cheap 200-500.
Is Canon away from the overcrowded 70-300 market or the overcrowded 18-200 market ?

Nikon did it because they thought they could make money doing it, Canon, so far, don't. Canon do have the aging but very good 400 f5.6 L at $1,200, they then have the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 MkII L for $2,200, they also have a slew of 70-300's that cover every base in the lower end.

If I was a Canon lens exec I'd think the budget and medium tele end is well covered, don't forget the 100-400 cropped stacks up very well against the Tamron/Sigmas at max focal length it is that good, if, however, I could throw a unique high end long zoom at people and get more video shooters buying C300's then I'd be looking at 150/200-600 ideas.

If I was that exec I'd like my team to show me some 400 f5.6 updates, IS would be a must but how about an f5 instead of f5.6 as they did to the 500 primes going from f4.5 to f4? If they could make a 400mm f5 IS prime for $2,395 at launch and drop to $1,895 six months later I think they'd have another great lens.

 

[stormypetrel]

I was thinking about the old 150 to 600 FD- glad someone posted it. Yes, I meant a 600/5.6 had to be as big in the front as a 300/2.8. Obviously the 300 is faster w/o a 2X on it. Amazing though how some cling to the notion that Canon might sell this dream lens for half again more than the new 1 to 4. Astonishing. Canon has no problem charging top dollar for that and a 600/5.6 is in another league altogether.

 

[Loswr]

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 ;-)

As I said before, there seem to be two camps on this:

One believes Canon is ONLY (or principally) doing this lens to say "Yes, we have $1,000-$1,500 150-600 as well!"

Others, like myself, are looking at what this patent might represent as a product:

Or to put it more clearly, one camp who live in the real world and understand facts and their relevance, and the other camp who live in a fantasyland where their personal desires overcome the laws of physics and the practical realities of business.

 

[swkitt]

It's a full stop faster at 600mm.

Nope, f/5,6 to f/6,3 is 1/3 of a stop.
a full stop would be f/5,6 to f/8.

 

[Maximilian]

It's a full stop faster at 600mm.

Nope, f/5,6 to f/6,3 is 1/3 of a stop.
a full stop would be f/5,6 to f/8.

It's f/5.2 according to the patent

 

[Don Haines]

I was thinking about the old 150 to 600 FD- glad someone posted it. Yes, I meant a 600/5.6 had to be as big in the front as a 300/2.8. Obviously the 300 is faster w/o a 2X on it. Amazing though how some cling to the notion that Canon might sell this dream lens for half again more than the new 1 to 4. Astonishing. Canon has no problem charging top dollar for that and a 600/5.6 is in another league altogether.

If they make a 600 F5.6 L lens, it will probably cost around $8000..... quite a deal compared to the 600F4

If they made it with DO technology, the price might drop to $7000.....

If it is a zoom, it will cost more.....

If they make it as a non-L lens, I can't see the price being south of $3000.... we are still talking about a large lens with some substantial (expensive) lens elements, and we are talking about Canon. Use the comparable Sigma or Tamron lens to any Canon lens.... the Canon costs significantly more. I can not see this magically changing with a 200-600.....

 

[Loswr]

If they make it as a non-L lens, I can't see the price being south of $3000.... we are still talking about a large lens with some substantial (expensive) lens elements, and we are talking about Canon. Use the comparable Sigma or Tamron lens to any Canon lens.... the Canon costs significantly more. I can not see this magically changing with a 200-600.....

Nonsense. C'mon, Don...drink the Koolaid. Reality is boring, anyway.

 

[Maximilian]

I was thinking about the old 150 to 600 FD- glad someone posted it. Yes, I meant a 600/5.6 had to be as big in the front as a 300/2.8. Obviously the 300 is faster w/o a 2X on it. Amazing though how some cling to the notion that Canon might sell this dream lens for half again more than the new 1 to 4. Astonishing. Canon has no problem charging top dollar for that and a 600/5.6 is in another league altogether.

If they make a 600 F5.6 L lens, it will probably cost around $8000..... quite a deal compared to the 600F4

If they made it with DO technology, the price might drop to $7000.....

If it is a zoom, it will cost more.....

If they make it as a non-L lens, I can't see the price being south of $3000.... we are still talking about a large lens with some substantial (expensive) lens elements, and we are talking about Canon. Use the comparable Sigma or Tamron lens to any Canon lens.... the Canon costs significantly more. I can not see this magically changing with a 200-600.....

Hi Don!

Short question:
Why should DO tech be cheaper than classical? This hasn't happen before.
Thanks.

 

[RickWagoner]

Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.

So why does Nikon did it ? They didn't have interest either I guess...
Canon have a big interest in doing it, maybe not because some Canon users are going to buy one tamron lens, but because some users are going to shift to Nikon because they want to get their cheap 200-500.
Is Canon away from the overcrowded 70-300 market or the overcrowded 18-200 market ?

Nikon did it because they thought they could make money doing it, Canon, so far, don't. Canon do have the aging but very good 400 f5.6 L at $1,200, they then have the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 MkII L for $2,200, they also have a slew of 70-300's that cover every base in the lower end.

If I was a Canon lens exec I'd think the budget and medium tele end is well covered, don't forget the 100-400 cropped stacks up very well against the Tamron/Sigmas at max focal length it is that good, if, however, I could throw a unique high end long zoom at people and get more video shooters buying C300's then I'd be looking at 150/200-600 ideas.

If I was that exec I'd like my team to show me some 400 f5.6 updates, IS would be a must but how about an f5 instead of f5.6 as they did to the 500 primes going from f4.5 to f4? If they could make a 400mm f5 IS prime for $2,395 at launch and drop to $1,895 six months later I think they'd have another great lens.

Canon execs should be more worried about their 100-400 and 400 5.6 were the reasons why birders went with Canon first and foremost. With the tamron and Sigma 150-600 this gives birders a equally great low budget and great performing option to go with Nikon or Sony (which are beating Canon in the Sensor area). I myself have never seen so many birders in life using Nikons than before and they all have the Tamron 150-600mm. Canon is now and is going to lose more and more users because of they're not competing to the third party 600mm. This is the only reason why Nikon came out with their 200-500mm, to give birders more reason to go with their bodies and eventually go with their other lenses.

For what it is worth The 100-400mkII is not all that compared to the Tamron 150-600mm in life for a birder, actually the 70-300L is more of a cropping champ than the 100-400II if you really expect a birder to only crop later. The Tamron is right on course wide open at 400 as the 400mm 5.6 it is that good. The 100-400II absolutely took no sales from the Sigma or Tamron 150-600s from birders, if anything it only made those three after market lenses stronger and better of a buy.

BTW I have shot many different bodies and makers with the Tamron 150-600. The best of the best is the Nikon D750 with it, though it may not have the FPS as a 7D2 it does have better high ISO making it a great contender for Perching birds, which is one of the most common bird out there and the hardest for crop bodies because they're always under cover in low light. The days before the Tamron was announced a Nikon body would never of been thought of to use but now those days are done...this is a Canon Execs worry and this is a reason to EF-S stm 500-600mm zoom even if it is 6.3..keep the birders in the ecosystem of Canon. Screw L grade is what most birders will say if the idea of a great performing lens is in front of them for a decent price.

 

[Jack Douglas]

If they make it as a non-L lens, I can't see the price being south of $3000.... we are still talking about a large lens with some substantial (expensive) lens elements, and we are talking about Canon. Use the comparable Sigma or Tamron lens to any Canon lens.... the Canon costs significantly more. I can not see this magically changing with a 200-600.....

Nonsense. C'mon, Don...drink the Koolaid. Reality is boring, anyway.

Made me think of Jim Jones in Africa - hope that's not what you meant!

I read CR for the humour or is it humor!

Jack

 

[swkitt]

It's f/5.2 according to the patent

5,2 is not even another 1/3. Another 1/3 would be f/5 and if it's 5,2 they have to market it as 5,6.
Just like a sigma isn't 6,3 it's just something in between 5,6 and 6,3.
Anyway it's just a patent, nothing says it will be those exact features when it comes to the market if it ever do so.
That's why i think it will come as something similar to the Nikon, with an extra little think that allows Canon to sell it at 2900 on introduction and 2500 after some months of live.

 

[Maximilian]

It's f/5.2 according to the patent

5,2 is not even another 1/3. Another 1/3 would be f/5 and if it's 5,2 they have to market it as 5,6.
Just like a sigma isn't 6,3 it's just something in between 5,6 and 6,3.
Anyway it's just a patent, nothing says it will be those exact features when it comes to the market if it ever do so.
That's why i think it will come as something similar to the Nikon, with an extra little think that allows Canon to sell it at 2900 on introduction and 2500 after some months of live.

yupp! Dreaming is a nice hobby. I'd prefer taking pictures - whatever lens I have.