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

[kubelik]

given how large people are pointing out a 600m f/5.6 front element would be, and Canon's propensity for filing a whole bunch of patent variants for new lenses, perhaps this is just the opening salvo of a bunch of patents that will eventually reveal what the future lens is.

I'd still like a 500mm f/5.6 L to replace the 400mm f/5.6 L over this 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 (L) because of weight, size, and cost. Or, perhaps a 300-500mm f/4.5-5.6 if it's a zoom? seems little sense in building the 200mm range in there, who's going to be using the lower end of the zoom range?

 

[Jack Douglas]

given how large people are pointing out a 600m f/5.6 front element would be, and Canon's propensity for filing a whole bunch of patent variants for new lenses, perhaps this is just the opening salvo of a bunch of patents that will eventually reveal what the future lens is.

I'd still like a 500mm f/5.6 L to replace the 400mm f/5.6 L over this 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 (L) because of weight, size, and cost. Or, perhaps a 300-500mm f/4.5-5.6 if it's a zoom? seems little sense in building the 200mm range in there, who's going to be using the lower end of the zoom range?

Who's going to be using the lower range? This was my thought over the last few years regarding what seemed like my 300 always being used with X2 when hiking, and then moving into a blind that changed - 300 and 300 X 1.4 became useful. In fact I found the 70-200 X1.4 to be very useful at times. And then there is the BIF shots which are very challenging with 600. So, I don't think you can necessarily dismiss any of the focal lengths without losing something. However, I agree that it may make sense to restrict the range if size/weight/price is an issue.

Jack

 

[ahsanford]

given how large people are pointing out a 600m f/5.6 front element would be, and Canon's propensity for filing a whole bunch of patent variants for new lenses, perhaps this is just the opening salvo of a bunch of patents that will eventually reveal what the future lens is.

I'd still like a 500mm f/5.6 L to replace the 400mm f/5.6 L over this 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 (L) because of weight, size, and cost. Or, perhaps a 300-500mm f/4.5-5.6 if it's a zoom? seems little sense in building the 200mm range in there, who's going to be using the lower end of the zoom range?

At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration. I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams.

Similarly, though I'm sure the zoom functionality will be valuable, let's face it: this will be a way to shoot a 600 prime with first party AF without a teleconverter for less than $5k -- the fact that it zooms is kind of secondary here.

- A

 

[Jack Douglas]

"At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration. I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams. "

Don't agree with this at all. I bought it and I'm very thankful for that range. Very!

Jack

 

[Lee Jay]

At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration. I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams.

I have an 8-15L. I use it about equally at 8-10 and at 15. I have a Canon 70-200 which I often use with a 2x. It has to zoom because I'm often shooting planes that are approaching me. Not being able to zoom out enough is often a problem. A 400mm prime is a non-starter for that. I have a 2,800mm telescope. It can be set to be 2,000mm, 2,800mm, or 4,000mm with a 1.4x TC, and it can be used on full-frame or crop. My two favorite shots recently were at 2,000mm on full-frame (widest possible setting) and at 2,800mm on crop (4,500mm equivalent).

 

[Jack Douglas]

Opinions differ obviously because we have different needs. Canon tries to satisfy us all - impossible.

For me: 11-24 F4, 35 F1.4, 70-200 F2.8, 300 F2.8, X1.4, X2. I have the 24-70 but I'd live with just 35 as a compromise. I'm very happy thus far so on the long end 400-600 would work since 300 X 1.4 is already VG. 300-600 would be fine too. So I really tend to agree that the shorter FL isn't necessary - for me. But that's because I already have 300. So, Canon, you must do 400 - 600, for me.

Jack

 

[ahsanford]

"At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration. I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams. "

Don't agree with this at all. I bought it and I'm very thankful for that range. Very!

Jack

YMMV. I just think that there are reach-obsessed folks that can never have enough reach, and similarly on the wide end, they live to shoot as wide as possible.

I use my 16-35 (my widest lens) throughout it's range, but come on, we all know there are people who live with some of their zooms near-permanently affixed to one end of the zoom range.

- A

 

[Jack Douglas]

ahsanford, I fear Canon won't align with your logic. It's easy to say (I've said it myself), and selectively remember that "I never have enough reach" but it's not always true and the proof is in the fact that longer zooms exist and are bought. I haven't done too much BIF but enough to have been both too close and too far, which is why a zoom is helpful.

Jack

 

[ahsanford]

ahsanford, I fear Canon won't align with your logic. It's easy to say (I've said it myself), and selectively remember that "I never have enough reach" but it's not always true and the proof is in the fact that longer zooms exist and are bought. I haven't done too much BIF but enough to have been both too close and too far, which is why a zoom is helpful.

Jack

Don't misunderstand me: zooms are great, I am not advocating that people shouldn't use the zoom ring and I don't want this rumor to turn out to be a prime.

I'm just saying that some people can 'see' a zoom as the prime they've been waiting for as it's their only option at that FL (or only option under $10k).

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.

Jack

Hey Jack,

Does this take you back? I still have my F1N and FD 200mm f2.8, though just a few years later than '76.

 

[Jack Douglas]

dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.

Jack

Hey Jack,

Does this take you back? I still have my F1N and FD 200mm f2.8, though just a few years later than '76.

N was the last update wasn't it? Wasn't it cool how the lens mount ring would rotate by itself. Sure does bring back memories, but I didn't have all the bells and whistles. We're spoiled today. A 200-600, unheard of. We were trying to decide if the newly invented auto exposure should be Av or Tv and still using a cadmium sulfide photocell in a series circuit with manual selection - LOL.

Jack

 

[dcm]

dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.

Jack

I got my first SLR in 1982, an A1 with a FDn50 f/1.4 for about $450. It was my second largest expenditure after getting out of college at the time. My largest expenditure was a new car a year earlier that cost me $5500. I think the $3500 would have been about 2 months salary back then. Equivalent today might be a 6D with 50 for around $2.0K, so looks around 4 times if you are targeting a new car in the low $20K range. The 6D is quite a bit ahead of the A1 from my perspective, the EF 50 f/1.4 not so much. Maybe the next version will change that.

 

[EdwardNJ]

ahsanford, I fear Canon won't align with your logic. It's easy to say (I've said it myself), and selectively remember that "I never have enough reach" but it's not always true and the proof is in the fact that longer zooms exist and are bought. I haven't done too much BIF but enough to have been both too close and too far, which is why a zoom is helpful.

Jack

Don't misunderstand me: zooms are great, I am not advocating that people shouldn't use the zoom ring and I don't want this rumor to turn out to be a prime.

I'm just saying that some people can 'see' a zoom as the prime they've been waiting for as it's their only option at that FL (or only option under $10k).

- A

I agree, at least for wildlife photographers the 200mm or even 300mm range is pretty much useless, it just adds weight, size and cost in detriment of IQ. I see a lot of wildlife photographers using their lenses at the max focal length, not using the lower end of their zooms at all (Sigma and Tamron 150-600 and Canon 100-400), so these zoom lenses are basically used as a prime. That's why I think Canon wants to cover also the sports photography segment, in that sense a zoom would make more sense; but anyway, if truth when is this bad boy going to be released?
Modify message

 

[AvTvM]

I understand, why most professional wildlife photographers prefer a specific prime for a specific task.

For my casual, non-professional photography however, zooms are clearly better suited and i regularly use the entire focal length range. No matter whether it's a "wildlife" at the zoo or a trip to Africa. Next time, i will definitely take a 150/200-600mm zoom and use the short end for those elephants crossing the road 20m in front of the car or the hyeana mother plus her 7 cubs that were playing in the early morning sun right next to our car in Kruger park and the 600mm end will be used for that pack of wild dogs at the water hole 200m away or for that large bird of prey up in the sky - and use the images later on to try and identify what species it was. and for those meerkat monkeys in the tree i get my shot and framing at 380mm and next up, a Leopard in the underbrush needs maybe 520mm and i don't want to change lenses all the time in the dust and i also dont want to schlepp multiple bodies and lenses. Simple solution: zoom. Nowadays even with hardly a sacrifice in image quality.

 

[Don Haines]

I understand, why most professional wildlife photographers prefer a specific prime for a specific task.

For my casual, non-professional photography however, zooms are clearly better suited and i regularly use the entire focal length range. No matter whether it's a "wildlife" at the zoo or a trip to Africa. Next time, i will definitely take a 150/200-600mm zoom and use the short end for those elephants crossing the road 20m in front of the car or the hyeana mother plus her 7 cubs that were playing in the early morning sun right next to our car in Kruger park and the 600mm end will be used for that pack of wild dogs at the water hole 200m away or for that large bird of prey up in the sky - and use the images later on to try and identify what species it was. and for those meerkat monkeys in the tree i get my shot and framing at 380mm and next up, a Leopard in the underbrush needs maybe 520mm and i don't want to change lenses all the time in the dust and i also dont want to schlepp multiple bodies and lenses. Simple solution: zoom. Nowadays even with hardly a sacrifice in image quality.

I tend to agree with that statement.....

It reminds me of the day that I got my Tamron 150-600 and went outside to photograph some of the local birds. It was at 600 for the tiny ones far away, but as they got more used to my presence they got closer and closer and the zoom dropped from 600 to 400 to 300 to 150, and off went the Tamron and on went the 17-55....
A wide variety of focal lengths is needed as you don't know if that bird is going to be on the top of a tree or in the palm of your hand.

 

[caneos]

I am pretty sure that the lens is another league like the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 or Tamron f/5.6-6.3 or Sigma f/5.6-6.3. If you compare the lens construction side by side, you will see very quickly that the Canon 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 has several huge lenses in the front with diamater about 11cm. To achieve a good optical performance either there will be some UD glass elements implemented, or a Fluorite element or a DO element. Such a lens can only be a lens of professional L-Line. In that case, you can suppose that the price tag will be about 6'000 to 8'000$. Despite of this, the lens will find people who want it, because - as it was already mentioned - it is less than the full professional lenses for prices about 10K+, e.g. the future EF 600 DO BR f/4.0L IS USM lens, which was presented in a development state on the Canon N.Y. Expo last September 10/11. See attached images of the lens constructions of the Canon 200-600, the Nikkor 200-500 for comparison and of the future 600 DO BR.

 

[Loswr]

Wow - sign me up for that stubby 'little' 600/4 DO BR!!!

 

[Jack Douglas]

I am pretty sure that the lens is another league like the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 or Tamron f/5.6-6.3 or Sigma f/5.6-6.3. If you compare the lens construction side by side, you will see very quickly that the Canon 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 has several huge lenses in the front with diamater about 11cm. To achieve a good optical performance either there will be some UD glass elements implemented, or a Fluorite element or a DO element. Such a lens can only be a lens of professional L-Line. In that case, you can suppose that the price tag will be about 6'000 to 8'000$. Despite of this, the lens will find people who want it, because - as it was already mentioned - it is less than the full professional lenses for prices about 10K+, e.g. the future EF 600 DO BR f/4.0L IS USM lens, which was presented in a development state on the Canon N.Y. Expo last September 10/11. See attached images of the lens constructions of the Canon 200-600, the Nikkor 200-500 for comparison and of the future 600 DO BR.

Wow, this is a great post and logical for sure.

Jack

 

[AJ]

FWIW, Sigma has its 120-300/2.8 OS. With a 2x TC it'd be a 240-600/5.6
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm
This lens retails for about 3600 USD.
So I figure a Canon 200-500/5.6 would cost roughly 4-4.5k.
Now, I wonder, would such a lens be neither fish nor fowl?
Too expensive for amateurs and casual users, and maybe the pros and rich doctors would gravitate to the long primes.

 

[hoodlum]

FWIW, Sigma has its 120-300/2.8 OS. With a 2x TC it'd be a 240-600/5.6
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm
This lens retails for about 3600 USD.
So I figure a Canon 200-500/5.6 would cost roughly 4-4.5k.
Now, I wonder, would such a lens be neither fish nor fowl?
Too expensive for amateurs and casual users, and maybe the pros and rich doctors would gravitate to the long primes.

Most willing to spend that kind of money would just go for a used 500mm f4.