Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC

[jrista]

I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.

Been wishing for this since the 200-400 w built-in 1.4 was announced. Actually, I think there is a good rationale for building a 1.4 into all the superteles above 400mm. The added weight/cost will not outweigh (puny) the extra usability for the intended consumers. I know I often switch the 1.4 on and off my 600 when stalking wildlife and it requires too much fiddling around - even if you get 'good' at it. I'm less enamored of the big zooms just b/c I need the speed and reach of the primes in 99% of my photo situations. Having a built-in 1.4 gives you that little bit of quick flexibility to frame the shot better. And quickly switch from say a whitetail at 40 yards (600) to a chickadee at 15 yards (840).

The problem is that the added cost to us is significantly greater than the cost for Canon to add the 1.4x TC capability. It is a cash cow for them and so it is no surpise they would want to extend this to longer focal lengths. Just don't be surprised when you see the price.

The Tamron can't get here soon enough.

Initial prices can indeed be scary high, but if you wait, and time your purchase well, you can get unbelievably incredible deals. I bought the 600mm f/4 L IS II this year. The lens listed for $12799 at the time, and one sale had it for around $12500. I purchased mine for $10,860 thanks to a sale in a Canadian store. Even after the import costs, it was still less than $11,000. Just because the list price is a shocker, doesn't mean you actually spend that much buying it. I suspect a 300-600 f/5.6 will land in the realm of $13000 to $15000. I suspect people will buy it for around $11000 to $13000 over the long term, until an official price drop occurs a few years down the road.

 

[ME]

I dont think it will happen. But it's fun to dream. Besides, there is already the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with built-in 2x teleconverter. That means [email protected]. And you get all of that for only $26,000. And it weighs only 34.54 lb. What more could you ask for? ???

 

[eml58]

The 300-600 is a possibility, but I'de not hold my breath waiting, I could only imagine a quite small market, but when you consider the size of the 200-400, I wouldn't imagine the 300-600 being much bigger in size than the current 600, slightly heavier, as is the case of the 200-400 over the 400f/2.8 II. Price ?? I'de imagine a similar premium that we have on the 400f/2.8 to the 200-400f/4, So around 20% more expensive than the current 600f/4 II.

The 600f/4 (1.4x) I see as a definite, Nikon are offering their own Long Lenses now with a dedicated Converter as part of the package, albeit it's similar to what is currently being offered but tuned to the particular Lens, which I feel is a good idea.

Having the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) I immediately saw the possibilities for Canon with the built in 1.4x Converter especially if it was offered as a "Build to Order" option on the 400/500/600/800, that way they could keep the standard no converter Models as they currently do, and the current prices, but have the more expensive "Option" for those that see the benefit and can afford it of the Built in Converter & don't mind waiting 6 months for a Special Build Option.

If they offer it up I'm certainly offloading my current 600f/4 II & jumping into the 600 with the Built in Converter, great idea.

Need Gura Gear to make a slightly longer Battaflea 32L Bag then, currently the 600f/4 fits one side, just (but not with the 1.4x Attached), and the 200-400f/4 the other side.

 

[scyrene]

If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.

 

[jrista]

If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.

Personally, I totally agree. But I think it depends on what you shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer, I am pretty happy with a fixed focal length, or at least one that can be changed with a TC if needed, especially when I am mobile.

However, if I was a sports photographer, sitting in a fixed location, I could see the value of having not only a supertele zoom lens, but one with a built in TC to instantly change that zoom range when I felt I needed it. Sometimes you might want to get right in on a pitcher's face at 840mm, where as at other times you might want the relatively "wide" field of 300mm when tracing a runner to a base while the ball is being thrown in (just to throw out an entirely random, fabricated example. ;P)

It seems the 200-400/4+TC has taken pretty well to wildlifers, but I think the focal range fits there. I think a 300-600/5.6+TC could fit in very well with sports photographers, especially those with a 1D X.

 

[arbitrage]

I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.

 

[garyknrd]

I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.

Not sure about that one. But I bet they would sell a lot more of the 600 + 1.4 T.C.. I would love that lens. Here is hoping the stock market holds and someone else is not chewing my food for me before it is avaliable..

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com

 

[eml58]

I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.

I don't think Canon can afford not to go ahead with the 800f/5.6 V II Lens, Nikon have had their new 800f/5.6 out now for a little while, coupled with a 1.25x Converter matched to the Lens, for a US$18k price Tag, Canon have to follow through and I would think 2014 first half will see this Lens on the Shelves, I'm a little surprised they've taken so long considering the other 300/400/500 & 600 Version II Lens releases.

I think the 800f/5.6 Lens is the most specialised of all the Large Lenses, very small Market, very big price Tag.

 

[jrista]

I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.

I don't think Canon can afford not to go ahead with the 800f/5.6 V II Lens, Nikon have had their new 800f/5.6 out now for a little while, coupled with a 1.25x Converter matched to the Lens, for a US$18k price Tag, Canon have to follow through and I would think 2014 first half will see this Lens on the Shelves, I'm a little surprised they've taken so long considering the other 300/400/500 & 600 Version II Lens releases.

I think the 800f/5.6 Lens is the most specialised of all the Large Lenses, very small Market, very big price Tag.

The 800/5.6 was, technically, the first, and the 300/400/500/600 came after it. They may be Mark II's of their respective lines, but they got all their fancy new technology form the R&D that went into making the original 800 in the first place. Keep in mind, the 800 was only released, what, 2008? Most of the rest of the superteles are from 1998 or 1999, a decade before the 800.

I personally believe there will be an 800/5.6 L II. There are quite a number of pro bird photographers who simply refuse to stick a TC on ANYTHING. They are interested in the absolute top notch perfect quality that money can buy, and they KNOW how to extract the maximum detail from every single photo.

While the 600/4+1.4x TC can perform as well as the 800...it just barely does. Before the 600/4 II, there was no question the 800/5.6 produced better quality, and I highly doubt an 800/5.6 II would only offer as much resolving power as the 600/4+TC. No matter how you slice it, fewer optical elements mean better results (that's why the exceptionally simple design of a 50/1.8 can get sharper results than the more complex and far more costly design of a 50/1.2), and even if a TC was integrated into a future 600/4, it's still more optical elements.

 

[scyrene]

If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.

Personally, I totally agree. But I think it depends on what you shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer, I am pretty happy with a fixed focal length, or at least one that can be changed with a TC if needed, especially when I am mobile.

However, if I was a sports photographer, sitting in a fixed location, I could see the value of having not only a supertele zoom lens, but one with a built in TC to instantly change that zoom range when I felt I needed it. Sometimes you might want to get right in on a pitcher's face at 840mm, where as at other times you might want the relatively "wide" field of 300mm when tracing a runner to a base while the ball is being thrown in (just to throw out an entirely random, fabricated example. ;P)

It seems the 200-400/4+TC has taken pretty well to wildlifers, but I think the focal range fits there. I think a 300-600/5.6+TC could fit in very well with sports photographers, especially those with a 1D X.

You're right of course, I was speaking from a bird perspective. Although I have to imagine the 200-400 is more for big animals (lions and owls and suchlike) than little songbirds. Maybe it speaks to my field craft, but I find 1000mm (500+2x) is rarely enough without cropping.

 

[dolina]

Should weigh about 3kg,

Will Canon be selling bodies that can AF at f/8 other than the center AF point?

 

[jrista]

If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.

Personally, I totally agree. But I think it depends on what you shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer, I am pretty happy with a fixed focal length, or at least one that can be changed with a TC if needed, especially when I am mobile.

However, if I was a sports photographer, sitting in a fixed location, I could see the value of having not only a supertele zoom lens, but one with a built in TC to instantly change that zoom range when I felt I needed it. Sometimes you might want to get right in on a pitcher's face at 840mm, where as at other times you might want the relatively "wide" field of 300mm when tracing a runner to a base while the ball is being thrown in (just to throw out an entirely random, fabricated example. ;P)

It seems the 200-400/4+TC has taken pretty well to wildlifers, but I think the focal range fits there. I think a 300-600/5.6+TC could fit in very well with sports photographers, especially those with a 1D X.

You're right of course, I was speaking from a bird perspective. Although I have to imagine the 200-400 is more for big animals (lions and owls and suchlike) than little songbirds. Maybe it speaks to my field craft, but I find 1000mm (500+2x) is rarely enough without cropping.

For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)

 

[scottkinfw]

On your first day of orientation for that second job they will teach you to say the following, "Would you like to biggie size that?"

It just getting better and better with Canon lenses.

BIG QUESTION: HOW MUCH?

I need to start 2nd job ;D

 

[scottkinfw]

Like Dylan, I just ordered my first big white (300 2.8 LL) and the $6700 was a quantum threshold for me to cross. I don't know, perhaps after this getting past a 10K barrier will be easier, but somehow, I don't think so. I am wondering how other people do it? Are that many professionals (i.e., people making a decent living from photography using these lenses) to justify the price, and drive Canon profits, or are the lenses selling to people like me who are avid/rabid enthusiasts? Just a question.

Scott.

The >$20,000 estimates seem really high to me. My understanding is that the front element is a significant cost driver for these lenses. Dropping from f/4 to f/5.6 is a big deal. Assessing the size of the front element using the focal length/max aperture, the 400/4 = 100 mm and 600/5.6 = 107 mm. And the patent is actually for 585 mm/5.6 = 104 mm. If this holds true, then I'd expect these 300-600 to be priced similarly to the 200-400. Say ~$12,500?

 

[mrsfotografie]

I dont think it will happen. But it's fun to dream. Besides, there is already the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with built-in 2x teleconverter. That means [email protected]. And you get all of that for only $26,000. And it weighs only 34.54 lb. What more could you ask for? ???

The Sigma has a dedicated TC, but it is not built-in

 

[vlim]

Why? It's unlikely to be as good as the old 100-400 at 400, and probably much worse than a new 100-400mm II, and even less likely to be seen.

i don't see why ? the actual 70-300 f4-5.6 IS is way better than the 100-400 ! and the new 100-400 II still not exists and might never exists

 

[CarlTN]

Why would anyone be enthusiastic about an f/5.6 zoom lens with a built in TC, especially one that is still large but limited to 300mm at the wide end? F/5.6 is dark enough...an f/8 lens is limited in its usefulness, even if by some miracle future pro AF sensors will work with all their points at f/8. It's still a very dark lens...perhaps useful on ski slopes during bright sunlight.

What should get built instead (or at least...first), is a smaller and more affordable, light weight prime lens, but with the TC built in. How about say, a 330mm f/3.5 DO (with some major technological breakthroughs in resolution), that weighs 3 pounds or less, and has an option to switch out two different TC's that then mount internally? Maybe a 1.4x and a 1.7x? Canon could still charge $3500 to $5000 for it, and lots more people could justify buying it. It would be highly portable, hand-holdable, and usable for long hikes, or a long day shooting at an event, etc. I say it would be more useful to more people, than a $10,000+ 300-600mm f/5.6 zoom (which is basically a very similar sized lens to the 200-400 f/4...which itself also seems more useful than a 300-600 f/5.6).

Most importantly, it would be a light bucket by comparison, at f/3.5 and 330mm...yet weigh half as much, and cost half as much! Then of course its AF speed and accuracy, could easily exceed that of all but perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 ii...I suppose if it did all this Canon would charge closer to $6000, but it might be worth it! It could be nicknamed the "mini mighty whitey"!! Hahaha...

I just have to think the AF speed freaks, would look down their noses at a 300-600 f/5.6 zoom.

What's next, a 10mm to 100mm fisheye zoom?? :

 

[jrista]

Why would anyone be enthusiastic about an f/5.6 zoom lens with a built in TC, especially one that is still large but limited to 300mm at the wide end? F/5.6 is dark enough...an f/8 lens is limited in its usefulness, even if by some miracle future pro AF sensors will work with all their points at f/8. It's still a very dark lens...perhaps useful on ski slopes during bright sunlight.

What should get built instead (or at least...first), is a smaller and more affordable, light weight prime lens, but with the TC built in. How about say, a 330mm f/3.5 DO (with some major technological breakthroughs in resolution), that weighs 3 pounds or less, and has an option to switch out two different TC's that then mount internally? Maybe a 1.4x and a 1.7x? Canon could still charge $3500 to $5000 for it, and lots more people could justify buying it. It would be highly portable, hand-holdable, and usable for long hikes, or a long day shooting at an event, etc. I say it would be more useful to more people, than a $10,000+ 300-600mm f/5.6 zoom (which is basically a very similar sized lens to the 200-400 f/4...which itself also seems more useful than a 300-600 f/5.6).

Most importantly, it would be a light bucket by comparison, at f/3.5 and 330mm...yet weigh half as much, and cost half as much! Then of course its AF speed and accuracy, could easily exceed that of all but perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 ii...I suppose if it did all this Canon would charge closer to $6000, but it might be worth it! It could be nicknamed the "mini mighty whitey"!! Hahaha...

I just have to think the AF speed freaks, would look down their noses at a 300-600 f/5.6 zoom.

What's next, a 10mm to 100mm fisheye zoom?? :

I think a 300-600/5.6 TC would primarily be a pro sports/olympics lens. In that case, it would probably almost always be used with a 1D X, where usable ISO tops 12800, and for newspaper and magazine print, is quite viable up to 25600. I'd also point out that the 1D X is faster than any other camera at f/8 AF. It certainly isn't f/4 fast, but it isn't all that much slower than f/5.6 AF on a 5D III or any lesser model.

 

[WPJ]

I remember when the original Tamron 200-400mm came out, and people were salivating over it. Not sharp enough, even way back then. When the Canon 200-400mm arrived and turned out to be sharp, I thought I might start saving for it. Now? I'm saving for the 300-600mm since I can believe that if-ever/whenever it arrives it will be what I'm really looking for.

I would,be much better if it was f4 then 5.6 with the Tele....

I think,I would be all over it at 10-15k

 

[Eldar]

I remember when the original Tamron 200-400mm came out, and people were salivating over it. Not sharp enough, even way back then. When the Canon 200-400mm arrived and turned out to be sharp, I thought I might start saving for it. Now? I'm saving for the 300-600mm since I can believe that if-ever/whenever it arrives it will be what I'm really looking for.

I would,be much better if it was f4 then 5.6 with the Tele....

I think,I would be all over it at 10-15k

At f4 it would be Big and, considering the price for the 600 f4L IS II and the 200-400, I would be very surprised if it came out below 15-16k. Tempting thought though.