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

[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

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.

Ya I would be, but the 600 now is f4 so that's my wish.

 

[arbitrage]

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.

Don't worry, you will cross the $10,000 barrier eventually ;D I went all out first with 600II so that the 300II was "cheap" a year later!!

These lenses sell to two markets:
1) Large photo agencies that supply them to their pros.
2) Affluent amateurs...doctors, lawyers, dentists, executives, business owners, etc...
I think the actual amount of professional photographers buying these would be very low. Sports pros get them supplied for the most part and wildlife photographers that can actually make a living are a rare breed.

 

[AlanF]

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

Because the current relatively new 70-300 L with a 1.4xTC at 420mm is not nearly as good as the old 100-400mm - see

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

 

[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? ???

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

Details. Details. So important. In that case, I have decided to not get one. Thanks for pointing that out to me and to all of the other readers who might be seriously considering buying this lens. And a couple of winks to you

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

<li>Teleconference insertion</li>

I like the idea of being able to insert a Teleconference. If we all get one, then we could confer over each shot.

In this day and age, a video conference would make more sense

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Should weigh about 3kg,

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

The 70D can AF at f/11 with live view using the dual pixel technology, ind its a still largely undeveloped technology.

I think its a reasonable assumption that f/8 at off center points can happen in the near future, maybe f/11.

 

[Hannes]

besides, the target audience for a lens like that won't be using a rebel body anyway.

Last year at the london olympics I was getting a shutter speed of 1/800, f5.6, iso 3200. Even at f8 and 840mm you'll still get pretty good separation of the subject from the background and with the low light capabilities of a modern top end dslr the f8 will be less of a hindrance for those kinds of situations. AF will obviously be trickier but if the dual pixel tech gets a bit more refined that may well be the answer.

 

[dolina]

300-600 should weigh about 3kg. Would sell between $7,300-11,800. I'd love to see a EOS body that can AF at f/8 at more than 1 AF point.

If you scroll down there is a patent for a 600/4 with built in 1.4x TC. Should weigh about 4.1kg. Would sell for north of $13,500.

Patents are probably filled to deter other manufacturers to make such products in the future.

 

[eml58]

These lenses sell to two markets:
1) Large photo agencies that supply them to their pros.
2) Affluent amateurs...doctors, lawyers, dentists, executives, business owners, etc...
I think the actual amount of professional photographers buying these would be very low. Sports pros get them supplied for the most part and wildlife photographers that can actually make a living are a rare breed.

I agree, and my thought would be area 2 being the larger Market.

Good friend of mine is a Pro Photographer & shoots the D3x + Nikon 200-400f/4 V1, he won Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2013, he simply can't afford the new Canon Big Whites (but would move to the White side if he could), and Nikon South Africa doesn't support Pro Photographers with Loaners, it's Sad but True, not too many Pro Photographers are making a success of a Business surrounding being a Pro Photographer, mostly (at least in Africa) make a living around the Safari Business, Photography being an adjunct to that Business.

 

[dufflover]

If this lens ever does make it to production (I doubt it) I agree with the mob it will basically be an alternative to the 200-400. Like similar size, similar price range, give or take a thousand. I mean yeah that's a lot of money but it will be in that $10k+ price range.

Sadly my biggest/longest lenses will be in that Sigma 120-300/Tamron 150-600 price range, i.e. $3k give or take, not $5k+ super tele price.

 

[scyrene]

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.)

Nice insight on the canvas printing. I've done it, but not yet mounted them, that's worth bearing in mind, thanks

As far as birds are concerned, I dunno. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the birds. Some are very confiding, of course, but in that case you can get incredible detail at 1000mm near the minimum focus distance. Many species, in most circumstances, see you and skedaddle. In open situations, like beaches or beside open water, it can be very difficult indeed (I do have a portable hide, perhaps I should start using it more - but that seems rather extreme most of the time). Either way, having the focal length is better than not; if I get closer to the birds, I can always take off the teleconverter.

 

[jrista]

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.)

Nice insight on the canvas printing. I've done it, but not yet mounted them, that's worth bearing in mind, thanks

As far as birds are concerned, I dunno. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the birds. Some are very confiding, of course, but in that case you can get incredible detail at 1000mm near the minimum focus distance. Many species, in most circumstances, see you and skedaddle. In open situations, like beaches or beside open water, it can be very difficult indeed (I do have a portable hide, perhaps I should start using it more - but that seems rather extreme most of the time). Either way, having the focal length is better than not; if I get closer to the birds, I can always take off the teleconverter.

Birds take patience, and maybe some camo clothing (but NOT a hide, unless you have somewhere to hide the hide...if it stands out in the open, birds will take notice and stay clear.) My closest shots always come about an hour after I head out. I tend to stay low, usually laying in the sand, with my tripod set up such that the legs are collapsed and angled flat, so I get the lowest clearance from the ground possible. I wear a camo jacket and this cheap camo net overlay to pull over my pants. Then I just wait. Shorebirds, for example, move up and down and back up the shore. If you set yourself up with the sun behind you, it is really just a matter of time before the birds come wading right up to you, then past you, then back again. In between encounters, you can shift your position, or creep in closer by a few feet at a time. Eventually you can get so close that you'll take the TC off!

 

[Lee Jay]

The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.

You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking. Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.

 

[jrista]

The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.

You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking. Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.

I would also bet that no FD lens that Canon ever designed came even remotely close to producing the kind of IQ that a modern Mark II supertele produces. An f/5.6 aperture at 600mm is also quite a bit larger than f/2.8 at 200mm (102mm vs. 71mm), so from the get go we are talking about a particularly non-trivial front element.

Zooms require compromise, and the greater the zoom ratio, the greater the compromise (especially when the wide end varies so much, in terms of AoV, from the long end.) The 70-200 has a 2.77x AoV factor (34.4°/12.4°), where as a 150-600 would have a 4.32x AoV factor (17.8°/4.13°). They aren't similar enough to be compared, and even though the patent is for an f/5.6, I would be willing to bet hard money that a 300-600mm focal range (which has a mere 2x AoV factor (8.25°/4.13°) is more amicable to modern Mark II IQ than a 150-600mm focal range.

 

[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?? :

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.

Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?

 

[Eldar]

Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?

Yes, and to me at least, that makes focusing quite a challenge on action oriented shooting. It is OK to shoot a musk ox grassing, but hopeless on something running or flying. I hardly ever use the 2x extender on the 600 f4 because of that.

 

[CarlTN]

Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?

Yes, and to me at least, that makes focusing quite a challenge on action oriented shooting. It is OK to shoot a musk ox grassing, but hopeless on something running or flying. I hardly ever use the 2x extender on the 600 f4 because of that.

Thanks for your insights and experience! Again, I wonder why the hell anyone would build such a lens? The 200-400 already is not known to be the fastest at autofocusing...so why build something that will be substantially slower than it, even at f/5.6 (let alone f/8)? I know why...it's because they can use a similar housing, and charge a lot of money. Problem is, nobody is really going to buy it. It would have to be a very limited production run, it seems to me. The lens I called for would actually make them a lot more profit...there's a gaping hole in the pro lens pricing structure. I could be wrong, but I don't see how. It's so obvious.

 

[9VIII]

The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.

You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking. Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.

I would also bet that no FD lens that Canon ever designed came even remotely close to producing the kind of IQ that a modern Mark II supertele produces. An f/5.6 aperture at 600mm is also quite a bit larger than f/2.8 at 200mm (102mm vs. 71mm), so from the get go we are talking about a particularly non-trivial front element.

Zooms require compromise, and the greater the zoom ratio, the greater the compromise (especially when the wide end varies so much, in terms of AoV, from the long end.) The 70-200 has a 2.77x AoV factor (34.4°/12.4°), where as a 150-600 would have a 4.32x AoV factor (17.8°/4.13°). They aren't similar enough to be compared, and even though the patent is for an f/5.6, I would be willing to bet hard money that a 300-600mm focal range (which has a mere 2x AoV factor (8.25°/4.13°) is more amicable to modern Mark II IQ than a 150-600mm focal range.

It's unfortunate that third party manufacturers seem to sell more lenses with a big zoom range than high quality primes, or good zooms with a short zoom range. I guess we need more people birding. All it would take is a good 600f5.6 lens and most of the large supertelephoto lenses would become practically obsolete (or at least redundant), but it sounds like there will never be a big enough market for that without company pride on the line.

 

[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.

Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?

On a 1D IV, yes. On a 5D III or 1D X, no...it is the center point plus expansion, which is actually fairly large. It isn't a huge problem, though. If you want flexible composition in non-tracking scenarios, you can always use rear-button AF, lock onto your subject, stop AF, recompose, and take the shot (which can be done in a fraction of a second with some skill.)

For tracking subjects, it's always been the recommendation that you use the center points anyway, as they are the most precise and accurate. So overall, unless you have a particular style of shooting where you frequently use the outer AF points to do tracking with extremely long supertelephoto focal lengths...you should be fine.

 

[jrista]

The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.

You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking. Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.

I would also bet that no FD lens that Canon ever designed came even remotely close to producing the kind of IQ that a modern Mark II supertele produces. An f/5.6 aperture at 600mm is also quite a bit larger than f/2.8 at 200mm (102mm vs. 71mm), so from the get go we are talking about a particularly non-trivial front element.

Zooms require compromise, and the greater the zoom ratio, the greater the compromise (especially when the wide end varies so much, in terms of AoV, from the long end.) The 70-200 has a 2.77x AoV factor (34.4°/12.4°), where as a 150-600 would have a 4.32x AoV factor (17.8°/4.13°). They aren't similar enough to be compared, and even though the patent is for an f/5.6, I would be willing to bet hard money that a 300-600mm focal range (which has a mere 2x AoV factor (8.25°/4.13°) is more amicable to modern Mark II IQ than a 150-600mm focal range.

It's unfortunate that third party manufacturers seem to sell more lenses with a big zoom range than high quality primes, or good zooms with a short zoom range. I guess we need more people birding. All it would take is a good 600f5.6 lens and most of the large supertelephoto lenses would become practically obsolete (or at least redundant), but it sounds like there will never be a big enough market for that without company pride on the line.

I dunno. Personally, I'd still buy the 600/4 over a 600/5.6 (or even a 300-600/5.6). I wouldn't want to sacrifice the extra stop of light, which is really the primary draw of a lens like the 600/4 (and often essential to get good IQ, especially in the kinds of circumstances you frequently find with bird photography). Same reason I would buy the 300/2.8 over a 300/4. The 300/4 is certainly cheaper, but the 300/2.8 cannot be beat for the balance of sharpness & AF speed vs. portability...not to mention it's versatility with teleconverters. It is the ideal wildlifers lens if you have a few thousand dollars to spend.