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

[Lurker]

I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

I see the 200-400 as part of the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 L II line of lenses.
I expect the 300-600 will be part fo the 24-70 f/4 L , 70-300 f/4-5.6 L line of lenses.

Relative to the 200-400 I'd expect to sacrifice some image and build quality but in return get significant $ in my pocket and a relatively lighter lens. I'm going to set my flag at the $8000 price point. I would not be surprised if it was even lower.

Like I said, I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

 

[Dylan777]

It just getting better and better with Canon lenses.

BIG QUESTION: HOW MUCH?

I need to start 2nd job ;D

 

[J.R.]

It just getting better and better with Canon lenses.

BIG QUESTION: HOW MUCH?

I need to start 2nd job ;D

Probably $ 24,000... How much moonlighting can you do???

 

[willis]

Cool patent, but how about $$$? Double that too so it's $21 999 lens :

 

[KyleSTL]

I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

I see the 200-400 as part of the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 L II line of lenses.
I expect the 300-600 will be part fo the 24-70 f/4 L , 70-300 f/4-5.6 L line of lenses.

Relative to the 200-400 I'd expect to sacrifice some image and build quality but in return get significant $ in my pocket and a relatively lighter lens. I'm going to set my flag at the $8000 price point. I would not be surprised if it was even lower.

Like I said, I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

Why would you say that? It will be about the same size as the existing 200-400, with a longer reach. Frankly, I'm not sure why they would produce this lens. How is it any different than buying a 200-400 and a 1.4x III? With these two items you'll have almost identical ranges of 280-560mm f/5.6 and 400-800mm f/8, with the added benefit of using it natively without the TC as a 200-400mm f/4. Granted, Canon could optimize the lens better to have slightly better IQ without double-stacked 1.4x TCs, but does that really justify this lens? The front element will be slightly larger (107mm vs. 100mm, theoretical), the rumored lens will likely be longer and weigh slightly more, so no size/weigh advantage exists. And I'd imagine with its longer reach it will be more expensive than the current offering + the cost of a 1.4x TC. Anyone have any other ideas about this rumored lens' raison d'être?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Since Canon knows how to build the 200-400mm lens now, many of the production risks go away. This means they know the cost to produce such a lens with good certainty.

Size wide, it would be only slightly larger than the 200-400, and price wise only slightly more. Since Canon knows the actual sales figures for the 200-400, they also can estimate sales for this lens. With money being tight, its a matter of putting the money they have to invest into products that return the most profit. There is also the pride in having the best telephoto out there in a focal length range, and the new Tamron certainly must have them worrying.

I hope a miracle happens and we see one for under $10K.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

I see the 200-400 as part of the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 L II line of lenses.
I expect the 300-600 will be part fo the 24-70 f/4 L , 70-300 f/4-5.6 L line of lenses.

Relative to the 200-400 I'd expect to sacrifice some image and build quality but in return get significant $ in my pocket and a relatively lighter lens. I'm going to set my flag at the $8000 price point. I would not be surprised if it was even lower.

Like I said, I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

Brilliant!

 

[surapon]

Since Canon knows how to build the 200-400mm lens now, many of the production risks go away. This means they know the cost to produce such a lens with good certainty.

Size wide, it would be only slightly larger than the 200-400, and price wise only slightly more. Since Canon knows the actual sales figures for the 200-400, they also can estimate sales for this lens. With money being tight, its a matter of putting the money they have to invest into products that return the most profit. There is also the pride in having the best telephoto out there in a focal length range, and the new Tamron certainly must have them worrying.

I hope a miracle happens and we see one for under $10K.

+ 1 for me too.
Yes, Sir, dear teacher Mr. Mt Spokane.
"I hope a miracle happens and we see one for under $10K."----That will be our days, to support Canon MFG. again.
Surapon

 

[docsmith]

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?

 

[AlanF]

<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.

 

[Loswr]

<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.

+1 I teleconference when shooting with my 600 II, but I have to use my iPhone and BT headset for that - having a built in option means one less accessory to carry.

 

[J.R.]

<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.

+1 I teleconference when shooting with my 600 II, but I have to use my iPhone and BT headset for that - having a built in option means one less accessory to carry.

Yeah what an awesome feature... And people say canon isn't innovating... Take that Sony!

 

[kirispupis]

I am right now diligently saving up for the 200-400/1.4x with hopes of purchasing one early next year. A 300-600/5.6 sounds like an interesting lens, but personally I would prefer the 200-400 and would not consider purchasing a 300-600 because the 5.6 aperture limits AF and light as would the f8 aperture with the extender even more.

A 600/4 with an extender is a different issue, though I expect it to sell for $15k-$16k - making it far beyond my budget. Still, paired with the 200-400 that would be a dream wildlife combo.

 

[vlim]

Now they handle the technic, Canon might think about a line of zooms with built in converter

i would like to see a 70-300 f/4 IS with x1.4

 

[9VIII]

600f4+1.4TC? Yes please!
If an 800f5.6II was significantly lighter and optically superior, then that would be my preferred choice, but as is I would take either one.

 

[AlanF]

Now they handle the technic, Canon might think about a line of zooms with built in converter

i would like to see a 70-300 f/4 IS with x1.4

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.

 

[Vern]

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).

 

[jrista]

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

Ditto, that would be amazing. Not that I would buy one...I can't imagine selling the 600/4 II I just bought this year, and the existing TC's work excellent on it...but the convenience of just flipping a switch would indeed be nice.


I'm intrigued by the 300-600 f/5.6 TC. Quite intriguing. I never expected to see a zoom in such a focal length from Canon. Maybe we never will, but the fact that they are researching it is indeed intriguing.

 

[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.

 

[hoodlum]

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.