question about 600mm lenses

[Lichtgestalt]

i talked for 2 hours with a friend on the phone today.
he asked me if i know someone who could be interested in his EF 100-400mm.
he bought the tamron 150-600mm and has no use for the canon 100-400mm anymore.

he told me up to 400mm the tamron is as good as the canon.
above that the resolution drops but it´s still good.
he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).

anyway... that made me think.

when tamron is able to produce a 150-600mm zoom for around 1100 euro.... then why is no company making a really good 600mm f5.6 for lets say 2000 euro?

a fixed focal length should be cheaper to produce then a zoom right?
ok for f5.6 you need a bit more glas.... but then 2000 euro would be twice the price.

if i would buy the tamron i would buy it for the 500-600mm focal range.
that´s where i would use that lens 95% of the time.
what i really need is a supertelephoto lens with great quality at the long end.

the tamron offers good quality at 600mm.
but why is nobody making a fixed 600mm f5.6 for 2000 euro that has excellent quality?

it should be possible from production cost and profit viewpoint... not?

 

[Don Haines]

i talked for 2 hours with a friend on the phone today.
he asked me if i know someone who clould be interested in his EF 100-400mm.
he bought the tamron 150-600mm and has no use for the canon 100-400mm anymore.

he told me up to 400mm the tamron is as good as the canon.
above that the resolution drops but it´s still good.
he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).

anyway... that made me think.

when tamron is able to produce a 150-600mm zoom for around 1100 euro.... then why is no company making a really good 600mm f5.6 for lets say 2000 euro?

a fixed focal length should be cheaper to produce then a zoom right?
ok for f5.6 you need a bit more glas.... but then 2000 euro would be twice the price.

if i would buy the tamron i would buy it for the 500-600mm focal range.
that´s where i would use that lens 95% of the time.
what i really need is a supertelephoto lens with great quality at the long end.

the tamron offers good quality at 600mm.
but why is nobody making a fixed 600mm f5.6 for 2000 euro that has excellent quality?

it should be possible from production cost and profit viewpoint... not?

This is a question I have been asking for years

The Tamron 150-600 isn't all that bad at 600, it's great from 150-400 and merely "pretty good" at 600. If they were to design a fixed lens at 600, the optics can be optimized for that focal length and the lack of zoom mechanism makes the lens lighter, simpler, and optically superior. A 600F6.3 lens should be able to be made for less than the 150-600, but with lower sales numbers (people love zooms) some of the economies of scale are lost so I would expect the price to be about the same.

Going to a 600F5.6 would mean changing the last element from to 95mm to 107mm, not a huge change, and certainly doable for twice the price...

 

[jrista]

i talked for 2 hours with a friend on the phone today.
he asked me if i know someone who clould be interested in his EF 100-400mm.
he bought the tamron 150-600mm and has no use for the canon 100-400mm anymore.

he told me up to 400mm the tamron is as good as the canon.
above that the resolution drops but it´s still good.
he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).

anyway... that made me think.

when tamron is able to produce a 150-600mm zoom for around 1100 euro.... then why is no company making a really good 600mm f5.6 for lets say 2000 euro?

a fixed focal length should be cheaper to produce then a zoom right?
ok for f5.6 you need a bit more glas.... but then 2000 euro would be twice the price.

if i would buy the tamron i would buy it for the 500-600mm focal range.
that´s where i would use that lens 95% of the time.
what i really need is a supertelephoto lens with great quality at the long end.

the tamron offers good quality at 600mm.
but why is nobody making a fixed 600mm f5.6 for 2000 euro that has excellent quality?

it should be possible from production cost and profit viewpoint... not?

This is a question I have been asking for years

The Tamron 150-600 isn't all that bad at 600, it's great from 150-400 and merely "pretty good" at 600. If they were to design a fixed lens at 600, the optics can be optimized for that focal length and the lack of zoom mechanism makes the lens lighter, simpler, and optically superior. A 600F6.3 lens should be able to be made for less than the 150-600, but with lower sales numbers (people love zooms) some of the economies of scale are lost so I would expect the price to be about the same.

Going to a 600F5.6 would mean changing the last element from to 95mm to 107mm, not a huge change, and certainly doable for twice the price...

Actually, it isn't the diameter that matters, it is the total volume of glass. Assuming the thickness of the front element (and, all the other entrance-pupil elements...remember, there are elements before and after the diaphragm) don't really change, then it is the area you have to look at. If you only factor in the diameter, the difference is 107/95, which is ~12%. However if you factor in the area, that is ((107/2)^2ϖ) / ((95/2)^2ϖ), or 8992/7088, which is 27%. The front element is going to have to be thicker as well, so we are talking about at least a 30% increase in cost just for the front element. The quality of the glass would need to be higher as well, in order to produce similar quality to a smaller element, that also increases cost. The subsequent entrance pupil elements, or at least the few closest to the front element, would also need to be larger. That further increases cost, as each of those would be anywhere from 20-30% more expensive than their f/6.3 counterparts. In order to maintain midframe, edge, and corner performance, one would have to deal with the increase in optical aberrations that a larger front element brings to the table...the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)

It isn't the 12% difference in cost between a 95mm and a 107mm diameter front element. It is more like a 75-100% difference in cost between an element of 27% larger area, greater thickness, accompanied by secondary internal elements pre-diaphragm that ALSO increase in size by a similar margin, as well as increased design complexities. Ironically, that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...but there would indeed be a hefty relative increase in cost.

 

[tapanit]

[...] the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)

[...] that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...

Indeed. If it was optically as good as the 150-600 is at 400mm and priced $2200, it would sell like hotcakes, IMHO. (Tamron, feel free to take a hint.)

 

[Lichtgestalt]

Actually, it isn't the diameter that matters, it is the total volume of glass. Assuming the thickness of the front element (and, all the other entrance-pupil elements...remember, there are elements before and after the diaphragm) don't really change, then it is the area you have to look at. If you only factor in the diameter, the difference is 107/95, which is ~12%. However if you factor in the area, that is ((107/2)^2ϖ) / ((95/2)^2ϖ), or 8992/7088, which is 27%. The front element is going to have to be thicker as well, so we are talking about at least a 30% increase in cost just for the front element. The quality of the glass would need to be higher as well, in order to produce similar quality to a smaller element, that also increases cost. The subsequent entrance pupil elements, or at least the few closest to the front element, would also need to be larger. That further increases cost, as each of those would be anywhere from 20-30% more expensive than their f/6.3 counterparts. In order to maintain midframe, edge, and corner performance, one would have to deal with the increase in optical aberrations that a larger front element brings to the table...the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)

It isn't the 12% difference in cost between a 95mm and a 107mm diameter front element. It is more like a 75-100% difference in cost between an element of 27% larger area, greater thickness, accompanied by secondary internal elements pre-diaphragm that ALSO increase in size by a similar margin, as well as increased design complexities. Ironically, that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...but there would indeed be a hefty relative increase in cost.

well i .. and as i guess most here... know that.
so when i say it needs more glass i don´t speak about area or radius, i speak (of course) about volume.

but still, twice the price should be possible. even after your more detailed calculation.

the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase

and why would a fixed focal lenght 600mm be more complicated then a zoom going all the way to 600mm?
i would guess a zoom needs more elements and of course more moving elements.
that should bring the comlexity up compared to a fixed focal length who is just a bit faster (5.6 vs. 6.3).
and it´s not only the mechanics, sure more glass needs a sturdier construction, but AF should be easier with a fixed focal length too or not?

im far from being an experts in these optical calculations.
but to me it looks that it should balance eachother out.


so the question remains... why is nobody doing it?

 

[Random Orbits]

the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase

so the question remains... why is nobody doing it?

My guess is that the market isn't big enough. Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens. In some ways, these smaller markets might be filled easier by the 3rd party manufacturers. They can sell similar designs in multiple mounts and have a potentially larger market than Canon or Nikon.

 

[jrista]

Actually, it isn't the diameter that matters, it is the total volume of glass. Assuming the thickness of the front element (and, all the other entrance-pupil elements...remember, there are elements before and after the diaphragm) don't really change, then it is the area you have to look at. If you only factor in the diameter, the difference is 107/95, which is ~12%. However if you factor in the area, that is ((107/2)^2ϖ) / ((95/2)^2ϖ), or 8992/7088, which is 27%. The front element is going to have to be thicker as well, so we are talking about at least a 30% increase in cost just for the front element. The quality of the glass would need to be higher as well, in order to produce similar quality to a smaller element, that also increases cost. The subsequent entrance pupil elements, or at least the few closest to the front element, would also need to be larger. That further increases cost, as each of those would be anywhere from 20-30% more expensive than their f/6.3 counterparts. In order to maintain midframe, edge, and corner performance, one would have to deal with the increase in optical aberrations that a larger front element brings to the table...the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)

It isn't the 12% difference in cost between a 95mm and a 107mm diameter front element. It is more like a 75-100% difference in cost between an element of 27% larger area, greater thickness, accompanied by secondary internal elements pre-diaphragm that ALSO increase in size by a similar margin, as well as increased design complexities. Ironically, that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...but there would indeed be a hefty relative increase in cost.

well i .. and as i guess most here... know that.
so when i say it needs more glass i don´t speak about area or radius, i speak (of course) about volume.

but still, twice the price should be possible. even after your more detailed calculation.

and why would a fixed focal lenght 600mm be more complicated then a zoom going all the way to 600mm? i would guess a zoom needs more elements and of course more moving elements.

the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase

so the question remains... why is nobody doing it?

First, I was directly responding to Don's comment about the difference merely being 95mm vs. 107mm.

As for cost, though, I think people underestimate what it really takes to increase the size of the aperture, and maintain the same level of quality. The larger each lens element gets, the more difficult it becomes to correct for optical aberrations. It isn't just making a bigger element. It is making a bigger element more perfectly. It means tightening tolerances.

It's really the tightening of tolerance where the increase in cost comes from. It's an asymptotic relationship with perfection...you can never really attain perfection...its unobtainable...however as you get closer and closer, as the gap between what you aim to achieve and perfection closes, cost begins to increase dramatically. I honestly don't know exactly where a 600mm f/5.6 falls on that asymptotic curve of perfection. Given that no one has tried to make a 600/5.6 yet, I have to suspect that it falls into a cost bracket wherein it would be difficult to recoup R&D costs in a reasonable time frame. I say $2200, based on a rather clinical mathematical extrapolation. I am no optical engineer, and it is entirely possible that to really make a 600mm f/5.6 lens that had the same optical quality as a cheaper 150-600mm f/5-6.3, the cost would fall a whole bracket higher...$4500-$7000. However, for that cost bracket, the optical quality should be quite a bit HIGHER than a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 zoom...so instead of falling around $4500 in price, it ends up closer to $7000 in price, because were pushing farther and farther up that curve towards perfection, where tolerances must be tighter and tighter.

I suspect there isn't a 600 f/5.6 yet because it just isn't cost effective, and that it is more lucrative to build a 600mm f/4 lens, as the ratio of sales is probably very similar, yet you get so much more for the f/4 version.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

people are buying a 85mm f1.2 for 1900 euro, so why not a 600mm f5.6 for 2100 euro?

there are enough birders and wildlife shooters out there.
maybe not as much as shallow depth of field portrait shooter.... but still enough i think.

In some ways, these smaller markets might be filled easier by the 3rd party manufacturers. They can sell similar designs in multiple mounts and have a potentially larger market than Canon or Nikon

yeah but even they don´t do it.....

my hope is that sigma will do it.
im very impressed (after being a sigma hater for years) by sigmas latest lenses.
the optical performance is great.
they may still struggle with AF... can´t say. but im very pleased with my sigma 35mm f1.4

 

[jrista]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Actually, I know quite a few people who own DSLRs. They only use the 18-55. Canon can sell 90 million EF lenses because pros and serious hobbyists (of which there are many millions) will usually buy dozens of lenses. For all the photographers who don't buy new lenses, there is another photographer who buys many. Canon only needs 9 million customers worldwide to buy 10 lenses each to reach 90 million lenses sold. They have far more customers than that in total...

people are buying a 85mm f1.2 for 1900 euro, so why not a 600mm f5.6 for 2100 euro?

You assume a 600/5.6 would only cost $2200. As I mentioned in my previous post...if one aims to maintain the same level of IQ, that means tightening tolerances, and that's where costs rapidly start to rise. A 600/5.6 could easily cost $4000, and a 600/5.6 that is optically superior enough to warrant that level of cost could easily skyrocket to around $7000. Once you get above the $2500 price point, you really have to justify the cost to a customer. You also greatly reduce your pool of potential customers who can actually afford such cost, meaning the lens has to be that much better. A $2200 estimate is the rock bottom estimate possible...and such a lens probably wouldn't be as good as the 150-600/6.3.

Over that $2500 price point, and you enter a wholly different market, which dictates an entirely different approach, and changes the name of the game. Your asking customers to spend many thousands of dollars, and they will expect a return for every single penny they spend. Your in a cost bracket now where people would probably rather spend more for 600/4 than not. Whether its $5000, $7000 or $12000, gaining a third of a stop additional light isn't really enough...even if the optical quality is great. There has to be more for that kind of expenditure. (I speak from experience, as I am one of those customers...I own the EF 600mm f/4 L II, I bought it brand new with cash...and the aperture is really necessary to justify that kind of cost.)

there are enough birders and wildlife shooters out there.
maybe not as much as shallow depth of field portrait shooter.... but still enough i think.

There are certainly lots of them. But not necessarily that many of them willing to spend more than a couple grand. If your in the 7D/100-400mm lens bracket, then your in the cost-savings bracket, not the "I'll spend the dough if you give me the closest thing to perfection money can buy" bracket.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Actually, I know quite a few people who own DSLRs. They only use the 18-55. Canon can sell 90 million EF lenses because pros and serious hobbyists (of which there are many millions) will usually buy dozens of lenses. For all the photographers who don't buy new lenses, there is another photographer who buys many. Canon only needs 9 million customers worldwide to buy 10 lenses each to reach 90 million lenses sold. They have far more customers than that in total...

but it doesn´t change a thing on the fact that his kind of argumentation can not be the reason why canon is not producing a 600mm f5.6.

because fact is, canon makes money with other lenses then the kit lenses or they would not produce them
no matter who buys them .. they are sold.

You assume a 600/5.6 would only cost $2200. As I mentioned in my previous post...if one aims to maintain the same level of IQ, that means tightening tolerances, and that's where costs rapidly start to rise. A 600/5.6 could easily cost $4000,

that´s what you think, right. and your argumentation/guessing sounds fine so far.
but with all due respect i don´t see that as written in stone.
you don´t have hard numbers what it would cost, nor have i.

but a few years ago i would have thought the tamron 150-600mm is not possible for 1100 euro.
the price will sure drop here to around 950-990 euro in a few month.

 

[jrista]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Actually, I know quite a few people who own DSLRs. They only use the 18-55. Canon can sell 90 million EF lenses because pros and serious hobbyists (of which there are many millions) will usually buy dozens of lenses. For all the photographers who don't buy new lenses, there is another photographer who buys many. Canon only needs 9 million customers worldwide to buy 10 lenses each to reach 90 million lenses sold. They have far more customers than that in total...

but it doesn´t change a thing on the fact that his kind of argumentation can not be the reason why canon is not producing a 600mm f5.6.

Canon doesn't produce a 600 f/5.6 because they already produce a 600 f/4. The cost to produce a quality 600/5.6 that is actually worth the money would put it out of range of most customers (i.e. it has to be BETTER than a 150-600 f/5-6.3 in pretty much every respect). The R&D cost to design the lens would require a certain minimum sales ratio per year in order to recoup those R&D costs and make the lens profitable in a reasonable time period. Given the fact that neither Canon, nor any other manufacturer, has produced a 600/5.6 lens is a very strong indication that the cost of the lens would indeed put it into a cost bracket where sales would be very low, thus turning the R&D cost into a very long term liability...and from a business standpoint, long-term liabilities on low-volume products are particularly bad. Better to make an even more expensive product, the 600/4, that would get similar low volume at twice the cost. You reduce your R&D recoup times by half. Not to mention the fact that the EF 600 f/4 L series lens line has a very strong following (just look at the lens banks for the Olympics...there are shelves full of Canon very fast (f/2.8 and f/4) supertele lenses, and maybe a shelf or two for other lenses, so Canon is bound to sell a lot of the 600 f/4 lenses anyway (a hell of a lot more than a 600/5.6, as the people who are willing to shell out many thousands of dollars for such a lens demand that the aperture be as fast as possible as well.)

 

[Lichtgestalt]

Canon doesn't produce a 600 f/5.6 because they already produce a 600 f/4.

sure, but the important point is not if canon produces such a lens.
im also happy if tamron or sigma would make one.

thought i guess for 2300-2500 euro a 600mm f5.6 from canon would still sell very well. (i would buy one ).
and don´t steal away 600mm f4 customers.
the 600mm f4 is so far out of reach for most amateurs.

i just mentioned canon in this context because Random Orbits mentioned kit lenses and that most DSLR buyers only have one lens.

 

[jrista]

Canon doesn't produce a 600 f/5.6 because they already produce a 600 f/4.

sure, but the important point is not if canon produces such a lens.
im also happy if tamron or sigma would make one.

thought i guess for 2300-2500 euro a 600mm f5.6 from canon would still sell very well. (i would buy one ).
and don´t steal away 600mm f4 customers.
the 600mm f4 is so far out of reach for most amateurs.

i just mentioned canon in this context because Random Orbits mentioned kit lenses and that most DSLR buyers only have one lens.

Just to make sure the point is clear...a $2500 600mm f/5.6 lens probably wouldn't offer the same level of IQ as a 150-600 f/6.3 lens. If you had the option...a 600/5.6 prime that was a bit softer with more CA, or a 150-600/6.3 that was sharper with less CA, and the latter was cheaper...which would you choose? You would choose teh 150-600/6.3. As the objective lens gets larger, it becomes exponentially more difficult to correct for optical aberrations. I've already seen the CA in the 150-600mm lens. Don shared a wonderful photo taken with it, and it was very sharp...but it definitely had more CA than even the 100-400mm canon lens. If your ok with less quality for a 600 prime, then more power to you...but I just don't think any lens manufacturer will do that. That's WHY manufacturers like Tamron opt for the narrower max aperture.

 

[Don Haines]

Canon doesn't produce a 600 f/5.6 because they already produce a 600 f/4.

sure, but the important point is not if canon produces such a lens.
im also happy if tamron or sigma would make one.

thought i guess for 2300-2500 euro a 600mm f5.6 from canon would still sell very well. (i would buy one ).
and don´t steal away 600mm f4 customers.
the 600mm f4 is so far out of reach for most amateurs.

i just mentioned canon in this context because Random Orbits mentioned kit lenses and that most DSLR buyers only have one lens.

Just to make sure the point is clear...a $2500 600mm f/5.6 lens probably wouldn't offer the same level of IQ as a 150-600 f/6.3 lens. If you had the option...a 600/5.6 prime that was a bit softer with more CA, or a 150-600/6.3 that was sharper with less CA, and the latter was cheaper...which would you choose? You would choose teh 150-600/6.3. As the objective lens gets larger, it becomes exponentially more difficult to correct for optical aberrations. I've already seen the CA in the 150-600mm lens. Don shared a wonderful photo taken with it, and it was very sharp...but it definitely had more CA than even the 100-400mm canon lens. If your ok with less quality for a 600 prime, then more power to you...but I just don't think any lens manufacturer will do that. That's WHY manufacturers like Tamron opt for the narrower max aperture.

And there is the economies of scale problem and the people loving zooms problem..

Six months ago I would have bet that a reasonably priced 600F5.6 (say around $2500) would sell enough to be profitable.... but with Tamron throwing in a $1100 150-600F6.3 zoom lens into the ring, an awful lot of those 600F6.3 buyers will end up going for the Tamron.... Most of the potential market has been captured.

 

[Random Orbits]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that? :

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh? :

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

 

[Don Haines]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that? :

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh? :

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

 

[Loswr]

I agree that it 'pinches' the market. I think Canon's likely response is a 100-400 MkII. With the Tamron 150-600 being similar to the current 100-400 in that range, and ok at the long end, if Canon brings a new 100-400 with a level of improvement similar to that of the 70-200 II, that would force a choice between an ok 150-600 or an excellent 100-400. The latter will cost a lot more, but that won't bother Canon.

 

[jrista]

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

The argument isn't that it's not possible...its that if someone did it, for that price, would it be marketable?

I'd be willing to bet that Tamron has already cut some corners with the 150-600. We know Canon does this with their zoom lenses...instead of 600mm, it would be something like 149mm-590mm. That immediately shaves a bit off the necessary front element size. The filter thread size is 95mm, which right off the bat indicates that the front element can't actually be the 95.24mm it would have to be in order to support true f/6.3 at exactly 600mm. That's a reduction in objective element size of about 5% right off the bat. That shaves down the necessary size for all the entrance pupil elements as well.

Prime lenses are generally designed to more exacting specifications. You don't have to worry about making tradeoffs to support a zoom range...you optimize the lens design exactly for the focal length your building. That's the entire point of a prime...to extract the maximum quality out of a given focal length. So, at least assuming you want a 600mm f/5.6 lens and not a 590mm f/6 lens, that immediately cuts out any easy reductions in element size that might save you a few percent here and there to reduce the cost of the lens. Then you get into how larger optics are harder to correct, etc. etc. and the costs just start rising from there.

I guess it would really boil down to what level of IQ you think your customers would find acceptable. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 that had worse CA than the 150-600 f/5-6.3 might indeed sell, to the people who insist on having a prime. Personally I think the customers in this bracket would go with the best option for the best price...that's kind of what it's all about...so I don't think a 600mm f/5.6 with worse quality than the Tamron 150-600 would really have a market.

Also, keep in mind, Canon's prime lens with a 107mm objective element costs $6800...the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II. Granted, that pushes lens design to the upper extreme of high quality, and employs the most advanced optical technologies known to the DSLR market...but still, the vast majority of that cost is the glass.

 

[Random Orbits]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that? :

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh? :

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

Yes, thanks for the correction; he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers. I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.

 

[Don Haines]

Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.

sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon.
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that? :

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh? :

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

Yes, thanks for the correction; he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers. I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.

So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.