Superzoom Development Mentioned Again [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

<p>We’ve received another mention about the development of a new superzoom. We weren’t given the focal length & range of such a lens. We also weren’t told if this would be a direct replacement for the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS.</p>
<p>We are wondering if this development is for the Cinema EOS line and not for the stills crowd. I have a hard time believing the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS was every popular enough to warrant further R&D dollars for a new version.</p>
<p>On a side note, we’ve been receiving a lot of nonsense lately from a certain group of people, and a couple of other sites are having the same issue. We know who they are and are working to filter out the “rumors” they’re sending in. A few things in the last week or so that we have posted, have turned out to be from them.</p>

 

[tianxiaozhang]

I only saw one person using it in the real world.. but it's quite heavy.

Isn't Nikon's relatively newer version much lighter? Is it more popular?

 

[mrsfotografie]

If Canon brings down the size and weight, they'll sell a lot of these. But for now Tamron wins the game ;D

 

[JMKE]

A new (smaller/lighter) 28-300 or 24-200 would be nice. Mount it on a 6D and there we have a nice travel combo.
At least in my opinion. But who am i?

 

[ahsanford]

Canon needs a 'super' zoom all right, but it doesn't need it under 300mm. IMHO, Canon needs to offer a zoom longer than 400mm. Something slow but long, say a 300-600 f/6.3 IS.

Right now, if Canon shooters want to shoot in the 500mm neighborhood, you need to buy:

400 f/5.6L + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in center and no IS = $1,628
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in the center = $2,628
200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x, 500 f/4L IS II, TC'ing an f/2.8 or f/4 great white = astronomically more expensive

In comparison, there are now two off-brand (150-600) and one Nikon (200-500) long zooms in the $1,000 - $1,400 neighborhood.

I recognize Canon prices go from reasonable to explosive in a matter of one stop or 100 more mm reach, but Canon needs to find a reasonably priced way to go long without teleconverters.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Canon needs a 'super' zoom all right, but it doesn't need it under 300mm. IMHO, Canon needs to offer a zoom longer than 400mm. Something slow but long, say a 300-600 f/6.3 IS.

Right now, if Canon shooters want to shoot in the 500mm neighborhood, you need to buy:

400 f/5.6L + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in center and no IS = $1,628
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in the center = $2,628
200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x, 500 f/4L IS II, TC'ing an f/2.8 or f/4 great white = astronomically more expensive

In comparison, there are now two off-brand (150-600) and one Nikon (200-500) long zooms in the $1,000 - $1,400 neighborhood.

I recognize Canon prices go from reasonable to explosive in a matter of one stop or 100 more mm reach, but Canon needs to find a reasonably priced way to go long without teleconverters.

- A

+1
200-500 F5.6
300-600 F6.3
either one would sell well

 

[Loswr]

Something slow but long, say a 300-600 f/6.3 IS.

I don't see a Canon EF f/6.3 zoom anytime soon, given that their PDAF system is spec'd for f/5.6 and 3rd parties 'spoof' the camera (obviously not an issue for the M).

 

[Besisika]

<p>We are wondering if this development is for the Cinema EOS line and not for the stills crowd. I have a hard time believing the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS was every popular enough to warrant further R&D dollars for a new version.</p>

Indeed, I would be interested in this lens if it is 100% compatible with DPAF face detection. It would a perfect lens for me.
I own and use already the 100-400 MK II so weight is not an issue. Monopod is the answer.

 

[Antono Refa]

A new (smaller/lighter) 28-300 or 24-200 would be nice. Mount it on a 6D and there we have a nice travel combo.
At least in my opinion. But who am i?

Yes, an EF 24-200mm f/4-5.6 IS USM of reasonable size & weight would be very nice.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 28-300mm IS is relatively new, and improving it would indeed be expensive. This used to be very popular among PJ's covering news events where they could zoom wide as well as telephoto. Unfortunately, traditional PJ's are going away and I do not see it being updated.

We might see a replacement for the EF-S 18-200, it was never that good, but acceptable. I sold mine because It was not getting any use. Its one of the few lenses I took a big price hit on.

 

[9VIII]

I'd almost be just as happy with either.
Sure, Canon doesn't have a small 600mm lens, but with a bit of cropping the 100-400MkII is basically as good as the competition. At least in my mind I consider it a "640mm equivalent" lens.
I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.

The idea of a short-to-long focal length lens is almost as interesting as a 500mm. I don't know if I would want to trade off the macro capability of the 100-400MkII, but if Canon could make a decent 28-300 that would be useful for different reasons.
I almost think they'd be better off ditching the extra wide angle and go for 40-300, which is still a fair bit wider than the 70-300 but should allow for much better optics than 28-300. Make it a constant f4 and you've got a highly desirable lens.

 

[RGF]

There are two uses of this lens

1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28

2. a "safari" lens for tracking wildlife. Image a lion is walk toward your vehicle as it goes closer you want to keep shooting without changing lenses or cameras. Prior to the 28-300L there was the 35-350 non IS lens. I like the focal length of the latter.

To be successful I think Canon will need to improve IQ (the 28-300L was not very consistent lens to lens, like the old push pull 100-400). Some weight loss would be nice is not essential. Perhaps slightly longer?

 

[ahsanford]

Regarding the 28-300L, remember that even with the L red ring, sturdy construction, etc. that physics is physics. Optically, this 10X zoom is not a strong performer:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/426-canon_28300_3556is_5d?start=1

However, for those that want it, perhaps the following improvements could be made:

• Strip it down for weight. This lens currently weighs over 4 pounds with a hood and collar on. Keep the metal mount, but put this lens on a diet like the 24-70 f/4L IS, which has the 100L's engineering plastic outside and a plastic sliding internal barrel.
  
  
• Bring the focal length multiplier back down to earth. [28 - anything] is frustrating on the wide end, so I agree with others that a 24-200 is about right.
  
  
• Try not to be premium and 'do it all' in one lens, as it will suck at both. I'd actually recommend losing the L moniker -- drop this thing down to non-L status like the 24-105 recently did. That will help justify the move to plastic.
  
  
  
• Keep it small. Forget f/3.5 or f/4 on the wide end. Perhaps going to an f/5.6 fixed max aperture will allow this lens to get lighter and more compact.

Having one lens to replace all your other lenses is a fantasy you can sell to crop owners. But once you've stepped up to FF, the premise of a superzoom (convenience at the cost of IQ & speed) nullifies the upside of a FF rig. It just never made sense to me.

And how on earth is this even a top 10 ask from the market right now? Surely, refreshing the L standard primes with that BR tech, a non-L 50mm & 85mm refresh and the 16-35 f/2.8L III are far, far bigger needs.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.

+1

I don't even shoot above 200mm (95% of my work under 100mm) and I find that Nikon to be a serious shot across the bow to Canon. I'm shocked we're not talking about it more. That's a landgrab move by Nikon to gobble up the reach-obsessed amateur wildlifers out there. Canon has no rebuttal after 400mm other than 'Crop your shots to get 500mm, switch back to APS-C, enjoy teleconverters, or buy a $10K lens'. All of those are tradeoffs that this new Nikon sails right past.

Consider: even a 500mm IS f/5.6 prime for $1400 would be a steal for us. I know that lens won't be of the highest quality, but one would presume -- critically -- that it's AF would be better than the Sigmas and Tamrons.

- A

 

[Pixel]

I don't see 200mm on the long end as being "super"telephoto. It's going to have to be over 400mm considering the 100-400 already on the market. I'd love to see a zoom go to 600 to compete with the Sigma's super zoom.

 

[Bob Howland]

There are two uses of this lens

1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28

2. a "safari" lens for tracking wildlife. Image a lion is walk toward your vehicle as it goes closer you want to keep shooting without changing lenses or cameras. Prior to the 28-300L there was the 35-350 non IS lens. I like the focal length of the latter.

To be successful I think Canon will need to improve IQ (the 28-300L was not very consistent lens to lens, like the old push pull 100-400). Some weight loss would be nice is not essential. Perhaps slightly longer?

It is also useful for extremely hectic events, although a 28-200 f/2.8-4.5 or, better yet, 24-120 f/2.8-4 would be much more useful.

 

[DJL329]

I was almost incredulous at the Photo Plus Expo last month when a guy next to me at Canon's counter asked to see the 28-300L. Canon didn't have a single copy of it on hand!

 

[George D.]

There are two uses of this lens

1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28

2. a "safari" lens for tracking wildlife. Image a lion is walk toward your vehicle as it goes closer you want to keep shooting without changing lenses or cameras. Prior to the 28-300L there was the 35-350 non IS lens. I like the focal length of the latter.

To be successful I think Canon will need to improve IQ (the 28-300L was not very consistent lens to lens, like the old push pull 100-400). Some weight loss would be nice is not essential. Perhaps slightly longer?

Re para.2, I cannot just imagine, I see it pictured behind Sebastiao Salgado with an elephant, here:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/Sebastiao_Salgado.do
In his gear there is the 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS.
Had he stopped to change lens he would now be something like the BR gel...

 

[mrzero]

I think a 24-200 (or 250) would be excellent paired with the 6D. L quality in the body of the 70-300L would be great, but I'd even accept a non-L in the vein of the 24-105/3.5-5.6. I'd prefer not STM but it probably wouldn't matter one way or the other for me on this.

PS - I think some are confused with the wording of the subject here. The rumor is about a "superzoom," i.e with a large zoom multiplier, like the 28-300 is a 10X superzoom. A "supertelephoto" is a really long lens that I can't afford, like the 800/5.6L.

 

[George D.]

It's a rumor. Anything goes.