The future of Canon L primes

[aroo]

Any guesses what a 400mm f/5.6 IS might cost if it appears?

 

[Hillsilly]

I'd be guessing that it would approach $2,000 upon release (ie approx. 50% increase). But they'd probably add IS and beef up weather sealing. A new 100-400 could be around $2,500. As a "cheap" lens person, the current 400/5.6 was a simple decision for me - Noticeable cheaper than the 100-400 and arguably faster focusing and sharper at 400/5.6. But if the price gap percentage between the two narrows, I might be tempted by a new 100-400. A tough decision to make when you are weighing up two hypothetical lenses.

 

[dolina]

Reasons why Canon will not have a EF 200mm f/2L IS USM and EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM within 12, 24, 36, 48 or even 60 months from now.

200mm: Canon vs Nikon
CFD: 1.9m vs 1.9m
Weight: 2.52kg vs 2.9kg
Stops of IS: 5 vs 3
Price: $5,700 vs $5,820

800mm: Canon vs Nikon
CFD: 6m vs 5.9m
Weight: 4.5kg vs 4.59kg
Stops of IS: 4 vs 4.5
Price: $13,250 vs $17,900

Source: Canon USA and Nikon USA product pages.

The previous super tele L primes with IS were marketed in 1999 (300/400/500/600) the current super tele L primes with IS II were marketed in 2011 (300/400/500/600).

That is 12 years.

Nikon's 400/500/600 were marketed in 2007 and sold at a higher price than Canon's 1999 products. Canon updated theirs 4 years after 2007.

Nikon's first 200/2 VR was marketed in 2005, two years after the discontinuation of EF 200mm f/1.8L USM in 2003. Canon announced their EF 200mm f/2L IS USM 3 years after 2005.

The EF 200mm f/1.8L USM was marketed from 1988 to 2003. That's a solid 15 years for the fastest L prime. I often wish I picked one up brand new for a "bargain price" when I got a EOS 10D in 2003.

EF 200mm f/2L IS USM and EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM were marketed in 2008 and there is no competing product today with significant weight or price difference that would induce any deviation from a 12 year product cycle. These are low volume products that do not sell as well as other L zooms or primes.

Source: Canon Museum product pages.

The major selling point of the 2011 super tele L Primes is the weight reduction that yielded up to 25% less product weight than the previous model. If you're a sports, journalist or wildlife photog this is a godsend. Improvements in image quality, focusing motor, image stabilization and other items are largely secondary.

Canon would profit more from updating a 35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6. A whole lot more people can afford, demand and carry them than any fast super tele L prime. Not to mention these are far more simpler to manufacture.

If Canon wanted to make a splash with a flagship lens then they could update the EF 1200mm f/5.6 USM from 1993to include IS with modes 1, 2 and 3 and Power Focus. It would be awesome if they can manage to halve the product weight to 8.25kg from 16.5kg.

 

[dolina]

Any guesses what a 400mm f/5.6 IS might cost if it appears?

Double current prices based on the pricing of 70-200/4 without IS to 70-200/4 IS and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM.

I am also interested with a EF 400mm f/5.6 IS USM as a walk around lens but I really wish Canon would release a EF 500mm f/5.6 IS USM or EF 600mm f/5.6 IS USM instead.

 

[dolina]

Judging from Canon's product releases in 2013 we can expect more Cinema EF lenses instead of more EF L prime lenses.

The profit center for Canon appears to be towards Cinema EOS cameras and future MILCs like the EOS M.

 

[9VIII]

Any guesses what a 400mm f/5.6 IS might cost if it appears?

Double current prices based on the pricing of 70-200/4 without IS to 70-200/4 IS and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM.

I am also interested with a EF 400mm f/5.6 IS USM as a walk around lens but I really wish Canon would release a EF 500mm f/5.6 IS USM or EF 600mm f/5.6 IS USM instead.

As much as I would love a 600f5.6, it would still cost about $7,000, which is most of the way to paying for a 500f4, which gets you a 700f5.6 with the excellent 1.4x TC.
Really, anyone wishing for a bridge lens between the 400f5.6 and the big whites would probably be best off just to take the plunge.

 

[Eldar]

With the incredible performance of the 600 f4L IS II, with the 1.4xIII extender, I don´t see a new 800 f5.6 as very likely.

I think that's exactly why we will see an 800/5.6 II, and soon. I agree that the 600 II + 1.4x makes the current 800L superfluous. But the bare 600 II is sharper than the 400 II + 1.4x, and I'd expect the bare 800 II to be sharper than the 600 II + 1.4x. Also, like the 800/5.6 is lighter than the older 600/4, the MkII would again be lighter. Also, there's a black version of the 800 for a different mount that looks to be quite sharp. Canon has reigned supreme in the supertele class - it's likely they'll want an 800 II to keep the crown.

From a pure market perception point of view, I agree. An improved 800 would be the last jewel in the big white crown to cement their reigning position. But, in a strained market with reduced profitability, I have some difficulty seeing the business case.
But if weight was sufficiently lowered from the version I and sharpness that much better I´m sure there is a market for it. But again, with the flexibility and performance of the 600 II with the 1.4x/2xIII extenders, I believe a lot of photographers would say good enough to that. I also believe that the weight penalty of the 600 version I represented significant motivation for those who bought the 800. That penalty is now vastly reduced and the question is if Canon can establish the equivalent ratio between the version II of these lenses.
Does anyone know how many copies of the current 800 that has been sold?

 

[Loswr]

Reasons why Canon will not have a...EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM within 12, 24, 36, 48 or even 60 months from now.

800mm: Canon vs Nikon
CFD: 6m vs 5.9m
Weight: 4.5kg vs 4.59kg
Stops of IS: 4 vs 4.5
Price: $13,250 vs $17,900

Reason why Canon will have an EF 800mm f/5.6L IS II within 18-24 months:

800mm: Canon vs Nikon
Less sharp vs. sharper

What makes you think a '12 year product cycle' is generally applicable? Technically, two points can define a line - but n=2 makes for a pretty crappy extrapolation. The 200/2.8L was updated after 5 years - by now, they should be replacing the MkIII version of that lens with a MkIV pretty soon, at least by your logic. Why are we still on MkII? Because the product landscape is different, because of high quality f/2.8 zooms. It's different now for the 800/5.6, too, because of the 600 II (which clearly obviates the current 800L), and because there's now competition at 800mm.

Your comparison above shows how equivalent the two 800's are, except for price (and sharpness). Price isn't really a huge differentiator at that level, and even so, Canon has never been afraid to charge high prices (e.g., 1D X vs. D4). Canon doesn't want a lens that's just equivalent - they want better...and they'll deliver it relatively soon, not I. 7 years.

 

[StudentOfLight]

35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 are prime candidates for an update.

I agree that these are the prime suspects. Canon is definitely losing sales to Sigma's 35mm.

Just as a side note, here are my three dream primes:
EF 105mm f/1.4 L IS
EF 200mm f/2.8 L IS Macro
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 L II