Why canon do not have a 500mm f/5.6 in their product portfolio?

[Helios68]

Hi,

Canon's f/4 familly is really wide: 70-200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm
The f/2.8 is not to bad: 70-200mm, 300mm, 400mm.
Stopping at 400mm f/2.8 makes sense : price and weight are not really interesting anymore for longer focal.
But the f/5.6 is not well represented: 400mm then 800mm. There is a lack in 500mm and 600mm

Why do Canon not have 500mm f/5.6 nor 600mm f/5.6?

Any ideas?
Who would be interested in such a lens?

 

[Loswr]

Maybe thought to be too big (89mm front element) for most consumers, too slow for people who really need/want the length? Note that 3rd party lenses are f/6.3 which Canon wouldn't do, so the Tamron 150-600 has a ~94mm front element.

Perhaps the new 600mm zooms from Tamron/Sigma and f/8 AF pushing down the product lines (for TC combos) will make Canon rethink...

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Probably because a good business case could not be made for this specific lens.

 

[2n10]

Maybe thought to be too big (89mm front element) for most consumers, too slow for people who really need/want the length? Note that 3rd party lenses are f/6.3 which Canon wouldn't do, so the Tamron 150-600 has a ~94mm front element.

Perhaps the new 600mm zooms from Tamron/Sigma and f/8 AF pushing down the product lines (for TC combos) will make Canon rethink...

Interesting thought. I wonder if it has to do with Canon's idea of what a consumer lens should be sold at?

 

[Loswr]

If Canon made a 500/5.6 it would likely cost >$4K. A 600/5.6 is a like 300/2.8 with a longer barrel, and would likely cost ~$7.5K (and that's about the same as a 300/2.8 + 2x, so why bother?).

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Canon's f/4 familly is really wide: 70-200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm
The f/2.8 is not to bad: 70-200mm, 300mm, 400mm.
Stopping at 400mm f/2.8 makes sense : price and weight are not really interesting anymore for longer focal.
But the f/5.6 is not well represented: 400mm then 800mm. There is a lack in 500mm and 600mm

This is not really the best way to think of it. A 200 mm f/2.8 is a fairly ordinary lens, but a 400/2.8 is a dream supertele and a 600/2.8 would be gigantic. Putting all the f/2.8 lenses into one category doesn't work.

A more useful split is this:

- 70-200/4, and also the 70-300L which you didn't mention, are the smallest both physically and optically.

- Next category up includes the 70-200/2.8, 300/4, 100-400/4.5-5.6, and 400/5.6. All broadly in the same size/weight/optical size and price bracket. We probably ought to include the 200/2.8 prime, which is an old lens and unusually cheap.

- Then the 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/4 and 500/4. The 400/4 is slightly expensive for its size, because it's a DO lens, but we can include it in the same group. These are the slightly more affordable of the 'big whites'.

- Finally two monsters, the 600/4 and 800/5.6.

If you work out the entrance pupil size, which is basically the same as the front element size for a long lens, you'll find they are clustered together. The first group is 50-54 mm; the second is 72-75 mm; the third is 100-125 mm; and lastly140-150 mm.

I think this is a very sensible structure, giving us a choice of small, medium, large and huge.

So where does a 500/5.6 fit into this? It doesn't really, it falls between two stools. It is neither as affordable and portable as the 300/4 and 400/5.6 lenses, nor is it is powerful as the 300/2.8 and 500/4. I guess it would have to cost around £3000-£3500 which is probably too much for most 100-400L customers, but those who can afford more will mostly want the 300/2.8 or 500/4. I'm generalising of course.

On the other hand, Sigma and Tamron have chosen to drop their lenses right into the gap, and by doing so they have found a sweet spot for birders and other keen amateur wildlife photographers. The burning question is, will Canon ever do the same?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've seen a thousand posts asking why Canon did not have a XX mm camera lens in their lineup. They have far more lens models than other manufacturers, but its not likely that they will have every possible lens focal length and aperture.

I found my 400mm f/5.6 to be too long to be a practical carry around lens and to fit in my camera bag. A 500mm lens would be even longer. Reducing the aperture size reduces the diameter, but not the length. How many people would pay $4,000 for such a lens? Canon, like it or not, prices lenses at much higher levels than the third party manufacturers.

A zoom lens is more practical to carry around, since they normally only extend to their full length when zoomed out.

 

[Jim Saunders]

A 400 f/4 and a 1.4x gets you there; maybe the new 400 DO will work well for that.

Jim

 

[Random Orbits]

A 400 f/4 and a 1.4x gets you there; maybe the new 400 DO will work well for that.

Jim

+1. It'll be interesting to see how the new DO technology performs.

 

[9VIII]

I'm thinking the new 400DO with a TC will be the new favourite for "less than $10K" budgets. If you don't see yourself using 300f2.8, then the 400 is the next logical step, I expect the 400f4+1.4xTC combo will work better than the 3002.8+2x, though it certainly may come out close.

 

[dolina]

I dont see a large market for two 500mm L lenses of differing f-numbers.

 

[DanN]

A 400 f/4 and a 1.4x gets you there; maybe the new 400 DO will work well for that.

Jim

+1. It'll be interesting to see how the new DO technology performs.

I'm wondering where the reviews are for this new wonderkin. It's due out in the same time frame as the 7DMkII and pre-release reviews have been trickling out for that for a month now. But we haven't seen anything regarding the new lens. I'm wondering if the DO process is turning out to be more challenging than they thought.

 

[RES-Fan]

An EF 5.6/500 or 5.6/600 is also on my wishlist. As an amateur I cannot shell out 10000 ore more €/$ for a supertelephoto-lens. Attaching converters is just a compromise in most cases.

 

[chromophore]

This has to do with broadly classifying Canon EF lenses into two categories based on whether the front filter diameter is greater than 77 mm, or less than or equal to 77 mm. Lenses which belong in the first class are generally speaking much more expensive than those in the second, with a few exceptions that are explainable by the fact that a few lenses in the first class don't actually have front elements that span the entire diameter (but rather have a makeup ring) and that their large diameter is needed for other reasons related to field of view.

If you take the telephoto/supertelephoto designs as an example, consider the following comparisons:

EF 200/2L IS versus EF 200/2.8L
EF 300/2.8L IS II versus EF 300/4L IS
EF 400/2.8L IS II versus EF 400/5.6L
EF 400/4L DO IS versus EF 400/5.6L

In each case, the former has a front diameter exceeding 77mm, whereas the latter all come in under that limit. But if you try to come in under 77mm for any focal length 500mm or longer, you will find that the fastest f-number for each is (approximately):

500mm: f/6.5
600mm: f/7.8
800mm: f/10.4

And since f/5.6 is the slowest f-number that will permit AF on all current EOS bodies, you can see that there's nothing to be gained to produce a 500/6.5 design to stay under the 77mm front element diameter criterion, because most bodies won't AF; yet to produce a 500/5.6 would require a 90mm front element diameter roughly on par with a 300/2.8 and therefore come in around $5000 minimum.

It just so happens that 77mm is a "sweet spot" that permits lenses like 200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6. Canon's (and Nikon's) production processes are adapted to this size. Any glass that requires a larger diameter becomes MUCH more expensive to produce.

 

[wsmith96]

Perhaps it's because Canon feels that most consumers of such lenses won't want a lens with a starting aperture of f5.6. Just reading this forum (as well as others) you can see how many people are asking for better performance for low light situations. F4's not the best for low light either, but obviously it's a better compromise than f5.6 for capabilities and performance. I also agree with the previous posts of managing the size of the lens as well.

 

[BeenThere]

Canon did have a 500 f/4.5 in their line up, but it is now discontinued. This lens split the difference between being too large and heavy at f/4, or too small an aperture at f/5.6. It must not have been popular because it was discontinued. A great lens though. I have one.

 

[scyrene]

An EF 5.6/500 or 5.6/600 is also on my wishlist. As an amateur I cannot shell out 10000 ore more €/$ for a supertelephoto-lens. Attaching converters is just a compromise in most cases.

I have to disagree. 1.4x extender plus the supertelephotos are essentially as good as bare lenses, both in terms of AF performance and image quality.

 

[chromophore]

Canon did have a 500 f/4.5 in their line up, but it is now discontinued. This lens split the difference between being too large and heavy at f/4, or too small an aperture at f/5.6. It must not have been popular because it was discontinued. A great lens though. I have one.

It was a reasonably popular lens at the time (for those in the market for long lenses). The only alternative in that focal length range was to go way up with the EF 600/4L USM, weighing nearly twice as much. I suppose some photographers elected to use the EF 400/2.8L USM, but it too was twice as heavy. A year after the 500/4.5L was released, the EF 1200/5.6L USM was produced and that, of course, was a different and legendary story altogether.

I think the reason for the 500/4.5's discontinuation had more to do with a desire to refresh the entire supertelephoto lineup with image stabilization. Although the 400/2.8 design was sufficiently popular to justify a redesign in the form of the EF 400/2.8L II USM before putting IS in all their lenses, Canon really saw a need to implement image stabilization for the supertelephotos, and this is really the origin of the optical IS concept among ALL camera lenses. People seem to forget that. The first lenses to receive IS were not the big whites--these were a bit like "proof of concept" cases to see if the technology could succeed in real-world cases. The EF 300/4L IS USM was one of the first such IS lenses. As the technology matured and improved, it rapidly saw its adoption in the big whites.

And this is how the EF 500/4L IS USM was born. One of the more subtle design improvements to this lens to make it feasible was to change the optical formula to put the fluorite element further back, and use cheaper UD glass for the large-diameter positive elements. The new design was heavier by about two pounds, but the added IS and the faster f/4 aperture made it a much more popular design over its predecessor, especially in comparison to the still-heavy EF 400/2.8L IS and 600/4L IS. But many photographers would still choose to get the newly-stabilized 400/2.8. The combination of the f/2.8 aperture, and moderately long focal length made this lens very popular for sports, yet still usable for wildlife with the 1.4x and 2x extenders.

Interestingly, the release of the new 300/2.8L IS II, 400/2.8L IS II, 500/4L IS II, and 600/4L IS II designs meant that the current incarnation of the 500mm design weighs about the same as the 500/4.5L. This is a remarkable feat of engineering, achieved through the use of fluorine coating to eliminate the need for a protective meniscus lens; a redesigned optical formula with two fluorite elements instead of one, to achieve even better chromatic aberration control; and new barrel assembly materials that achieve weight reduction without sacrificing rigidity and strength.

I think it can be said without hesitation that Canon has always made the best supertelephoto lenses for the 35mm format. These lenses have always been at the forefront of lens technology, and their various iterations have essentially been a roadmap of pioneering advances: the use of fluorite crystal; the development of optical image stabilization; and the introduction of diffractive optics to reduce weight. These are Canon's flagships, in a way. It's a shame that they don't seem to devote the same kind of passion toward pushing the boundaries at more conventional focal lengths.

 

[TheJock]

Canon did have a 500 f/4.5 in their line up, but it is now discontinued. This lens split the difference between being too large and heavy at f/4, or too small an aperture at f/5.6. It must not have been popular because it was discontinued. A great lens though. I have one.

How’s the IQ with the f4.5?
There are a few for sale on Ebay, some from Korea and some from USA, they seem to be priced fair so just wondering if it's even a worth while purchase instead of a 400 f5.6

 

[dolina]

^^ the 4.5 was marketed in 1992.

More than 23yo lens design.