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

[danski0224]

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

The IQ of the USM and not IS lenses is said to nearly equal current production lenses, although weight and MFD have been brought down considerably in the VII big whites.

The 200 f/1.8, 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4.5 are all stellar performers, even today. Those are the only ones that I would consider, depending on price.

The 500 f/4.5 is in another league in comparison to the 400 f/5.6.

One big issue is that all of these USM, non IS lenses are no longer serviced by Canon. Being able to get them repaired anywhere is a long shot at best... an impossibility is much more realistic.

They require power to focus manually. There is no manual focus at all- the lenses are focus by wire like the 50mm f/1.0 and 85mm f/1.2 and current STM motor lenses.

You also need to AFMA the lens to the camera.

If you are OK with buying one knowing that it is most likely junk should it stop working... then do it.

Keep in mind that the VI IS big whites will also be obsoleted by Canon and no longer serviced at some point.

 

[stochasticmotions]

Interesting that as this thread is moving along Nikon has come out with a 200-500 f5.6 lens that looks to be trying to compete with the Tamron and Sigma big zooms. I do wonder if Canon has been looking at something similar or is just watching to see if it is worth trying to compete. If that lens is reasonably good, especially at 500, it could compete with the Nikon 80-400 that is significantly higher priced.

Looking forward to seeing what/if canon brings to the game, zoom or fixed.

 

[BeenThere]

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

The IQ of the USM and not IS lenses is said to nearly equal current production lenses, although weight and MFD have been brought down considerably in the VII big whites.

The 200 f/1.8, 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4.5 are all stellar performers, even today. Those are the only ones that I would consider, depending on price.

The 500 f/4.5 is in another league in comparison to the 400 f/5.6.

One big issue is that all of these USM, non IS lenses are no longer serviced by Canon. Being able to get them repaired anywhere is a long shot at best... an impossibility is much more realistic.

They require power to focus manually. There is no manual focus at all- the lenses are focus by wire like the 50mm f/1.0 and 85mm f/1.2 and current STM motor lenses.

You also need to AFMA the lens to the camera.

If you are OK with buying one knowing that it is most likely junk should it stop working... then do it.

True about the old lenses no longer being serviced. I have one of the original EF 600mm f/4 L lenses, purchased new back in the 90s, that the AF died suddenly. I can't get it repaired by canon or anyone else because parts are no longer available. It's hard to just throw it in the trash bin!

 

[NancyP]

It might be worthwhile to get one of the old manual focus only lenses, as parts can be milled for those by SK Grimes or one of the other custom lens repair places, but I would be very reluctant to get a focus by wire lens. My focus by wire pancake lenses can be pitched, or made into bellows macro lenses, when they go bad. Not much can be done with a supertelephoto lens that won't focus either by AF or manual focus.

 

[StudentOfLight]

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...

At what front-element size does Canon switch over to the rear drop-in filters?

 

[RGF]

because not as profitable as other options

 

[Don Haines]

400F5.6..... A lot of people say the lens is not needed because of how good the 100-400 version 2 is....

But remember, we are comparing a new design to a 20+ year old design.... A new 400F5.6 should be considerably better than the new 100-400, particularly when teleconverters are used. Similarly, a 500F5.6 should be considerably better than a 400 with a teleconverter. There is a market for all these lenses.... Primes have better IQ, zooms are more versatile.... Which one to get depends on your needs.

The zooms sell better, that's why they get updated first.... Now is the time for those few primes which sold Ok ( not great), but were still profitable. I expect to see a new 400F5.6 and a 500F5.6. They are not for everyone, but for those who want them, they will be welcome.

 

[danski0224]

It might be worthwhile to get one of the old manual focus only lenses, as parts can be milled for those by SK Grimes or one of the other custom lens repair places, but I would be very reluctant to get a focus by wire lens. My focus by wire pancake lenses can be pitched, or made into bellows macro lenses, when they go bad. Not much can be done with a supertelephoto lens that won't focus either by AF or manual focus.

I suppose that the entry fee is a big consideration.

One can buy a couple of these older USM lenses for the cost of just one VII IS lens.

The VI IS lenses will also be obsoleted, but those can be focused without power and I think that if the IS module fails, it fails in a neutral state.

For those that want to join the Big White club but lack the disposable income or business income to do so otherwise, these lenses may be the only way in.

It would royally suck to shell out the dough and have the lens crap out soon after... but that's one possible reality.

Of course, the lens could work for years to come, when people are trying to find IS modules for the obsolete VI lenses

 

[RGF]

400F5.6..... A lot of people say the lens is not needed because of how good the 100-400 version 2 is....

But remember, we are comparing a new design to a 20+ year old design.... A new 400F5.6 should be considerably better than the new 100-400, particularly when teleconverters are used. Similarly, a 500F5.6 should be considerably better than a 400 with a teleconverter. There is a market for all these lenses.... Primes have better IQ, zooms are more versatile.... Which one to get depends on your needs.

The zooms sell better, that's why they get updated first.... Now is the time for those few primes which sold Ok ( not great), but were still profitable. I expect to see a new 400F5.6 and a 500F5.6. They are not for everyone, but for those who want them, they will be welcome.

There might be a market for such a lens, but a what price? Canon needs to price the lens to cover design and manufacturing costs as well as factor in cannibalization of other lens.

Canon has the 100-400 II which is a great lens for the price and the old 400 F5.6 Everything else is VERY expensive. Would a $2K to 2.5K 400mm or 500mm F5.6 lens sell?

 

[Don Haines]

400F5.6..... A lot of people say the lens is not needed because of how good the 100-400 version 2 is....

But remember, we are comparing a new design to a 20+ year old design.... A new 400F5.6 should be considerably better than the new 100-400, particularly when teleconverters are used. Similarly, a 500F5.6 should be considerably better than a 400 with a teleconverter. There is a market for all these lenses.... Primes have better IQ, zooms are more versatile.... Which one to get depends on your needs.

The zooms sell better, that's why they get updated first.... Now is the time for those few primes which sold Ok ( not great), but were still profitable. I expect to see a new 400F5.6 and a 500F5.6. They are not for everyone, but for those who want them, they will be welcome.

There might be a market for such a lens, but a what price? Canon needs to price the lens to cover design and manufacturing costs as well as factor in cannibalization of other lens.

Canon has the 100-400 II which is a great lens for the price and the old 400 F5.6 Everything else is VERY expensive. Would a $2K to 2.5K 400mm or 500mm F5.6 lens sell?

I can't answer for anyone but me, but personally I have no interest in the 100-400 yet I would be first in line for a new 400F5.6 or even better, a 500F5.6.

 

[StudentOfLight]

400F5.6..... A lot of people say the lens is not needed because of how good the 100-400 version 2 is....

But remember, we are comparing a new design to a 20+ year old design.... A new 400F5.6 should be considerably better than the new 100-400, particularly when teleconverters are used. Similarly, a 500F5.6 should be considerably better than a 400 with a teleconverter. There is a market for all these lenses.... Primes have better IQ, zooms are more versatile.... Which one to get depends on your needs.

The zooms sell better, that's why they get updated first.... Now is the time for those few primes which sold Ok ( not great), but were still profitable. I expect to see a new 400F5.6 and a 500F5.6. They are not for everyone, but for those who want them, they will be welcome.

There might be a market for such a lens, but a what price? Canon needs to price the lens to cover design and manufacturing costs as well as factor in cannibalization of other lens.

Canon has the 100-400 II which is a great lens for the price and the old 400 F5.6 Everything else is VERY expensive. Would a $2K to 2.5K 400mm or 500mm F5.6 lens sell?

I can't answer for anyone but me, but personally I have no interest in the 100-400 yet I would be first in line for a new 400F5.6 or even better, a 500F5.6.

+1, My Tamron 150-600 VC would definitely be on the chopping block if a Canon 500mm f/5.6L IS USM was available.

Usable wide open, and not astronomically priced... $1,600-2,000 seems a fair price range.

 

[bholliman]

Would a $2K to 2.5K 400mm or 500mm F5.6 lens sell?

I think so. The 100-400II is a terrific lens, but lots of wildlife photographers don't need the full zoom range and would be willing to pay in this price range for a 400/5.6 IS or 500/5.6 IS. I would be if I didn't already have a 300/2.8 II and extenders.

 

[nc0b]

I have the 400mm f/5.6 (& 300mm f/4) and when shooting wildlife almost always could use more reach. Tried the Sigma 150-600mm Sport model zoom, which takes great pictures but is very heavy. I would love a 400 or 500mm IS prime that focuses as lightning fast as the 400mm f/5.6 and isn't nearly as heavy as the Sigma.

 

[BeenThere]

I have the 400mm f/5.6 (& 300mm f/4) and when shooting wildlife almost always could use more reach. Tried the Sigma 150-600mm Sport model zoom, which takes great pictures but is very heavy. I would love a 400 or 500mm IS prime that focuses as lightning fast as the 400mm f/5.6 and isn't nearly as heavy as the Sigma.

Sounds like you want the 400mm DO II.

 

[nc0b]

Not at that price! $2500 max.

 

[Don Haines]

Not at that price! $2500 max.

+1

It's not a case of getting the best lens, it's getting the best lens you can afford....

 

[TheJock]

Would a $2K to 2.5K 400mm or 500mm F5.6 lens sell?

I would be all over that in a heartbeat!! Especially a 500mm at under $3,000.

I have the 400mm f/5.6 (& 300mm f/4) and when shooting wildlife almost always could use more reach.

Likewise, I would love a 500mm or 600mm prime for under the magic $3,000, that would just complete my bag as I always find I’m lacking in reach, we can wish

 

[StudentOfLight]

Would a $2K to 2.5K 400mm or 500mm F5.6 lens sell?

I would be all over that in a heartbeat!! Especially a 500mm at under $3,000.

I have the 400mm f/5.6 (& 300mm f/4) and when shooting wildlife almost always could use more reach.

Likewise, I would love a 500mm or 600mm prime for under the magic $3,000, that would just complete my bag as I always find I’m lacking in reach, we can wish

+1
I would even be willing to live with some compromises (e.g. vignette wide open and even some corner-softness) if it is at least super sharp in the central third. That could still be very useful with a TC (assuming you have a more-expensive body that can AF at f/8) or on APS-C without threatening the big white lenses.

p.s. I hope the next generation of high-end bodies will have more f/8 AF-points.

 

[9VIII]

600f5.6 is exactly the same front element size as 300f2.8.
It would be better than a 300f2.8+TC, but there's no way a 600mm lens will ever cost less than the current 300f2.8.

 

[P_R]

Why doesn't Canon have a 50/1.0 in their lineup?
Why doesn't Canon have a 24-120/f4 in their lineup?
Why doesn't Canon have a 15-30/f2.8 in their lineup?
Why doesn't Canon have a 150-600/f5.6-6.3 in their lineup?
...

FFS...

Not sure of the other three, but the 50mm/f1.0 is most likely not available any longer due to:

Cost, likely to be twice the cost of the f/1.2, so >$4k or more?
Size, large front element equals weight.
Performance, try nailing f/1.0 on your subject matter. And used in low light to take advantage of f/1.0 might be even harder. Corner softness and vignetting at f/1.0 may be higher than desired.
Relevance, better low light performance with DSLR might negate the need for such an extremely wide aperture
Competition, no one has an f/1.2 except Canon and it has AF, so why produce and even faster 50mm lens?

It has been mentioned that the 50mm wars with Nikon were about who could produce the fastest standard lens, so viewed through that prism, the f/1.0 is akin to landing on the moon. And once done, there was no need to go there again. I for one would love to have a new version of this lens, and go to the moon, but I suspect neither will happen.