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

[Steve Balcombe]

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?

Cost is not really an issue if the lens is desirable enough. All the big whites cost much more than that; the 11-24 is $3k. But in any case there's no reason why it should cost a lot more than the 85/1.2 as it would be about the same size, and that's only $2k.

Focusing would be a challenge, but these lenses are not intended for point'n'shooters.

 

[RGF]

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?).

think about a 500 F4. The f5.6 would have 1/4 the glass and ~ 1/4 the cost plus a bit more. 4K seems high, perhaps closer to 3K.

 

[Don Haines]

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?).

think about a 500 F4. The f5.6 would have 1/4 the glass and ~ 1/4 the cost plus a bit more. 4K seems high, perhaps closer to 3K.

I don't think the cost scales linearly.... You pay a lot of "luxury tax" to get the fastest lenses, plus Canon knows that price is a big factor in a 500F5.6 or a 600F5.6 lens, certainly more than the F4 lenses where "cost is no object"

 

[TheJock]

I simply can’t understand why a prime 500mmL or 600mmL at f5.6 or f6.3 can’t fit in between the current pricing.
There’s quite a gap ($4,550!!!) between the current 400 f5.6 and the next cheapest big white prime which is the DO version 1. How could we not see a 500mm f5.6 for $3,000?? It’d still be twice the price of the 400 f5.6 which puts it out of reach for quite a lot of people, but not quite as expensive as the fully professional big whites.

400 f5.6 = $1,250
400 f4 DO 1 = $5,800
400 f4 DO 2 = $6,900
400 f2.8 = $10,000

500 f4 = $9,000

600 f4 = $11,500

 

[RunAndGun]

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...

Will you settle for 17-120/T2.95-3.9? 8)

 

[westcoastcanon]

A 500mm F5.6L IS lens with 95mm front filter threads seems like the sweet spot. This would be smaller and lighter than Nikon's 200-500 zoom and hopefully a higher quality optic at somewhere north of $2,000.