# If only Canon made this lens



## Cosmicbug (Nov 15, 2014)

Canon EF 500mm f5.6L IS.

For bird and wildlife photographers who can't afford the f4.
Like to regularly hand hold their equipment in the wild
A sharp prime weighing less than a 300 f2.8
Enough reach without convertors and their associated drop in AF speed and IQ

Costing $2.5k

Just a thought


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 15, 2014)

Cosmicbug said:


> Canon EF 500mm f5.6L IS.
> 
> For bird and wildlife photographers who can't afford the f4.
> Like to regularly hand hold their equipment in the wild
> ...


 
There are lots of photographers who would like it to happen. The reality is that it would likely sell for $3500, and few would pay that much. It would be a very large lens, about the size of the Sigma 150-600 Sport, which is smaller only because its f/6.3. I also doubt that it would weigh less than the 300mm f/2.8 due to the additional metal in the longer length, and the thicker metal needed to withstand more bending stress.

One of the issues I had with my 400mm f/5.6 was its length and its long MFD. A 500mm would be longer and larger in diameter. A zoom has a advantage in that they are shorter when zoomed wide, and can have close mfd's without getting excessively long while zoomed wide.

If Canon could put one out for that price, I'm sure there would be many buyers, I'd prefer a 200-500mm zoom that would be shorter when stored. I could live with f/6.3 as well, but Canon seems to have a limit at f/5.6, and won't send false exif info to a camera just to get around the limitation of the cameras.


----------



## dolina (Nov 15, 2014)

I base the grouping on the diameter of the front element of the lens

Guestimate price of a modern 500mm f/5.6 IS

71.43mm
$2,200 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS II; 1.59kg
$2,300 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II

89.29mm (theoretical price & weight)
$4,000-5,000 500mm f/5.6 IS
1.59-1.94kg

95.24mm
$2,000 Sigma 150-600mm f5.0-6.3; 2.86kg

100mm
$6,000 200mm f/2.0 IS
$6,470 400mm f/4.0 DO IS; 1.94kg
$11,800 200-400mm f/4.0 IS

107.14mm
$6,600 300mm f/2.8 IS II

125mm
$9,500 500mm f/4.0 IS II; 3.19kg

Within context f/5.6 and smaller f-numbers are equated to lower price tags but the front element's diameter is a better indicator for pricing.

Now why does Canon make five lenses with a maximum focal length of 400mm and only one lens whose maximum focal length is 500mm, 600mm and 800mm?

Pretty much demand is not large enough for more than one f-number at these focal lengths.

I was also hoping for a 500mm f/5.6 as 400mm f/5.6 is largely useless in the Philippines for birds in the wild.

Now, the lens would sell for 1/2 of a 500mm f/4 IS II at below 2kg. As for height, length and depth I cannot really say.

Sigma on the other hand would be best in the position to offer such a lens at the price you are asking for.

In fact Sigma does make a 500mm f/4.5 without OS at $5,000 at 3.09kg.


----------



## Cosmicbug (Nov 15, 2014)

dolina said:


> I base the grouping on the diameter of the front element of the lens
> 
> Guestimate price of a modern 500mm f/5.6 IS
> 
> ...



You beat me to the above calcs. 
As a user of astronomical refractors, the objective diameter usually determines the weight and volume. 
However I'm not sure it's due to lack of demand but more a case of why sell one when you can sell two!!


----------



## dolina (Nov 15, 2014)

Cosmicbug said:


> You beat me to the above calcs.
> As a user of astronomical refractors, the objective diameter usually determines the weight and volume.
> However I'm not sure it's due to lack of demand but more a case of why sell one when you can sell two!!


More like economics of scale. Any sort of manufacturing with such a high quality control targets have a very high fixed cost.

If the demand is not high enough to make more than one f-number at a given focal length then you are either sell one f-number per focal length (500mm, 600mm & 800mm) or no f-number (1200mm).

Ever wondered why Sony's $13,000 500mm f/4.0 is more expensive than Canon or Nikons 600mm f/4.0? Simply put there aren't enough Sony users, period.


----------



## Cosmicbug (Nov 15, 2014)

dolina said:


> Cosmicbug said:
> 
> 
> > You beat me to the above calcs.
> ...



Maybe so...
Whatever the reason, it is a lens I would like to own and stop me dreaming about 300 f2.8 /400 f4 with convertors and the /500 f4. 
Incidently, i had the 100-400 but swapped it out for the non IS 400 f5.6 due to better IQ. Maybe the mk2 100-400 with 1.4x will be a sharp combination!


----------



## dolina (Nov 15, 2014)

You may want to re-title the subject to get more people to participate in the discussion.



Cosmicbug said:


> Maybe so...
> Whatever the reason, it is a lens I would like to own and stop me dreaming about 300 f2.8 /400 f4 with convertors and the /500 f4.
> Incidently, i had the 100-400 but swapped it out for the non IS 400 f5.6 due to better IQ. Maybe the mk2 100-400 with 1.4x will be a sharp combination!


I would love to own one as well. Less than 2kg 500mm would be awesome walk around lens & be more useful to me than any 400mm f/5.6 lens.


----------



## dolina (Nov 16, 2014)

Here's a 500mm f/5.6 at http://www.adorama.com/KWTP556.html

Price: $3,355
Dimensions: 10.16 x 34.03 cm
Weight: 1.96 kg


----------



## pierlux (Nov 16, 2014)

The announcement, or development announcement, of a Canon 500mm f/5.6 L IS within a year or so is the only event which would prevent me from buying a third-party 150-600 zoom for my 7D2.

I've just started saving for the Sigma, the new Canon 100-400 is not an option because I love the compactness and great IQ of my 70-300 L so I wouldn't renounce to it and only 100mm advantage at the long end is not enough to justify the cost of something that would leave me hungry for more reach anyway.

+1 for the 500 f/5.6!


----------



## Cosmicbug (Nov 16, 2014)

dolina said:


> Here's a 500mm f/5.6 at http://www.adorama.com/KWTP556.html
> 
> Price: $3,355
> Dimensions: 10.16 x 34.03 cm
> Weight: 1.96 kg



Shame it's manual focus. I use a couple of quality refractors for photography but no good for BIF.


----------

