# A Canon Supertelephoto Zoom Lens Coming with EOS 6D Mark II? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 6, 2016)

```
We’re told that the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=200-600">much discussed Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS</a> (or similar focal range) could possibly be announced alongside the Canon EOS 6D Mark II. All this source did was confirm to us that the new supertelephoto zoom lens will not be an “L”, but should complete quite favourably against the Sigma and Tamron offerings.</p>
<p>The announcement date is unknown, but the latest guess is a February CP+ announcement for the EOS 6D Mark II.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2016)

600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 6, 2016)

I wonder if they're going to go with something a bit unorthodox like 550mm. Plus there's probably going to be some "rounding down" involved with the f/5.6 figure, as usual.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Oct 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.



f6.3 with 95??mm front element = 598mm maybe more in line? IIRC 95mm is the f.e. size on the tamron, which coincidently is also f6.3 on the long end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.
> ...



Given that Canon has repeatedly stated lenses require f/5.6 for AF on their dSLRs, and that Tamron/Sigma 'spoof' the body to allow AF, I really doubt Canon will release an f/6.3 lens for dSLRs. I could see a 200-500mm f/5.6 or even a 200-550mm f/4.x-5.6 as Sharlin suggests, since with rounding that could come in with a 95mm filter thread.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Oct 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Where I was headed, albeit without directly stating it, was the more recent provisions of f8 capable AF... with the probability of the 6D being "crippled" as some like to say it compared to the 5D and 1D lines, maybe they have a plan to allow it to get to f6.3 or possibly a center point only f8?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> Where I was headed, albeit without directly stating it, was the more recent provisions of f8 capable AF... with the probability of the 6D being "crippled" as some like to say it compared to the 5D and 1D lines, maybe they have a plan to allow it to get to f6.3 or possibly a center point only f8?



An EF zoom lens that won't AF on all Canon dSLRs is probably a non-starter. Even if the 6D can AF at f/8, a Canon EF f/6.3 lens is not at all likely. Especially as a 'budget' option, if it won't AF on Canon's xxxD bodies, forget it.


----------



## sanj (Oct 6, 2016)

Like.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 6, 2016)

Sigh...another zoom instead of a 400 or 500mm (less than $2K) prime.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.



Agree. It would appear that the f/5.6 EF focusing requirement and 600mm do not coexist without an astronomical delta in price. Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6 VR would appear to be what is in order here.

Leave the 500-600 range to the Tamrons and Sigmas, which are f/6.3 on the long end.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2016)

I admit I'm both skeptical and hopeful. I'd love to have an option from Canon. I have the Sigma contemporary and it's actually quite good, if lacking a bit of contrast in my opinion. But, even that one is a heavy lens. Weight being a major reason why I chose the contemporary over the sports model.

But, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of Canon releasing a "bargain" 600mm zoom that is f5.6. For the reasons others have stated, it seems like it starts out as a pretty expensive proposition. I would hope they won't release a poorly performing lens. It's likely to be at least as expensive as the Sigma sports and maybe more, at the very cheapest. It seems like they would be better off to stick to 500 mm, paint it white, add a red ring and sell it for $2,500 - $3,000.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 6, 2016)

Could this actually be something like a 150-450mm with f5.6 at the long end, with a built in flip extender that takes the f5.6 beyond the barrier to a higher f stop when in use ? That could come with an 82mm front element.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> But, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of Canon releasing a "bargain" 600mm zoom that is f5.6. For the reasons others have stated, it seems like it starts out as a pretty expensive proposition. I would hope they won't release a poorly performing lens. It's likely to be at least as expensive as the Sigma sports and maybe more, at the very cheapest. It seems like they would be better off to stick to 500 mm, paint it white, add a red ring and sell it for $2,500 - $3,000.



+1. Make a 100-400L II in a 200-500 package and charge the corresponding price for it. $2,500 seems about right. ...or they make some plastic fantastic that is clearly sub-par to the big whites. I don't see it.

Canon should not lose one wink of sleep over the Tamron and Sigma offerings -- they are margin-prohibitive lenses that they can leave for the little guys to make. 

I continue to see the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR (with first party AF, which is critical!) as the real threat to pull-through, stealing body sales from Canon, etc. It's a very, very solid lens for $1400 that is a clear and a present danger to Canon amateur wildlifers and birders, sales in the 7D brand, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon was selling that at cost in a gambit to boost D500 sales.

- A


----------



## Gert Arijs (Oct 6, 2016)

I'm thinking of buying the Sigma Sport. Not the Tamron, even if the G2 is better, because Tamron zooms the other way (Nikon way) and Sigma zooms the right way (Canon way). It's very confusing for me to use two types of zooming directions. That was the only reason I switched from Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 to the Canon lenses...
Having an option from Canon over Sigma would be welcome!


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 6, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Sigh...another zoom instead of a 400 or 500mm (less than $2K) prime.



Totaly my words


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 6, 2016)

But making a competitor for Tamron and Sigma 150-600 makes sence in a commercial point of view.
And to make it competitor in price it can not be an L Lens. 
So it will be not have


Solid lens body
Weather Sealing
Perfekt IQ

Still, AF is always better, when putting a Canon lens on a Canon Body.


But still i'm not gonna buy it.
IF canon is never making an update of their 2k primes (300mm, 400mm)
I gonna buy the 100-400 IS ii first because it is a L-Lens.

Cheers,


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I continue to see the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR ... a very, very solid lens for $1400 ...
> I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon was selling that at cost in a gambit to boost D500 sales.



LOL! Nikon and Canon would be the last corporations selling anything "at cost". At max. they are only calculating 80% gross margin, instead of 100% ... i estimate "at cost" for that Nikon lens around 800. 


As far as a Non-L Canon 200-xxx zoom is concerned, I'd also think along the lines of 200-550/4.5-5.6 ... also do not believe they'd make an f/6.3 EF lens. On the other hand, they just launched the second EF-M lens with f/6.3 on the long end ... but of course on mirrorless EOS-M system f/8 is no focusing issues.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 6, 2016)

I'm not convinced Canon will cut any significant corners on a lens that costs around $2k. This could be a 'budget' L lens that comes in a bit under the 100-400ii performance but offers a longer end with out a TC/f8 AF.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 6, 2016)

Having had my 100-400 + 1.4x TC III glued to my 5D4 for the past few weeks, I'm pretty happy with doing wildlife at f/8 at about 600mm. 

Give me an f/8 prime in that flavor, and you could have a filter size of 82 and a pretty reasonable price, especially without L build elements. If it beat the 100-400+TC in image quality - which means it'd be pretty darned good - $2k would be about right. 

If the IQ isn't that good, then I think people would stick to the zoom. 

I have difficulty seeing an f/5.6 600 primary element being reasonable in terms of girth, price or weight, but I would be happy to be wrong.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> LOL! Nikon and Canon would be the last corporations selling anything "at cost". At max. they are only calculating 80% gross margin, instead of 100% ... i estimate "at cost" for that Nikon lens around 800.



C'mon. You know there's a lot more in a company's profit than how much it costs to build vs. how much it is sold for. There are middle men, tariffs, commissions, partnerships, etc. that cut into the manufacturer's profits.

So I am not for a moment saying that particular Nikon lens costs $1400 to make. I'm saying that Nikon may be giving up some/all of it's profit margin for that product to get the end price down to that very attractive $1400 asking price. 

B&H, governments, etc. will still get their cut as Nikon cannot stop that from happening, but Nikon can slice into its own profits if they feel it will get pullthrough from other segments. *Like Canon users who would give their left nut to get [longer than 400mm] + [retain first party AF] + [not need a teleconverter] for less than $9k.* 

With lenses, Nikon's usually far too busy trying to plug gaps / keep up with Canon than reach for blue water like this, so I give them credit here. They've shrewdly pegged a product gap and (IMHO) perfectly timed its release alongside the D500. It's a clear-as-day competitive share move, hence my not-so-zany theory Nikon might engineer a way to dangle a very lost cost lens to the 7D camp, birders, etc.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 6, 2016)

If Canon made a non-L 200-600 F6.3 lens, you can bet that it will cost 1.5 times what the sigma sport 150-600 or the V2 Tamron 150-600 will cost...... and if it was F5.6, you can bet on twice the price.....


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 6, 2016)

A prime is useless for what I do, so I have a 70-200II+2xIII and a Sigma 150-600C.

The Sigma is great for range and optics, but the usability is a little less than I had hoped. The zoom ring turns too far and the OS is a little jumpy. I'd be willing to spend some money to trade up to a Canon, especially if it would work well with a 1.4x on f/8-supporting bodies.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 6, 2016)

On the plus side, regardless what this lens turns out to be, maybe this means the 6DII won't be as nerfed as we are generally expecting. Maybe it will have more than the minor incremental bump in AF and fps.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ...They've shrewdly pegged a product gap and (IMHO) perfectly timed its release alongside the D500. It's a clear-as-day competitive share move, hence my not-so-zany theory Nikon might engineer a way to dangle a very lost cost lens to the 7D camp, birders, etc.



I think that is very plausible. The thing is, for birders, the lens and camera are essentially a package. Both the Canon "package" (7DII and 100-400 II) an the Nikon "package" (D500 and 200-500) are essentially the same price. (Although you can pick up the Canon set for less if you watch street price specials and refurbished store discounts)

If all I did was birding (or if it were at least my major interest) it could be a hard call, which I agree is Nikon's strategy.


----------



## pixel8foto (Oct 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! Nikon and Canon would be the last corporations selling anything "at cost". At max. they are only calculating 80% gross margin, instead of 100% ... i estimate "at cost" for that Nikon lens around 800.
> ...



Totally agree - manufacturers will take a hit to profit in order to benefit their overall market share or to enhance reputation against their competitors, particularly if it'll draw new customers in to investing in a system, long term. This seems totally plausible.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 6, 2016)

j-nord said:


> On the plus side, regardless what this lens turns out to be, maybe this means the 6DII won't be as nerfed as we are generally expecting. Maybe it will have more than the minor incremental bump in AF and fps.



This is OT, but I'll bite. What will the 6D2 _*not*_ get from the 5D4? Or, put another way: 'how will Canon nerf the 6D2 to protect the 5D line'?

Best guess:


No 4k
Metering will look a lot more like the 5D3 than the 1DX2 / 5D4
Different sensor: less than 30 MP and -- critically -- it won't outperform the 5D line in low light like it slightly did with the 6D vs the 5D3. That was a minor embarrassment for Canon, IMHO.
1/4000 fastest shutter (this seems to be an inflection point between 'nice' and 'best' in FF, the D750 is similarly nerfed vs. the D810)
Probably not get all the f/8 AF points the 1DX2 and 5D4 received
5-6 fps
Smaller buffer
Less metal, more plastic

But, on the pro side, it kind of _has_ to get DPAF and a tilty-flippy, doesn't it?

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I continue to see the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR ... a very, very solid lens for $1400 ...
> ...



What's ironic is that Tamron actually helped Nikon develop that lens, though it tests superior to the existing Tamron and Sigma super teles. I wouldn't be surprised if some the quid pro quo is what is allowing this improved G2 version of Tamron's own lens.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 7, 2016)

I am not sure that I see the need for this lens, given the Sigma and Tamron ~$1,000.00 offerings. As soon as you get to much above $1,000.00, the buyer contemplates saving for 100-400 L IS II or shopping for a used 100-400 L IS I "classic" (~$850.00 to $1,000.00 on ebay) and maybe buying a 1.4 x teleconverter (for the older "II" TC, $120.00 to $200.00). Now if Canon can manufacture an optically good but not L quality or build lens that is at least $500.00 to $800.00 less expensive than the 100-400 L IS II plus 1.4 x TC, then that might have a market.


----------



## AJ (Oct 7, 2016)

If true this would be the most expensive non-L lens by far.
My guess is they'll paint it white with a red pinstripe.


----------



## dslrdummy (Oct 7, 2016)

I assume that even a non-L 200-500 would still have IS?


----------



## RGF (Oct 7, 2016)

what is the most expensive non-L lens? Is $1500 in the range of current non-L lenses?


----------



## tapanit (Oct 7, 2016)

RGF said:


> what is the most expensive non-L lens?


The 400/4 DO II, of course. After that... I guess the 70-300 DO.

Then probably TS-E 45/2.8 and TS-E 90/2.8, followed by MP-E 65/2.8 macro.

All "normal" EF lenses I can think of are much cheaper, under $1000.
I may be missing something though.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Oct 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Different sensor: less than 30 MP and -- critically -- it won't outperform the 5D line in low light like it slightly did with the 6D vs the 5D3. That was a minor embarrassment for Canon, IMHO.



Not at all. The 60D beat the 7D in several ways (notably in video) despite being only six months newer; now the 80D beats the 7D2, and this time the improvements include a better sensor which is much more fundamental. They're all crop cameras but there's no reason why the same shouldn't happen with the (roughly) corresponding full frame bodies.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.



Bigger than that, actually, if the patent is applicable.

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/


Focal length 200.00 340.00 600.00
F-number 4.60 4.60 5.20

Note that it's actually f/5.2 at 600mm, meaning the entrance pupil is 115.4mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 600mm f/5.6 means a 107mm front element. I'm not seeing that as an inexpensive lens to compete with a $1400 Tamron.
> ...


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Oct 7, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=200-600">much discussed Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS</a> (or similar focal range) could possibly be announced alongside the Canon EOS 6D Mark II. All this source did was confirm to us that the new supertelephoto zoom lens will not be an “L”, but should complete quite favourably against the Sigma and Tamron offerings.</p>
> <p>The announcement date is unknown, but the latest guess is a February CP+ announcement for the EOS 6D Mark II.</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>




Well to clarify, the older EF 28-135mm USM lens is technically a super telephoto. I personally do not see Canon releasing a 200-600mm lens that is NOT an L lens.. Ever... It is very likely there will be a 200-600mm L lens and an update to the 28-135mm coming soon in a NANO USM flavor as a more budget oriented kit lens. The 24-105mm STM lens they release a year or two ago has just crap optics..


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Oct 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > On the plus side, regardless what this lens turns out to be, maybe this means the 6DII won't be as nerfed as we are generally expecting. Maybe it will have more than the minor incremental bump in AF and fps.
> ...



I fully expect the 6D2 to be a full frame equivalent to the 80D in a magnesium body, same specifications, features and focusing system. Just a 24MP FF sensor bigger brother to the 80D.. Tilt/Flip screen is still up for grabs..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2016)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Well to clarify, the older EF 28-135mm USM lens is technically a super telephoto.



Seems you're confusing the term 'superzoom' with the term 'super telephoto'. Even then, as a ~5x zoom the 28-135 barely fits the current definition of a superzoom. Regardless, the 28-135 is certainly NOT a super telephoto, which is taken as focal length(s) longer than 300mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Well to clarify, the older EF 28-135mm USM lens is technically a super telephoto.
> ...



Canon isn't very good at defining this term. For example, the 100-400 is considered a "telephoto zoom" while the 200-400 is considered a "super telephoto". That might lead you to believe it's an aperture thing, since all the super telephoto's have apertures bigger than 75mm. All but one, that is - the 400/5.6, which has the same aperture as the 100-400.

Frankly, I like the aperture definition better than a focal length definition, and I'd remove the 400/5.6 from the super telephoto list.


----------



## arcer (Oct 7, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ExodistPhotography said:
> ...



Actually, the terms are defined quite correctly and it is completely based on focal length. "Telephoto zoom" refers to all zoom lens that can reach 200 or more, while "super telephoto" covers any primes that cover lens 400mm or above and "telephoto" refers to lens covering 100-300mm.

Therefore, you're assumption that it is based on aperture is incorrect and 400/5.6 is a "super telephoto". While all other Canon sites markets the 200-400 as a "Telephoto zoom", only Canon USA made a blatant mistake in putting it in "Super telephoto". Looks like it is a mistake on Canon USA's side and not yours for being misguided.

Reference: All information of the 200-400 "Telephoto zoom" definition were collected from various Canon sites including but not limited to: Canon JP, Canon HK, Canon SG, Canon EU, Canon UK.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> Frankly, I like the aperture definition better than a focal length definition



Your likes aside, aperture has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Macoose (Oct 7, 2016)

Any ideas on the approximate weight for this lens?

Tamron 150-600 G2: 4.50lb (2010g)
Sigma 150-600 C: 4.25lb (1930g)
Sigma 150-600 S: 6.25lb (2860g)

I would think that Canon might try to keep it in the same range.

Just wondering.


----------



## browndt (Oct 8, 2016)

As sure as the sun and moon follow each other, where Nikon goes, Canon follows, and vice versa. Nikon came out with the very affordable 200-500 so my guess is that this is the Canon equivalent, I'd expect it to be around $1500/1600 with similar, but slightly different specs. It would sit well alongside the 400mm f5.6. I'd guess that the AF won't be as fast as the 400mm so the two will complement quite nicely. Maybe use the 400mm f5.6 for BIF, and the longer zoom for objects that don't move as fast. The only concern is whether most budget wildlife people already have the Sigma or Tamron.


----------



## dufflover (Oct 8, 2016)

I agree with the hunches it will be a 200-500mm:
- Nikon have one
- as mentioned, in Canon land 100mm+ front element is automatic super tele region for them, automatic high 4-digit price tag


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 8, 2016)

Macoose said:


> Any ideas on the approximate weight for this lens?
> 
> Tamron 150-600 G2: 4.50lb (2010g)
> Sigma 150-600 C: 4.25lb (1930g)
> ...


I think it's gonna be slightly heavier (close to the Sigma sports i think). 
Because the front element is bigger, cause 5.6 apperture. They can not beat the light sigma or the Tramon, because this would make it a plastic bomber.
If they want to make it the same weight as


----------



## TheJock (Oct 9, 2016)

It’s about time Canon got their act together with this focal length  Where I used to sit in the local hides with all the other Canon’istas there is now an overwhelming shift to the “dark side”, it *must *be a fact that Canon are losing money as even the ones who are still shooting with Canon bodies all have large black lenses.
In any form (200-600, 200-550 etc) it will be a very welcome piece of equipment.


----------



## haggie (Oct 9, 2016)

As soon as the tests for the new EF 70-300 IS II USM are out and if they are good on both IQ and AF-speed, I will get that new 70-300 lens. Although I am just an occasional shooter of birds and airplanes, I feel I might still want some more reach after that. 
The 100-400 IS II USM is too heavy to also be my travel telezoom: the new EF 70-300 IS II USM's size and weight are far more pleasant to carry around in my bag, together with all other equipment in there. 

To complement the new 70-300, a dedicated 200-500 or 200-600 would be ideal for my situation. 
But just like I need on the EF 70-300 IS II USM, the IQ and AF-speed must be adequate then. A 200-500 or 200-600 that focusses too slow to succesfully capture BIF would be of no use to me then.
I think there may be more potential buyers for this lens that have the same requirements for IQ (of course) but in particular for a reasonably fast AF-speed.


----------



## DomTomLondon (Oct 10, 2016)

Come on Canon , can we not get a new 50mm f2 IS USM with the 6DII please.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I like the aperture definition better than a focal length definition
> ...



Right. How on earth does aperture equate with whether a lens is telephoto or not?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 10, 2016)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



It's obvious.... A 300F2.8 is a telephoto lens while a 1200F5.6 is not


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 10, 2016)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).

The most expensive lens under 75mm is the 100-400II, at $1,999. The cheapest of the lenses with apertures over 75mm (which are all over 100mm) is the 200/2 at $5,699. That's a huge gap (75mm to 100mm and $1,999 to $5,699). It is logical to place all the expensive ones, all of which have apertures over 100mm in the "super" category, while the others are not.

I wouldn't call the Opteka 650-1300 "super" just because it's focal length is over 400mm. It's $189.95 and basically just a piece of cheap garbage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).
> 
> The most expensive lens under 75mm is the 100-400II, at $1,999. The cheapest of the lenses with apertures over 75mm (which are all over 100mm) is the 200/2 at $5,699. That's a huge gap (75mm to 100mm and $1,999 to $5,699). It is logical to place all the expensive ones, all of which have apertures over 100mm in the "super" category, while the others are not.
> 
> I wouldn't call the Opteka 650-1300 "super" just because it's focal length is over 400mm. It's $189.95 and basically just a piece of cheap garbage.



Aperture is irrelevant, cost is irrelevant, and your logic is "super" flawed. Incidentally, the 400/5.6 is a supertele lens. 

But hey, you can call things whatever you want. You can use a 22-letter alphabet, start counting from 4, and categorize cameras by the number of buttons they have. Just don't expect others to agree with your 'logic'.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).
> ...


<SARCASM ON>
You are wrong Neuro 

For example, a 600F4 is a telephoto lens, but when you use it with a 1.4X teleconverter, it is now a 840mm F5.6 lens and therefore, no longer a telephoto lens as it is now "slow"..... so with any lens, if you add enough teleconverters you can stop it from being a telephoto lens   

Wikipedia also has it wrong.... they say "In photography and cinematography, a telephoto lens is a specific type of a long-focus lens in which the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length.[1] This is achieved by incorporating a special lens group known as a telephoto group that extends the light path to create a long-focus lens in a much shorter overall design. The angle of view and other effects of long-focus lenses are the same for telephoto lenses of the same specified focal length. Long-focal-length lenses are often informally referred to as telephoto lenses although this is technically incorrect: a telephoto lens specifically incorporates the telephoto group" and made no mention of aperture.....
<SARCASM OFF>


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> .... so with any lens, if you add enough teleconverters you can stop it from being a telephoto lens



Yeah, but can you stop it from being "super"?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).
> ...


 
Canon definition of supertelephoto lenses:
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/super-telephoto

and as Neuro says the 400/5.6 is one of them.

Telephoto lenses https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/lenses/ef/telephoto/telephoto

and the 300mm primes are there down to 135mm.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > .... so with any lens, if you add enough teleconverters you can stop it from being a telephoto lens
> ...


easy.... stack a couple of Vivitar teleconverters and it will no longer be super.....


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 10, 2016)

Whatever they do, it had better be soon- there's a 200-500 5.6 and a D500 on Amazon calling out to me. Either that or (more likely) one of the Sigmas or the new Tamron.


----------



## TheJock (Oct 11, 2016)

Is it just me or does anyone else view this Canon “announcement” as rather strategic considering the new Tamron 150-600 G2?
If the Tammy is equivalent or better than the Sigma Sports then we’re all on a winner, but the ultimate question is how many people will now hold out for an OEM offering?????????


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2016)

as long as tamron only offers zoom lenses with zoom ring turning the wrong way (nikon style) i will not consider their lenses at all, even if IQ were stellar and price rock bottom. it would be very simple and cause minimal cost to match turning direction of zoom (and possibly also focus) rings on lenses to the respective lens mount. only one cog wheel different plus lettering on lens barrel and/or ring. sigma has learned to do it (after many years).

i had tamron 28-75 and 17-50/2.8 a long tome ago. was ok with their iq, but sold them because of wrong ring turn direction. often lost shots in fast-paced moments, because my muscle memory was programmed for canon turn direction. 

tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 11, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> as long as tamron only offers zoom lenses with zoom ring turning the wrong way (nikon style) i will not consider their lenses at all, even if IQ were stellar and price rock bottom. it would be very simple and cause minimal cost to match turning direction of zoom (and possibly also focus) rings on lenses to the respective lens mount. only one cog wheel different plus lettering on lens barrel and/or ring. sigma has learned to do it (after many years).
> 
> i had tamron 28-75 and 17-50/2.8 a long tome ago. was ok with their iq, but sold them because of wrong ring turn direction. often lost shots in fast-paced moments, because my muscle memory was programmed for canon turn direction.
> 
> tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!


Wow!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!



Yeah, at least Canon finally corrected their wrong, unacceptable, utter disrespect toward Canon users with their 28-70/2.8L and 24-70/2.8L lenses which zoomed in the wrong direction, by finally releasing the 24-70/2.8L II that zooms correctly. That was pretty smart of Canon, wasn't it?


----------



## arcer (Oct 11, 2016)

arcer said:


> Actually, the terms are defined quite correctly and it is completely based on focal length. "Telephoto zoom" refers to all zoom lens that can reach 200 or more, while "super telephoto" covers any primes that cover lens 400mm or above and "telephoto" refers to lens covering 100-300mm.
> 
> Therefore, you're assumption that it is based on aperture is incorrect and 400/5.6 is a "super telephoto". While all other Canon sites markets the 200-400 as a "Telephoto zoom", only Canon USA made a blatant mistake in putting it in "Super telephoto". Looks like it is a mistake on Canon USA's side and not yours for being misguided.
> 
> Reference: All information of the 200-400 "Telephoto zoom" definition were collected from various Canon sites including but not limited to: Canon JP, Canon HK, Canon SG, Canon EU, Canon UK.



Thanks guys for omitting my awesome research in Canon's nomenclature that only took me 5 minutes to confirm online. Way to go, woohoo..... Yeah........

Ok, I'll go back to drawing circles in my corner.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Oct 11, 2016)

arcer said:


> arcer said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the terms are defined quite correctly and it is completely based on focal length. "Telephoto zoom" refers to all zoom lens that can reach 200 or more, while "super telephoto" covers any primes that cover lens 400mm or above and "telephoto" refers to lens covering 100-300mm.
> ...



Finally... a prospective test candidate capable of conducting the critical circle-drawing task: Do you have a cat? I'm led to believe, based on about 5 minutes of internet research, that cats will go sit in a circle if you draw one on the floor. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFiN1I7_Gw


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Simple - there is a huge break point in the Canon lineup between lenses with apertures of 75mm or less (400/5.6, 300/4, 100-400, 70-200/2.8) and lenses with larger apertures (200/2, 200-400/4, 400/4DO, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).
> ...



It comes from being a telescope guy, where aperture is everything (because you can't change it) and focal length is nothing (because you can change it).

My 279mm lens:


----------



## arcer (Oct 11, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> Finally... a prospective test candidate capable of conducting the critical circle-drawing task: Do you have a cat? I'm led to believe, based on about 5 minutes of internet research, that cats will go sit in a circle if you draw one on the floor.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFiN1I7_Gw



Luckily, those 5 minutes of research does lead to a small view of the intriguing animal behavior of cats with their circles. I used to trap cats with black gaffer tape when I have to clean the house, they seem to be intrigued by the black circle and can have a few hours of fun in their own fantasy world. Tried it multiple times until they got the wiser and know it was a trick all along.

Oh well...... Do you want to hear more of my cat stories? I studied Animal Behavior in my University btw. Wish I got the super telephoto stuff to shoot birds with though. Observing their living patterns are an exhausting but amusing experience.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Ok, so by your logic since I'm a binocular guy, this is me with my 12x150 spotting scope. 






As I stated, your logic is "super" flawed.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



If you have a viewfinder with a magnification of 1.0, then yes.

The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2016)

No-one is arguing against aperture being important for light gathering. The point at issue is the definition of what is a telephoto or supertelephoto camera lens, and that definition does not depend on aperture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.



Towing capacity is a parameter of primary importance for trucks, since it determines how much stuff you can haul around to get your work done. By your "super" flawed logic, the Porsche Panamera is a better truck than the Toyota Tacoma, since the former has a higher towing capacity.









Or, we could agree with the rest of the world and call the Panamera a sportscar and lenses longer than 300mm supertelephoto lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.
> ...



And a Landrover Defender can out-tow a Dodge Ram

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDhI-K0aAk8


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.



Aperture ultimately controls resolving power?????

Let's bring out the squirrels for this one......

Shot 1 is taken with an F2.8 lens and with a 77mm filter, gathers more light than shot 2, taken with an F4 lens and a smaller 67mm filter. Since the mm's of focal length does not matter, shot 1 should out-resolve shot 2. To demonstrate the resolving power of the two lenses, the images are as shot from the same spot, straight out of the camera, no processing other than to crop the two images to the head of the squirrel . (a fake squirrel was used so there would be no motion issues and the pose would be the same)

So obviously, the first shot resolves more detail than the second.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> So obviously, the first shot resolves more detail than the second.....



Neither image resolves the squirrel's nuts, therefore neither was taken with a "super" lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So obviously, the first shot resolves more detail than the second.....
> ...



HEY! This is a family forum.... I'm trying to keep things PG here...... besides, the stuffed animal is not anatomically correct anyway....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



What are you talking about, Don? I'm talking about nuts...






Something wrong with that?? 8)


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ...tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!



I'm hoping this was meant to be humorous or sarcastic. Because if it is serious it comes across as seriously unhinged.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2016)

You guys seem awfully proud of your big equipment.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...tamron's stubborn refusal to offer their lenses with ring turning direction matched to respective lens mount for market leading Canon EF/EF-S lens mount shows their utter disrespect towards canon users. it is wrong, it is inacceptable, it is stupid and it is punishable: with refusal to buy tamron lenses and by critizing their wrong-turned rings on every occasion. Amen!
> ...



i mean it. Until Tamron gets their act together and equips lenses not only with Canon EF mount but also with correctly turning zoom rings, I will not buy anything from them and advise any Canon user to not buy Tamron lenses. This is a K.O. criterion for me and anybody who needs to zoom IN or OUT fast and correctly on the first attempt in order to get the shot.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> This is a K.O. criterion for me and anybody who needs to zoom IN or OUT fast and correctly on the first attempt in order to get the shot.



I've used Tamron lenses before. It's really not that difficult.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 12, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



My Sigma 18-35/1.8 turns the "wrong way". It's annoying, but tolerable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> My Sigma 18-35/1.8 turns the "wrong way".



Is it the f/1.8 aperture that makes it an "ultra" wide lens?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > This is a K.O. criterion for me and anybody who needs to zoom IN or OUT fast and correctly on the first attempt in order to get the shot.
> ...


I had to go check my Tammy..... he is right! It does zoom the wrong way 
I just got so used to using it that it became automatic to me and I stopped noticing....


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > This is a K.O. criterion for me and anybody who needs to zoom IN or OUT fast and correctly on the first attempt in order to get the shot.
> ...



i have owned and used Tamron lenses before. It is a major PITA. I have sold my Tamron zooms because of that (and no IS at the time). And to me it is a matter of principle too: if Tamron wants to sell lenses to Canon users, they better suck up to them instead of trying to force wrong Nikon ways on them. It takes so very little to match zoom ring turn direction to lens mount: 1 different cog wheel and reversed lettering on zoom ring. Tamron has to step up to it, just like Sigma did. Especially, since Canon EF mount is market leading. 

Very stupid, Tamron!


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I had to go check my Tammy..... he is right! It does zoom the wrong way
> I just got so used to using it that it became automatic to me and I stopped noticing....



No problem which way they turn, as long as all the lenses in use turn the same direction! But most Canon users will also have Canon zoom and mixing those with wrong turn zooms causes problems, if you zoom the wrong direction on first attempt ... in fast paced moments it leads to lost shots. 

And again: it is a matter of principle! Canon rulez, so Tamron has to play by Canon rules. Simple as that.


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 14, 2016)

How difficult is to manual focusing during video shooting? How is Servo shooting compared to 70d. Keeping a watch on 6D sales and see If I can replace 70d with 6D by the time 6D2 comes out.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, on a telephoto lens, the parameter of primary importance is the aperture, since that ultimately controls both light gathering ability and resolving power.
> ...



Yes - resolving power is ultimately limited by diffraction and diffraction is limited by aperture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution#Explanation


----------



## Corydoras (Oct 15, 2016)

If Canon is going to release a budget super telephoto lens to be used with 6D Mark II, this will probably mean that the new 6D is going to get a considerably better focusing system than the current 6D has. At least I hope it means that.


----------



## colinrb (Oct 15, 2016)

I think a 200-600mm f4-5.6L would be very large, heavy and expensive.

Having used the 100-400mm MKII for a few months, I would rather see another upgrade than the above, as follows, make it an f4-5.6 (I hate lenses that don't have full stop maximum apertures, and this the only one I have ever had), the long end needs a little improvement in quality, then build in the 1.4x extender as the 200-400mm f4L.
You could then zoom from 100mm to 560mm without having to carry an extender, and for me would cover a better range than the above lens.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 15, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> How difficult is to manual focusing during video shooting? How is Servo shooting compared to 70d. Keeping a watch on 6D sales and see If I can replace 70d with 6D by the time 6D2 comes out.



you can one of your lenses on the 6D???


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 15, 2016)

There is a bit of a pricing mystery here.

Plot the focal length/aperature on a piece of paper and dropping in a usable 200-600 for even $2k clips the knees out of alot of the primes that are.... well not $2k. I know they are 1 stop faster.

Getting focal range coverage at the minimum price, and then how much would it cost to buy an extra stop across the range?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 15, 2016)

colinrb said:


> I think a 200-600mm f4-5.6L would be very large, heavy and expensive.
> 
> Having used the 100-400mm MKII for a few months, I would rather see another upgrade than the above, as follows, make it an f4-5.6 (I hate lenses that don't have full stop maximum apertures, and this the only one I have ever had), the long end needs a little improvement in quality, then build in the 1.4x extender as the 200-400mm f4L.
> You could then zoom from 100mm to 560mm without having to carry an extender, and for me would cover a better range than the above lens.



Canon made a full frame 150-600 f5.6L, you can buy them on eBay for between $3,000-$10,000. It is manual focus and even the youngest ones are over twenty years old.

P.S. This one has been converted to EF from FD mount.


----------

