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



## Helios68 (Oct 23, 2014)

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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

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 (Oct 23, 2014)

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


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2014)

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 (Oct 23, 2014)

Helios68 said:


> 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 (Oct 23, 2014)

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 (Oct 23, 2014)

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

Jim


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 23, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:



> 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 (Oct 23, 2014)

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 (Oct 23, 2014)

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


----------



## DanN (Oct 23, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


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



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 (Aug 4, 2015)

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 (Aug 5, 2015)

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 (Aug 9, 2015)

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 (Aug 9, 2015)

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 (Aug 9, 2015)

RES-Fan said:


> 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 (Aug 9, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

^^ the 4.5 was marketed in 1992.

More than 23yo lens design.


----------



## danski0224 (Aug 16, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> 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 (Aug 17, 2015)

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 (Aug 17, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Stewart K said:
> 
> 
> > How’s the IQ with the f4.5?
> ...


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 (Aug 17, 2015)

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 (Aug 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Aug 17, 2015)

because not as profitable as other options


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 17, 2015)

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 (Aug 17, 2015)

NancyP said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2015)

RGF said:


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


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 (Aug 18, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


+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 (Aug 18, 2015)

RGF said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2015)

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 (Aug 19, 2015)

nc0b said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2015)

Not at that price! $2500 max.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 20, 2015)

nc0b said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2015)

RGF said:


> 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.



nc0b said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2015)

Stewart K said:


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


+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 (Aug 20, 2015)

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 (Aug 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> *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?
> ...



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.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Aug 21, 2015)

P_R said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Aug 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Aug 23, 2015)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 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?).
> ...


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 (Aug 23, 2015)

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 (Aug 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 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?
> ...



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


----------



## westcoastcanon (Aug 26, 2015)

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.


----------

