# Chances of a Canon 200-600?



## Sabaki (Nov 22, 2015)

So I've watched over the last year or so, the rather large number of wildlife photographers down here in South Africa, buying the Sigma 150-600 and judging from Facebook resolutions, it doesn't look like a bad performer. 

Having friends who frequent nature reserves, I am often told that 400mm is enough for large to medium sized game but for birding, you realistically want a 600mm (zoom or fixed). 

I'm strongly thinking that Canon needs an enthusiast level L series lens that could cover 500 or 600mm. Here are my candidates based on my own want:
• Canon EF 200-600 f/5.6 IS L
• Canon EF 500mm f/5.6 IS L
• Canon EF 600mm f/5.6 IS L

Now I know the 600mm named above is a bit of a reach (see what I did there!?) but I want that aperture as I'd want to use a 1.4 tele on there and maintain autofocus at f/8.0

So total flight-of-fancy post here but what would your 'cheapy' L series 500mm or 600mm lens look like?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 22, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> So I've watched over the last year or so, the rather large number of wildlife photographers down here in South Africa, buying the Sigma 150-600 and judging from Facebook resolutions, it doesn't look like a bad performer.
> 
> Having friends who frequent nature reserves, I am often told that 400mm is enough for large to medium sized game but for birding, you realistically want a 600mm (zoom or fixed).
> 
> ...



I believe it has been pointed out elsewhere that the physical aperture of a 600 5.6 is the same as a 300 2.8; while savings could be made with materials and build quality, it's still gonna be an expensive lens. A fixed aperture zoom ending at that focal length even more so. Sorry, I'm not good at flights of fancy


----------



## rs (Nov 22, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So I've watched over the last year or so, the rather large number of wildlife photographers down here in South Africa, buying the Sigma 150-600 and judging from Facebook resolutions, it doesn't look like a bad performer.
> ...



A 500/5.6 has an 89.3mm entrance pupil - still much bigger than a 200/2.8 or 400/5.6 (71.4mm), but the cost would be significantly lower than a 600/5.6 (107.1mm). The 150-600 Tamron/Sigma duo all have a 6.3 aperture at the long end, leading to a 95.2mm entrance pupil. Seeing as the Tamron and Sigma C use a 95mm filter, it indicates there's some exaggeration regarding how long the lenses are and/or how large the aperture is.

What about the more portable option of a Canon 100-400 II on a 7D II? Zooms up to an equivalent of 640mm, and AF will still function if you add a 1.4x TC.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 22, 2015)

The 200-400 f/4 L has an internal 1.4xTC which when in use gives you 280-560mm f/5.6. So the lens in it's totality covers 200-560mm f/4-5.6.

The 400mm f/5.6 L while an excellent lens could be updated to include IS, but the new 100-400 is already so good that it seems like that would be wasted effort on Canon's part.

With Nikon releasing the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 VR and 300mm f/4E PF VR, Canon no longer has a white-knuckled grip on the market for high performance "budget" wildlife/telephoto lenses. 

Many people are trading in 400L for 100-400L II or (worse for Canon) Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses. Perhaps an EF "500/5.6" L IS USM (or 490mm f/5.7) is worth Canon's time and resources.


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2015)

a lot of people would like to see canon version 150-600 type lens but i don't see them selling a lens like that for less than the 100-400ii which is not a "cheapo lens" 

the wishing crowd wants higher performance than the 3rd party options which are very good. 

as others have stated: canon has the right fl/aperture range lenses for just about every sports and wildlife application. its mainly the prices that are the drawback.


----------



## RGF (Nov 27, 2015)

Nikon has the new 200-500 F5.6 lens. Looks very nice. Extra 100mm on the long end of the 100-400 would be great.

On the long end (assuming it is truly 500) this lens on a 7D M2 would be 800 vs 100-400 at 640. This difference is significant. Hopefully the lens would be EF, EF-S.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> So I've watched over the last year or so, the rather large number of wildlife photographers down here in South Africa, buying the Sigma 150-600 and judging from Facebook resolutions, it doesn't look like a bad performer.
> 
> Having friends who frequent nature reserves, I am often told that 400mm is enough for large to medium sized game but for birding, you realistically want a 600mm (zoom or fixed).
> 
> ...


A 600F5.6 should be of similar size and price to a 300F2.8..... about $7,000 here in Canada and in no way could it be considered an affordable lens....

The current 400F5.6 goes for $1350 here. Improve the optics and materials to modern standards and throw in IS and you are probably looking at a $2000 lens. This lens should be sharper than the 100-400 II, significantly better with a teleconverter.

A 500F5.6 is going to be somewhere in the middle, probably around $3500....


----------



## sulla (Nov 29, 2015)

Wasn't there a rumour a while ago about an affordable supertelephoto lens? According to Canon "supertelephoto" starts at 500.
Now that Nikon can do a really very affordable zoom to 500mm, Canon sure could keep pace. I'm also sure they are hurt a lot by Tamron and the two Sigma's 600 zooms.
Canon is sure not to release a lens with an aperture smaller than 5.6, so I believe they won't release a direct competitor to Tamron and Sigma, for a 200-600 5.6 lens would be outright more expensive than those 3 lenses. But a Canon competitor to the Nikon offering should be possibe. However, if Nikon's lens was a surprise to Canon, development of a Canon 500 zoom should take a loooooong while.

Let's look at the fixed lenses instead: The 600 f/4L is around USD 11000, so a 600 5.6L could be around USD 5000 at the same build and IQ. But, you know, build and IQ don't need to match the 600 f/4L - and probably should not do it, as this could hurt f/4L sales too much - and a 600 5.6 non-L could be made for probably much less than USD 5000, about half of this would bring it into the affordable range for many. Yes, this lens would include a huge 110mm front element, but probably it could be manufactured from simpler, thus cheaper glass and shape. Wouldn't be L any more, but could bring price down a good deal. Special glass for the smaller rear-elements could correct for the cheaper front element then.

In all, I believe there is a chance for an affordable Canon super-telephoto 600 lens or 500 zoom.
But not a 600 zoom, no.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 29, 2015)

sulla said:


> Wasn't there a rumour a while ago about an affordable supertelephoto lens? According to Canon "supertelephoto" starts at 500.
> Now that Nikon can do a really very affordable zoom to 500mm, Canon sure could keep pace. I'm also sure they are hurt a lot by Tamron and the two Sigma's 600 zooms.
> Canon is sure not to release a lens with an aperture smaller than 5.6, so I believe they won't release a direct competitor to Tamron and Sigma, for a 200-600 5.6 lens would be outright more expensive than those 3 lenses. But a Canon competitor to the Nikon offering should be possibe. However, if Nikon's lens was a surprise to Canon, development of a Canon 500 zoom should take a loooooong while.
> 
> ...


I can't see a 400F5.6 as the new 100-400 is so good..... But I can definitely see a 500F5.6..... Even at a very high quality build, I can see it squeaking in at just under $3000, but as a non-L lens perhaps even half that.

Like you, I wonder about that promise of an affordable super-telephoto.... As to impact on sales of the monster whites, I agree that an "affordable" L supertelephoto would definitely cut into them, but my bet is that they would sell so many more of the slower ones that it would be a net increase in sales....


----------



## Dekaner (Nov 29, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> The 200-400 f/4 L has an internal 1.4xTC which when in use gives you 280-560mm f/5.6. So the lens in it's totality covers 200-560mm f/4-5.6.



What StudentOfLight said. This lens already exists. It is very unlikely that we'll see another zoom in this range from Canon beyond the 100-400 and the 200-400. I'm still patiently waiting for an updated 800mm and to see what Canon is going to do with DO. Perhaps a 600 5.6 DO is possible. I'm sure Canon is waiting to see how well the 400 DO is received.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 7, 2015)

Canon has just released a patent for a 200-600mm f5.6 lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-07

My guess is that the weight and price would be closer to the Sigma S 150-600mm.


----------



## candc (Dec 7, 2015)

Interesting. The patent is for a non extending zoom with a 355mm length. More like a larger version of the sigma 120-300s which is 291mm with a 105mm front element. A 600 f/5.6 would need 107

p.s. guess again on the price.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

I've been saying a cheap 300-600 f/6.3 IS is sorely needed for a while, and look what just cropped up:

http://photorumors.com/2015/12/06/canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6l-usm-full-frame-lens-patent/

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 7, 2015)

Looks like a possibility now, even though chances are not that high


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 13, 2015)

candc said:


> Interesting. The patent is for a non extending zoom with a 355mm length. More like a larger version of the sigma 120-300s which is 291mm with a 105mm front element. A 600 f/5.6 would need 107
> 
> p.s. guess again on the price.



You might have the wrong patent. See Japanese Patent 2015-212724 

It has six possible configurations listed. These are likely $50K video lenses

1. 3X 200mm f/4.6 - 600mm f/5.20 (FF)
2. 20X 50mm f/4.7-1000mm f/7.20 (super 35)
3. 10X 60mm f/4.5-600mm f/5.58 (FF)
4. 10X60mm f/4.5-600mm f/5.53 (FF)
5. 20X 50mm f/4.70-1000mm f/7.24 (super 35)
6. 20X 50mm f/4.7-1000mm f/7.2 (super 35)


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 13, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So I've watched over the last year or so, the rather large number of wildlife photographers down here in South Africa, buying the Sigma 150-600 and judging from Facebook resolutions, it doesn't look like a bad performer.
> ...



I really like the 400mm f/5.6L, but find it a little too slow for me. 

The 400 f/2.8L is way out of my league. 

I'd settle for a EF 400mm f/4L IS USM. That would be nice... but still a little short for birding maybe. Also probably too expensive. If it could be done for $5k then I'd be in.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'd settle for a EF 400mm f/4L IS USM. That would be nice... but still a little short for birding maybe. Also probably too expensive. If it could be done for $5k then I'd be in.



There are many used 400/4 DO lenses available for ~$3K.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 13, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I'd settle for a EF 400mm f/4L IS USM. That would be nice... but still a little short for birding maybe. Also probably too expensive. If it could be done for $5k then I'd be in.
> ...



That might be your best bet for birding. I bought a virtually new Nikon 200-400mm f/4 for $2500, and used a adapter which made it manual focus. Eventually, I resold it for 4K. I had also bought a used D300S just to try it out and make sure it was in as good of operating condition as it looked. Then, I sold the camera after the lens was gone. I have a few Nikon lenses laying around, but the D300s was only 12 MP, and for severely cropping images, its not the right body. The old 7D blows it away.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 13, 2015)

On reflection, I would want a 200-500mm f/5.6 DO.
It was smart of Nikon to introduce their cheap 200-500mm. Restricting the focal length to 500 gives a large saving in weight and also size. A high quality Canon equivalent with their expertise in reducing weight would be a winner.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 13, 2015)

AlanF said:


> On reflection, I would want a 200-500mm f/5.6 DO.
> It was smart of Nikon to introduce their cheap 200-500mm. Restricting the focal length to 500 gives a large saving in weight and also size. A high quality Canon equivalent with their expertise in reducing weight would be a winner.



Yes. 200-600mm f/5.6 is going to be a huge lens even with weight saving techniques applied.


----------



## RGF (Dec 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > On reflection, I would want a 200-500mm f/5.6 DO.
> ...



A probably at a high price point. Unless Canon follows Nikon's lead with the 200-500 and makes the lens positioned as consumer grade (vs L series).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 14, 2015)

RGF said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I think we will see a consumer grade lens, or at least a reasonably priced "L" lens, I haven't looked at the number of elements in the patent. Prices often are based on part count and weight, I think Canon must be more accurate than that. The big whites have some elements that are hand ground to fantastic tolerances. Those elements drive the price up.


----------

