# Canon Developing a New Slower Supertelephoto Lens [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 25, 2015)

```
We’re told that Canon is developing a new supertelephoto lens that is slower than f/4. One immediately thinks about an update to the EF 400mm f/5.6L, but we’re told that is not the case and it’ll be a new lens altogether.</p>
<p>While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable”.</p>
<p>This sort of lens is definitely missing from the Canon lineup, both Tamron and Sigma have had a lot of success with 500mm and 600mm zoom lenses.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

my bet is either a 500F5.6 or a 600F5.6 prime.... probably the 500 as a 600F5.6 would probably cost near a 300F2.8 and there goes "low cost" and "affordability"...


----------



## Dekaner (May 25, 2015)

I'm guessing it's an update to the EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens. All of the other great whites have already undergone a refresh.


----------



## ScottyP (May 25, 2015)

If it is 400mm or longer and "affordable" it is not an L lens. 

Probably a cheap consumer grade variable aperture zoom that slots in after the inexpensive EF and EFS zooms that end at 250m or 300mm (55-250, 70-300 and 75-300). Maybe a cheap 100-400 or a 150/200 - 500.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 25, 2015)

Whereas the 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L II replaces well the old 400 F5.6 (which did not have Image Stabilizer), I see no need for another 400mm.

It may be a 200-500mm F4-5.6 IS STM costing around $ 1200 ...


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 25, 2015)

There is definitely a market for this kind of lens and that market includes me. I have a low wage job and could never afford a 500 4 or 400 DO or anything like that. An affordable 500 5.6 would be killer. I mean the depth of field is already so shallow at that focal length that a larger aperture seems almost unnecessary, especially with the high ISO ability of modern cameras (to maintain a usable shutter speed).


----------



## Pixel (May 25, 2015)

I'd jump all over anything longer than 500 with a 5.6 aperture.


----------



## AlanF (May 25, 2015)

A 500/5.6 of L quality for me please. The right weight for a hiking lens, going up to 700/8 with a 1.4xTC.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2015)

I'm thinking a competitor to the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses.


----------



## Maximilian (May 25, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Canon is developing a new supertelephoto lens that is slower than f/4. One immediately thinks about an update to the EF 400mm f/5.6L, but we’re told that is not the case and it’ll be a new lens altogether.


Hmm! 
Sounds interesting and strange at the same time. 

Something that will not be an update to the EF 400mm f/5.6L, that is "affordable" and no competition to the 100-400L II.

500/5.6 or even longer seems too big and too expensive to me to be "affordable".
x00/6.3 or smaller aperture seems not "Canon like" and is normally getting into conflict with the AF.
A 150-600 SigRon zoom competitor that is not cannibalizing the 100-400L II but good enough to compete against SigRon will be difficult.
There was not mention of this lens beeing a zoom. I suppose that this information would leak out.

Let's wait an see what's about to come.


----------



## heptagon (May 25, 2015)

An affordable 400mm or better 500mm f/5.6 lens with IS would certainly be welcomed. The Tamron/Sigma alternatives lack a bit in sharpness on the long end. It just needs to be a tad better with a price not much higher than the Tamron/Sigma.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2015)

Is STM in a Superzoom feasible? Not using ring USM might bring down the cost and keep it out of the L category. 
Maybe a 150-500 variable aperture. 4.5-6.3? Something like the Bigma but with better AF.


----------



## sulla (May 25, 2015)

Oh how I would be all-in for a 500 f/5.6!! Should be L, should be IS and should be USM !!
Since the advent of the 100-400 II, anything below and including 400 f/5.6 doesn't make too much sense anymore, and anything above 600 couldn't be affordable, so I hope for a 500mm 5.6 lens!


----------



## pierlux (May 25, 2015)

Interesting and exciting news! I'm saving for the siggy 150-600 sport since I bought the 7D2, but this CR2 might change my plans and make me wait for more rumors before pulling the trigger...

Supposing that it is a prime longer than 400mm it's not directly comparable to the 150-600, nevertheless, although being apples and oranges, I'd prefer a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime from Canon to the Sigma zoom which is f/6.3 @ 600 mm any day, even if it will be priced higher... would $ 3000-3500 seem realistic for a Canon 500-600 mm f/5.6 with IS? What do you guys think?


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 25, 2015)

slclick said:


> Is STM in a Superzoom feasible? Not using ring USM might bring down the cost and keep it out of the L category.
> Maybe a 150-500 variable aperture. 4.5-6.3? Something like the Bigma but with better AF.



I could be wrong, but I thought the main purpose of STM is for video. Surely a supertelephoto lens would be aimed at still photographers, not videographers.


----------



## meywd (May 25, 2015)

A 500mm f/5.6 would be amazing, if its as sharp or sharper than the 100-400 II, then they can price it @ 2k and it would be a great price.


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

heptagon said:


> An affordable 400mm or better 500mm f/5.6 lens with IS would certainly be welcomed. The Tamron/Sigma alternatives lack a bit in sharpness on the long end. It just needs to be a tad better with a price not much higher than the Tamron/Sigma.





meywd said:


> A 500mm f/5.6 would be amazing, if its as sharp or sharper than the 100-400 II, then they can price it @ 2k and it would be a great price.


Making it a prime instead of a zoom will get rid of a couple of lens groupings and that keeps weight and cost down. A single focal length allows the optical design to be optimized, and that should mean a lens that is far sharper than the sigma and Tamron, and certainly sharper than the 100-400.....

If they come out with a 500F5.6, one will be in my kit.....


----------



## lol (May 25, 2015)

Any clue as to if it will be a prime or zoom? I find it hard to imagine Canon making a prime >400mm non-L, and if L wont be affordable. So I'm betting on a zoom.

How do we even define affordable anyway? Based on Sigma "C"/Tamron 150-600 street pricing I'd say that was "affordable". Canon could do a similar f/5.6 priced a bit above those (maybe closer to Sigma "S") with IS STM perhaps? Or maybe they will be more conservative and only go to a 500mm zoom.

For fun, what about a 28-350mm lens? If 350mm is "super" enough... such a lens may be useful for those going full frame on a budget. The 28-300L isn't affordable, and I'm throwing in 350mm maximum length as a nod towards the even earlier 35-350L.


----------



## Maximilian (May 25, 2015)

MrFotoFool said:


> I could be wrong, but I thought the main purpose of STM is for video. Surely a supertelephoto lens would be aimed at still photographers, not videographers.


AFAIK STM has the following features compared to (ring) USM:
+ cheaper
+ silent
- slower
- less accurate
- less increments/steps per rotation

Being silent is THE feature for video. 
But main feature for Canon is CHEAPER.


----------



## RGF (May 25, 2015)

meywd said:


> A 500mm f/5.6 would be amazing, if its as sharp or sharper than the 100-400 II, then they can price it @ 2k and it would be a great price.



As a replacement for the 400 F5.6 L.

Perhaps DO but unlikely

Priced similar to the 100-400 II.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 25, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> AFAIK STM has the following features compared to (ring) USM:
> + cheaper
> + silent
> - slower
> ...



This lens would be aimed at wildlife and sports photographers. So I cannot believe they would go with STM instead of USM to save cost if, as you say, STM autofocus is less accurate. Autofocus accuracy would be the key feature and key selling point over Sigma or Tamron 150-600. Well at least one of two selling points, other being sharpness.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2015)

MrFotoFool said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Is STM in a Superzoom feasible? Not using ring USM might bring down the cost and keep it out of the L category.
> ...



Yes but isn't it also a budget AF mech? It is accurate just not as fast. Now I know some would call that not accurate as speed is/leads to accuracy. But ymmv.


----------



## weixing (May 25, 2015)

Hi,
IMHO, once the front element is larger than 100mm, the price won't be cheap, so to keep the price down, I think it likely to be a 500mm F5.6 IS... If it's an "L", then might price at between 300mm F2.8 and the 100-400mm II, so that it won't eat into 100-400mm II, 300mm F2.8L IS II, 400mm F4 DO II and may be the future 400mm F5.6L IS.

Have a nice day.


----------



## 9VIII (May 25, 2015)

The 500f5.6 would be a dream come true.

It may sound impossible, but we've grown accustomed to some very high standards in IQ, which the best budget telephoto lens in the world was not designed under.
If affordability is the goal, making a "just decent" 500mm lens may be more feasible than it seems at a glance. To give a stark contrast, look here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=278&LensComp=764&Units=E
Including the internal converter the 200-400 has almost five times as many lens elements as the 400f5.6, and the 400f5.6 has half as many elements any other telephoto lens Canon makes.
If Canon can make another supertelephoto lens with just seven elements, or very close to it, that could very well achieve the goal of making a longer lens that doesn't cost a whole lot.


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2015)

To join the guessing (and wishing) game here. I'd say a 500mm f5.6 IS would make a nice replacement for the 400mm f5.6. 

"L" is an arbitrary designation, so it certainly could be classed as an "L" lens and I would expect that Canon would stick a red ring on it knowing it would sell better as an "L" lens. It's going to be the same quality regardless of what they call it.

Price would probably be in the 100-400 II range (somewhere north of $2,000 and less than $2,500 in the U.S.)

I don't think a 400 is long enough these days to entice too many people and an "affordable" 500mm 5.6 would be a nice compromise. 

I don't believe a fixed focal length 500 5.6 would undermine the 100-400 II zoom all that much and I doubt if Canon cares that much as long as people buy their lenses instead of Sigma or Tamron. Along that same line, a 500mm would be very competitive with the Sigma and Tamron 600mm zooms (many photographers would trade the extra 100mm focal length for the Canon name)

Plus, a 500 mm f5.6 with a 1.4 converter would give you an +1100 mm equivalent on the 7DII with its f8 focusing. It would likely not only sell very well, but boost 7DII sales as well.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2015)

reading between the lines.....


----------



## hoodlum (May 25, 2015)

The 400mm f5.6 had a MFD of 3.5M. A 500mm MFD would be even longer and could limit it's appeal.


----------



## meywd (May 25, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> The 400mm f5.6 had a MFD of 3.5M. A 500mm MFD would be even longer and could limit it's appeal.



even the 500 f4 II has an MFD of 3.7M, so I don't think that's going to be a problem.


----------



## KateH (May 25, 2015)

This is certainly an interesting riddle. "Slower than f/4, supertelephoto, not a new 400 f/5.6, 'entirely new' and '
affordable'" are specific claims but still leaves a lot of questions.

300mm f/5.6 seems unlikely; the 300mm f/4 is not terribly large and selling for 1300$ new and 1/2 to 2/3rds that used, it's already quite inexpensive as far as long teles go.

A non-L 100-400 f/5.6 seems like a bad idea- see how sales of the 70-300 f/4-5.6L have been totally overshadowed by the excellent 70-300 f/4-5.6 _non_-L for half the price. Surely Canon would not want to threaten their flagship 100-400 f/4-5.6L II

500mm f/5.6L does actually seem somewhat probable; the 400mm f/5.6 retails for 1200$ which suggests a 500mm f/5.6 produced in sufficient volume could be well under 2000$- which definitely qualifies as "affordable" compared to the 9000$ 500mm f/4L! The biggest issue with a hypothetical 500mm f/5.6 is it's similarity to the 400mm f/5.6- two high-end, low-volume lenses that similar would cannibalize sales from each other, messing with economy of scale in production and driving prices up and margins down. Not a great business decision for Canon. UNLESS are Canon planning to _replace_ the 400 f/5.6 with a 500mm f/5.6? That actually does make some sense- the 400mm f/5.6 has stiff internal competition from Canon's own (and far more popular) 100-400mm lenses, and arguably even the faster and/or less expensive 300mm primes and zooms.

600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!

Perhaps it's a 135-500mm f/5.6 non-L STM? There's certainly a lot of pressure in that area from Tamron/Sigma and if Canon intentionally segments it from the 100-400 with slower autofocus (although STM AF can be quite fast) it would be an interesting option.

What I haven't seen anyone guess is that maybe this "Something entirely new" will be a non-L _EF-S_ ultratelephoto? With the great success of the 70D and 7D MKII as semi-pro and sports cameras, perhaps it's time for a high-quality EF-S prime in the 250-400mm range? If Canon could make such a thing be compact, have excellent wide-open performance, and cost well under 1000$ I predict a niche hit.


----------



## dhofmann (May 25, 2015)

Canon could make and sell a 500mm f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens with image stabilization for a very affordable price.


----------



## expatinasia (May 26, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable



Haha! Love it!

How on earth is this a CR2?!


----------



## meywd (May 26, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable
> ...



I guess the source is known for previous hits!


----------



## 100 (May 26, 2015)

KateH said:


> 600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!



A 600 f/5.6 is basically a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x extender so it will cost nowhere near $2000. The 300 f/2.8L II is about $6000 so it will be around that pricepoint.


----------



## meywd (May 26, 2015)

100 said:


> KateH said:
> 
> 
> > 600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!
> ...



No it is not, a 300 f/2.8 with extender is like the the 200-400 f4, if we go by your logic then the 400mm f/2.8 should cost $800


----------



## 100 (May 26, 2015)

meywd said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > KateH said:
> ...



???
If you add a 1.4x extender to a 300 f/2.8 it becomes a 420 f/4
If you add a 2x extender to a 300 f/2.8 it becomes a 600 f/5.6


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2015)

meywd said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > KateH said:
> ...



???

A 600/5.6 would be almost _exactly_ like a 300/2.8 + 2x, same front element diameter (300/2.8 = 600/5.6), but a longer barrel meaning a price somewhere a bit north of the current 300/2.8 II. 

There's a reason the Sigma and Tamron 600mm zooms are f/6.3, not f/5.6...


----------



## meywd (May 26, 2015)

100 said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Ok my mistake, wrong logic there.


----------



## KateH (May 26, 2015)

100 said:


> KateH said:
> 
> 
> > 600mm f/5.6L seems quite probable as well- it would fit nicely above the 400mm f/5.6 and provide a smaller and much less-expensive alternative to the 600mm f/4. I imagine that would sell for ~2000$- which is stretching the "affordable" claim, though cost is relative when talking about ultra-teles!
> ...



Mmm, I disagree. As far as size, yeah it would require large elements. But designing and manufacturing an f/5.6 ultratele is _much_ easier than an f/2.8. And the slower lens would sell in larger volume, driving production cost lower. Look at Canon's 400s- the f/5.6 400mm is 1200$ but the f/2.8 version is _10,000$_.


----------



## expatinasia (May 26, 2015)

meywd said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Possibly, but it is a rumour about nothing that could happen any time in 2016 which includes December 2016!!!

It is so funny, it still cracks me up!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 26, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that Canon is developing a new supertelephoto lens that is slower than f/4. One immediately thinks about an update to the EF 400mm f/5.6L, but we’re told that is not the case and it’ll be a new lens altogether.</p>
> <p>While the source couldn’t nail down the exact focal length, speed or even if it was going to be a L lens, they did say the hope was to have such a lens to be announced some time in 2016 and that it would be “affordable”.</p>
> <p>This sort of lens is definitely missing from the Canon lineup, both Tamron and Sigma have had a lot of success with 500mm and 600mm zoom lenses.</p>
> <p>More to come…</p>


Another 'affordable' option that can compete with the Tamron and Sigma supertelephoto zoom lenses would be very welcomed.
The release of the 100-400mmL II killed many purchases of the fantastic 400L.


----------



## LDS (May 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 600/5.6 would be almost _exactly_ like a 300/2.8 + 2x, same front element diameter (300/2.8 = 600/5.6), but a longer barrel meaning a price somewhere a bit north of the current 300/2.8 II.



The lens diameter is not everything. A front lens designed for, say, a 600/5.6 is different than one for a 300/2.8. A lot depends how many lenses are needed and their design, type and hence production costs to deliver a quality good enough. The 300/2.8 (and the 400) uses 16 lenses in 12 groups - the 400/5.6 uses just 7 lenses in six groups - which also makes it light.

If you can also use less expensive lens "glass", i.e. no fluorite elements but just UD or the like, it will keep costs down as well. The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 have two fluorite elements, while the 400/5.6 uses only UD ones. I don't believe a barrel is more expensive than growing fluorite, cutting and polishing lenses, especially if the barrel is simpler as well, having to support lense lenses. Also, the IS could be less sophisticated than the high-end ones.

You can see also the price difference between the 200/2.8, a simpler UD design, and the 200/2, which uses a far more complex design with fluorite and UD lenses, to gain one stop in exchange for a 8x price increase (of course, it doesn't gain only one stop for that price).

It will be interesting to see if Canon will deliver a prime, to keep the lens number down and possibly deliver a little faster aperture, or will deliver a zoom that will require more lenses, will be heavier, and be a slower one.


----------



## Hannes (May 26, 2015)

A 500/5.6 should be doable but at what price one can wonder. You are looking at a ~90mm front element which is obviously a fair bit bigger than the other <$2k options canon are producing. I'm not sure what canon are deeming reasonably priced but I'm pretty sure it is more than I can afford


----------



## docsmith (May 26, 2015)

Agreed that the 500 f/5.6 IS is most likely to fit all the criteria. Even better, make it a nice compatct 500 f/5.6 IS DO. But the "affordable" is the part of the rumor I have the most problem with. The front element would only be slightly smaller than the 400 f/4 DO, (~90 mm vs ~100 mm). So, is "affordable" ~$4,000? 

Also, there was a rumor over a year ago of a 300-600 f/5.6 IS zoom. That would be great as would a Canon 150-600 IS.

But...technically a 400 f/5.6 _*IS*_ would be "new" as well.

Just to play conspiracy theorist for a second, this is a tantalizing yet vague rumor where it is obvious that they haven't even held the lens (otherwise they'd know the length) from a known source (hence CR2). Could this be a mole hunt by Canon? If so, someone just got busted.


----------



## exquisitor (May 26, 2015)

LDS said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A 600/5.6 would be almost _exactly_ like a 300/2.8 + 2x, same front element diameter (300/2.8 = 600/5.6), but a longer barrel meaning a price somewhere a bit north of the current 300/2.8 II.
> ...



You are comparing apples and oranges. You should compare 200/2 and 400/4, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 or 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. And longer lens will be always more expensive, because it is bigger and in most cases needs more elements. The light gathering capability and though the diameter of the front lens would be nearly the same.


----------



## 100 (May 26, 2015)

KateH said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > KateH said:
> ...



If a f/5.6 lens is “much easier than an f/2.8” please explain why the EF f/2.8L II USM (1996) has a MSRP of $749.99. If you add a 2x extender you have a 400 f/5.6 for less than the EF 400 f/5.6L (1993).
Based on that logic a 600 f/5.6L won’t be cheaper than an EF 300 f/2.8L IS II.

They probably could design a cheaper 600 f/5.6 (no weather sealing, less expensive glass, simpler construction) but I imagine it would still cost a lot more than let’s say the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II (MSRP of $2,199) so it will never be a “large volume” lens.


----------



## TheJock (May 26, 2015)

Now that someone’s mentioned the f2.8 200L, would it be possible to create a black bodied 500 f5.6L???? going by the pricing on the former, a black 500mm L could be less than $1,500 with no IS.


----------



## scyrene (May 26, 2015)

TheJock said:


> Now that someone’s mentioned the f2.8 200L, would it be possible to create a black bodied 500 f5.6L???? going by the pricing on the former, a black 500mm L could be less than $1,500 with no IS.



I'm not convinced. No IS would make it cheaper of course, but I found even the 400 5.6's lack of it very limiting (though many make good use of that lens). Also, with regard to pricing, over here the 200 2.8 is £500-600. The 400 5.6 is ~£1000. So a 500 5.6 non-IS would surely be more like £1200-1500, which is what? $1850-2300? And that's street prices after many years, the RRP is gonna be higher.

I do however think 500mm f/5.6 IS is the most likely. Not *very* likely, but more likely than 600mm f/5.6, for the reasons others have outlined above.

Has anyone considered an EF-S super tele? (Modification: I know it wouldn't be smaller, but it might avoid cannibalising sales of some other lenses, and could be paired with the 7DII. Although it's even less likely than the other options...)


----------



## 100 (May 26, 2015)

TheJock said:


> Now that someone’s mentioned the f2.8 200L, would it be possible to create a black bodied 500 f5.6L???? going by the pricing on the former, a black 500mm L could be less than $1,500 with no IS.



The new 100-400 has a MSRP 30% higher than its predecessor, so a new 400 f/5.6L will probably be around 2k$ as well. 
A 500 f/5.6 won’t be cheaper so $1500 is out of the question, I think. 

Factor in the glass and you’ll see why just 100mm more makes a significant difference. 
400/5.6 = 71.5mm front element
500/5.6 = 89.3mm front element
That sounds like a small difference (25%) but a lens element has 3 dimensions. The difference in surface area is:
400mm => π/4*71.5^2 = 4015mm^2
500mm => π/4*89.3^2 = 6263mm^2
That’s 50% more surface area, factor in that a bigger element will need to be thicker as well so the difference in glass volume could be up to 100% and that will have a significant effect on the price of such a lens.


----------



## crashpc (May 26, 2015)

Canon EF-M 80-400mm f/7,2 IS STM as patented. Would be great.


----------



## NancyP (May 26, 2015)

Interesting rumor. I am a happy user of the 400 f/5.6L no-IS. If there were a relatively simple design for 600 f/5.6 L that kept it "light" relative to the f/4, I might be interested. The most recent AF systems do well in low light, and the sensors allow boosting of the ISO.


----------



## LDS (May 26, 2015)

exquisitor said:


> You are comparing apples and oranges. You should compare 200/2 and 400/4, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 or 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. And longer lens will be always more expensive, because it is bigger and in most cases needs more elements. The light gathering capability and though the diameter of the front lens would be nearly the same.



No. I shown how trying to gain a stop at the same focal length will lead to a much more expensive lens because of a much more complex and expensive construction. While accepting a less fast lens could instead greatly decrease the price - it's not a linear proportion.

It is not true that a longer lenses will use more elements - actually it could use less. Check the 200/2.8 and the 400/5.6, the latter has fewer elements.

The more you "bend" the light, the more complex and expensive the lens design will be to correct for aberrations. A larger lens for a fast max aperture needs to bend the light far more than a smaller one for the same focal lenght. In the late XVII century astronomers used lenses with an extremely long focal because they minimized aberrations just because of that - doublets and triplets were not available yet.

Just bigger barrel won't increase the production cost too much (price is another matter...), it's the complexity of building it that will increase the price most - and that depends also on how many lenses will go within it, and the complexity of the focusing mechanism and IS, and the overall weight.


----------



## Luds34 (May 26, 2015)

Totally against the rumor, but I've always thought Canon could use a conventional (read non DO) 400mm f/4 IS prime. Something faster then the f/5.6 of the 100-400s and current 400mm non IS prime. And something more attainable then the 400mm f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO. Have it work well with the 1.4x and then you have pushing a 600mm at f/5.6. Could probably be priced around $2k or so. Heck at $2500 it would still be very affordable and probably would have good demand.

Of course it would completely cannibalize many of their great big whites so I doubt we'll see it until they are pushed by the market. Aka it would be great to see Sigma or Tamron try it. Doesn't Sigma have a 300mm f/2.8 that is less then half of the Canon variant?


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 26, 2015)

I'm keen to see a Canon EF 500mm f/5.6 IS USM. If Canon does make such a lens, I'd imagine it would be to target the price of the new Sigma 150-600mm. The Tamron is significantly cheaper but does suffer wide open at the long end.

If Canon can deliver a 500/5.6 IS which is lighter and focuses faster than the competing zooms while also living up to the image quality of the 400/5.6L then it will definitely earn its place in the market. I would guess a fair number of 400/5.6 owners might consider upgrading for the extra reach and IS.


----------



## exquisitor (May 26, 2015)

LDS said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > You are comparing apples and oranges. You should compare 200/2 and 400/4, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 or 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. And longer lens will be always more expensive, because it is bigger and in most cases needs more elements. The light gathering capability and though the diameter of the front lens would be nearly the same.
> ...


There is no doubt that larger aperture at the same focal length would mean more complexity. You were arguing that 600/5.6 wouldn't be the same as 300/2.8 and could be more affordable than 300/2.8. The truth is it is not possible, because it is quite the same. Just because the effective aperture of these two lenses is equal. And this is 107 mm we are talking about.
About 200/2.8 vs 400/5.6: that's why I've pointed "in most cases". If you look at 400/5.6 design, it uses Super UD element in the front group, whereas 200/2.8 uses only "simple" UD elements. So additional group in the rear group of 200/2.8 could be there for chromatic aberration correction due to lack of Super UD element or for field curvature correction as the 200/2.8 has much wider field of view compared to 400/5.6. In both cases the large elements of the front group, which determine the cost, are very similarly placed in both 200/2.8 and 400/5.6. Even though 400/5.6 costs roughly twice the price of 200/2.8. So much about "affordable" 600/5.6...
500/6.3 IS instead could be really affordable, as it's cost *could* lie in the same area as 300/4 IS.


----------



## lholmes549 (May 26, 2015)

If it was a lens to compete with the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm lenses I'd be very interested. 

Of course, this would mean improving on the image quality while trying to keep the lens "affordable", otherwise there's little reason to choose it over the 3rd party options (other than brand snobbery).


----------



## pierlux (May 26, 2015)

Talking about pricing, if we compare the 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM (non II, marketed in 1999) to the 300mm f/4 L IS USM (marketed in 1997), we can see their original pricing in yen was 690,000 and 198,000, respectively (source: Canon Camera Museum), i.e. about 3.5 times as much as the f/4 version for the 1 stop faster one. I think it is reasonable to believe that an hypothetical 600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, also taking into account the observations made by other posters concerning fluorite vs. UD elements, number of lenses etc., could be priced approximately 3.5 times less than the current 600mm f/4 L IS II USM, i.e. something around $ 3,250, roughly as much as I said in my previous post. 

Not precisely "affordable" in absolute terms, but relatively to the focal lenght I'd say yes, it's affordable. Much higher than any Sigma or Tamron and no zoom, but latest Canon IQ and speed and accuracy and compatibility with any current or future body & firmware and a white dress + red ring and Canon service and all! 

And if it's not a prime, but a zoom that reaches 500mm or 600mm @ f/5.6, provided it's really (relatively) affordable, i.e. in the $ 3000-3500 range, I'd be equally happy to wait for it instead of going for the Sigma.

Craig says "CR2" and "more to come"... one can dream, can't I?


----------



## KateH (May 26, 2015)

100 said:


> KateH said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Because it's not an ultratele. (I presume you're referring to the 200mm f/2.8L?) And f/2.8 is not ultrafast for a 200mm lens. It's just in a different class- and yet, it's still more expensive than slower lenses in the same FL!

How can there be any debate that slower lenses are easier to design and build that faster ones?


----------



## LDS (May 26, 2015)

exquisitor said:


> There is no doubt that larger aperture at the same focal length would mean more complexity. You were arguing that 600/5.6 wouldn't be the same as 300/2.8 and could be more affordable than 300/2.8. The truth is it is not possible, because it is quite the same. Just because the effective aperture of these two lenses is equal. And this is 107 mm we are talking about.



Yes, because lenses are just plain glass discs, right? C'mon, you have no idea of lens designs. Two lenses of the same diameter may have very different prices. It depends on what material you need to build them with, how much material you need to use, and how you have to work the surfaces. Look at some refractor telescopes, they can be much cheaper than your average camera lenses: this 750mm f/5 costs 
$899... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/617026-REG/Celestron_21094_Omni_XLT_150_R.html, and it has a 150mm front lens... sure, no AF, no IS, and minimum focussing distance is not an issue, but also a sub $1000 price.

A 600/5.6 could be built in many different ways, including one that could be cheaper than the 300/2.8, which, at over $6000, it's pretty expensive.


----------



## scyrene (May 26, 2015)

lholmes549 said:


> If it was a lens to compete with the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm lenses I'd be very interested.
> 
> Of course, this would mean improving on the image quality while trying to keep the lens "affordable", otherwise there's little reason to choose it over the 3rd party options (other than brand snobbery).



Well AF performance is usually better than with third party lenses, right? No reverse engineering. That's a big deal to some people.


----------



## Joey (May 26, 2015)

KateH said:


> What I haven't seen anyone guess is that maybe this "Something entirely new" will be a non-L _EF-S_ ultratelephoto? With the great success of the 70D and 7D MKII as semi-pro and sports cameras, perhaps it's time for a high-quality EF-S prime in the 250-400mm range? If Canon could make such a thing be compact, have excellent wide-open performance, and cost well under 1000$ I predict a niche hit.


There are no EFS telephoto lenses (unless you count zooms that extend into the wide-angle range) because there is no reason to limit the market for your new lens to crop sensor users unless there is some benefit to doing so. The reason for making EFS lenses is that it frees you to put elements closer to the sensor than the EF mount allows. Wide angle lens design can be simpler/better when you bring elements closer to the sensor, but telephoto lenses don't need elements that close. So an EFS telephoto would not make sense.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2015)

KateH said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > KateH said:
> ...



There is no debate. What is being questioned is your subsequent inference that a faster but shorter lens is also more expensive than a longer slower one, and that is not necessarily true to any appreciable degree. We are certainly not going to see your suggestion of a sub $2,000 600mm f5.6 from Canon.

Our best indicator is the very old design of the 400 f5.6 (with a 71mm entry pupil) @ $1,249 vs the newer and IS equipped 300 f4 @ $1,349 (entry pupil 75mm). 

If you maintain image and build quality, both of which Canon have in all their recent lens releases, I think you will find entry pupil to be fairly constant in the pricing, 200mm f2 (100mm entry pupil) @ $5,699, vs 300 f2.8 (107mm entry pupil) @ $6,099.

In actual fact the only super-tele entry pupil anomaly is the longer and slower 800mm f5.6 (142mm) which is $1,500 more than the much more popular 600mm f4 (150mm).


----------



## exquisitor (May 26, 2015)

LDS said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > There is no doubt that larger aperture at the same focal length would mean more complexity. You were arguing that 600/5.6 wouldn't be the same as 300/2.8 and could be more affordable than 300/2.8. The truth is it is not possible, because it is quite the same. Just because the effective aperture of these two lenses is equal. And this is 107 mm we are talking about.
> ...



Well, you compare photographic telephoto lenses and telescopes and I have no idea in lens design? Common, that's not serious.
Of course you can do affordable or even cheap 600/5.6, but there is no way it would be comparable in any way to the white L glass. It's always compromise between cost and image quality.


----------



## NancyP (May 26, 2015)

Here's a thought - maybe the Canon folks are considering a high quality mirror lens.


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2015)

KateH said:


> This is certainly an interesting riddle. "Slower than f/4, supertelephoto, not a new 400 f/5.6, 'entirely new' and '
> affordable'" are specific claims but still leaves a lot of questions.
> 
> 300mm f/5.6 seems unlikely; the 300mm f/4 is not terribly large and selling for 1300$ new and 1/2 to 2/3rds that used, it's already quite inexpensive as far as long teles go.
> ...


Well said!

I suspect that you are right....a new 400f5.6 would be optically superior to the new 100-400, but probably not enough so to generate decent sales...... But a 500f5.6, with superior optics and that extra 100mm of reach would stand alone in the Canon glass collection and would probably sell well. I would certainly get one....
And with series 2 prime optical quality, it would play well with teleconverters ( sorry sigma and tamron), and allow 700mm at F8 or 1000mm at F11


----------



## davidcl0nel (May 26, 2015)

The 150-600 Tamrons and Sigmas are sold, because it is an affordable 400+mm Lens with quite good results.
If Canon want to catch them, not the buyer which are satisfied with the new 100-400, they can should build a 500 or 600mm prima with 5.6 or even f/8. Most of the birdies (bird / wildlife photographers) use the 7D2 now and not the 5D3 for Crop reasons, so maybe a crop 600 f/8 can be smaller, much lighter, and build for 1000€?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2015)

Pondering the dollar per entry pupil mm idea further, the 300 f4 IS costs $18 per mm, the 400mm f5.6 costs $17.50 per mm the other super teles get progressively more expensive up to $91 per entry pupil mm for the 800mm f5.6.

If Canon could make a 500mm f5.6 for around $22-25 per entry pupil mm then that lens would cost between $1,950-2,225. Now I don't know if they could do that, but it certainly seems that a high quality but lower order supertele at 500mm and f5.6 should be doable below a $2,500 price point, and judging by the money many people here spend I would think it wold sell well.


----------



## 9VIII (May 26, 2015)

I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...

But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.


----------



## RGF (May 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Good point.


----------



## RGF (May 26, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Here's a thought - maybe the Canon folks are considering a high quality mirror lens.



Interesting ...


----------



## LDS (May 26, 2015)

exquisitor said:


> Well, you compare photographic telephoto lenses and telescopes and I have no idea in lens design? Common, that's not serious.
> Of course you can do affordable or even cheap 600/5.6, but there is no way it would be comparable in any way to the white L glass. It's always compromise between cost and image quality.



It was you to say that a lens cost depends almost on front lens size alone. The telescope example demonstrates it is not true. It's the overall lens design that matters more. Unlike a telescope, a telephoto design "cheats" about the focal length of the light gathering lens group, which is shorter, and then the focal in "increased" by the telephoto group. 

That makes the lens more compact, but the design more complex and expensive compared to a lens of the same "aperture" not using this design. Increasing the size of the front group increases costs a lot because the *whole* design becomes far more complex, including the need of far more lenses and more expensive glasses to achieve adequate performance, you've got to "bend" light rays more, and that implies more aberrations that needs to be corrected.

A 300/2.8 and 600/5.6 won't use the same design at all, the former will be far more complex and expensive to build - regardless if the front less diameter is roughly the same.

How much cheaper can be, for example, a 600/5.6 compared to the $12K 600/4? Exactly, it depends on what compromises are made in its design, performance and production (maybe outside Japan...). A non-zoom design will be cheaper than a zoom one, and after all Sigma can sell a 150-600 albeit a little slower for $2K (and even $1K for the cheaper model), and still earn money. Compared to $12K, affordable could mean easily $2-3K - given the prices of the 400/5.6 and 100-400 II, maybe without the "L" badge (the old FD 400/4.5 was not an L lens, although it had UD glasses...) and with inferior performance (AF, IS) - guess Canon has no will to kill the market for any of the big whites offering an alternative, but for less demanding photographers without deep pockets.

But today Canon doesn't offer anything "affordable" beyond 400mm, and it helps Sigma, Tamron & C. to sell their lenses to Canon users, which may also then decide to buy more from them also. With camera sales stale or decreasing, offering lenses in a range previously unreachable but for pro (or rich, or maybe fanatic..) photographers could be a right move to keep customers buying Canon. Wildlife and sport photography is appealing, just often you need a lens long enough... and that's an area smartphones can't really compete (yet?)


----------



## LDS (May 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Pondering the dollar per entry pupil mm idea further, the 300 f4 IS costs $18 per mm, the 400mm f5.6 costs $17.50 per mm the other super teles get progressively more expensive up to $91 per entry pupil mm for the 800mm f5.6.



You have to factor for those lenses the cost of the fluorite crystals, and the smaller production. It will mean a far higher cost per unit. Did you calculate the dollar per entry pupil of the 1200/5.6?


----------



## LDS (May 26, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...



There's a good number of FF users who can't afford the big whites, and will buy competitor's products.
When you also sell a cheaper FF like the 6D maybe an EF-S supertelephoto is not really a good idea. Also I don't know how many users of cameras below the 7D (and maybe the 70D) would be really interested in a big lens which would be anyway more complex to use requiring a good tripod/monopod, head, etc. But, who knows?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2015)

LDS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Pondering the dollar per entry pupil mm idea further, the 300 f4 IS costs $18 per mm, the 400mm f5.6 costs $17.50 per mm the other super teles get progressively more expensive up to $91 per entry pupil mm for the 800mm f5.6.
> ...



No because that would be a meaningless outlier. 

My assumption, and we all know that is the mother of all f--k ups, was that a sub $2,500 500mm f5.6 would be a relatively high volume super tele lens, so manufacturing and R&D costs would benefit from the same economies of scale that push the 400 f5.6 and 300 f4 IS down so low in the $ per entry pupil mm scale. Also in pre EF days Canon made some FD superteles without the most exotic glass, for example there were two versions of the 600mm and 800mm on sale at the same time, one was an L and the other not (same with the 50mm f1.2), so if they set a price point and couldn't hit it with the cutting edge lens compounds they have a precedent for less exotic lens formula. Though it seems to me, given the recent lens releases, the massive investment people have requested Canon put into a modern sensor fabrication plant has already been spent on lens manufacturing and designing upgrades!

I am very happy with the Canon lens selection and can't imagine ever changing brands because of that one system feature.

A native 500 f5.6 with top of the line IS would make a very attractive birding lens (a massive market all its own) and with a 1.4 TC would still AF on bodies that can AF at f8, so making a very nice hand-holdable 700mm f8.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (May 26, 2015)

I have the 400 5.6l and if a 500 5.6 came out I will really migrate to it. I have a 1.4 telemk3 converter already and a 500 will give me s 800mm view with my crop body will the converter 1120 mm with is a big plus also when I upgrade to a ff body most likely a 5d mk3 its still a big plus who knows they might even make a 450mm 5.6


----------



## Joey (May 26, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...
> 
> But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.



I doubt even Canon's marketing department is that cynical. 'Let's make a cheap but good lens, and prevent our loyal FF customers from using it, hoping to force them to buy a more expensive lens to do the same job and thus wring the most money out of the wealthier market segment.'

They've just released a new nifty fifty at a price point that suggests to me that they're trying to offer good value.


----------



## riker (May 26, 2015)

We could imagine loads of lenses we would LOVE to see so this is a perfect post 

EF-S 400/5.6 IS (or 500/5.6)
EF-M 400/5.6 IS (or 500/5.6)
EF 300-600/5.6L IS

These would all sell like candy and we could also call them innovative or at least something new.


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2015)

Joey said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...
> ...


There is a pervasive myth about not putting out cheaper products to protect the expensive products, but the reality is, with the vastly higher sales numbers, the real money is in the low priced objects.... Canon makes more money off of Rebels than "pro" bodies, and they make more money from the kit lenses than the "L" glass


----------



## Gnocchi (May 26, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...
> 
> But that is a remarkably unpopular idea around here.


I tend to agree on a efs s/Tele lens. Wouldn't it make sense to make one in an efs mount? Lighter, smaller? Is that possible?


----------



## slclick (May 27, 2015)

An EF-S mount would be the sure way to keep from crippling sales of L glass. But I just can't see a supertele being in the EF-S consumer budget. I keep thinking it'll be one of two things. 

Canon's answer to the Bigma. 150-500 variable aperture. or a 500 5.6 Non L


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2015)

Gnocchi said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I've suggested an EF-S supertelephoto a few times before, it makes sense from a marketing perspective (that you prevent the full frame users from taking advantage of the lens, thus keeping you're stable of $10,000 lenses safe)...
> ...



There's really no point to an EF-S telephoto lens. The -S best stands for 'small image circle' (that's the original designation, and not all EF-S lenses have a short backfocus distance. With a telephoto lens design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting. A few of the rear-most elements could be made smaller, but the size/weight savings would be quite minor, particularly for a supertele focal length.


----------



## rbr (May 27, 2015)

Affordability is relative. Right now Canon offers no lenses between the $2000 and $6000 range. I could see Canon coming out with a 500mm f5.6 L IS in the $4k range as well as a 600 f5.6 closer to $6k. Both would be definitely more affordable than their f4 cousins. I think there would be a market for both lenses. Those that can't afford the f4 lenses but want the quality would appreciate them and those that already have one of the current 500-800mm lenses might buy one as a second lens for lighter weight and hand holding. There are already many people who buy a 300 f2.8 and keep a 2x attached to it all the time. 

I don't see Canon coming out with their own version of the f6.3 lenses produced by Tamron and Sigma, especially at their price point. It ain't going to happen. If you're looking for a zoom to the 600mm range from Canon for around $2k, get the new 100-400 II and stick a 1.4x on it and be happy. It's pretty good actually.


----------



## jthomson (May 27, 2015)

Joey said:


> KateH said:
> 
> 
> > What I haven't seen anyone guess is that maybe this "Something entirely new" will be a non-L _EF-S_ ultratelephoto? With the great success of the 70D and 7D MKII as semi-pro and sports cameras, perhaps it's time for a high-quality EF-S prime in the 250-400mm range? If Canon could make such a thing be compact, have excellent wide-open performance, and cost well under 1000$ I predict a niche hit.
> ...


 
EF-S 55-250 mm in it's various versions is a telephoto lens and it doesn't extend into the wide angle range.


----------



## Gnocchi (May 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gnocchi said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


Righto then, thanks for your explanation.


----------



## dslrdummy (May 27, 2015)

As somebody who has spent close to AUD$9k on a 300mm f/2.8ii and 2xiii TC, I would be pretty unimpressed if Canon developed a 600 f/5.6 with equivalent image quality and better AF for less than half the price. I'm thinking a 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 is more likely for all the reasons people are suggesting.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> KateH said:
> 
> 
> > This is certainly an interesting riddle. "Slower than f/4, supertelephoto, not a new 400 f/5.6, 'entirely new' and '
> ...


"...1000mm f/11." Does AF work with f/11 max aperture? ???


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gnocchi said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


I thought I read in one of the Canon lens books that the "-S" designation was for lenses with short backfocus. With APS-C bodies the mirror is smaller so the length of the pivoting mirror is shorter so lenses can be designed to protrude further into the throat of the mounting flange. It is also true that these lenses cover a smaller image circle but that's not where the "-S" comes from.

EDIT: I found the lens book and I was wrong. There is no clear statement as to what the "-S" stands for. Just general discussion about the points above.


----------



## meywd (May 27, 2015)

dslrdummy said:


> As somebody who has spent close to AUD$9k on a 300mm f/2.8ii and 2xiii TC, I would be pretty unimpressed if Canon developed a 600 f/5.6 with* equivalent image quality and better AF* for less than half the price. I'm thinking a 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 is more likely for all the reasons people are suggesting.



even if they made it, it would not be as sharp nor as fast in focusing as the 300 MKII, if it was only as sharp as the 100-400 MKII it would be great.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2015)

meywd said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > As somebody who has spent close to AUD$9k on a 300mm f/2.8ii and 2xiii TC, I would be pretty unimpressed if Canon developed a 600 f/5.6 with* equivalent image quality and better AF* for less than half the price. I'm thinking a 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 is more likely for all the reasons people are suggesting.
> ...


Look at the 70-200F2.8IS and the F4IS version.... The IQ is almost identical and one is twice the price of the other. I would not be the least surprised to see the same IQ out of a 500F5.6 as the 500F4. You pay a lot more money for faster lenses.....


----------



## scyrene (May 27, 2015)

dslrdummy said:


> As somebody who has spent close to AUD$9k on a 300mm f/2.8ii and 2xiii TC, I would be pretty unimpressed if Canon developed a 600 f/5.6 with equivalent image quality and better AF for less than half the price. I'm thinking a 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 is more likely for all the reasons people are suggesting.



But you also have a 300 2.8 - so you have effectively two lenses in one, with the converter. If you need 600mm and they released a 600 5.6, then sell what you've got and buy that. Brian at TDP says buy the focal length you need, and I agree with him (budget constraints notwithstanding).


----------



## exquisitor (May 27, 2015)

LDS said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you compare photographic telephoto lenses and telescopes and I have no idea in lens design? Common, that's not serious.
> ...



Just check the price and complexity of 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. 800 mm is "just" f/5.6 and don't need to "bend" light so much, so it should be more simple to build. That's following from your logic.

To build the 600/5.6 with *equal* to 300/2.8 IQ/build quality, the complexity and price would be nearly the same. You can agree or not, but there are enough examples. And to make it around $2000-3000 would be a huge compromise between price and IQ/build quality. My point is, 600/5.6 is to much for an affordable lens (2-3K), 500/5.6 looks more realistic. No point in the bad 600/5.6, just make a good 500/5.6...

And if you're mentioning the Sigma 150-600: compare two versions to see how much effort it costs to make 600 mm look better even at the *same* aperture - 1 kg more weight + $1000. And then to make even 600/5.6 for $3000 (and by Canon, not by Sigma) looks really fantastic... at least to me.


----------



## GLNC (May 27, 2015)

It seems a 500 f/5.6 really would hit a sweet spot in terms of the current line-up. With a design weighted to the simpler spectrum (what LDS was pointing out earlier with less elements and cheaper ones) that was still good optically, along with USM, IS and the affordable price (let’s be realistic and think about 2k or more to still get something worthwhile) I’m sure they would catch the interest, and dollars, of many a wealthier/committed hobbyist or part-time(plus) photographer. Canon is in the business to make money so they will have done their research and know the user they are shooting for.

We’ve become a-custom to stellar performance of all recent generation high end lenses (not that this is a bad thing) and I just hope as users (well dreamer in my case) of these products we can really consider what we can expect from an “affordable” telephoto. Ideally we want perfect optical quality but don’t want to pay what Canon would ideally need/like to charge us for it. So a very good (not great or stellar - but still better than some of the ageing lenses in the lineup) 500 f/5.6 (L or not) IS would surely be a hit. And I’m sure Canon would already know this and be working on it if they saw a business case for it. Here’s hoping.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Gnocchi said:
> ...



You're right, it's not clear. I thought it was clear, and the fact that it's not is actually Canon's fault. 

Canon stated that the -S stands for small image circle in the Technical Report for the first such lens, the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, which was released as the kit lens for the Digital Rebel / 300D / Kiss back in 2003. I ran across that report in 2012 (link to old CR post).

Unfortunately, Canon took all of their older technical reports offline in late 2013 - which was quite rude of them!

However, there's the internet wayback machine, and when I searched for archived versions of the 2004-1 technical report it turns out that while I was correct based on the the report that was current before they removed all the older ones (first image below), the original report indiciated that the -S meant short back focus (second image below). They edited their own report in early 2006 (love those multiple wayback machine snapshots!), which coincides with the release of the EF-S 17-55/2.8. I suspect that's because the 17-55 does not acutally have a short backfocus distance (unlike the previously released EF-S lenses), whereas all the EF-S lenses have a small image circle relative to EF lenses.

So, I was incorrect that 'small image circle' was the original designation, but I do think it's the best designation, and I infer from Canon's edit of their own report that they think so, too.


----------



## NancyP (May 27, 2015)

A 600 f/5.6L IS with IQ similar to or better than the old 400 f/5.6L, with fast AF response, and with adequate weather resistance would hit the sweet spot in weight and usability for birders with recent FF bodies. However, it wouldn't be inexpensive, just less expensive by a good bit than the 600 f/4. Something in the $4,000.00 to $5,000.00range? The budget birder still starts out with some APS-C body and the 400 f/5.6L or 100-400II. I can see a mid-level birder going for 5D3/4 and 600 f/5.6L IS. Pros will still go for the 500 or 600 f/4 plus 1DX1/2.


----------



## scyrene (May 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > A 600 f/5.6L IS with IQ similar to or better than the old 400 f/5.6L, with fast AF response, and with adequate weather resistance would hit the sweet spot in weight and usability for birders with recent FF bodies. However, it wouldn't be inexpensive, just less expensive by a good bit than the 600 f/4. Something in the $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 range?
> ...



Mixed feelings about this! "Affordable" is a totally subjective term, and so perfect for marketing purposes. But I did happen to start out on birds with a "Rebel" (300D) and 70-300... and I agree on the 5Ds - I'm thinking of upgrading. Losing only 1fps (I think?) is no big deal. But I suppose a committed bird photography amateur might start with a 7D and e.g. 300 f/4 IS.


----------



## jdavis37 (May 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



At 6.3 pounds the Sigma lens is heavier than I would prefer for a hand held day trip. I currently have the 7 pound 500F4 (often attached to 1.4XTC) and the size and weight after a while can still beat you down (though it is not overly heavy for what it is). But the Sigma would not offer me any advantages and I was sorry to see the announced weight as otherwise it would have been a possibility.

An F5.6 super tele prime would make a lot of sense given the weight would be significantly reduced. Those using the 400 F5.6 know just how small and light the lens is, making it great for day trips, especially those when you are in/out of a car all day long.

While I have no idea what Canon will do (they don't seem to often call me to ask what I would prefer!), I just do not see another super L zoom coming out on top of the 100-400L. That lens is their competitor for the Sigma and Tamron offerings even though focal length wise it is much shorter. But a 300-600 F5.6L zoom, while a nice thought, would not be light nor "affordable" per definitions of affordability listed in this thread.

My guess is the lens will be a 500mm F5.6L IS which should remain fairly light. The affordability of such I daresay many won't be happy with. The F4 version now sells for $9K. I would guess am F5.6L would sell for no less than $3K and most likely $4K or even somewhat higher. At $4K it is very "affordable" compared to the F4 version. But the $$ has gained ground compared to the yen so who knows. I was surprised when the 100-400L II came out at $2199.

It will be interesting. I would prefer a 600 F5.6 and if priced decently would be tempted to buy it if the lens were under 5 pounds. An "affordable" 500mm F5.6 I might consider but more doubtful given I have the F4 version already (MkII). But either lens would be desirable by many people and if the price were truly affordable even better.


----------



## jdavis37 (May 27, 2015)

NancyP said:


> A 600 f/5.6L IS with IQ similar to or better than the old 400 f/5.6L, with fast AF response, and with adequate weather resistance would hit the sweet spot in weight and usability for birders with recent FF bodies. However, it wouldn't be inexpensive, just less expensive by a good bit than the 600 f/4. Something in the $4,000.00 to $5,000.00range? The budget birder still starts out with some APS-C body and the 400 f/5.6L or 100-400II. I can see a mid-level birder going for 5D3/4 and 600 f/5.6L IS. Pros will still go for the 500 or 600 f/4 plus 1DX1/2.



Agree though in addition to my 500F4 II (with 5D3) I would be tempted to buy a 600 F5.6 if the weight were significantly less. I can handle the 7 pounds of the 500F4 BUT there are times when a lighter lens would be appreciated. Holding a 10 pound + camera + lens by hand and waiting.. and waiting.. and waiting for a bird to re-position itself isn't always fun!

So when Canon calls to ask me I'll chirp up about a 600 F5.6 lens but my gut says it will be a 500 mm F5.6 instead to replace the 400 f5.6. It will be smaller, lighter and less expensive which marketing wise makes a lot of sense.. and dollars.


----------



## jdavis37 (May 27, 2015)

scyrene said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



Affordability is a very ambiguous term which is why the original rumor posting is a little misleading. A 600 F5.6L IS for $4800 would be very affordable compared to the F4 version but nearly $5K for any leans is not something most will buy. I saved for an extensive period of time to buy the 500F4 II and it still made me queasy to buy it. I am not poor but neither am I rich and birds are a hobby not a business.

By the way I have seen gray market 7D2's for $1100 or slightly less. Compared to what DSLRs once cost that is very affordable though compared to a $650 rebel it may not be. Still seems to be a good price for anyone interested.

Time will provide the answer on this rumor. I am still guessing it will be a 500mm F5.6 as it would logically replace the 400 F5.6. Canon has the 100-400L and adding a lighter 500mm prime would make sense if they can hold the cost down. Just not sure it will be "affordable" by many definitions and Canon is certainly not going to produce a smaller lighter version of the current 500F4 at a price significantly less (like $2000).

I would hate to have to blance out marketing drives, production costs and what people think they want! has to be a hard job because you won't please the majority.


----------



## NancyP (May 27, 2015)

Actually, "affordable" would be one of those superzoom bridge cameras, which can function adequately for record shots under some circumstances. "Affordable" might also be a mirror lens.


----------



## LSeries (May 28, 2015)

I would like to see a 500 f/5.6L or 600 f/5.6L and would probably buy one in a heartbeat. I consider 40-50% the price of the f/4 versions "affordable" enough.


----------



## Maximilian (May 28, 2015)

LSeries said:


> I would like to see a 500 f/5.6L or 600 f/5.6L and would probably buy one in a heartbeat. I consider 40-50% the price of the f/4 versions "affordable" enough.


But would you also consider 40-50% the price of the f/4 versions as "*realistic" or "possible" for Canon*?
Sorry, I don't think so. Maybe not even for SigRon (@ f/5.6).
And I also wouldn't call a price of 40-50% - still meaning > 4.000 $/€/£ - "affordable". 
It surely would be a really good price for such a lens, but affordable?

To me "affordable" is something that any mainstream enthusiast with an average income could afford without saving for a long time.
And although opinions might differ here I see a lot of enthusiast I know are not able or willing to go north of 2.000 $/€/£.
And this leads me back to my first post in this thread here (Reply #9) where I stated this rumor as 
"_interesting and strange at the same time_" and it will be very interesting to see what Canon respectively the rumor source is defining as "affordable". Hopefully we'll see soon


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 28, 2015)

Is it possible to have a affordable decent performing 500/5.6 IS?

Here is a thought experiment. A lens like the Tamron 150-600 exists. This lens sells at a profit in the US in the $1100 price range. At the long end it is i think around 580mm f/6.3. 

Increase front group and iris size by 8%. Raises material costs by 20%.
Use higher quality "glass" in some of the optics. Raises material costs by 120%. 
Replace mechanical zoom barrel with higher strength solid tube. Increases material cost by 10%
Replace zoom optics with simpler prime optics. Reduces material costs 30%
Use alternative focus group optics to accommodate the new front end optics. No change to overall costs
Use alternative IS group. No change to overall costs
Use alternative rear group to correct aberrations to target specification. No change to overall costs

($1100)x(1.2)x(2.2)x(1.1)x(0.7)x(1x1x1) = $2336

Maybe my guesswork is way out, but I think it's doable for under $3000


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2015)

I certainly think there's a market for a 500 f5.6 LIS and a 600 f5.6 LIS
Especially if it's sharp wide open. Given that the new DO II optics look very good...these new lenses could be VERY small and light. 

I wonder if the 300 f4 LIS is needed these days. A 70-200 f2.8 II LIS with a 1.4x is just as sharp and more versatile. 
The same with the 400mm f5.6L, it's real skill was it's great sharpness wide open combined with a really fast and accurate AF system. The new 100-400 II LIS pretty much covers those skills and adds versatility.

I dare say that the 800mm f5.6 LIS will come in for a replacement soon, along with the 200mm f2 LIS.


----------



## Maximilian (May 28, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Is it possible to have a affordable decent performing 500/5.6 IS?
> 
> Here is a thought experiment. A lens like the Tamron 150-600 exists. This lens sells at a profit in the US in the $1100 price range. At the long end it is i think around 580mm f/6.3.
> 
> ...


Quite interesting thought. Thank you, StudentOfLight.

Although the numbers and percentage values might be wrong I'd be willing to call this thought experiment good.
Except for one point:
A $1.100 lens is supposed to be sold in higher numbers than a $3.000 lens.
So costs for R&D, prototyping, marketing, etc. will be divided up to a much lower number of units. 
You could argue now that this is already included in your percentage numbers or the margin between 2.336 and 3.000 but I am not 100% sure on this. I've seen price calcualtions before (not for lenses) and R&D of a product is quite a huge part.

But I am willing to agree that somewhere between 3.000 and 3.500 it could be possible to built such a lens - *for SigRon*. 
Add up some 15% to 20% for a *Canon lens* and we'll be probalby again north of 4k bucks. 
And for this price the costs for R&D, etc. will be spread over a even lower number of lenses.

Even if 3.000 might be right, it's still a lot of money. 

One thing really positive:
This price is far enough north to separate from a 100-400L II. 
But I don't believe that it is close enough to the prices of the big whites in Canons eyes.


----------



## NancyP (May 28, 2015)

There might be a market out there for an under $5,000.00, under 6 pounds, weather-resistant, outstanding optics 500 or 600 f/5.6L IS. How large a market, I am not sure. A lot of individuals looking for a 4K to 5K lens are buying old 500 f/4L IS Is, heavy but not impossible. 

I just have to rent a 500 f/4 and see if I can handle it hand-held for flight shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I certainly think there's a market for a 500 f5.6 LIS and a 600 f5.6 LIS



I wonder...what if the rumored lens is _not_ an L-series lens?


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2015)

a 300mm F4.0 goes for $1350... 77mm filter
a 400mm F5.6 goes for $1250... 77mm filter

an updated 400 F5.6 with IS would go for at least $1350.... more likely $1500

A 500mm F5.6 with IS would probably have a 95mm filter....

A Sigma 150-500 F6.3 goes for $800
A Tamron 150-600 F6.3 goes for $1,080
A Sigma 500 F4.5 goes for $5,000
A Canon 500 F4.0 goes for $9,000
A Nikon 500 F4.0 goes for $8,300
A Sony 500 F4.0 goes for $13,000

I can see a 500 F5.6 going for around $2100 to 2200


----------



## Maximilian (May 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly think there's a market for a 500 f5.6 LIS and a 600 f5.6 LIS
> ...


If they (Canon) make an "affordable" super-tele I am SURE that it won't be a L lens.


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 28, 2015)

It's just funny, 8 pages of discussion about what a 500 5.6 might cost in relation to other partly completely different lenses.

BUT: The selling price is definded by the marketing compartment. If they think, it should be sold for 3000.- the question is at what Price it can be produced. If it can produced at less cost, it will come to marked after it passed some other considerations. if not, it will not be produced. if they can produce it for 10$ in China instead of 50$ in Japan, they will produce it in China and sell it for 3000$. 

Pricing policy is independent from cost, it depends on what ccustomers think it would cost..... this may be diffferent only in case of strong competition, but not in case of camera Systems, where everybody who buys a super telephoto is locked in his system


----------



## scyrene (May 28, 2015)

hendrik-sg said:


> It's just funny, 8 pages of discussion about what a 500 5.6 might cost in relation to other partly completely different lenses.
> 
> BUT: The selling price is definded by the marketing compartment. If they think, it should be sold for 3000.- the question is at what Price it can be produced. If it can produced at less cost, it will come to marked after it passed some other considerations. if not, it will not be produced. if they can produce it for 10$ in China instead of 50$ in Japan, they will produce it in China and sell it for 3000$.
> 
> Pricing policy is independent from cost, it depends on what ccustomers think it would cost..... this may be diffferent only in case of strong competition, but not in case of camera Systems, where everybody who buys a super telephoto is locked in his system



I'm not sure that's totally true. Unless a cartel is operating, if company A charges far more than its costs on a product, then company B can come along and offer the same (or an equivalent) product at a lower cost, and undercut them. Of course in the case of lenses, brand loyalty is relevant, but still - I don't think cost to produce and cost charged to customers are entirely divorced.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2015)

hendrik-sg said:


> It's just funny, 8 pages of discussion about what a 500 5.6 might cost in relation to other partly completely different lenses.
> 
> BUT: The selling price is definded by the marketing compartment. If they think, it should be sold for 3000.- the question is at what Price it can be produced. If it can produced at less cost, it will come to marked after it passed some other considerations. if not, it will not be produced. if they can produce it for 10$ in China instead of 50$ in Japan, they will produce it in China and sell it for 3000$.
> 
> Pricing policy is independent from cost, it depends on what ccustomers think it would cost..... this may be diffferent only in case of strong competition, but not in case of camera Systems, where everybody who buys a super telephoto is locked in his system



Nonsense, if the manufacturing department can't make something for the cost the marketing dept wants then it won't get made, only loss leading statement lenses in very small numbers are made to make a point (50mm f1.0, 200mm f1.8 etc), a 500mm f5.6 will have to make money and stand alone as there is more than enough competition from third parties to force the issue. People might feel they are 'locked in' to Canon, but they have a wide range of 500mm options already.


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> People might feel they are 'locked in' to Canon, but they have a wide range of 500mm options already.


EXACTLY!
if we look at lenses 500mm or longer, we get some really cheap t-mount lenses.....
A Vivitar 500 F8.0 goes for $90
A Samyang 500 F8.0 mirror lens goes for $100
A Rokinon 500 F6.3 mirror lens goes for $120
A Vivitar 800 F8.0 mirror lens goes for $150
A Bower 650-1300 F16 goes for $250

Then we have a flurry of medium quality zooms....
A Sigma 150-500 F6.3 goes for $730
A Tamron 150-600 F6.3 goes for $1,070
A Sigma 150-600 F6.3 goes for $1,090
A Sigma 50-500 F6.3 goes for $1,510
A Sigma 150-600 F6.3 (sports) goes for $2,000

and finally, a bunch of high quality (and price) primes....
A Sigma 500 F4.5 goes for $5,000
A Sigma 800 F5.6 goes for $6,600
A Sigma 300-800 F5.6 goes for $8,000
A Canon 500 F4.0 goes for $9,000
A Canon 600 F4.0 goes for $11,500
A Canon 800 F5.6 goes for $13,000
A Sigma 200-500 F2.8 goes for $26,000

A medium quality prime should be able to be built for less than a medium quality zoom. It will be lighter and the IQ should be better as it will have an easier design to optimize than a zoom. If a 600 F6.3 zoom can be built for around $1000, then a 500mm F5.6 prime can most definitely be built for under $1000 and a 600 F5.6 prime can be built for around $1000 to $1200. These would definitely an "affordable supertelephoto"

If you went to a high quality "L" prime, then double the cost.... this would still get you a $2200 500 F5.6, still affordable as super telephotos go....


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > People might feel they are 'locked in' to Canon, but they have a wide range of 500mm options already.
> ...



Don't forget all those options are available on the secondhand market too.

There are Canon 500mm f4 IS primes going for close to $4,000, the older non IS's are much less.


----------



## slclick (May 28, 2015)

A common frame of reference I keep running into is that some folks without disposable or higher incomes have a tough time spending more on glass than the body cost. I don't see it that way because bodies are transient but good lenses are for keeps. 

However this seems to be a commonly held belief I've gleaned from a few hundred Community College photography majors I've spoken to over the past few years. I know students you say. But no, all walks of life and income strata take classes at community colleges.


----------



## 100 (May 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> A Sigma 200-500 F2.8 goes for $26,000



It’s on sale where I live (the Netherlands) for 7k€ (about 7,700 USD)
http://www.foka.nl/sigma-200-500mm-f-2-8-ex-apo-canon
It’s a bit heavy (15.7 kilos) and it doesn’t have image stabilization so you need some money for a tripod as well but it’s the most “affordable” 500 f/2.8 option as far as I know. 
With an 2x extender you get a 1,000 f/5.6 and that’s a steal compared to a second hand 1200mm f/5.6L http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801201815-USE/canon_2527a001_super_telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6l.html


----------



## NancyP (May 29, 2015)

That has to be a typo, or the lens must be used and in poor condition.


----------



## Maximilian (May 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


You mean like all those people here talking about the 50, 40 and 24 STMs or the Tamrons and Sigma teles that are also not _L_ and therefore not "cool"?
There is (almost) no greater danger than in generalizations.


----------



## meywd (May 29, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1 if its sharp it will be cool, as much as the ef-s 17-55 is cool, anyway I think if its a prime its will definitely be an L, if a zoom and affordable then mostly not L.


----------



## 100 (May 29, 2015)

NancyP said:


> That has to be a typo, or the lens must be used and in poor condition.



There are actually two retailers with a Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 on sale for the same price (€6,999) so I don't think it's a typo. Here is the other one:
http://www.bol.com/nl/p/sigma-apo-200-500mm-f2-8-400-1000mm-ex-dg-canon/9200000018461285/?Referrer=ADVNLTWE0020149200000018461285PLZ
I've seen it being offered for less than 10k€ before but this is the lowest I've seen. I think it's a difficult lens to sell hence the "low" price.


----------



## danski0224 (May 29, 2015)

I would think that just about anything that Canon comes out with that is at 40% to 50% of MSRP of the current supertelephoto lenses would be classified as "affordable". Affordable is a relative term in this case.

I don't know what Canon would make the consumer give up from the top of the line lenses to the "affordable" lenses. One stop of light? Two stops? Two mode IS instead of 3?

Would people buy a 600mm f/5.6 at say $4500 USD if it offered 80% of the IQ of the 600 f/4 II?

I can't realistically see Canon offering something that gives 80% of a 500/600 f/4 VII at 1/3 of the cost of one or less.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> I can't realistically see Canon offering something that gives 80% of a 500/600 f/4 VII at 1/3 of the cost of one or less.



They already do for shorter lenses – 85mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm. The point for those lenses, as for the rumored lens here, is that the cheaper lenses are slower by 1-2 stops.


----------



## tron (May 29, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Would people buy a 600mm f/5.6 at say $4500 USD if it offered 80% of the IQ of the 600 f/4 II?


Yes because a 600 f/5.6L IS would be also smaller (in diameter) and lighter not only cheaper.


----------



## danski0224 (May 29, 2015)

It should be interesting then. Time will tell.


----------



## RGF (May 29, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I certainly think there's a market for a 500 f5.6 LIS and a 600 f5.6 LIS
> Especially if it's sharp wide open. Given that the new DO II optics look very good...these new lenses could be VERY small and light.



Given the price of the 400 DO, a 500 F5.6 and 600 F5.6 DO would be similarly priced.

Look at the prices of the 400 F2.8 and 600 F4. Expect a similar ratio.


----------



## Don Haines (May 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't realistically see Canon offering something that gives 80% of a 500/600 f/4 VII at 1/3 of the cost of one or less.
> ...



I think a perfect example of this is the 70-200 IS zoom lenses. The IQ on the F4 version and the F2.8 versions are almost identical.... yet one pays half as much for the F4 version....


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


I own the 100mm non-L macro lens. I'd be more than happy for a 500mm non-L (maybe even non IS) lens with similar relative performance to the 100 macro.


----------



## candc (May 29, 2015)

a zoom to compete with tamron and sigma's 150-600 offerings i reckon. even if the iq were the same it would have the canon name and af. a big seller for sure.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't realistically see Canon offering something that gives 80% of a 500/600 f/4 VII at 1/3 of the cost of one or less.
> ...



And even shorter than that - the 35/2 IS is what, 1/3rd the price of the 35L? Not sure what people would call it its performance as a percentage of the 35L, but it's awesome.


----------



## HighLowISO (May 30, 2015)

600mm f/5.6 IS $3500 ... That gets some volume sales.


----------



## gunship01 (May 30, 2015)

600mm L IS for $3500? 

That would work.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 31, 2015)

I don't see a 500/5.6 cannibalizing more expensive options. The 400mm DO with a 1.4xTC is longer, lighter, sharper and maybe faster-focusing and with excellent IS. The 300/2.8 with a 2xTC is longer and probably sharper and faster-focusing. The 500/4 is brighter, faster-focusing, sharper and therefore easily takes a 1.4xTC even on a crop body e.g. Excellent IQ on 1D4 + 500L + 1.4xTc (>900mm). For people seriously needing the performance they won't compromise with a lower tier lens.

Does the 300mm f/4 L IS cannibalize the similarly priced 70-200mm f/4 L IS? A hypothetical 500/5.6 wouldn't necessarily be priced below the 100-400L II. Also, the 4x zoom on the 100-400mm is very versatile for subjects moving towards or away from camera. With a long prime a subject will change size quite a lot in the frame. I've been shooting a fair amount of indoor sports recently so I find it critical to keep the subject close to filling the frame as much as possible. Due to poor lighting, cropping too much in post-processing results in poor images due to high-ISO noise but at the same time you need to shoot wide enough to capture the action. So having the zoom design is incredibly valuable. I doubt that people seriously needing the versatility of a zoom would compromise their angle of view with a prime that is too long.


----------



## MintChocs (May 31, 2015)

I think that this lens will be an EF-S only mount lens. I would imagine that it would be up to 400mm and f5.6 as most Canon Rebels won't theoretically AF past this aperture in terms of minimum light for the AF sensor. It would be built along the lines of the 55-250mm, plastic, no tripod mount. As we see in the P&S compact market there is an emphasis on zooms, so it wouldn't be surprising to see a lens to compete. Something like 100-350mm 4.5-5.6 would sound about right and replace the current EF 70-300IS.


----------



## tron (May 31, 2015)

MintChocs said:


> I think that this lens will be an EF-S only mount lens. I would imagine that it would be up to 400mm and f5.6 as most Canon Rebels won't theoretically AF past this aperture in terms of minimum light for the AF sensor. It would be built along the lines of the 55-250mm, plastic, no tripod mount. As we see in the P&S compact market there is an emphasis on zooms, so it wouldn't be surprising to see a lens to compete. Something like 100-350mm 4.5-5.6 would sound about right and replace the current EF 70-300IS.


There is no reason for an EF-S lens. The diameter will be the same EF or EF-S...


----------



## MintChocs (May 31, 2015)

EF-S more from a marketing point of view and in keeping with a budget aimed market. Full frame users prefer better lenses.


----------



## HighLowISO (May 31, 2015)

Maybe they can use DO optics to make a 600mm f/5.6 IS $3500 a reality.

The DO lenses have not really dramatically changed the lens landscape yet due to price. Canon said they have recently improved things again with DO manufacturing so maybe it's time for some volume manufacturing of a DO lens while Nikon, nor anyone else, has any lens competition.


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 1, 2015)

MintChocs said:


> EF-S more from a marketing point of view and in keeping with a budget aimed market. Full frame users prefer better lenses.



You have obviously not used the EF-S 60mm Macro....


----------



## tron (Jun 1, 2015)

HighLowISO said:


> Maybe they can use DO optics to make a 600mm f/5.6 IS $3500 a reality.
> 
> The DO lenses have not really dramatically changed the lens landscape yet due to price. Canon said they have recently improved things again with DO manufacturing so maybe it's time for some volume manufacturing of a DO lens while Nikon, nor anyone else, has any lens competition.


A 600mm f/5.6 IS would be a very nice addition. However, it will not cost 3500 the moment the 400 DO II costs almost double.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 1, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> MintChocs said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S more from a marketing point of view and in keeping with a budget aimed market. Full frame users prefer better lenses.
> ...


Very good example


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 1, 2015)

I sure would love a 400 f/5.6 with IS, weathersealing, and updated tech, but I'm doubtful that will happen.


----------



## Joey (Jun 1, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > MintChocs said:
> ...


...or the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 standard zoom...


----------



## NancyP (Jun 1, 2015)

I would expect a 600 DO to be pretty expensive. A 500 or 600 f/5.6L made of mostly standard glass with a UD element or two but no fluorite, in a simple design, might be under 5K$ - IS - I don't know how much that adds to the cost, but I would guess that a non-IS lens simply wouldn't sell. (The 400 non-IS sells because it is cheap and light and easy to handle bird-in-flight lens).


----------



## Vermilion (Jul 22, 2015)

A big brother to the 400mm 5.6L would be very nice! Prior to the 100-400mm Markii there wasn't a better walk around lens for birding. The 400 is light, bright, and as sharp as can be hoped for. Getting something like a 500mm 5.6 would be awesome! My old 500mm 4.5 is great for tripod work, but walking with it sucks. My guess is that the 500mm f4 is also a beast. 

IS would be OK, but how much weight would that add? Would you need more elements and loose IQ? Hope Canon R&D reads posts.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 22, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I sure would love a 400 f/5.6 with IS, weathersealing, and updated tech, but I'm doubtful that will happen.



The issue I see with that is, the old one was what, ~$1k? The 100-400ii is $2200; by the time you add IS and weathersealing to the 400/5.6, along with any other updates, how much will it cost? How many people will opt for it instead of the excellent 100-400ii?


----------



## TheJock (Jul 23, 2015)

To be fair, I have the 100-400 and I really want either a prime 400 f5.6 or something longer (but similarly priced, I could go double the price at the absolute most!), so I don’t think the sales of the current zooms (70-200 or 100-400II) will be affected at all. 
People want primes because of the compact size and weight saving in comparison to their zoom counterparts (with similar longest focus range). 
My zoom is constantly at 400mm even with the 1.4X TCIII attached at the wildlife sanctuaries I visit, having a 400/500 prime _plus _ my TC is an absolute dream, but it’s extremely difficult to justify $6,000+++ for one of the fast big whites, should that really be the customers fault? 
If Canon doesn’t give us something you can bet your bottom dollar that Sigma will jump on it in the not too distant future, who knows, there may be an 500mm IS ART sitting on the design table as we speak!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> To be fair, I have the 100-400 and I really want either a prime 400 f5.6 or something longer (but similarly priced, I could go double the price at the absolute most!), so I don’t think the sales of the current zooms (70-200 or 100-400II) will be affected at all.
> People want primes because of the compact size and weight saving in comparison to their zoom counterparts (with similar longest focus range).
> My zoom is constantly at 400mm even with the 1.4X TCIII attached at the wildlife sanctuaries I visit, having a 400/500 prime _plus _ my TC is an absolute dream, but it’s extremely difficult to justify $6,000+++ for one of the fast big whites, should that really be the customers fault?
> If Canon doesn’t give us something you can bet your bottom dollar that Sigma will jump on it in the not too distant future, who knows, there may be an 500mm IS ART sitting on the design table as we speak!!!!!!!!!!!!


I am in the same boat.... I want a prime that will work with a 1.4X teleconverter....

If Tamron can make a 150-600 F6.3 zoom lens for $1100, then they can certainly make a 600F5.6 prime for around the same cost..... and not being a zoom lens they should be able to make it with far superior optics to the 150-600...

Canon should easily be able to do it at twice the cost.... even 3X with fluorite elements.....


----------



## TheJock (Jul 23, 2015)

I honestly don’t understand why the likes of Tamron or Sigma don’t have a supertele option Don. 
Like I mentioned, a nice ART series 500 or 600mm would be just the ticket!!! (just incase there are any of their tech's reading this forum ;D )


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 23, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> I honestly don’t understand why the likes of Tamron or Sigma don’t have a supertele option Don.
> Like I mentioned, a nice ART series 500 or 600mm would be just the ticket!!! (just incase there are any of their tech's reading this forum ;D )


Hi Stewart! 

I would call this 
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/500mm-f45-ex-dg-apo-hsm
and this 
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/800mm-f56-ex-apo-dg-hsm
an "ART/SPORTS" supertele. 

Of course they tried to reinvent the "big whites" there and what you mean is that they do not have a cheap 600/f6.3 but it is not so easy to invent a new optical formula on your own than instead to copy an existing one 

I think they'll do one if they think that there is a market for it. But right now they think that a zoom is having a bigger maket and so they introduced that one first.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 23, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> I honestly don’t understand why the likes of Tamron or Sigma don’t have a supertele option Don.
> Like I mentioned, a nice ART series 500 or 600mm would be just the ticket!!! (just incase there are any of their tech's reading this forum ;D )



Pretty sure they'd call it Sport, not Art. They'll probably get there, eventually, and try to hit lengths and apertures underserved by Canon.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 23, 2015)

Has anybody here actually used the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 and have any comments on its autofocus ability? 

I think that a real fear of someone dropping USD 5K to 6K on the Sigma 500 is that it could be incompatible with future Canon bodies, and maybe even some current Canon bodies. I know that I would be more interested in a Sigma if it were issued in a dock-compatible form with ongoing Sigma support for reverse engineering AF to new bodies. Until then, a used Canon 500 f/4 L IS v. I is the way to go.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2015)

The Canon 500mm f/4 L IS is far too heavy for me. I would snap up a lightweight 500mm f/5.6, and if made by Sigma or Tamron should not be that expensive.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 23, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The Canon 500mm f/4 L IS is far too heavy for me. I would snap up a lightweight 500mm f/5.6, and if made by Sigma or Tamron should not be that expensive.



Each to their own. I mean, it *is* heavy compared to many lenses, but I find it carryable. Might change my mind if my wrists give out though!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 24, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The Canon 500mm f/4 L IS is far too heavy for me. I would snap up a lightweight 500mm f/5.6, and if made by Sigma or Tamron should not be that expensive.


I don't shoot wildlife professionally and don't come from money so the BIG white lenses are out of the question for me. An affordable(to me) 500/5.6 is the dream. If the performancerice ratio was sufficient I'd trade in my Tamron 150-600. I'm not enamored by it's performance at "600"mm. I don't like having to stopping down beyond f/8 to get usable sharp detail. 

Canon has already released great updates in the 7D-II and the 100-400L-II. A 500/5.6 IS would really cement Canon's excellent value proposition for the reach-limited wildlife photography enthusiast.


----------



## tron (Jul 24, 2015)

If only the 500 5.6 was a DO lens it would be fantastic. But I guess the price would be high...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 24, 2015)

tron said:


> If only the 500 5.6 was a DO lens it would be fantastic. But I guess the price would be high...



Generally, when a new technology is introduced, it is expensive and does not perform that well..... kind of like the first few DO lenses.... but the last one is quite good. I wonder what will happen to the pricing of DO lens elements and if they will eventually be more economical than glass....

Exciting times!


----------



## westcoastcanon (Jul 28, 2015)

Would a 500mm F5.6L IS lens take a screw-on 95mm filter and pinch lens cap? Just thinking for point of comparison, the Canon 400mm F5.6L is a very compact little lens with 77mm front, while the Pentax 560mm F5.6 lens looks to be a real beast. Hard to estimate where a Canon 500 F5.6L IS would come in for size and weight and handling....


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2015)

westcoastcanon said:


> Would a 500mm F5.6L IS lens take a screw-on 95mm filter and pinch lens cap? Just thinking for point of comparison, the Canon 400mm F5.6L is a very compact little lens with 77mm front, while the Pentax 560mm F5.6 lens looks to be a real beast. Hard to estimate where a Canon 500 F5.6L IS would come in for size and weight and handling....



In theory it could take a 95mm filter. 
The Pentax 560, I recall, has the design of a telescope to minimize the number of elements and is larger than a typical camera lens.


----------



## westcoastcanon (Jul 28, 2015)

AlanF said:


> westcoastcanon said:
> 
> 
> > Would a 500mm F5.6L IS lens take a screw-on 95mm filter and pinch lens cap? Just thinking for point of comparison, the Canon 400mm F5.6L is a very compact little lens with 77mm front, while the Pentax 560mm F5.6 lens looks to be a real beast. Hard to estimate where a Canon 500 F5.6L IS would come in for size and weight and handling....
> ...



If it was a sized-up version of the 400L F5.6 with weather sealing and IS, that would be pretty awesome.


----------



## Freddy (Aug 2, 2015)

Canon have made slower super-teles before. I remember my first Canon F1 back in 1973 (how I wish i still had it, complete with a handled motor drive with seperate batt. pack on a shoulder strap that managed 3.5 FPS)
and there was a lens brochure that came with it with lenses up to 1200mm F11. I remember the designation was FL. (NOT flourite!!!!!) This was the series BEFORE FD. There were several other FL's up to 1200. Also, I might be wrong but I remember some sort of modular lens system as well. Oh well. Bring on the 500mm F5.6 please to go with my 760D. I'm loving that cam btw. Will post in a month or so.


----------



## TheJock (Aug 4, 2015)

Theoretically there should be nothing stopping them from releasing a 500mm with IS for $2,000.
IS appears in kit lenses, so it’s not that expensive as an addition.
C’mon Canon, what ya waiting for!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 4, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> IS appears in kit lenses, so it’s not that expensive as an addition.
> C’mon Canon, what ya waiting for!!!!!!!!!!!


Kit lens IS on a long telephoto lens is going to ruin everything I'm fairly certain. :


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 4, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon's competition in this space now includes the Nikkor 200-500/f5.6 for $1399.



Yes please ! Fine compliment to my 70-300L - I'd love to see it work with extenders on f5.6 cameras but that's not gonna happen :-/


----------

