# Canon to Release Super Telephoto Zoom in 2016 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 29, 2016)

```
<p>We’re told that a Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS development is on schedule and that the lens will be released some time in 2016.</p>
<p>The source didn’t know if it was going to be an L lens or not, but assumed that it wasn’t going to be. The lens would likely be priced below the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, and compete directly with the Sigma and Tamron supertelephoto zoom lenses.</p>
<p>It makes sense to us that it would come below the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II as far as price point and quality are concerned. We’re confident such a lens from Canon would still have terrific optical performance and a relatively light weight.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 29, 2016)

Where do I sign up to buy one ! Haha


----------



## Joatamos (Mar 29, 2016)

Take my money....... now, here, have it!!!!


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 29, 2016)

Very interesting product. Esp. to those thinking about the Nikon 200 - 500.
I believe it is much more aimed to those customers.

I'd like to know the specs asap


----------



## docsmith (Mar 29, 2016)

Bring it on. Personally, I am hoping it is an "L" lens. I'll happily pay a bit of a premium for build quality and great IQ.

But it will have to be good to get my money. I currently use the Sigma 150-600S. It is a very capable lens. But there is room for improvement (mostly size/weight).


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Mar 29, 2016)

Why would the price be below the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6? If it's the same amount of light passing through (variable f/4.5-5.6), wouldn't the shorter glass be cheaper?


----------



## johnstraka (Mar 29, 2016)

Right when I was thinking I'd get a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary within the next couple of months...


----------



## noncho (Mar 29, 2016)

That could bring me back to Canon at some point... or 500 5.6.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 29, 2016)

Now there's a lens that interests me... (Just in case canon is reading this lol)


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 29, 2016)

will be interesting to see, what lens Canon will bring to try and stop the Tammy/Siggy 150-600 avalanche. 
Optical performance, size/weight, price ...


----------



## Xavitxaung (Mar 29, 2016)

Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...


----------



## slclick (Mar 29, 2016)

CrimsonBlue said:


> Why would the price be below the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6? If it's the same amount of light passing through (variable f/4.5-5.6), wouldn't the shorter glass be cheaper?



Not an L lens would make it cheaper.


----------



## Daan Stam (Mar 29, 2016)

i would love that i think a lot of photographers would like it if it is good and if it is cheaper than the 100-400
just for if they ever need it on top of the standards 16-35 24-70 70-200
and beginning wildlife photographers would stand in row for it i think


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

slclick said:


> CrimsonBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Why would the price be below the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6? If it's the same amount of light passing through (variable f/4.5-5.6), wouldn't the shorter glass be cheaper?
> ...



Because red paint is so costly? 

It will be an "L" lens and it won't be cheaper than the 100-400.


----------



## NorbR (Mar 29, 2016)

This would be an instant buy from me at this price point. 

I didn't think we would get a lens from Canon that would be 600mm at the long end, remain f/5.6, and priced under $2k. I figured one of these three things had to give. This latest rumor says otherwise, and that's one case I'd be very happy to be wrong


----------



## slclick (Mar 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > CrimsonBlue said:
> ...



Let's review the CR2 shall we. The two main things besides the focal length were:

1. Probably not an L
2. Cheaper than the 100-400 2


----------



## meywd (Mar 29, 2016)

If the rumor is true and the optical quality is good, then I am definitely in, at the same price as the 100-400 II and with comparable quality it would be awesome.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 29, 2016)

as long as its priced compitivelty against the Nikon 200-500 lens. I certainly would start saving up now for this new lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 29, 2016)

A 600/5.6 has the same aperture diameter as a 300/2.8 - 107.1mm. I can't see that coming in cheaper than the 71.4mm 100-400L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> A 600/5.6 has the same aperture diameter as a 300/2.8 - 107.1mm. I can't see that coming in cheaper than the 71.4mm 100-400L.



+1, nor can I see Canon releasing an f/6.3 lens and needing to spoof their own AF system like Tamron/Sigma.

But hey, it's just a rumor - physics and reality have no place in the discussion.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 29, 2016)

A week after buying the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II ! 

I used the old version of the above lens in South Africa for game drives (rented locally) and was impressed with the quality and bought the new version last week at The Photography Show for £ 1500.00. Since used on Dartmoor this past weekend the quality of the images on my 5DS are worth the cost however would still be interested in a 200 - 600mm for wildlife. The extra reach provided it doesnt rob too much in aperture would have bagged me better shots of a leopard on my last trip although I didnt find the 100-400mm heavy to use hand held when required.


----------



## tron (Mar 29, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...It makes sense to us that it would come below the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II as far as price point and quality are concerned. We’re confident such a lens from Canon would still have terrific optical performance and a relatively light weight...


So many contradictions. Why does it make sense? How can a longer zoom lens with non-L quality characteristics have terrific optical performance and at the same time be less expensive than 100-400 II?

Relatively light weight: Yes that is meaningful... and very specific.

It seems to me that this is just a mediocre (to say the least) marketing attempt...

Now, to succeed it has to be an L-quality lens. That will not come cheaply but it will be very successful. 
Just my opinion...


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

CR you're wrong about the date..

The 200-600mm will be announced along with the 7Dmark3 in 2017. it will be STM, look like a longer version of the 55-250 stm. All plastic with a metal mount but weight will be close to the Tamron. it is the same one in the Patent the was filed years back. Hoya is providing the elements least the front element, they already have the contract. The tripod collar is an extra but will ship with lens hood. it will lock for lens creep at 200mm and 400mm. focus down to 6 feet. won't be at the sharpest at wide open. $1,600 or close to. 

7d3 is coming around February of 2017 last i heard this week. they're doing final testing on the heat displacement and battery drain for 4k use, just getting the algorithms down in the firmware. 8)


----------



## CanoKnight (Mar 29, 2016)

johnstraka said:


> Right when I was thinking I'd get a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary within the next couple of months...




That's the whole point. Canon read your mind and they don't want you thinking of the Sigma.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > A 600/5.6 has the same aperture diameter as a 300/2.8 - 107.1mm. I can't see that coming in cheaper than the 71.4mm 100-400L.
> ...



+2

Canon hasn't released a single lens in the past 5 years, including their STM kit lenses) that has not had very solid optical performance. So unless they intentionally crippled this lens optically (I can't imagine) then I struggle to see how this would not obsolete the 100-400 II if it indeed was cheaper.

A 200-600 with f/5.6 on the long end? This has gotta be an L lens.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> CR you're wrong about the date..
> 
> The 200-600mm will be announced along with the 7Dmark3 in 2017. it will be STM, look like a longer version of the 55-250 stm. All plastic with a metal mount but weight will be close to the Tamron. it is the same one in the Patent the was filed years back. Hoya is providing the elements least the front element, they already have the contract. The tripod collar is an extra but will ship with lens hood. it will lock for lens creep at 200mm and 400mm. focus down to 6 feet. won't be at the sharpest at wide open. $1,600 or close to.
> 
> 7d3 is coming around February of 2017 last i heard this week. they're doing final testing on the heat displacement and battery drain for 4k use, just getting the algorithms down in the firmware. 8)



Hmmm....then the 7D II (announced Sept 2014) would have a ~2.5 yr life? That is half the 5 year life of the 7D. The main way I can see it is the referenced 4k video and as it seems Canon has come out with sensor tech and maybe they want to include it in the flagship APS-C camera. Don't get me wrong, I'd welcome it, it is just not typical for what I've seen from Canon.

I am with the others on the front element. It has to be big. Which usually means expensive, which usually means L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner just sent me a private message that it will be an EOS M lens with a max f/8 at the long end. He said he knew that as fact. :


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 29, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Hmmm....then the 7D II (announced Sept 2014) would have a ~2.5 yr life? That is half the 5 year life of the 7D. The main way I can see it is the referenced 4k video and as it seems Canon has come out with sensor tech and maybe they want to include it in the flagship APS-C camera. Don't get me wrong, I'd welcome it, it is just not typical for what I've seen from Canon.



OTOH Canon was in no hurry to release a 7D2 as a Nikon D400 never materialized. Now, with the D500, it's a different situation. Also, as you said, the new sensor tech.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

slclick said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Not trying to pick a fight, but there is a reason this is called Canon RUMORS.


----------



## tron (Mar 29, 2016)

docsmith said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > CR you're wrong about the date..
> ...


I do hope it is L. Otherwise Canon would have an excellent 100-400 and a so so 200-600. How someone would chose between them?


----------



## scyrene (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > A 600/5.6 has the same aperture diameter as a 300/2.8 - 107.1mm. I can't see that coming in cheaper than the 71.4mm 100-400L.
> ...



++1 People seem wildly optimistic without thinking about the reality. We've had this discussion on other threads - 500 5.6 I could buy, but if it's 600 5.6 then it'll be big, heavy, expensive, and probably an L.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 29, 2016)

I'd like something at least as good as the 150-600 Sigma Sports, which I've almost purchased about four times, even if it costs $4000 USD. And, no, I'm not interested in an f/6.3 largest aperture at the long end. How much does the 200-400 Canon zoom costs, about $11,000? It isn't as if Canon doesn't have pricing room.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2016)

A 200-600/5.6 zoom will be a 3kg+ job.


----------



## dolina (Mar 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> A 200-600/5.6 zoom will be a 3kg+ job.


I've hand held the 200-500mm Nikon and the weight is pretty heavy. I could imagine a 200-600 will weigh around 3kg and sell for around $2500 if it were a consumer lens.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Mar 29, 2016)

dont suppose a new 70-200 2.8 is coming?


----------



## axtstern (Mar 29, 2016)

> A 200-600/5.6 zoom will be a 3kg+ job.



Still better than the 6.5 Kilo I now cary with my old 400 2.8 + 1.4 extender arround.


----------



## tron (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner just sent me a private message that it will be an EOS M lens with a max f/8 at the long end. He said he knew that as fact. :


I guess the rolling eyes emoticon is perfect for cases like that ;D ;D ;D

A 500mm lens which by the way would have the same diameter with a Full Frame equivalent lens would balance nicely on a ... M-series Canon ;D ;D ;D


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

I'll leave the physics to others, but here is what I can't get past.

Let's say I own a lens business. For this example we will call it "Neuro's Ye Olde Lens Shoppe."

I have two choices. I can make one lens that will cost me $850 to manufacture. Once distribution, marketing, packaging, shipping, warranty service and other costs are added in, I figure I can sell it at an MSRP of $1,800 and offer it as a low-budget lens. I will sell 50,000 at a profit of $200 each – $10 million 

On the other hand, I can add about 15% to the cost of manufacture and make a much better lens that I can sell for $2,500. Most of my other costs are embedded and not going to change. (My warranty costs might actually go down, because there will be fewer repairs and replacements of the more expensive lens, on the other hand, I'll have to share more profit with retailers). By investing the extra 15% I now have the following: $200 original profit less $150 added costs plus $700 higher price less additional $200 to retailers for the higher costs item, for a net profit of $550 each. But, I only sell 40,000 units. Thus my $550 profit on 40,000 units is $22 million. 

Hmm...since I've already invested 85% of the cost by making a cheap lens, why not add another 15% to my manufacturing costs, put a red ring on it and more than double my profits?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner just sent me a private message that it will be an EOS M lens with a max f/8 at the long end. He said he knew that as fact. :
> ...



Well, beyond poking fun at the pithy pronouncements of a poseur with self-declared 'insider knowledge', a 200-600mm zoom with f/8 on the long end would likely be similar in size to the current 300mm f/4L IS, and the M series doesn't require f/5.6 lenses for AF (for example, Canon's M55-200 is f/6.3 on the long end).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

Do I get a discount when shopping at Neuro's Ye Olde Lens Shoppe?


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 29, 2016)

Canon is ramping up focusing systems with f/8 support. Maybe we can see smaller and cheaper tele lens with f/8 down the line. It can also put dslr more better position than mirrorless which needs faster lens to focus in low light.


----------



## nhz (Mar 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'll leave the physics to others, but here is what I can't get past.
> 
> Let's say I own a lens business. For this example we will call it "Neuro's Ye Olde Lens Shoppe."
> 
> ...



why not? Because when increasing the price by 40%, you are extremely optimistic assuming that you will only sell 20% less units. I would guess that even a 40% decline in sales numbers would be optimistic (of course depends on the perceived value-for-money of the specific product).

In reality is often the other way round: by going below a certain price point (= more or less directly competing with Nikon 200-500, Sigma/Tamron 150-600) you will sell a pretty large number to enthusiasts. Make a high end lens that is way more expensive and the pros (and very wealthy enthusiasts) will be happy, but their numbers are just a few % of the general enthusiast market.


----------



## nhz (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> CR you're wrong about the date..
> 
> The 200-600mm will be announced along with the 7Dmark3 in 2017. it will be STM, look like a longer version of the 55-250 stm. All plastic with a metal mount but weight will be close to the Tamron. it is the same one in the Patent the was filed years back. Hoya is providing the elements least the front element, they already have the contract. The tripod collar is an extra but will ship with lens hood. it will lock for lens creep at 200mm and 400mm. focus down to 6 feet. won't be at the sharpest at wide open. $1,600 or close to.
> 
> 7d3 is coming around February of 2017 last i heard this week. they're doing final testing on the heat displacement and battery drain for 4k use, just getting the algorithms down in the firmware. 8)


you failed to mention that in order to make the 7D3 and 200-600 a perfect match, the 7D3 will now have a full plastic body similar to entry level Rebels. This also explains all the required heat testing, they need to make sure the 7D3 doesn't completely melt down in operation. 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 29, 2016)

Maybe I've got this all wrong, but the Venn diagram circles of 600mm, f/5.6, and "cheaper than the 100-400 II" don't appear to overlap. It has got to be more expensive than we think, slower than we think, or not as long as we think. 

...or it will be some plastic nightmare like a non-L EF 75-300 on steroids.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Canon is ramping up focusing systems with f/8 support. Maybe we can see smaller and cheaper tele lens with f/8 down the line.



I highly doubt we'll ever see a Canon EF lens with a narrower max aperture than f/5.6. It's one thing to say that the number and type of AF points will vary by lens, quite another to say that a lens will not AF at all on certain bodies.


----------



## nhz (Mar 29, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...
> It makes sense to us that it would come below the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II as far as price point and quality are concerned. We’re confident such a lens from Canon would still have terrific optical performance and a relatively light weight.



Agree, they need a lower priced alternative to the Nikon 200-500 and Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lenses, there clearly is a lot of sales potential there and for some the 100-400II is a bit too expensive. Looking at lenses like the 55-250STM Canon is very good at offering high optical quality tele zooms with fast AF, low weight and attractive price. With cameras like 80D keeping f/5.6 aperture isn't really necessary anyway so I'd rather see them sacrifice a bit of aperture at the top end to keep the weight and price down.

If it isn't an L lens with maximum image quality into the corners (compared to 100-400II) and extremely rugged build quality, it can lose significant weight compared to the competition.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 29, 2016)

This rumor ist absolutely inplausible, or has major errors. 

- if it is 600 5.6 at the long end, it will need a entrance diameter of 10.6cm at least, compared to the 200-400 4.0 which needs 10.0cm.

- a lens this size will be priced at least 10k$, with the 200-400 it will be a similar couple like 70-200 2.8 and 100-400, similar size, with different lenght and opening

- a lens in this size is expensive to produce, so it will be expensive and all expensive glass is "L" or "do" maybe


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

nhz said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'll leave the physics to others, but here is what I can't get past.
> ...


Well of course only Canon has the kind of information to determine that. 

But, we are not talking about a cheap consumer lens here. Once you get in the $1,500 range you have already eliminated the vast majority of customers and are targeting serious enthusiasts only. 

These are people with disposable income and a willingness to spend it on their hobby. Will they go for a more expensive lens that is sharper, faster and better made? If they are buying the Canon brand they are willing to pay a premium for quality. Those who are looking for a bargain will spend less money and get the Sigma Contemporary or Tamron, which are likely to be better lenses than a bargain Canon, just as they are better lenses than the bargain Nikon.

Of course this is all just speculation but my point is simply that for a small incremental cost I think it makes more sense to offer a better product.

Let's attack this from the other direction. Just how much could Canon remove from the 100-400 to make a cheaper lens? Replace USM with STM. Make the autofocus less responsive. Use cheaper materials. Drop back a few generations in IS? Eliminate all weather sealing? 

Would that save them even 15%. I don't know. And, in the end would it be a lens anybody would want?


----------



## crashpc (Mar 29, 2016)

I also think this one would be expensive. How about 200-500 f/4.0-f/8.0?
I have my 250mm IS STM with 1,4x TC, making it effectively 350mm f/8 lens.
So 500mm f/8 would totally do it for me. That is 62mm front lens element. And that is doable.....


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> ...Hoya is providing the elements least the front element, they already have the contract....



Maybe it will be a joint venture. "Rebel by Tokina" in the U.S. and "Kiss by Tokina" in Asia. (Not sure about Europe). Both licensed by Canon and using the Canon distribution and warranty network. That way, it can use f6.3 and sell for less than the 100-400 without eroding Canon's brand. Eventually, all Tokina lenses will be re-branded and Canon acquires a majority stake in the company.


----------



## nightscape123 (Mar 29, 2016)

Finally a lens to compete with the Tamron Sigma and Nikon! Hopefully this one is just as good as the other lenses that Canon has released in the past few years!


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 29, 2016)

this are just funny cost and pricing discussions

- The production people will have to produce any product as cheap as possible and as good as necessary.
- the marketing department will position it on the market and pirice it in a way, that it gives the best profit in total, including canibalisation of other products and many other effects, this is their knowledge and what they do their whole life. They will not find much helpful advice in this forum
- As with all consumer products, where prestige, image, label, lifestyle etc are part of what the customers wants, there is almost no correlation of price and production cost, and if there is, it's just in the way, that a product will not exist if it is to expensive to produce


----------



## midluk (Mar 29, 2016)

Why make a budget lens slower than f/5.6 if it doesn't work on budget xxxD and xxxxD and most other older bodies? So this will likely be not slower than f/5.6.


----------



## nhz (Mar 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> But, we are not talking about a cheap consumer lens here. Once you get in the $1,500 range you have already eliminated the vast majority of customers and are targeting serious enthusiasts only.
> 
> These are people with disposable income and a willingness to spend it on their hobby. Will they go for a more expensive lens that is sharper, faster and better made? If they are buying the Canon brand they are willing to pay a premium for quality. Those who are looking for a bargain will spend less money and get the Sigma Contemporary or Tamron, which are likely to be better lenses than a bargain Canon, just as they are better lenses than the bargain Nikon.
> 
> Of course this is all just speculation but my point is simply that for a small incremental cost I think it makes more sense to offer a better product.



I think you need to compare with the Nikon 5.6/200-500. Along the lines of many responses in this thread one could argue that this lens should cost at least $5000 or so (just look at what other big Nikon tele lenses cost) but reality it that the price is way lower and I bet Nikon is making a lot of money with it despite the 'way too low' price.

As to people with "disposable income and willingness to spend", the people that I meet in my country who are 'nature/wildlife enthusiasts' rarely are able or willing to spend thousands of dollars/euros on a new lens, the group who spend this amount of money (people with goldplated pensions etc.) is very small compared to the potential market of enthusiast nature photographers, birders etc. And those who have $10.000 lying around for a new lens won't bother and probably buy that 4/200-400L etc. or a xxx-600DO anyway simply because they can afford it.

I don't think Sigma/Tamron lenses are more attractive by definition for those on a budget, and the success of the Nikon 200-500 clearly proves it. People will gladly spend a bit more for a Canikon lens that gives them peace of mind regarding AF, future compatibility etc. I don't think Canon has any serious competition for e.g. their 55-250STM lens from others, why wouldn't they be able to offer a competitive 200-600 lens? Just don't expect 'L' build quality, 'L' optics and a red ring for 'bargain' price, non-L is certainly good enough for the majority of buyers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

nhz said:


> ...why wouldn't they be able to offer a competitive 200-600 lens?



Because 500mm / 5.6 = 89mm and 600mm / 5.6 = 107mm.


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner just sent me a private message that it will be an EOS M lens with a max f/8 at the long end. He said he knew that as fact. :




ssssshhhh


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




now now no name calling..wait till 2017 then if my words don't ring true then you name call.


----------



## nhz (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > ...why wouldn't they be able to offer a competitive 200-600 lens?
> ...



so what? If the spec is significantly better of course they could charge a higher price than for Nikon 5.6/200-500, e.g. $2000 instead of $1400. Or cheat a bit and offer a lower max aperture at the top end ;-)


----------



## RGF (Mar 29, 2016)

If IQ is reasonable to very good, Canon will have a winner on their hands. Couple this with the 70-300 L and you got 70 - 600 covered in 2 lens. Sweet !


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2016)

nightscape123 said:


> Finally a lens to compete with the Tamron Sigma and Nikon! Hopefully this one is just as good as the other lenses that Canon has released in the past few years!



The 100-400mm II outperforms the rest, even with a 1.4xTC.


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'll leave the physics to others, but here is what I can't get past.
> 
> Let's say I own a lens business. For this example we will call it "Neuro's Ye Olde Lens Shoppe."
> 
> ...




It don't cost that much to make a lens esp if you're making 50,000. Depending on where you are making it and where you are sourcing your parts from esp. Most of the cost is upfront in dyes for the barrels, switches, hoods, and other custom built parts. Motors and electronics are cheap as hell and the cost of R&D is not much but a few people who know what they're doing. Auto focus and IS has already been worked on long before this lens i would assume so that don't cost anything besides those few people to Dial it in for the lens. How much your glass cost depends on who makes it and does that company do the polishing or do you do the polishing. Polishing yourself does not cost that much. Where is it put together can add a bit, esp with local regulations and taxes. If Tamron sells the 150-600mm at $1069 then it probably costs them $400 to make it tops, they sell it to the dealer for double or close to making $300-$400 profit and the dealer make a few bucks on the $1069 customer price (usually the dealer buys it 18-20% off retail price in the Lens and SLR market). Not much Marketing is needed as most of it today is in the form of youtube videos with the gear coming from a dealer themselves. Repairs are cheaper than you want to think, remember all you're doing is paying a few people to repair and you're still getting the parts cheap as hell. 

I doubt you will be selling 50,000 600mm lenses though...if it is a amazing seller you may sell 5,000 of them. If it is something like a Canon lens then you can have it on the market for 20 years thus the costs get even cheaper year after year and you will sell lots more esp if it is the $30-$40 to make 50mm 1.8 STM. 

If it is a Red L lens then the quality control cost go up, you most likely are making the glass yourself so that goes up, more costly R&D esp with the coatings up front, etc.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

nhz said:


> I think you need to compare with the Nikon 5.6/200-500...



Keep in mind though that Nikon has been losing market share (as shown in the oft-referenced CIPA charts on this forum). Virtually all of the growth in mirrorless (such as it is), has come out of Nikon's market share, not Canon's.

So they are under far different competitive pressures than Canon. 



RickWagoner said:


> It don't cost that much to make a lens esp if you're making 50,000. Depending on where you are making it and where you are sourcing your parts from esp. Most of the cost is upfront in dyes for the barrels, switches, hoods, and other custom built parts. Motors and electronics are cheap as hell and the cost of R&D is not much but a few people who know what they're doing. Auto focus and IS has already been worked on long before this lens i would assume so that don't cost anything besides those few people to Dial it in for the lens. How much your glass cost depends on who makes it and does that company do the polishing or do you do the polishing. Polishing yourself does not cost that much. Where is it put together can add a bit, esp with local regulations and taxes. If Tamron sells the 150-600mm at $1069 then it probably costs them $400 to make it tops, they sell it to the dealer for double or close to making $300-$400 profit and the dealer make a few bucks on the $1069 customer price (usually the dealer buys it 18-20% off retail price in the Lens and SLR market). Not much Marketing is needed as most of it today is in the form of youtube videos with the gear coming from a dealer themselves. Repairs are cheaper than you want to think, remember all you're doing is paying a few people to repair and you're still getting the parts cheap as hell.
> 
> I doubt you will be selling 50,000 600mm lenses though...if it is a amazing seller you may sell 5,000 of them. If it is something like a Canon lens then you can have it on the market for 20 years thus the costs get even cheaper year after year and you will sell lots more esp if it is the $30-$40 to make 50mm 1.8 STM.
> 
> If it is a Red L lens then the quality control cost go up, you most likely are making the glass yourself so that goes up, more costly R&D esp with the coatings up front, etc.



Look, I'd like to drink the Kool-Aid, but I'm just not sure how Canon produces a lens that's 100mm longer than the Nikon, 200mm longer than their own 100-400, faster than the Sigmas Sport and still does it for less money.

Plus, I don't think the target audience will be all that pleased if the lens is soft at 600 mm and slow focusing.

There are plenty on this forum who say it is hopelessly optimistic that such a lens could be sold for even $2,500. 

Whatever the ultimate price, I'm just suggesting that the incremental cost of painting it white and putting a red ring on the lens barrel will be easily offset by the additional revenue that would be generated. Remember, "L" is just a marketing designation.


----------



## SteveSHH (Mar 29, 2016)

Hoping for EF 200-600mm IS USM (NANO)! Faster AF and cheaper than 100-400mm IS USM II
And kit lens for 7DIII  and Price is US$3999.99 retail


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > Finally a lens to compete with the Tamron Sigma and Nikon! Hopefully this one is just as good as the other lenses that Canon has released in the past few years!
> ...



noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

nhz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > nhz said:
> ...



Because physics.

Oh, and Canon has generally specified that their dSLR AF system requires lenses with f/5.6 or wider maximum aperture. So they're not going to release an EF lens at f/6.3 or narrower.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.



lol


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > I think you need to compare with the Nikon 5.6/200-500...
> ...



there is a good bit of extra cost that go into the Red L build, esp up front. lots more quality control and R&D costs then the regular lenses. Also Canon usually does not make the non L lenses glass themselves as it would cost them too much but on the L stuff they do (least the lenses i know of). The unit cost for Canon goes down year and year though on most lenses and that is where they make most of their profits on the L line. L Line is not just a lens with a painted red line and added price..sadly this is true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> now now no name calling..wait till 2017 then if my words don't ring true then you name call.



Oh, I don't think we need to wait until 2017.




RickWagoner said:


> ...Canon has a bunch of 7d3 testers in early forms in the states now btw. *I don't know anything about the 6D personally* and no one in the state's tests anything mirrorless from Canon ever..so no go for info there also.





RickWagoner said:


> Last year *i know there were lots of 6d* labeled testers out







RickWagoner said:


> This is the 80D
> 
> 24.2MP
> 49 point focus*
> ...


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > noway..the Tamron esp can easily go head to head in optics wide open to the 100-400mm II at half the price plus you have a built in extra 150mm reach without the need or image degradation of a costly tele.The Sigma sport is optically on par with the L like build, and the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price. Most people don't need L build Quality and the vast market don't care to pay for it esp with the Sigma C and Tamron on the market.
> ...



i can see how you got to 18,000 posts here...ha


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > now now no name calling..wait till 2017 then if my words don't ring true then you name call.
> ...




oh noesss i was off by 4 focus points....really?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



And you knew all about 6D's being tested then three days later you knew nothing about the 6D being tested. Were you hit on the head during that intervening time period? What else did you forget?


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



no no..
I said i knew 6D labeled testers..did not know if it was 5d or 6d work inside as you could read in my prior posts testers are at times in different bodies for obvious reasons. I also may of forgot to call you and your 18,000 post count as being a troll esp when you go off with name calling like you did. You don't have to believe me, you can completely disregard the 80D information i listed at the time was way more than anyone and anywhere listed, you may even say i was guessing it if you want..but if i can guess that well i would be in Vegas and not on CR with 18,000 posts to me..hehe go troll someone else..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> no no..
> I said i knew 6D labeled testers..did not know if it was 5d or 6d work inside as you could read in my prior posts testers are at times in different bodies for obvious reasons. I also may of forgot to call you and your 18,000 post count as being a troll esp when you go off with name calling like you did. You don't have to believe me, you can completely disregard the 80D information i listed at the time was way more than anyone and anywhere listed, you may even say i was guessing it if you want..but if i can guess that well i would be in Vegas and not on CR with 18,000 posts to me..hehe go troll someone else..



No, no...I read that, and your other excuses, too. Hey, I could throw a bunch of crap at a wall and some would surely stick.


----------



## slclick (Mar 29, 2016)

Y'all are making this place look like other forums. Nasty.


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > no no..
> ...



If you read that than why would you not quote it fully or even bother using it?....besides to just troll.
that close to the final details? 4 focus points off? you must be great at throwing crap....then again with 18,000 posts you sure do like throwing something


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > nightscape123 said:
> ...



Have you compared them? I owned both the Tamron 150-600mm and the 100-400mm II, and after comparing them directly sold the Tamron as it wasn't as sharp in the centre wide open at 600mm and the corners were quite poor. Every website that has compared the two comes to the same conclusion, see, for example:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I like the Tamron and think it a very acceptable lens. But, the IQ, AF and iS are not as good as the Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



Apologies, let me expand on my reply. I was laughing becuase you are claiming the Sigma lenses outperform the 100-400 II, and it's evident that the 100-400 II outperforms the old 400/5.6. Yet previously you claimed,



RickWagoner said:


> The sigma won't be as sharp as a 400mm 5.6 cropped to match and if it is then i will poop a brick!



Thus, my out-loud laughter was at the thought of you pooping a brick. Hope that clarifies, and I hope it didn't cause much damage on the way out.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> ...the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price.



Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but if you are saying the Tamron outperforms the Sigma Contemporary, that doesn't seem to be what "The Digital Picture" found.

*Comparing the Sigma "C" and Tamron: * "The Sigma is noticeably sharper at 600mm, especially in the mid and peripheral portions of the image circle...

...Which lens is better? I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here, but I lean toward the Sigma, partially because these lenses are going to most frequently be bought for and used at the 600mm focal length and, at least at f/8, the Sigma holds the optical advantage at 600mm." 

*And in comparing the "S" and "C" versions: *

"I expected the "S" version to be superior optically, but that is not completely how the results turned out... 

...Looking at the wide open aperture image quality results... At 600mm, the most important focal length for a significant percentage of the target market for this lens, the "S" has an edge. *Stop down to f/8 and image sharpness across the entire focal length range isn't a factor* in this lens selection decision. 

*Oh, and comparing to the Canon 100-400 II:*

"The Canon bests the Sigma in sharpness and contrast over the entire shared native focal length range. Add a 1.4x to get the Canon up to 560mm the Canon is still at least as sharp, though the extended Canon lens has a narrower max aperture at 560mm (f/8.0 vs. f/6.3)."

I do own both the Sigma "C" and the Canon 100-400 II, but haven't had a lot of opportunity to use either one. I expect that to change soon as the spring sports season arrives. From the limited use I have had so far I would say this: The Canon is clearly the better lens on a number of fronts, but the Sigma "C" is no slouch either. I intend to use the Sigma when I need more reach (baseball outfielders for example) since it gives me access to all the autofocus points, while the Canon 100-400 with teleconverter limits me to the center point.

It is, however, quite a beast and after a few uses, I am glad I didn't go for the Sports version, which is even heavier. The Canon 100-400 seems a tad more responsive and is a bit easier to handhold, but I find them both to be very worthwhile lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2016)

www.objektivtest.se has measured the MTFs of the Sigma 150-600mm Sport, the Tamron 150-600mm and the Canon 100-400mm II (± 1.4xTC III). These were measured on an optical bench, not Imatest, just like the Lensrental measurements and are independent of camera. Here is a Table of collated values. By the way, lenstip finds the Tamron to outperform the Sigma Contemporary at 600mm, but not the Sport. There are several reports that the Sigma Sport is sharper than the Nikon 200-500.


----------



## j-nord (Mar 29, 2016)

200-600/5.6 sounds promising but seems like its either going to be a 'cheap non-L' (possibly even a crop lens) that cannot compete with the 100-400ii or its going to be at a much higher price point and possibly replace the 200-400 1.4x. I can only dream that it would fill the gap between the 100-400ii and the big whites. As others have been voicing, a 500/5.6 IS prime could be a better alternative priced around the same as the 100-400ii.


----------



## traveller (Mar 29, 2016)

Wow, this is a popular thread! Six pages in a few hours. Looks like there's still some pent up demand for another long zoom from Canon. 

Just to draw a comparison, the last zoom that Canon made that reached 600mm cost 880,000 Yen in 1982. 

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm

Lens design has moved on since, but sadly not the laws of physics. I still think that such a lens would be $10,000 plus and weigh over 4kg. With that amount of glass and mechanics, I don't think cheap plastic build quality would cut it. There wouldn't be much point in such a lens in the 'L' range, as they already have the superb 200-400 f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x. 

More likely this would be a 200-500 f/5.6, like Nikon's. Personally, I think that it would be better for Canon to price this lens just above the 100-400 II and give it the 'L' treatment. The bottom of the market is already crowded, better to differentiate and go for a higher-end market than try to take on Sigma and Tamron at their own game. The Nikon version doesn't really show the third party lenses a clean pair of heels, as far as I've seen (which, to be fair, is only Internet reviews).


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Yes i did compare them quite a bit actually, even had the Tammy on a few different Nikons. 

At 400mm wide open shooting a bird at equal distance both were head to head to me, the 100-400ii had more of that finer or micro detail like the 70-300L has if you ever used one of those before but the Tamron does come in at half the price, makes the double price Canon look bad but the canon i would say does not outperform here.

With a Tele at 560mm on the Canon compared to 600mm on the Tamron: First off you're using a poor man's way of getting more reach on a lens that cost double, not really a fair comparison. Also right off the bat if you're using the canon tele then most of your camera bodies won't work so no outperformance there. Even with the 7d2,and 5d3 the Tamron native focus to me is quick as or quicker than the 100-400 with the canon tele, these two cameras work well with the Tamron in Servo unlike my little 70D. Speaking of which on a cheater Kenko Tele and 100-400 on the 70D is crap slow compared to the not so super servo focus tamron on this body. Without the kenko tele the 100-400ii in servo blast the Tamron on the 70D though but now you're back to only 400mm reach so no real out performance there. Every third party lens will play different on different bodies even just slightly, the Tamron seems to work more natural with full frame bodies esp the D750 but works great on a 7D2 also. Still i am happy with the Tammy auto on my 70D for the price even in servo mode. Another thing about adding a tele is the extra glass and the loss of quality, though the 100-400ii does take a tele nicely it just not as nice to knock out the 600mm f/8 Tamron as long as the bird is at an equal closer than further distance, not sure if this makes sense. 

The IS is amazing on both lenses esp with the Tamron at 600mm handheld, again we are comparing to very different priced lenses. I respect the 100-400ii myself but to me it does not outperform. To me it is marketed towards a different shooter, someone with a full frame 600 prime on a tripod for birds far away and a 7d2 with a 100-400ii on a strap for BIF. The Tamron is more for someone who don't have the big bucks for a two camera setup or just wants an all around lens for all kinds of birds either on a mono,tri, or handheld on a budget not needing the build quality. I talk about these lens for birds because birders always need and want more reach as you know so that extra built in 150mm at half price means it will be hard to outperform it.


----------



## nhz (Mar 29, 2016)

slclick said:


> Y'all are making this place look like other forums. Nasty.


I guess that for the many who are leaving in droves because of all the nasty comments, there are a few frequent posters who like it even better 8)


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 29, 2016)

unfocused said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > ...the Sigma Contemporary is IMO a bit less optically and cost of the Tamron but still outperforms the 100-400mm at price.
> ...



as i said IMO (in my opinion) i like the Tammy better, to me it is sharper wide at 400mm, better at 600mm f/8 and the autofocus was lots more on the mark esp in lower light than the Sigma C. It could be i have a bias towards the Tammy though also, maybe...I would recommend both to anyone, either you like Sigmas or Tamrons..some people are more partial to one company. The Sigma Sport came off to me as a sharper lens for shooting WAY out far subjects than the other two 600s and the build quality and weight was on a different level...also a great lens. I agree with you on they're very well worthwhile lenses, esp for the entry level beginning birders. We are lucky to have the performance they all have for the price for sure because years back we just did not have such options. Nikon users did not come close to the performance options of the three 600's at the least us Canon people had the older 100-400 or the legendary 400 5.6


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 29, 2016)

traveller said:


> Wow, this is a popular thread! Six pages in a few hours. Looks like there's still some pent up demand for another long zoom from Canon.
> 
> Just to draw a comparison, the last zoom that Canon made that reached 600mm cost 880,000 Yen in 1982.



And those who hated the pull/push design of the old 100-400mm IS L can at the same time remind themselves that there where once even worse alternatives! (Had no issues with it myself).


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2016)

traveller said:


> ...More likely this would be a 200-500 f/5.6, like Nikon's. Personally, I think that it would be better for Canon to price this lens just above the 100-400 II and give it the 'L' treatment. The bottom of the market is already crowded, better to differentiate and go for a higher-end market than try to take on Sigma and Tamron at their own game. The Nikon version doesn't really show the third party lenses a clean pair of heels, as far as I've seen (which, to be fair, is only Internet reviews).



I agree.


----------



## nightscape123 (Mar 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > Finally a lens to compete with the Tamron Sigma and Nikon! Hopefully this one is just as good as the other lenses that Canon has released in the past few years!
> ...



That may be true, but unfortunately that combo does not AF on my 6D. If I can get a native 600mm lens with AF then that is a win for me.


----------



## HighLowISO (Mar 29, 2016)

traveller said:


> Wow, this is a popular thread! Six pages in a few hours. Looks like there's still some pent up demand for another long zoom from Canon.
> ....



*It's popular because of crap like this:*


Canon Rumors said:


> .....
> <p>It makes sense to us that it would come below the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II as far as price point and quality are concerned. We’re confident such a lens from Canon would still have terrific optical performance and a relatively light weight.</p>
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 29, 2016)

nightscape123 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > nightscape123 said:
> ...



+1. I may have this wrong, but without this rumored superzoom being offered, all of Canon's options to shoot longer than 400mm either involve: 


Shooting with a 300-400mm lens on crop
Using a teleconverter (where IQ may be acceptable but the AF may be limited)
Spending over $9k on a 500mm or higher prime

I don't shoot long glass, so please correct me if I am forgetting about a current lens that would be an exception to the above. (I'm only referring to Canon lenses on Canon bodies here.)

So that's why the lower cost being rumored is great for us but still questionable at that aperture. If you wanted a first party AF lens at 600mm and f/5.6 without a teleconverter, _people would pay $3-4k for that, wouldn't they? _ 

- A


----------



## neonlight (Mar 29, 2016)

Does not seem likely to be lower cost than 100-400 II. If it is a 200-600 f/5.6 top end then the front glass will be 107mm. Bigger than the 100-400. I'd be happy if it were below the 500f/4 but I'd hope it would be an "L" and less than double the price of a 100-400.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> nightscape123 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



If you want long reach for bird photography, you have to choose the right body as well as the lens. The 7DII (as does the 7D) has AF at f/8. The new 80D has superior AF at f/8 by having the 4 points surrounding the centre one active - even better than the 7DII and 5DIII etc. None of them are cheap.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 29, 2016)

EF-M 200-600mm f6.3 to f8.0 @ £300 ! Sorted ;-)

Seriously though, f5.6 at 600mm ? Not gonna happen, 5.6 x 95mm gives 532mm, so I'd wager a Nikon style 200-500mm f5.6 IS is much more likely


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> If you want long reach for bird photography, you have to choose the right body as well as the lens. The 7DII (as does the 7D) has AF at f/8. The new 80D has superior AF at f/8 by having the 4 points surrounding the centre one active - even better than the 7DII and 5DIII etc. None of them are cheap.



Of course. That represents a thoughtful AF setup to allow folks to take the 2nd option on my list -- to use a teleconverter. That's fine, good, and useful, and as I understand it, many people do exactly that.

But are they happy with that setup compared a single lens solution? Isn't there massive value in _not_ needing a TC, getting full native AF use, etc.? One would think that a 200-600 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM with the same build quality/IQ/AF as the 100-400 II would fly off the shelves at a far higher price than the 'budget birder' segment it apparently is aiming to stack up against.

- A


----------



## sulla (Mar 29, 2016)

ah, if only this was true. Highly doubtful, however.

But then, nobody ever thought a nikkor 200-500 5.6 were ever possible at a price point of 1400 USD, and it is not too bad a lens, though not stellar, I understand.
Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.
Those 2 specs are not too far off.

the difference in entrance pupil and a price cannibalising the big whites has been discussed sufficiently here, but I do not see a real reason why this should not be possible.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 29, 2016)

sulla said:


> ah, if only this was true. Highly doubtful, however.
> 
> But then, nobody ever thought a nikkor 200-500 5.6 were ever possible at a price point of 1400 USD, and it is not too bad a lens, though not stellar, I understand.
> Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.
> ...



I love the "cannibalizing sales" arguments 

Nikon is selling a LOT! of their 200-500 F5.6 lenses.... There are a lot of people who want a long lens, yet can never afford the super telephotos.

Canon could easily come out with their 200-500 F5.6 lens and sell it for somewhere around the same price as the Nikon... or they could make it a bit better quality and sell it for around $2000..... and it would sell well. It may even sell better than all the $6000+ big whites combined.... and the people who really want a $12,000 600F4 are still going to buy one because in the end there is no substitute for a prime with a huge chunk of glass IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. For those who can't afford it, the optical properties are meaningless.

And btw, I went for a walk on the weekend with a friend and has brand new 200-500 Nikon lens.... for him, it was a very expensive lens and he loved it.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 29, 2016)

sulla said:


> ah, if only this was true. Highly doubtful, however.
> 
> But then, nobody ever thought a nikkor 200-500 5.6 were ever possible at a price point of 1400 USD, and it is not too bad a lens, though not stellar, I understand.
> Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.
> ...



Entrance pupil drives build cost as discussed, and it also drives the cost of accessories.

Presuming they don't rear filter it like the big superwhites, filters for a 107mm front element will not be cheap at all. 105mm CPLs for the landscape crowd _start_ at $200 if memory serves. There's nothing budget about that.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Mar 29, 2016)

sulla said:


> Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.



It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or maybe a half way decent crop lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

Heck, Opteka sells a 650mm f/8 lens for under $200 – it's even white already! How hard can it be to add an AF motor, a variable aperture, a zoom mechanism, and a stop of light? Canon charges about a 5x markup for an f-stop, so that's $1000. Say, $200 for the other bits and bobs, $400 in pure profit because Canon is evil, and boom – the 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 comes in at $1600. 

;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

j-nord said:


> It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or *maybe a half way decent crop lens*.



Sure, because for a 200-600mm lens the image circle is limiting, so making a crop format lens will be much cheaper.

Who needs optical physics, anyway... :


----------



## Ryananthony (Mar 30, 2016)

At what focal length does the focal length divided by the aperture equal the front element size?


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> At what focal length does the focal length divided by the aperture equal the front element size?



None. The front element has to be larger than the aperture. In long primes it might only be a teeny, tiny bit larger, but it still has to be larger.

The largest aperture is the limiting factor on the size of the front element (the front element can't be smaller than the aperture) and the largest aperture is always at the longest focal length.


----------



## sulla (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or *maybe a half way decent crop lens*.
> ...



Neither is backfocus an issue with telephoto lenses. So, making it an EF-S lens or an EF-M lens also makes no sense from this perspective. The only thing that would make a 200-600 lens cheaper would be to make it slower. Perhaps f/8 works for the EF-M, but then, such a physically long lens on such a small EF-M body?? And for interchangeable lenses, Canon is not going to play the FF-equivalent-focal-lenght game that is so popular with POS...


----------



## Xavitxaung (Mar 30, 2016)

I repeat, have you ever seen the Canon *FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L*? What about the price in second hand? A 200-600mm 1:5,6L it is not going to be cheap, it is cheap a Sigma 300-800mm 1:5.6 EX? Even that lens that produces less quality than a Sigma 800mm 1:5,6 EX is quite expensive, so, a Canon L lens like this, IDEM.


----------



## arbitrage (Mar 30, 2016)

Canon is already selling a 200-560 f/4-f/5.6 lens....do they really need to add 40mm ;D


----------



## j-nord (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > It's definitely possible that canon throws together a POS non-L lens for less than $2200 or *maybe a half way decent crop lens*.
> ...



Excellent job putting words in my mouth. "Half way decent crop lens" isnt saying much so I dont know why you are taking it as some radical physics/money bending achievement.


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 30, 2016)

j-nord said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > Now, everyone thinks a canon 200-600 5.6 is not possible at a price point less than 2200 USD.
> ...



Can makes a lot of great lens that are not L line for a low budget buyer. They have their 55-250 stm that can be had for $150 new that has killer optics for the price. Why would you call it a POS? Is it just because it does not have the L Label?


----------



## GP.Masserano (Mar 30, 2016)

I hope it will be NOT "L" (but STM, why not?) and LESS heavy than Sigma...


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Maybe I've got this all wrong, but the Venn diagram circles of 600mm, f/5.6, and "cheaper than the 100-400 II" don't appear to overlap. It has got to be more expensive than we think, slower than we think, or not as long as we think.
> 
> ...or it will be some plastic nightmare like a non-L EF 75-300 on steroids.
> 
> - A



I too think the idea of a "200-600 x-5.6 cheaper than 100-400 ii" is a little too optimistic. Your remark about the EF 75-300 made me think about the EF 100-300 (4.5-5.6) at ca. 300 $/€

I used the following calculation:
Scaling that lens by a factor of two leads to an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6
The volume is increased by a factor of 8 (2³) and results in 8times more material (I use 1/3 of production cost for material)
The surfaces to be machined are increased by a factor of 4 (2²) but I used the assumption that they make 2/3 of production costs.
Base price of the lens is 300 $/€
IS adds another 300 $/€

These (rough) assumptions result in a price of 1900 $/€ which is slightly below the 100-400 ii. But the probability is high that it is a "plastic nightmare"!


----------



## nhz (Mar 30, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > sulla said:
> ...



and not only that, the 4.5-5.6/55-250STM weighs just 375 gram while the very slightly longer and brighter 4.0-5.6/70-300L weighs 1050 grams. 
According to neuro's logic, all the laws of physics (and economics) are thrown out of the window here 8)


----------



## nhz (Mar 30, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> I too think the idea of a "200-600 x-5.6 cheaper than 100-400 ii" is a little too optimistic. Your remark about the EF 75-300 made me think about the EF 100-300 (4.5-5.6) at ca. 300 $/€
> 
> I used the following calculation:
> Scaling that lens by a factor of two leads to an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6
> ...



So ... your basic assumption is that there has been no progress in optics or lens production efficiency over the last 25 years (the 100-300 was introduced in 1990)?


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Mar 30, 2016)

As much as I want this rumor to be true (and an announcement following soon, so that I can stop eyeing the Sigma 150-600 S ;-)), I don't see all three of the "f5.6", "600mm" and the "cheaper than 100-400II" become true at once. If this rumor has any foundation, it will most likely be a direct equivalent of Nikons 200-500 f5.6.

In any case, this rumor makes the dilemma I am in even worse. Last year, I tried both the Sigma 150-600 C and the Canon 100-400II on my 7D(I). Neither one convinced me, the Sigma was good on the short end, but the long end was severely lacking in crispness. The Canon hat severe CA on the left side of the frame and IQ didn't "wow" me overall to justify the price (maybe mine was a dud?).
In any case, currently I am pondering giving the Siggy 150-600S a try, but then again, it is so close in price to the 100-400II (~1550€ vs. 1900€) that I also consider giving the latter a second chance. 
Further, when looking at the the-digital-picture comparison of the Siggy S, it looks outright horrible compared to the C throughout most of the focal range (maybe _his _was a dud?) and it weighs a ton, definitely not something I can just drop into my carry-on luggage and have room for anything else or would lug around all day without at least a monpod as support.
Spoiled by choice :

And now there is this rumor... maybe I just buy anyone of the above mentioned lenses, and once my return period is up, Canon will announce the best long telephoto zoom ever. ;D


----------



## AlanF (Mar 30, 2016)

nhz said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



Neuro knows what he is talking about when it comes to the laws of physics and optics. When you get to long telephotos with wide apertures, the weight of the front lenses and of the stronger barrels needed to hold them becomes the main factor, and these are the same for a crop or a FF lens. For shorter lenses, the weight of the glass is less important and you can get away with flimsy barrels. Both Canon and Nikon struggle to lower the weight of the big telephotos. The Nikon 200-500 is pared down as much as possible and it is 2.1 - 2.4 kg.

Grummbeerbauer, your 100-400 II was a dud. The CA is very well-controlled above 100mm, and if there was CA just on just one side there has to be sever decentering or something.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

nhz said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



The only thing that's being thrown out of the window here is your understanding of lens design and the physics behind it...well, probably not since for that to happen, you'd have had to possess such knowledge in the first place and that doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 30, 2016)

nhz said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > I too think the idea of a "200-600 x-5.6 cheaper than 100-400 ii" is a little too optimistic. Your remark about the EF 75-300 made me think about the EF 100-300 (4.5-5.6) at ca. 300 $/€
> ...



Yes because physics and production procedures* haven't changed in the last 25 years. And 300 $/€ is the price for a freshly produced unit from 2007 (Source: photozone.de ) - so a conservative assumption.

* Assembly by robots isn't new and finishing optical surfaces isn't done by hand since the 1970s - except for some very special optics.

EDIT: But it will have better quality compared to the 100-300 lens which is really desireable at the long end - this is where progress has been made over the last 25 years: Lens system optimization with powerful computers to get more quality from a given set of material/procedures.


----------



## dufflover (Mar 30, 2016)

Another skeptic here; also mainly because of the specs vs costs listed. It would definitely be a huge surprise for Canon to release a 100mm+ front diameter lens and not have it cost in the super-tele price range.

Some kind of 500mm/5.6 is much more realistic for that rumoured price.


----------



## nhz (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The only thing that's being thrown out of the window here is your understanding of lens design and the physics behind it...well, probably not since for that to happen, you'd have had to possess such knowledge in the first place and that doesn't seem to be the case.


I worked in the field for almost 20 years so yeah, on this forum that means you are an idiot :


----------



## scyrene (Mar 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> If you want long reach for bird photography, you have to choose the right body as well as the lens. The 7DII (as does the 7D) has AF at f/8. The new 80D has superior AF at f/8 by having the 4 points surrounding the centre one active - even better than the 7DII and 5DIII etc. None of them are cheap.



I thought you could have the four surrounding AF points active (as support) at f/8 on the 5D3 too? When I press the M-Fn button and cycle through the options, one of them is the centre point and four surrounding ones highlighted. Is that not the same thing?


----------



## nhz (Mar 30, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> Yes because physics and production procedures* haven't changed in the last 25 years.


the laws of physics haven't changed (much), but options in lens design have improved a lot over those years and manufacturing has added many new possibilities as well, including options that lower production cost. Even if development and 'tooling' is big part of the cost, when they aim at selling large numbers those production costs per lens can be very important. I bet that this is one of the reasons why Canon is moving towards automated lens assembly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

nhz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that's being thrown out of the window here is your understanding of lens design and the physics behind it...well, probably not since for that to happen, you'd have had to possess such knowledge in the first place and that doesn't seem to be the case.
> ...



You implied that because the EF-S 55-250 is lighter and cheaper than the 70-300L, a 200-600mm f/4.x-5.6 would be lighter and cheaper as an EF-S lens. By logic that apparently makes sense to you, there should be a variety of EF-S/DX-format supertelephoto primes and zooms to choose from...certainly, Sigma and Tamron should have come out with crop versions of their 150-600mm zooms. Clearly an untapped market, you really should offer your suggestions to all those lens manufacturers who clearly don't understand lens design as well as you.

After almost 20 years in the field, you fail to grasp basic concepts of lens design. That's pathetic. If I'd learned so little after 20 years in _my_ field, I'd be ashamed...not proudly demonstrating my lack of knowledge as you're doing here.


----------



## pknight (Mar 30, 2016)

tron said:


> I do hope it is L. Otherwise Canon would have an excellent 100-400 and a so so 200-600. How someone would chose between them?



In that case, by purchasing a Tamron or Sigma at what would probably be half the price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

scyrene said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > If you want long reach for bird photography, you have to choose the right body as well as the lens. The 7DII (as does the 7D) has AF at f/8. The new 80D has superior AF at f/8 by having the 4 points surrounding the centre one active - even better than the 7DII and 5DIII etc. None of them are cheap.
> ...



The way it's described on Canon DLC (see p.2), only the center point is active with most f/8 combos. That differs from the 1D X, 5DIII and 7DII where the center point is assisted by 4 surrounding expansion points. 

However, when the 80D is used with two specific lens+TC combos – 100-400 II + 1.4xIII or 200-400 + 2xIII (built-in 1.4x disengaged) – will allow 27 AF points at f/8.


----------



## crashpc (Mar 30, 2016)

Sorry, I don´t buy all this too. While I highly valie neuros input, it seems he´s lens developer, optical engineer, mechanics engineer, semiconductor and sensor developer, famous physicist, marketing and product researcher, and has insider info about each Canon department, economies of scale, sales, ETC.

No offense. I don´t discart you neuro, but all I see is BS arguments, without facts and evidence something of all this cannot be done. It would be long shot, but that´s what I see too often - armchair engineers and fighters telling us something is not possible (still without facts), and then we see the real product where "it" has been done.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens is what I would call best compromise of everything. There still is some space to interchange about every single parameter for others or for price. Even on this lens, there is possible to go lower with quality, weight and size. Why didn´t hey do that? Because there are objective reasons:
1) They decided to make it good quality. Plastic mount? Hell I did my tests. This mount (and lens barrel) can hold 400+g weight right at the front while zooming at full focal lenght and back without any trouble The funny thing is that the inner lens barrel feels tighter the longer it is extended out, while it is more "wiggly" at 55mm position (it was before my tests too). If they made it all from thinner material, it still would work well within specs and normal usage. This one can take some real torture.
2) There are switches and features on the outer barrel, which don´t have to be there. The lens barrel is as large in diameter as the lens mount. There is no point in making the barrel smaller. They could do it, but the lens would look and handle weird. Thick-thin-thick (mount-main lens-front lens element and filter thread). If they really wanted, they COULD make it smaller. It is not the smallest possible design.

The same can be done to longer focal lenght lens being developed by using newer technologies.

I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.
Give me some facts, not personal estimations based on personal beliefs made from small lenses equation made of nothing....


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 30, 2016)

crashpc said:


> Sorry, I don´t buy all this too. While I highly valie neuros input, it seems he´s lens developer, optical engineer, mechanics engineer, semiconductor and sensor developer, famous physicist, marketing and product researcher, and has insider info about each Canon department, economies of scale, sales, ETC.
> 
> No offense. I don´t discart you neuro, but all I see is BS arguments, without facts and evidence something of all this cannot be done. It would be long shot, but that´s what I see too often - armchair engineers and fighters telling us something is not possible (still without facts), and then we see the real product where "it" has been done.



And yet he's not wrong at all. The issue is that at the telephoto end of the lens spectrum the size of the lens is governed mostly by the size of the entrance pupil and that's going to be the same for a 600mm f/5.6 if it's being designed for a FF sensor or for a cell phone camera sensor. Just look at the recently released Olympus 300 f/4 or Fuji 100-400 and compare them to the size of their FF counterparts.


----------



## dolina (Mar 30, 2016)

I think it'll cost at par with the Nikon.


----------



## -1 (Mar 30, 2016)

SteveSHH said:


> Hoping for EF 200-600mm IS USM (NANO)! Faster AF and cheaper than 100-400mm IS USM II
> And kit lens for 7DIII  and Price is US$3999.99 retail


If there's any substance in then you might be right in everything but the last. It would most likely be $2k offering targeting the counterparts from Sigma and Nikon. And not a L lense...


----------



## crashpc (Mar 30, 2016)

raptor3x said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I don´t buy all this too. While I highly valie neuros input, it seems he´s lens developer, optical engineer, mechanics engineer, semiconductor and sensor developer, famous physicist, marketing and product researcher, and has insider info about each Canon department, economies of scale, sales, ETC.
> ...


It´s a rumor. We´re not sure what beast could this lens be, and if there is some wiggle room for shorter focal lenght or smaller aperture. Also, I believe we discussed price. I believe Canon has some potential to bring lower price lens. If it will happen, there is quite higher possibility, it will rule the market, and wi will outsell many more competitor lenses, which could again mean lower price. 
Entrance pupil is not what we argue.


----------



## RGF (Mar 30, 2016)

when can I buy it. ;D


----------



## nhz (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I guess the way that you deduct things about what I write is similar to the logic by which you know everything about Canon production. 

I'm only saying that clearly - in practice, as everyone can check - an EF-S non-L lens with pretty good optics can be MUCH smaller, lighter and cheaper than a slightly longer/brighter EF L lens, despite the 'fact' that for tele lenses 'the sensor size doesn't matter'.

If the additional rumor from today is correct, Canon is going to prove you totally wrong; maybe in that case you can tone down your supersized ego a little bit?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> So it will be bigger, heavier and more expensive than any of the third party 150-600 zooms.
> 
> Dead on arrival anyone?



Not necessarily, Dilbert. It has a few of advantages to go with that weight:


With shorter total zoom multiplier, one might presume it will be sharper.
Slightly faster throughout the zoom range
f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 long end would imply you might be able to teleconverter this lens to 840mm and retain f/8 AF use
Canon _might_ rear filter this lens, which would only require a tiny 52mm filter, saving filtering costs.

...and I believe (without any data, candidly) that this market is larger than people think. There have got to be people who teleconvertering nicer / more expensive L lenses who refused to use the Tamron or Sigmas for IQ reasons, lack of trust in the AF, and would love to get some AF points back. I think Canon can make a 'slightly premium' / 'very good but not best' L lens sales pitch here. 

Or, possibly put another way, at 600mm, the market is full of Hondas, Toyotas, and (with 600+ primes) the occasional Bentley. I think there is plenty of room for a lowest trim-level Audi or Mercedes to get in there.

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> So it will be bigger, heavier and more expensive than any of the third party 150-600 zooms.
> 
> Dead on arrival anyone?


Tamron lens is one sale for $800 some time back on slickdeals. As if like they are selling per lbs price. It is going to be very interesting how it is going to pan out. Canon might certify this lens as F8 compatible. That will give them some room to sell it for more.


----------



## tron (Mar 30, 2016)

pknight said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I do hope it is L. Otherwise Canon would have an excellent 100-400 and a so so 200-600. How someone would chose between them?
> ...


... but with worse IQ. Hence the need for an L lens at least in addition to a non-L.
For those who have not followed the EOS system from the beggining, let me tell you that there was an 100-300 5.6 and a 100-300 5.6L ....


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 30, 2016)

nhz said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes because physics and production procedures* haven't changed in the last 25 years.
> ...



What options?
Flourite? - exists much longer
Special dispersion (anormal, low, ultra low) glasses? - (very) expensive, for the better lenses only
Aspherical? - not too useful for a ultra tele zoom as far as I know
Diffractive elements? - Perhaps a way to keep things compact and cheaper but ... to my knowledge not cheap.

I am shure the 100-300 was assembled semi-automatized 25 years ago or was kept simple to do the assembly in short time.

Another thing: My very rough calculation gave 1900 EUR so it isn't contradictory to "cheaper than 100-400 ii". The only thing I expect is that it is a typical consumer lens concerning the build/haptics and that is the tradeoff.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

Wow. The entire story was just updated on the main CR page, but as it's tied to this thread (and you may be buried in it ) -- I bolded a few juicy bits:

_We’ve received a few more bits of information since yesterdays story about a Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS coming in 2016. We’re told that the new lens will likely be announced in August 2016 and will cost around *$1700 USD*, which would put it just under the Sigma’s 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Sport’s $1799 price tag. This tells us it will *definitely not be an L lens*, but it should still have great optics and build quality, though *weather-sealing would be unlikely* at this price point from Canon.

We’re also told that there will be an *external dedicated teleconverter* for the lens, which would likely be an additional cost. We weren’t told if it was a 1.4x teleconverter or something else._

- A


----------



## GP.Masserano (Mar 30, 2016)

I would like to remind all of you that an objective 600mm/5.6 has, more or less, the diameter of the front lens of a 300/2.8. 
So it is impossible to reduce weight (and price,too...) even if it were not L Series


----------



## slclick (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Wow. The entire story was just updated on the main CR page, but as it's tied to this thread (and you may be buried in it ) -- I bolded a few juicy bits:
> 
> _We’ve received a few more bits of information since yesterdays story about a Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS coming in 2016. We’re told that the new lens will likely be announced in August 2016 and will cost around *$1700 USD*, which would put it just under the Sigma’s 150-600mm f/5-6.3 OS Sport’s $1799 price tag. This tells us it will *definitely not be an L lens*, but it should still have great optics and build quality, though *weather-sealing would be unlikely* at this price point from Canon.
> 
> ...



Updated yet demoted to CR1


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

A few thoughts about the update:


So the external teleconverter does not surprise me nearly so much as that it will be dedicated to this lens. That's an odd move.


$1700 and non-L... Has a non-L lens ever cost that much?


Disagree with 'unlikely to be sealed' -- this lens will used overwhelmingly outdoors, so it's a basic market expectation, isn't it? I think weather sealing has a lot of marketing puffery about it and Canon can still try to claim that it is with less work than they would on a big superwhite. (Canon doesn't have a published weather-sealing standard, do they? I trust claims of weather-sealing like I question what 'All-Natural' means on my granola bar wrapper.)



And the demotion to CR1 seems appropriate for the 600 + 5.6 + Inexpensive unlikeliness of coexistence that has been discussed throughout this thread.

- A


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 30, 2016)

Anyone know of any photography conventions happening in August? might be an interesting time to announce the 5d4 or whatever...


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 30, 2016)

GP.Masserano said:


> I would like to remind all of you that an objective 600mm/5.6 has, more or less, the diameter of the front lens of a 300/2.8.
> So it is impossible to reduce weight (and price,too...) even if it were not L Series



The only chance I see is the use of diffractive elements which bend the light with less mass and maybe reduce size (and mass with that). The EF 70-300 DO IS USM comes in mind with 0.72 kilograms. But at 1400 $ it isn't that cheap ... 

Only if Canon has found a way to make good diffractive optics at very moderate price ...


----------



## gunship01 (Mar 30, 2016)

Price under 100-400L lens?

Canon is now making lens with plastic optics. Neat. 

I'm spoiled with the two "L" lenses I have. Can't backtrack now as the bar is set.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

crashpc said:


> I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.



I agree...but we're not talking about 500mm f/5.6 or 600mm f/8, we are talking about 600mm f/5.6.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> A few thoughts about the update:
> 
> 
> So the external teleconverter does not surprise me nearly so much as that it will be dedicated to this lens. That's an odd move.
> ...



Also note that the patented formula does not extend when zooming. I still see this as an "L" lens. The patent is also a bit of a beast, 355 mm or ~14 inches.


----------



## crashpc (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.
> ...


Well, Samyang 650-1300mm f/8-f/16 is for $280 in europe, new. Better lens would cost more of course, but it only depends on how much better and how much more. It is not problem of the glass itself. Pretty complex, so I would not stand for any particular price. It can be anything from $700 to $6000..


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

crashpc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > crashpc said:
> ...



Aren't all of these dirt-cheap 500mm+ f/8 and narrower lenses typically some optical parlour trick like a mirror lens made from some bush-league Vivatar, Conair, etc. consumer electronics folks? 

Doesn't the patent immediately rule those sort of designs out?

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that 500/5,6 or 600/8 would could be done in very nice selling price of under $1000.
> ...



Canon could make a 600 F5.6 for $1000..... but to do so they would have to use poor materials and build it to poor precision. In the end they would have a crappy lens that they would be ashamed of, so I am fairly sure it will not happen. $2000 is about as low as I could see Canon making a "kit lens" quality 600F5.6 for....... and that is most definitely not "L" lens quality......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

nhz said:


> I'm only saying that clearly - in practice, as everyone can check - an EF-S non-L lens with pretty good optics can be MUCH smaller, lighter and cheaper than a slightly longer/brighter EF L lens, despite the 'fact' that for tele lenses 'the sensor size doesn't matter'.



Ok, so you're basing your statements on the EF-S 55-250 vs the 70-300L. The EF 75-300mm lenses cover a FF image circle, are substantially cheaper than the 55-250, and not significantly larger or heavier (especially when you consider they are 50mm longer), although they are optically inferior. The old EF 55-200mm lens is lighter than the EF-S 55-250 and you can pick up a good used copy for $30. I guess by your pithy logic, I have just demonstrated that FF short telezoom lenses are cheaper and sometimes lighter than similar APS-C versions. :

Of course, we weren't talking about 250-300mm f/5.6 lenses, we were talking about a lens that's supposed to be 600mm f/5.6 at the long end. Ignorantia juris optica et physicorum non excusat. 

EDIT: as a side note from a general standpoint, I really can't lose here. If Canon actually does release a 200-600mm f/4.x-5.6 with good IQ for less than $2K, I'll happily admit my mistake and buy the lens. But I can guarantee you it _won't_ be an EF-S lens.


----------



## geonix (Mar 30, 2016)

If it is really not weather-sealed it is not for me.
I would use a telephoto-lens of that focal range for wildlife mainly. But shooting wildlife also means dusty, rainy, foggy or icy conditions. 
The Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses are at least weather-sealed to a level that permits their use in more than only dry and bright sunshine. I would expect nothing less of a canon telephoto lens of that reach.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

crashpc said:


> Well, Samyang 650-1300mm f/8-f/16 is for $280 in europe, new. Better lens would cost more of course, but it only depends on how much better and how much more. It is not problem of the glass itself. Pretty complex, so I would not stand for any particular price. It can be anything from $700 to $6000..



Is there an echo in here?



neuroanatomist said:


> Heck, Opteka sells a 650mm f/8 lens for under $200 – it's even white already! How hard can it be to add an AF motor, a variable aperture, a zoom mechanism, and a stop of light? Canon charges about a 5x markup for an f-stop, so that's $1000. Say, $200 for the other bits and bobs, $400 in pure profit because Canon is evil, and boom – the 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 comes in at $1600.
> 
> ;D


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> A few thoughts about the update:
> 
> 
> So the external teleconverter does not surprise me nearly so much as that it will be dedicated to this lens. That's an odd move.
> ...



1) I don't think a dedicated teleconverter is all that odd, Sigma has done it. Take a look at the zoom thing for the new 18-135. It's a good way to get some extra revenue and increase margins. It could also have something to do with the way the rear element sits. Doing new things is what everyone keeps asking of Canon, which they keep delivering.

2) DO Lenses  Nothing at 600mm is going to be sub $1000 from Canon and putting it in the $3500+ territory eliminates the intended buyer. I think sub $2000 is a sweet spot for such a lens.

3) I can't think of any Non-L/DO lens that is sealed. Sealing quality tends to differ on a lens-by-lens basis. The 100-400 has to remain relevant as well.

4) It's CR1 because it's a different source than the original.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> 1) I don't think a dedicated teleconverter is all that odd, Sigma has done it. Take a look at the zoom thing for the new 18-135. It's a good way to get some extra revenue and increase margins. It could also have something to do with the way the rear element sits. Doing new things is what everyone keeps asking of Canon, which they keep delivering.
> 
> 2) DO Lenses  Nothing at 600mm is going to be sub $1000 from Canon and putting it in the $3500+ territory eliminates the intended buyer. I think sub $2000 is a sweet spot for such a lens.
> 
> ...



1 = Bummer if true. We already have enough lens specificity to cope with: filter sizes, hoods, tripod rings, etc. I hope they didn't do this just to shave an inch off of the length.

2 = I always forget DO lenses are not L lenses. Good call -- that 400mm DO is nearly $7k.

3 = The 100-400 remains relevant regardless of sealing, IMHO, due to its IQ and 'reach vs. physical length' -- it fits in the same space as a 70-200 f/2.8 in your bag and this new 200-600 will most certainly not. I could see both lenses coexisting quite well.

4 = Ah. Got it.

- A


----------



## pierlux (Mar 30, 2016)

gunship01 said:


> Price under 100-400L lens?
> 
> Canon is now making lens with *plastic* optics. Neat.



This could be really the only way to achieve the goal of a 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 at the price point this rumor is indicating. Engineering plastic body and resin optics. What if gunship01 has nailed it?

I remember Canon already filed a patent for a wideangle L lens with resin elements. Such lens elements should have less dispersion and less aberrations, allowing Canon to avoid fluorite and/or UD elements and equally (or, more realistically, nearly equally) achieve satisfying optical performance.

I am generally optimistic, a while back I hypothesized that a 600mm f/5.6 prime could be feasible at a price point of 3-3.5 k $. Neuro objected that although there was an anorexic possibility for a prime lens at that price point, there were zero chances for a zoom lens, and I agree on the latter, not so for the prime, still think it's feasible.

Now I ask: what do you think of an engineering plastic lens with resin optics? Could it be possible to make such a lens less expensive than the 100-400? And, more important, would you prefer it over the tank-built, weather-resistant 150-600 Sigma Sport? I probably would if, IQ-wise, it was comparable to, or better than, the Sigma. Lightweight would be a BIG bonus, plus you'd have Canon-quality AF... Opinions?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

pierlux said:


> gunship01 said:
> 
> 
> > Price under 100-400L lens?
> ...



Possible? Sure. But would Canon really offer a lens without proper glass optics and charge more than other lenses that do?

Sounds like Cadillac selling a budget/no-frills supercompact sedan. It doesn't make sense for the brand and there will still be cheaper options in that segment.

I still think Canon needs to ride...


f/5.6 is quicker, allows more AF points or teleconverter use
First party AF
General Canon reliablility and build quality

...to a 'Yes we have one, too, _but it costs more and it's worth it_' value proposition. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

pierlux said:


> Now I ask: what do you think of an engineering plastic lens with resin optics? Could it be possible to make such a lens less expensive than the 100-400?



Do resin optics scale well? Those large elements at the front are a big cost factor. Recall that one issue with fluorite elements is a slightly greater coefficient of thermal expansion than glass (Nikon highlighted the focus problems this causes with 'other makers' use of fluorite in their description of their ED glass, and interestingly let those criticisms stand even after recently starting to use fluorite in their own lenses). Moulded resin/plastic elements can have thermal expansion coefficients an order of magnitude greater than glass.


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 30, 2016)

crashpc said:


> It´s a rumor. We´re not sure what beast could this lens be, and if there is some wiggle room for shorter focal lenght or smaller aperture. Also, I believe we discussed price. I believe Canon has some potential to bring lower price lens. If it will happen, there is quite higher possibility, it will rule the market, and wi will outsell many more competitor lenses, which could again mean lower price.
> Entrance pupil is not what we argue.



The notion was that making the lens EF vs EF-S would have an impact on the cost, which is simply untrue for lenses in the telephoto range. You can make lenses cheaper by reducing the material quality, using less complex designs, loosening manufacturting tolerances, etc. but changing the image circle will have negligible impact on the size and final cost of the lens because the size, and by extension cost, of the lens is dominated by the entrance pupil requirement.


----------



## j-nord (Mar 30, 2016)

With the addition that it will be a sub $2k lens of low quality, Ive completely lost interest. Ideally, I'd like a 500/5.6 L IS prime instead, priced around or a bit over the 100-400ii.


----------



## pierlux (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > gunship01 said:
> ...



Fact is that when Canon made their first non-metal, plastic lens we all sniffed at it, then it turned out to be "engineering plastic" and... ah, OK! What if they call a plastic lens element "optical grade polycarbonate"? Doesn't it sound more distinguished? That's the way they would act. Probably, the front element would still be glass, maybe flat glass, to avoid scratches. The question is either this rumor is total BS and we're a bunch of idiots at our eleventh page of vapor-nothing, or something's really boiling there. CR guy is not going ballistic I hope, he rated this CR2... The point is Canon are rumored to offer this hypothetical lens at equal or less money than others, not more. What I think Canon really hate is not Sigma and Tamron selling tons of their superteles, it's Nikon with their cheapo one!


----------



## sulla (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Aren't all of these dirt-cheap 500mm+ f/8 and narrower lenses typically some optical parlour trick like a mirror lens made from some bush-league Vivatar, Conair, etc. consumer electronics folks?
> 
> Doesn't the patent immediately rule those sort of designs out?


No, they are not. They simply are not telepoto lenses. ("telephoto" lenses being lenses that have, - allow for a slight oversimplification - a longer focal lenght than physical length, achieved by having a positive front and negative rear element. This brings optical problems that need to be corrected, but they can be made fast). Those cheapo 500 /f8 lenses are normal lenses, verm much like the EF 50 designs. Thus they are physically (much) longer than their focal length is. They consist only of a couple of lenses. And normal lenses of this focal lenght cannot be made very fast easily.

The canon patent rules this sort of construction out. The Canon patent is a "telephoto" lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

raptor3x said:


> The notion was that making the lens EF vs EF-S would have an impact on the cost, which is simply untrue for lenses in the telephoto range. You can make lenses cheaper by reducing the material quality, using less complex designs, loosening manufacturting tolerances, etc. but changing the image circle will have negligible impact on the size and final cost of the lens because the size, and by extension cost, of the lens is dominated by the entrance pupil requirement.



Yet:


Tamron = 95mm front element = $989
Sigma Contemporary = 95mm front element = $989
Sigma Sports = 105mm front element = $1,799

Just because Canon lenses with huge front elements cost a boatload doesn't mean they have to. So as much as I am arguing Canon shouldn't get down in the mud and follow suit with something inexpensive, _it is absolutely possible_ to make a decent 600mm f/6.3 lens for under $1,000. (I understand that f/6.3 is not f/5.6, but you get my meaning). We may just not want to _buy_ such a lens, that's all.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

From a cost perspective, Canon also has the card up its sleeve of ecosystem pullthrough and customer retention, i.e. _they could conceivably give the lens away at cost to protect defections to another mount. _

The only reason Canon would do this is if Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6, magically sitting at $1,400, is stealing body sales from Canon. I'm not sure that's happening, but it could explain this push for a cheaper long zoom.

- A


----------



## crashpc (Mar 30, 2016)

If we´re talking mass production, 100-400 non L would be propably greater hit, but who knows.
Cash is waiting...


----------



## neonlight (Mar 30, 2016)

...so it won't be a white lens? and no IS?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

raptor3x said:


> You can make lenses cheaper by reducing the material quality, using less complex designs, loosening manufacturting tolerances, etc. but changing the image circle will have negligible impact on the size and final cost of the lens because the size, and by extension cost, of the lens is dominated by the entrance pupil requirement.



Apparently, *nhz*'s vast almost 20 year experience in the field says differently. : It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.


----------



## sulla (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.



For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard P. Feynman


----------



## pierlux (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > Now I ask: what do you think of an engineering plastic lens with resin optics? Could it be possible to make such a lens less expensive than the 100-400?
> ...



That would be a real problem. You'd have to AFMA your lens every single shooting session.

Or engineer the lens in such a way that the thermal expansion of the mount/barrel compensates for the optical shift of the plastic elements, or alternate optical elements with differential thermal properties. Not an easy task to accomplish, even with computer-aided design. It would be probably easier to develop a new plastic material with low thermal expansion coefficient. I recall I've read some University labs were actually researching in this direction for aerospace implementation.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

pierlux said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



It's not just an AFMA thing in which elements would be closer/further from one another depending on the temperature. I'd imagine their _shape_ would actually change as well. No fancy mount/barrel design will address that, one would think.

Also, I work with plastic in my day job, and all kinds of weird variables come into play depending on the material and the forming process. It's not uncommon those materials have trapped residual stresses from molding, have anisotropic material properties, etc. that make 'controlling' it in a temperature changing environment very difficult. That said, I'm no optical engineer or material scientist. 

- A


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > The notion was that making the lens EF vs EF-S would have an impact on the cost, which is simply untrue for lenses in the telephoto range. You can make lenses cheaper by reducing the material quality, using less complex designs, loosening manufacturting tolerances, etc. but changing the image circle will have negligible impact on the size and final cost of the lens because the size, and by extension cost, of the lens is dominated by the entrance pupil requirement.
> ...



Again, I don't know how to state it any more clearly, at no point have I made any indication at all that the lens in question must be incredibly expensive. It's not that large telephoto lenses can't be made more cheaply than the great white lenses, it's that making a lens for EF-S vs EF will not reduce the manufacturing cost by any significant amount.


----------



## pierlux (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> From a cost perspective, Canon also has the card up its sleeve of ecosystem pullthrough and customer retention, i.e. _they could conceivably give the lens away at cost to protect defections to another mount. _
> 
> The only reason Canon would do this is if Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6, magically sitting at $1,400, is stealing body sales from Canon. I'm not sure that's happening, but it could explain this push for a cheaper long zoom.



Perfectly reasonable, I agree. It's no use repairing the fence after the cattle have escaped.


----------



## Speedsurfer142 (Mar 30, 2016)

Until 2 weeks ago I only owned Canon Glass. The 70-200 IS II is my faforite in combination with my 7DII. Now I also own a Sigma 150-600 sports and this lens is a lot better than I expected. Oke, it is not par with the 70-20 in sharpnes, but it is close. (After calibration with the USB dock.) The autofocus speed is about 90% of the 70-200 and that is absolutely good for me. I shoot rallycars (at speed) windsurfing action and I started birding. 

Canon will have to do something verry special to make something like this at this price range. Non L will not be good enough. It must be an L lens for Non L lens money. 

Pro vs Con Sigma.
Pro: Sharp even at 600mm.
Fast autofocus that is pretty spot on. 
Build quality (on par with Canon L glass) and weather sealed.
Push-pull option (like old 100-400L) but you don't have to use it.
Tripod ring system.
Programable settings
Canon Extender 1.4III works good. (No need for a dedicated extender.)
Cheap €1599 inc. 105mm filter and USBdock.

Con: Heavy (not for hand hold shooting).
Vingetting is strong, bit Lightroon fixes that easy.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 30, 2016)

sulla said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's ok, though – everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it flies in the face of reality.
> ...



For a successful BS, public relations must take precedence over
reality, for Man can be fooled.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 30, 2016)

I'm really enjoying this conversation. I was worried what people would find to argue over now that Canon has caught up on dynamic range. 

Some random thoughts:

Advice to all forum participants. When you say you have XX years of experience in an industry, you really need to quantify that with some details. If I read that someone says that have 20 years in the lens design industry, but they don't say what they actually did, I just assume they mean they worked the counter at Lens Crafters.



One thing that hasn't been brought up, is the possibility of fudging the f-stop and focal length. The difference between f6.3 and f5.6 is less than a half stop. Perhaps a true 600mm f5.6 lens would be prohibitively expensive, but where is the line? Since f6.3 is practical, maybe an f6 570 mm sold as f5.6 600 mm? 



People could save themselves a lot of time if they just re-read the thread from a few months back. I'm not seeing any new information here.




I'm still wrestling with this:



RickWagoner said:


> It don't cost that much to make a lens esp if you're making 50,000. Depending on where you are making it and where you are sourcing your parts from esp. Most of the cost is upfront in dyes for the barrels, switches, hoods, and other custom built parts.



Doesn't sound cheap to me. And, by the way it's "dies" not "dyes" (Unless you are talking about soaking the lenses to get that pretty white color)



RickWagoner said:


> Motors and electronics are cheap as hell and the cost of R&D is not much but a few people who know what they're doing. Auto focus and IS has already been worked on long before this lens i would assume so that don't cost anything besides those few people to Dial it in for the lens.



I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said that a particular enhancement "don't (sic) cost anything" 



RickWagoner said:


> How much your glass cost depends on who makes it and does that company do the polishing or do you do the polishing. Polishing yourself does not cost that much. Where is it put together can add a bit, esp with local regulations and taxes.



I am reminded of Everertt Dirkson's quote: "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you have real money."



RickWagoner said:


> Not much Marketing is needed as most of it today is in the form of youtube videos with the gear coming from a dealer themselves.



Gee I guess all those ads in magazines and television that Canon, Nikon and Sony buy are just a waste of money (or maybe they are free?) 



RickWagoner said:


> Repairs are cheaper than you want to think, remember all you're doing is paying a few people to repair and you're still getting the parts cheap as hell.



I've seen the pictures of Canon's repair facilities. I didn't notice a lot of eight-year-old kids and undocumented immigrants doing the work. I guess the people I did see must all be paid minimum wage?



RickWagoner said:


> I doubt you will be selling 50,000 600mm lenses though...if it is a amazing seller you may sell 5,000 of them.



I have no reason to doubt this number, but I have to wonder, if it only takes 5,000 lenses to make an amazing seller worldwide, then I don't quite understand why people feel that Canon HAS to react to the bargain lenses being offered.


Now, in fairness to Rick, I do believe that we will see a 7DII replacement sooner rather than later. The old 7D was not updated in part because there was nothing to compete with it. With Nikon back in that market I think pride and competitive pressures will prompt Canon to shorten the replacement cycle.



The cool thing about this rumor thread is that people are so sure they are right and everyone else is wrong.

We will have an opportunity a year from now to look back and see who knew what they were talking about and who didn't. (As for me, I've never made any claim to know what I'm talking about.)


----------



## crashpc (Mar 30, 2016)

raptor3x said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...


Any amount can be at play. If Canon really didn´t want to save money, why the heck would they make Two rebel cameras and two 5DS cameras etc. With EF-S mount goes another "money saving" than just little bit smaller lens. It is usually lower class. I believe the price difference could be significant.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 30, 2016)

Xavitxaung said:


> Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...



http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/nfd258.html


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Now, in fairness to Rick, I do believe that we will see a 7DII replacement sooner rather than later. The old 7D was not updated in part because there was nothing to compete with it. With Nikon back in that market I think pride and competitive pressures will prompt Canon to shorten the replacement cycle.



+1. With Nikon abandoning the 'pro APS-C body' segment for so long, Canon really only needed a 5-year 7D refresh cycle to retain its business over either the D7200 (and successor) line or Canon's own 80D (and successor) line. The D500 really shakes that up, I think.

We have no idea the D500_ performs_ yet, but it's a clear statement of commitment to birders & wildlife folks.

But I'm OT. Apologies.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

mrsfotografie said:


> Xavitxaung said:
> 
> 
> > Once upon a time a FD 150-600mm 1:5.6L...
> ...



From an FM sale I googled, see below. Yowza -- 9+ pounds.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Xavitxaung said:
> ...



That's quite the push-pull zoom on that baby.


----------



## nhz (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > You can make lenses cheaper by reducing the material quality, using less complex designs, loosening manufacturting tolerances, etc. but changing the image circle will have negligible impact on the size and final cost of the lens because the size, and by extension cost, of the lens is dominated by the entrance pupil requirement.
> ...



For sure your vast experience as an internet expert trounce everything :


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Yeah, those ergonomics resemble a WWI artillery piece. One half expects this this thing to forego a tripod in favor of a angled mount attached to two wooden wagon wheels.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> One thing that hasn't been brought up, is the possibility of fudging the f-stop and focal length. The difference between f6.3 and f5.6 is less than a half stop. Perhaps a true 600mm f5.6 lens would be prohibitively expensive, but where is the line? Since f6.3 is practical, maybe an f6 570 mm sold as f5.6 600 mm?



What do you mean when you say f/6.3 is practical? Consider that what Tamron calls 150-600mm f/5-6.3 was patented as a design of 152-*582*mm f/5.12-*6.45*. When ahsanford earlier stated, "Tamron = 95mm front element = $989," he really meant 95mm front filter thread – the front element is smaller, closer to the ~90mm you'd expect based on the above non-rouded values of 582 / 6.45. Canon does and will continue to fudge, but you'll need to compared fudged numbers with other fudged numbers.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 30, 2016)

I'm waiting for the 100 MP imager. Add a tack sharp 200mm f2.8 with electronic zoom. There, done.
Meanwhile, the war of big zooms will continue. Maybe just fork over a few bucks for one of those mirrorless things with the 100x zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

nhz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



We were dicsussing your suggestion that there would be significant savings in making a 200-600mm f/4.x-6.3 lens with an image height of 13.7mm vs. an image height of 21.6mm. I see that you've chosen not to respond to the issue at hand, based on your almost 20 years of experience in the field. Perhaps unfocused is right - you've spent 20 years standing behind the counter at LensCrafters. 

You _could_ just admit you were wrong, but that's probably too much for you to handle.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


Well duh! The brand is Cannon.....


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > I'm waiting for the 100 MP imager. Add a tack sharp 200mm f2.8 with electronic zoom. There, done.
> ...



Yup. Let me amend my post... affordable. I went through the large format phase in the film days. I was young and strong back then. Now I'm just strong willed.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 30, 2016)

The optical formula says:

Focal length 200.00 340.00 600.00
F-number 4.60 4.60 5.20

Read more: http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/#ixzz44QJTxPOh

600mm and f/5.2 is 115.4mm of aperture.

That makes me even more dubious of the projected cost, though the Sigma Sport has a filter thread that size.


----------



## rs (Mar 30, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> The optical formula says:
> 
> Focal length 200.00 340.00 600.00
> F-number 4.60 4.60 5.20
> ...



The internal zoom and 200-400 rivalling length also jump out at me:



> Overall length of the lens 355.16 355.16 355.16



This patent with its full on 600/5.2 and internal zoom don't match the rumours of a cheap light non L lens. Were there any other 200-600 or similar patents out there by Canon which these rumours could align with?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> The optical formula says:
> 
> Focal length 200.00 340.00 600.00
> F-number 4.60 4.60 5.20
> ...



Sigma Sport filter thread is 105mm, according to TDP and B&H. And as Neuro pointed out before, filter diameter does not always equal front element size and the Sigma may actually be smaller.

- A


----------



## rs (Mar 30, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I'm waiting for the 100 MP imager. Add a tack sharp 200mm f2.8 with electronic zoom. There, done.
> Meanwhile, the war of big zooms will continue. Maybe just fork over a few bucks for one of those mirrorless things with the 100x zoom.



To get the 600mm framing from a 200mm lens, you have to use a 3x crop from the centre, resulting in an area smaller than a 1" sensor camera. It'd have 1/9th of the pixels of the full frame, so 11MP from your 100MP theoretical body. And the lens/crop area would be equivalent to 600/8.4. Where's that 3x TC when you need it?


----------



## unfocused (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that hasn't been brought up, is the possibility of fudging the f-stop and focal length. The difference between f6.3 and f5.6 is less than a half stop. Perhaps a true 600mm f5.6 lens would be prohibitively expensive, but where is the line? Since f6.3 is practical, maybe an f6 570 mm sold as f5.6 600 mm?
> ...



Wow! It's like you go out of your way to alienate people, even when they are agreeing with you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



???


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that hasn't been brought up, is the possibility of fudging the f-stop and focal length. The difference between f6.3 and f5.6 is less than a half stop. Perhaps a true 600mm f5.6 lens would be prohibitively expensive, but where is the line? Since f6.3 is practical, maybe an f6 570 mm sold as f5.6 600 mm?
> ...



Illuminate me -- I have a novice 'the lens ain't _exactly_ X' sort of question:

If the patent is in fact what was built in production in your Tamron example, were I to slam it to '600' on the FL ring I'm actually getting 582mm. As I understand, nutty FL tricks like this happen all the time.

[ enter 'there is no dumb question / thank you for asking' zone]

But when I'm at 582mm and the lens is shot wide open, is the physical aperture actually at 6.3 or 6.45? Does it electronically report 6.3 to the camera but physically only open to 6.45? Or does it just open to a true f/6.3 and the lens just doesn't let in the light that it ought to -- would that darken the frame or something?

[ exit 'there is no dumb question / thank you for asking' zone]

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But when I'm at 582mm and the lens is shot wide open, is the physical aperture actually at 6.3 or 6.45? Does it electronically report 6.3 to the camera but physically only open to 6.45? Or does it just open to a true f/6.3 and the lens just doesn't let in the light that it ought to -- would that darken the frame or something?




Assuming the lens is as described in the patent, it reports f/6.3 in the EXIF, but physically opens to 90.2mm, which at 582mm is f/6.45. Now, it's also reporting 600mm, not 582mm. This is one factor in T-stop (actual light transmission, empirically measured) vs. F-stop (calculated from focal length and aperture). DxO reports transmission for the lens as T6.6 (in addition to rounding, element coatings and the number of air-glass interfaces affect transmission). I suspect the firmware in the lens ramps the values reported in EXIF for FL and aperture from 'fudged' ones to the actual ones as the lens is zoomed / stopped down.


----------



## slclick (Mar 31, 2016)

But will it go to '11'?


----------



## tron (Mar 31, 2016)

slclick said:


> But will it go to '11'?


Hmmm, it's in the opposite side of focal lengths. You seem to need 11-24 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

tron said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > But will it go to '11'?
> ...



Don't you mean 11.3-23.3mm f/4.1?


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 31, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The optical formula says:
> ...



You're right...I have the C and I knew the S was 10mm bigger. I was remembering the S and adding 10 to that instead of to the 95mm filter thread on mine.


----------



## Diko (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But when I'm at 582mm and the lens is shot wide open, is the physical aperture actually at 6.3 or 6.45? Does it electronically report 6.3 to the camera but physically only open to 6.45? Or does it just open to a true f/6.3 and the lens just doesn't let in the light that it ought to -- would that darken the frame or something?
> ...




That would explain this *post of mine*.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Thank you


----------



## gunship01 (Mar 31, 2016)

slclick said:


> But will it go to '11'?



Quite nice Spinal Tap reference. Point and tip of the hat to you sir. 
Lol


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 31, 2016)

The interesting part for me is also the 355mm lens length in the patent


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 31, 2016)

rs said:


> It'd have 1/9th of the pixels of the full frame, so 11MP from your 100MP theoretical body. And the lens/crop area would be equivalent to 600/8.4. Where's that 3x TC when you need it?



11 mpix @ 600mm seems really good to me. YMMV.

As for f/8.4 that's only optically. But you still shoot @f/2.8 and enjoy all the light and speed that follows. So also some advantages towards Canon's 600mm lens.

Anyway. I'm all-in with Canon's 100 MPIX camera and a 200 f/2.0 IS L to complete the package once it hits the stores.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> The interesting part for me is also the 355mm lens length in the patent



Keep in mind that a lens patent is for an optical formula, so the lens length starts at the sensor.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Mar 31, 2016)

Hello Together,

very interessting patent. Would like to see the final outcome of the lens very soon.
But im more interested into fixed focal lengths.

Zoom Lenses in this range of focal length are very heavy. I also found myself selling the Sigma 150-600 C again because it is to heavy for me for a long day out there.

My wish to canon is:

400mm 5.6L IS Update.
or a
500mm 5.6L IS


Cheers.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 31, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> My wish to canon is: 400mm 5.6L IS Update or a 500mm 5.6L IS



*If* Canon really brings a 200-600/5.6 zoom, I don't think there will ever be a 400mm or 500mm/5.6 L IS. I also don't think a 500/5.6 L IS would be a lot lighter ...


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 31, 2016)

j-nord said:


> With the addition that it will be a sub $2k lens of low quality, Ive completely lost interest. Ideally, I'd like a 500/5.6 L IS prime instead, priced around or a bit over the 100-400ii.



Or, I've always thought a 400mm f/4L IS prime would be a sweet spot lens as well. Especially one that takes teleconverters really well. I mean, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but we got the beloved, affordable 400mm f/5.6 and then we go to the extreme of the 400mm f/2.8 which comes with a magnitude cost increase.

Yep, a 400mm f/4 prime of some sort, maybe in the $2500 to $3500 range could be a very popular lens and yet attainable for enthusiasts. I just assume Canon feels such a lens/price might cannibalize other sales or something and therefore is not a good product to add from a marketing standpoint?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 31, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > It'd have 1/9th of the pixels of the full frame, so 11MP from your 100MP theoretical body. And the lens/crop area would be equivalent to 600/8.4. Where's that 3x TC when you need it?
> ...



If you really seriously want to crop at that level, consider the G3 X or the new Sony R10 III. Their 1" BSI sensors are equivalent to 150 mpx FF and they have either an f/5.6 or f/4 220mm lens, respectively, with very good image quality.

I'm sticking with my 5DS R and 400mm+ combinations, but I get good service from the G3 X when travelling light.

My experience with Canon is pre-order, pay the full whack and see the price drop seriously after 15 months. But, if the 200-600mm is announced, I'll probably pre-order as I won't be able to resist it. At least the prospect is keeping me away from the hideously expensive 400mm II DO.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Steve Dmark2 said:
> 
> 
> > My wish to canon is: 400mm 5.6L IS Update or a 500mm 5.6L IS
> ...



The 100-400 version 1 and the 400F5.6 co-existed in the Canon lineup for a long time.... Zooms are always more popular, but when built with a similar level of technology and materials, the prime will always outperform the zoom, particularly when you attach a teleconverter. With a zoom, you have to design for a range of focal lengths and although some of the modern zooms are amazingly sharp, the prime built to a similar level of tech is always sharper. A zoom has more moving parts... this means that alignment is less precise and adds in a bit of weight. Most zooms (like the 100-400 II) have the barrel extend (not all, the 70-200 F4 is a very noticeable exception) but the 400F5.6 remains a constant length and that means that you are not pumping air (with moisture and dust) through the lens..... there is no such thing as a sealed extending lens....

There are a lot of people out there that would jump all over a 400F5.6 rev II. It would sell. There would be one in my camera bag....


----------



## pierlux (Mar 31, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> There are a lot of people out there that would jump all over a 400F5.6 rev II. It would sell. There would be one in my camera bag....



And another one in mine, provided IS is added. And let me say once again that I'd rather go for a 600 f/5.6 prime instead of whichever supertelephoto zoom.


----------



## rbr (Mar 31, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > With the addition that it will be a sub $2k lens of low quality, Ive completely lost interest. Ideally, I'd like a 500/5.6 L IS prime instead, priced around or a bit over the 100-400ii.
> ...



There is a wonderful 400 f4 lens right now in the 400 f4 DO II lens. IF you want top of the line L quality, you need to pay the price for it. If that is too expensive for you and you don't want that quality, there are plenty of used 400 DO version I's out there for the price you mention. There are also plenty of used 300 f2.8 IS version I's out there that take both teleconverters very well in that price range. You can certainly get an affordable 600mm with a Canon lens right now if you buy used.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keep in mind that a lens patent is for an optical formula, so the lens length starts at the sensor.



Essentially - tiny !!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Not only that but the patent lists the length as being constant, making it internal zoom?
> 
> Focal length 200.00 340.00 600.00
> F-number 4.60 4.60 5.20
> ...



Correct, not to mention the patent indicates f/5.2 at the long end, and that's the wrong direction for a number-fudge as it connotes a 115mm diameter front element. So, it's rather apparent that the internally zooming 200-600mm f/4.5-5 lens in the linked patent is *not* the 'inexpensive 200-600mm zoom' being discussed here. 




dilbert said:


> I think something important has been dropped...
> 
> Here:
> http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-07
> ...



Note that タグ：means "Tags:" and that when you hover over the following words you see that 'Canon', 'CINEMA EOS', and each of the lenses are separate tags. The image height of the 200-600mm embodiment in the patent is 21.65mm, which means an EF 'full frame' image circle. So this patent does describe an EF lens (in that one embodiment), but as stated, likely not the one being discussed here.


----------



## 2n10 (Mar 31, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > nightscape123 said:
> ...



I have both setups and have to disagree with you that the Tammy is as good wide open to the 100-400mm II. It is pretty close.

I always tell anyone who asks that if money is the issue then go with the Tammy otherwise get the Canon. and a 1.4x TC III. This combo beats the Tammy wide open.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Mar 31, 2016)

Canon should just release a new 300/4L IS, a 400/5.6L w/ IS, and maybe even a 500/5.6L IS. The first 2 should be relatively cheap, the last north of $2K. And replace the USM with STM on the old 70-300 non-L IS and improve the optics.


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 31, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> There are a lot of people out there that would jump all over a 400F5.6 rev II. It would sell. There would be one in my camera bag....



I would also buy an updated 400mm f/5.6. Got the 100-400 L IS II for now.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Mar 31, 2016)

I finally managed to take pics of this super-secret new lens:


----------



## slclick (Apr 1, 2016)

macVega said:


> Mark D5 TEAM II said:
> 
> 
> > I finally managed to take pics of this super-secret new lens:
> ...



But we do need more humor!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2016)

Sadly enough, I already have a 500F8 mirror lens......


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 1, 2016)

I'm actually sort of happy with my Samyang 800f8 mirror lens.

On the 5D2 it has worse detail and way less colour than the 400f5.6 on the T3, but, as far as compact and lightweight telephoto lenses go, maybe not so bad for $300. I'm sure it's better than cropping off a kit lens... If you ever manage to get anything in focus.

I'll take it out tomorrow and shoot some geese nesting in the dugout.


----------



## rs (Apr 1, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I'm actually sort of happy with my Samyang 800f8 mirror lens.
> 
> On the 5D2 it has worse detail and way less colour than the 400f5.6 on the T3



But it does feature donut shaped bokeh


----------



## crashpc (Apr 1, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I'm actually sort of happy with my Samyang 800f8 mirror lens.
> 
> On the 5D2 it has worse detail and way less colour than the 400f5.6 on the T3, but, as far as compact and lightweight telephoto lenses go, maybe not so bad for $300. I'm sure it's better than cropping off a kit lens... If you ever manage to get anything in focus.
> 
> I'll take it out tomorrow and shoot some geese nesting in the dugout.


It would be awesome if you took a shot of something common (like bottle of water, can of beer, a sheet of paper) so I would have some comparsion with my 55-250mm IS STM with teleconverters on crop body...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 1, 2016)

crashpc said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I'm actually sort of happy with my Samyang 800f8 mirror lens.
> ...



Since when can you can teleconverter an EF-S lens? Is there some third party teleconverter that does this?

- A


----------



## crashpc (Apr 1, 2016)

[quote author=ahsanford]

Since when can you can teleconverter an EF-S lens? Is there some third party teleconverter that does this?

- A
[/quote]

Yes, there are two possibilities:
1) front mounted TC via filter thread - I use Olympus C-210 here. It works. Of course, the image quality on pixel level will be worse, but once you need to frame tighter, it will deliver greater relative resolution, and the magnified image will be better than upsized one. For $20, I´m very happy what it does.

2)Third party TCs. Kenko has two of these. Both are called HD. One of these is 1,4x, which I have, and the second one is 2x. I´ll have a look at the second one too. It adds chromatic abberations, but the output image is still VERY sharp, and with some processing SW, you can heal most of that ugly CA effects.

Funny thing is that my M will focus with both of these mounted on the lens. That´s something like f/13!


----------



## Surfingdad (Apr 1, 2016)

I can't wait to see what the price will be on this lens.


----------



## sulla (Apr 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> From paragraph 8 in the patent:
> 
> _[Problem to be solved by the invention]
> [0008] In the looking-far zoom lens used for a television camera in recent years and video camera [...]_



OK, this is the final element that pretty much busts this rumour: Cine lenses are never ever cheap. This non-extending F5.2 lens will NOT be the cheap 200-600 lens this rumour is about.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2016)

could this be it?


----------



## slclick (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> could this be it?



Dimensions of box, 32" x 20" x 22"


----------



## Click (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> could this be it?



LOL ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 1, 2016)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > could this be it?
> ...



It comes with coupon for 50% off your first back surgery.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2016)

Click said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > could this be it?
> ...



The hard part is going to finding the 215mm ND filter to put on the end.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



No drop in holder or gel holder slot at the back of the lens? Canon screws up yet again. :

;D


----------



## slclick (Apr 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Click said:
> ...



It's no wonder they are going out of business. I know because I heard it here...http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com


----------



## hubie (Apr 2, 2016)

200-600 with the Canon 80D and 27 f/8 AF-points... a dream for wildlife shooters 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Apr 4, 2016)

At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.

Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.

When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Apr 5, 2016)

Plainsman said:


> .....
> Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.
> 
> When Nikon did that with their latest 800/5.6 the results were astoundingly good with non of the imatest steep drop off you normally get when adding a converter. Yes we know that primes and zooms are different..........



100-400ii with integrated converter. Also a interesting idea.
Still i have also a problem with the with the high maximum aperture.
In your case what would it be: 5.6 + 1,25/1,4 tele = 6.3 just like the sigmas?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 5, 2016)

Steve Dmark2 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



I don't know what the corresponding aperture would be (somewhere around 6.3 to 7.1?), but there's so much more to a lens than sharpness, max aperture and IS. A teleconvertered 100-400L II will be well sealed, retain that nice CPL window in the hood, have reliable first party AF and store/carry in a far smaller footprint.

The question is how well you can 'optically match' a modular teleconverter. One would imagine it would perform more like the 1.4x standalone T/C and less like the 1.4x integral T/C on the 200-400, right? 

- A


----------



## gpolly (Apr 5, 2016)

I have the 100-440 II....Love the sharpness, was pleasantly shocked how sharp it is.

but....i wish it was one stop faster....wish.

200-600 would have to be a major improvement to take this out of my hands. 100-400 on my 7dm2 is an awesome combination. I almost never put the lens on my 5dm2, just not enough focus points to work with on that body. then again my 24-70 2.8 never sees my 7dm2 and it lives on my 5dm2.

attached is a shot with the 7dm2 100-400II 50% crop for size limits, 1/400 7.1 ISO200 at full 400mm. no edits just raw to jpeg conversion.

this little dude is about 5" long....looks like a dragon... ;D ;D


----------



## cookestudios (Apr 9, 2016)

Plainsman said:


> At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
> So it will be much more expensive than these or pretty poor optically IMO.
> 
> Why not give the excellent 100-400 II an optically matched 1.25xTC extending its range to 500mm.
> ...



5.6 is only a third of a stop faster than those companies' offerings that max out at 6.3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2016)

cookestudios said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > At 600/5.6 the aperture will be much bigger than the Tamron, Sigma or Nikon's latest.
> ...



That 'only a third of a stop' requires a front element with a 28% larger area.


----------



## cookestudios (Apr 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> cookestudios said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



Yes, I'm aware of that. Typically, when people refer to the "size" of an aperture, they're referring to its transmission capabilities; thus, I was addressing that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2016)

cookestudios said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > cookestudios said:
> ...



Typically when people refer to the size of the aperture of a telephoto lens in the context of its cost, they're referring to the corresponding size of the front set of elements, which are a significant contributor to the lens' cost.


----------



## cookestudios (Apr 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> cookestudios said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ah, missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2016)

crashpc said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I'm actually sort of happy with my Samyang 800f8 mirror lens.
> ...


Ok, Finally.

Full image and then 100% crops, all off of the Canon 1100D.

The can shots show just how shallow depth of field is even at f8 when you have a 1280mm FOV.
With the close set I just wanted to fill the frame the other set is from 30 paces (about 30 yards). No colour correction on these.
Samyang 800f8 1/1500 ISO400


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2016)

And some wildlife.

First I tried to get a comparison with geese but ended up with ducks.
The duplicate picture of the duck has a tiny bit of extra colour saturation, I think it helps with white balance and makes the image much more natural.
EDIT: Images off the Samyang are ISO 400 pushed almost one stop (+0.83) in post, so it's really more like ISO 800. the Canon 400f5.6 image is bumped up by +0.17.
Samyang 800f8 1/1500 ISO400













This is probably from the same position, but there might be a differece of a few meters.
Canon 400f5.6 1/1500 ISO400









There's a pair of hawks nesting on the home quarter and they screech at me almost the entire time I go for a walk in the back pasture.
Yesterday I barely managed to snap this through the trees (no leaves yet), the bird was obviously uncomfortable being this close.
My hit rate with BIF using the Samyang 800f8 is about 1 in 20. Racking focus is the only way I've managed decent shots regardless of whether I'm on my belly or standing, though I don't have much practice.
I just did a bit of extra noise correction and the same colour correction as with the duck above. My default sharpening is "off" but I doubt it would make much difference at this level of detail.

It's not much but everything considered even getting a thumbnail quality image feels like an accomplishment.

Samyang 800f8 1/2000 ISO 800


----------



## Greatland (Apr 16, 2016)

The bird shots are pretty poor!


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 16, 2016)

Greatland said:


> The bird shots are pretty poor!



Comparing the Canon 400f5.6 and the Samyang 800f8, the amount of detail collected is very similar, the primary difference is the lack of contrast from the mirror lens.
That's very good image quality for a lens that costs 4 times less.


----------



## slclick (Apr 17, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Greatland said:
> 
> 
> > The bird shots are pretty poor!
> ...



Does cost matter when the image is unusable or undesirable? This is a clear cut case of getting what you paid for.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2016)

slclick said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Greatland said:
> ...



You think the Canon 400f5.6 is unusable and undesirable? I can get slightly out of focus pictures of birds through a bunch of trees with that lens too.
Actually I can't, it would just focus on the trees.
Therefore, making gross generalizations about results from this one scenario and applying that to all lenses universally brings us to the conclusion that all autofocus lenses are a waste of money at any price.


----------



## slclick (Apr 17, 2016)

9VIII said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



No, no... the mirror lens. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, I just thought it was obvious. So all in all, your harangue wasn't taken personal. But like the 400 5.6... it was nice and sharp!


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 17, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Greatland said:
> 
> 
> > The bird shots are pretty poor!
> ...



I seriously doubt a 400/5.6 shot upresed by 2x would look anywhere close to as blurry as these samples do.

Frankly, between these shots an cropped shots from the 70-300IS (not the L), I'd take the later.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Greatland said:
> ...



Sample images from both lenses are in my post, you're free to zoom in on the duck.
(The images were taken on different days, so there is a small change in lighting.)
(I should probably also note that the Samyang images were pushed one stop in post, which in hindsight was probably a bad idea given how old the camera is.)


----------



## dufflover (May 13, 2016)

The Sigma 150-600mm S is on special this weekend here in Aus for about $1900. I'm not actually sure how low it has been before but it seems like a good price. I have a twitchy mouse finger now as I have always found my 120-300mm w/ 2x TC sharpness a bit lacking for when I need 600mm reach, or at least the reduced AF performance means the final sharpness is worse (same either way). It's great with the 1.4x though and as I've learnt with my 70-200mm vs 100-400mm usage toss-ups, I don't want to be too hasty in trading away my low-light 400mm for a good 600mm only to lose that fading light option. And this rumoured lens might be just enough to stop and see what Canon may offer, as I can somewhat agree that in experience I do find my Canon lenses just that little bit more reliable in things like AF.


----------

