# Can we start a rumor.... 600 5.6 L it seems there is a strong market for it



## Busted Knuckles (Feb 12, 2017)

Something in native glass that is an affordable 600mm 

Have a tamzooka, borrowed a friends sigmonster. Someone could probably find the number of Tammys and the pair of Sigmas that have sold - I am sure it is a pretty big number.

The gap between a 2k sigma zoom at 600, and then the $4000 on sale nikon, next stop is $11.5k Canon??

Kind of a gap in the product line?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Busted Knuckles said:


> 600 5.6 L it seems there is a strong market for it



600mm f/5.6L = 300mm f/2.8L plus some. Even as a non-L lens, it's going to be pretty damn expensive. 

There's a gap between a broken down old pony and a fine Arabian stallion...but don't expect a unicorn to fill that gap. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > 600 5.6 L it seems there is a strong market for it
> ...



I think the idea is that Sigma and Tamron produce reasonable 600mm zooms for under $1,000, so Canon ought to be able to make something slightly better for under $2,000. Even better, they ought to be able to make something similar in quality to the 100-400II for under $3,000.

I understand the sentiment: I'd save my pennies to buy a 150-600 Canon that reached that level of quality. But I don't think it's going to happen unless there's a large sales drop of the 100-400II relative to those other brands.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> I think the idea is that Sigma and Tamron produce reasonable 600mm zooms for under $1,000, so Canon ought to be able to make something slightly better for under $2,000.



Sigma and Tamron make reasonably priced 600mm *f/6.3* zoom lenses. 600/6.3 = 95mm, 600/5.6 = 107mm, equivalent to the 300/2.8L. That means a front element with 27% more area, and everything else sized to match. That means $$$. 

If you want to wish for something, try a 500mm f/5.6. Nikon has already delivered one.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I think the idea is that Sigma and Tamron produce reasonable 600mm zooms for under $1,000, so Canon ought to be able to make something slightly better for under $2,000.
> ...



Is there a reason Canon can't make a 600mm *f/6.3* zoom lens? It would work well for birds and wildlife.

I think it's a marketing choice, and probably a sound one. It's another case where what I want doesn't match the prevailing market conditions.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2017)

The regularity of the repetition of these threads is amazing...



Orangutan said:


> Is there a reason Canon can't make a 600mm *f/6.3* zoom lens? It would work well for birds and wildlife.
> 
> I think it's a marketing choice, and probably a sound one. It's another case where what I want doesn't match the prevailing market conditions.



No it isn't a marketing choice, many EOS cameras are specked to f5.6 or faster AF systems. Canon set f5.6 as a hard limit when they designed the EF specs, they will not make a lens that is slower than that, even their 1200mm lens was an f5.6.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 12, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> The regularity of the repetition of these threads is amazing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If third-party f/6.3 lenses work with the AF, and Canon lenses work with teleconverters that give effective >f/5.6, then it's a functional system. "Will not make a lens that is slower than [f/5.6]" is not the same as "cannot make a lens that is slower than [f/5.6]."

It works, but they won't do it anyway: that sounds exactly like a marketing choice to me.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 12, 2017)

I don't believe you can rule out an f6.3 lens. But I would not expect one before Canon has added multiple f8 focusing points to all their XD and XXD bodies (Which they seem to be in the process of doing). So, I would expect the earliest we would see such a zoom would be after the 7DIII is released.

I would not be disappointed by a 250-500 f5.6 zoom for under $3,000. Instead I'd buy one as quickly as I could afford it. Might even buy two, so I wouldn't have to share with my wife. 

I still believe that should a longer zoom surface, it will be given an "L" designation. Once they've already factored in the embedded costs for development and production, they will need/want to extract the extra profits that come with painting the lens white and putting a red ring on it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> If third-party f/6.3 lenses work with the AF, and Canon lenses work with teleconverters that give effective >f/5.6, then it's a functional system. "Will not make a lens that is slower than [f/5.6]" is not the same as "cannot make a lens that is slower than [f/5.6]."
> 
> It works, but they won't do it anyway: that sounds exactly like a marketing choice to me.



3rd party f/6.3 lenses spoof the AF system. Canon lenses work with TCs that give >f/5.6 only on certain bodies that suppprt f/8 AF. Sort of agree with unfocused that if, at some future time, the entire dSLR line down to the xxxxD models offer f/8 AF, we might see a bare lens slower than f/5.6. Not just the high end...the whole line. Particularly in the context of someone asking for an 'affordable' 600mm lens. But at this point, it's a non-starter. 

It also depends on how you define 'works'. I used a 100-400 + 1.4x for 560mm f/8, and taped the TC pins so my 7D's AF would 'work'. It did work, if you define that as the lens AF motor moving and the camera sometimes achieving focus lock. If you define 'works' as an even reasonable rate of in-focus shots, it was a dismal failure. 

Incidentally, Canon _does_ make f/6.3 zoom lenses...for the EOS M line. They've even patented an EF-M 150-600mm f/4-6.3 DO lens.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > If third-party f/6.3 lenses work with the AF, and Canon lenses work with teleconverters that give effective >f/5.6, then it's a functional system. "Will not make a lens that is slower than [f/5.6]" is not the same as "cannot make a lens that is slower than [f/5.6]."
> ...



That's reasonable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Forgot to add that in current dSLRs, Live View will focus down to f/8 or even f/11. Really slow, but reasonably accurate.


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 12, 2017)

I was thinking a 500mm f/5.6.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Feb 13, 2017)

I appreciate the point on f5.6 vs 6.3. The 300 2.8 is a $6k lens and w/ the 2x pretty darn impressive IQ... but still 6k!! a 600 6.3 would would have to "stomp the yard" IQ wise to be worth 2k against the sigmonster.

The 300 f4 w/ the 2x is not even close to what the 2.8 pulls out w/ the 2x. And actually fails compared to the sigmonster. This triangulates to a need for either a reformed f4 300 that can make better use of the 2x or a specific lens that brings the IQ home.

Still seems like a hole in the offerings. The 200-400 w/ the 1.4tc is a wonderful offering.... except for the price holey clunk.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2017)

OEM's get to charge more for their branded products, be it Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Leica. So don't expect a bargain priced lens that is equal to third party lens makers in price. I won't even discuss build quality, even if equal, Canon will charge more.

Canon could do like Nikon and put out a consumer grade lens that was not astronomically expensive, but it would still not be cheap,and have good quality optics with lesser build quality, slower autofocus, fewer aperture blades, you get the idea.

For the price, the Tamron lens is pretty good. Its not L quality, but still is far better than what we used to see with their 200-500 that I had a few years back. I have the 100-400mm II, but I'd probably be happy with one of the Tamron lenses. (I do not buy Sigma, having been bitten before)


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 13, 2017)

My Sigma seems to be doing well enough(touch wood) on the 7d2. I have little doubt that a canon 100-400 would probably work better in regards to AF but I am happy enough with the Sigma given the canon was out of my price bracket. I would have loved to have had a comparable canon option but can understand that they may not want to comprimise quality.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 13, 2017)

If you're willing to buy a prime, why not buy a 300mm f/2.8 + EF Extender 2x, or 400mm f/4 + EF Extender 1.4x?


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 13, 2017)

I'd much rather them bring out a 500 f/5.6 IS L with a 77mm or 82mm thread size

I find a wildlife combination of a 100-400 IS L mark ii and a 500mm f/5.6 far more appealing than a mark ii of the current 400.

The 600mm f/5.6 may need too much engineering to keep it reasonably priced and may scare someone like me off on price alone


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 13, 2017)

The 400 DO2 plus 1.4 is right there and has excellent IQ. However, that white paint is expensive. Equivalent 560mm at f/5.6 on FF for about $7K U.S. The rumored 600mm f/4 DO will likely double this price. So you can see where Canon is going.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 13, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> The 400 DO2 plus 1.4 is right there and has excellent IQ. However, that white paint is expensive. Equivalent 560mm at f/5.6 on FF for about $7K U.S. The rumored 600mm f/4 DO will likely double this price. So you can see where Canon is going.



I'm not sure I'm following you.

Do you expect a 600mm f/5.6 to cost significantly less than US$7K, and if so, why?

As for the 600mm f/4, it's a faster & larger lens, of course it would be significantly more expensive. IIRC, the 16-35mm f/2.8 is at least 50% more expensive than the 16-35mm f/4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> I'd much rather them bring out a 500 f/5.6 IS L with a 77mm or 82mm thread size



Sure, that will go nicely with their new camera powered by a perpetual motion machine. 

#physicsbedamned


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you want to wish for something, try a 500mm f/5.6. Nikon has already delivered one.



Yes, that one! I want it like absanford wants a 50mm IS!


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 13, 2017)

uri.raz said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > The 400 DO2 plus 1.4 is right there and has excellent IQ. However, that white paint is expensive. Equivalent 560mm at f/5.6 on FF for about $7K U.S. The rumored 600mm f/4 DO will likely double this price. So you can see where Canon is going.
> ...


Sorry if I wasn't clear. I would expect a Canon 600mm f/5.6 to be in the $7k price range, but not sure there would be a significant market for it.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I'd much rather them bring out a 500 f/5.6 IS L with a 77mm or 82mm thread size
> ...



Apologies, I'm a dreamer, not a scientist 

But I do think we'll see that lens before we see the end of your sarcasm? Maybe? What you think


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2017)

Sabaki said:


> But I do think we'll see that lens before we see the end of your sarcasm? Maybe? What you think



I agree.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> uri.raz said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...




There are a significant number of excellent 600mm f/4 IS lenses (Ver 1) that sell used for under $5000 and would be the competition to a f/5.6. If a new f/5.6 were priced anywhere near $7500, I know which I'd choose.


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > But I do think we'll see that lens before we see the end of your sarcasm? Maybe? What you think
> ...


Plus, isn't that aforementioned Nikon a zoom? And if so, is it really 500 and/or 5.6?


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > But I do think we'll see that lens before we see the end of your sarcasm? Maybe? What you think
> ...



Lol. I do have massive respect for your knowledge btw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



It's a 200-500mm f/5.6 VR. But it uses 95mm filters...

In other words, my sarcasm will last as long as the laws of physics hold true. Mwaaa haaa haaaa. ;D


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a 200-500mm f/5.6 VR. But it uses 95mm filters...



So if Nikon can produce a 200-500mm f/5.6 VR for $1400, can't Canon produce a 500mm f/5.6 for $2000? Really - I'll buy it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's a 200-500mm f/5.6 VR. But it uses 95mm filters...
> ...



Sure they _could_. But...will they? ???


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sure, it's optimism on my part, but there does seem to be interest other than me. I won't have the 400mm f/5.6. I won't have the 100-400. I expect that some 400mm f/5.6 owners would jump at the chance to upgrade.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 25, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



It would be really cool if Sigma would revise their 400f5.6 "Telemacro" lens from the 90's, which is said to have actually out resolved Canon's 400f5.6 Prime, and did it for less money.
Back then people wouldn't touch Sigma with a ten foot pole so the lens didn't seem very popular, but trying the same thing again with their modern lens designs would probably result in something both spectacularly sharp and usable (and that theoretically can't be totally botched with a Canon firmware update).
If they could make it 500mm all the better.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I know of a second customer..... ME!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2017)

9VIII said:


> It would be really cool if Sigma would revise their 400f5.6 "Telemacro" lens from the 90's, which is said to have actually out resolved Canon's 400f5.6 Prime, and did it for less money.
> Back then people wouldn't touch Sigma with a ten foot pole so the lens didn't seem very popular, but trying the same thing again with their modern lens designs would probably result in something both spectacularly sharp and usable (and that theoretically can't be totally botched with a Canon firmware update).
> If they could make it 500mm all the better.



Its one of the five EOS compatible lenses I owned when DSLR's arrived, and it not only turned out not to work, but Sigma could not fix it, so I sold it for peanuts to a film user, since I had totally switched to digital. In any event, it was junk compared to modern lenses, flimsy build, and mine never managed to get sharp images, I might have been the reason, but I managed sharp images with other lenses.


----------

