# What about that EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS from Canon?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 12, 2019)

> It took but a few minutes to get my first inquiry about Canon’s plans for an EF 200-600mm lens once the announcement of the Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 G OSS for their mirrorless line.
> We know Canon has been working on such a lens in the past, based off of some rumors and patents we’ve seen over the years. However, nothing has come to fruition as of yet.
> As we sit here, I have doubts that we’re ever going to see such a lens for the EF mount. The RF mount? That is probably more likely. However, I doubt the EF design would translate well over to the RF in a way that Canon would be happy with, so it could be a case of starting from square one with the design of an RF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS.
> The image above is for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM



Continue reading...


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 12, 2019)

Very interesting focal length range - thinking about some 1.4/1.8 50mm RF IS lens with 1:2 macro + f/4 70 200 (e.g. existing one with adapter + 200-600 (EDIT) as a good, flexible combo for someone who is not able to make valuable photos with wide angle lenses 

But if it will be f/5.6 @ 600mm it will be as expensive as the 2.8 300: While aperture diameter is the same lenses lens elements are maybe a little bit thinner (less glass) and this glass can be used to make some other lenses for the zoom.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 12, 2019)

With the focal length range fully in the telephoto range, what is the benefit of having a RF mount version? If Canon has it in the prototype stage, it might still be worth releasing it in EF mount. R users can use the adapter, and ALL Canon ILC users would have a first-party lens for that range.


----------



## Cryve (Jun 12, 2019)

im really curious for the sharpness tests for the sony 200-600.
i really like the internal zoom.

from what ive seen it didnt seem very sharp at all:
I photograph on aps-c (not full frame like the testers) and and at 600mm with my sigma sports my photos are way sharper.
but the testers mostly photographed with very bad conditions: high iso and high heat = heat waves

i hope cannon does it better someday.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Jun 12, 2019)

I'm really starting to wonder if Canon has abandoned development of any L lens in an EF mount now.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2019)

I doubt there was ever a 200-600 f5.6 under serious consideration. Too expensive and huge. A 200-500 f5.6 is more likely. 

An RF mount would have the advantage that it could be f6.3. A 200-600 f6.3 R "L" lens from Canon at $2,500 to $3,000 would make sense. 

Personally, I would prefer a 200-500 f5.6 that is sharp and fast and in the $2,000 to $3,000 range, as opposed to a compromised 200-600. There are already plenty of decent, but not stellar 600mm zooms to choose from. 

Fantasy world: APS-C R body in the 7D mold, 150-500 f5.6 R lens, 2x R converter. Potential for a 1600 equivalent focal length at f11.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2019)

camerabug said:


> I'm really starting to wonder if Canon has abandoned development of any L lens in an EF mount now.


Yes because as a photographer I find the EF range of L lenses very limiting...


----------



## ERHP (Jun 12, 2019)

Technically Canon already has a 200-560 f/4-5.6 lens with IS. It just isn't cheap or 'soft'.

I am being amused, especially with Sony's announcement, that MILC mount lenses just are not any smaller than EF mount lenses. It is almost like there is something called physics blocking the path.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I doubt there was ever a 200-600 f5.6 under serious consideration. Too expensive and huge. A 200-500 f5.6 is more likely.
> 
> An RF mount would have the advantage that it could be f6.3. A 200-600 f6.3 R "L" lens from Canon at $2,500 to $3,000 would make sense.
> 
> ...


The diffraction limited aperture of the 80D is f/6, and a new higher resolution sensor would have even lower DLA so f/11 would be twice the DLA. A 2xTC on an f/6.3 or f/5.6 lens ln such a body would give little increase in resolution because of diffraction and lowered IQ (mtfs take at least a 20% hit with a 2xTC), weaken AF, and make the camera far more difficult to handle because of the very narrow field of view and higher propensity to shake.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of the 80D is f/6, and a new higher resolution sensor would have even lower DLA so f/11 would be twice the DLA. A 2xTC on an f/6.3 or f/5.6 lens ln such a body would give little increase in resolution because of diffraction and lowered IQ (mtfs take at least a 20% hit with a 2xTC), weaken AF, and make the camera far more difficult to handle because of the very narrow field of view and higher propensity to shake.



Valid concerns that the individual would have to take into consideration. But not something that would bar Canon or any other manufacturer from giving consumers the option. 

The point is that with the R series offering autofocus at f11, Canon is keen to give their customers the option to use that feature. They are already highlighting the ability to autofocus using a 2x converter with the 100-400 L on the R series. 

I am very skeptical that we will ever see an APS-C sensor in an R, but there are certainly rumors to that effect. I am more confident that we will see a high megapixel full frame R camera and that Canon will continue to promote the ability to add extenders and autofocus at f11 with such a body.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jun 12, 2019)

After waiting patiently for over two years (since the first rumors of a canon super zoom) I finally decided on the Tamron 150-600. It's a good enough lens that I've also decided maybe Tamron would be a good choice for other focal lengths - the 70-200 f2.8 in particular. Nearly equal optics at 50% of the Canon price is a powerful motivator.


----------



## akiskev (Jun 12, 2019)

Lol this is a pathetic thread.. i m currently drooling over sony's new lenses..


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



200-600mm is interesting.
If starting over for RF then do the 150-600mm as it will tie in far better with the 24-105mm (Make it a 24-120mm is even better) then you have a great all purpose telephoto zoom. Also give it the same incredible close focus that the 100-400mm MII has and you have a competition destroyer.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2019)

akiskev said:


> Lol this is a pathetic thread..



Of course, it's just a way to increase page views and activity. But, while we wait for actual news (or even actual rumors) we might as well play along.


----------



## Pape (Jun 12, 2019)

sounds expensive lens 5-10k maybe?


----------



## JBSF (Jun 12, 2019)

ERHP said:


> Technically Canon already has a 200-560 f/4-5.6 lens with IS. It just isn't cheap or 'soft'.
> 
> I am being amused, especially with Sony's announcement, that MILC mount lenses just are not any smaller than EF mount lenses. It is almost like there is something called physics blocking the path.



Yes, and yes. And as for your latter point, the ergonomics of the 1D/5D/7D make hand-holding big lenses comfortable, while the ergonomics of Sony's bodies SUCK with big lenses mounted.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Valid concerns that the individual would have to take into consideration. But not something that would bar Canon or any other manufacturer from giving consumers the option.
> 
> The point is that with the R series offering autofocus at f11, Canon is keen to give their customers the option to use that feature. They are already highlighting the ability to autofocus using a 2x converter with the 100-400 L on the R series.
> 
> I am very skeptical that we will ever see an APS-C sensor in an R, but there are certainly rumors to that effect. I am more confident that we will see a high megapixel full frame R camera and that Canon will continue to promote the ability to add extenders and autofocus at f11 with such a body.


Some years ago I tried out the 2xTC on a 100-400mm II and a 7DII using liveview to focus at f/11. The images were actually quite good, and could be useful to some people on occasion, extracting a little more detail than with the 1.4xTC.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I'll beleive it when I see it, for now pigs will fly before that happens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 12, 2019)

The lens is f/6.3 at the long end, which Canon has not yet done. Its possible with mirrorless cameras, since they do focus with smaller apertures.

Sony has falling into producing less complex designs which results in the need for correction using in camera software. Its a different design philosophy in at least 2 ways.

I suppose that Lens Rentals will eventually get them in stock and can test them to see just how much in camera correction is needed.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 12, 2019)

Slim chance for an affordable zoom with 600mm f/5.6 aperture. The 200-400 1.4ex lens would probably be a tough sell on many professionals...and that lens costs $11,000. It does have a fixed f/4 aperture, but it also shares the benefits of utility with added complexity of a built in teleconverter.

That said, depending on the size of such a lens, I would absolutely want to buy it immediately. I've been a proud owner of the current 100-400 since 2015 and it has been my most used lens, period. If this lens could match or even exceed the image quality of that lens, I would have no choice but to add it to the bag and possibly part ways with the 100-400.

I don't see Canon launching such a lens around $2000, though. I could easily see this being a $3,000 to even as high as $10,000. It's mostly a pipe dream unless it is a 200-500 f/5.6...then I could see it happening.

Your move, Canon.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 12, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The lens is f/6.3 at the long end, which Canon has not yet done. Its possible with mirrorless cameras, since they do focus with smaller apertures.



One of the new RF lenses already announced is the 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, so they've already broken the old 'no -f/6.3 zooms' rule.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 12, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes because as a photographer I find the EF range of L lenses very limiting...



Well, if you are a wildlife photographer and looking for something longer than 400mm (not exactly long for wildlife), your only options are third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron), used 500mm F4 or spending $10000 for something from Canon.


----------



## MadisonMike (Jun 12, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> Slim chance for an affordable zoom with 600mm f/5.6 aperture. The 200-400 1.4ex lens would probably be a tough sell on many professionals...and that lens costs $11,000. It does have a fixed f/4 aperture, but it also shares the benefits of utility with added complexity of a built in teleconverter.
> 
> That said, depending on the size of such a lens, I would absolutely want to buy it immediately. I've been a proud owner of the current 100-400 since 2015 and it has been my most used lens, period. If this lens could match or even exceed the image quality of that lens, I would have no choice but to add it to the bag and possibly part ways with the 100-400.
> 
> ...


I am with you on the Canon 100-400, it was my favorite and most used. The new Sony 200-600 is only a G series and would not be expected to be as sharp or expensive as it's GM cousins. Don't be fooled by the white body, there is a difference in price and expected performance. The Sony GMs are more aligned to L glass and usually cost a bit more. Actually all the Sony glass is kind of expensive so it was a bit of a surprise at the 2k cost of this 200-600 offering. 

Competition is a good thing.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Well, if you are a wildlife photographer and looking for something longer than 400mm (not exactly long for wildlife), your only options are third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron), used 500mm F4 or spending $10000 for something from Canon.


100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII = 140-560mm, and at 560mm as sharp as or sharper than the Sigma Tamron offerings. A 400mm DO II + 2xTC is far less than $10000. Lots of us birders on CR use those, and a smaller number 600mm f/4.


----------



## Otara (Jun 12, 2019)

scyrene said:


> One of the new RF lenses already announced is the 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, so they've already broken the old 'no -f/6.3 zooms' rule.



Also the Canon EF-M 18-150mm, which is already out.


----------



## Tom W (Jun 13, 2019)

The question I would have with a lens of this nature is, what quality would it have that would steer me away from my Sigma Contemporary 150-600. In terms of size and weight, and price, it's hard to beat.

I mean, that's where many of us birders are at. Something long, adequate brightness (well, I'd like a larger aperture, but not at the cost of weight), easy to carry, and reasonably sharp.

My 150-600 isn't quite as sharp as my 100-400, but in order to get close to 600 with the Canon, I need to deal with an f/8 lens. While the cameras will focus at f/8, you're giving up light which translates into either a slower shutter or higher ISO. In darker scenes, that is a problem.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 13, 2019)

Tom W said:


> The question I would have with a lens of this nature is, what quality would it have that would steer me away from my Sigma Contemporary 150-600. In terms of size and weight, and price, it's hard to beat.
> 
> I mean, that's where many of us birders are at. Something long, adequate brightness (well, I'd like a larger aperture, but not at the cost of weight), easy to carry, and reasonably sharp.
> 
> My 150-600 isn't quite as sharp as my 100-400, but in order to get close to 600 with the Canon, I need to deal with an f/8 lens. While the cameras will focus at f/8, you're giving up light which translates into either a slower shutter or higher ISO. In darker scenes, that is a problem.


For me it will be the autofocus tracking speed, if it is anywhere near as good as the 100-400 I will be buying it. The 600 will have to wait until I win a lottery or decide to sell my canon 500 (not likely for a while yet). Currently the A7III with the 100-400 and 1.4 teleconverter is very good so we shall see how it compares.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 13, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 100-400mm II + 1.4xTCIII = 140-560mm, and at 560mm as sharp as or sharper than the Sigma Tamron offerings. A 400mm DO II + 2xTC is far less than $10000. Lots of us birders on CR use those, and a smaller number 600mm f/4.



I have the 100-400 and 1.4TC. It's good but F8 is not very bright at all and AF is limited. The 400 DO is expensive, not the same category.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 13, 2019)

scyrene said:


> One of the new RF lenses already announced is the 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM, so they've already broken the old 'no -f/6.3 zooms' rule.





Otara said:


> Also the Canon EF-M 18-150mm, which is already out.



AND the Canon EF-M 15-45mm STM IS, which is also f/6.3 at the 'long' end (45mm). 
I own the EF-M 15-45mm lens, as well as the EF-M 18-150mm lens (horses for courses).
I also owned the Canon EF-M 18-55mm STM IS, which is f/5.6 at the 'long end' (55mm)
On both my M5 and my M10, there is/was no noticeable difference in focusing speed between f/5.6 and f/6.3
(I owned all 3 of these EF-M zoom lenses at the same time)

On the other hand, the EF-M 22mm f/2 lens focuses notably better in low light / lower contrast situations than any EF-M lens at f/5.6 or f/6.3.
Bright prime EF and EF-S lenses all focus better in low light / lower contrast subjects than the EF-M f/5.6 or f/6.3 lenses. 
(I'm talking about lenses such as my EF 50mm f/1.8, the EF 100mm f/2.8 L and EF-S 24mm f/2.8 with the EF-to-EF-M adapter on my M5 and M10).

So there's a lot to say for having 'a bright lens', even though Canon's Dual Pixel Auto Focus (DPAF) is good in regard to AF.
Having said that, the EOS R and EOS RP have better low light focusing ability than the M5 (or M10).
Additionally, I remain impressed how well the *non *DPAF M10 actually focuses.

I do hope Canon's next iterations of DPAF will be even more powerful, and allow potentially better focus in low light with 'dimmer' lenses.
That, combined with a really nice, long Canon telephoto zoom in RF mount, *and *a more pro EOS RF mount FF body, would certainly tempt me to more seriously branching into Canon's FF mirrorless line.
The possibility of *Quad *Pixel Auto Focus (QPAF) with the ability to pick up both horizontal lines and vertical lines well is also alluring....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Well, if you are a wildlife photographer and looking for something longer than 400mm (not exactly long for wildlife), your only options are third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron), used 500mm F4 or spending $10000 for something from Canon.


So you are limited to a wide range of manufacturers (none of which are L lenses) or a massive variety of used Canon L lenses stretching across 3 or 4 generations covering all price ranges from $1000-10,000. Hmm, still not feeling limited...

Don’t forget the 100-400 with a 1.4TC matches or bests every other first party lens in resolution/sharpness and has pretty good AF on most modern bodies.


----------



## Pape (Jun 13, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> So you are limited to a wide range of manufacturers (none of which are L lenses) or a massive variety of used Canon L lenses stretching across 3 or 4 generations covering all price ranges from $1000-10,000. Hmm, still not feeling limited...
> 
> Don’t forget the 100-400 with a 1.4TC matches or bests every other first party lens in resolution/sharpness and has pretty good AF on most modern bodies.


Yeah like old tank 500mm f4 is usm 3,5k and 4kg . with 1,4x ,sharper than sigma 150-600
You could put bicycle wheel to end of monopod and push it around


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2019)

stochasticmotions said:


> For me it will be the autofocus tracking speed, if it is anywhere near as good as the 100-400 I will be buying it. The 600 will have to wait until I win a lottery or decide to sell my canon 500 (not likely for a while yet). Currently the A7III with the 100-400 and 1.4 teleconverter is very good so we shall see how it compares.


Is that the Canon or the Sony 100-400mm?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 13, 2019)

Pape said:


> Yeah like old tank 500mm f4 is usm 3,5k and 4kg . with 1,4x ,sharper than sigma 150-600
> You could put bicycle wheel to end of monopod and push it around



Its funny how people always find a way to defend Canon, no matter what. The truth is that Sony suddenly has better option with the 200-600.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 13, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Is that the Canon or the Sony 100-400mm?


I'm referring to the sony.


----------



## zicklurky (Jun 13, 2019)

I really think Canon are missing out here. In the UK, at the birding reserves I go to regularly, I see so many Sigma and Tamron x-600 lenses on the Canon hobbyists, and only a few Canon 100-400's.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2019)

zicklurky said:


> I really think Canon are missing out here. In the UK, at the birding reserves I go to regularly, I see so many Sigma and Tamron x-600 lenses on the Canon hobbyists, and only a few Canon 100-400's.


My anecdotal evidence is the opposite - the white 100-400mm II is the most common in the UK reserves I visit. We obviously go to different places.

Edit: just set up a poll to see what CR owners use.


----------



## Pape (Jun 13, 2019)

Logic says sigma and tamron sells better . Its 1k cheaper .
Peoples who dont know much about photography surely thinks its lot better ,when 200mm more long than canon.
My earlier comment about pushing around 4kg heavy tube was half joke actually


----------



## amorse (Jun 13, 2019)

I've been looking at the 100-400 mk II for a while now, and every time I compare it's sharpness (via thedigitalpicture) to other competitors, I find myself saying "maybe I don't need the extra reach if the Canon is THAT sharp". I know Canon has said the 100-400 is the toughest to manufacture lens they make, so I really wonder what kind of quality they could squeeze out of a 200-600 and whether or not they could produce one with sufficient quality and weight savings to justify the price they'd have to attach to it. Or maybe the precedent would be negative if they couldn't get the quality to an "L" standard on a big zoom.

I'm really on the fence over this one. I certainly see what Nikon/Sony/Tamron/Sigma have been able to achieve, but I really question whether or not Canon could/would create a lens in that niche. Such a product would need to be both price competitive (it's going to be more expensive than competitors, we know that, but it can't realistically be 5x the money and hit the same target consumers/demographic), but also meet Canon's quality standard without convincing some buyers not to buy a big prime. Obviously the closest comparable is the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC, though the price point means no-one considering a Tamron or Sigma x-600 will be cross shopping that lens. That's a tight niche to target, and I just don't know how much money Canon is leaving on the table by not going down that path. Maybe not that much money. If I was betting, I'd guess this isn't something that will turn up any time soon - though I guess maybe an RF non-L, non-white zoom with an f/6.3 on the long end? Long shot.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2019)

amorse said:


> I've been looking at the 100-400 mk II for a while now, and every time I compare it's sharpness (via thedigitalpicture) to other competitors, I find myself saying "maybe I don't need the extra reach if the Canon is THAT sharp". I know Canon has said the 100-400 is the toughest to manufacture lens they make, so I really wonder what kind of quality they could squeeze out of a 200-600 and whether or not they could produce one with sufficient quality and weight savings to justify the price they'd have to attach to it. Or maybe the precedent would be negative if they couldn't get the quality to an "L" standard on a big zoom.
> 
> I'm really on the fence over this one. I certainly see what Nikon/Sony/Tamron/Sigma have been able to achieve, but I really question whether or not Canon could/would create a lens in that niche. Such a product would need to be both price competitive (it's going to be more expensive than competitors, we know that, but it can't realistically be 5x the money and hit the same target consumers/demographic), but also meet Canon's quality standard without convincing some buyers not to buy a big prime. Obviously the closest comparable is the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC, though the price point means no-one considering a Tamron or Sigma x-600 will be cross shopping that lens. That's a tight niche to target, and I just don't know how much money Canon is leaving on the table by not going down that path. Maybe not that much money. If I was betting, I'd guess this isn't something that will turn up any time soon - though I guess maybe an RF non-L, non-white zoom with an f/6.3 on the long end? Long shot.


Don't take the relative sharpness of images on TDP as the gospel truth. Only one or at best a couple of copies of each are tested and as Lensrentals tests writes there is often more differences between different copies of a single lmake of lens than there is between lenses from a different manufacturer and but even worse the tests can have obvious inconsistencies in them. Look for example at two lenses I know well, the 100-400mm II and the 400mm DO II. On the 5DSR, TDP has the zoom sharper at 400mm f/5.6 than the prime at f/4, but on the 7DII it's the other way around! Looking at the TDP images put me off buying the 400mm DO II but after seeing proper data from lensrentals I took the plunge and am glad to have both.








Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com












Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2019)

amorse said:


> I've been looking at the 100-400 mk II for a while now, and every time I compare it's sharpness (via thedigitalpicture) to other competitors, I find myself saying "maybe I don't need the extra reach if the Canon is THAT sharp". I know Canon has said the 100-400 is the toughest to manufacture lens they make, so I really wonder what kind of quality they could squeeze out of a 200-600 and whether or not they could produce one with sufficient quality and weight savings to justify the price they'd have to attach to it. Or maybe the precedent would be negative if they couldn't get the quality to an "L" standard on a big zoom.
> 
> I'm really on the fence over this one. I certainly see what Nikon/Sony/Tamron/Sigma have been able to achieve, but I really question whether or not Canon could/would create a lens in that niche. Such a product would need to be both price competitive (it's going to be more expensive than competitors, we know that, but it can't realistically be 5x the money and hit the same target consumers/demographic), but also meet Canon's quality standard without convincing some buyers not to buy a big prime. Obviously the closest comparable is the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC, though the price point means no-one considering a Tamron or Sigma x-600 will be cross shopping that lens. That's a tight niche to target, and I just don't know how much money Canon is leaving on the table by not going down that path. Maybe not that much money. If I was betting, I'd guess this isn't something that will turn up any time soon - though I guess maybe an RF non-L, non-white zoom with an f/6.3 on the long end? Long shot.


All valid points. And, with the advent of f8 autofocusing in almost all of Canon's newer DSLRs, the advantages of a 600 zoom vs. a 400 plus 1.4 extender pretty much disappear, especially with the quality of Canon's latest extenders. Now, Canon is offering f11 autofocus on the R series and marketing the value of the 100-400 plus 2x converter, which exceeds the 600 zooms (I'm not sure what kind of hit the image quality takes and how that compares to the 600 zooms)

So all this may mean we won't ever see a Canon direct competitor.

Still, I do believe that Canon might see the value of putting out a 500mm f5.6 zoom. I don't see them doing a bargain lens like Nikon, but rather a 500mm zoom that is slotted somewhere above the 100-400 and has similar quality. Buyers of 100-400 zooms are high value customers with significant disposable income generally insulated from economic downturns. Ideal customers in today's shrinking photography market. A lot, maybe most, of those customers would plop down another $1,000 on top of the price of the 100-400 for an extra 100mm focal length. I think it's logical that Canon could look at that market and decide they can squeeze a little more blood out of the bird, wildlife, sports turnips with a longer lens.


----------



## Pape (Jun 13, 2019)

They could make bargain one prime 500 5,6 for M mount . Plastic and simple 7 lens construction like old 400mm 5,6 
that would be cool . Or zoom with minimal lens adding.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 13, 2019)

Pape said:


> They could make bargain one prime 500 5,6 for M mount . Plastic and simple 7 lens construction like old 400mm 5,6
> that would be cool . Or zoom with minimal lens adding.


I tried the 100-400mm II on the M5, but the body is too small for me to hold comfortably. I need something as big as a 5D, 7D, or 80D series to hold to balance the lens.


----------



## Pape (Jun 13, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I tried the 100-400mm II on the M5, but the body is too small for me to hold comfortably. I need something as big as a 5D, 7D, or 80D series to hold to balance the lens.


They definitely need make light big flagship M camera for european male hands too. like 7d shaped but plastic camera without weather seal.
Canon could divide 7d line to two ,M camera like 7d but light , And Rugged R serie 7 for hard enviroment users.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 13, 2019)

Pape said:


> They definitely need make light big flagship M camera for european male hands too. like 7d shaped but plastic camera without weather seal.
> Canon could divide 7d line to two ,M camera like 7d but light , And Rugged R serie 7 for hard enviroment users.



Kinda like Olympus did?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 14, 2019)

dickgrafixstop said:


> After waiting patiently for over two years (since the first rumors of a canon super zoom) I finally decided on the Tamron 150-600. It's a good enough lens that I've also decided maybe Tamron would be a good choice for other focal lengths - the 70-200 f2.8 in particular. Nearly equal optics at 50% of the Canon price is a powerful motivator.


Most of us knew it was vapourware, I certainly haven’t been waiting.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 14, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Most of us knew it was vapourware, I certainly haven’t been waiting.



Vaporware implies the product was announced, then neither released nor cancelled. In this case, the lens was merely rumored.


----------



## Pape (Jun 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Kinda like Olympus did?


isnt olympus like 7d but without mirror?
Olympus cant make cheaper plastic version without weather sealing like canon could cause they got 2 mount what wont compete


----------



## BillB (Jun 14, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Vaporware implies the product was announced, then neither released nor cancelled. In this case, the lens was merely rumored.



Quite a few people on this site seem to think that a CR1 rumor means that Canon has promised to do something soon. For them, a CR1 rumor can make something seem like vaporware if it doesn't happen. Admittedly, it can be hard to keep it all straight, but it is helpful to remember that if it is a CR1 rumor, most likely Canon didn't have much to do with starting that rumor. Generally speaking, if Canon says it is going to do something, it isn't a rumor.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 14, 2019)

Pape said:


> isnt olympus like 7d but without mirror?
> Olympus cant make cheaper plastic version without weather sealing like canon could cause they got 2 mount what wont compete


I was referring to the strangely huge (for a crop sensor cameram especially Micro 4/3) Olympus OM-D E-M1X .


----------



## Pape (Jun 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I was referring to the strangely huge (for a crop sensor cameram especially Micro 4/3) Olympus OM-D E-M1X .


Yeah it tries be 1dx2 with two battery grip and double buttons  Its their 1 model.
i think lightness is one of crop cameras advantages . M and RP little battery is good enough for me .
Not so imposible thing to change battery after 200 shot or 2h .


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2019)

BillB said:


> Quite a few people on this site seem to think that a CR1 rumor means that Canon has promised to do something soon. For them, a CR1 rumor can make something seem like vaporware if it doesn't happen. Admittedly, it can be hard to keep it all straight, but it is helpful to remember that if it is a CR1 rumor, most likely Canon didn't have much to do with starting that rumor. Generally speaking, if Canon says it is going to do something, it isn't a rumor.



Rumorware?

A product or feature that follows a predictable pattern from suggestion, to expectation to accusation of a broken promise all without any participation, encouragement or even awareness from the manufacturer that the feature or product has been rumored.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 14, 2019)

Tom W said:


> The question I would have with a lens of this nature is, what quality would it have that would steer me away from my Sigma Contemporary 150-600. In terms of size and weight, and price, it's hard to beat.
> 
> I mean, that's where many of us birders are at. Something long, adequate brightness (well, I'd like a larger aperture, but not at the cost of weight), easy to carry, and reasonably sharp.
> 
> My 150-600 isn't quite as sharp as my 100-400, but in order to get close to 600 with the Canon, I need to deal with an f/8 lens. While the cameras will focus at f/8, you're giving up light which translates into either a slower shutter or higher ISO. In darker scenes, that is a problem.


But it seems the 100-400 L IS II has one of the very best IS available, I quite often use mine at 400 mm and "crazy" shutter speeds, like 1/30th, without any issues! So, F.8 with the 1,4 X extender is not a problem.
I would not even think of using a Sigma instead!


----------



## mpmark (Jun 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes because as a photographer I find the EF range of L lenses very limiting...



I know so true! lol


----------



## AlanF (Jun 14, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> But it seems the 100-400 L IS II has one of the very best IS available, I quite often use mine at 400 mm and "crazy" shutter speeds, like 1/30th, without any issues! So, F.8 with the 1,4 X extender is not a problem.
> I would not even think of using a Sigma instead!


I find the IS on my 100-400mm II at least a stop better than on my Sigma 150-600mm C. Also the Canon stabilises the image in the viewfinder much better - it is rock solid stable but that from the Sigma wobbles around, even after tweaking. The IS on the zoom also seems slightly better than that on my 400mm DO II.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 14, 2019)

MadisonMike said:


> I am with you on the Canon 100-400, it was my favorite and most used. The new Sony 200-600 is only a G series and would not be expected to be as sharp or expensive as it's GM cousins. Don't be fooled by the white body, there is a difference in price and expected performance. The Sony GMs are more aligned to L glass and usually cost a bit more. Actually all the Sony glass is kind of expensive so it was a bit of a surprise at the 2k cost of this 200-600 offering.
> 
> Competition is a good thing.



with you both on the 100-400, such a beautiful lens, very hard to beat! Its sharper upscalled to 600mm then any of the consumer 150-600mm lenses available. Plus its very fast and easy walk around. Would take a lot for me to part with it. Only gripe with it is 400mm limit but you can never have it all can you.
The dream would be for canon to build a 200-500mm 5.6 that is same quality s the 100-400


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 14, 2019)

akiskev said:


> Lol this is a pathetic thread.. i m currently drooling over sony's new lenses..


Don't get too excited. Sony is 31 years behind Canon with a 600mm. It will take a century for Sony to catch up. Sony is *******.  (Pure sarcasm from the perspective of Sony trolls who make such stupid statements about Canon in the mirrorless world.)


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 14, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Its funny how people always find a way to defend Canon, no matter what. The truth is that Sony suddenly has better option with the 200-600.


The truth? Huh? Hmmmm... Better how? Asking for a friend, because he wants to know if there is a Sony to EF / or Sony to RF adapter... because somebody told him the Sony lens is better. He doesn't know why it is supposed to be better, but he saw somebody type it up on a forum before the lens was ever even released and knows he can always trust forum dwellers when they say something is better... even when those dwellers have zero experience with the product. Again: ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH THE PRODUCT.  (Like people who bash the 6D Mark II / RP and have never even seen one)

Sony is ANOTHER option. Better? How the hell does anyone even know yet? And in what way? They don't. However, it will not be a BETTER option for Canon shooters... ever.

Just because a lens get 200mm longer reach at the long end doesn't mean the thing is "better" for everyone. Especially if it turns out to be crap at 600mm. One is also losing 100mm at the short end. Depending on the use case, that could also be important to people. Yes, even birders and wildlife folks. It isn't defending Canon when people figure out that the bashers have never used the products they herald as the greatest new thing, or stomp on products they have never used. That's just calling out their fake knowledge or fake facts.


----------



## neonlight (Jun 14, 2019)

Hmmm... judging from Canon's R lenses this could well be a sharp L zoom, but I'm also guessing it will be around 4-5k mark, not cheap. 
Or if it is a cheaper lens than L it won't be as sharp as the 100-400 say, but as long as it is f/5.6 or larger then I suspect it will still sell well, if /when it does emerge


----------



## SkySpades (Jun 14, 2019)

MadisonMike said:


> The new Sony 200-600 is only a G series and would not be expected to be as sharp or expensive as it's GM cousins. Don't be fooled by the white body, there is a difference in price and expected performance. The Sony GMs are more aligned to L glass and usually cost a bit more. Actually all the Sony glass is kind of expensive so it was a bit of a surprise at the 2k cost of this 200-600 offering.



I have to disagree about a G lens not expected to be as sharp as a GM lens. Obviously no one really knows at this point exactly how sharp the 200-600 will be except the few who have tested it, but the MTF shows it should be nearly as sharp as the 100-400 GM which is sharper than the Canon 100-400 II. The Sony 24-105 G is probably the sharpest 24-105 on the market (yes, sharper than the Sigma 24-105 A). One of the reviewers stated the focus speed of the 200-600 was nearly as fast as the 600 f/4, and it's also nearly completely weather sealed and the only lens in this category that is internally zooming. Sony mentioned in an interview that most of the cost savings and G designation came from not using magnesium-alloy in the body or the new XD linear autofocus. It also lacks a super ED lens element.

I do agree the $2000 price tag was a bit of a surprise. Sony could likely list the lens for much more and still sell a ton of them.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't get too excited. Sony is 31 years behind Canon with a 600mm.


I think they both released their first 600/4 lenses in 1988.

It wasn't yet called "Sony", though. It was called "Minolta".


----------



## AlanF (Jun 14, 2019)

SkySpades said:


> I have to disagree about a G lens not expected to be as sharp as a GM lens. Obviously no one really knows at this point exactly how sharp the 200-600 will be except the few who have tested it, but the MTF shows it should be nearly as sharp as the 100-400 GM which is sharper than the Canon 100-400 II. The Sony 24-105 G is probably the sharpest 24-105 on the market (yes, sharper than the Sigma 24-105 A). One of the reviewers stated the focus speed of the 200-600 was nearly as fast as the 600 f/4, and it's also nearly completely weather sealed and the only lens in this category that is internally zooming. Sony mentioned in an interview that most of the cost savings and G designation came from not using magnesium-alloy in the body or the new XD linear autofocus. It also lacks a super ED lens element.
> 
> I do agree the $2000 price tag was a bit of a surprise. Sony could likely list the lens for much more and still sell a ton of them.


optyczne.pl have reported that at longer focal lengths, it has to be stopped down to be sharp, as I have posted previously.
https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artykuł-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_rękach.html
"Based on the first impressions of use, we can very much pretend about the quality of imaging.In our opinion, up to half of the focal length ranges can be successfully used with the full relative aperture. The longest end, however, requires stopping the aperture (eg up to f / 8), which will result in sharper pictures. This was especially noticeable when photographing wildly distant wild animals. Sometimes both longitudinal and transversal chromatic aberration can be noticed.Similarly, the situation looks like vignetting at the maximum relative aperture."

Now that doesn't seem too encouraging does it?


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 14, 2019)

SkySpades said:


> I have to disagree about a G lens not expected to be as sharp as a GM lens. Obviously no one really knows at this point exactly how sharp the 200-600 will be except the few who have tested it, but the MTF shows it should be nearly as sharp as the 100-400 GM which is sharper than the Canon 100-400 II. The Sony 24-105 G is probably the sharpest 24-105 on the market (yes, sharper than the Sigma 24-105 A). One of the reviewers stated the focus speed of the 200-600 was nearly as fast as the 600 f/4, and it's also nearly completely weather sealed and the only lens in this category that is internally zooming. Sony mentioned in an interview that most of the cost savings and G designation came from not using magnesium-alloy in the body or the new XD linear autofocus. It also lacks a super ED lens element.
> 
> I do agree the $2000 price tag was a bit of a surprise. Sony could likely list the lens for much more and still sell a ton of them.


I guess you must be kidding...


----------



## Talys (Jun 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> optyczne.pl have reported that at longer focal lengths, it has to be stopped down to be sharp, as I have posted previously.
> https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artykuł-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_rękach.html
> "Based on the first impressions of use, we can very much pretend about the quality of imaging.In our opinion, up to half of the focal length ranges can be successfully used with the full relative aperture. The longest end, however, requires stopping the aperture (eg up to f / 8), which will result in sharper pictures. This was especially noticeable when photographing wildly distant wild animals. Sometimes both longitudinal and transversal chromatic aberration can be noticed.Similarly, the situation looks like vignetting at the maximum relative aperture."
> 
> Now that doesn't seem too encouraging does it?


That sounds like a horrible exercise in frustration to get a pile of terrible images.

If the half of focal lengths is near the 200, it's a pile of crap. If the 400-600 range doesn't perform unless you stop it down, what is the point? Just buy a 100-400 and throw on a 1.4, right?


----------



## Pape (Jun 15, 2019)

I believe its usual way sony and zeiss lenses. They need stopped down to be super sharp like they are. It makes them look good on dxomark tests.
oh woah RF 50mm got barely more score on their test than ef 50mm 1,8 stm  Hard to trust revievs and tests ,everybody claims different.
Bit stupid compare it to lenses what arent 1,2 though.
My 40mm pancake is as sharp what RF50 , i guess i made good deal saved 2000E . with tripod its good landscape lens


----------



## Tom W (Jun 15, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> But it seems the 100-400 L IS II has one of the very best IS available, I quite often use mine at 400 mm and "crazy" shutter speeds, like 1/30th, without any issues! So, F.8 with the 1,4 X extender is not a problem.
> I would not even think of using a Sigma instead!



The 100-400 II is a very good lens. But the problem comes with the smaller aperture. 400 f/5.6 with the 1.4X = 560 at f/8. Versus, 600 at f/6.3, I'll take that 2/3 of a stop more light.

I know that the IS on the 100-400 is exceptionally good too, but 1/30 second isn't suitable for moving subjects. The IS can deal with my shaking/movements, but not that of the bird or critter that I'm photographing. 

That alone is why I'm using my Siggy. It's not a better lens, sharpness wise, but it invites more light at 600 than the 100-400 with teleconverter and I like that.

If it weren't so doggone heavy, I'd be using my 500 f/4 out there. It is really an excellent lens, but kind of bulky for walking around.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 16, 2019)

I think it totally depends on how far along in development, if at all, this lens is wether it’ll ever be produced or not. I think if this lens was to be sold it’d sell incredibly well with the new 90D for quite a few years. Personally I don’t think canon will abandon the DSLR for at least half a decade so there’s every reason to release this lens - if it’s design is ready. Canon’s customers have invested far too much in their DSLRs and EF glass for them to just stop producing EF lenses the minute they start making mirrorless cameras. So I think there’s still EF lenses to come. I’d buy this one for sure.


----------



## Talys (Jun 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I think they both released their first 600/4 lenses in 1988.
> 
> It wasn't yet called "Sony", though. It was called "Minolta".


That's like saying Lenovo built the first IBM PC, just because the bought the PC division off of IBM  

It only counts as a Sony lens if it was built under Sony leadership.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 16, 2019)

Talys said:


> That sounds like a horrible exercise in frustration to get a pile of terrible images.
> 
> If the half of focal lengths is near the 200, it's a pile of crap. If the 400-600 range doesn't perform unless you stop it down, what is the point? Just buy a 100-400 and throw on a 1.4, right?



As per already available MTF charts Sony 200-600 performance at 600mm is on par with Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm and very close to Sony 100-400GM at 400mm and noticeably better than Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender.
So 200-600 most probably would be better option than any (sony or canon) 100-400 with 1.4x extender just per optical perfomace.
Also Sony 200-600 AF speed and precision probably would be better than for Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender, not sure about Sony 100-400GM which has superfast AF system found only on latest GM lenses.
But what is really important for image quality is 2/3 stops more light for f6.3 compared to f8.
If for 600mm at f6.3 if you shoot at ISO6400 and get acceptable images than you need ISO close to 10000 for the same using 100-400 with 1.4x extender so resulting image quality wil be noticably worse. At high ISO range changes in captured amount of light have much higher impact on resulting image quality compared to low ISO range.
Also overall system resolution for lens+camera_sensor is reverse function of ISO. The higher ISO the less is overall system resulution due to the added noise. So even if lens optical resolution is equal system resulting image would have higher resulution for system using lower ISO just due to the better signal to noise ratio.
From what i see on forum not too many members understands this basic fundamental thing, just could count few members who has this understanding.
At the end of the day what is matters is overall system performace.
I think that Sony 200-600 might have very big success.
I am sure that similar Canon lens with the same or better performace than Sony one would be also very popular among Canon users.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 16, 2019)

Neutral said:


> As per already available MTF charts Sony 200-600 performance at 600mm is on par with Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm and very close to Sony 100-400GM at 400mm and noticeably better than Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender.
> So 200-600 most probably would be better option than any (sony or canon) 100-400 with 1.4x extender just per optical perfomace.
> Also Sony 200-600 AF speed and precision probably would be better than for Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender, not sure about Sony 100-400GM which has superfast AF system found only on latest GM lenses.
> But what is really important for image quality is 2/3 stops more light for f6.3 compared to f8.
> ...


It's rather patronising claiming not too many members of CR understand basic fundamentals and only a few of us do. There are many reasonably sophisticated users of this site, including those who know that the MTF values you cite at the beginning of the post are not the ones found in practice but are idealised computer generated values that are not even corrected for diffraction.
And, if you think that f/6.3 has a 2/3rds stop advantage over f/8, then you should worry that the Sony has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharp (as reported a few of posts above).


----------



## Neutral (Jun 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It's rather patronising claiming not too many members of CR understand basic fundamentals and only a few of us do. There are many reasonably sophisticated users of this site, including those who know that the MTF values you cite at the beginning of the post are not the ones found in practice but are idealised computer generated values that are not even corrected for diffraction.
> And, if you think that f/6.3 has a 2/3rds stop advantage over f/8, then you should worry that the Sony has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharp.


I understand that there are number of people understanding fundamental basics but a lot of posts here are written by people which do not belong to this camp and they post for the sake of post just repeating some myphs from internet or some others opinions. Probaly ones which have deep knowledge just busy with doing photography ))
Also it seems that you missed important point which was starting point of my post - as per MTF Sony 200-600 is as sharp at 600mm as Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm. So you are not happy with Canon 100-400L II at 400mm?
Most of the lens get a bit sharper stopped down.
The same applies to Canon 100-400. But again as per MTF difference is very small - someting from 92% to 97% contrast improvement for 30lp/mm
Similar is for Sony 200-600 - just similar minor improvement stopped down from f6.3 to f8, it is just sharp (above 90% in MTF for 30lp/m ) starting from f6.3.
Lets's wait some time and see test results and reviews from production batch samples later, especially from lensrentals, sure they will have a lot of them for rent and will have interesing review. As for now we could only see some test results from some people and they are positive. I just found that Ken Rockwell already has this lens review on his site https://kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/200-600mm.htm
May be he could share here his first experience with that lens i understand that is member of CR, seen his posts here.
The only issue (Ken mentioned that ) could be is that this lens will be produced in China - will this affect QC or not this yet to be seen.
As I mentioned similar lens for Canon users could be very popular, I always wished I have someting similar for my 1DXm2, was not very happy with my 100-400 +1.4x extender for reasons explained in my previous post.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 16, 2019)

Neutral said:


> I understand that there are number of people understanding fundamental basics but a lot of posts here are written by people which do not belong to this camp and they post for the sake of post just repeating some myphs from internet or some others opinions. Probaly ones which have deep knowledge just busy with doing photography ))
> Also it seems that you missed important point which was starting point of my post - as per MTF Sony 200-600 is as sharp at 600mm as Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm. So you are not happy with Canon 100-400L II at 400mm?
> Most of the lens get a bit sharper stopped down.
> The same applies to Canon 100-400. But again as per MTF difference is very small - someting from 92% to 97% contrast improvement for 30lp/mm
> ...


How do you know the Sony at 600mm (f/6.3) is as sharp as the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm (f/5.6)?
There is no published comparison side by side. As I wrote above, the MTFs published by Sony are not real in practice ones but arbitrary theoretical curves that do not take into account diffraction or real life features and are just based on Sony software and are not validated by CIPA or anyone. That is not evidence to compare two lenses from different manufacturers products. Also direct observation from the Optyczne review is that there is a real observable increase in sharpness on stopping down.
As for all lenses improving on stopping down, I have had 3 copies of the 100-400mm II and all have been sharpest wide open, and decent testing sites find no significant improvements in their MTF tests, and they are about the same at f5.6 and f/8.
https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1





Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com


Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.




www.lenstip.com




You are accusing members of CR posting myths from the internet, but where is your real evidence?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 16, 2019)

Sigma is a rare example of publishing theoretical MTFs ("Geometrical") and real ones. Here is a pair from their flagship 500mm f/4. The theoretical ("Geometrical") chart is stellar, like many you see for top superteles. in practice, you get closer to the left hand one. The Sony MTFs are geometrical.



.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 16, 2019)

Talys said:


> That's like saying Lenovo built the first IBM PC, just because the bought the PC division off of IBM


No, it's like saying that Lenovo has the expertise to build IBM PC.

I, for one, welcome not losing Minolta's expertise in building cameras and lenses.


----------



## criscokkat (Jun 16, 2019)

SkySpades said:


> I have to disagree about a G lens not expected to be as sharp as a GM lens. Obviously no one really knows at this point exactly how sharp the 200-600 will be except the few who have tested it, but the MTF shows it should be nearly as sharp as the 100-400 GM which is sharper than the Canon 100-400 II. The Sony 24-105 G is probably the sharpest 24-105 on the market (yes, sharper than the Sigma 24-105 A). One of the reviewers stated the focus speed of the 200-600 was nearly as fast as the 600 f/4, and it's also nearly completely weather sealed and the only lens in this category that is internally zooming. Sony mentioned in an interview that most of the cost savings and G designation came from not using magnesium-alloy in the body or the new XD linear autofocus. It also lacks a super ED lens element.
> 
> I do agree the $2000 price tag was a bit of a surprise. Sony could likely list the lens for much more and still sell a ton of them.


I am quite sure this is to pull all the prosumer sports/birder shooters into the A9 (and presumably a9II) camp. They might even bring in some pros with that, but the pros will come if it's a good combo at a higher price.


----------



## criscokkat (Jun 16, 2019)

I'm curious to see what sort of RF specific teleconverters could do. Is there any advantages with the shorter registration distance when it comes to teleconverters? I know people have been asking about an rf-to-ef teleconverter, but what about just native RF teleconverters?


----------



## Pape (Jun 16, 2019)

rockwell says its sharp ,we will see. Maybe this forces canon do something equal or better 
Or they may need improve their f2,8 and F4 400mm first ,before there is enough gap for sharper 100-400 or 400mm 5,6 segmentation..
I hope they sacrifice 400mm line some time and make new 400mm 5,6 what is sharper what 400mm 2,8 and that inbuild 1,4x .
Canon can make better 2,8 and 4 DO when dust settles.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> How do you know the Sony at 600mm (f/6.3) is as sharp as the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm (f/5.6)?
> There is no published comparison side by side. As I wrote above, the MTFs published by Sony are not real in practice ones but arbitrary theoretical curves that do not take into account diffraction or real life features and are just based on Sony software and are not validated by CIPA or anyone. That is not evidence to compare two lenses from different manufacturers products. Also direct observation from the Optyczne review is that there is a real observable increase in sharpness on stopping down.
> As for all lenses improving on stopping down, I have had 3 copies of the 100-400mm II and all have been sharpest wide open, and decent testing sites find no significant improvements in their MTF tests, and they are about the same at f5.6 and f/8.
> https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1
> ...


I have both 100-400 from Canon and Sony and I was using Canon 100-400 with metabones adapter on Sony a7r2 and then on a7r3 and then I bought sony 100-400GM and after I that never used Canon one on Sony body, only on 1DXm2.
I am more pleased with Sony 100-400 GM than with Canon 100-400 and on a9 it is just perfect.
I am not going to spend my time prove anything to anyone, I just do not have much of it, I just tell what I see myself. You can take it or ignore, it is up to you.
I take my own choices you take yours. All take their own choices, i just have both systems and can see myself and share what I see. You can just ignore that


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 16, 2019)

Neutral said:


> I have both 100-400 from Canon and Sony and I was using Canon 100-400 with metabones adapter on Sony a7r2 and then on a7r3 and then I bought sony 100-400GM and after I that never used Canon one on Sony body, only on 1DXm2.
> I am more pleased with Sony 100-400 GM than with Canon 100-400 and on a9 it is just perfect.
> I am not going to spend my time prove anything to anyone, I just do not have much of it, I just tell what I see myself. You can take it or ignore, it is up to you.
> I take my own choices you take yours. All take their own choices, i just have both systems and can see myself and share what I see. You can just ignore that


I have just chosen to ignore, sorry!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 16, 2019)

Neutral said:


> I have both 100-400 from Canon and Sony and I was using Canon 100-400 with metabones adapter on Sony a7r2 and then on a7r3 and then I bought sony 100-400GM and after I that never used Canon one on Sony body, only on 1DXm2.
> I am more pleased with Sony 100-400 GM than with Canon 100-400 and on a9 it is just perfect.
> I am not going to spend my time prove anything to anyone, I just do not have much of it, I just tell what I see myself. You can take it or ignore, it is up to you.
> I take my own choices you take yours. All take their own choices, i just have both systems and can see myself and share what I see. You can just ignore that


We haven't been discussing the relative merits of the Sony vs Canon 100-400mm lenses. The discussion is about the the new Sony 200-600mm. If you do purchase the Sony 200-600mm then we would be interested to hear from you your first hand experience with the lens and its performance vs the Sony and Canon 100-400mm lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> We haven't been discussing the relative merits of the Sony vs Canon 100-400mm lenses. The discussion is about the the new Sony 200-600mm. If you do purchase the Sony 200-600mm then we would be interested to hear from you your first hand experience with the lens and its performance vs the Sony and Canon 100-400mm lenses.


Yes..... CR discussions never go off topic 

Right now the X to 500 or 600mm zoom lens is a busy field...
Tamron 150-600
Tamron 150-600 G2
Sigma 150-600
Sigma 150-600 Sport
Nikon 200-500
Sony 200-600

Canon is missing! All these lenses seem to be selling well, to my mind it makes sense for Canon to jump into the fray. I can see either a 500F5.6, or a 600F6.3, but I think a 600F5.6 on the long end is extremely unlikely. They may not necessarily be L lenses if Canon decides to compete on price.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 17, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes..... CR discussions never go off topic
> 
> ...All these lenses seem to be selling well, to my mind it makes sense for Canon to jump into the fray. I can see either a 500F5.6, or a 600F6.3, but I think a 600F5.6 on the long end is extremely unlikely. They may not necessarily be L lenses if Canon decides to compete on price.



I think it does make sense to offer an alternative, but I'm not sure they should attempt to compete on price. With the 100-400 selling for $1,800, I'd like to see what Canon could do in the 150-500 range for an additional $1,000. Sony and Nikon both seem to simply be offering their own branded versions of Tamron and Sigma in terms of quality. Other than brand loyalty, I'm not sure what the point is. I'd like to see Canon stick to the high road and fill out their 70-300 "L" and 100-400 "L" with a 150-500 "L." Preference would be a f5.6 EF lens, but if they were to produce a 7D quality APS-C body in the R mount, then an f6.3 would be fine.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think it does make sense to offer an alternative, but I'm not sure they should attempt to compete on price. With the 100-400 selling for $1,800, I'd like to see what Canon could do in the 150-500 range for an additional $1,000. Sony and Nikon both seem to simply be offering their own branded versions of Tamron and Sigma in terms of quality. Other than brand loyalty, I'm not sure what the point is. I'd like to see Canon stick to the high road and fill out their 70-300 "L" and 100-400 "L" with a 150-500 "L." Preference would be a f5.6 EF lens, but if they were to produce a 7D quality APS-C body in the R mount, then an f6.3 would be fine.


Bang on


----------



## uri.raz (Jun 17, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Right now the X to 500 or 600mm zoom lens is a busy field...
> <snipped list for brevity>
> 
> Canon is missing! All these lenses seem to be selling well, to my mind it makes sense for Canon to jump into the fray. I can see either a 500F5.6, or a 600F6.3, but I think a 600F5.6 on the long end is extremely unlikely. They may not necessarily be L lenses if Canon decides to compete on price.



That's not the only lens Canon is, IMHO, missing. My guess is

1. With a shrinking market, some of those lenses are just not profitable.

2. As always, Canon prefers to invest in profitable lenses nobody else makes, e.g. tilt shift lenses, and let the competition fill in the holes.

3. With the new FF MILC, Canon is spread a little thin, so it leaves larger holes for the competition.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 17, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Right now the X to 500 or 600mm zoom lens is a busy field...
> Tamron 150-600
> Tamron 150-600 G2
> Sigma 150-600
> ...


I also recall cheap 35-200 "megazooms" of 1990s. Canon was also late to that.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2019)

So far in the poll of what telephoto zooms we are using, 21/34 are for the 100-400mm II, followed by 6/34 for the Sigma 150-600mm C, paralleling my own observations over a large number of users. Weight is a big consideration for many, especially some women who find even the 100-400mm too heavy. Even so, no-one has reported using the light 100-400mm f/6.3 from Tamron and Sigma, both of which I found wanting in IS and AF.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 17, 2019)

AlanF said:


> We haven't been discussing the relative merits of the Sony vs Canon 100-400mm lenses. The discussion is about the the new Sony 200-600mm. If you do purchase the Sony 200-600mm then we would be interested to hear from you your first hand experience with the lens and its performance vs the Sony and Canon 100-400mm lenses.


You are right, discussion was not about merits of the Sony vs Canon 100-400mm lenses.
Discussion was what kind of performance could be expected from Sony 200-600mm lens at 600mm based on published MTF charts and initial reviews.
MTF charts shows that this lens expected to have approximately the same resolution power at 600mm as Canon 100-400mm at 400mm.
You told that you have little trust in simulated MTF charts based on MTF charts for lens from some other brands (for cheaper lenses) which had lower performance than claimed by MTF charts.
My response was that from my practical experince I do not see any reason not to trust Sony MTFs for the latest GM and G glass taking Sony and Canon 100-400mm glass (as i have and use both) as an example.
MTF charts show that they have almost identical performance and in real life I see practically the same, with Sony 100-400 GM performing a bit better on Sony bodies compared to adapted Canon lens. Most possibly Canon 100-400mm would be performing better on Canon high res bodies as each lens optimized for use on their native bodies.
All my latest Sony GM and G glass was performing up to expectations (per Sony published MTFs)
Based on my experience I do not see any reason to expect lower performance from 200-600 compared to what is expected from MTF charts, the only doubt what whould be QC and lens variance as lens production facilities will be in China.
I think we will see test results from Lensrentals and DXO some time later.
Now this Sony 200-600mm seems to be very attractive and affordable choice to be used on a7 and a9 bodies and and that could attract/bring more users from other brands to this camp. Also internal zoom is very handy feature, especially for long distance video use.
I still believe that Canon 200-600mm or similar lense at the similar price tag and the same or better performace could be very attractive for Canon users. It is not too late yet for that.
And yes, if I decide to buy this 200-600mm lens I could share my experience with this and comparison with 100-400. I usually do number of different tests initially to see if Iwant to keep new lens or return it back to the shop.


----------



## Canon1966 (Jun 17, 2019)

I would love to see a 200-600mm from Canon, but it will probably be overpriced.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2019)

Neutral said:


> You are right, discussion was not about merits of the Sony vs Canon 100-400mm lenses.
> Discussion was what kind of performance could be expected from Sony 200-600mm lens at 600mm based on published MTF charts and initial reviews.
> MTF charts shows that this lens expected to have approximately the same resolution power at 600mm as Canon 100-400mm at 400mm.
> You told that you have little trust in simulated MTF charts based on MTF charts for lens from some other brands (for cheaper lenses) which had lower performance than claimed by MTF charts.
> ...


I don't disagree with much of what you write but I must labour the point that theoretically simulated MTFs from Canon, Nikon, Sony etc and not just the ones from cheaper brands considerably overestimate the MTFs that are actually measured by Lensrentals and others - see for example https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/ where there are many examples you can check with the manufacturers figures. The 400mm f/2.8 II for example has MTFs close to 1.0 published by Canon, but the measured is ~0.8 for the 30 lp/mm.


----------



## r00p (Jun 17, 2019)

Let's do remember that Canon already developed a legendary lens like this in the early '80s, so certainly they're not new to the game:

The New FD 150-600mm f/5.6 L

The trombone-style zoom with focus wheel was quite innovative at the time. It was such a valuable lens that many were bought up by Hollywood and converted to cinema camera mounts. The question still remains what many have been asking here: Will it be affordable? Will it be lightweight enough? Etc.

Personally, I would like to see something that reaches far beyond the 100-400 currently. Like say, a Canon version of this:

Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 APO

As others have already pointed out, the current EF 100-400 MkII paired with an EF 1.4x already shows better performance than say the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm lenses. So, it would really be neat if Canon could expand our range well beyond that.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2019)

r00p said:


> Let's do remember that Canon already developed a legendary lens like this in the early '80s, so certainly they're not new to the game:
> 
> The New FD 150-600mm f/5.6 L
> 
> ...


I once saw a strong young guy struggle with the Sigma 300-800mm. It weighs 12.8kg or 28lb, 6x more than I can manage
Edit: bad mistake, it weighs only 12.94lb! Apologies!


----------



## r00p (Jun 17, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I once saw a strong young guy struggle with the Sigma 300-800mm. It weighs 12.8kg or 28lb, 6x more than I can manage



Oh, indeed. That's a tripod only lens for sure. Heck, I even put my little EF 400mm f/5.6 L on a tripod!


----------



## r00p (Jun 17, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It weighs 12.8kg or 28lb, 6x more than I can manage



Not that thing isn't a beast, but it _only weighs_ in at 12.94lbs (~5.87kg) Still far more than I want to lug around too.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 17, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I once saw a strong young guy struggle with the Sigma 300-800mm. It weighs 12.8kg or 28lb, 6x more than I can manage


Why not go for the 34 lb 200-500 Sigma f2.8? Comes with its own battery pack and charger.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2019)

r00p said:


> Not that thing isn't a beast, but it _only weighs_ in at 12.94lbs (~5.87kg) Still far more than I want to lug around too.


Oops - my mistake! It's only somewhat over 2x I can carry. Apologies! If they get it down to 2kg, I'll rush out and buy.


----------



## r00p (Jun 17, 2019)




----------



## Pape (Jun 18, 2019)

So anyone considered add bicycle wheel to low end of monopod ,would it work? with lockable brake lever.
Or bazooka kind of shoulder setup with external aimer and little lcd screen?


----------



## Talys (Jun 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Oops - my mistake! It's only somewhat over 2x I can carry. Apologies! If they get it down to 2kg, I'll rush out and buy.


You already own a Sigma


----------



## AlanF (Jun 18, 2019)

Talys said:


> You already own a Sigma


And it's a very good copy and matches or even exceeds the IQ of my 100-400mm II. But, it doesn't have the AF speed of the Canon that I need for BIF.


----------



## Talys (Jun 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> And it's a very good copy and matches or even exceeds the IQ of my 100-400mm II. But, it doesn't have the AF speed of the Canon that I need for BIF.


Too true! I would happily pay $2500 for a Canon AF version that was 6.3 and double that for a 5.6 that was great IQ and sharp wide open.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> And it's a very good copy and matches or even exceeds the IQ of my 100-400mm II. But, it doesn't have the AF speed of the Canon that I need for BIF.


Apparently the Tamron G2 has faster AF than the Sigma, but is not quite as sharp.....


----------



## tron (Jun 19, 2019)

Pape said:


> So anyone considered add bicycle wheel to low end of monopod ,would it work? with lockable brake lever.
> Or bazooka kind of shoulder setup with external aimer and little lcd screen?


Ha ha, I was imagining a tripod with wheels and then I read this!


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 19, 2019)

tron said:


> Ha ha, I was imagining a tripod with wheels and then I read this!


Just take the seat off a unicycle and replace it with a ball head?


----------



## tron (Jun 19, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Just take the seat off a unicycle and replace it with a ball head?


For a monopod yes. For a tripod maybe replacing the 3 rubber feet with a custom solution!!!


----------



## Kit. (Jun 19, 2019)

I wonder how stable SpotMini could be...


----------



## AlanF (Jun 19, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Just take the seat off a unicycle and replace it with a ball head?


Assuming that you are being serious, which most proably you are not, that wouldn't work as you would have the wheel at the opposite end to the heavy weight that has to be carried and all the mathematics is against you.


----------



## Pape (Jun 19, 2019)

crap i am not good with mathematic or physic.
How normal monopod without wheel then works? heavy weight on other end ,shouldnt it go upside down?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 19, 2019)

tron said:


> For a monopod yes. For a tripod maybe replacing the 3 rubber feet with a custom solution!!!



Take the seat off an office swivel chair, attach a ball head?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Assuming that you are being serious, which most proably you are not, that wouldn't work as you would have the wheel at the opposite end to the heavy weight that has to be carried and all the mathematics is against you.


Come on now, of course I’m not being serious!


----------



## slclick (Jun 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> How do you know the Sony at 600mm (f/6.3) is as sharp as the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm (f/5.6)?
> There is no published comparison side by side. As I wrote above, the MTFs published by Sony are not real in practice ones but arbitrary theoretical curves that do not take into account diffraction or real life features and are just based on Sony software and are not validated by CIPA or anyone. That is not evidence to compare two lenses from different manufacturers products. Also direct observation from the Optyczne review is that there is a real observable increase in sharpness on stopping down.
> As for all lenses improving on stopping down, I have had 3 copies of the 100-400mm II and all have been sharpest wide open, and decent testing sites find no significant improvements in their MTF tests, and they are about the same at f5.6 and f/8.
> https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1
> ...


myphs (cue Seinfeld)


----------



## slclick (Jun 20, 2019)

Neutral said:


> As per already available MTF charts Sony 200-600 performance at 600mm is on par with Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm and very close to Sony 100-400GM at 400mm and noticeably better than Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender.
> So 200-600 most probably would be better option than any (sony or canon) 100-400 with 1.4x extender just per optical perfomace.
> Also Sony 200-600 AF speed and precision probably would be better than for Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender, not sure about Sony 100-400GM which has superfast AF system found only on latest GM lenses.
> But what is really important for image quality is 2/3 stops more light for f6.3 compared to f8.
> ...


If I was forced to trade my passion for the craft and my artistic eye for the technical merits of the hardware, just shoot me. True, you could possess both but since I don't have the knowledge and understanding of what your posts indicate (and have zero interest in learning something which I believe to be mind numbingly boring) I stand firm on my point. I get what it's like to be a geek about your passions, I do it with cycling and music as well but even in an elitist sport such as road cycling, it never gets anywhere as condescending as the photo universe.


----------



## SkynetTX (Jun 25, 2019)

The Tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) weighted only 1.2 kg so a Canon (or Tamron) 200-600 f/5 weighting about 2 kg would really be nice. Even a 200-600 f/5.6 or a 200-500 f/5(.6) could do.


----------

