# question about 600mm lenses



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 9, 2014)

i talked for 2 hours with a friend on the phone today.
he asked me if i know someone who could be interested in his EF 100-400mm.
he bought the tamron 150-600mm and has no use for the canon 100-400mm anymore.

he told me up to 400mm the tamron is as good as the canon.
above that the resolution drops but it´s still good.
he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).

anyway... that made me think.

when tamron is able to produce a 150-600mm zoom for around 1100 euro.... then why is no company making a really good 600mm f5.6 for lets say 2000 euro?

a fixed focal length should be cheaper to produce then a zoom right?
ok for f5.6 you need a bit more glas.... but then 2000 euro would be twice the price. 

if i would buy the tamron i would buy it for the 500-600mm focal range. 
that´s where i would use that lens 95% of the time.
what i really need is a supertelephoto lens with great quality at the long end.

the tamron offers good quality at 600mm.
but why is nobody making a fixed 600mm f5.6 for 2000 euro that has excellent quality?

it should be possible from production cost and profit viewpoint... not?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i talked for 2 hours with a friend on the phone today.
> he asked me if i know someone who clould be interested in his EF 100-400mm.
> he bought the tamron 150-600mm and has no use for the canon 100-400mm anymore.
> 
> ...


This is a question I have been asking for years 

The Tamron 150-600 isn't all that bad at 600, it's great from 150-400 and merely "pretty good" at 600. If they were to design a fixed lens at 600, the optics can be optimized for that focal length and the lack of zoom mechanism makes the lens lighter, simpler, and optically superior. A 600F6.3 lens should be able to be made for less than the 150-600, but with lower sales numbers (people love zooms) some of the economies of scale are lost so I would expect the price to be about the same.

Going to a 600F5.6 would mean changing the last element from to 95mm to 107mm, not a huge change, and certainly doable for twice the price...


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > i talked for 2 hours with a friend on the phone today.
> ...



Actually, it isn't the diameter that matters, it is the total volume of glass. Assuming the thickness of the front element (and, all the other entrance-pupil elements...remember, there are elements before and after the diaphragm) don't really change, then it is the area you have to look at. If you only factor in the diameter, the difference is 107/95, which is ~12%. However if you factor in the area, that is ((107/2)^2ϖ) / ((95/2)^2ϖ), or 8992/7088, which is 27%. The front element is going to have to be thicker as well, so we are talking about at least a 30% increase in cost just for the front element. The quality of the glass would need to be higher as well, in order to produce similar quality to a smaller element, that also increases cost. The subsequent entrance pupil elements, or at least the few closest to the front element, would also need to be larger. That further increases cost, as each of those would be anywhere from 20-30% more expensive than their f/6.3 counterparts. In order to maintain midframe, edge, and corner performance, one would have to deal with the increase in optical aberrations that a larger front element brings to the table...the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.) 

It isn't the 12% difference in cost between a 95mm and a 107mm diameter front element. It is more like a 75-100% difference in cost between an element of 27% larger area, greater thickness, accompanied by secondary internal elements pre-diaphragm that ALSO increase in size by a similar margin, as well as increased design complexities. Ironically, that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...but there would indeed be a hefty relative increase in cost.


----------



## tapanit (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> [...] the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)
> 
> [...] that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...


Indeed. If it was optically as good as the 150-600 is at 400mm and priced $2200, it would sell like hotcakes, IMHO. (Tamron, feel free to take a hint.)


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Actually, it isn't the diameter that matters, it is the total volume of glass. Assuming the thickness of the front element (and, all the other entrance-pupil elements...remember, there are elements before and after the diaphragm) don't really change, then it is the area you have to look at. If you only factor in the diameter, the difference is 107/95, which is ~12%. However if you factor in the area, that is ((107/2)^2ϖ) / ((95/2)^2ϖ), or 8992/7088, which is 27%. The front element is going to have to be thicker as well, so we are talking about at least a 30% increase in cost just for the front element. The quality of the glass would need to be higher as well, in order to produce similar quality to a smaller element, that also increases cost. The subsequent entrance pupil elements, or at least the few closest to the front element, would also need to be larger. That further increases cost, as each of those would be anywhere from 20-30% more expensive than their f/6.3 counterparts. In order to maintain midframe, edge, and corner performance, one would have to deal with the increase in optical aberrations that a larger front element brings to the table...the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)
> 
> It isn't the 12% difference in cost between a 95mm and a 107mm diameter front element. It is more like a 75-100% difference in cost between an element of 27% larger area, greater thickness, accompanied by secondary internal elements pre-diaphragm that ALSO increase in size by a similar margin, as well as increased design complexities. Ironically, that still doesn't take it outside the realm of affordability relative to a 600mm f/4 lens. The price could double, and it would still only be $2200...but there would indeed be a hefty relative increase in cost.



well i .. and as i guess most here... know that.
so when i say it needs more glass i don´t speak about area or radius, i speak (of course) about volume. 

but still, twice the price should be possible. even after your more detailed calculation. 



> the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase



and why would a fixed focal lenght 600mm be more complicated then a zoom going all the way to 600mm?
i would guess a zoom needs more elements and of course more moving elements.
that should bring the comlexity up compared to a fixed focal length who is just a bit faster (5.6 vs. 6.3).
and it´s not only the mechanics, sure more glass needs a sturdier construction, but AF should be easier with a fixed focal length too or not?

im far from being an experts in these optical calculations.
but to me it looks that it should balance eachother out. 


so the question remains... why is nobody doing it?


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 9, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> > the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase
> 
> 
> 
> so the question remains... why is nobody doing it?



My guess is that the market isn't big enough. Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens. In some ways, these smaller markets might be filled easier by the 3rd party manufacturers. They can sell similar designs in multiple mounts and have a potentially larger market than Canon or Nikon.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it isn't the diameter that matters, it is the total volume of glass. Assuming the thickness of the front element (and, all the other entrance-pupil elements...remember, there are elements before and after the diaphragm) don't really change, then it is the area you have to look at. If you only factor in the diameter, the difference is 107/95, which is ~12%. However if you factor in the area, that is ((107/2)^2ϖ) / ((95/2)^2ϖ), or 8992/7088, which is 27%. The front element is going to have to be thicker as well, so we are talking about at least a 30% increase in cost just for the front element. The quality of the glass would need to be higher as well, in order to produce similar quality to a smaller element, that also increases cost. The subsequent entrance pupil elements, or at least the few closest to the front element, would also need to be larger. That further increases cost, as each of those would be anywhere from 20-30% more expensive than their f/6.3 counterparts. In order to maintain midframe, edge, and corner performance, one would have to deal with the increase in optical aberrations that a larger front element brings to the table...the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase (and mind you, were just aiming to maintain IQ parity with the 150-600 f/6.3 lens, not a 600mm f/4 lens.)
> ...



First, I was directly responding to Don's comment about the difference merely being 95mm vs. 107mm.

As for cost, though, I think people underestimate what it really takes to increase the size of the aperture, and maintain the same level of quality. The larger each lens element gets, the more difficult it becomes to correct for optical aberrations. It isn't just making a bigger element. It is making a bigger element more perfectly. It means tightening tolerances. 

It's really the tightening of tolerance where the increase in cost comes from. It's an asymptotic relationship with perfection...you can never really attain perfection...its unobtainable...however as you get closer and closer, as the gap between what you aim to achieve and perfection closes, cost begins to increase dramatically. I honestly don't know exactly where a 600mm f/5.6 falls on that asymptotic curve of perfection. Given that no one has tried to make a 600/5.6 yet, I have to suspect that it falls into a cost bracket wherein it would be difficult to recoup R&D costs in a reasonable time frame. I say $2200, based on a rather clinical mathematical extrapolation. I am no optical engineer, and it is entirely possible that to really make a 600mm f/5.6 lens that had the same optical quality as a cheaper 150-600mm f/5-6.3, the cost would fall a whole bracket higher...$4500-$7000. However, for that cost bracket, the optical quality should be quite a bit HIGHER than a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 zoom...so instead of falling around $4500 in price, it ends up closer to $7000 in price, because were pushing farther and farther up that curve towards perfection, where tolerances must be tighter and tighter. 

I suspect there isn't a 600 f/5.6 yet because it just isn't cost effective, and that it is more lucrative to build a 600mm f/4 lens, as the ratio of sales is probably very similar, yet you get so much more for the f/4 version.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 9, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.




sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. 
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?

people are buying a 85mm f1.2 for 1900 euro, so why not a 600mm f5.6 for 2100 euro?

there are enough birders and wildlife shooters out there.
maybe not as much as shallow depth of field portrait shooter.... but still enough i think.




> In some ways, these smaller markets might be filled easier by the 3rd party manufacturers. They can sell similar designs in multiple mounts and have a potentially larger market than Canon or Nikon



yeah but even they don´t do it.....

my hope is that sigma will do it.
im very impressed (after being a sigma hater for years) by sigmas latest lenses.
the optical performance is great.
they may still struggle with AF... can´t say. but im very pleased with my sigma 35mm f1.4


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.
> ...



Actually, I know quite a few people who own DSLRs. They only use the 18-55. Canon can sell 90 million EF lenses because pros and serious hobbyists (of which there are many millions) will usually buy dozens of lenses. For all the photographers who don't buy new lenses, there is another photographer who buys many. Canon only needs 9 million customers worldwide to buy 10 lenses each to reach 90 million lenses sold. They have far more customers than that in total...



Lichtgestalt said:


> people are buying a 85mm f1.2 for 1900 euro, so why not a 600mm f5.6 for 2100 euro?



You assume a 600/5.6 would only cost $2200. As I mentioned in my previous post...if one aims to maintain the same level of IQ, that means tightening tolerances, and that's where costs rapidly start to rise. A 600/5.6 could easily cost $4000, and a 600/5.6 that is optically superior enough to warrant that level of cost could easily skyrocket to around $7000. Once you get above the $2500 price point, you really have to justify the cost to a customer. You also greatly reduce your pool of potential customers who can actually afford such cost, meaning the lens has to be that much better. A $2200 estimate is the rock bottom estimate possible...and such a lens probably wouldn't be as good as the 150-600/6.3. 

Over that $2500 price point, and you enter a wholly different market, which dictates an entirely different approach, and changes the name of the game. Your asking customers to spend many thousands of dollars, and they will expect a return for every single penny they spend. Your in a cost bracket now where people would probably rather spend more for 600/4 than not. Whether its $5000, $7000 or $12000, gaining a third of a stop additional light isn't really enough...even if the optical quality is great. There has to be _more _for that kind of expenditure. (I speak from experience, as I am one of those customers...I own the EF 600mm f/4 L II, I bought it brand new with cash...and the aperture is *really necessary* to justify that kind of cost.)



Lichtgestalt said:


> there are enough birders and wildlife shooters out there.
> maybe not as much as shallow depth of field portrait shooter.... but still enough i think.



There are certainly lots of them. But not necessarily that many of them willing to spend more than a couple grand. If your in the 7D/100-400mm lens bracket, then your in the cost-savings bracket, not the "I'll spend the dough if you give me the closest thing to perfection money can buy" bracket.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



but it doesn´t change a thing on the fact that his kind of argumentation can not be the reason why canon is not producing a 600mm f5.6.

because fact is, canon makes money with other lenses then the kit lenses or they would not produce them 
no matter who buys them .. they are sold.




> You assume a 600/5.6 would only cost $2200. As I mentioned in my previous post...if one aims to maintain the same level of IQ, that means tightening tolerances, and that's where costs rapidly start to rise. A 600/5.6 could easily cost $4000,



that´s what you think, right. and your argumentation/guessing sounds fine so far.
but with all due respect i don´t see that as written in stone. 
you don´t have hard numbers what it would cost, nor have i.

but a few years ago i would have thought the tamron 150-600mm is not possible for 1100 euro.
the price will sure drop here to around 950-990 euro in a few month.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lichtgestalt said:
> ...



Canon doesn't produce a 600 f/5.6 because they already produce a 600 f/4. The cost to produce a quality 600/5.6 that is actually worth the money would put it out of range of most customers (i.e. it has to be BETTER than a 150-600 f/5-6.3 in pretty much every respect). The R&D cost to design the lens would require a certain minimum sales ratio per year in order to recoup those R&D costs and make the lens profitable in a reasonable time period. Given the fact that neither Canon, nor any other manufacturer, has produced a 600/5.6 lens is a very strong indication that the cost of the lens would indeed put it into a cost bracket where sales would be very low, thus turning the R&D cost into a very long term liability...and from a business standpoint, long-term liabilities on low-volume products are particularly bad. Better to make an even more expensive product, the 600/4, that would get similar low volume at twice the cost. You reduce your R&D recoup times by half. Not to mention the fact that the EF 600 f/4 L series lens line has a very strong following (just look at the lens banks for the Olympics...there are shelves full of Canon very fast (f/2.8 and f/4) supertele lenses, and maybe a shelf or two for other lenses, so Canon is bound to sell a lot of the 600 f/4 lenses anyway (a hell of a lot more than a 600/5.6, as the people who are willing to shell out many thousands of dollars for such a lens demand that the aperture be as fast as possible as well.)


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon doesn't produce a 600 f/5.6 because they already produce a 600 f/4.



sure, but the important point is not if canon produces such a lens.
im also happy if tamron or sigma would make one.

thought i guess for 2300-2500 euro a 600mm f5.6 from canon would still sell very well.  (i would buy one ).
and don´t steal away 600mm f4 customers.
the 600mm f4 is so far out of reach for most amateurs.

i just mentioned canon in this context because Random Orbits mentioned kit lenses and that most DSLR buyers only have one lens.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon doesn't produce a 600 f/5.6 because they already produce a 600 f/4.
> ...



Just to make sure the point is clear...a $2500 600mm f/5.6 lens probably wouldn't offer the same level of IQ as a 150-600 f/6.3 lens. If you had the option...a 600/5.6 prime that was a bit softer with more CA, or a 150-600/6.3 that was sharper with less CA, and the latter was cheaper...which would you choose? You would choose teh 150-600/6.3. As the objective lens gets larger, it becomes exponentially more difficult to correct for optical aberrations. I've already seen the CA in the 150-600mm lens. Don shared a wonderful photo taken with it, and it was very sharp...but it definitely had more CA than even the 100-400mm canon lens. If your ok with less quality for a 600 prime, then more power to you...but I just don't think any lens manufacturer will do that. That's WHY manufacturers like Tamron opt for the narrower max aperture.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



And there is the economies of scale problem and the people loving zooms problem..

Six months ago I would have bet that a reasonably priced 600F5.6 (say around $2500) would sell enough to be profitable.... but with Tamron throwing in a $1100 150-600F6.3 zoom lens into the ring, an awful lot of those 600F6.3 buyers will end up going for the Tamron.... Most of the potential market has been captured.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 9, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.
> ...



Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras. How many lenses, on average, is that? :

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon. Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh? :

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k. And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera. 

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2014)

I agree that it 'pinches' the market. I think Canon's likely response is a 100-400 MkII. With the Tamron 150-600 being similar to the current 100-400 in that range, and ok at the long end, if Canon brings a new 100-400 with a level of improvement similar to that of the 70-200 II, that would force a choice between an ok 150-600 or an excellent 100-400. The latter will cost a lot more, but that won't bother Canon.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....



The argument isn't that it's not possible...its that if someone did it, for that price, would it be marketable? 

I'd be willing to bet that Tamron has already cut some corners with the 150-600. We know Canon does this with their zoom lenses...instead of 600mm, it would be something like 149mm-590mm. That immediately shaves a bit off the necessary front element size. The filter thread size is 95mm, which right off the bat indicates that the front element can't actually be the 95.24mm it would have to be in order to support true f/6.3 at exactly 600mm. That's a reduction in objective element size of about 5% right off the bat. That shaves down the necessary size for all the entrance pupil elements as well.

Prime lenses are generally designed to more exacting specifications. You don't have to worry about making tradeoffs to support a zoom range...you optimize the lens design exactly for the focal length your building. That's the entire point of a prime...to extract the maximum quality out of a given focal length. So, at least assuming you want a 600mm f/5.6 lens and not a 590mm f/6 lens, that immediately cuts out any easy reductions in element size that might save you a few percent here and there to reduce the cost of the lens. Then you get into how larger optics are harder to correct, etc. etc. and the costs just start rising from there. 

I guess it would really boil down to what level of IQ you think your customers would find acceptable. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 that had worse CA than the 150-600 f/5-6.3 might indeed sell, to the people who insist on having a prime. Personally I think the customers in this bracket would go with the best option for the best price...that's kind of what it's all about...so I don't think a 600mm f/5.6 with worse quality than the Tamron 150-600 would really have a market.

Also, keep in mind, Canon's prime lens with a 107mm objective element costs $6800...the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II. Granted, that pushes lens design to the upper extreme of high quality, and employs the most advanced optical technologies known to the DSLR market...but still, the vast majority of that cost is the glass.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 9, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Lichtgestalt said:
> ...



Yes, thanks for the correction; he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers. I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> ...he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers. I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.



I still think you're right - 'most' dSLR users have 1 body and 1 lens. Also, 'most' Canon users have a Rebel/xxxD body, and that one lens is the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera.


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 10, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
> a 400mm f2.8 +TC would not yield noticable better image quality. can´t say if that´s true (he is not a pixelpeeper looking at his images at 200% all the time).



Just to touch on this point.....your friend is wrong....I own the 100-400, 600II, 300II and now the 200-400. The 300II with the 2.0TCIII and the 200-400 at 560 with internal engaged are both much sharper than the 100-400 and therefore much sharper than the new Tamron. As far as actual centre of the frame (most used for wildlife shooting due to cropping all the time) the 300II + 2.0TCIII and the 200-400w1.4TC are on par with the bare 600II. Tough to believe but true none the less. The 200-400 may lag a little behind (and isn't quite 600mm) but the 300II and 2.0III is for sure on par. The 400f/2.8ISII and the 1.4TCIII would be at least equal to this also.

Here are two examples from the 300II and 2.0TCIII:


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.



Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.



Exactly. Meanwhile, the reaction of the majority of dSLR users would be, "$2K for just one lens?!? That's crazy...I spent half that, and I got a camera and _two_ lenses!!"


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.
> ...


I was shooting at a birthday party last night and pulled out the 600EX. That prompted the following conversation...
Party-goer: Is that an old camera?
Me: It's out of date, I'm going to replace it soon....
Party-goer: The new cameras all have flashes. The good ones pop up and are real good.
Me: Good to know, I'll have to check that out.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 10, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > he said that he thinks for noticable better image quality there is no way then buying the EF 600mm f4.
> ...



Thanks for sharing arbitrage 

I just ordered 1.4TC III. Can't wait to put this on my 400mm f2.8 IS II. Will share some photos next week.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market. Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic. Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k? Absolutely! Would I buy one? Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.
> ...



^--- THIS! Exactly. 



Random Orbits said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.
> ...



^-- The bolded part is my point in a nutshell. A 600mm f/5.6 prime has to have good IQ. It doesn't necessarily need to be as good as the 600/4, but it has to be better than the alternatives. For such a large objective element, that is no easy task...


----------



## Lenscracker (Feb 10, 2014)

I can't imagine a person who just spent $12,000 on a 600mm lens having anything good to say about a new 600mm lens that costs $1,200. You can be sure that each lens has advantages and disadvantages. If somebody would give me one lens or the other I would choose and suffer with the disadvantages of the $12,000 lens.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.
> ...



Wow, I never really looked at the number of bodies vs EF lenses sold before. If I didn't enjoy my hobby so much, the expression "a fool and his money..." comes to mind. My wife probably thinks it, regardless of the enjoyment I get from the quality of the equipment and the challenge of using even a little of it's potential.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I was shooting at a birthday party last night and pulled out the 600EX. That prompted the following conversation...
> Party-goer: Is that an old camera?
> Me: It's out of date, I'm going to replace it soon....
> Party-goer: The new cameras all have flashes. The good ones pop up and are real good.
> Me: Good to know, I'll have to check that out.



Classic! The first time I used brought the 70-200 to a large gathering, a friend commented that it was so large and that I must be able to see very far with it. Well, not exactly....


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> A 600mm f/5.6 prime has to have good IQ. It doesn't necessarily need to be as good as the 600/4, but it has to be better than the alternatives. For such a large objective element, that is no easy task...


We are definitely in agreement...

For a 600 F5.6 prime to sell, it has to be better than the alternatives.....

At twice the price, it has to be significantly better than the Tamron... But I doubt they can hit that combination of quality and price... As mentioned above, nobody thought they could hit the quality/price on the 150-600 and they proved us wrong...I am more than willing to be proved wrong again, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Shot this with the Tamron today at 600mm. Pixel peeping on an obsolete crop body  To significantly beat this at a reasonable price will certainly be a challenge.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

Lenscracker said:


> I can't imagine a person who just spent $12,000 on a 600mm lens having anything good to say about a new 600mm lens that costs $1,200. You can be sure that each lens has advantages and disadvantages. If somebody would give me one lens or the other I would choose and suffer with the disadvantages of the $12,000 lens.



It has nothing to do with the fact that I bought a 600mm f/4 lens. It's a logical deduction. If you are going to buy a 600mm f/5.6 prime, the general expectation is that it fits the general description of a prime. You don't expect any prime lens to offer lower quality than a similar focal length from any zoom lens. Most people would natrually compare it to the best of the relevant zoom range, in which case the Canon 100-400 L, which has very little CA at 400mm, is the likely target. Any 600mm f/5.6 prime would have to be better than the 100-400 L @ 400mm. 

And, as a matter of fact, I do have good things to say about Tamron's lens. For it's price point, it's a game changer. It offers excellent features and great quality relative to it's competition for an eminently affordable price. It's _because _I have good things to say about Tamron's lens that I do not believe a 600mm f/5.6 prime lens is viable.

There really isn't a middle ground option to be had. Building a good quality 600mm f/5.6 lens, especially if you cut some corners on weight savings, optical quality, etc. is too expensive, it would be around $4500 at the cheapest, and $7000 at the most expensive. Simple fact of the matter is, you can pick up a used Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter for LESS than $4500, and you have yourself a 600mm f/5.6 lens that offers superb optical quality (the old EF 300mm f/2.8 was once called the sharpest lens in the world). If you want even better quality than that, you can pick up the new Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II for $6800, and have the best 600mm f/5.6 IQ your going to get from a lens at any price under $12000. 

There simply isn't a place for a 600mm f/5.6 prime, not one that lives up to the expectations customers have for "prime" lenses. The option, with teleconverters, already exists, and even used, it tends to be well above the price point most consumers who are looking for a "cheap" 600mm lens option are willing to buy at.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A 600mm f/5.6 prime has to have good IQ. It doesn't necessarily need to be as good as the 600/4, but it has to be better than the alternatives. For such a large objective element, that is no easy task...
> ...



Thanks for sharing Don Haines 

How is the AF speed @ 600mm?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


The autofocus speed seems a bit slow, but to be fair about it, I am using a 60D and every EF lens I own focuses faster on my friends 5D2 than my 60D...


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Thanks Don,
It's a $1000ish lens(@ fraction when compared to Canon 600mm II). If IQ and AF speed is good enough for everyday shooter, I think this might be a winner for many(including myself)

I just ordered the Canon 1.4TC III. Can't wait to it on my Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 10, 2014)

Reality check here. 
High end TEC apochromatic refractor, all-fluorite triplet, f/5.6, 110mm front element diameter, for FL of 616mm, 18.5" long, 10 pounds (fits carry-on regulations) = $4,500.00 (special order) 
http://www.optcorp.com/tec-110mm-f-5-6-apo-fluorite-refractor-telescope-110560.html

Least expensive 110mm apochromatic refractor, glass doublet, 110mm f/6.0 for FL 660mm, 21.5" long, 11.5# = $1,300.00
http://www.telescope.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=103016&type=product

Bear in mind that these telescopes have manual focus with coarse and fine focus gearing, and don't have image stabilization.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Reality check here.
> High end TEC apochromatic refractor, all-fluorite triplet, f/5.6, 110mm front element diameter, for FL of 616mm, 18.5" long, 10 pounds (fits carry-on regulations) = $4,500.00 (special order)
> http://www.optcorp.com/tec-110mm-f-5-6-apo-fluorite-refractor-telescope-110560.html
> 
> ...



Hmm, things can get MUCH more expensive than that. Officina Stellare Hiper APO 152, 152mm f/8 aperture, 1200mm focal length, carbon fiber and aluminum tubing, internal thermal control, laser collimation, explicitly designed as an astrograph: $11,928

http://telescopes.net/store/officina-stellare-hiper-apo-152-achromatic-refractor-telescope.html

As I said before: It's a matter of tolerances. Officina telescopes produce STUNNING quality, RAZOR sharp stars corner to corner. Because they enforce much tighter tolerances on every aspect of the scope...even down to the turbulence of the air inside the OTA in the spaces between the elements. 

You get what you pay for. A $1300 APO refractor isn't going to have a flat field, it isn't going to be aberration free, it is going to suffer from thermal gradient issues and internal air turbulence problems, etc. (BTW, all of these things REALLY matter when it comes to astrophotography, they matter when it comes to the study of cosmic objects (particularly turbulence, it messes with Poisson spot shape), but they don't really matter for visual observing. You could easily get away with a $1300 APO for basic visual observation...it probably wouldn't cut it for anyone who's say looking for double or triple stars by analyzing Dawes diffraction spot shape, and it definitely wouldn't cut it for astrophotography.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 10, 2014)

I would be happy to give up 1/3 EV to have a 600mm prime that costs in the same range of the zoom. Or a 550mm f/5.6. There can be variations on the theme. Hell, a razor sharp 500mm f/5.6 would be interesting already.

Thanks to Tamron for proving that it's possible to manufacture such lenses at decent prices. However, for primes I would look in the Sigma direction. Some time ago they stated to be after the big whites. In fact their current 500/4.5 is not a bad lens. Their Sport category looks very barren... I wouldn't be surprised if they started populating it.

The biggest problem are the people. Most users willing to spend such amounts of money would not do so on a 3rd party lens. God, every time a hair is out of place on a Sigma lens, the litany of poor QC starts over and over again.


----------

