# Another Mention of a Canon Non-L Telephoto Zoom [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 6, 2017)

```
News about the long rumored supertelephoto zoom from Canon has gone quiet over the last 6 months or so, but we’re now being told the lens is coming in 2018, though the exact time of the announcement is currently unknown. Though the source did say it would not be coming for CES or CP+ in the first quarter of 2018.</p>

<p>As you know, there has been <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/">patents for a 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS optical formula</a> in the past. The source did say any super telephoto zoom such as this will not be an L lens, as to not “step on” the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II and to keep the retail price in line with the consumers that buy these type of lenses. Likely, it’s also to remain price competitive with both Sigma and Tamron.</p>
<p>We still do not know <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-unreleased-canon-gear-has-appeared-for-certification/">which two lenses appeared for certification recently</a>, but we hope to know more soon.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2017)

This is one thing I'm interested in. I have a Sigma 150-600C for which the price was right ($700) and the optics are quite good. However, the handling is so-so (the zoom ring turns way too far to go from end to end easily) the IS is a little jumpy and the AF accuracy is a little hit and miss on moving subjects.

Ideally, I'd like a 100-600/4.5-5.6 for about twice the price of the Sigma, that handled, focused and stabilized like a Canon. I absolutely love the handling, focusing and stabilization of my 70-200/2.8L IS II, even with 2x TC attached.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> News about the long rumored supertelephoto zoom from Canon has gone quiet over the last 6 months or so, but we’re now being told the lens is coming in 2018, though the exact time of the announcement is currently unknown. Though the source did say it would not be coming for CES or CP+ in the first quarter of 2018.</p>
> 
> 
> <p>As you know, there has been <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/">patents for a 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS optical formula</a> in the past. The source did say any super telephoto zoom such as this will not be an L lens, as to not “step on” the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II and to keep the retail price in line with the consumers that buy these type of lenses. Likely, it’s also to remain price competitive with both Sigma and Tamron.</p>
> ...



EF 600mm f/5.6 IS long end + competitive in price to the Sigma/Tamron = *CR2? * Unless it's a plastic fantastic with STM and a bone simple design and construction, I don't see how that's possible. 

Canon would have to give this lens away at non-existent margins (much like I suspect Nikon is doing the same with their 200-500 5.6 VR).

Consider me exceptionally skeptical of this rumor. I think this a longer-than-400mm zoom is in development, but it'll end up being one of these instead:


An EF first to allow f/6.3 max aperture (to keep that entrance pupil smaller and less expensive)
Shorter than 600mm long end, 500 f/5.6 could be possible in a cheaper lens (ask Nikon)
...or it will be 100-400L II level in quality and cost a mint, say $3k

- A


----------



## docsmith (Nov 6, 2017)

I want it to be #3, but I think Canon’s definition of a mint is different than yours. They still need to protect the 200-400 f/4 IS. 

I am either expecting a $6k-$8k Lens or a plastic fantastic lens. Fortunately for us, their recent plastic fantastics haven’t been half bad. I am thinking a larger version of the 70-300 non-L.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Canon would have to give this lens away at non-existent margins (much like I suspect Nikon is doing the same with their 200-500 5.6 VR).
> 
> Consider me exceptionally skeptical of this rumor.



A 600 f5.6 requires an apparent aperture of over 107mm (exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 ) a 500 f5.6 can get by without 'bending the figures' with a smaller than 90mm apparent aperture. There is no way on earth Canon can be competitive with a 200-500 in a 200-600 of the same aperture. They can't fudge the figures like the third parties do either.

In my opinion that leaves a 200-600 f5.6 >$4,000 'cheap lens' option and a 200-500 f5.6 $2,500 competitive option. You can't make a 107mm front element down to the price range of a 90mm front element out of anything but the bottom of a beer glass, and that would suck anyway.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> A 600 f5.6 requires an apparent aperture of over 107mm (exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 ) a 500 f5.6 can get by without 'bending the figures' with a smaller than 90mm apparent aperture. There is no way on earth Canon can be competitive with a 200-500 in a 200-600 of the same aperture. They can't fudge the figures like the third parties do either.
> 
> In my opinion that leaves a 200-600 f5.6 >$4,000 'cheap lens' option and a 200-500 f5.6 $2,500 competitive option. You can't make a 107mm front element down to the price range of a 90mm front element out of anything but the bottom of a beer glass, and that would suck anyway.



...or Canon allows f/6.3 use on EF with all the advancements made in AF throughout the line. 

I could see a plasticky 200-500 f/5-6.3 nano USM (or STM) coming in around $1500 or so.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > A 600 f5.6 requires an apparent aperture of over 107mm (exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 ) a 500 f5.6 can get by without 'bending the figures' with a smaller than 90mm apparent aperture. There is no way on earth Canon can be competitive with a 200-500 in a 200-600 of the same aperture. They can't fudge the figures like the third parties do either.
> ...



Maybe, but the post refers to the 200-600 f4.5-5.6 IS patent from a while ago, and I just don't see that as any kind of budget option from the need for big glass alone.


----------



## snoke (Nov 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Why assume patent for product? Maybe product patent pending.

Others right about f/6.3 AF. How many Canon DSLR have f/8 AF capability?

EF-1.4x/2x tele-converter compatible?


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 7, 2017)

Most probably will be nano-USM not STM or full size USM motors.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 7, 2017)

it could be anything..... even a crop lens to replace the 18-200.... That lens is quite long in the tooth and an 18-300 or even an 18-400 would probably sell well.....


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Most probably will be nano-USM not STM or full size USM motors.



+1

Non-L + Ring USM + zoom lens = a thing of the past. We haven't seen a new ring USM non-L zoom since the EF-S 15-85 IS USM in 2009.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 7, 2017)

Canon has made several EF-M lenses with max aperture of f/6.3 at the long end, and the EOS 80D and higher can focus at f/8 (will probably carry to lower lines eventually), so I can see how Canon will release a cheapo super tele to keep in with the competition.


----------



## preppyak (Nov 7, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon has made several EF-M lenses with max aperture of f/6.3 at the long end, and the EOS 80D and higher can focus at f/8 (will probably carry to lower lines eventually), so I can see how Canon will release a cheapo super tele to keep in with the competition.


Yeah, Im thinking a 200-500 that goes to f/6.3, and has a body-style of say the 55-250 could be put out in the $1000-1200 range. I guess thats the other possibility. They actually target budget users, make it EF-S, and can make a much more reasonably sized lens as a result. But EF-S hasnt really been their style for quite some time.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2017)

This is at least the third go round for this rumor and after much discussion previously, I’ve settled on this:

XXX-500mm f5.6 “L” selling for between $2500 and $3500. (XXX representing anywhere from 150-200mm)

I believe those who say an f5.6 600mm zoom would not be affordable. Although Canon has been upgrading all its enthusiast to pro lines with f8 focusing, I’m still doubting they would release a 6.3 lens. 

Canon does not need to compete with Sigma or Tamron on price and making a weak performing lens is not in their best interest. They are better off offering a high quality lens and putting a red ring on it to attract enthusiasts who will pair it with the new 7D III. As for hurting sales of the 200-400 I don’t think companies are as worried about that as forum participants imagine.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 7, 2017)

Now even midclass crop cameras have f8 Focus. For a 600mm lens this would require a 75mm fron element, which sounds reasonable for a "Budget" lens.


----------



## JoSto (Nov 7, 2017)

I own the Sigma 150-600 f6.3 C and even without the firmware-upgrade (which I will update soon) it is a very solid performer. Used at f7.1 it is sharp enough for the high-density sensor of the Canon 7D mark II. The IS is good, I regular shoot static birds at 1/250s. The Focus feels fast and build quality is equal with the cheaper L-Series Lenses from Canon (100mm macro, 16-35 f4 IS).

With the price at about 900€ incl. sales tax its a _very_ strong offering. As I do not expect a new Canon non-L lens to outperform the sigma there is no reason to jump back to canon. The real difference between f6.3 and f5.6 ist not that big to alone justify a purchase.

I would love to get a Canon 200-600 f5.6 L with all the quality from the 100-400 mkII and real 600mm focal length. Would pay about 3.5k € for it. But I dont expect it to come because it would seriously harm all the big white primes and kill the much more expensive 200-400. Alone for the saved weight every nature fotographer would buy it.


----------



## hne (Nov 7, 2017)

Canon is making its own glass, they might have figured out a way to make large enough glass cheap enough for a budget-friendly lens.

Except...

The referenced Japanese patent application 2015-212724 mainly talks about video use and the ability of the lens design to enable minimal variation of aberrations when focusing, while keeping the lens compact and internally zooming/focusing. It adds no image stabilisation. The lens design is based on all the large front facing elements being spherically ground for the largest image height. But that still isn't covering a full 24x36mm sensor. The examples show back focus that either wouldn't fit an EF or EF-S mount and the one that would is large enough to comfortably fit both B4 and PL mount.

That patent is not a design for a budget birders. I would bet it being a lens in a box-shaped housing for broadcast cameras on heavy tripods, commonly seen covering major sports events. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the price tag of a lens built under protection of that pattern ends up costing $50'000.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 7, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon has made several EF-M lenses with max aperture of f/6.3 at the long end, and the EOS 80D and higher can focus at f/8 (will probably carry to lower lines eventually), so I can see how Canon will release a cheapo super tele to keep in with the competition.



EF-M can do f/6.3 AF easily due to image sensor AF (AFAIK in bright light live view AF still functions at f/11 albeit not necessarily reliably).

f/8 AF already dribbled down to Rebel level; the 800D/T7i has the exact same AF functionality as the 80D. Indeed, as of now _all_ current Canon bodies except the 200D and the 1300D can AF at f/8 at least with the center point.


----------



## Ladislav (Nov 7, 2017)

I was waiting for such lens for so long that I ended with Sigma 150-600C. Yes, image stabilization at least on my copy is not very good and AF is so-so for moving subjects (although programable switch with customizable focus distance limiting helps a lot). The point is - it is a lens I'm already enjoying without waiting years for Canon to make a move. 

I'm much more reluctant to upgrade a lens I already have then to buy a lens for usage I don't have yet covered, so Canon would have to release something absolutely amazing with great value for money to make me think about the switch.

I somehow doubt Canon is going to release anything I would consider amazing to not compete with existing 100-400L II. I expect some downsides in the new lens which will not be just about build quality and weather sealing - that will make motivation to switch from Sigma less likely to happen. 

I would be much more interested if it was L lens - something like 200-500L IS 5.6 optimized to work well with 1.4 extender but that is a dream which will not happen and if it ever happens it will not be cheap. Depending on quality it would either compete with 100-400 or 200-400 and that's why I don't see this lens coming.


----------



## -1 (Nov 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> EF 600mm f/5.6 IS long end + competitive in price to the Sigma/Tamron = *CR2? * Unless it's a plastic fantastic with STM and a bone simple design and construction, I don't see how that's possible.
> 
> Canon would have to give this lens away at non-existent margins (much like I suspect Nikon is doing the same with their 200-500 5.6 VR).
> 
> ...



The competitor would likely not be the Siggy C but Sport, sans weather sealing and the Nikkor...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2017)

Some of the logic being used here is...well...just not logical.

Will Canon produce an inexpensive 200-600mm lens to compete against Sigma and Tamron? Possibly. But why? Are they really worried about losing out on the virtually non-existent profit margins that such lenses would offer Canon? With these lenses having been on the market for several years now, most buyers would have to switch from an existing version to the Canon and that switch only happens if the Canon is clearly better. Unlikely to occur at that price point.

On the other hand, a 500mm or 600mm "L" zoom would certainly attract people who have accepted the compromises that the Sigma and Tamron lenses require, but would prefer a better, sharper, faster-focusing native glass lens.

The main arguments against it on this forum seem to be that this lens would undercut other offerings. That argument simply doesn't hold water if you consider it for just a moment.

Undermine sales of the 100-400 II? It's going to cost more than the 100-400 II. So Canon loses sales on a cheaper lens to make sales on a more expensive lens. That's a good trade.

Undermine sales of hugely expensive big whites or the 200-400 f5 teleconverter zoom? If the price is reasonable Canon will sell 1,000 of these lenses for every one lost sale of a big white. That's a good trade.

The only question is the sweet spot between price point and focal length. I think the market could sustain a price point as high as $3,000 for a 500mm f5.6 zoom or $3,500 for a 600mm f5.6 zoom. But, can they build a 600mm f5.6 zoom for $3,500? I don't know. 

Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.


----------



## reef58 (Nov 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon would have to give this lens away at non-existent margins (much like I suspect Nikon is doing the same with their 200-500 5.6 VR).
> ...



You can buy a 4" APO refractor nowadays for less than $1000 (ED Glass), so it can be done on a budget.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2017)

reef58 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Hmm, so $1,000 for the big bit of glass and a tube that doesn't focus much closer than the moon and has an image circle smaller than APS-C? 

Makes my figures sound even more realistic


----------



## Talys (Nov 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.



Canon needs a cheap competitor to the Nikon 200-500. It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap, because this attracts people to the Nikon system as a lens that is made for hobbyists but marketed as good enough for pros (even though it isn't).

What people who are already in the hobby want in that space want is a superior lens to the Sigma 150-600, at a price that they can afford. There's a big difference between USD $2k, $3k, and $4k in terms of affordability. If they could price it similarly to the 100-400LII, that would definitely get a lot of love, and it would NOT rob sales from it, because there's no way a 600mm is going to be a small, 1.6kg lens with a short MFD.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> I would be much more interested if it was L lens - something like 200-500L IS 5.6 optimized to work well with 1.4 extender but that is a dream which will not happen and if it ever happens it will not be cheap. Depending on quality it would either compete with 100-400 or 200-400 and that's why I don't see this lens coming.



Yet Nikon is selling just that for $1400 right now. We can argue how 'L' that lens is, but Nikon found a way to offer something. I still contend that the Nikon lens (and the threat of body sales lost to the D500) is the bigger threat to Canon than any lens-only dollars lost to Sigma or Tamron.

But I agree a 200-500 5.6 zoom of any sort is a threat to 100-400 sales. Canon _could_ nerf the lens / move it downmarket in comparison with a plasticky 200-600 f/5.6-8 IS sort of offering, provided they fully implement f/8 throughout the SLR line, but as many have said here, Canon holds a famously hard line on EF/EF-S narrowest max aperture being f/5.6 so that every lens works on every body.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 7, 2017)

It's not just Canon playing around with a 200-600 lens idea.

https://www.dailycameranews.com/2017/11/sony-fe-200-600mm-lens-works/


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 7, 2017)

This is one I will be following, as I would like a long lens for occasional wildlife (my only current telephoto is 70-200). If there is any validity to the rumor, it says unequivocally that it will NOT be an L, yet people are still speculating and hoping that it will be. It seems the non-L designation is the most solid part of the rumor. A zoom that goes to 600 would interest me more than one that goes to 500.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 7, 2017)

And just to show how long this has been rumored, here is an article stating it will be revealed at Photokina 2016!
https://www.dailycameranews.com/2016/04/canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-lens-price-leaked/


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Canon holds a famously hard line on EF/EF-S narrowest max aperture being f/5.6 so that every lens works on every body.



Exactly!

They could make a F6.3 or slower lens, but "every EF lens works on every EF body" means a lot to Canon, particularly when you look across the table to Nikon and Sony and drive yourself insane trying to keep track of what lenses work on which bodies.... simple and understandable translates into increased sales.....


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 7, 2017)

My prediction here....

It will be a 75-400 F5.6 lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> It's not just Canon playing around with a 200-600 lens idea.
> 
> https://www.dailycameranews.com/2017/11/sony-fe-200-600mm-lens-works/



That a 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS would be offered for $1200 from anyone, let alone Sony, is madness.

You either chip away at the long end of the FL scale and cap it at 500, you allow f/6.3 or f/8 max aperture at the long end, or it costs a mint. 

(all lenses below are f/5-6.3)
Tamron 150-600 --> 95mm front filter --> $869, 1399 (for the two versions)
Sigma 150-600 C --> 95mm front filter --> $989
Sigma 150-600 S --> 105mm front filter --> $1799

Theoretical Canon 200-600 f/5.6 IS --> 107mm front filter + a dire threat to 100-400L sales = pricey.

Hypothetical Canon 200-500 f/5.6 IS --> 90mm front filter + a small threat to 100-400L sales = doable, but still not cheap. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.



And Nikon's adverts will all but write themselves:

_"Buy a Canon 200-500 lens or buy a Nikon D500 + 200-500 lens for the same money."_

If this is an enthusiast wildlifer's tool, the economics matter. If it's just another L superwhite, perhaps less so.

- A


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 7, 2017)

Even an EF-S 200-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM would be good. An EF 200-500 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM or an EF 200-600 f/4.5-6.3 IS USM would be even better to complement the 70-200 lenses. Whatever it will be let's hope it will not be equipped with focus-by-wire technology. If it will have STM or NanoUSM focus motor I surely won't buy it no matter how cheap it will be and will wait for a third party lens that supports FullTime Manual focusing instead.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 7, 2017)

Take a look at Canon's current "non-L" telephoto lenses....

$200 - EF-S 55-250 (F5.6)
$200 - EF 75-300 (F5.6)
$300 - EF-S 55-250 STM (F5.6)
$400 - EF-S 18-135 (F5.6)
$450 - EF 70-300 (F5.6)
$500 - EF 70-300 II (F5.6)
$600 - EF-S 18-135 IS (F5.6)
$700 - EF-S 18-200 (F5.6)

Clue number 1 - they are low cost.
Clue number 2 - They are all F5.6

Odds are that this new "Non-L" telephoto lens will be low cost and F5.6. That rules out all the 500mm and 600mm variants. About the biggest thing you could see that would maintain that F5.6 size and keep low cost would be something that ends at 400mm and is not a superzoom.... the 70-300 sells quite well, a 70-400 would be a likely upgrade.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2017)

Talys said:


> It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......



And there in lies a point I have never been able to fathom. How is $1,500-2,000 cheap or good value if it isn't a good performer? 

For a touch more money get a secondhand EF 300 f2.8IS MkI and a TC.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......
> ...


The 300/2.8 MkI = 2xTC weighs a thumping 3.275 kg with hood attached. The TDPs copy at 600mm isn't as good as a Sigma 150-600mm sport https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 and my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C approached my 300mm/2.8 MkII + 2xTC in terms of IQ.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 7, 2017)

My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2017)

We will have to agree to disagree.



Talys said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.
> ...



Canon doesn't *need* a cheap competitor to the Nikon. Canon users can already buy a cheap competitor to the Nikon. In fact they have several choices from Sigma and Tamron. In fact, those lenses offer an extra 100mm in length and at least two are cheaper than the Nikon while offering optics that are at least as good.

No evidence at all that the Nikon combination is hurting Canon. In fact, given a choice between a weak 500mm offering and a superior 400mm zoom, the smarter choice is the 100-400II for not much more money.

Why should Canon offer a compromised and more expensive alternative to the Sigma and Tamron that won't net them much profit if any, just because Nikon fell into that trap. 



ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Release a 200-500mm f5.6 "L" zoom at $2,900, in conjunction with a 7DIII with improved sensor, multiple f8 focus points (allowing a 1.4 converter) and 12 fps and people will line up to buy that combination.
> ...



Again, I disagree. Ignore the fact for a minute that neither Canon nor Nikon market their products in that way, and think about the logic here for a minute.

_Buy a Nikon and get soft images, or invest in a lens that will give you sharp images from that $10,000 safari._

I guess it all boils down to the market and the capacity of the buyers. I see Canon focusing on enthusiasts who have the resources and desire to invest in high quality products because the cost of that investment is just a part of their overall investment. If you are over 50 (which I am by a long shot) you are likely inundated with daily solicitations from travel companies offering trips of a lifetime costing thousands of dollars for a week to 10 days. That, I believe, is the likely market for these lenses -- enthusiasts who travel to Alaska, Africa, Australia, Central America, the U.S. National Parks, etc. etc., and want to bring back professional quality images. The people who are going on the thousands of workshops being offered by pro photographers who can no longer earn a living from selling their pictures, but are reduced to being overpriced tour guides for enthusiasts with disposable income.

The great unknown, as I said before, is what the market will bear. The entire trend in the photo industry is toward higher end enthusiasts with disposable income. I don't see Canon bucking that trend, rather I see them pushing the limits with products that test where the upper limits are.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?



Because birders are unreasonable souls and $9k+ prime will do a better job. ;D

In truth, a 200-500mm f/5.6 for $1400 (even a 500 f/5.6 prime at that price) will have to make some tradeoffs in the optical design, AF system, IS, construction, etc. to hit that price point. 

Some see that Nikon for what it is -- a gift of a lens that lets you shoot 500mm FF with first party AF and without a teleconverter. Even a 'B' lens optically would be a steal at that price if the AF works reasonably well.

Others would say it's IQ or bust and point out more expensive options that might do a better job (e.g. 100-400L II + T/C).

Again, there's no pleasing folks here, but Canon would be wise to have a better price point strategy than this menu of options of shooting longer than 400mm FF on the EF mount with first party AF:

400 f/5.6L prime + 1.4x T/C III = $1278
300 f/4L IS + 2x T/C III = $1778 
100-400L II IS + 1.4x T/C III = $2428

(then a cliff emerges)

400 f/4 IS DO II + 1.4x T/C III = $7328
500 f/4L IS II = $8999
600 f/4L IS II = $11499

Again, the Nikon value proposition is a compelling one: 500mm f/5.6 + IS + first party AF without the drawbacks of T/C use for $1400. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Canon doesn't *need* a cheap competitor to the Nikon. Canon users can already buy a cheap competitor to the Nikon. In fact they have several choices from Sigma and Tamron. In fact, those lenses offer an extra 100mm in length and at least two are cheaper than the Nikon while offering optics that are at least as good.
> 
> No evidence at all that the Nikon combination is hurting Canon. In fact, given a choice between a weak 500mm offering and a superior 400mm zoom, the smarter choice is the 100-400II for not much more money.
> 
> Why should Canon offer a compromised and more expensive alternative to the Sigma and Tamron that won't net them much profit if any, just because Nikon fell into that trap.



Agree, of course, Canon is not forced to do anything. Nikon is gambling they can steal budding birding/wildlife enthusiasts over to their side of the ledger and (likely) sell more D500 bodies in the process.

If Canon has data to suggest that might be happening, they can either fold their arms and say 'bah humbug!' or they can revisit plans for a longer/cheaper zoom and (possibly) accelerate 7D3 timing.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



My Canon 300 2.8IS MkI and 2x TC MkII blew the socks off my POS 150-600 Sigma in resolution, focus speed and accuracy. Just goes to show the value of a sample of one or two.


----------



## Lurker (Nov 7, 2017)

> My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?



1) Because this is a site for Canon users.
2) Sure in tiny book size maybe they're fine. Blow those puppies up to 3x5 ft. posters and they'll look like mush. You'll probably have to stand back at least 10 feet to make them look good.

 :


----------



## reef58 (Nov 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I am not sure where you get the focusing information but that is incorrect. That being said my point was for an ED front element for the lens we referenced the costs is less than $1,000, so the lens could be manufactured for a reasonable costs if it is built similar to the 70-300L. It doesn't have to cost $5000.


----------



## neonlight (Nov 7, 2017)

Some thoughts ...
Got to be less than $/£2000 to protect 100-400II
Preferably xxx-600mm. 
If f5.6 has to be expensive but if plasticky, not weather sealed might trade off build for reach
Could this be an EF-S 200-600 only? Perhaps but unlikely.
My guess: EF 200-600f/5.6 fly by wire STM plasticky thingy. Will give adequate quality, cost £/$2500 (some folks may pay for the reach over the 100-400) Another guess - black, not compatible with TC?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You are absolutely correct about basing an opinion on one or two copies - you must have had a rubbish copy of a 150-600mm.


----------



## Phil Lowe (Nov 7, 2017)

I have the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 on my D500. It is an excellent lens: tack sharp and light enough to hand-hold. I would gladly sell my Sigma 150-600 Sport (heavy beast!) for a Canon 200-600 if it's as good or better than the Nikon 200-500. I love the Sigma on my Canon 5D MkIV, but I'm getting older and it isn't getting any lighter!


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 7, 2017)

reef58 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > reef58 said:
> ...



It going to be a build similar to an L lens......

Even if they made it similar in build to the 70-300 II (non-L), you are looking at taking a $500 lens and doubling the focal length, which means 4 times the glass surface and 8 times the weight of glass....and you are going to need a much beefier lens tube to hold it together and bigger motors to drive it..... That gives you one very heavy monster of a lens in the $2000 range.... More exotic glasses and designs will be needed to keep the weight down.... I can’t see this happening.....


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 7, 2017)

Phil Lowe said:


> I have the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 on my D500. It is an excellent lens: tack sharp and light enough to hand-hold. I would gladly sell my Sigma 150-600 Sport (heavy beast!) for a Canon 200-600 if it's as good or better than the Nikon 200-500. I love the Sigma on my Canon 5D MkIV, but I'm getting older and it isn't getting any lighter!



I have several friends with the Nikon 200-500. They all love it! Canon could make a similar lens, but it would probably be classed as an L lens....


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



And/or an excellent copy of the 300.

Suffice is to say I made my choice from the lenses I actually owned, the Sigma has gone and the Canon remains.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2017)

I read lots of reviews, and take each individually with a pinch of salt. However, here is a rather deep one comparing the Nikon 200-500mm, Sigma 150-600mm and Tamron 150-600mm on a Nikon.
https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
It seems to be in line with the consensus of other reviews. The Tamron holds its own with the Nikon and the Sigma is good. All of the reviews of the Nikon say the AF isn't good for BIF, and frankly neither of the other two are.

Overall, all three lenses are much of a muchness from the average of all the reviews I have read. There are duff copies of all of these lenses, but the good ones are very good. The Canon 100-400mm II is of much more consistent build quality with very few reports of bad copies.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2017)

privatebydesign
The 300mm/2.8 are all built to a very high standard, and I am sure you have a good copy because there aren't many bad ones. I use a 2xTC a lot on my 400mm DO II, and I used it even more frequently on my 300/28. But, there is a real hit on the higher frequency MTF: see http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/canon-extender-ef-2x-iii-test/ where the 30cy/mm MTF drops to 0.5 for the 300/2.8. And the AF speed takes a huge hit. I use the bare 400mm for BIF.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I read lots of reviews, and take each individually with a pinch of salt. However, here is a rather deep one comparing the Nikon 200-500mm, Sigma 150-600mm and Tamron 150-600mm on a Nikon.
> https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
> It seems to be in line with the consensus of other reviews. The Tamron holds its own with the Nikon and the Sigma is good. All of the reviews of the Nikon say the AF isn't good for BIF, and frankly neither of the other two are.
> 
> Overall, all three lenses are much of a muchness from the average of all the reviews I have read. There are duff copies of all of these lenses, but the good ones are very good. The Canon 100-400mm II is of much more consistent build quality with very few reports of bad copies.



I got to play with the Nikon 200-500, the sigma 150-600, and both the regular and the G2 versions of the Tamron 150-600 on a D500... (nobody had the sigma sport  ).

All the lenses were very close, but I would give the edge to the G2 Tamron for both AF speed and sharpness. That said, they were all very close and any of them would be a good choice. I ended up deciding on the Tamron G2, mostly because it is compatible with the docking station so you can update the software, plus you can AFMA the lens for three different distances and at 6 different focal lengths.... a far better arrangement than just using two values, one for wide and one for long. (Remember, this was on a D500, I have no idea how it translates to a 7D2 or 5D4)

As has been said before, nobody care about the DR of an out of focus picture.... the effort that Tamron has put into allowing you to calibrate your camera/lens pair is welcome. Canon and Nikon should be learning from this....


----------



## Talys (Nov 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter if it's great (the Nikon isn't); it does matter that it's cheap.......
> ...



It's pretty easy, actually. You get people who are interested in birding/wildlife, and are looking for something usable that's in their price range, and for a lot of people who don't buy a lot of photography equipment, they psychologically don't want a third party lens.

The alternatives are a $2000-$3000 first party kit (body + lens), a different brand, or a different hobby.

A lot of people would also point out that all the inexpensive 500mm+ lenses are quite acceptable when the subject isn't moving, the camera is on a tripod, and you can use liveview magnification to focus at your leisure. Of course, that won't do for more serious hobbyists.

Anyways, I was only pointing out that it's important to have _something_ to fill the space, because the absence of it causes some new hobbyists to choose Nikon, even though I think the consensus is that you'd be better off with a Tamron or Sigma, for less money, on Nikon.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2017)

Canon's longest lens which is non L is a 70-300 zoom. Actually they make about 28 versions of this focal length. 

What does it take for them to make a (blank)-400 which does not cannibalize the 100-400L? Not faster than f/5 at the wide end? No special coating? Nano USM? *gulp* plastic mount? 

I stopped at 400 since it is obvious to anyone that the next size up (500) would require such a large amount of glass....(psst, glass =$$$)


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2017)

Talys said:


> A lot of people would also point out that all the inexpensive 500mm+ lenses are quite acceptable when the subject isn't moving, the camera is on a tripod, and you can use liveview magnification to focus at your leisure. Of course, that won't do for more serious hobbyists.



A lot of people would point all of that out? What people - trolls? You clearly didn't read Don Haines' comment on his testing of lenses or the link to the in-depth review I had posted just a few back.

The Tamron and Sigma 150-600mms have good IS and do not need a tripod for general use, their AF is precise and fast enough for most purposes and you most certainly do not need live view to focus them. Neither are good for fast moving birds in flight but they are adequate for big slow moving ones. For fast BIF I use a bare 400mm DO II because even that with a TC is too slow on a 5DIV and you need a 1DX for its extra voltage.

When I don't use the 400mm DO II, I use either a Canon-100-400mm II or Sigma 150-600mm C without a tripod and get very sharp shake-free shots, posted in the birds threads, which you can find in my profile summary.

Don't accuse me and others in this forum of not being serious hobbyists because we use cheap, but good, Sigmas and Tamrons.

An afterthought, here are a couple of shots from the 5DSR, which is very demanding for stability, hand held with the Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm. Top is a kestrel I took 5 days ago at 1/400s, 25m away, camera pointed upwards, and bottom a juvenile dunnock at 1/80s earlier this year. In both cases I was standing with no support for the camera or my elbows or leaning against anything. The OS was more than adequate even at these shutter speeds as was the AF without liveview.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 8, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Don't accuse me and others in this forum of not being serious hobbyists because we use cheap, but good, Sigmas and Tamrons.


Yes!

The forum users are not indicative of the masses..... most people will never spend $2000 on a lens. Outside of forum users, I know 0 people who have a 600F4 or 800F5.6, yet at a camera club meeting over a dozen people showed up with 150-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron, and several of the 200-500 lenses from Nikon.... In my canoe club, I am considered a photography fanatic because I bring along a “huge” pelican case with a camera and two extra lenses.... oh yes, and the Tamron 150-600 gets used handheld in a canoe.....


----------



## -1 (Nov 8, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?


Congrats to the book deal )

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1035&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0

I'd go for the Siggy S as first option to investigate though, if I was in the market for a long zoom right now and found the 100-400+TC too pricey.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2017)

@ AlanF and Don... Maybe the problem is that you don't _look_ like serious hobbyists. As we all know, how you look when taking a picture is what determines the quality of the resulting image.

Given your lens choices, I humbly offer a suggestion that may fix the problem.


----------



## Talys (Nov 8, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people would also point out that all the inexpensive 500mm+ lenses are quite acceptable when the subject isn't moving, the camera is on a tripod, and you can use liveview magnification to focus at your leisure. Of course, that won't do for more serious hobbyists.
> ...



There's no need to be hostile.

I didn't say that inexpensive Nikon/Tamron/Sigma 500mm+ can't produce sharp shots when handheld, did I?

I simply said that on a tripod, when you have a stationary subject, using live view and MF, you can always get very acceptable shots. For BIF, f/6.3 autofocus will just never compete with faster (and much more expensive) lenses, and the proportion of sharp shots is relatively low, even with relatively large and slower moving birds. It's very low with somewhat faster, smaller birds, especially when handheld. But even on a gimbal, the AF on a Sigma 150-600C may not lock in time at f/6.3, especially if it isn't against blue sky.

As you've pointed out before, you own much more expensive lenses than 150-600's. As does Don. But I didn't put it eloquently, and I shouldn't have painted with such a broad brush, so I apologize. I didn't mean it that way; I should have said, for people that want a high keeper rate on small, fast-moving subjects, these lenses aren't good enough.

Anyways, you're missing the point of what I was saying. My point was that a lens to compete with the Nikon 200-500 is important for Canon to have in its portfolio, even if it isn't competitive with the 100-400LII in sharpness and contrast or AF speed, and even if there are good third party alternatives that fill that nice. I say this because there are a lot of hobbyists who want to buy all first-party stuff (that is not me, nor, obviously you, and probably not most people here, but go into the wild, and you'll see plenty of people with Nikons and 200-500's). Even if the lens is the size/quality of Nikon or Sigma/Tamrons' offering, and even if it is somewhat more expensive (but not astronomically so), it will be helpful in persuading people who are not committed to a brand to choose Canon.

The reality of it is that there is a demand for 500mm+ that doesn't cost many thousands of dollars; for this market, AF speed/accuracy, size, weather sealing, and even to a lesser extent, image quality, takes a back seat to focal length.


----------



## Talys (Nov 8, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> It going to be a build similar to an L lens......
> 
> Even if they made it similar in build to the 70-300 II (non-L), you are looking at taking a $500 lens and doubling the focal length, which means 4 times the glass surface and 8 times the weight of glass....and you are going to need a much beefier lens tube to hold it together and bigger motors to drive it..... That gives you one very heavy monster of a lens in the $2000 range.... More exotic glasses and designs will be needed to keep the weight down.... I can’t see this happening.....



Well, the 70-300 nano is a fine looking lens, and it's actually pretty big, but it definitely isn't an L -- it is _much_ lighter, and there's a lot more of that plastic on it. One thing I surely hope that Canon does not do on a long telephoto that's not an L.... I pray that Canon does not make it focus-by-wire only, like the 70-300 nano =X


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

Talys said:


> Well, the 70-300 nano is a fine looking lens, and it's actually pretty big, but it definitely isn't an L -- it is _much_ lighter, and there's a lot more of that plastic on it. One thing I surely hope that Canon does not do on a long telephoto that's not an L.... I pray that Canon does not make it focus-by-wire only, like the 70-300 nano =X



I only shoot stills so I naturally want Ring USM on everything. But I'm told the 18-135 nano and 70-300 nano are pretty quick compared to STM, more like Ring USM. And for FBW I hear you -- I do not like needing to power the camera to manually focus.

But, as I said before -- if this new long zoom is non-L, good luck getting Ring USM in 2017. Hasn't happened in a non-L zoom since 2009. I think Ring USM is being saved for the L glass. 

I know nano is a win for video, but as a stills shooter, this feels like a takeaway. Someone just posted an 85 prime AF speed test, and we had no problem putting Ring USM in the 85mm f/1.8 USM some _25 years ago_. (Guess what? That old prime focuses just about as quickly as the new 85mm f/1.4L IS USM.) So why we can't continue to use that in mid-grade glass is beyond me. 

- A


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2017)

Talys said:


> I didn't say that inexpensive Nikon/Tamron/Sigma 500mm+ can't produce sharp shots when handheld, did I?



What you wrote was:



Talys said:


> A lot of people would also point out that all the inexpensive 500mm+ lenses are quite acceptable when the subject isn't moving, the camera is on a tripod, and you can use liveview magnification to focus at your leisure. Of course, that won't do for more serious hobbyists.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ AlanF and Don... Maybe the problem is that you don't _look_ like serious hobbyists. As we all know, how you look when taking a picture is what determines the quality of the resulting image.
> 
> Given your lens choices, I humbly offer a suggestion that may fix the problem.


But I already have a red band on my lens. It came with three free sections of broccoli.....


----------



## Tom W (Nov 8, 2017)

5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2017)

Tom W said:


> 5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.



It's a possibility. When I used to use a 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC, I wanted a native 600mm/5.6. Realistically, you could use it native at 600mm or at 840/8 with a 1.4xTC, but not much use with a 2xTC at f/11. The 400mm/4 gives you the wider choice of 560/5.6 and 800/8. The native 600mm would probably give better IQ, however, than 560/5.6 with an extender.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2017)

Tom W said:


> 5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.



Canon's largest FL for a non L prime is what? 100? Since this is about a non L rumor, it's got to be a zoom.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 8, 2017)

slclick said:


> Tom W said:
> 
> 
> > 5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.
> ...



The longest non-L zoom is 75-300, the most expensive one is $700..... and all of them are F5.6. I can’t see canon straying very far away from this..... at best a 75-400 for $700 to $800..... 

If they do decide to compete against the 150-600 or 200-500 lenses, I think the longest you would see is 200-500F5.6, around $2500, and as an L lens.....


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

slclick said:


> Tom W said:
> 
> 
> > 5.6 at 500 with the ability to use a teleconverter is very do-able, and would be very popular if it's of decent quality, and reasonably light for carry. It would potentially be a great birding lens, competing with the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon offerings. 600 at 5.6 is getting pretty large, same diameter entrance pupil as the 300 f/2.8. Still do-able, but more expensive if they want to make it solid and right.
> ...



You forgot the green-ringed lenses. DO lenses are not L, and there have been two 400 primes with that tech.

But yes, I think it will be a zoom. I suppose some rule-breaking 600 f/6.3 IS could materialize, but I doubt it.

- A


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Tom W said:
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Nov 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ AlanF and Don... Maybe the problem is that you don't _look_ like serious hobbyists. As we all know, how you look when taking a picture is what determines the quality of the resulting image.
> ...



I took up Neuro's kind gift of the paint.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2017)

Very professional looking..._now_ you look the part of a serious enthusiast!


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2017)

It's like Harry Potter's cloak against that woodgrain.


----------



## HankMD (Nov 10, 2017)

Lurker said:


> > My brother uses the Nikon 200-500 for birds that he is publishing in two books. It is a good lens (he sends me photos that look outstanding) so I am not sure why people are saying the Nikon is no good?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Put a good copy in capable hands, and there's no mush at all.



黑尾鷸 / Black-tailed godwit by O&#x27;Summer, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2017)

Maybe there is no mush but there are also no legs. Presumably the bird was so close it more than filled the frame, which is hardly testing a lens (there are no size or exif data on Flickr to give the information). Even the Tamron 18-400mm would appear tack sharp if the bird was really that close. So, it would be useful to know how far the bird was away so we could judge.

As a matter of interest, I have read that the Nikon 200-500mm is optimised for closer distances, where it is sharper than the Tamron, but the Tamron is sharper for longer distances.


----------

