# Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 5, 2017)

```
<p>Back in 2016 we had heard a few times that <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=supertelephoto+zoom">Canon would be introducing a new supertelephoto zoom</a>, something like an EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS. This is the type of lens segment that is dominated by Sigma and Tamron, as Canon’s longest “affordable” zoom is the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.</p>
<p>Since the start of 2017, all has been quiet in regards to such a lens. Recently we’ve started to hear about the development progress of a new supertelephoto zoom from Canon.</p>
<p>While the lens won’t be coming in 2017, we’re told there’s a good chance it will come in the first half of 2018. We’re also told that Canon seems to have a goal to give any new lens some kind of a unique feature over the competition. What that could be for a supertelephoto zoom is anyones guest, but recent history does show some innovation in the lens department from Canon.</p>
<p>We have seen such <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is/">optical formula patents</a> from as far back as 2015, but since the demise of the patent hunter site Egami, we haven’t seen anything more.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (May 5, 2017)

I know a lot of birders will happily pay for 400 f4 or 500 f5.6 lens.


----------



## reczey (May 5, 2017)

With the 1.4x extender it is a 140-560 mm f/5.6-f/8 lens with fast AF, so the new super telephoto range should offer much more than just simply 200-600mm


----------



## kingrobertii (May 5, 2017)

reczey said:


> With the 1.4x extender it is a 140-560 mm f/5.6-f/8 lens with fast AF, so the new super telephoto range should offer much more than just simply 200-600mm



It's not always about just zoom though. It is also about autofocus speed and sharpness. You lose on both of those with the extenders.


----------



## Dekaner (May 5, 2017)

If Canon is reading - I'd really like a 70-200 2.8 w/ a built in 1.4x similar to how the 200-400 works.


----------



## tron (May 5, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> I know a lot of birders will happily pay for 400 f4 or 500 f5.6 lens.


There is already a 400 4 lens (the DO II). Even if a "normal" lens is made it will still be expensive. Maybe less than the DO but still expensive. Also there is also a zoom that ends at 400 f/4 and it is super big and expensive. So the 400 f4 case is out of the question. 500 5.6 seems a much more feasible option (economically and size wise) either for a zoom or a fixed lens. But by economically I mean from the buyers perspective not Canon's...


----------



## Besisika (May 5, 2017)

kingrobertii said:


> reczey said:
> 
> 
> > With the 1.4x extender it is a 140-560 mm f/5.6-f/8 lens with fast AF, so the new super telephoto range should offer much more than just simply 200-600mm
> ...


Agree!
I do a lot of sport shots with my 100-400 II and autofocus suffers with extender.
In high ISO sharpness suffers greatly as well. 
If the new super zoom (200-600mm 5.6) is as fast (focus) and as sharp as the current 100-400 II (but heavier) I will be the first to buy it provided a good price.
Technically speaking, I cannot justify the 400 F4 DO. Zoom is important in sport and F4 to F5.6 is no longer (for my need) a difference given the high ISO capability of the 1DX II. Low light sport shooters like me will like that lens very much.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 5, 2017)

Maybe another attempt on a DO superzoom?? They showed the potential of the DO material with the 400 II.

The old 70-300 DO really sucked quality-wise, but the size was nice for an EF superzoom 
Disadvantage: if the do it, it will be reaaaallly expensive.

-Sebastian


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 5, 2017)

I could see something like a 100-460mm zoom with built-in 1.4 TC. Built-in TC's can be optimized to work with a lens so that there is little degradation. They do increase complexity. Canon produces many lenses with built-in TC's, so they know how to do it, keeping cost down is the problem.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 5, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I could see something like a 100-460mm zoom with built-in 1.4 TC. Built-in TC's can be optimized to work with a lens so that there is little degradation. They do increase complexity. Canon produces many lenses with built-in TC's, so they know how to do it, keeping cost down is the problem.



Please list these lenses with built-in TC's; I am familiar only with the 200-400.

Personally, I would like to see a 400mm prime with a built-in TC; huffers do not appeal to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I could see something like a 100-460mm zoom with built-in 1.4 TC. Built-in TC's can be optimized to work with a lens so that there is little degradation. They do increase complexity. Canon produces many lenses with built-in TC's, so they know how to do it, keeping cost down is the problem.
> ...



The 200-400 is the only EF lens with one, though the FD 1200mm f5.6 had one, but Canon make many different series of lens, a lot of the video/tv/broadcast lenses have built in TC's.


----------



## RunAndGun (May 5, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I could see something like a 100-460mm zoom with built-in 1.4 TC. Built-in TC's can be optimized to work with a lens so that there is little degradation. They do increase complexity. Canon produces many lenses with built-in TC's, so they know how to do it, keeping cost down is the problem.
> ...



They're broadcast tv lenses. And we pay dearly for the 2x. But it is pretty much a necessity. We need the versatility and it's not a five second process on a big tv camera popping off a lens and slapping it back on.


----------



## Plainsman (May 5, 2017)

..lens formulaes blah blah - it's not complicated at all - just give us a 200-500 like Nikon...


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 5, 2017)

Thanks, privatebydesign and RunAndGun. So Canon has extensive experience with built-in TC's. Now I really want a 400mm prime with a built-in TC, for under $3K.

Sorry, I am way off topic.


----------



## Talys (May 5, 2017)

Plainsman said:


> ..lens formulaes blah blah - it's not complicated at all - just give us a 200-500 like Nikon...



Yeah, that would be great -- though 200-600 would be better!


----------



## Jopa (May 5, 2017)

Any 150-600 similar to Sigma or Tamron but "Canon-style" relaible AF would work assuming the price is right (under $2500).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2017)

Talys said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ..lens formulaes blah blah - it's not complicated at all - just give us a 200-500 like Nikon...
> ...





Jopa said:


> Any 150-600 similar to Sigma or Tamron but "Canon-style" relaible AF would work assuming the price is right (under $2500).



There is no way on earth Canon are going to make a 'cheap', sub $3,000, lens >500mm, their commitment to the f5.6 standard they made themselves means they are limited by physics to 500mm.

Which begs the question, if the 100-400 MkII is as good as it is and often out resolves third party lenses of 600mm in tests and the fact that it works with the 1.4 TC and many bodies now have f8 AF, how much of a need is there for a budget 150-500 lens?


----------



## Jopa (May 5, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> There is no way on earth Canon are going to make a 'cheap', sub $3,000, lens >500mm, their commitment to the f5.6 standard they made themselves means they are limited by physics to 500mm.



It's never too late to reconsider  And ok, if $2.5k is too low, I'm fine with $3k. f/6.3 is still 2/3 of a stop faster than f/8, and the 1.4 TC III impacts AF speed more than the IQ imho. So a normal, no-TC lens sill makes sense. Anything makes sense if there is a demand for it - people will pay for it, Canon will make some $$.

I agree, a quality f/5.6 zoom will be large and expensive (similar size and price of the Sigma 120-300 2.8 S).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2017)

Jopa said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way on earth Canon are going to make a 'cheap', sub $3,000, lens >500mm, their commitment to the f5.6 standard they made themselves means they are limited by physics to 500mm.
> ...



In my opinion Canon will never make an EF lens slower than f5.6, for the sake of this discussion about a budget tele zoom that means a 500mm limit.

No a quality 150-600 f5.6 is already available from Canon and has been for over 20 years, even now used ones cost over $5,000. An EF version would be substantially more in size and cost than a Sigma 120-300!


----------



## ahsanford (May 5, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Any 150-600 similar to Sigma or Tamron but "Canon-style" relaible AF would work assuming the price is right (under $2500).



Key consideration: the Sigmas and Tamrons are 600mm f/6.3 on the long end. As I'm sure we've covered this 100 times here before, Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses). It would have to be 600mm _*f/5.6*_ on the long end, which would...

...have a much larger entrance pupil / front element / outer diameter than the Sigmas/Tamrons

...possibly not offer a front filtering option (due to size)

...cost a great deal more

...only be one stop slower than their $12,000 600 f/4L IS II

Can Canon make such a lens? Absolutely. 

Can they offer a 200-600 f/5.6 IS for under $3k? Not sure.

- A


----------



## ethanz (May 5, 2017)

The 200-400 is already a great lens with great AF. I'm not sure how they can make a product between that and the 100-400.


----------



## ahsanford (May 5, 2017)

ethanz said:


> The 200-400 is already a great lens with great AF. I'm not sure how they can make a product between that and the 100-400.



Just leave the 200-400 +1.4x out of this. It's an $11,000 lens. It's for a different class of photographer.

Presently, for Canonites wanting to shoot first party glass longer than 400mm (think amateur wildlifers/birders/etc.), it either requires a teleconverter or $9,000+. THAT is the problem this new lens must address. It's a financial cliff that Nikonians don't have to deal with: they have a 200-500 f/5.6 VR for $1400. 

So Canon needs a longer zoom that doesn't cost a mint. They might start with a 200-600 that resembles (stylistically, feature-wise, design-wise, etc.) a larger version of a 100-400L II. That would probably cost over $3k for the f/5.6 reason I mentioned earlier. But they could _start_ there and then consider...


Reconsidering f/6.3 for an EF lens to keep the lens element sizes down (make a big one-time exception)
Dropping the L designation and dropping some L Series build quality expectations
Consider Nano USM or STM instead of ring USM.
Cap things at 500mm and call it good to contain size/cost
Sell it at lower margins to keep the cost competitive and retain birders/wildlifers

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (May 6, 2017)

> Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses). 

However three of their EF-M lenses do go to f/6.3 on the long end. 

So, perhaps the mirrorless 6D replacement that is being rumoured might have a new lens mount too


----------



## brad-man (May 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> > Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses).
> 
> However three of their EF-M lenses do go to f/6.3 on the long end.
> 
> So, perhaps the mirrorless 6D replacement that is being rumoured might have a new lens mount too



Would someone be kind enough to point me to the rumor on this site of the Canon FF ILC people keep talking about. I recall a blip of a rumor about a fixed lens mirrorless offering being contemplated by Canon, but nothing more. A little help?


----------



## goldenhusky (May 6, 2017)

brad-man said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > > Canon does not sell f/6.3 EF (or EF-S lenses).
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-full-frame-mirrorless-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31147.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31750.0

related but not exactly what you might be looking for
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31534.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31551.0

AFAIK so far there is no credible information on the Full Frame mirrorless from Canon.


----------



## aceflibble (May 6, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> , as Canon’s longest “affordable” zoom is the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.</p>


And who's to say this new lens will be "affordable"? Realistically, if it was 200-600, it's going to cost more than the 100-400, obviously. And if it does have any unique feature that the third-party lenses of that type lack, then that usually results in a lens costing at least twice what its next-closest contemporary is.

The Canon 100-400 is about £1800 give-or-take in most stores, and the Sigma 150-600 'sport' is around £1500. So I reckon what, £3000 for a Canon 200-600? Of course there's the 200-400 + extender which is about £10000, but that is also fixed f/4. So you'd have you're five-figure version with a fixed aperture, and three grand for a variable aperture version. Seems in-line with everything else, to me.

Now, three grand isn't a big deal in absolute pro circles, but in terms of the full range of photography gear and the full market, it's well out of what can be called "affordable". "Affordable" in market terms means cheap enough that _any_ amateur can buy it and justify buying it. A 6D or used 5D2 is "affordable". The 400mm f/5.6L prime from the early 90s is "affordable". The _old_ 100-400 is "affordable". The _current_ 100-400 is not "affordable" in marketing sense, and any "superzoom" longer than that is going to be even more expensive.


It may well be cheaper than the absolute top lenses and it may well not bankrupt anybody, but common marketing speak like "affordable" still means something very different.


----------



## brad-man (May 6, 2017)

goldenhusky said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...




Thanks. That's what I mean. As far as I know there hasn't been a rumor from _Canon Rumors_ for anything other than a fixed lens mirrorless.


----------



## RGF (May 6, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> In my opinion Canon will never make an EF lens slower than f5.6, for the sake of this discussion about a budget tele zoom that means a 500mm limit.
> 
> No a quality 150-600 f5.6 is already available from Canon and has been for over 20 years, even now used ones cost over $5,000. An EF version would be substantially more in size and cost than a Sigma 120-300!



Not sure about the F5.6 limit. Can see F6.3.


----------



## dufflover (May 6, 2017)

I'm kinda surprised Canon don't have a 200-500 yet given Nikon has one. And I'd happily sell/trade from my Sigma 120-300/2.8 for that as (as good as that lens is) native and with 1.4x, Canon's modern lenses have had fantastic IQ that I'm sure it'd be noticeably than my current set up with that plus TCs.


----------



## unfocused (May 6, 2017)

RGF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion Canon will never make an EF lens slower than f5.6, for the sake of this discussion about a budget tele zoom that means a 500mm limit.
> ...



A few years ago I would have agreed about the F5.6 limit. But it is clear that Canon has been retooling its enthusiast and pro bodies for multiple f8 focus points. I presumed that was done to keep the 100-400 with a 1.4 converter competitive. But as f8 becomes the standard I don't think you can automatically rule out an F6.3 lens.


----------



## Don Haines (May 6, 2017)

Just remember..... nobody saw the Tamron 150-600 coming out..... everyone was caught by surprise and the lens sold like crazy!

Now we have two versions of the Sigma 150-600 and two versions of the Tamron 150-600.... and Nikon has a 200-500..... and they all sell well!

This proves that there is a market for such a lens in the $1000 to $1500 price range, and if there was a Canon version, it would sell well.

So..... if Sigma can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, and Tamron can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, does anyone on this forum really think that Canon can not do the same? The argument that Canon will never make a DSLR lens slower than F5.6 is seriously flawed!


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 6, 2017)

While I swore I was done buying equipment, I would be very interested in this lens.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 6, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> So..... if Sigma can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, and Tamron can make a F6.3 lens that focuses on a Canon body that needs F5.6, does anyone on this forum really think that Canon can not do the same? The argument that Canon will never make a DSLR lens slower than F5.6 is seriously flawed!




Because to make this work is pretty much a dirty hack - ie the lens reports itself as f/5.6 while focusing and only reports its correct aperture when taking the shot. This may work on current cameras but will this hack work on future EOS cameras? Will it even work across the whole range of EOS cameras now?

Third parties can do whatever they can get away with, but Canon at least has to stick to their standards. 

They won't release an EF lens that won't work properly on all previous EOS cameras.


----------



## aceflibble (May 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Because to make this work is pretty much a dirty hack - ie the lens reports itself as f/5.6 while focusing and only reports its correct aperture when taking the shot. This may work on current cameras but will this hack work on future EOS cameras? Will it even work across the whole range of EOS cameras now?
> 
> Third parties can do whatever they can get away with, but Canon at least has to stick to their standards.
> 
> They won't release an EF lens that won't work properly on all previous EOS cameras.


There already are a couple of newer Canon lenses which don't fully play well with some older bodies. Modern IS and STM don't work quite right with anything made before the original 5D, pretty much.

And what the third-parties do is not so much a "dirty hack" as much as it is a smart and honest way to make a slow lens work. It's better than what Canon do where the f-stop of a lens almost never matches the t-stop at all. Yes, Sigma tell the camera it's at f/5.6 when really it's a f/6.3, but it works and Sigma aren't claiming it's an f/5.6 lens. Meanwhile you've got Canon still selling f/1.2 and f/1.4 glass which is actually t/1.8 and t/2, most of their constant-aperture zooms aren't actually _quite_ constant aperture (nor is their t-stop anywhere close to the f-stop, either), _and_ they're essentially blocking certain lenses from autofocusing with some bodies even though a third-party manufacturer has proven it can be made to work.

And if you're going to bring up "dirty tricks", how about you take a look at how far Canon's actual ISO ratings are from their stated values.

Don't pretend Canon has "standards" when they fudge everything just as much as every other company. There isn't a single upright and honest manufacturer out there; that's why they have marketing departments.


----------



## Fleetie (May 6, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> It's better than what Canon do where the f-stop of a lens almost never matches the t-stop at all. You've got Canon still selling f/1.2 and f/1.4 glass which is actually t/1.8 and t/2, most of their constant-aperture zooms aren't actually _quite_ constant aperture (nor is their t-stop anywhere close to the f-stop, either)
> 
> Don't pretend Canon has "standards" when they fudge everything just as much as every other company. There isn't a single upright and honest manufacturer out there; that's why they have marketing departments.


I wouldn't expect the T-stop values to be particularly close to the f-stop values.
There are a LOT of elements in most lenses, which means a lot of surfaces at which to lose light to reflection, and a lot of glass to absorb light.

I am sure Canon isn't being deceptive in this respect, and I am also sure they do their *very* best to maximise the T-stops.


----------



## docsmith (May 6, 2017)

They already have a built in 1.4x TC in this range with the 200-400 f/4 1.4xTC. 

Please let the new wrinkle be DO. Shorter, lighter, great optics, 200-600 f/4-5.6 DO for around $5k and I will be selling some stock to be first in line.....


----------



## jolyonralph (May 6, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> There already are a couple of newer Canon lenses which don't fully play well with some older bodies. Modern IS and STM don't work quite right with anything made before the original 5D, pretty much.



I'm sure this is possible, but I haven't yet found a Canon EF lens that won't work with the original EOS 650.

The only combination so far that I've found fails is the ancient Canon EF 35-80 f/4-5.6 POWER ZOOM lens (truly awful lens, see http://www.everyothershot.com/old-camera-modern-lens-vs-modern-camera-old-lens-which-will-win/ ) which fails to work at all on the EF-M cameras with the official Canon EF->EF-M adaptor.


----------



## arbitrage (May 6, 2017)

600/5.6 on the long end is not going to happen so lets just rule that out. Because that would give us a front element as big as the 300/2.8. Canon can do that but it will be a big lens and heavy and expensive.

I agree Canon won't release an f/6.3 lens.

So what are the realistic options? There are only two that I can see:
1) 200-500/5.6 just like Nikons (I own that lens (because I love the D500 and hate the 7D2) and it is great but requires 2/3rds stopping down to 7.1 for sharpness to rival the 100-400II/1.4TCIII wide open at f/8). So what is the point really?....maybe better AF versus the 100-400II/1.4TCIII? But it is noticeably larger and heavier than the 1-4?? This could be made as an affordable option over the 100-400II/1.4TCIII

2) Some use of DO....this is the only thing that makes much sense to make it special....but I can't see this being affordable so I'm not sure??

The patents that were published for a 200-600 last year showed a fixed f/5.6 lens with internal zooming which would end up being a 200-400 size, weight and price so really doesn't make any sense either as the 200-400 already becomes a 280-560/5.6 with the flip of the TC.

I think most likely it will be a 200-500/5.6 just like the Nikon to satisfy a lower budget. If Canon can make it tack sharp at 500/5.6 then I will consider it as an alternative or addition to my 100-400II/1.4TCIII. If I have to stop it down like Nikons then forget it.


----------



## unfocused (May 6, 2017)

Let's try this again. 

Every enthusiast or pro level body Canon makes will focus at F8. Every body except the 7D II has multiple f8 focus points, so Canon could certainly make an f6.3 lens without having to hack its own autofocus system. If the lens is timed to be released with the 7D III, that body will also have multiple f8 focus points.

So the old rationale no longer applies. 

Does that mean Canon will release an f6.3 lens? No. It just means they could if they wanted.

For me, my personal preference would be an f5.6 200-500 mm zoom in the under $3,000 range. I think that's also much more plausible than Canon introducing a cheap lens to compete with Third party offerings.


----------



## RunAndGun (May 6, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Because to make this work is pretty much a dirty hack - ie the lens reports itself as f/5.6 while focusing and only reports its correct aperture when taking the shot. This may work on current cameras but will this hack work on future EOS cameras? Will it even work across the whole range of EOS cameras now?
> ...



Well, T stops and f/stops are completely different. If you're trying to say that T and f should match(sounds kinda dirty, huh?), then you don't understand the difference.


----------



## RGF (May 6, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> While I swore I was done buying equipment, I would be very interested in this lens.



Never say never. There is always something interesting around the corner. Of course I suffer from GAS.


----------



## masterpix (May 6, 2017)

When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.


----------



## ecka (May 6, 2017)

EF 300-600mm F5.6L IS USM
:


----------



## AlanF (May 7, 2017)

masterpix said:


> When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.



I have both the 100-400mm II (had 2 copies) and the Sigma 150-600mm C. You might have done "research", but I use both extensively. My Sigma has fantastic IQ at 600mm, and knocks the 100-400 + 1.4xTC for six. It doesn't focus as fast as the Canon, but it locks on well. And it is close to the native 100-400 at shorter focal lengths. Canon will find it difficult to beat.


----------



## Tom W (May 7, 2017)

200-500 f/5.6 DO IS would be a great hit, especially if it would take a Canon teleconverter. If it can be made reasonably inexpensive. The weight savings would be fantastic.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2017)

AlanF said:


> masterpix said:
> 
> 
> > When I needed a replacement for my old 70-300mm I have done a long research regarding the L 100-400 and the 150-600 of both Tamron and Sigma. Although the last two were very appealing (600mm) the image quality of the first has made up my mind, Seeing images at 300mm, comparing prime lens to the 100-400 and the other two, well it was not really comparable. The 100-400L was more expensive, and it did hurt but the images it brings, worth every dime payed.
> ...



That is not what Brian at TDP found.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0


----------



## ecka (May 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > masterpix said:
> ...



Yes, but you can get those 600mm by cropping them out of 400mm image, easily, with similar (if not better) details. And if you prefer putting your teleconverters to work, then perhaps a 400/5.6L prime is a better tool for the job.


----------



## HankMD (May 7, 2017)

I can live with 200-500 f/5.6 with excellent AF. It'd stop me lusting after Nikon's offer (+D500). As much as I love my 100-400 II with its snappy AF, it can be a bit short for some birds.


----------



## AlanF (May 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > masterpix said:
> ...



I missed out on buying the Sigma earlier on precisely because of TDP in particular and other sites that test just one copy at just one particular distance using just one method. It was only after I borrowed one from the local dealer and found it so good that I bought it. The only reliable site for me is Lensrentals who test 10 samples of each lens on the very best equipment focussed at infinity - perfect for telephotos. 

TDP and other sites should have message in capital letters on each review.

GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING - WE TEST ONLY ONE COPY, YOURS MIGHT BE MUCH WORSE OR MUCH BETTER THAN OURS.


----------



## AlanF (May 7, 2017)

ecka said:


> Yes, but you can get those 600mm by cropping them out of 400mm image, easily, with similar (if not better) details. And if you prefer putting your teleconverters to work, then perhaps a 400/5.6L prime is a better tool for the job.



True that cropping is fine when the image is sufficiently large and you are not pixel limited, and then you won't see much difference between 400 and 600mm, and 400mm might even be better. But, if the image is small and you are pixel limited, then 600mm easily beats 400mm.


----------



## kirbyzhou (May 7, 2017)

Something like a 200-600mm DO? If it is less than 1800g or short than 15cm, it will be a great product.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 7, 2017)

kirbyzhou said:


> Something like a 200-600mm DO? If it is less than 1800g or short than 15cm, it will be a great product.



Less than 15cm??? Boy, you are optimistic 
The old 70-300 DO is already 10cm long...and thats only half the max focal length...
The Tamron and Sigma 150-600 superzooms are 25cm or longer in length.

But a new and improved DO zoom lens would be indeed highly appreciated. 

-Sebastian


----------



## GP.Masserano (May 7, 2017)

*Do you remember what I said a few months ago ??? 
That Canon would have done well to produce a 200-500 (or 600, but not L Not to produce a lens too expensive) to "make war" to Sigma and Tamron!!! 

Foresight???*


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2017)

As the 100-400L II is more compact / sharper / sealed better / better AF than the various 150-600s, I don't see the 3rd party lenses driving Canon to lose much sleep.

But the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR is another animal entirely. It's not _better_ per se, but it's simply longer and cheaper and bolts natively on a very nice D500 for the birding/wildlife crowd.

That's probably what got Canon worked up about the gap in the lineup. Third party lenses have been feeding off of gaps in the Canon portfolio for some time, but Nikon having a great first-party one-two punch for wildlifers like the D500 + 200-500 VR combo is probably what made Canon flip their plans for a 200-600 (or whatever it is) to go from future concept to live project.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> As the 100-400L II is more compact / sharper / sealed better / better AF than the various 150-600s, I don't see the 3rd party lenses driving Canon to lose much sleep.
> 
> But the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR is another animal entirely. It's not _better_ per se, but it's simply longer and cheaper and bolts natively on a very nice D500 for the birding/wildlife crowd.
> 
> ...



Or, there Nikon is severely limited in IQ that doesn't best a cropped Canon 100-400 anyway.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=1052&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Again, if I was in the future projects department of Canon and was looking at what Canon already offer and what the 'competition' offer, I would struggle to give a 200-500 budget tele project any time or money at all.

In summary, for goodness sake stop looking at numbers and start looking at results. Don't forget, for instance, Canon have a 1.6 crop which 'adds' 10mm per 100mm of focal length to any Nikon comparison with their 1.5 crop.


----------



## AlanF (May 7, 2017)

A 1.6x crop gives only 6.66mm of effective focal length per 100mm relative to 1.5xcrop not 10mm.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As the 100-400L II is more compact / sharper / sealed better / better AF than the various 150-600s, I don't see the 3rd party lenses driving Canon to lose much sleep.
> ...



I assume you meant for the 400 to include 1.4X. In that case 560 beats 500 in reach and IQ. Does the 500 take a converter? I would not want that 200-500.

Alan you must have meant 6.6667, no? 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (May 7, 2017)

Jack
It's all garbage anyway because it's not crop factor that gives "effective" reach - it's pixel size. The 50 mpx 5DSR has the same resolution as a 20 mpx Canon crop camera.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 8, 2017)

What about a fixed (non zoom) 600 f/5.6 that is just as sharp as the 600 f/4? It would be smaller and cheaper and it seems to me a big seller.


----------



## Don Haines (May 8, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> What about a fixed (non zoom) 600 f/5.6 that is just as sharp as the 600 f/4? It would be smaller and cheaper and it seems to me a big seller.



Personally, I am far more interested in an affordable long prime than a zoom.... Given the same level of technology and materials, a prime always outperforms a zoom and at a lower cost!


----------



## Ladislav (May 8, 2017)

I would love to have something "affordable" (up to $3k) reaching 500+mm from Canon. 

Many times I was considering selling my 70-300 L and go for 100-400 L Mk. II and I always abandoned that decision. I love compact size and performance of my 70-300 L and that lens is almost always in my bag just to make sure I have some reach when I need it - and I often do. 100-400 with its size and weight is not comfortable replacement for me as it will require removing another lens from my bag to make a space for it. I also cannot justify to have both these lenses - in my opinion, they are too close to each other. 

So anything like 500 prime or 200-500 would be awesome - I would carry that lens only when I knew I would use it. That would remove most of restriction on size on weight. I would strongly prefer if the lens is close in performance and features to current 100-400 Mk. II (that means L glass). But I'm afraid there is not much reasoning for Canon to make anything similar to my expectations in that price range.

Just to make it clear - I can't afford big white.


----------



## neonlight (May 8, 2017)

If I am not mistaken the first rumours mentioned non-L. I'd welcome a 150-500 or something f/5.6, as I often seem to be using the 1.4x with 100-400 II. I agree a 600f/5.6 will be expensive or if not won't get close to L performance, but let's hope it is better than Tamron/Sigma. Could have an extender (150-500 f/5.6 native with 1.4x might work as long as it is at least as sharp as T/S with the extender in line). But that might top it out at over $3000/£3000?

BTW I don't think a 600 f/5.6 will ever be as sharp as the 600 f/4... due to diffraction, but it might be cheaper...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2017)

neonlight said:


> BTW I don't think a 600 f/5.6 will ever be as sharp as the 600 f/4... due to diffraction, but it might be cheaper...



Cheaper, but not cheap...


----------



## arbitrage (May 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> neonlight said:
> 
> 
> > BTW I don't think a 600 f/5.6 will ever be as sharp as the 600 f/4... due to diffraction, but it might be cheaper...
> ...



Exactly, based off of front element size of 107mm (same as 300/2.8)we would be looking at 300/2.8 prices. Currently 6K USD!!


----------



## GP.Masserano (May 8, 2017)

I believe that the right choice would be a f5,6 200-500 (true 5,6, not a f6,3 camouflaged...), possibly to use in f8 with 1.4x (with cameras that allow it, as the 80D ecc)
Not a 100-500 which would overlap the 100-400mkII. 
And not a 200-600 that would be too heavy and expensive
The frontal lens would be of "human" size, the optical scheme not too complex and the weight acceptable.
On the other hand, anyone who wants to do photos to birds is already accustomed to a weight of 2 kilos and more...

GP


----------



## camerone (May 9, 2017)

something like Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6 would be great, especially if it maybe went beyond 500mm. Just make it out of metal, stuff in great IS, paint it white and there you go.


----------



## Plainsman (May 9, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> What about a fixed (non zoom) 600 f/5.6 that is just as sharp as the 600 f/4? It would be smaller and cheaper and it seems to me a big seller.



...actually a 500/5.6 would be far more useful, cheaper, lighter etc., BUT the days of the big primes must be slowly coming to an end to be replaced by DO zooms e.g. 400-600/4 DO - so that Canon/Nikon can reduce and rationalise their production lines.


----------



## kaihp (May 9, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > neonlight said:
> ...



I think an x-600 f/5.6L zoom at 6K might be interesting. Canon has the range up to 400mm well covered (100-400, 200-400), so even a 300-600 or 400-600 might make sense.

Compared to a 150-600mm design, would increasing the lower FL to, say, 300m yield a cost saving at all? - the optical formula could probably be improved due to the shorter zoom range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2017)

kaihp said:


> I think an x-600 f/5.6L zoom at 6K might be interesting. Canon has the range up to 400mm well covered (100-400, 200-400), so even a 300-600 or 400-600 might make sense.



The 200-400L goes to 560mm f/5.6 with the built-in TC, so it would seem an L zoom going 600mm f/5.6 wouldn't add much, unless it was substantially cheaper.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 9, 2017)

you're all talking about 3k or 6k as being "reasonable" or "appealing"..but for who??

the tamron and sigma C are somewhere around 1k while the sigma S and the nikon 200-500 are ~1.4k
canon's offering is still 2k and stops at 400mm, if you add the 1.4x then that's another 450€! well outside of the "budget" or "reasonable" definitions.

if this rumor is about a tele zoom then it will be about something to compete with the nikon, so most probably the same 200-500 range and 5.6 aperture, non-L, plastic etc. AND (can i make this bigger) in the same price range!!! (1.5k)


----------



## kaihp (May 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > I think an x-600 f/5.6L zoom at 6K might be interesting. Canon has the range up to 400mm well covered (100-400, 200-400), so even a 300-600 or 400-600 might make sense.
> ...


CPW says the street price for the 200-400L is 10K USD. Maybe I'm delusionary, but in my book 40% lower cost is 'substantially cheaper'. YMMV.

Neuro, you understand how a lot of this optics stuff scales: what's your swag at how much cheaper a 300-600mm would be vs a 150-600mm (everything else equal of course)?


----------



## ahsanford (May 9, 2017)

kaihp said:


> CPW says the street price for the 200-400L is 10K USD. Maybe I'm delusionary, but in my book 40% lower cost is 'substantially cheaper'. YMMV.
> 
> Neuro, you understand how a lot of this optics stuff scales: what's your swag at how much cheaper a 300-600mm would be vs a 150-600mm (everything else equal of course)?



I defer to the optical folks, but to answer your question, perhaps we could consider the comparison of the 28-300L vs. the 70-300L. Both are 300mm f/5.6L on the long end, though in fairness they were not developed at the same time.

So 28-70mm use on the 28-300 'costs' you a 2" longer lens that is substantially heavier and demonstrably less sharp, but it only takes 3 more elements and 2 more groups over the 70-300L to pull that off.

I've always been of the belief the main drivers for cost and weight in a zoom are [longest FL] and [max aperture], whereas the zoom multiplier punishes _sharpness_ more than cost. The 24-70 f/4 vs. 24-105 f/4 debate would certainly back that up as well.

But what do I know? The 28-300L costs a lot more than the 70-300L, but that might be for unique market reasons -- stills folks hate the resolution on that 28-300L, but video folks don't mind that at all. Perhaps Canon overcharges for that one _because it can_.

But again, I defer to those who live in the optics world or take this stuff apart for a living. Curious to hear their insights.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > CPW says the street price for the 200-400L is 10K USD. Maybe I'm delusionary, but in my book 40% lower cost is 'substantially cheaper'. YMMV.
> ...



Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k. 

I don't think a 300-600 would be significantly cheaper than a 150-600, the long and drives the cost. The lens with thr narrower zoom range (300-600) would deliver better IQ (mainly due to lower distortion). 

The 28-300 versus 70-300 is not a fair comparison, the former goes from wide angle to telephoto where is the latter is a telephoto zoom only. The optical challenge of the former is much greater.


----------



## neonlight (May 10, 2017)

Oh dear... Still working on DO improvements. First was the DO. Then the DO II with gunk between two DO elements. Now we've got aluminium oxide on the sharp bits ... all I see is improvements needed to the basic technology that adds costs. For me I hoped DO will provide cheaper/better/lighter but when fighting optics to counteract the downsides I wonder whether DO is really the answer ... :-[


----------



## kaihp (May 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k.
> 
> I don't think a 300-600 would be significantly cheaper than a 150-600, the long and drives the cost. The lens with thr narrower zoom range (300-600) would deliver better IQ (mainly due to lower distortion).



So you're saying that a zoom with 600/5.6 in the long end is likely to be more than $6k, right? Bummer 

Thanks for confirming my gut feeling/intution about the cost/IQ driver.


----------



## tron (May 10, 2017)

kaihp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k.
> ...


If that will be the price then I would rather see a 600 5.6 DO lens. I know that a 600 4 DO is probably on schedule but a 5.6 DO version would have size (front element diameter) and weight advantages vs the f/4 DO and size (length) and IQ advantage vs the f/5.6 zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2017)

kaihp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, $10k vs $6k is certainly substantial. However, I'm not sure an L zoom going natively to 600/5.6 would be $6k.
> ...



I believe so. Consider that a zoom lens going to 600/5.6 will have the same 'business end' as the 300/2.8, which costs $6K without the optics needed for a zoom and the additional length.


----------



## neonlight (May 10, 2017)

A 500 f/5.6 needs a 90mm front element. A 600 f/6.3 needs 95mm. Could this lens could be a 150-500 f/5.6 with extender? Although it might be a 200-600 f/something-f/6.3 that won't be very unique... and a 600 f/5.6 will cost too much.


----------



## swkitt (May 10, 2017)

A 500mm at the long end will be enough, people will not prefer a Sigma or Tammy for just 100mm of extra lenght, while they do when all Canon can offer is a 100-400.
What Canon needs in terms of marketing is a 150 or 200-500, at a reasonnable price (compare to the Nikon and 150-600 zooms available from third party).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2017)

neonlight said:


> A 500 f/5.6 needs a 90mm front element. A 600 f/6.3 needs 95mm. Could this lens could be a 150-500 f/5.6 with extender? Although it might be a 200-600 f/something-f/6.3 that won't be very unique... and a 600 f/5.6 will cost too much.



I don't see Canon coming out with an f/6.3 zoom lens for dSLRs, given their oft-stated requirement for f/5.6 to support AF.


----------



## ahsanford (May 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> neonlight said:
> 
> 
> > A 500 f/5.6 needs a 90mm front element. A 600 f/6.3 needs 95mm. Could this lens could be a 150-500 f/5.6 with extender? Although it might be a 200-600 f/something-f/6.3 that won't be very unique... and a 600 f/5.6 will cost too much.
> ...



Right. So that leaves us with...


*Something - 500mm f/5.6* -- the more reasonable Nikon-like offering that would keep the front element small and the price down (somewhat)


*Something - 600mm f/5.6* -- this would cost a nontrivial chunk of change and likely price Canon a soid 2-3x above the other options out there.


*Something - 400mm f/5.6 with an in-line 1.4x* -- this would keep the size / cost down, but the effective 560mm f/8 would (a) violate the f/5.6 EF lens rule, and (b) have the typical drawbacks of teleconverters -- slower AF, limited AF points usable, altogether not working with AF through the viewfinder on some older bodies. 


*Something - 400mm f/4 with an in-line 1.4x* -- Effectively, a 'budget' flavor of a $12k lens at the same max aperture. Though it would satisfy the f/5.6 rule, I just can't see Canon undermining a big white with a same-speed lesser option. _And it wouldn't be that inexpensive anyway_ -- compare Canon's 400 f/4 vs. 400 f/5.6 today.

My money's on the first option presently. Nikon hit the budget / long sweet spot with that one and it satisfies the f/5.6 rule.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> *Something - 500mm f/5.6* -- the more reasonable Nikon-like offering that would keep the front element small and the price down (somewhat)
> 
> 
> 
> *Something - 400mm f/5.6 with an in-line 1.4x* -- this would keep the size / cost down, but the effective 560mm f/8 would (a) violate the f/5.6 EF lens rule, and (b) have the typical drawbacks of teleconverters -- slower AF, limited AF points usable, altogether not working with AF through the viewfinder on some older bodies.



I could see either of these, but the first is much more likely. Given that f/8 phase AF has moved from 1-series only to the xxD series, the latter is a possibility because the lens will natively AF on many bodies.


----------



## unfocused (May 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> neonlight said:
> 
> 
> > A 500 f/5.6 needs a 90mm front element. A 600 f/6.3 needs 95mm. Could this lens could be a 150-500 f/5.6 with extender? Although it might be a 200-600 f/something-f/6.3 that won't be very unique... and a 600 f/5.6 will cost too much.
> ...



While I tend to agree, I don't think it can be entirely discounted. There is a reason Canon has been adding multiple f8 focus points to every one of its enthusiast and pro-level cameras. I believe the main reason is to make the 100-400 with a 1.4 teleconverter more competitive. 

But, I am also open to the possibility that it would allow them to make a slower superzoom (although they would have to wait until the 7DIII -- perhaps releasing them simultaneously).

I'd be curious if any of the Canon statements you've referenced have been made within the last six months to a year.

Still, I am personally rooting for a 200-500 f5.6 zoom. If it materializes it won't be a "bargain" lens (I just don't seem Canon competing for that segment). They will paint it white, put a red ring around it and sell it for somewhere in the $2,500 to $3,000 range. And, birders will be lining up to buy it. 

I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.


----------



## ahsanford (May 10, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.



I appreciate it's only been done on one very expensive lens, but why must that mean that it's _only_ going to be a very expensive lens?

Wouldn't an in-line 1.4x be a clever way to keep the front element size/weight/cost down? Why not implement one in a cheaper lens?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2017)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > neonlight said:
> ...



Fair point - they've been talking up f/8 AF lately. But if we're talking about a price-competitive lens in the range of the 3rd party 150-600mm and Nikon 200-500mm lenses, I only see that coming in at slower than f/5.6 if f/8 AF is available on Rebel/xxxD level bodies.


----------



## Don Haines (May 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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


But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and a lying F5.6 to older bodies that do not....


----------



## Haulien (May 10, 2017)

Back in the FD days canon made a fixed aperture 150-600 f/5.6L. Wonder how much it cost back then. 

It used to have a slide mechanism for zooming, wonder if we'll see such a thing again for a massive zoom range/lens.


----------



## unfocused (May 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think the fantasies about an in-line 1.4x are just fantasies. They will reserve that feature for a $10,000-plus lens.
> ...



I'm not an engineer or lens designer, but I note that the 200-400 with 1.4x is more expensive than any other 400mm lens, including the f2.8 version. It's also more expensive than the 500mm f4. I don't think pricing decisions are totally arbitrary, so I suspect that engineering and manufacturing the 200-400 was not a cheap date. I'm also not aware of any other manufacturer rushing (or even strolling) into this market niche. Knowing also that the extender on the 200-400 was specifically designed for the lens, all leads me to conclude that adding this feature to a cheaper lens would make the lens not so cheap.


----------



## ethanz (May 10, 2017)

unfocused said:


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



Bingo. There is so much going on in the 200-400. It is priced that high for reasons other than Canon being greedy. It is such a great lens. If this rumored lens is supposed to be "cheaper," no one should expect it to be anything close to the quality, etc of the 200-400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and *a lying F5.6 to older bodies* that do not....



Yeah......no. Not going to happen.


----------



## ecka (May 10, 2017)

AlanF said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but you can get those 600mm by cropping them out of 400mm image, easily, with similar (if not better) details. And if you prefer putting your teleconverters to work, then perhaps a 400/5.6L prime is a better tool for the job.
> ...



You might be pixel limited with 400mm, but you are crop limited with Tamrons 600mm due to lack of sharpness. So, you are limited either way, except when 400mm is enough. However, from my experience, most of the time, having a longer lens means less cropping in post, but the cropping is still involved (because no lens is long enough for everything). And having 600mm which you cannot crop as much as 400mm makes them pretty much equal.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2017)

A 600mm lens gives 50% more linear magnification than a 400mm. For the increase in length to be negated by a dropping of resolution, the MTFs would have to drop by 33% at 600mm. The higher frequency MTFs could drop by that amount for a poor copy of the lens but good copies it seems from looking at various measurements available appear to drop by about 15-20%. It's similarly true for putting on a 1.4xTC - low frequency MTFs on the 100-400mm II drop by about 10% and higher frequency 20%. In practice, the relative merits of 400vs600mm with the Sigma and 400 vs 560mm with the Canon depend on the lighting and sensor. Under good conditions, the longer focal lengths are better for my gear, but I am happy not to use the extender on the 100-400mm on the 5DSR as f5.6 is better than f/8. With the 5DIV, I tend to use longer focal lengths.


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > But remember, Tamron and Sigma F6.3 lenses work on Canon bodies.... There is absolutely no reason why Canon can not come out with a F6.3 lens that does the same. They could even make a lens that reports a truthful F6.3 when hooked up to bodies that support F8, and *a lying F5.6 to older bodies* that do not....
> ...



I would not absolutely say no, it is a possibility. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility....


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Canon has a 100-400 zoom..... A something to 500 zoom is not that significant of a difference to warrant a new lens..

Canon has a fast 200-400 (560) zoom.... a something to 600 zoom at F5.6 is also not a significant enough difference.....

What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6???? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....


----------



## Fleetie (May 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6? ??? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....


It'd be bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the 800/5.6L.


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Fleetie said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6? ??? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....
> ...


I think that with DO tech, they could make it slightly lighter, a bit shorter, and a LOT! more expensive.... perhaps 16K or 17K US..... After all, the Sigma 300-800 is 8K US, so slap on a Canon label and add in DO and you should be able to double the price....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



It is a possibility that Canon HQ will be destroyed by an asteroid. Personally, I think it is unlikely, but it is a possibility....


----------



## ecka (May 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


> A 600mm lens gives 50% more linear magnification than a 400mm. For the increase in length to be negated by a dropping of resolution, the MTFs would have to drop by 33% at 600mm. The higher frequency MTFs could drop by that amount for a poor copy of the lens but good copies it seems from looking at various measurements available appear to drop by about 15-20%. It's similarly true for putting on a 1.4xTC - low frequency MTFs on the 100-400mm II drop by about 10% and higher frequency 20%. In practice, the relative merits of 400vs600mm with the Sigma and 400 vs 560mm with the Canon depend on the lighting and sensor. Under good conditions, the longer focal lengths are better for my gear, but I am happy not to use the extender on the 100-400mm on the 5DSR as f5.6 is better than f/8. With the 5DIV, I tend to use longer focal lengths.



Just look at it 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## Jopa (May 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It's Japan - Godzilla is a way more serious threat than an asteroid.


----------



## Jopa (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > A 600mm lens gives 50% more linear magnification than a 400mm. For the increase in length to be negated by a dropping of resolution, the MTFs would have to drop by 33% at 600mm. The higher frequency MTFs could drop by that amount for a poor copy of the lens but good copies it seems from looking at various measurements available appear to drop by about 15-20%. It's similarly true for putting on a 1.4xTC - low frequency MTFs on the 100-400mm II drop by about 10% and higher frequency 20%. In practice, the relative merits of 400vs600mm with the Sigma and 400 vs 560mm with the Canon depend on the lighting and sensor. Under good conditions, the longer focal lengths are better for my gear, but I am happy not to use the extender on the 100-400mm on the 5DSR as f5.6 is better than f/8. With the 5DIV, I tend to use longer focal lengths.
> ...



Wow, very impressive- even with the 1.4tc the canon is sharper: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


----------



## andrei1989 (May 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Canon has a 100-400 zoom..... A something to 500 zoom is not that significant of a difference to warrant a new lens..
> 
> Canon has a fast 200-400 (560) zoom.... a something to 600 zoom at F5.6 is also not a significant enough difference.....
> 
> What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6???? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....



nikon also have an 80-400 yet they still made a new 200-500...so why not canon?


----------



## ahsanford (May 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Canon has a 100-400 zoom..... A something to 500 zoom is not that significant of a difference to warrant a new lens..
> 
> Canon has a fast 200-400 (560) zoom.... a something to 600 zoom at F5.6 is also not a significant enough difference.....
> 
> What about a 400-800 zoom at F5.6???? Yes, it would be ridiculously expensive, but so are all the other big whites.....



This about an inexpensive new class of lens.  Overlap is the last thing on Canon's mind with this. This might not even be an L lens, keep in mind. Imagine a (much) larger version of the recent non-L 70-300 IS nano USM, for instance.

Canon has to decide if it merely needs to be 'in the neighborhood' here (a longer version of the 100-400L II magically around $3k) or if it must more directly go toe-to-toe with a near-Nikon price point (strip it down for cost and keep it bone simple). We shall see.

- A


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...Canon has to decide if it merely needs to be 'in the neighborhood' here (a longer version of the 100-400L II magically around $3k) or if it must more directly go toe-to-toe with a near-Nikon price point (strip it down for cost and keep it bone simple). We shall see.



I think that's a nice summation of the choices. Although I'm not sure why you say "magically" around $3K. Do you believe Canon could not produce a 200-500 "L" 5.6 for around $3,000? I have no idea, but just looking at the cost of the 100-400 "L" it doesn't seem like adding a more than 50% premium to the price is unreasonably optimistic. 

From a marketing standpoint, I'm guessing that a $3,000 zoom that is of comparable quality to the 100-400 zoom would sell very well to birders, especially with a new 7DIII that has multiple f8 focusing points and new sensor technology. 

As you say, it all depends on what Canon's research shows. Compete head-to-head against the bargain long lenses or go for a higher quality more costly lens that appeals to enthusiasts who don't want to sacrifice quality. My gut tells me Canon is more likely to choose the latter, but of course none of us knows.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Canon has to decide if it merely needs to be 'in the neighborhood' here (a longer version of the 100-400L II magically around $3k) or if it must more directly go toe-to-toe with a near-Nikon price point (strip it down for cost and keep it bone simple). We shall see.



It will likely depend in part on the success (or lack thereof) of the Nikon 200-500/5.6.


----------



## ahsanford (May 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> It will likely depend in part on the success (or lack thereof) of the Nikon 200-500/5.6.



Yep, I still think any activity from Canon here is more about Nikon than Sigma or Tamron. Unfortunately, 200-500 sales is not a terribly public piece of data. 

So Canon, I'm sure, has been monitoring _their own _sales for a the 'canary in the mine' for the potential of the D500 + 200-500 actually stealing enthusiast wildlifers/birders away.

My guess of that canary are the sales of the 7D2 and (to a lesser degree) the 100-400L II, but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## 9VIII (May 11, 2017)

I still say the 600mm Superzooms are a false flag, they don't perform that much better, if at all, than Canon's 400mm lenses. 
They're also huge lenses.

What I'm excited to see is Sigma's new 100-400.
The Superzooms all drop sharpness dramatically after 400mm anyway, if Sigma can get the same or better performace at 400mm out of a smaller lens, it's basically going to make all the other lenses obsolete (in size, performance, and cost), and take most of the wind out of Canon's 100-400.


----------



## ecka (May 11, 2017)

9VIII said:


> I still say the 600mm Superzooms are a false flag, they don't perform that much better, if at all, than Canon's 400mm lenses.
> They're also huge lenses.
> 
> What I'm excited to see is Sigma's new 100-400.
> The Superzooms all drop sharpness dramatically after 400mm anyway, if Sigma can get the same or better performace at 400mm out of a smaller lens, it's basically going to make all the other lenses obsolete (in size, performance, and cost), and take most of the wind out of Canon's 100-400.



An affordable 100-300F4 (maybe as a replacement for the 70-200F4) would make me happy.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > *Something - 500mm f/5.6* -- the more reasonable Nikon-like offering that would keep the front element small and the price down (somewhat)
> ...



How wedded is Canon to the traditional FL measurements? I know the actual FL is often a bit off from the marked one, but could and would Canon do something like make an X-520mm/5.6 zoom (MARKED as 520) to just twist the dagger a little bit? It would keep the front element under 100mm but still one-up the Nikon (and maybe help justify a higher price).


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> An affordable 100-300F4 (maybe as a replacement for the 70-200F4) would make me happy.



A few years ago I had a Sigma 100-300 f4 (constant aperture) that I bought used. It was a good lens - had a really nice feel and balance and was surprisingly sharp for an older style Sigma. I really liked it but after a couple years the autofocus stopped working and the repair places said parts were no longer available.

My guess as to why no one makes this any more is that people are more inclined to buy a 70-200 f2.8L and just put on a 1.4x extender to equal what you are describing.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 11, 2017)

As I have said before, I think a 600 f5.6L that is just as sharp but more affordable (and lighter) than the f4L would sell like crazy. I know I would be interested.


----------



## ahsanford (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> An affordable 100-300F4 (maybe as a replacement for the 70-200F4) would make me happy.



Not going to happen, IMHO.

Right now, we have a choice of:

70-200 f/2.8 --> pro staple tool
70-200 f/4 --> stellar IQ short tele that doesn't cost a mint (best value L lens out there?)
(your possible 100-300 f/4L would fall about here)
70-300L or 70-300 DO --> what folks with much nicer lenses take when they go on vacation :
70-300 non-L (the recent Nano USM) --> a cheaper take on the L or DO lens, an 'EF-S 15-85 short tele', if you will
75-300 non-L --> dirt cheap lenses

...so I just don't see Canon putting out a lens that would straddle the 70-300 / 100-400 span with a fixed max aperture that neither the 100-400L II or the 70-300L were afforded. 

(That said, Sigma loves to make nutty 'tweeners' like this: a 50-150 fast zoom for crop, a 120-300 f/2.8 for FF, etc.)

Nor do I see Canon updating the 70-200 f/4 with a 100-300 replacement, because Canon _loves to sell small and light f/4 IS zooms alongside identical FL range f/2.8 pro zooms_ (see 24-70, see 16-35, and 70-200 of course had four versions being sold simultaneously at one point). So, no, I see a straight update to the 70-200 lenses rather than a change in FL with a future replacement.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Yep, I still think any activity from Canon here is more about Nikon than Sigma or Tamron. Unfortunately, 200-500 sales is not a terribly public piece of data.
> 
> ...the 'canary in the mine'...



I will point out that the canary is a little bird. As in, 'a little bird told me'. Macy's never told Gimbel's, but Gimbel's found out anyway. Corporate espionage Market research is faring much better than proverbial canaries in coal mines, so I'm pretty sure that Canon has or can obtain a reasonable estimate of Nikon 200-500 unit sales, if they want those data.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2017)

There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different. So, I just popped out into my garden where I have some charts on A4 paper that are stuck to a wall and left out all year and get soaking wet periodically and did a quick comparison.

Here are some crops from shots at 27.5m away, taken on the 5DSR in RAW with no processing other than USM 100% 0.9 pixels. The lines on the charts test the resolution at the pixel limits. Despite the crude set up and some shake at low shutter speeds, you can see quite clearly that my Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm is slightly out performing my canon 100-400mm II at 400mm in terms of resolution. At 600mm, the Sigma is clearly outresolving the 400mms, and there is absolutely no way the 400s compete with 600mm. And, at 600mm, the Sigma is rivalling my 400mm DO II + 1.4x TC. OK, they are just the results from my copies of those lenses. Look at lensrentals comparison of 10 copies of the Sigma at 400mm with the Canon II, and there isn't much between them, and copy variation within makes is more important than difference between makes.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

Top to bottom: Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm 1/250s f/5.6; Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm 1/250s f/6.3; 600mm 1/200s f/6.3; and the DO II at 560mm, 1/320s f/5.6. They are resolving close to the theoretical limts for their focal lengths and 27.5m distance.

At 388 and 400mm, neither can resolve the 1.8 lines/mm circles at the bottom, but they are clearly resolved at 560 and 600mm. You have to click on them to see the differences as the compression on the site makes them all look the same.


----------



## kaihp (May 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


> So, I just popped out into my garden where I have some charts on A4 paper that are stuck to a wall and left out all year and get soaking wet periodically and did a quick comparison.



"Please don't confuse me with your data" ;D ;D ;D

Ahem, more seriously: thanks for injecting some data into the discussion, AlanF.


----------



## ecka (May 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > An affordable 100-300F4 (maybe as a replacement for the 70-200F4) would make me happy.
> ...



Well, currently, the 70-200F4L would be my choice for both, budget and travel short tele. While the sub-$500 non-L options seem like a waste of money really. So, an updated 70-200F4L IS II is very much welcome, if they'll keep the old price  or at least add something extra, like a lens collar, or closer focusing (some kind of pseudo-macro mode).
Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.



For travel. The 70-300L's shorter retracted length allows it to fit 'vertically' in a typical photo backpack, whereas the 70-200/4 needs to lay 'flat' and take up two slots; the 100-400 is too big for a travel zoom, IMO.


----------



## ahsanford (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.



It's the 'I am bringing less volume of gear on a family vaca' sort of lens. 

That's zero knock on the 70-300L as a fine optical instrument -- I'm just saying that it is often used as a travel lens due to its size. L quality + 300mm reach + not very big for $1349 is a fairly compelling offering

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.
> ...



Was waiting for you there, Neuro. Rumor has it you spoon with that thing at night.

- A


----------



## ecka (May 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different. So, I just popped out into my garden where I have some charts on A4 paper that are stuck to a wall and left out all year and get soaking wet periodically and did a quick comparison.
> 
> Here are some crops from shots at 27.5m away, taken on the 5DSR in RAW with no processing other than USM 100% 0.9 pixels. The lines on the charts test the resolution at the pixel limits. Despite the crude set up and some shake at low shutter speeds, you can see quite clearly that my Sigma 150-600mm C at 388mm is slightly out performing my canon 100-400mm II at 400mm in terms of resolution. At 600mm, the Sigma is clearly outresolving the 400mms, and there is absolutely no way the 400s compete with 600mm. And, at 600mm, the Sigma is rivalling my 400mm DO II + 1.4x TC. OK, they are just the results from my copies of those lenses. Look at lensrentals comparison of 10 copies of the Sigma at 400mm with the Canon II, and there isn't much between them, and copy variation within makes is more important than difference between makes.
> 
> ...



Was the IS on? Tripod? AF?
May I ask for RAW images, please?


----------



## ecka (May 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.
> ...



I guess some folks are choosing lenses for their backpacks, while other folks are choosing backpacks for their lenses . IMHO, if 70-300L is enough, then 70-200F4L can do even better + it is lighter. Now, honestly, if it is not a photography oriented trip, then I wouldn't take any of these L lenses. Otherwise, it is the 70-200F4L for me, or the 100-400L'II if I decide to become a professional photographer .


----------



## ecka (May 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.
> ...



Still, how is it better than the 70-200F4L? Which is a lighter lens of similar volume.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2017)

Ecka: yes, yes, yes and yes. I have done these tests over and over again in different ways, sometimes with liveview, sometimes hand-held with speeds of 1/2000s or faster, and at various distances and I always get the same trends. Sometimes the 100-400 II is better than the Sigma at 388, sometimes the other way around. But, always there is a stark improvement in resolution on going to 560mm with the DO II or 600mm with the Sigma. The 300/2.8II + 2xTC is also very similar to the Sigma at 600.

Here is a Nikon 200-500 vs Sigma 150-600mm C vs Sport vs Tamron where the C is very close to the Nikon and better than the Sport and Tamron.

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-nikkor-af-s-200-500mm-f5-6e-ed-vr-review/

and another similar review for the lenses pointing out the C is sharp in the centre throughout the focal length range.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c/

TDP has the 200-500 very soft! Other reviews give different results for all the lenses. The only thing that counts is your lens on your body under your conditions of use.


----------



## ahsanford (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



You know. That whole bit about covering 201-300mm. 

Some folks prefer 24-70 f/4, while others prefer 24-105 f/4. It's a vaguely similar debate with 70-200 vs. 70-300, but of course the 70-300 is both variable aperture and externally zooming (which helps keep it so small).

- A


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Neuro is correct. Every lens has its purpose. 70-200 f2.8 perfect for indoor sports. 70-300 perfect for traveling when you need to meet personal and airline weight and space needs. 100-400 perfect for wildlife and bird oriented vacations (unless you can manage a big white -- but that creates all sorts of other carrying complications.)

I own all three and use them accordingly. I would never use the 100-400 when on vacation in a city or countryside, where I'm unlikely to encounter wildlife to shoot and carrying it around is going to make me miserable after a few hours. For me, a 70-200 is too short for a do-it-all vacation zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2017)

ecka said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



And now you know why Canon offers so many 70-xxx telezooms. 

Incidentally, the 70-200/4 does very poorly in the 200-300mm range, which makes it far from "do even better" (unless you add a TC, in which case you can throw your lighter argument out the window, unless you really feel that 65 g makes a difference). 

Personally, with three young kids I do not have the opportunity for trips oriented solely toward photography. But on a trip to France with the family, or a business trip to Italy, I want the best quality images that I can get with the time I have. That usually means L lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Every lens has its purpose. 70-200 f2.8 perfect for indoor sports *and a jillion other things*. 70-300 perfect for traveling when you need to meet personal and airline weight and space needs. 100-400 perfect for wildlife and bird oriented vacations (unless you can manage a big white -- but that creates all sorts of other carrying complications.)



*Corrected *your post above. 

- A


----------



## ecka (May 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes, I've heard the same thing about the 70-300L, pretty often actually ... about its 150-200mm sweet spot. And theres that thing about sweet spots in zooms - if there is one, for me it becomes a prime lens  (and I already have my APO150F2.8Macro).
Aren't you bringing a TC for your 70-300L anyways? Oh, wait, I remember now, it doesn't really support those 
Some say that the new 70-300 IS II is very close to 70-300L IQ-wise, so, you know ...
I think maybe something like EF-S 55-250 STM could work for a family vacation with a small Point&Shoot DSLR  (Rebel series) or a mirrorless M.


----------



## ecka (May 12, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



For each his own. I guess it all depends on what kind of a trip you are going to.
But seriously ... the 200F4 is too short and 300F5.6 is fine? Whaaat?.. ??? Why not just use a TC?


----------



## ecka (May 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



OK, but I'm not seeing the smallness of the 70-300L there. One is tall and thin. The other is short, fat and weights over 1kg, which is why I'm considering the 100-400L'II as a better choice.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 12, 2017)

ecka said:


> OK, but I'm not seeing the smallness of the 70-300L there. One is tall and thin. The other is short, fat and weights over 1kg, which is why I'm considering the 100-400L'II as a better choice.



The "smallness" of the variable aperture 70-300 is in the height (not the weight or girth). It is not "tall and thin" like the other one, as you observe. In a small camera bag this can make the difference. Assuming neither lens is attached to a body when you store it, the 70-300 will fit *sitting upright* in a regular compartment whereas the 100-400 must lay flat, taking the equivalent space of two smaller compartments. For the record I still use the 100-400 myself.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2017)

ecka said:


> Yes, I've heard the same thing about the 70-300L, pretty often actually ... about its 150-200mm sweet spot.



Well, I'm not sure who you're listening to, but what has your own experience with the 70-300L been like? Oh, you have none? Yeah, I figured as much. 




ecka said:


> For each his own. I guess it all depends on what kind of a trip you are going to.
> But seriously ... the 200F4 is too short and 300F5.6 is fine? Whaaat?.. ??? Why not just use a TC?



You must have a magical, weightless and collapsible 1.4x TC, because you continue to compare the 70-300L to the 70-200/4L + 1.4x as if the TC adds neither weight nor size. 

Why not just use a TC? Oh my, 200mm is too short. Here, let me dig the TC out of my bag, juggle the removal of the lens and mount the TC then remount the lens. Hey, wait...what happened to blue hour?!? Damn, I missed it. Oh well, I'll just take the shot tomorrow. Except I'll be on a plane then.


----------



## ecka (May 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I've heard the same thing about the 70-300L, pretty often actually ... about its 150-200mm sweet spot.
> ...



 you are funny 
Can't you just put it on and leave it there? It wouldn't hurt more than using the 70-300L anyways.
Perhaps the 70-200F4L with a TC is close to 70-300L in size, volume and price. I just don't have the need for a separate tele lens for each and every purpose, which I believe is your way of doing it (not judging).
I thought your "bag" is nicely organized. Turns out you have to dig for things when you need them. Not cool, Neuro 
Still, I think 200F4 is enough for non-wildlife. If it's not, then (for me) the first thing to do is to get a 5DsR, not a heavier lens. Maybe even a smaller one with a crop camera, like 80D + 55-250 STM combo (400mm equivalent), which would weight (and cost) about as much as the 70-300L alone.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why not just use a TC? Oh my, 200mm is too short. Here, let me dig the TC out of my bag, juggle the removal of the lens and mount the TC then remount the lens. Hey, wait...what happened to blue hour?!? Damn, I missed it.



Not to mention that T/Cs nerf your AF. Even at a resultant f/5.6, I'd love to see a speed test on how quickly and accurately the T/C performs compared to another USM L lens sans teleconverter.

I'm not saying the longer FL multiplier lens always wins -- I generally prefer shorter FL multipliers for better IQ myself. But sometimes convenience, size in your bag, and long end reach is worth the compromise.

And travel/vaca is _exactly _that time, IMHO. 

- A


----------



## ecka (May 12, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > OK, but I'm not seeing the smallness of the 70-300L there. One is tall and thin. The other is short, fat and weights over 1kg, which is why I'm considering the 100-400L'II as a better choice.
> ...



Depends on the bag. I think it is wrong to buy lenses for your bag, rather than a proper bag for your lenses. I can put my Bugma in my bag with the lens hood on it (well, you can't do that trick with fiddly Canon hoods) + another 2 or 3 primes if I need them, and it's not a backpack.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2017)

ecka said:


> Can't you just put it on and leave it there? It wouldn't hurt more than using the 70-300L anyways.



And then need to remove it for the 70-100mm range, or swap lenses to the 24-70? The point is to maximize flexibility, and unquestionably the 70-300L does that better than the 70-200±1.4x over that range. 




ecka said:


> Still, I think 200F4 is enough for non-wildlife. If it's not, then (for me) the first thing to do is to get a 5DsR, not a heavier lens. Maybe even a smaller one with a crop camera, like 80D + 55-250 STM combo (400mm equivalent), which would weight (and cost) about as much as the 70-300L alone.



Carrying two full-size dSLRs on a trip doesn't make much sense (a backup body is nice, but one of the small EOS M bodies does that effectively). For reasons of both image quality and wide angle use, the main camera needs to be full frame. A 5Ds is actually a good option (not certain about the R personally, given the amount of architecture that I shoot and the potential for moiré). 




ecka said:


> Depends on the bag. I think it is wrong to buy lenses for your bag, rather than a proper bag for your lenses. I can put my Bugma in my bag with the lens hood on it (well, you can't do that trick with fiddly Canon hoods) + another 2 or 3 primes if I need them, and it's not a backpack.



It's not about buying lenses to fit a bag, that is a silly contention (one that you have made more than once). The problem is, a bag with compartments deep enough to hold a 70-200/4 vertically means a couple of inches of wasted headroom above any standard lens (and I usually carry 2-3 of those), whereas the 70-300L fits in a compartment that holds standard lenses with a minimum of wasted space. If you want to carry around a needlessly bulky bag full of wasted space, that's your choice. Personally, I abhor wasted space in a camera bag (which is why I have a backpack for 3-4 lenses, a backpack for 5-6 lenses, a backpack for 2-3 lenses plus a laptop, a modular system for a camera with one lens of varying size to which I can add a lens case or a flash pouch, etc.).


----------



## ecka (May 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you just put it on and leave it there? It wouldn't hurt more than using the 70-300L anyways.
> ...



And what do you do when you need something longer than 300mm? Well, you may say that you don't need more than 300mm. But this is exactly how I feel about the 200-300mm range. Only I have the TC option.



> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Still, I think 200F4 is enough for non-wildlife. If it's not, then (for me) the first thing to do is to get a 5DsR, not a heavier lens. Maybe even a smaller one with a crop camera, like 80D + 55-250 STM combo (400mm equivalent), which would weight (and cost) about as much as the 70-300L alone.
> ...



Yes, you can put it on M, if you like. But, who said anything about "two full-size dSLRs"? Not me, I only need one. I meant 'instead'. Full frame is very much preferable, but when you have to make a compromise you don't have many options - to lug a heavy cannon, or to crop it and accept lower quality. I don't think that 5DsR would spoil anything. Even if you don't crop it, those high-res images it produces are amazing. I don't print much, but on my 43" 4K IPS monitor they look very "delicious". I've edited hundreds of 5DsR RAW samples and I didn't find moire problems. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong , so don't quote me on that.



> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on the bag. I think it is wrong to buy lenses for your bag, rather than a proper bag for your lenses. I can put my Bugma in my bag with the lens hood on it (well, you can't do that trick with fiddly Canon hoods) + another 2 or 3 primes if I need them, and it's not a backpack.
> ...



OK 



> The problem is, a bag with compartments deep enough to hold a 70-200/4 vertically means a couple of inches of wasted headroom above any standard lens (and I usually carry 2-3 of those), whereas the 70-300L fits in a compartment that holds standard lenses with a minimum of wasted space. If you want to carry around a needlessly bulky bag full of wasted space, that's your choice. Personally, I abhor wasted space in a camera bag (which is why I have a backpack for 3-4 lenses, a backpack for 5-6 lenses, a backpack for 2-3 lenses plus a laptop, a modular system for a camera with one lens of varying size to which I can add a lens case or a flash pouch, etc.).



And here we go ... you are doing it again. You have a bag and you pick what fits in it. Perhaps the problem is that I have a different bag. So, let's agree to disagree


----------



## AlanF (May 12, 2017)

What has any of this to do with supertelephoto zoom?


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 13, 2017)

AlanF said:


> What has any of this to do with supertelephoto zoom?


Because now we will have to buy yet another camera bag to carry it!


----------



## AlanF (May 13, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > What has any of this to do with supertelephoto zoom?
> ...



Read the previous mail. First buy the bag, then look for lenses that fit it!


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 13, 2017)

Why can't we all just do whatever we prefer for our shooting, whether that's vacations or pets or children or studio?  Are we all so insecure that if the entire rest of the forum doesn't agree with our methods and priorities we freak out?

Heck, if someone buys a tripod and then picks a camera to accommodate _that_, strange as it would be, does that really offend anyone?


----------



## andrei1989 (May 13, 2017)

because this is the internet and for any opinion you have there will be someone to criticize it )


----------



## ecka (May 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Heck, if someone buys a tripod and then picks a camera to accommodate _that_, strange as it would be, does that really offend anyone?



Only if he insists on that being the only right way of doing it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 13, 2017)

ecka said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Heck, if someone buys a tripod and then picks a camera to accommodate _that_, strange as it would be, does that really offend anyone?
> ...



You're doing it too.


----------



## ecka (May 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



I'm not saying it's the only way. I'm just telling what works for me and explaining why. Unfortunately, the opposing argument is like - "it couldn't possibly work, because ... !BAG!" . I'm not saying 70-300L is a bad lens, I just think it is not a travel-friendly tool for non-photography-oriented trips.


----------



## GP.Masserano (May 13, 2017)

*It is incredible. 
It starts talking about supertelephoto zoom and finishes to speak of bags... 

Boh... :*


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. *It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, *but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different.



No it isn't!

Remember I have already stated I owned Sigma 150-600 and sold it after one use because it was so weak. Having said that there are plenty of others that also say the same as me, the 100-400 MkII cropped is every bit as good as the third party lenses at longer focal lengths.

Here is a link showing TDP is not the only source: https://youtu.be/lgurGidoSJs?t=5m24s


----------



## unfocused (May 14, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There is this ongoing mantra that the 150-600mms fall apart after 400mm and you can do as well by cropping 400mm. *It's all based on the TDP charts, which appears to be the sole source of information for some, *but there are loads of reviews out that are quite different.
> ...



And yet, there are people like me who own the 100-400 and the 150-600 sigma and find that the sigma compares very favorably, especially if you are using the 100-400 with a 1.4 extender. Blanket statements based on one use by one person can't be reliably extrapolated to every situation. Reviews by Tony Northrop should never be extrapolated to anything as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## unfocused (May 14, 2017)

ecka said:


> I'm not saying it's the only way. I'm just telling what works for me and explaining why. Unfortunately, the opposing argument is like - "it couldn't possibly work, because ... !BAG!" . I'm not saying 70-300L is a bad lens, I just think it is not a travel-friendly tool for non-photography-oriented trips.



No, the opposing argument is: we actually own and use these lenses and our real world experience conflicts with your imaginary scenarios. The bag discussion is just one aspect and it's a legitimate concern, but you are so invested in your own opinion that you have no interest in learning from the experience of others.


----------



## ecka (May 14, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying it's the only way. I'm just telling what works for me and explaining why. Unfortunately, the opposing argument is like - "it couldn't possibly work, because ... !BAG!" . I'm not saying 70-300L is a bad lens, I just think it is not a travel-friendly tool for non-photography-oriented trips.
> ...



Really? I thought that you only use what fits in your bag. I'm confused


----------



## unfocused (May 14, 2017)

ecka said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Confused doesn't begin to scratch the surface.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2017)

unfocused said:


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



Agreed, so why is Alan so anti my supported comments?

Normally I'd agree with you about Mr Northrop too, but he supports his assertion with actual images and confirms his was a blind test (though didn't give the details of the methodology).

Besides, I am not the one who has ever said there is a vast difference between the two options, I merely pointed out that there is empirical evidence from at least two on line testers that support my personal findings that a cropped Canon 100-400 MkII resolves as well as a Tamron/Sigma 150-600 at 600. Even Northrup points out the differences are small and a few steps closer would negate any real differences between the various lenses, and the LensRentals test Alan points to (that only tested to 400mm so is practically irrelevant) comes to the conclusion that _"Canon’s 100-400 IS II is, from an MTF standpoint, the best zoom at 400mm"_.

Which begs the question I have asked, if the Canon 100-400 MkII cropped is in the same resolution league as the third party 600's at 600, what incentive is there for Canon to make another lens to fit in this small sales niche? We know (those that are not in denial) that Canon will not make an f6.3 max aperture lens, so they are effectively limited to a 500mm f5.6, and I just don't see them thinking this is a big enough market to make that when the 100-400 MkII is so good.


----------



## unfocused (May 14, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Which begs the question I have asked, if the Canon 100-400 MkII cropped is in the same resolution league as the third party 600's at 600, what incentive is there for Canon to make another lens to fit in this small sales niche? We know (those that are not in denial) that Canon will not make an f6.3 max aperture lens, so they are effectively limited to a 500mm f5.6, and I just don't see them thinking this is a big enough market to make that when the 100-400 MkII is so good.



Fair enough. Only time will tell. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that Canon believes there is a market for a 500mm f5.6 zoom. I'm sure my opinion is colored by my own desire. I'd be willing to pay a premium for a 500 f5.5 zoom from Canon, and would buy one even though, as I said, I've got both the 100-400 and the 150-600 Sigma C. But then, in my case there is an ulterior motive - when shooting birds it would guarantee that I have at least one Canon long zoom that I don't have to fight my wife for.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2017)

Just mulling it over, how about a long overdue upgrade of the awesome but dated 400 f5.6, a very high resolution 500mm f5.6 IS prime? 

Now that I can see some logic in. Much smaller and cheaper than the 500mm f4, massive upgrade from the 400 f5.6 non IS. Price that at $2,999 or $3,499 at launch and I can see that selling well and fitting in the Canon lens portfolio without hitting other lens sales.


----------



## RGF (May 14, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Just mulling it over, how about a long overdue upgrade of the awesome but dated 400 f5.6, a very high resolution 500mm f5.6 IS prime?
> 
> Now that I can see some logic in. Much smaller and cheaper than the 500mm f4, massive upgrade from the 400 f5.6 non IS. Price that at $2,999 or $3,499 at launch and I can see that selling well and fitting in the Canon lens portfolio without hitting other lens sales.



500 F5.6 IS would be nice but nearly everything is moving towards zooms.

Waiting for the 600 F4 DO. If I am very very good, perhaps the Canon Santa will develop one for me


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2017)

RGF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Just mulling it over, how about a long overdue upgrade of the awesome but dated 400 f5.6, a very high resolution 500mm f5.6 IS prime?
> ...



But as I explained I don't see Canon seeing a need for a ?-500 zoom when they make a market beating 100-400 already. So how do they differentiate? That modest 400 f5.6 has been the budget tele bargain for many years. 

A 500 f5.6 would be a market differentiator and have the possibility of much higher IQ as the optics of the thing as so much simpler. A 600 f4 DO is going to cost a fortune, >$10,000.


----------



## AlanF (May 14, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I am indeed anti your comments because they make a sweeping generalization based on selected examples and ignore evidence that doesn't fit. Your argument is:

"My Sigma 150-600mm C is weak and others say the same. Therefore, all such lenses are weak and a Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm cropped is as good as the Sigma at 600mm".

But, my Sigma is not weak, neither is unfocused's or many others'. The logical reasoning should be:

"My Sigma 150-600mm C is weak and others say the same. But some others have copies of the Sigma that are good. Therefore, some such lenses are weak and a Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm cropped is as good as those Sigmas at 600mm but other copies of the Sigma have better resolution than the 400mm Canon cropped".

I have the good fortune to own the Canon 100-400mm II as well as the 300mm/2.8II and 400mm DO II, and I am satisfied to use my copy of the Sigma, which I tested before buying from my local dealer. It's much better than my previous Tamron - it's all down to copy variation in these cheaper zooms.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 15, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I am indeed anti your comments because they make a sweeping generalization based on selected examples and ignore evidence that doesn't fit. Your argument is:
> 
> "My Sigma 150-600mm C is weak and others say the same. Therefore, all such lenses are weak and a Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm cropped is as good as the Sigma at 600mm".
> 
> ...



My full comment, that brought on your ire, was this _" That is not what Brian at TDP found."_ ( http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32535.msg662978#msg662978 ) with a link to empirical evidence. How is that a _"sweeping generalization"_?

You then criticized me several times across multiple threads, I then pointed out that other testers (which I linked to) and my own use agreed with that first link, essentially your 4th paragraph.

I have made no generalizations, broad or narrow, I have relayed my findings Brian's test results and Tony's test results, you are the one getting bent out of shape because they don't align with your personal findings from one lens. I have no iron in this fire, I don't give a damn. People can buy whatever they want and justify it for any reason they want to, 'because I wanted it' is 100% fine with me. I was just linking to empirical results and pointing out the limitation of the LensRental article you pointed to, nothing more.


----------



## ecka (May 15, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I have the good fortune to own the Canon 100-400mm II as well as the 300mm/2.8II and 400mm DO II, and I am satisfied to use my copy of the Sigma, which I tested before buying from my local dealer. It's much better than my previous Tamron - it's all down to copy variation in these cheaper zooms.



I'm still waiting for those RAW files


----------



## AlanF (May 15, 2017)

AlanF said:


> TDP and other sites should have message in capital letters on each review.
> 
> GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING - WE TEST ONLY ONE COPY, YOURS MIGHT BE MUCH WORSE OR MUCH BETTER THAN OURS.





AlanF said:


> TDP has the 200-500 very soft! Other reviews give different results for all the lenses. The only thing that counts is your lens on your body under your conditions of use.


 repeated dozens of times by me on CR.

Privatebydesign

My mantra is always that the only lens that matters is the one you have because of copy variation and they perform differently on different bodies under different conditions. And always take with a pinch of salt the results of a single site testing a single lens under their set of conditions on their set up. Lenses vary as do lens testing sites (except Lensrentals who are statistically and operationally sound). 

The same is true for anyone posting messages - it's usually only their lens they know. I fully believe your copy was bad and I have seen reports of others being bad.


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2017)

The rumor is that Canon is working on a supertelephoto zoom. It does not start if it is low or high cost, and it does not state the technologies used. It could be anything from an economy lens at F8 to a DO 400-800 F5.6 with a built in 1.4X teleconverter.... Nothing is ruled out! 

The headline is useless... of course they are working on one.....just like they are also working on new camera bodies, and even working on a new flash!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> The headline is useless... of course they are working on one.....just like they are also working on new camera bodies, and even working on a new flash!



Are you spreading rumors here?


----------



## GP.Masserano (May 15, 2017)

However, I want to make a proposal : do become IS the old and glorious 400 5,6 perhaps with an improvement in the optical scheme. 
We must remember that on the APS-C it becomes a formidable 640mm ( a lens that when we used the film was science fiction...)
*Digital is giving us bad vices !!!*


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The headline is useless... of course they are working on one.....just like they are also working on new camera bodies, and even working on a new flash!
> ...



No, but I am pretty sure that the Canon R+D department must be working on something  Either that, or there are a lot of people playing solitaire on the computer.....


----------



## ecka (May 15, 2017)

So it might be a replacement for the 70-300 DO after all.


----------



## 9VIII (May 15, 2017)

The Tamron 600mm zoom lens is soft at the long end, and I haven't seen anything to significantly differentiate it from the competition: https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout/


----------



## masterpix (May 17, 2017)

AlanF said:


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



As a matter of fact, TDP was only one of sites that I based my research on (also seen many picture samples - which represent the "high end" of the lens abilities). And your suggested warning also goes to the buyer, since most buy only ONE lens, are those tests that were done to other copies of lenses of the same type, not relevant to the one copy you do buy?

I am not saying that the image quality of the Tamron or he Sigma is not good. But for someone like me who by a lens every few years, that was the "little" difference which made the decision.


----------



## AlanF (May 17, 2017)

Did you actually test the one you bought on your own camera? I test every lens I intend to buy, even though most are from Canon. I bought my Canon 400mm DO II from the local shop which will allow me to test rather than cheaper on-line because even these top lenses are of varying quality. I buy the cheaper Canon lenses from Dixons at Heathrow because they have several copies in store and so you can compare them and choose the best - it's remarkable how frequently they are off centred. I had two copies of the 100-400mm II and sold the inferior one after I tested the Sigma and found it was a really good copy.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 17, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> The rumor is that Canon is working on a supertelephoto zoom. It does not start if it is low or high cost, and it does not state the technologies used. It could be anything from an economy lens at F8 to a DO 400-800 F5.6 with a built in 1.4X teleconverter.... Nothing is ruled out!
> 
> The headline is useless... of course they are working on one.....just like they are also working on new camera bodies, and even working on a new flash!



Ehh... they're certainly working on lenses. They might, in theory, not be working on any supertelephoto zooms, just some EF-S lenses, a 50/1.4 (gonna throw @ahsanford a bone ), and supertelephoto primes. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's not a tautology that a specific class of lens is in development. Especially because this particular class of lens isn't common for Canon; does 70-300 even count? They seem to mostly (mostly!) do primes above 300mm. Hence all the excitement about this particular rumor.

Also, if this happens, I'll probably sell my 100-400ii for it. Moar reach.


----------



## LSeries (May 26, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> 600/5.6 on the long end is not going to happen so lets just rule that out. Because that would give us a front element as big as the 300/2.8. Canon can do that but it will be a big lens and heavy and expensive.



Sigma 150-600 S fits a 105mm filter. I guess the front element diameter of a 600/5.6 would be approximately the same size. 300/2.8 has inner diameter of 111mm ? I read somewhere that the front element of the Sigma 150-600 S is for some reason "too large" for f/6.3. 

Disclaimer: I have almost no idea what I'm talking about.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> the 100-400 is too big for a travel zoom, IMO.



Buy a (_slightly_) bigger bag..!


----------

