# Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM



## andrei1989 (Jun 13, 2016)

Has anyone seen this?
How reliable is this article and can we expect this lens this year?

http://www.lens-rumors.com/canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6-is-usm-now-in-testing-to-be-announced-in-late-2016/


----------



## DJL329 (Jun 13, 2016)

Yes, it was reported here a few months ago.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29454.0


----------



## andrei1989 (Jun 13, 2016)

you're right...my bad...

the update would be that there are some units out there being tested..
and they might be spotted considering they're not L therefore most probably not white

anyway..if the admin feels like it, he can delete the thread


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 14, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> you're right...my bad...
> 
> the update would be that there are some units out there being tested..
> and they might be spotted considering they're not L therefore most probably not white
> ...



I haven't heard of test units being out there, but it is expected, since Canon needs to compete. I would not worry about it being a consumer grade lens, I don't treat my gear roughly, such a lens for me would be for personal use, not business.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 14, 2016)

I do not know how they can project the price of a lens whose existence is not even confirmed yet. If true however it would be quite popular. As Mt Spokane Photography stated, I agree the build quality is not an issue for many people (myself included) as long as the optics are good. However I just bought a refurb 100-400 ii, so I will not be buying any more telephoto lenses (I say now, but when this comes out I may change my tune).


----------



## andrei1989 (Jun 14, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I haven't heard of test units being out there



well, that's what the rumour brings new to the table 

as for the predicted price, it's supposed to be close to the competition, otherwise there is no point for such a product

it will be cheaper than the 100-400 and the sigma sport but a bit more expensive than the nikon 200-500

as i was seriously considering the tamron or the sigma contemporary i will wait now and see how this canon will be for 50% more $$ (after the price stabilises)


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 14, 2016)

That lens certainly would be useful for birders on budget. I am still wondering if Canon will ever update their 400mm 5.6 or 300mm 4 or pre historic 50mm Compact macro.


----------



## zim (Jun 14, 2016)

Interesting that it would be a black lens (non L) as whilst watching the Euros (I can't help checking out the sidelines( I thought I saw a couple of canons with long black lenses, I assumed third party but would a sports photographer at an event like that use third party? must look more closely!


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 14, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > you're right...my bad...
> ...



+1. If optics are excellent, and price point was right, I would buy this in a heartbeat, and wouldn't care that it isn't white. Reason- I would love to have the reach, but not for the price of the big white primes. I would use the lens frequently, but not enough to justify a hefty price. At less than $2K, it isn't a cheap disposable lens, but it is reasonable for what I expect to use it, and for the frequency I would use it. Regarding non-white build, I treat my lenses with kid gloves and it should hold up, no problem.

sek


----------



## canonix (Jun 16, 2016)

I am curios how much the lens will cost, I think the Canon Lenses (as well as any other original brands like Nikon) are so expensive, because of their name. I mean, for sure they do have a really good quality and are great, but I can get the Sigma 150-600mm for less and it is still a very good lens. I am looking forward to reactions when the Canon came out.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 16, 2016)

Wow, I do NOT want a dust-huffer, but I might change my mind to get this reach, if it is decent @ 600mm. And AF's well with my 80D.


----------



## NorbR (Jun 16, 2016)

Personally I still don't really believe it ... The non-L part makes it a bit more believable, but still, I maintain what I've said before: I don't believe we can get these three things together from Canon:
- 600mm on the long end
- f/5.6 
- under $2k
I think one of these will have to give. 

I'll be quite happy to be proven wrong, if it happens, feel free to come back to this post and mock me. I probably won't see it anyway, I'll be too busy pre-ordering this lens ^^


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jun 16, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Personally I still don't really believe it ... The non-L part makes it a bit more believable, but still, I maintain what I've said before: I don't believe we can get these three things together from Canon:
> - 600mm on the long end
> - f/5.6
> - under $2k
> ...



Ha - I expect at least two things to give. But 600mm, sharper at 600mm than competition, and good AF would be worth up to $2500 to me.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 16, 2016)

Is it a given that a non-L lens has to be black? Why can't it be white without a red ring?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2016)

MrFotoFool said:


> Is it a given that a non-L lens has to be black? Why can't it be white without a red ring?



No reason, there have been non L white lenses already.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2016)

NorbR said:


> Personally I still don't really believe it ... The non-L part makes it a bit more believable, but still, I maintain what I've said before: I don't believe we can get these three things together from Canon:
> - 600mm on the long end
> - f/5.6
> - under $2k
> I think one of these will have to give.



My bet is the F5.6 becomes F6.3....


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 16, 2016)

Or the 600 becomes 500. This seems more likely, to match the Nikon 200-500 5.6. I doubt Canon will go any smaller than 5.6 aperture.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jun 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > Is it a given that a non-L lens has to be black? Why can't it be white without a red ring?
> ...



Other than the green ring DO lenses?


----------



## Fleetie (Jun 17, 2016)

Seriously... A lens with a minimum 107mm entrance pupil? For <$2k ?!
The 200 f/2 L costs way, way more, and that's not even a zoom lens.
I would expect the new lens to cost more than the 200/2.
And I doubt Canon would bother making a second-rate lens with a >107mm front element.

This rumoured cheap price is BS.

[EDIT: Although, given Canon's (and no doubt other companies' too) "flexible" approach to naming lenses based on their optical characteristics, a "600mm f/5.6" lens would likely be 566mm f/5.9, which would only need a 96mm entrance pupil. But even that is going to be big and very expensive.]


----------



## MTSG (Jun 17, 2016)

107mm front glass and non-L, - it can be do-able for Canon, lets hope for that. however big piece of cake is gone already as tons of sigs and tams 150-600 are sold. i have the time to wait and ll take it ONLY if optics will be same or just a bit better than sig/tam. i do not believe in such miracles Canon will give us something even close to resolutions of big whites. and they have resources to locate 200-600/5.6 right between sig sport and big whites. same like they did with 35/1.4 which is "just" abt 1% better than sig 35/1.4. 
L-glass is mechanically complex and if they skip it it may be done. If not sig sport will be mine. next year.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...



Yep.

The New FD 600 f4.5 was a big white without a red stripe. There was also a non L version of the New FD 800mm f5.6.


----------



## SwnSng (Jun 17, 2016)

It's one of my favorite lenses.


----------



## iaind (Jun 18, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



white EF 40mm stm available in some markets


----------



## EdwardNJ (Jul 1, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> That lens certainly would be useful for birders on budget. I am still wondering if Canon will ever update their 400mm 5.6 or 300mm 4 or pre historic 50mm Compact macro.



I use my 400 5.6 to photograph eagles and ospreys at a popular spot for birders, I'd have preferred an updated version of the ancient 400mm f/5.6 with IS or even better a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime. I see a lot of photographers there using their zoom lenses maxed out at 400mm or 600mm, the Canon 100-400, the Sigma C and S and Tamron. Ideally a 500 or 600 are good options for birds in flight and wildlife photography in general but the prices of these f/4 primes are way too expensive for a type of photography that will rarely give you any income.

Hopefully this rumor is true and the lenses are actually being tested to be oficially released this year. Most importantly, hopefuly this lens will be sharper than the Sigma Sports at 600mm ;D


----------



## EdwardNJ (Jul 1, 2016)

I am not too good at reading patents  Does this lens focus internally? I guess that would be too much to ask for such a lens.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jul 1, 2016)

EdwardNJ said:


> ...I'd have preferred an updated version of the ancient 400mm f/5.6 with IS or even better a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime...



I agree an affordable 500 or 600 f/5.6 would be fantastic. I do not know why it has not been done (by any company). Sigma used to have a very affordable 500 f/7.2, but that was before their recent improvements so the quality I assume was mediocre. I think the f/4 standard is partly left over from the film days when pros had to use ISO 100 slide film. With new digital cameras and their high ISO's, seems f/5.6 would make sense.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 1, 2016)

MrFotoFool said:


> EdwardNJ said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'd have preferred an updated version of the ancient 400mm f/5.6 with IS or even better a 500 or 600 f/5.6 prime...
> ...



Actually you can have that today. 300mm f2.8L IS II plus the 2x III extender. The combo is excellent and pretty close to my 600mm f4 L IS. I can pair it with my 7d2 and get about 960mm of reach. AND....its all hand holdable

I often miss using the f4 early in the morning or late in the evening. Sometimes I just remove the extender and shoot at f2.8. No rush for Canon to develop such a 600.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> My bet is the F5.6 becomes F6.3....



If they did make that change to F6.3, then that would entice more people who are holding on to older cameras to upgrade to a camera that supports f/8 focusing.


----------



## tron (Jul 2, 2016)

i know that possibly a 600DO f/4 is on its way but I would love a 600DO f/5.6: cheaper (than a f/4 DO version), smaller (in diameter), lighter. It would be a killer portable bird lens. (For now I use 7DII with a 400DOII as a portable combination...)


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 2, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > My bet is the F5.6 becomes F6.3....
> ...



That might just be exactly the point of such a change, more than the increased options for lens design... 
With processing software getting so much better so fast, and with the seeming plateau-ing of sensor capabilities, camera brands are gonna have to find other features to sell new rigs, imho.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 2, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Not only that, but we enthusiasts will buy the best gear that we can afford. For most of us, that rules out a $15,000 lens.... or even a $5000 lens. Tamron and Sigma have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a market for $1200 150-600 telephoto lenses. One could easily make a 600F6.3 prime with superior IQ to the Tamron/Sigma for the same price or better. Slap in some upgraded materials and the Canon name and you could produce a $2000 lens that would sell well.

If they build it, we will come


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jul 3, 2016)

Realistically the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is so small it is almost meaningless. But psychologically it is a huge difference (to me anyway). Plus I cannot imagine Canon will make a lens that will not autofocus with all EOS cameras. In fact that is one selling point they push for buying genuine Canon lenses (vs third party), that they will never make a Canon camera obsolete.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 3, 2016)

MrFotoFool said:


> Realistically the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is so small it is almost meaningless. But psychologically it is a huge difference (to me anyway). Plus I cannot imagine Canon will make a lens that will not autofocus with all EOS cameras. In fact that is one selling point they push for buying genuine Canon lenses (vs third party), that they will never make a Canon camera obsolete.



Sigma and Tamron make f/6.3 lenses that focus on all Canons, and Canon has just introduced improved f/8 lens focussing. So there is no AF compatibility reason against f/6.3. I find it so much easier to hike with my Sigma 150-600mm C than my 600mm f/5.6 (= 300/2.8 II + 2xTC) that I would far prefer a 600 f/6.3 or 560 f/5.6. 

By the way the future compatibility argument for Canon lenses is now over since its rivals both have docks for reprogramming their lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Sigma and Tamron make f/6.3 lenses that focus on all Canons, and Canon has just introduced improved f/8 lens focussing. So there is no AF compatibility reason against f/6.3.



Well, no reason other than Canon says a max aperture of f/5.6 is required for AF on many of their cameras. But that's a pretty significant reason. Back in the day, you could spend a few thousand on a 500mm f/4.5L USM, but add a Canon 1.4x TC for a 700mm f/6.3 lens and you'd lose AF except on the EOS 1v and EOS 3 (the only f/8 AF bodies at the time). 

For Canon to release an f/6.3 native max lens for dSLRs, they'd either have to update all bodies down to the lowest Rebel with f/8 AF, or state 'we're big fat silly-face liars and have been for years'. I expect the former is more likely than the latter, but either way we're not going to see an f/6.3 lens from Canon any time soon.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma and Tamron make f/6.3 lenses that focus on all Canons, and Canon has just introduced improved f/8 lens focussing. So there is no AF compatibility reason against f/6.3.
> ...



If Tamron and Sigma can make back compatible f/6.3 lenses then perhaps, just perhaps, Canon could do the same or would they have to commit mass harakiri to save face?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2016)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



That, my friend, is the issue. Long ago Canon made a self imposed f5.6 limit, it was their choice and now they are stuck with it. 

What are we if we break the rules we make for ourselves? Multiply that tiny feeling by several million and put the word of a Japanese corporation behind it and you start to get the magnitude of the hurdle any lens marketeer might have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2016)

[quote author=Canon]
With a few notable exceptions — we’ll discuss them below — all EOS DSLRs produced to date require that the effective maximum aperture of a lens or lens + extender combination be f/5.6 or faster to permit autofocus. 
[/quote]

Still, Canon could do it if they wanted. Perhaps they're even hinting at the possibility...

[quote author=Canon]
Canon’s AF system can accommodate virtually all EF or EF-S lenses in the system with maximum apertures up to f/5.6. In fact, as of early 2016, there are no lenses in the Canon EF or EF-S system with maximum apertures slower than f/5.6. 
[/quote]

Time will tell, but I still think it's quite unlikely.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 3, 2016)

I wonder if this 200-600 might fill the hole between the 300 2.8 & the 500 II and above (price wise).

I don't know what the sales of the 400 DO II have been like but with the very good 100-400 II coming in at $4000 cheaper and only 1 stop slower than the 400 DO II, it's hard to justify the extra 4k for the DO.

Drop a 200-600 5.6L in the DO's slot and I would personally gladly pay 6k for a lens that is an optically superb compromise between the 11k 600 II and the 5k 300 II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2016)

can0nfan2379 said:


> I wonder if this 200-600 might fill the hole between the 300 2.8 & the 500 II and above (price wise).
> 
> I don't know what the sales of the 400 DO II have been like but with the very good 100-400 II coming in at $4000 cheaper and only 1 stop slower than the 400 DO II, it's hard to justify the extra 4k for the DO.
> 
> Drop a 200-600 5.6L in the DO's slot and I would personally gladly pay 6k for a lens that is an optically superb compromise between the 11k 600 II and the 5k 300 II.



With the 200-400 f4 IS 1.4 it isn't going to happen, or looking at it another way, it already did just not for the money you were hoping.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> can0nfan2379 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if this 200-600 might fill the hole between the 300 2.8 & the 500 II and above (price wise).
> ...



I just can't see the 200-600 being consumer grade at the price level near or even double the Tamron/Sigma offerings - not with being 5.6 @600 and internally zooming (constant length at all FL's as per the patent).

I will concede that if Canon did price it in the middle, it probably would cannibalize the 200-400.


----------



## LSeries (Jul 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Not only that, but we enthusiasts will buy the best gear that we can afford. For most of us, that rules out a $15,000 lens.... or even a $5000 lens. Tamron and Sigma have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a market for $1200 150-600 telephoto lenses. One could easily make a 600F6.3 prime with superior IQ to the Tamron/Sigma for the same price or better. Slap in some upgraded materials and the Canon name and you could produce a $2000 lens that would sell well.
> 
> If they build it, we will come



Exactly. As much as I love my Sigma 150-600 S, I would get a "reasonably" priced Canon 600mm with noticeably better IQ in a heartbeat  Doesn't matter if it's L or not.


----------



## RGF (Jul 13, 2016)

MrFotoFool said:


> Realistically the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is so small it is almost meaningless. But psychologically it is a huge difference (to me anyway). Plus I cannot imagine Canon will make a lens that will not autofocus with all EOS cameras. In fact that is one selling point they push for buying genuine Canon lenses (vs third party), that they will never make a Canon camera obsolete.



Years ago Canon had a 500 F4.5 non-IS lens. There was some whining about the lens not being F4.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jul 13, 2016)

RGF said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > Realistically the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is so small it is almost meaningless. But psychologically it is a huge difference (to me anyway). Plus I cannot imagine Canon will make a lens that will not autofocus with all EOS cameras. In fact that is one selling point they push for buying genuine Canon lenses (vs third party), that they will never make a Canon camera obsolete.
> ...



what i've learned from this forum is that there will be whining whatever canon will produce (except maybe for some 10-500mm f/2)..if it's only up to 500mm "why isn't it 600mm..disappointed"; if it will be f/5.6 why isn't it f/4..and light..and cheap...and makes coffee...


----------



## kaihp (Jul 13, 2016)

RGF said:


> Years ago Canon had a 500 F4.5 non-IS lens. There was some whining about the lens not being F4.



There was a pro photografers using a 500/4.5 with a 1.4x TC and a 1D-series bodu at the TT Assen when I was there in June. The paint of the 500 was all scruffed up and the hood was gaff'ed (the body and TX looked fine), but I guess that didn't bother the pictures.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 15, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> We already have this lens in the 200-400/1.4 for the most part.



That's a big lens. That's a very big lens.


----------

