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



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

Yowzer:

http://photorumors.com/2015/12/06/canon-ef-200-600mm-f4-5-5-6l-usm-full-frame-lens-patent/

Would Canon actually offer such a lens? Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6 IS is the steal of the century at $1400...

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2015)

That sounds like another Big White, if it were in the 90mm range I might say there's a chance of it being inexpensive, but this is another huge lens.
Maybe sales for the 200-400+TC took a dive and they're figuring out a more attractive offering.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Maybe sales for the 200-400+TC took a dive and they're figuring out a more attractive offering.



I don't think that's it. There's a big portfolio gap for Canon: leaving crop factors out, *you cannot shoot past 400mm FF with a Canon zoom unless you're fond of teleconverters* (which punishes IQ and can handcuff your AF options/performance). 

This lens -- if it becomes a real product someday -- effectively solves that problem.

What's odd is that Nikon (more than Tamron or Sigma) really threw a monkey wrench in Canon's ability to ask for a lot of money for this lens. Consider: a similarly max-apertured 100-400L II costs over $2k, so one would imagine a 200-600 version of that speed of lens would cost a good deal more. But Nikon joining the budget masses with a first-party 200-500 lens at $1400 may force Canon to offer a 200-600 for a bit less than they had originally hoped.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe sales for the 200-400+TC took a dive and they're figuring out a more attractive offering.
> ...



A lot of Nikon shooters like the 200-500F5.6 lens (about $1600 here in Canada). It sells well. To get to 500mm with Canon will cost you $10,500 and for the vast bulk of photographers, that's not an option. To get to 400mm with an IS lens will cost you $2400. Costs more for less reach.... the recommended path for beginner birders is away from Canon.

Birders are a significant portion of Canon's long lens market. They have to counter this with something, so a 200-600 F5.6 lens is the logical path to regain leadership in that segment. I think this lens will happen relatively soon....


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Yep. See the attached. Nikon grabbed that circled bit with a vengeance with that 200-500 f/5.6 for $1,400.

Now we can discuss whether 500 vs. 600 is all that different or whether Canon sees this 200-600 as Mid-Level / Starter L or just a basic non-L lens (max aperture of the patent would imply this is a pricier 100-400L II and not a non-L starter lens), and I'm clearly mixing a three price point conversation with a 400 vs. 600 reach conversation, but any way you slice it, Canon's pricing gameplan (jump from $2k to $10K in the blink of an eye) is under a ton more pressure than it was even 2 years ago.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

Thanks, ahsanford, for sharing!

If I did measure right the front element has a diameter of about 120 mm. 
That's definetly too big for a budget lens IMHO.
Nikon, Sigma C and Tamron have a filter thread of 95 mm. Sigma S 105 mm. 

120 mm are about what we have with the 200/2.0L or 300/2.8L.
So this will be at least the price region where this patent would settle.
To me all this points towards a big white. 

But it could be cheaper than the 200-400L and that might be the market, canon is looking for.

_Edit: Also the optical formula looks pretty short for 600 mm fl (355 mm). 600/4L is 448 mm + BF. 
Quite attractive lens. I guess they'll at least make some prototypes..._


----------



## K-amps (Dec 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > That sounds like another Big White, if it were in the 90mm range I might say there's a chance of it being inexpensive, but this is another huge lens.
> ...



There is a huge gap between the 100-400mm mk.II and the 200-400 TC, so this new lens could sell for $3200 - $4500 range. If it is sharp, it will sell well.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > That sounds like another Big White, if it were in the 90mm range I might say there's a chance of it being inexpensive, but this is another huge lens.
> ...



As far as I'm concerned the 100-400MkII is already competitive with Sigma and Tamron. The Nikon is actually sharp at 500mm however, that lens actually offers something new (first party full frame superzoom).
If Canon actually does move to counter Nikon within a year of the 200-500 releasing that would give a lot of insight as to where their priorities are.
But it would be completely out of character for anyone to release a lens that big anywhere near the prices we're talking about. The only way this could be a budget lens is if they throw a ton of low quality glass in there and just barely outperform the competition.

But who knows, the Nikon 200-500 is larger than the cost would indicate and with top IQ too. If Nikon can do that then maybe Canon can figure out how to make a decent 600mm zoom lens for less than $4K.


----------



## TheJock (Dec 7, 2015)

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE be true 
If it's between 2.5 to $3,500 then I'm all over it!!


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 7, 2015)

It appears this is an internal focus. 
Snooping the links indicates this lens is build and might be out in wild. 
Things are getting interesting.


----------



## xps (Dec 7, 2015)

I joined an nature photography workshop last weekend, able to "test" some of the big whites. We were allowed to shoot with the 600, 500, 200-400 and the 400DO. All are exiting products, but are still very expensive. My preference was the 7DII and the 600mm (the 1DX was a real pleasure, but to expensive) So we asked, if there are alternatives. The advice was to wait until autumn. They told us, there will be an announcement of an zoom around 600mm, priced about 50%-75% higher than the 100-400, having IS and and an "L" in its name. And Canon is definitively working on an stellar successor of the 600mm. But the price will be really highend. (The Canon guy, who was part of the instructor team, did not dispute these rumors and stayed neutral).
So, I am personally torn, if I should wait until autumn and buy an new 5D?, a new 100-400, 200-600, 70-200,27-70 and 16-35 or an 7DII with an 600mm.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> What's odd is that Nikon (more than Tamron or Sigma) really threw a monkey wrench in Canon's ability to ask for a lot of money for this lens. Consider: a similarly max-apertured 100-400L II costs over $2k, so one would imagine a 200-600 version of that speed of lens would cost a good deal more. But Nikon joining the budget masses with a first-party 200-500 lens at $1400 may force Canon to offer a 200-600 for a bit less than they had originally hoped.
> 
> - A


Good move from Nikon and others making long telephoto lenses affordable.


----------



## weixing (Dec 7, 2015)

Hi,
I doubt it'll be cheap if it zoom out at 600mm f5.6... optical glass larger than 100mm diameter is significantly more expensive. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## xps (Dec 7, 2015)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> I doubt it'll be cheap if it zoom out at 600mm f5.6... optical glass larger than 100mm diameter is significantly more expensive.
> 
> Have a nice day.


If you calculate the image proportions, 120mm diameter occurs.... omg. Then 3500€/$ will be cheap


----------



## candc (Dec 7, 2015)

xps said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



600/5.6=107.14 
if it is to have a 105mm filter size then it would need to get shortened up a bit or go with 6.3 aperture like the sigma/tamron versions


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 7, 2015)

Too much focal length spread for my tastes. Would like to see this lens as an 300-600 or 400-600 f/4.5-5.6 . The closer focal length could allow for a sharper optic. I would jump on such a lens if it has comparable image quality to the 100-400L IS ll.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

candc said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > weixing said:
> ...


Hi again! 

Please look again closely at the patent. It says f5.2 @ 600 mm
600 mm/5.2 = 115.4 mm
That fits quite well to my measurement I stated before (120 mm).

So prime lenses from Canon with that big front elements are normally sold north of $6.000
And this is a zoom = more moving parts, more precission in moving the optical elements = more expensive

So IMHO @ $6.000 this really would still be a "budget" zoom


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 7, 2015)

I bet this one would sell like hotcakes if the IQ was good and the price reasonable.

If the IQ could match or be very close to the current 600II, would people pay ~$6k for it?


----------



## kubelik (Dec 7, 2015)

yessss! this is pretty similar to the 500 f/5.6 I've been hoping for all this time. I'm guessing this would come in ~$2.5K, given that the 100-400 II is going for $2.2K ... as much as I'd like to have it for sub-$2K, I doubt that'll happen. still, would spend the money knowing that my upgrade path is essentially complete with the purchase of this lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

As I stated in the other thread mentioned, this one will have a front element of 120 mm (600 mm/f5.2 = 115.4 mm).
Compareable size as 300/2.8L so compareble price north of $6.000.

NO "budget" lens for $2k or §3k, IMHO.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 7, 2015)

i think they should update the 400 f/5.6, and add IS. Keep it light and affordable.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 7, 2015)

I know a lot birders would be interested in this lens if priced below 1500$


----------



## lycan (Dec 7, 2015)

N2itiv said:


> Too much focal length spread for my tastes. Would like to see this lens as an 300-600 or 400-600 f/4.5-5.6 . The closer focal length could allow for a sharper optic. I would jump on such a lens if it has comparable image quality to the 100-400L IS ll.



hmm contradicting yourself? 100-400 = 4x; 200-600 = 3x. So less focal length spread than the one you like so much


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 7, 2015)

Such lens could not cannibalize sales of other big whites and 100-400 Mk.II. That either means pretty expensive lens or non-L lens with build and IQ quality of current STM lineup. I don't see how Canon would release anything of quality 100-400 Mk.II with additional reach and huge front element without asking a lot of $$$ for that. Not mentioning anything going close to quality of 200-400 which mostly cover this focal range. 

I also wonder how do all these cheaper third party options stand against 100-400 Mk.II with 1.4 III. If the IQ on the long end and AF is similar than there is no reason to match the competition.

New 400L IS or perhaps even 500L IS with 5.6 max aperture seems much more realistic when hoping for something more affordable. I would really love to have such prime.


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 7, 2015)

lycan said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > Too much focal length spread for my tastes. Would like to see this lens as an 300-600 or 400-600 f/4.5-5.6 . The closer focal length could allow for a sharper optic. I would jump on such a lens if it has comparable image quality to the 100-400L IS ll.
> ...


 
Not at all. My math says the spread from 100-400 ='s 300mm. 300-600 has the same difference.
The 200-600 has an actual focal length spread of 400mm. A 400-600mm, as I mentioned, would be better @ only 200mm variation. The closer that FL variation is, the easier it is to correct for and make better optically.


----------



## sanj (Dec 7, 2015)

I doubt it will be very expensive. It would be meant for a different segment from the 200-400 f4


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

N2itiv said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > N2itiv said:
> ...



Were you correct on that, if a 100-400 is of a certain sharpness, _I should expect a similar sharpness 24-324mm lens._ That's not how it works.

The _multiplier_ (i.e. 2x, 3x, etc.) is more important than the spread of the FL range in millimeters. There's a reason Canon only has four L zooms with multipliers greater than 3x -- the lenses are sharper that way. 

- A


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > lycan said:
> ...


 
No disrespect intended, but you stick to your methods and I'll stick to mine. Lets agree to disagree.
ahs-look closer and notice we're talking about tele to super tele (long focal lengths). My method is proper if you keep you focal lengths at either end of the FL spectrum. Nothing I stated implied that focal length from wide to super tele should be mixed. That was your interpretation. I suspect Canon learned this w/the 28-300L.


----------



## Mancubus (Dec 7, 2015)

Finally a patent that is actually interesting. Something under 1500usd with decent IQ would be awesome at this range.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 7, 2015)

Canon needs a long telephoto in an EF-S mount with the STM and IS! 

The reason why so many bird shooters use Canon is because going back to the day before Tamron announced the 150-600mm there was really nothing great in performance on the market for the lower budget aspiring photographers. Canon had the 100-400I and the 400mm 5.6 that was the go to for a Birder, even the new price for the performance was not bad but the used price was even better. It was not the build quality of the L series that made these two lenses kings, it was the optics for the price. Nikon and Sigma had their competition to these two lenses but they never stacked up in the optics evenly. The day this all changed was the Day Tamron announced the 150-600mm, now finally Nikon and even Sony users can get a great performer for the price. This brings much weight on Canons Sensors and opens up a new world of options for a birder today. Canon needs to do a long tele with the optics of their 55-250mm stm and keep the price around $1200 or lower, this will work perfect for their faster than Nikon Crop bodies and keep them in the Bird photography world as a go to Company as they were just a few years back. If you want L build quality then price the price, but for most if not the vast majority of bird shooters they need a great long optic performer first and not built like a tank. With the 7d2 and the soon to be 80d and 7d3 Canon will have the speed crop bodies for awhile so no reason not to do a crop EF-S lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

N2itiv said:


> No disrespect intended, but you stick to your methods and I'll stick to mine. Lets agree to disagree.



With respect, your 'method' is not consistent with the way optical designs work. But you are certainly welcome to your own beliefs, regardless of their objective validity.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 7, 2015)

N2itiv said:


> No disrespect intended, but you stick to your methods and I'll stick to mine. Lets agree to disagree.



Reply deleted by author. Neuroanatomist beat me to the punch by a couple of minutes, and made my point more diplomatically. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> Canon needs a long telephoto in an EF-S mount with the STM and IS!
> 
> With the 7d2 and the soon to be 80d and 7d3 Canon will have the speed crop bodies for awhile so no reason not to do a crop EF-S lens.



Why EF-S? In the long tele range, there's no real advantage in terms of lens size/weight (or cost) to an EF-S lens, because the size of the image circle is not limiting. Therefore, there's no reason to restrict such a lens to the EF-S mount.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2015)

The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

you can see from the measured MTFs that it has to be stopped down to f/ll at at all focal lengths for optimal sharpness, and it is pretty soft at 500mm and f/5.6 and f/8. This is confirmed from shots of a Sieman's chart in Cameralabs:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml

The Nikon is really no better than the Sigma 150-600mm C and weighs nearly a pound more. The 100-400mm II will outperform it all the way up to 400mm and based on comparisons of the Canon with the 1.4xTC at 560mm with the Sigmas and Tamron in Cameralabs and my own direct comparisons of the 100-400 with them, I am sure the Canon beats the Nikon.

A 200-600mm f/5.6 would be too heavy for me. A new 400 or 500 f/5.6 prime would be what I would want.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Two big factors at play here....

When optimizing a zoom lens, it is easier to optimize a narrower range. A 2X range (centered around a particular focal length) should be able to be made sharper than a 3X range lens centered around the same focal length, a 4X range should be able to be made sharper than a 5X range.

The second factor is that on long lenses you do not have to bend the light as sharply as you do on a short lens (the sharper the bend, the harder to control distortion), and that means that you should be able to build a sharper long lens than a short lens.... A 70-210 lens should be sharper than an 20-60 lens, although both are 3X.....

So is a 4X range long lens sharper than a 3X range short lens? Who knows! This is the apples to oranges thing again....


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs a long telephoto in an EF-S mount with the STM and IS!
> ...



Agree 100%:


Just because crop gives you reach does not mean _there is no reason to pursue reach photography without a crop sensor_. A 6D owner might want to go birding, right?


Find me a Canon EF-S lens that costs over $1,000 in the US right now. (Hint: doesn't exist.) Why would Canon offer a very pricey optical tool to its customers and lock the wealthiest of them out from buying it?

Unless someone can show me it would be something very compelling -- like half the weight to go EF-S on a supertele zoom -- I think it should be an EF mount design.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
> https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326
> 
> you can see from the measured MTFs that it has to be stopped down to f/ll at at all focal lengths for optimal sharpness, and it is pretty soft at 500mm and f/5.6 and f/8. This is confirmed from shots of a Sieman's chart in Cameralabs:
> ...


The day they announce a 400F5.6 II is the day I put in my pre-order for the lens and a series III 1.4X teleconverter.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
> https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326
> 
> you can see from the measured MTFs that it has to be stopped down to f/ll at at all focal lengths for optimal sharpness, and it is pretty soft at 500mm and f/5.6 and f/8. This is confirmed from shots of a Sieman's chart in Cameralabs:
> ...



You are correct, the Nikon is not a world beater, but it 'gets there' focal-length-wise for $1400 without teleconverters. But it's first party AF should outperform the Tamron and Sigma and easily justify the price.

So I'm not calling that Nikon lens a gamechanger for IQ, it's just a gamechanger for first-party reach for the dollar in a zoom lens. It's the sort of lens that gets an amateur into birding.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Dec 7, 2015)

All very interesting. Certainly I would consider it. It may be that the price would be high enough that it would not be an alternative to the third-party 150-600mm lenses, but then again, I could see a "mid-range" market in the $2,500.00 to $4,500.00 range for this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> So I'm not calling that Nikon lens a gamechanger for IQ, it's just a gamechanger for first-party reach for the dollar in a zoom lens. It's the sort of lens that gets an amateur into birding.



Agreed - and for that reason, I can see Canon developing/releasing a similar lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I could see a "mid-range" market in the $2,500.00 to $4,500.00 range for this.



+1. That's what Canon is hoping for, undoubtedly: take what they did for the 100-400 II -- a shade faster/sharper than a budget supertele zoom like Tamon/Sigma/Nikon, but a shade slower/less sharp than a top quality L prime -- and fill the price gap between a $1,000-1,500 starting birder lens and the $10k superwhites.

I see this as a 'mid-quality' lens and not a budget offering if for no reason other than the max aperture. If they were going for a cheaper non-L lens, one would think it would be in the f/5.6 - 6.3 neighborhood. As it stands in the patent, this thing is a 600 f/5.6 lens at the long end, just one stop slower than an $11k+ lens. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm not calling that Nikon lens a gamechanger for IQ, it's just a gamechanger for first-party reach for the dollar in a zoom lens. It's the sort of lens that gets an amateur into birding.
> ...



Yes, but _this patent may not be that lens_. I agree with others that this will be clearly north of $2k for that speed at that FL range.

I've been arguing for Canon to make that similar lens and fill that circled bucket below, but this lens will be priced out of that bucket, I believe. It would sit alongside the 100-400 II as longer variant. No chance it's a cheapo reach lens.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Or, perhaps saying this a different way, how would you rate the value of: 

100-400L II image quality + 
first party reliable/consistent/fast AF + 
600mm reach @ f/5.6 without teleconvertered cripplling of your AF spread?

...because there is no way to get that with an EF mount right now without buying a $11.5k 600L II. 

In _that_ light, Canon could throw down the gauntlet at $4k or so at launch and many might say "That's better than teleconverters. Sold. Take my money."

- A


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > No disrespect intended, but you stick to your methods and I'll stick to mine. Lets agree to disagree.
> ...


 
Let me be clarify my statement rather than having everyone read ahs' interpretation of what I said and assuming that's what I meant.
It's easier to correct wide to wide end or long to long end than it is to mix focal length (W to T). My comment, since we were initially discussing a long lens, is that the less FL variation you have in focal length (clarified as either end of the FL scale) the easier it is to correct the way lightwaves need to be bent across that spread. I do understand that a larger front element will add more challenges to my statement, which is only an approximate generalization. My previous post was amended but the board had already moved beyond it.


----------



## lycan (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It's a *non-L*. It will probably be out to compete with nikon's 200-500


----------



## kaihp (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I've been arguing for Canon to make that similar lens and fill that circled bucket below, but this lens will be priced out of that bucket, I believe. It would sit alongside the 100-400 II as longer variant. No chance it's a cheapo reach lens.



ahsanford, where (and when) did you get that matrix from?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...









I do believe Canon had this in the non-L ultra-wide option: http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/ef316.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

N2itiv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > N2itiv said:
> ...



Your original statement was:



N2itiv said:


> My math says the spread from 100-400 ='s 300mm. 300-600 has the same difference.
> The 200-600 has an actual focal length spread of 400mm. A 400-600mm, as I mentioned, would be better @ only 200mm variation. The closer that FL variation is, the easier it is to correct for and make better optically.



A 200-600mm is a 3x zoom range, while a 100-400 is a 4x zoom range. You suggest that a 200-600 would be more difficult to design with similar optical quality than a 100-400, becuase the former has a 400mm 'spread' while the 100-400 has only a 300mm 'spread'. The point is, that's *wrong*. It's not the absolute difference in focal lengths, it's the relative difference. All else being equal, the 200-600mm would be easier to design to a given level of optical quality than the 100-400, becuase of the former's smaller zoom range.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 7, 2015)

I'm so not seeing 600mm at f5.6 happening anywhere less than £6k, if a cheapo super telephoto does happen, I'd see Canon looking at the same range and quality as the Nikon 200-500mm rather than the various 150-600mm products. Price in a competitive range to the Nikon too.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> I know a lot birders would be interested in this lens if priced below 1500$



I'm sure they would! But as others have indicated, such a price is essentially unthinkable.


----------



## candc (Dec 7, 2015)

[/quote]

Or, perhaps saying this a different way, how would you rate the value of: 

100-400L II image quality + 
first party reliable/consistent/fast AF + 
600mm reach @ f/5.6 without teleconvertered cripplling of your AF spread?

...because there is no way to get that with an EF mount right now without buying a $11.5k 600L II. 

In _that_ light, Canon could throw down the gauntlet at $4k or so at launch and many might say "That's better than teleconverters. Sold. Take my money."

- A
[/quote]

There is the 400doii that gives you a very good 560 f/5.6 with a 1.4xtc


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

kaihp said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I've been arguing for Canon to make that similar lens and fill that circled bucket below, but this lens will be priced out of that bucket, I believe. It would sit alongside the 100-400 II as longer variant. No chance it's a cheapo reach lens.
> ...



Umm.... Google Docs. I made it myself. It's not real. It's just my read on things. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

candc said:


> There is the 400doii that gives you a very good 560 f/5.6 with a 1.4xtc



Yes, but Canon's answer of 'we make great teleconverters if you want to shoot over 400mm for less than $10k' no longer is good enough in 2015. The Tamron and two Sigmas now get you to 600mm without a teleconverter.

Now the Tamron and Sigma's come with all sorts of caveats -- the IQ will not be as good as a 100-400 II, and the AF will surely be flaky from time to time... _but doesn't a teleconverter do the same thing?_

So rather than see Tamron/Sigma as a threat, Canon should see it as a classic opportunity to offer a better product (and charge more for it).

- A


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I want to thank you and everyone for their responses. What I was saying is that less focal spread can be sharper because the more FL spread you have, the more compromises must be made to the way light is bent/focused to an optical point across the range. It's not the only factor but a valid one. I wasn't trying to sidetrack the thread will not address again. Apologies!

This lens looks like it will have many compromises to meet a lower price point and one I would pass on, but an L zoom beyond the 100-400L ll would pique my interest.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

N2itiv said:


> I want to thank you and everyone for their responses. What I was saying is that less focal spread can be sharper because the more FL spread you have, the more compromises must be made to the way light is bent/focused to an optical point across the range. It's not the only factor but a valid one. I wasn't trying to sidetrack the thread will not address again. Apologies!
> 
> This lens looks like it will have many compromises to meet a lower price point and one I would pass on, but an L zoom beyond the 100-400L ll would pique my interest.



Understood. My apologies for a windup response -- I should have just disagreed with the range vs. multiplier point and moved on.

- A


----------



## Meatcurry (Dec 7, 2015)

Don't forget canon patented a 300-600 f5.6 with 1.4 TC at the same time as the 200-400, do we think this lens is still on the cards?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 7, 2015)

The stated length of the lens doesn't seem to make sense with the stated focal length. This lens is 14 inches long, which is very close to the length of the 200-400 f/4. 

I wonder if this implies that the design is a DO model, providing that shortening. 

Alternate theory: they're using their new Blue Goo technology to essentially replace some elements that used to be used for color aberration correction.

Might be a funny-looking lens, sort of like a trumpet, which is a bit of what I think about the 400 f/4 DO II (which doesn't prevent me from wanting one dearly).


----------



## candc (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > There is the 400doii that gives you a very good 560 f/5.6 with a 1.4xtc
> ...



True in general but the iq and af of the f/4 teles with the 1.4xiii is still excellent. The 400doii iq is like the 200-400 but in a lighter somewhat less expensive fixed fl form.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> The stated length of the lens doesn't seem to make sense with the stated focal length. This lens is 14 inches long, which is very close to the length of the 200-400 f/4.
> 
> I wonder if this implies that the design is a DO model, providing that shortening.



1) The 200-400 is internally zooming. So that 200-400 length represents what 400mm needs. I'd bet my left nut this 200-600 will not get that royal all-inside treatment. I'd expect this lens to telescope out when shooting long like a 24-something or 100-400 lens.

2) Lengths of other long zooms that aren't DO designs (from TDP: in inches, shortest / longest, both without hood):


Tamron 150-600: 10.57 / 13.67
Sigma 150-600 C: 10.55 / 13.66
Sigma 150-600 S: 11.77 / 15.31

So 14" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Also -- aren't patents for the optical formula only, and tend to leave off length considerations like front filter rings, hood mounts and such?

- A


----------



## candc (Dec 7, 2015)

The patent list the length of the lens as 355mm at wide, middle, and Tele ends. I take that to mean that it is non extending.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 1) The 200-400 is internally zooming. So that 200-400 length represents what 400mm needs. I'd bet my left nut this 200-600 will not get that royal all-inside treatment. I'd expect this lens to telescope out when shooting long like a 24-something or 100-400 lens.



[quote author=Translated Canon patent]
Zoom ratio: 3x
*Focal length: 200.00 340.00 600.00*
F-number: 4.60 4.60 5.20
Angle of view: 6.18 3.64 2.07
Image height: 21.65 21.65 21.65
*Overall length of the lens: 355.16 355.16 355.16*
BF: 65.16 65.16 65.16
[/quote]

Three different focal length examples, same overall length of lens – that means an internal zooming mechanism like the current 200-400L. 

I hope you won't miss your left nut too much.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Three different focal length examples, same overall length of lens – that means an internal zooming mechanism like the current 200-400L.
> 
> I hope you won't miss your left nut too much.



Ouch. I just did a Benny Hill-style groin-clutching pratfall. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

candc said:


> The patent list the length of the lens as 355mm at wide, middle, and Tele ends. I take that to mean that it is non extending.



It's so odd how Canon chooses what is internally zooming (non-extending) vs. externally zooming (extending):

UWA zooms -- typically do not extend
Standard zooms -- all extend
Short tele zooms -- 70-200 L lenses do not extend
Longer tele zooms -- non-L / 70-300L / 28-300 / 100-400s extend, the 200-400 doesn't

Why is that? 

- A


----------



## Eldar (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The 200-400 is internally zooming. So that 200-400 length represents what 400mm needs. I'd bet my left nut this 200-600 will not get that royal all-inside treatment. I'd expect this lens to telescope out when shooting long like a 24-something or 100-400 lens.
> ...



Three different focal length examples, same overall length of lens – that means an internal zooming mechanism like the current 200-400L. 

I hope you won't miss your left nut too much. 
[/quote]
It is apparently 1cm shorter than the 200-400, giving about the same range, without a built in extender. So the argument for building one must be to lower the price. It may be a bit lighter, but probably not much.


----------



## NorbR (Dec 7, 2015)

By the way, is it just me, or is it a bit weird that the quoted numbers are so round?

[quote author=Translated Canon patent]
Zoom ratio: 3x
*Focal length: 200.00 340.00 600.00*
F-number: 4.60 4.60 5.20
Angle of view: 6.18 3.64 2.07
Image height: 21.65 21.65 21.65
Overall length of the lens: 355.16 355.16 355.16
BF: 65.16 65.16 65.16
[/quote]

I'm no expert in patents, but from those that I've seen before on CR, I think that *exact* focal lengths for the optical design were always given. Just digging a bit in recent posts, the patent for the EF 24-300mm quotes 24.30mm and 294.95mm, the patent for the EF 28-200mm quotes 28.90mm and 193.10mm, the patent for the EF-S 9-20mm quotes 9.50mm and 19.70mm ... I'll stop here.

Now I'm having a hard time believing that this optical design would provide precisely 200.00mm and 600.00mm at each end. So any reason for Canon to suddenly start rounding numbers like this?

Admittedly not a very important question ... it just tickles my brain a bit to see those numbers.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 7, 2015)

NorbR said:


> By the way, is it just me, or is it a bit weird that the quoted numbers are so round?
> 
> [quote author=Translated Canon patent]
> Zoom ratio: 3x
> ...



I'm no expert in patents, but from those that I've seen before on CR, I think that *exact* focal lengths for the optical design were always given. Just digging a bit in recent posts, the patent for the EF 24-300mm quotes 24.30mm and 294.95mm, the patent for the EF 28-200mm quotes 28.90mm and 193.10mm, the patent for the EF-S 9-20mm quotes 9.50mm and 19.70mm ... I'll stop here.

Now I'm having a hard time believing that this optical design would provide precisely 200.00mm and 600.00mm at each end. So any reason for Canon to suddenly start rounding numbers like this?

Admittedly not a very important question ... it just tickles my brain a bit to see those numbers. 
[/quote]
Maybe it is a 198,3 - 602,1 mm zoom :


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
> ...



The field reviews say that the 200-500 focuses slowly and the Nikon 80-400 is recommended if you want fast AF. It's very amusing reading the Nikon sites. They complain more than us, particularly about being beta testers for Nikon. Their new lightweight 300mm Fresnel was recalled because the IS failed between about 1/80 - 1/320 and the lens was sharper with the IS (VR) off. The problem still has not been solved on re-issue.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford, where (and when) did you get that matrix from?
> ...



No worries, all good here. I was just wondering if you were pointing to some hidden source I didn't know about.
Reading up on things and presenting the data like you did is perfectly ok with me.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2015)

AlanF said:


> you can see from the measured MTFs that it has to be stopped down to f/ll at at all focal lengths for optimal sharpness, and it is pretty soft at 500mm and f/5.6 and f/8. This is confirmed from shots of a Sieman's chart in Cameralabs:
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml
> 
> The Nikon is really no better than the Sigma 150-600mm C and weighs nearly a pound more. The 100-400mm II will outperform it all the way up to 400mm and based on comparisons of the Canon with the 1.4xTC at 560mm with the Sigmas and Tamron in Cameralabs and my own direct comparisons of the 100-400 with them, I am sure the Canon beats the Nikon.



The test charts aren't 100+ feet away, they don't represent sharpness in telephoto applications.

In the test where they actually take pictures of things far away, corner performance on the 200-500 is worlds better than the competition at 500mm and wide open, and even with a teleconverter it gets more detail (600mm f8 is still pretty bad for Tamron specifically).


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


It is apparently 1cm shorter than the 200-400, giving about the same range, without a built in extender. So the argument for building one must be to lower the price. It may be a bit lighter, but probably not much.
[/quote]
*IF* this patent is comming true my guess is that it'll be treated like the other "big whites" and priced halfway beween the 200-400 and the 300/2.8 - hopefully much closer to the 300  

If I was Canon, I'd make it because of the size advantage. But I'd never bet nuts, guts or limbs on anything 8)


----------



## Viper28 (Dec 7, 2015)

You know what, I'd rather they just built it as a 600/5.6 IS. It would probably be lighter, cheaper and sharper.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs a long telephoto in an EF-S mount with the STM and IS!
> ...



I still think there is some merit to EF-S telephoto because it allows you to design a lens for what would otherwise be weak corner performance.
If we've learned anything from Roger (lensrentals) over the years it's that no lens is perfect (at least below $10,000), they're always balancing IQ across the frame, sharpness in one area comes at the expense of sharpness in another. Even an off the shelf 100-400MkII could probably be tuned for better crop performance at the expense of the corners.
The problem as I see it is that Canon isn't going to want to sell an EF lens with weak corners. Even if they say "it's made for crop, but works on full frame" people are going to stick it on their full frame camera and say it sucks.
If it's made for crop it shouldn't have the "EF" designation.
Basically what I'm suggesting at this point is that they should take exactly the same lens, give it a different mount, and tune it optically for center sharpness.
Would it be worth the distribution nightmare? Probably not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

Viper28 said:


> You know what, I'd rather they just built it as a 600/5.6 IS. It would probably be lighter, cheaper and sharper.



A lens with only one focal length? Who'd want something like that?


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

Viper28 said:


> You know what, I'd rather they just built it as a 600/5.6 IS. It would probably be lighter, cheaper and sharper.


+1

Maybe even a 500/5.6 IS, well usable with the x1.4 TC for the f8.0 AF bodies

I am with you, because anything else will be out of reach for most and me, too


----------



## lycan (Dec 7, 2015)

Again, trusting my reading abilities, it's a patent for a *non-L*. So it won't compete with the big whites or even with 100-400 L ii. It will be cheaper. With cheaper materials, slower Af and not as sharp..... Because it is a *non-L*


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viper28 said:
> 
> 
> > You know what, I'd rather they just built it as a 600/5.6 IS. It would probably be lighter, cheaper and sharper.
> ...



One could argue people buy the 100-400L / 100-400L II as it's _the cheapest 400 prime with IS_ by a few thousand dollars. Canon gets you to buy the zoom because they don't offer the prime you really want -- a 400 f/5.6L IS.

Apple PCs are frustrating like this as well. If you want a nice mid-level performer (better than a jacked up Mac Mini and slower than a Mac Pro, which is a huge range of performance a lot photographers would fall within), you have a choice of either a suped up laptop sitting in a dock all day or a PC embedded in a large monitor. Both options kind of suck if you just want a desktop and already own a monitor.

Canon's annoying like that with long glass. Great options, but there is no balanced/middle sweet spot -- it's a boatload of $1k - $2k options and then things explode price-wise.

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Or, perhaps saying this a different way, how would you rate the value of:
> 
> 100-400L II image quality +
> first party reliable/consistent/fast AF +
> ...



This presents a tough choice for 300f2.8 owners. Basically if you're using one of those with the 2X TC it's going to become obsolete the moment a 600f5.6 hits the market. Maybe the 300f2.8+2xTC would still have the IQ advantage, but not AF, and it's much less convenient.
If the 200-600 costs under $4K then it's going to destroy the used market for the 300f2.8.


----------



## lycan (Dec 7, 2015)

9VIII said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Or, perhaps saying this a different way, how would you rate the value of:
> ...



It won't destroy. Because it is a *non-L* (I could do this all day ).
I'll bet my right nut it will cost less than the 100-400L ii


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

lycan said:


> ... it is a *non-L*


*non-L* with > 115.4 mm FE? And best for < 2k or 3k bucks ... ?
Man, I'd like to smoke what you have...


----------



## lycan (Dec 7, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > ... it is a *non-L*
> ...



We will see


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

lycan said:


> Again, trusting my reading abilities, it's a patent for a *non-L*. So it won't compete with the big whites or even with 100-400 L ii. It will be cheaper. With cheaper materials, slower Af and not as sharp..... Because it is a *non-L*



http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-07

Egami says (embodiment 1) it is indeed an L lens, but I do not know if that's a literal translation or an assumption on the part of the patent reviewer.

Do you really think (what now appears to be) an internally zooming lens only one stop slower than an $11k+ superwhite, with a > 100mm front element that likely isn't front filterable _isn't_ going to be an L lens? 

One would think this would be an L for sure.

- A


----------



## lycan (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > Again, trusting my reading abilities, it's a patent for a *non-L*. So it won't compete with the big whites or even with 100-400 L ii. It will be cheaper. With cheaper materials, slower Af and not as sharp..... Because it is a *non-L*
> ...



Well if it is an L, then I take back everything I said because I'd like to keep both nuts


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Viper28 said:
> ...




Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight.
Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.


I'd love to see a 500f5.6DO, which might weigh the same, but it would still cost a lot more.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
> It may be 22 years old but optically that thing is still high end, and while other lenses might have (very slightly) more reach, they're never going to come close in weight, and quite frankly nothing ever will.
> Comparing the balance of IQ, cost and weight, this lens achieves something that no other lens ever will.



Sure. 

But.

If you'd just like to tack IS on that lens to walk back your ISO 3-4 stops -- something I'm told is useful for these lenses  -- it will cost you another $5700 for the 400 DO II.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Even with all the rumors and new telephoto lenses out there, I still say that if people want a telephoto prime, get the 400f5.6 Prime.
> ...



Sure. 

But.

If you'd like to shoot birds -- something I'm told is common for these lenses  -- you're probably at at least 1/800 s already so you're not going to see any benefit from IS.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


Please don't tell me you never came across a frozen hummer 
And all those tit statues thrown into hatches...
[/sarc off]


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 7, 2015)

Anyone want to bet that it won't compete on price with the Sigma 150-600C I just got on a Cyber Monday deal from BuyDig (reputable authorized dealer who got it to me right on time) for $700?

I'd be guessing $3k or so for the Canon. It's basically a 100-400L upscaled by a factor of 1.5 and with the "L" removed.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Anyone want to bet that it won't compete on price with the Sigma 150-600C I just got on a Cyber Monday deal from BuyDig (reputable authorized dealer who got it to me right on time) for $700?
> 
> I'd be guessing $3k or so for the Canon. It's basically a 100-400L upscaled by a factor of 1.5 and with the "L" removed.


Hi Lee Jay! 

I really hope you'd be true, but I can't believe it. 
Did you ever drill down about producing optical elements? 
Did you ever recognize that the price goes up with the diameter in square - at least?

The rule of three is linear, price is not. So if the diameter increases from 77 to 115 we'd have at least 1.5 by 2 so 2.25 for the price. Say $4.500 at a minimum.

Your calculations?


----------



## gunship01 (Dec 7, 2015)

lycan said:


> Again, trusting my reading abilities, it's a patent for a *non-L*. So it won't compete with the big whites or even with 100-400 L ii. It will be cheaper. With cheaper materials, slower Af and not as sharp..... Because it is a *non-L*



Non-L = No Sale.


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 7, 2015)

Interesting patent. Given this isn't an L lens, this lens will have to compete against the price of the Sigma and Tamron options. Both providers have raised the quality/price bar pretty high recently. It might be tough for canon to compete cost wise and provide an equal experience.


----------



## MrToes (Dec 7, 2015)

I would not pay more that $1500 unless this lens out performs the equals of Sigma, Tamron and Nikon! It will have to be tack sharp for anyone to spend anymore that that now day's, on that focal range of lens. Lets hope Canon doesn't get too proud of the color with this one either!


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > The stated length of the lens doesn't seem to make sense with the stated focal length. This lens is 14 inches long, which is very close to the length of the 200-400 f/4.
> ...



The lens specs show the same length through the entire zoom range, hence internal focus.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Sure.
But.
Stabilized viewfinder image with a long focal length even when zsing an antiquazed mirrorslapper with OVF?
Helpful or not to get that birdie in the sky into the frame and to keep that AF point on it at 600mm? 
One of the 2 main advantages always quoted by the Canon Defense League in having IS in lens rather than in camera?

That aside, i do not see a need for 400/5.6 IS any more, as that birdie has bern killed with the 100-400 II. Zooms with IS rulez supreme as far as i am concerned. An optically decent and affordable (2999) 200-600/5.6 IS would deginitely be a hot seller (and cannibalize the 100-400 ii a bit). Sp i guess is rather 3999 - no matter what sigma and Tammy may ask for theirs. And nikon don't fit no Canon, and thete is no D400 ... so no problem on that end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Sure.
> But.
> Stabilized viewfinder image with a long focal length even when zsing an antiquazed mirrorslapper with OVF?
> Helpful or not to get that birdie in the sky into the frame and to keep that AF point on it at 600mm?
> One of the 2 main advantages always quoted by the Canon Defense League in having IS in lens rather than in camera?



I use Mode 3 IS on my 600 II, where the IS doesn't kick in until you take the shot. No stabilized VF, I don't have trouble framing and focusing on BIF, even at 840mm or 1200mm. 




AvTvM said:


> That aside, i do not see a need for 400/5.6 IS any more, as that birdie has bern killed with the 100-400 II.



The current 400/5.6L is $1000 cheaper than the 100-400 MkII, I agree there's probably not room for a 400/5.6 IS in between. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 400/5.6's 10" length, the zoom's ability to collapse for transport/storage is useful even if the lens is used primarily at the long end.


----------



## stormypetrel (Dec 7, 2015)

No way this is going to be a lower priced non L lens. It's got to be fat to gather the light, and Canon is not going to build a big fat black lens. It could well be a DO to keep the weight down and make it shorter, but it will be fat like the the 300/2.8. All that points toward something that will cost at least as much as a 400DO, which is a 560/5.6 w/ a 1.4, so a bit slower than 600/5.6. It's probably going to be a dream lens for seabird photography, which is what I'm about. Bring it on.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone want to bet that it won't compete on price with the Sigma 150-600C I just got on a Cyber Monday deal from BuyDig (reputable authorized dealer who got it to me right on time) for $700?
> ...


A fixed focal length 600F5.6 should be of similar size and slightly higher priced than a fixed length 300F2.8 and ..... which in Canada sells for $7,860

A zoom lens will be more expensive than a fixed lens.... but even if they keep it to a <sarcasm on> mere <sarcasm off> $8,000, that's not an "affordable" lens. It's got to be non-L to hit that target.....


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure.
> 
> But.
> 
> If you'd like to shoot birds -- something I'm told is common for these lenses  -- you're probably at at least 1/800 s already so you're not going to see any benefit from IS.



That's a burn. 

I should have known better than to bring a still life shutter speed to a birding shutter speed fight. 

- A


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

9VIII said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Or, perhaps saying this a different way, how would you rate the value of:
> ...



Depends. A 300+2xTC is also 300mm lens; no 600mm lens can be halved. And I imagine the weight and size are less - the extenders are pretty small, after all.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I have to dispute this actually. I'm open to the possibility that I'm weird and unusual, but I shoot perched birds at 1/320-1/400; birds in flight are more like 1/1600-2000. What do others say? Besides, IS also stabilises the viewfinder*, which can help at long focal lengths with small, distant subjects. Also, it's not as if every 1/800 shot at 400mm will be sharp, IS can still help increase the odds in your favour.

*Edit: I see you mentioned this above.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Dec 7, 2015)

I really hope that canon comes out with something semi-affordable with a range like the patent. 600 5.6 also means that there is a possibility of using autofocus with a teleconverter at 840...pretty sweet, zoom or prime I would love to see one come out.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

B&H has the 200-400 listed for $11k, the 500 f/4 for $9k and the 600 f/4 for $11.5k. So even $5-6k would be massively cheaper. Not cheap, but certainly much better value for the focal length, and a stepping stone from the lower-rung superteles to the upper ones.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

MrToes said:


> I would not pay more that $1500 unless this lens out performs the equals of Sigma, Tamron and Nikon! It will have to be tack sharp for anyone to spend anymore that that now day's, on that focal range of lens. Lets hope Canon doesn't get too proud of the color with this one either!



Lol, then you won't buy this lens. There is no way it will be that cheap.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I use Mode 3 IS on my 600 II, where the IS doesn't kick in until you take the shot. No stabilized VF, I don't have trouble framing and focusing on BIF, even at 840mm or 1200mm.



Oh, you dealt with that point. I really should reply once I've read to the end! Again, I'd love to know how common this is. I've never used mode 3.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 7, 2015)

So far as I am concerned, the aged EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS still has a role as an inexpensive and light weight BIF lens and hiking-there lens.


----------



## addola (Dec 7, 2015)

It's to be expected that Canon should cover this focal length, like Nikon, Tamron and Sigma.

It's slightly faster at all focal lengths than Tamron/Sigma offering (f/4.5-5.6 VS f/5-6.3), I can bet you that this is because they intend to make it compatible with their 1.4x Teleconverter, so that you get some AF at f/8.

Canon's TC is compatible only with L lenses of fixed-focal length 135 & over, the 70-200s, and the 100-400, so if this lens is to be introduced, I believe it would be an L lens. 

Price-wise, it expect it to be more expensive than the Tamron/Sigma offering. The Sigma Sport sells for $1999 on B&H, so I'd expect something will north of that price. 

My two cents...


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 8, 2015)

How about a pro body with digital zoom? 
Save money, save weight.
Better yet, hack one of the 50:1 $400 cameras zoom lens.
Seriously, I could see my 5DS with a digital zoom.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 8, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


> How about a pro body with digital zoom?
> Save money, save weight.
> Better yet, hack one of the 50:1 $400 cameras zoom lens.
> Seriously, I could see my 5DS with a digital zoom.



Already exists. It's called "Photoshop"


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 8, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone want to bet that it won't compete on price with the Sigma 150-600C I just got on a Cyber Monday deal from BuyDig (reputable authorized dealer who got it to me right on time) for $700?
> ...



$2,300 for 100-400L * 1.5^2 = $5,175. Divide by 1.5-2 for it being a non-L = $2,587.50 - $3,450.

Want another one?

Tamron 150-600/6.3 = $1,050
Sigma 150-600/6.3C = $1,090
Sigma 150-600/6.3S = $2,000
Nikon 200-500/5.6 = $1,400

$1,400 * (600/500)^2 = $2,016
$2,000 * (6.3/5.6)^4 = $3,203


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 8, 2015)

Since I already have the 100-400 II, I'd be satisfied with a reasonably priced (whatever that means) 600/5.6L IS prime. But since I can achieve 560/8L("-ish") IS by dropping less than $450 on a 1.4x III, that's probably where I would land.

And by the way, you guys who are betting your nuts ... how do you decide which one? ???


----------



## Wizardly (Dec 8, 2015)

What I find most interesting about this patent are the 7 design examples.
Example 3 & 4: 60-600mm lens for 135-format is also interesting.
Example 5 & 6: 50-1000mm for APS-C.
Example 7: all of the above. Example 7 actually States that it combines all six of the previous examples.

Text from Example 7:
Thus, the imaging device which has high optical performance is realized
by applying the zoom lens of the present invention **to a television
camera etc.** However, the composition of the zoom lens about the present
invention and a camera is not limited to the form of Fig.21, but various
deformation and change are possible for it within the limits of the
summary.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 8, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



How about:
With the long whites, a fixed focal length 600F5.6 should be of similar size and slightly higher priced than a fixed length 300F2.8 and ..... which in Canada sells for $7,860

With the "Red Rim Reduction factor" we get $7860 * 1/3 or $2620

Not having the large fluorite element makes the price plummet.


----------



## HighLowISO (Dec 8, 2015)

I also picked up the deal on the Sigma 150-600mm C on the BF/CM sale. There is no way Canon will compete with that price. I really wanted to update my 100-400mm with the mkII, but the deal was too good even if I have to wait until spring maybe to get some good use of it. I missed the refurb sales, but maybe that was for the best given this Sigma deal.

I will also say no way this new one (200-600 f/5.6) is less than $1500 if it came to be. If it's f/5.6 when it actually ships, $3K would be a deal. 

Anyway right now we just have to wait and see what they produce and in what quality. Do they want to tackle Tamron and Sigma head on, or just provide a much better optic even if the price is 2-3x.

Exciting times for those that like to use long lenses on a budget.


----------



## candc (Dec 8, 2015)

HighLowISO said:


> I also picked up the deal on the Sigma 150-600mm C on the BF/CM sale. There is no way Canon will compete with that price. I really wanted to update my 100-400mm with the mkII, but the deal was too good even if I have to wait until spring maybe to get some good use of it. I missed the refurb sales, but maybe that was for the best given this Sigma deal.
> 
> I will also say no way this new one (200-600 f/5.6) is less than $1500 if it came to be. If it's f/5.6 when it actually ships, $3K would be a deal.
> 
> ...



You are right about that. This is a center 100% crop comparison of the 600ii, 400doii+1.4xiii, and tamron 150-600. The point to take away is that even the tamron which seems to be considered the lowest performing lens of the current options available, its still really good. the tamron is stopped down to f/8 the others ate wide open.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 8, 2015)

candc said:


> HighLowISO said:
> 
> 
> > Exciting times for those that like to use long lenses on a budget.
> ...



I'd love to see the 100-400 II + 1.4x III (which would be @ 560mm f/8 at max FL & max aperture) included in this or a similar comparison.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 8, 2015)

candc said:


> HighLowISO said:
> 
> 
> > I also picked up the deal on the Sigma 150-600mm C on the BF/CM sale. There is no way Canon will compete with that price. I really wanted to update my 100-400mm with the mkII, but the deal was too good even if I have to wait until spring maybe to get some good use of it. I missed the refurb sales, but maybe that was for the best given this Sigma deal.
> ...


Thanks for the images C&C

As a bird photographer, I often remind myself that one can wait hours and hours for that perfect moment to happen and I can capture the best image possible.
IQ is of course very important but a lens needs to offer reliable and quick AF to increase one's keeper rate. These static images do allow me to see that IQ is pretty similar but do you know of any online resources that qualifies AF performance as well?

Thanks.


----------



## weixing (Dec 8, 2015)

candc said:


> HighLowISO said:
> 
> 
> > I also picked up the deal on the Sigma 150-600mm C on the BF/CM sale. There is no way Canon will compete with that price. I really wanted to update my 100-400mm with the mkII, but the deal was too good even if I have to wait until spring maybe to get some good use of it. I missed the refurb sales, but maybe that was for the best given this Sigma deal.
> ...


Hi,
I had the Tamron 150-600 before I got my 100-400 II. My Tamron 150-600 copy is very sharp in the center at 400mm even at wide open... sharper than my 400 F5.6L and around the same as my 100-400 II, but once you move away from the center, the sharpness drop quickly even for an APS-C sensor.

Anyway, I got the 100-400II because of better handling (Tamron is too front heavy for me), faster AF and I found the mode 3 IS very useful on tripod especially my technique is far from perfect... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 8, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> ...do you know of any online resources that qualifies AF performance as well?
> 
> Thanks.



Check out http://www.the-digital-picture.com/. He did very thorough reviews of the Canon, Tamron and both Sigmas.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 8, 2015)

Not sure I understand the reasoning of those who say this will not be an "L" lens. I can't imagine it being anything but an "L." It has to perform better than the competition (which perform quite well by all accounts). Canon certainly understands the value of painting a lens white and adding a red ring and this lens cannot sell for less than the 100-400 anyway. I expect it to start at around $2,500 and that's probably optimistic on my part.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2015)

Boy, for just a rumor of an anticipated lens these comments sure have moved into the realm of reality. Must be memories of Christmas as a child driving this along! Oh to be young again. 

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Not sure I understand the reasoning of those who say this will not be an "L" lens. I can't imagine it being anything but an "L." It has to perform better than the competition (which perform quite well by all accounts). Canon certainly understands the value of painting a lens white and adding a red ring and this lens cannot sell for less than the 100-400 anyway. I expect it to start at around $2,500 and that's probably optimistic on my part.



Best I can tell...


One group of people on this thread believes the only (or principal) reason Canon would make a 600mm long end zoom would be to compete with the spate of affordable superteles that have come of late (Tamron, Sigma, Nikon). Making it an L lens at that kind of length would presumably price this 200-600 lens well above that of the aforementioned lenses, so _potentially making it a non-L would allow Canon to keep the cost down_.


The other group thinks it's absolutely going to be an L lens for too many reasons to count -- front element size, internal zooming, only one stop slower than Canon's priciest 500 & 600 primes, same max aperture as the 100-400L II, etc. -- there's just too much 'better than budget' on that list, and an L lens designation seems the inevitable choice.

I'm clearly in the second camp. Were it a slower 200-600 *f/5-6.3* IS (like the Tamron & Sigmas) I _possibly_ could be talked into this not being an L lens, but probably not. 

- A


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 8, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



An uninformed guess but using your "_this patent may not be that lens_" coupled with your chart with a gap for a slow, cheap super-telephoto I would think a 200-600 f?-6.3 non-L could be likely.
- 600 / 6.3 = 95. That's a front element that makes the lens able to compete price-wise with the 3rd party solutions and is the only way Canon can get the price close to the Nikon and 3rd party options.
- keeps people buying the 200-400 1.4, which would be made rather (more) niche otherwise.
- keeps the 100-400 popular
- Canon loves focal length one-upmanship over Nikon:
- 18-135 vs 18-105
- 55-250 vs 55-200
- 200-600 vs 200-500?

My view is that the patent represents one of the options they've explored and the patent for and f6.3 formula is either covered already in that patent (just scale it down?) or, due to reasons of commercial sensitivity and the simpler 'we were working on it for longer', was submitted later so has still not been published.


----------



## noncho (Dec 8, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
> https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326
> 
> you can see from the measured MTFs that it has to be stopped down to f/ll at at all focal lengths for optimal sharpness, and it is pretty soft at 500mm and f/5.6 and f/8. This is confirmed from shots of a Sieman's chart in Cameralabs:
> ...



A nice and affordable 500 5.6 IS would bring me back in Canon telephoto team


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2015)

noncho said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon 200-500mm is another lens I have been thinking about and dismissed as not being up to the 100-400mm II. There are two pretty good reviews of the Nikon. In ePhotozine:
> ...


As long as it is an L lens with excellent quality fully open


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 8, 2015)

I don't understand optical design but I thought the rule of thumb is that if lens focal length is X, its length from the front element to the focal pane must be X as well unless it is a DO lens with diffraction optics or it has built in teleconverter. The first would mean probably even bigger price hike than just regular L (judging by 400 DO Mk.II) and second would go against expectations of not having IQ and AF affected by teleconverter.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 8, 2015)

NancyP said:


> So far as I am concerned, the aged EF 400 f/5.6L no-IS still has a role as an inexpensive and light weight BIF lens and hiking-there lens.



Sorry, but I totally fail to see that. EF 400/5.6 without IS is so totally obsolete ever since the 100-400 II came out. 300 grams weight difference are totally meaningless, when considering carrying around 1,25kg of literally dead weight. 

EF 400/5.6 L: ØxL 90x256.5mm / 1.25kg / MFD 3.5m / 1:8.33
EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II: 94x193mm / 1.57kg / MFD 0.98m / 1:3,23 / + IS / + better IQ / + zoom goodness


----------



## nightscape123 (Dec 8, 2015)

It seems to me that canon has backed themselves into a corner with this lens. They spent soooo long on a 100-400 replacement that by the time they released it, 150-600 was the new lens to beat. They released the 100-400 ii at a higher price point, though imo it is still worth it, as the lens is amazing. However now canon seems to want to get into the 600mm zoom segment. I don't know how they plan on doing this though as the competition is all at a price point below that of the 100-400. Obviously they can't price this lens below the 100-400, but if they price it higher in the 3-4k range then no one that is buying up the 150-600's is going to get one. People willing to spend that kind of money probably already have to 600 prime, or the 300 f/2.8. 

Leaves canon in an odd place imo. They priced themselves out of their own market. Seems the best option would be a non-L lens at ~the 2k price point. Which is just weird.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> I don't understand optical design but I thought the rule of thumb is that if lens focal length is X, its length from the front element to the focal pane must be X as well unless it is a DO lens with diffraction optics or it has built in teleconverter.



Only your very first statement appears to be correct. 

Focal length is the distance from the rear nodal point to the image plane (sensor) with the lens focused at infinity. The rear nodal point is an optical plane and can be within or outside the physical lens. 

By definition, a telephoto lens design is one in which the lens is physically shorter than the focal length (the rear nodal point is in front of the front element). Diffractive optics can be used to produce a telephoto lens even shorter than the standard (refractive) optics. 

At the other end, you have retrofocus lens designs for wide angle lenses, where the lens is physically longer then the focal length. Consider a 16-35mm zoom lens, where without a retrofocus design, the entire lens would need to be inside the camera body since the flange focal distance (mount to sensor) for the EF mount is 44mm.


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand optical design but I thought the rule of thumb is that if lens focal length is X, its length from the front element to the focal pane must be X as well unless it is a DO lens with diffraction optics or it has built in teleconverter.
> ...



 Thanks for explanation. I completely forgot about wide angle lenses violating my expectations.


----------



## canonic (Dec 8, 2015)

wow ... another patent


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 8, 2015)

nightscape123 said:


> It seems to me that canon has backed themselves into a corner with this lens. They spent soooo long on a 100-400 replacement that by the time they released it, 150-600 was the new lens to beat. They released the 100-400 ii at a higher price point, though imo it is still worth it, as the lens is amazing. However now canon seems to want to get into the 600mm zoom segment. I don't know how they plan on doing this though as the competition is all at a price point below that of the 100-400. Obviously they can't price this lens below the 100-400, but if they price it higher in the 3-4k range then no one that is buying up the 150-600's is going to get one. People willing to spend that kind of money probably already have to 600 prime, or the 300 f/2.8.
> 
> Leaves canon in an odd place imo. They priced themselves out of their own market. Seems the best option would be a non-L lens at ~the 2k price point. Which is just weird.



Oh, I don't know. As you have noted, the 100-400 II is substantially more expensive than the longer range Sigmas and Tamrons (and the Nikon 200-500), and yet Canon doesn't seem to be having any problems selling them. IMHO, Canon's only competition in this product space is its own lenses, and in this regard, it has plenty of pricing leeway. I think it's incorrect to presume that "everyone with 'that kind of money' has already bought a [300- 600mm prime];" the implication being that there's no market for a 200-600mm zoom in the $3-4K price range.

Rather than needing to be priced low enough to compete against the Sigma and Tamron offerings, it needs to be priced high enough (depending on how well this theoretical lens performs, if ever produced) to not cannibalize Canon's own higher end (and, presumably, more profitable) products too much.

And I like Jack Douglas' observation about how "real" all this discussion has seemed to make this merely rumored lens! ;D


----------



## stormypetrel (Dec 8, 2015)

There's a lot of speculation on here about what Canon should or will build when it comes to a super telephoto zoom, and a basic misunderstanding of physics and cost when it comes to this 200 to 600/5.6 spec. 600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8. How much do those cost? I see this as a replacement for the 200 to 400/4. It gathers a speck more light and there would be no need to jack around with the installed TC in the 2 to 4. If they go the DO route they could make it a couple of pounds lighter and less complicated than the cinderblock that is the 2 to 4, which is as heavy as a new 400/2.8, but gathers half the light. That 2 to 4 might be useful for some folks and no doubt it's sharp, but it a lighter more portable 200 to 600 would appeal to many more people. It's amazing to the direction this thread took based on first post. As the new 100 to 400 is functional with a 1.4 TC, I think you can forget about a new Canon lens that mimics the Sigma specs. There is no point when it comes to what it would cost to tool up and make it and then they won't sell as many 1 to 4s. And Canon has no interest in making cheaper telephotos over 300mm from what I've seen over the last couple of decades.


----------



## candc (Dec 8, 2015)

> 600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8.



2.8 is 4x as "fast" as 5.6. the focal length doesn't matter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

candc said:


> > 600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.8 is 4x as "fast" as 5.6. the focal length doesn't matter.



I think you will find he meant the size of the front element is the same.

300/2.8 = 107mm front element
600/5.6 = 107mm front element

Should we reasonably expect a 107mm front element lens from Canon to be priced much less than their current 300mm f2.8? 

This is an entirely different lens to the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 lenses, they are f6.3 at the long end and have 95mm front elements, so the price of the Canon will be nowhere near them, if it comes to market.

I suspect Canon have had reasonable success with the 200-400 with TC and are thinking of other ways to tap that market for long high quality zooms. Canon used to make a 150-600mm constant f5.6 zoom, it was a premium lens and even today they cost thousands of dollars. They are very popular with wildlife video shooters and video is a market Canon have actively explored. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm The slower at the short end but no TC zoom is much more useful for video as it allows for uninterrupted long zooms, the 200-400 + TC is much more photo/stills-centric. Video shooters are well used to $10,000 and up lenses.........

A 150-600 f4.5-5.6 can only be a high end lens, it would be priced similar to the 200-400 with TC.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 8, 2015)

"- keeps people buying the 200-400 *1.4*, which would be made rather (more) niche otherwise."

I want to see this lens!  Probably on a $20,000.00 fork mount in an observatory.


----------



## candc (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > > 600/5.6 is as big and fast as a 300/2.8.
> ...



That's what I think too. This lens seems to be like a longer version of the sigma 120-300. That lens has a 105mm filter and costs $3700. There is no way this lens would be cheaper. you can bet your "you know what" on that! I don't want to bet mine.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

You guys are trying to figure out how much would cost the lens, I make it easy: 

If canon make this kind of lens, it's to compete against Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, who already have similar lenses.
Those are priced 1000-2000 $/€, and that is where Canon is gonna try to compete, maybe up to 2500 "for the brandname" but not more. Above that price level, this lens would compete other Canon lenses, not the competition !

I think it will very much look like the Nikon one, in white color ;-)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> You guys are trying to figure out how much would cost the lens, I make it easy:
> 
> If canon make this kind of lens, it's to compete against Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, who already have similar lenses.
> Those are priced 1000-2000 $/€, and that is where Canon is gonna try to compete, maybe up to 2500 "for the brandname" but not more. Above that price level, this lens would compete other Canon lenses, not the competition !
> ...



swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.



If you try to explain modern things using 20 years old technology, you will have a problem to explain the last 4/300 Nikon, for example. 20 years ago, people would have said it has to measure 300mm long.

About the size of the front lens, I think Canon will bring some design that makes this lens possible with a 95mm front element (or similar size). Maybe it will just be a 200-500 when it comes out, or maybe it will include some kind of DO element that makes it a bit longer focal lenght in the same external size. I think the fact that the lens is IF (internal focus) has something to do with this. This is not a feature that Canon adds to make the lens look better, we have seen they don't do it on the 70-300 or the 100-400. So if they make it IF, it's part of the reason of the focal lenght trick, in my opinion ;-)


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.
> ...


The front element cannot be made smaller. The laws of optics continue to apply... It has to be (focal length) / Fnumber so if you say it will be a 500mm instead of a 600mm sure the front element will be smaller but that's with any kind of lens... or they can increase the f-stop number (old news).

As far as increased focal length (with same length) DO technology does that but the above equation still stands... 

See the size of the front element in the recent 400mm f/4 DO II lens...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > swkitt, explain the availability of the FD 150-600 f5.6, a twenty year old manual focus and aperture lens that costs $3,000-5,000 secondhand then. A 107mm front element is not in the same price bracket as the Sigmas and Tamron, it is a completely different league.
> ...



You clearly have no comprehension on optical physics, the word telephoto means a lens shorter than its focal length, and has been around since 1611. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

Front element equals focal length divided by aperture, there is no way around that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

The FD 150-600 f5.6 was a premium lens that still fetches very good money and video users love it. An EF 200-600 f4.5-5.6 will have AF and IS and be a premium lens, it can't not be, and video users will love it, more-so than the 200-400 with TC.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

tron said:


> As far as increased focal length (with same length) DO technology does that but the above equation still stands...
> 
> See the size of the front element in the recent 400mm f/4 DO II lens...



I know the equation will still stand, but I can't believe this IF is here for no reason. If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.
In my opinion, the lens will be very similar to Nikon's one with a little extra, related to this IF choice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > As far as increased focal length (with same length) DO technology does that but the above equation still stands...
> ...



Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.

If you want that from Canon get a 100-400 MkII, which stands up very well against the others even when cropped to the same framing, or put a 1.4 TC on it for a slower 140-560mm.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.



Sure they can.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.



So why does Nikon did it ? They didn't have interest either I guess... 
Canon have a big interest in doing it, maybe not because some Canon users are going to buy one tamron lens, but because some users are going to shift to Nikon because they want to get their cheap 200-500.
Is Canon away from the overcrowded 70-300 market or the overcrowded 18-200 market ?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> swkitt said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I agree the 100-400 competes and that's as far as the competition will go on that one. It's going to be pricey, this fictitious lens that will be bought with fictitious $$$.

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> You guys are trying to figure out how much would cost the lens, I make it easy:
> 
> If canon make this kind of lens, it's to compete against Tamron, Sigma and Nikon, who already have similar lenses.
> Those are priced 1000-2000 $/€, and that is where Canon is gonna try to compete, maybe up to 2500 "for the brandname" but not more. Above that price level, this lens would compete other Canon lenses, not the competition !
> ...



As I said before, there seem to be two camps on this:

One believes Canon is ONLY (or principally) doing this lens to say "Yes, we have $1,000-$1,500 150-600 as well!"

Others, like myself, are looking at what this patent might represent as a product:


Enormous front element
600mm f/5.6 is only one stop slower than an $11k+ 600 f/4 prime.
Internal zooming is generally not attempted with budget lenses (UWA zooms might be one exception)
Same max aperture as the 100-400L II, which is a full stop faster than the Sigma/Tamron lenses.
*
Nothing on that list above says "budget" to me.* It says mid-quality L zoom to me. If this lens is real, Canon is going its own path with this one, just like they did with the 100-400L II.

So I personally reject the notion that Canon has a "how the hell did they make it so cheap" lens like the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 IS on the way. 

First party AF + no teleconverters to get to 600mm + f/5.6 = a highly coveted lens, even if much pricier than the other options.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> swkitt said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are trying to figure out how much would cost the lens, I make it easy:
> ...



Technically, the Sigma 150-600 S is a bigger lens than the C version and actually packs a 105mm front filter ring. That said, it also costs twice as much (it's $2k).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> swkitt said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon wants to compete in this kind of product, they just can't propose it for twice the price, even if it's 1/3 of a stop faster and moreover add a free IF design for no reason.
> ...



_ABSOLUTELY_ they can. 

It's a full stop faster at 600mm. 
It has first party AF. 
It will have better weather sealing.
It has a smaller zoom multiplier than the 150-600 competitors, so one might assume it could made to be sharper.
_
Sold. _

I'm not saying they'll get $5-6k for it, $2500-3500? Yeah, I could see that. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon have no interest in 'competing' with Tamron and Sigma in the over crowded low priced 150/200-500/600mm focal length.
> ...



Nikon did it because they thought they could make money doing it, Canon, so far, don't. Canon do have the aging but very good 400 f5.6 L at $1,200, they then have the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 MkII L for $2,200, they also have a slew of 70-300's that cover every base in the lower end.

If I was a Canon lens exec I'd think the budget and medium tele end is well covered, don't forget the 100-400 cropped stacks up very well against the Tamron/Sigmas at max focal length it is that good, if, however, I could throw a unique high end long zoom at people and get more video shooters buying C300's then I'd be looking at 150/200-600 ideas. 

If I was that exec I'd like my team to show me some 400 f5.6 updates, IS would be a must but how about an f5 instead of f5.6 as they did to the 500 primes going from f4.5 to f4? If they could make a 400mm f5 IS prime for $2,395 at launch and drop to $1,895 six months later I think they'd have another great lens.


----------



## stormypetrel (Dec 8, 2015)

I was thinking about the old 150 to 600 FD- glad someone posted it. Yes, I meant a 600/5.6 had to be as big in the front as a 300/2.8. Obviously the 300 is faster w/o a 2X on it. Amazing though how some cling to the notion that Canon might sell this dream lens for half again more than the new 1 to 4. Astonishing. Canon has no problem charging top dollar for that and a 600/5.6 is in another league altogether.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> swkitt said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are trying to figure out how much would cost the lens, I make it easy:
> ...



Or to put it more clearly, one camp who live in the real world and understand facts and their relevance, and the other camp who live in a fantasyland where their personal desires overcome the laws of physics and the practical realities of business.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> It's a full stop faster at 600mm.



Nope, f/5,6 to f/6,3 is 1/3 of a stop. 
a full stop would be f/5,6 to f/8.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > It's a full stop faster at 600mm.
> ...


It's f/5.2 according to the patent


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 8, 2015)

stormypetrel said:


> I was thinking about the old 150 to 600 FD- glad someone posted it. Yes, I meant a 600/5.6 had to be as big in the front as a 300/2.8. Obviously the 300 is faster w/o a 2X on it. Amazing though how some cling to the notion that Canon might sell this dream lens for half again more than the new 1 to 4. Astonishing. Canon has no problem charging top dollar for that and a 600/5.6 is in another league altogether.



If they make a 600 F5.6 L lens, it will probably cost around $8000..... quite a deal compared to the 600F4 

If they made it with DO technology, the price might drop to $7000.....

If it is a zoom, it will cost more.....

If they make it as a non-L lens, I can't see the price being south of $3000.... we are still talking about a large lens with some substantial (expensive) lens elements, and we are talking about Canon. Use the comparable Sigma or Tamron lens to any Canon lens.... the Canon costs significantly more. I can not see this magically changing with a 200-600.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> If they make it as a non-L lens, I can't see the price being south of $3000.... we are still talking about a large lens with some substantial (expensive) lens elements, and we are talking about Canon. Use the comparable Sigma or Tamron lens to any Canon lens.... the Canon costs significantly more. I can not see this magically changing with a 200-600.....



Nonsense. C'mon, Don...drink the Koolaid. Reality is boring, anyway.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> stormypetrel said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking about the old 150 to 600 FD- glad someone posted it. Yes, I meant a 600/5.6 had to be as big in the front as a 300/2.8. Obviously the 300 is faster w/o a 2X on it. Amazing though how some cling to the notion that Canon might sell this dream lens for half again more than the new 1 to 4. Astonishing. Canon has no problem charging top dollar for that and a 600/5.6 is in another league altogether.
> ...


Hi Don!

Short question:
Why should DO tech be cheaper than classical? This hasn't happen before.
Thanks.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> swkitt said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Canon execs should be more worried about their 100-400 and 400 5.6 were the reasons why birders went with Canon first and foremost. With the tamron and Sigma 150-600 this gives birders a equally great low budget and great performing option to go with Nikon or Sony (which are beating Canon in the Sensor area). I myself have never seen so many birders in life using Nikons than before and they all have the Tamron 150-600mm. Canon is now and is going to lose more and more users because of they're not competing to the third party 600mm. This is the only reason why Nikon came out with their 200-500mm, to give birders more reason to go with their bodies and eventually go with their other lenses. 

For what it is worth The 100-400mkII is not all that compared to the Tamron 150-600mm in life for a birder, actually the 70-300L is more of a cropping champ than the 100-400II if you really expect a birder to only crop later. The Tamron is right on course wide open at 400 as the 400mm 5.6 it is that good. The 100-400II absolutely took no sales from the Sigma or Tamron 150-600s from birders, if anything it only made those three after market lenses stronger and better of a buy. 

BTW I have shot many different bodies and makers with the Tamron 150-600. The best of the best is the Nikon D750 with it, though it may not have the FPS as a 7D2 it does have better high ISO making it a great contender for Perching birds, which is one of the most common bird out there and the hardest for crop bodies because they're always under cover in low light. The days before the Tamron was announced a Nikon body would never of been thought of to use but now those days are done...this is a Canon Execs worry and this is a reason to EF-S stm 500-600mm zoom even if it is 6.3..keep the birders in the ecosystem of Canon. Screw L grade is what most birders will say if the idea of a great performing lens is in front of them for a decent price.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > If they make it as a non-L lens, I can't see the price being south of $3000.... we are still talking about a large lens with some substantial (expensive) lens elements, and we are talking about Canon. Use the comparable Sigma or Tamron lens to any Canon lens.... the Canon costs significantly more. I can not see this magically changing with a 200-600.....
> ...



Made me think of Jim Jones in Africa - hope that's not what you meant!

I read CR for the humour or is it humor! 

Jack


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> It's f/5.2 according to the patent



5,2 is not even another 1/3. Another 1/3 would be f/5 and if it's 5,2 they have to market it as 5,6. 
Just like a sigma isn't 6,3 it's just something in between 5,6 and 6,3. 
Anyway it's just a patent, nothing says it will be those exact features when it comes to the market if it ever do so. 
That's why i think it will come as something similar to the Nikon, with an extra little think that allows Canon to sell it at 2900 on introduction and 2500 after some months of live.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > It's f/5.2 according to the patent
> ...


yupp! Dreaming is a nice hobby. I'd prefer taking pictures - whatever lens I have.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> yupp! Dreaming is a nice hobby. I'd prefer taking pictures - whatever lens I have.



I can see this from your 1000+ posts on a rumor website ! ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > yupp! Dreaming is a nice hobby. I'd prefer taking pictures - whatever lens I have.
> ...


And how many pics did you post here already? I started here by posting some. You?

And how many pics did you shoot within the last two weeks?

My score is at 500+ 
I take more time taking pictures than beeing here. Thank you!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > It's a full stop faster at 600mm.
> ...



I stand corrected. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> Just like a sigma isn't 6,3 it's just something in between 5,6 and 6,3.
> Anyway it's just a patent, nothing says it will be those exact features when it comes to the market if it ever do so.
> That's why i think it will come as something similar to the Nikon, with an extra little think that allows Canon to sell it at 2900 on introduction and 2500 after some months of live.



The Sigma lens specs are likely not too different from the Tamron 150-600mm, where "600mm f/6.3" is really 582mm f/6.45. 

But you go right ahead and ignore facts that don't fit your version of (un)reality.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> ...
> Just like a sigma isn't 6,3 it's just something in between 5,6 and 6,3.
> ...


Aha! Technical prove? Thank you.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 8, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> swkitt said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Use the formula, 600/105, it gets under 6... of course the aperture is a little under the front element diameter, so approximate to 100, it gets you around 6. But as I said before, technical data and commercial ones are always different.


----------



## lightthief (Dec 8, 2015)

Hi,
some months ago, before the 100-400 II was released, my hope was that Canon will replace their old 100-400 with a 200-500/600 whatever. I thought Canon marketing would have expected Tamrons and Sigmas 150-600 lenses and will make something similar.
My question was: what could be the price of an very good L with 500 or 600mm.

I made the graph below... and my hopes for a "cheap" lens were gone. But i still hope they will deliver a 200-500 5.0-6.3 below 3000€.
[email protected] L-quality... 1500 $/€... i want to believe.

I'm sure you will understand what i tried to show with the lines.

BTW: Sorry for my bad english


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > swkitt said:
> ...


Then, please, be more precise! 

"600 mm" is not always real 600 mm, depending on the optical formula.

And I thought, you'd refering tho the Sigma C:
app. 600 mm / 95 mm = f/6.31 (if 600 mm is true)

see also neuros comment:


neuroanatomist said:


> The Sigma lens specs are likely not too different from the Tamron 150-600mm, where "600mm f/6.3" is really 582mm f/6.45.
> 
> But you go right ahead and ignore facts that don't fit your version of (un)reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2015)

swkitt said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > swkitt said:
> ...



The filter thread is 105mm. The front element is around 96-98mm, so say a 93mm entrance pupil and you're at f/6.45. Might be f/6.3 if the actual FL is ~585mm. It's only an f/6 lens in fantasy.


----------



## applecider (Dec 8, 2015)

Since the patent says f at 600mm is 5.2' two things, one f 5.2 vs 6.3 is how much of a stop? I don't know for sure, but more than a third. And 600/ 5.2 gives a front element of somewhere around 115 or 120 if a few mm are needed around the edges to secure it.

So if high enough quality to be able to use an extender 1.4 at least, this is a lens in the 5-6k range.


----------



## candc (Dec 8, 2015)

lightthief said:


> Hi,
> some months ago, before the 100-400 II was released, my hope was that Canon will replace their old 100-400 with a 200-500/600 whatever. I thought Canon marketing would have expected Tamrons and Sigmas 150-600 lenses and will make something similar.
> My question was: what could be the price of an very good L with 500 or 600mm.
> 
> ...


. Excellent work. Seems very convincing.


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 9, 2015)

For many years now, I have been interested in new tele lenses for my Canon cameras. I have often looked tele lenses along many criteria and categories. One way of comparing them are in either of these two camps:
1)	Portable (able to fit in a shoulder bag, attached to a DSLR) 
2)	High mm (able to be handheld, but require a larger bag)

Generally lenses in group 1) are consumer lenses, those up to 300mm (the various 55-250mm, and 70-300mm lenses apply – from most manufacturers). Prices vary a fair bit -generally dependent on quality and features. Exceptions to the ‘rule’ do exist.

I started my venture into the world of ‘tele’ photography with the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (when there was not much choice in affordable telezooms). I loved the AF on that lens, and it’s size was just about perfect. IQ wasn’t the best beyond around 170mm… and it seriously lacked IS.  Over the years I have tried the Canon 70-300mm non-L, Sigma telezooms, Tamron 70-300mm USD, and various Canon 55-250mm. models. 

On the other hand, many lenses in 2) usually are semi-pro, to professional lenses – either featuring / focusing (pun intended) on larger aperture or more mm. In recent years there have been a few slower telezooms from third-party manufacturers. 

As I was considering ‘more mm’ - I had looked at the Tamron 200-500mm (but that didn’t impress me much IQ wise, though it was a serious consideration to go for ‘further’ mm than my Canon 100-300 USM). 

Then the Canon 70-300mm L came along.. I didn’t actually expect to buy it – but after trying it in my local camera store (while I was looking at the Tamron 70-300mm USD). I actually fell in love with the Canon 70-300mm L, when I realised how portable it is. The IQ at the tele is so much better than my 100-300mm, so I upgraded immediately. And I have not at all been disappointed!

Now I don’t know if I’ll even get a lens longer than 300mm, but if I do, it will probably be a telezoom going to 500mm or more.. I do not see the reason to upgrade my 70-300mm, which is very versatile. I have tried / used a few friends’ Canon 100-400mm (both v1 and V2) – and V2 is very similar in IQ to the 70-300mm L (only by pixel peeping will you see it’s a hair sharper). The few V1s I used were a bit more noticeably lower in the IQ department.

But both versions of Canon’s 100-400mm just make it less user-friendly as a ‘travel / portable’ lens than the 70-300mm. I would LOVE to buy the 200-400mm L 1.4x, but a) it really is a huge and specialist lens and b) it costs significantly more. If someone gives me several thousand $ and says I MUST spend it on a lens, that would probably be my lens of choice. I prefer mm over aperture in general, as I don’t shoot sports – I prefer doing wildlife and bird photography to sports.

In my mind I had done the figures projection and therefore had a mental chart very similar to what lightthief has provided (well done, lighttheif). So I know that a good, quality lens (especially a zoom) going to 500mm or more is neither going to be cheap, nor small.

If Canon is indeed going to pursue a 200-600mm ‘slow’ lens to market, I expect it will be around the USD$3,000 - $5,000 mark for RRP, dependent on features (e.g. AF, IS, build) and IQ. While I doubt I would actually get such a lens, I expect it would be a very attractive lens to use for the various wildlife / bird photography genres I enjoy. 

Regards

Paul 8)


----------



## swkitt (Dec 9, 2015)

applecider said:


> Since the patent says f at 600mm is 5.2' two things, one f 5.2 vs 6.3 is how much of a stop? I don't know for sure, but more than a third.



Oh god, don't even discuss technical features if you don't know your f/stops.

Full stops: 2,8 / 4 / 5,6 / 8 / 11 etc
Thirds: 2,8 / 3,2 / 3,5 / 4 / 4,5 / 5 / 5,6 / 6,3 / 7,1 / 8 etc


----------



## dufflover (Dec 9, 2015)

I would very surprised if Canon produced a lens with 100mm+ diameter and charged less than $5000 for it ...
And in that case then obviously they aren't particularly trying to compete with those other brands, although I guess it still would give an option to those who want to spend more than $2000, but up to the current big white prices.


----------



## AJ (Dec 9, 2015)

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Canon used to make a 150-600/5.6 L

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm


----------



## longtallkarl (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


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



off topic to say the least, but jim jones was in guyana, south america.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2015)

longtallkarl, you are so right. Off topic? No more than Cool-aide. LOL That was a chilling event to say the least. I know, I shouldn't inject such comments. 

Jack


----------



## dcm (Dec 9, 2015)

AJ said:


> Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Canon used to make a 150-600/5.6 L
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/150600.htm



For some perspective, the FD 150-600 f/5.6L is just a hair larger/heavier than the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II. Given an exchange rate around $250 in 1982, it would set you back about $3,500 (880,000 yen) - twice the cost of the FD 500 f/4.5 L or FD 300 f/2.8L, 50% more than the FD 800 f/5.6L, and about half the cost of the average new car purchased that year.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2015)

dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.

Jack


----------



## EdwardNJ (Dec 10, 2015)

*WHEN? *

I checked the link and what CR posted as well. I believe it would make sense if Canon was working in such a lens, mostly taking into consideration how popular the Sigmas and the Tamron are becoming between wildlife photographers who are not willing to pay 8K for a 500mm or even much more for the 600mm f/4.

I guess they also want the lens to be appealing for sports since, honestly, I do not really see the need for a 200 or 300mm range for wildlife, it just feels like you never have enough focal length, and you can most of the times shot from farther but not closer so I don't care about the zoom, I would have preferred to see a 500mm f/5.6 or even a 600mm f/5.6 or 6.3; but it is what it is. If this rumor is truth, I would like to get this lens to replace my 400 f/5.6

As of right now, Canon needs this lens to be released, yes, but is that set in stone? If so, WHEN do you guys think this will be happening?


----------



## kubelik (Dec 10, 2015)

given how large people are pointing out a 600m f/5.6 front element would be, and Canon's propensity for filing a whole bunch of patent variants for new lenses, perhaps this is just the opening salvo of a bunch of patents that will eventually reveal what the future lens is.

I'd still like a 500mm f/5.6 L to replace the 400mm f/5.6 L over this 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 (L) because of weight, size, and cost. Or, perhaps a 300-500mm f/4.5-5.6 if it's a zoom? seems little sense in building the 200mm range in there, who's going to be using the lower end of the zoom range?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 10, 2015)

kubelik said:


> given how large people are pointing out a 600m f/5.6 front element would be, and Canon's propensity for filing a whole bunch of patent variants for new lenses, perhaps this is just the opening salvo of a bunch of patents that will eventually reveal what the future lens is.
> 
> I'd still like a 500mm f/5.6 L to replace the 400mm f/5.6 L over this 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 (L) because of weight, size, and cost. Or, perhaps a 300-500mm f/4.5-5.6 if it's a zoom? seems little sense in building the 200mm range in there, who's going to be using the lower end of the zoom range?



Who's going to be using the lower range? This was my thought over the last few years regarding what seemed like my 300 always being used with X2 when hiking, and then moving into a blind that changed - 300 and 300 X 1.4 became useful. In fact I found the 70-200 X1.4 to be very useful at times. And then there is the BIF shots which are very challenging with 600. So, I don't think you can necessarily dismiss any of the focal lengths without losing something. However, I agree that it may make sense to restrict the range if size/weight/price is an issue.

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 10, 2015)

kubelik said:


> given how large people are pointing out a 600m f/5.6 front element would be, and Canon's propensity for filing a whole bunch of patent variants for new lenses, perhaps this is just the opening salvo of a bunch of patents that will eventually reveal what the future lens is.
> 
> I'd still like a 500mm f/5.6 L to replace the 400mm f/5.6 L over this 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 (L) because of weight, size, and cost. Or, perhaps a 300-500mm f/4.5-5.6 if it's a zoom? seems little sense in building the 200mm range in there, who's going to be using the lower end of the zoom range?



At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration. I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams. 

Similarly, though I'm sure the zoom functionality will be valuable, let's face it: this will be a way to shoot a 600 prime with first party AF without a teleconverter for less than $5k -- the fact that it zooms is kind of secondary here.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 10, 2015)

"At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration.  I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams. "

Don't agree with this at all. I bought it and I'm very thankful for that range. Very! 

Jack


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration. I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams.



I have an 8-15L. I use it about equally at 8-10 and at 15. I have a Canon 70-200 which I often use with a 2x. It has to zoom because I'm often shooting planes that are approaching me. Not being able to zoom out enough is often a problem. A 400mm prime is a non-starter for that. I have a 2,800mm telescope. It can be set to be 2,000mm, 2,800mm, or 4,000mm with a 1.4x TC, and it can be used on full-frame or crop. My two favorite shots recently were at 2,000mm on full-frame (widest possible setting) and at 2,800mm on crop (4,500mm equivalent).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 10, 2015)

Opinions differ obviously because we have different needs. Canon tries to satisfy us all - impossible.

For me: 11-24 F4, 35 F1.4, 70-200 F2.8, 300 F2.8, X1.4, X2. I have the 24-70 but I'd live with just 35 as a compromise. I'm very happy thus far so on the long end 400-600 would work since 300 X 1.4 is already VG. 300-600 would be fine too. So I really tend to agree that the shorter FL isn't necessary - for me. But that's because I already have 300. So, Canon, you must do 400 - 600, for me. 

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 10, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> "At the crazy ends of the FL spectrum, the fact that it zooms is a secondary consideration. I've long said that 11-24 f/4L owners finally got the 11mm prime of their dreams. "
> 
> Don't agree with this at all. I bought it and I'm very thankful for that range. Very!
> 
> Jack



YMMV. I just think that there are reach-obsessed folks that can never have enough reach, and similarly on the wide end, they live to shoot as wide as possible.

I use my 16-35 (my widest lens) throughout it's range, but come on, we all know there are people who live with some of their zooms near-permanently affixed to one end of the zoom range.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 11, 2015)

ahsanford, I fear Canon won't align with your logic.  It's easy to say (I've said it myself), and selectively remember that "I never have enough reach" but it's not always true and the proof is in the fact that longer zooms exist and are bought. I haven't done too much BIF but enough to have been both too close and too far, which is why a zoom is helpful.

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 11, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> ahsanford, I fear Canon won't align with your logic.  It's easy to say (I've said it myself), and selectively remember that "I never have enough reach" but it's not always true and the proof is in the fact that longer zooms exist and are bought. I haven't done too much BIF but enough to have been both too close and too far, which is why a zoom is helpful.
> 
> Jack



Don't misunderstand me: zooms are great, I am not advocating that people shouldn't use the zoom ring and I don't want this rumor to turn out to be a prime. 

I'm just saying that some people can 'see' a zoom as the prime they've been waiting for as it's their only option at that FL (or only option under $10k).

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 11, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.
> 
> Jack



Hey Jack, 

Does this take you back? I still have my F1N and FD 200mm f2.8, though just a few years later than '76.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.
> ...



N was the last update wasn't it? Wasn't it cool how the lens mount ring would rotate by itself. Sure does bring back memories, but I didn't have all the bells and whistles. We're spoiled today. A 200-600, unheard of. We were trying to decide if the newly invented auto exposure should be Av or Tv and still using a cadmium sulfide photocell in a series circuit with manual selection - LOL.

Jack


----------



## dcm (Dec 11, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.
> 
> Jack



I got my first SLR in 1982, an A1 with a FDn50 f/1.4 for about $450. It was my second largest expenditure after getting out of college at the time. My largest expenditure was a new car a year earlier that cost me $5500. I think the $3500 would have been about 2 months salary back then. Equivalent today might be a 6D with 50 for around $2.0K, so looks around 4 times if you are targeting a new car in the low $20K range. The 6D is quite a bit ahead of the A1 from my perspective, the EF 50 f/1.4 not so much. Maybe the next version will change that.


----------



## EdwardNJ (Dec 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford, I fear Canon won't align with your logic.  It's easy to say (I've said it myself), and selectively remember that "I never have enough reach" but it's not always true and the proof is in the fact that longer zooms exist and are bought. I haven't done too much BIF but enough to have been both too close and too far, which is why a zoom is helpful.
> ...



I agree, at least for wildlife photographers the 200mm or even 300mm range is pretty much useless, it just adds weight, size and cost in detriment of IQ. I see a lot of wildlife photographers using their lenses at the max focal length, not using the lower end of their zooms at all (Sigma and Tamron 150-600 and Canon 100-400), so these zoom lenses are basically used as a prime. That's why I think Canon wants to cover also the sports photography segment, in that sense a zoom would make more sense; but anyway, if truth when is this bad boy going to be released? 
Modify message


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 11, 2015)

I understand, why most professional wildlife photographers prefer a specific prime for a specific task. 

For my casual, non-professional photography however, zooms are clearly better suited and i regularly use the entire focal length range. No matter whether it's a "wildlife" at the zoo or a trip to Africa. Next time, i will definitely take a 150/200-600mm zoom and use the short end for those elephants crossing the road 20m in front of the car or the hyeana mother plus her 7 cubs that were playing in the early morning sun right next to our car in Kruger park and the 600mm end will be used for that pack of wild dogs at the water hole 200m away or for that large bird of prey up in the sky - and use the images later on to try and identify what species it was.  and for those meerkat monkeys in the tree i get my shot and framing at 380mm and next up, a Leopard in the underbrush needs maybe 520mm and i don't want to change lenses all the time in the dust and i also dont want to schlepp multiple bodies and lenses. Simple solution: zoom. Nowadays even with hardly a sacrifice in image quality.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I understand, why most professional wildlife photographers prefer a specific prime for a specific task.
> 
> For my casual, non-professional photography however, zooms are clearly better suited and i regularly use the entire focal length range. No matter whether it's a "wildlife" at the zoo or a trip to Africa. Next time, i will definitely take a 150/200-600mm zoom and use the short end for those elephants crossing the road 20m in front of the car or the hyeana mother plus her 7 cubs that were playing in the early morning sun right next to our car in Kruger park and the 600mm end will be used for that pack of wild dogs at the water hole 200m away or for that large bird of prey up in the sky - and use the images later on to try and identify what species it was.  and for those meerkat monkeys in the tree i get my shot and framing at 380mm and next up, a Leopard in the underbrush needs maybe 520mm and i don't want to change lenses all the time in the dust and i also dont want to schlepp multiple bodies and lenses. Simple solution: zoom. Nowadays even with hardly a sacrifice in image quality.


I tend to agree with that statement.....

It reminds me of the day that I got my Tamron 150-600 and went outside to photograph some of the local birds. It was at 600 for the tiny ones far away, but as they got more used to my presence they got closer and closer and the zoom dropped from 600 to 400 to 300 to 150, and off went the Tamron and on went the 17-55....
A wide variety of focal lengths is needed as you don't know if that bird is going to be on the top of a tree or in the palm of your hand.


----------



## caneos (Dec 11, 2015)

I am pretty sure that the lens is another league like the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 or Tamron f/5.6-6.3 or Sigma f/5.6-6.3. If you compare the lens construction side by side, you will see very quickly that the Canon 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 has several huge lenses in the front with diamater about 11cm. To achieve a good optical performance either there will be some UD glass elements implemented, or a Fluorite element or a DO element. Such a lens can only be a lens of professional L-Line. In that case, you can suppose that the price tag will be about 6'000 to 8'000$. Despite of this, the lens will find people who want it, because - as it was already mentioned - it is less than the full professional lenses for prices about 10K+, e.g. the future EF 600 DO BR f/4.0L IS USM lens, which was presented in a development state on the Canon N.Y. Expo last September 10/11. See attached images of the lens constructions of the Canon 200-600, the Nikkor 200-500 for comparison and of the future 600 DO BR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2015)

Wow - sign me up for that stubby 'little' 600/4 DO BR!!!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 11, 2015)

caneos said:


> I am pretty sure that the lens is another league like the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 or Tamron f/5.6-6.3 or Sigma f/5.6-6.3. If you compare the lens construction side by side, you will see very quickly that the Canon 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 has several huge lenses in the front with diamater about 11cm. To achieve a good optical performance either there will be some UD glass elements implemented, or a Fluorite element or a DO element. Such a lens can only be a lens of professional L-Line. In that case, you can suppose that the price tag will be about 6'000 to 8'000$. Despite of this, the lens will find people who want it, because - as it was already mentioned - it is less than the full professional lenses for prices about 10K+, e.g. the future EF 600 DO BR f/4.0L IS USM lens, which was presented in a development state on the Canon N.Y. Expo last September 10/11. See attached images of the lens constructions of the Canon 200-600, the Nikkor 200-500 for comparison and of the future 600 DO BR.



Wow, this is a great post and logical for sure. 

Jack


----------



## AJ (Dec 11, 2015)

FWIW, Sigma has its 120-300/2.8 OS. With a 2x TC it'd be a 240-600/5.6
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm
This lens retails for about 3600 USD.
So I figure a Canon 200-500/5.6 would cost roughly 4-4.5k.
Now, I wonder, would such a lens be neither fish nor fowl?
Too expensive for amateurs and casual users, and maybe the pros and rich doctors would gravitate to the long primes.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 12, 2015)

AJ said:


> FWIW, Sigma has its 120-300/2.8 OS. With a 2x TC it'd be a 240-600/5.6
> https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm
> This lens retails for about 3600 USD.
> So I figure a Canon 200-500/5.6 would cost roughly 4-4.5k.
> ...



Most willing to spend that kind of money would just go for a used 500mm f4.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 13, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, Sigma has its 120-300/2.8 OS. With a 2x TC it'd be a 240-600/5.6
> ...


----------



## Lurker (Dec 14, 2015)

Not sure if something changed with the original story over at PR, following the link in the OP.

That article clearly states this is an L lens (in the title of the article). This was dropped with the title here on CR.

Also of note, this is a non-IS lens. IS is not listed in the title nor is there an IS element noted in the patent. IS was added with the title of this post.

I didn't read all 14 pages of this so maybe this has already been discussed. 

P.S. I've read a couple speculations of DO elements but there are no DO elements specified in the patent. Lookup the patent for the 400 DO II.


----------



## Plainsman (Dec 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wow - sign me up for that stubby 'little' 600/4 DO BR!!!



You would not be able to handle that beast without weights training!!

A better option for Canon would be a 300/2 DO with optically matched 1.4x and 2x converters!


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2015)

Plainsman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Wow - sign me up for that stubby 'little' 600/4 DO BR!!!
> ...



Surely the 600DO would weigh less than the regular 600, and plenty of people hand hold/carry that. No weight training required!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2015)

Plainsman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Wow - sign me up for that stubby 'little' 600/4 DO BR!!!
> ...



No problems handling my 600/4 II currently, a DO version might not be much lighter, but it won't be heavier.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 15, 2015)

Me thinks "handling" is a very subjective term! 

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Me thinks "handling" is a very subjective term!
> 
> Jack



Sure, but Neuro and I are talking about the same thing, I think - namely, carrying round and using, with or without support. I have the 500, but use it with the 2x extender, so the weight difference is negligible (less than a pound). I am tremendously weak and unfit, but I manage. So I think we disagree with anyone claiming 'handling' (meaning hefting, carrying, or shooting with handheld) would be harder with a 600DO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Me thinks "handling" is a very subjective term!
> ...



Exactly. Handling. Like this:


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



That's basically me! Except I'm younger. Ahem


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 16, 2015)

That's pretty impressive handling by the looks of it - what if the wind blows? I'd love to try it out but I know even 300 2.8 X2 gets tiring for me.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> That's pretty impressive handling by the looks of it - what if the wind blows?



That was a blustery day at Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island – temps in the low 20's °F, winds were >20 mph sustained with gusts over 40 mph. At times I could hear the lens hood sounding like a pipe organ. Here's a shot from the day:






Not great, but then neither were the conditions. This was shot handheld with the 600 II + 1.4xIII, taken during a hike of ~3 miles, followed by scrambling down ~40' of wet rocks to get to sea level.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > That's pretty impressive handling by the looks of it - what if the wind blows?
> ...



OK, far too challenging for me but as they say "where there's a will there's a way". Certainly good exercise!!

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > That's pretty impressive handling by the looks of it - what if the wind blows?
> ...



Wait, that was you?? 

And the lens hood does seem rather a wind sock sometimes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Wait, that was you??



Yep. The photographer, not the ducks.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, that was you??
> ...



*Waves*

But who photographs the photographer?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2015)

scyrene said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



A photographer friend of the photographer's.


----------



## TheJock (Dec 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


So a photographer photographed a photographer who was out doing some photography and then posted the photograph of the photographer on a photography forum….jeez, this is confusing! ;D
I could imagine how it would get tiring on a long day out, it IS a monster of a lens!


----------



## dufflover (Dec 16, 2015)

My Sigma 120-300 OS (non-Sport) cost me "only" $2600 AU and the new Sport version retails for much more than that. Lucky I have the same optical formula albeit none of the other enhancements. The problem with this sort of comparison is I still find it hard to believe Canon these days will have a 100m+ diameter lens (even say 105mm and round-up numbers like Sigma) and NOT charge big-white price for it.


----------

