Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016

[Don Haines]

The vast bulk of Canon's DSLR sales are NOT $2000+ bodies and the vast bulk of their lens sales are not $2000+ "L" lenses. It is the little stuff that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor and the third party lens makers are making some big inroads here. It is NOT business as usual.

With respect, I think your views are being skewed by spending time on CR. The market has contracted, but it's still business as usual. The 'little stuff' that keeps the factory lights shining isn't a $2000 lens...and nor is it a $1000 lens. It's the entry-level (xxxD/xxxxD) dSLR kit with 1-2 lenses included in the box. For the vast bulk of dSLR buyers, the thought of spending $1000 on a lens like the Tamron 150-600 would be laughable, nauseating, or the first step on the path to divorce.

That's what I was saying, maybe not as elegantly, but it's the little stuff that the vast bulk of people buy....

 

[neuroanatomist]

The vast bulk of Canon's DSLR sales are NOT $2000+ bodies and the vast bulk of their lens sales are not $2000+ "L" lenses. It is the little stuff that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor and the third party lens makers are making some big inroads here. It is NOT business as usual.

With respect, I think your views are being skewed by spending time on CR. The market has contracted, but it's still business as usual. The 'little stuff' that keeps the factory lights shining isn't a $2000 lens...and nor is it a $1000 lens. It's the entry-level (xxxD/xxxxD) dSLR kit with 1-2 lenses included in the box. For the vast bulk of dSLR buyers, the thought of spending $1000 on a lens like the Tamron 150-600 would be laughable, nauseating, or the first step on the path to divorce.

That's what I was saying, maybe not as elegantly, but it's the little stuff that the vast bulk of people buy....

I don't see 3rd party lens vendors making big inroads into the low-end 'bread-n-butter' market. That's been their strategy for decades, and it seems to have been a subsistence living for them. It's only recently that they've started aiming for higher quality lenses like Sigma's Art line – and those lenses are priced well above the low end market.

 

[Don Haines]

The vast bulk of Canon's DSLR sales are NOT $2000+ bodies and the vast bulk of their lens sales are not $2000+ "L" lenses. It is the little stuff that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor and the third party lens makers are making some big inroads here. It is NOT business as usual.

With respect, I think your views are being skewed by spending time on CR. The market has contracted, but it's still business as usual. The 'little stuff' that keeps the factory lights shining isn't a $2000 lens...and nor is it a $1000 lens. It's the entry-level (xxxD/xxxxD) dSLR kit with 1-2 lenses included in the box. For the vast bulk of dSLR buyers, the thought of spending $1000 on a lens like the Tamron 150-600 would be laughable, nauseating, or the first step on the path to divorce.

That's what I was saying, maybe not as elegantly, but it's the little stuff that the vast bulk of people buy....

I don't see 3rd party lens vendors making big inroads into the low-end 'bread-n-butter' market. That's been their strategy for decades, and it seems to have been a subsistence living for them. It's only recently that they've started aiming for higher quality lenses like Sigma's Art line – and those lenses are priced well above the low end market.

Probably correct, but I have seen an awful lot of 18-270 lenses on rebels and Nikon crops.....

 

[PureClassA]

I dont think Canon necessarily wants to try to Compete in the $1000-2000 market for this particular focal range. I think they are perfectly content sitting on the 100-400 L II at $2300 and I bet those are selling very, very well. Also agree there seems no feasible way to produce a quality 5.6 200-600 either at the prices some here are desiring. There a huge difference from 5.6 to 6.3 in glass. Nikon makes an 80-400 (no competition in quality to Canon 100-400) and they now make a 200-500mm variable aperture... For CROP sensor. It sells for $1400. But with crop it takes way, way less glass to create. So, does Canon make a crop zoom for that range too? Perhaps! How well would a 200-600 EF-S lens sell for birders who probably use CROP bodies for the most part anyway? How great would THAT sell with a 7D2?! Probably like hotcakes. Canon producing a lens for that makes way more sense.

You are asking something that no one here can answer: Is Canon losing money/sales due to the low cost Sigma and Tamron lenses? And, do they care?

The popularity of these lenses certainly indicates they are selling very well. Whether Canon sees that as a threat or not, only Canon can answer.

Obviously Nikon is worried about Sigma and Tamron, or they wouldn't have released their 500mm zoom. These two companies usually behave in tandem, so it is certainly plausible that Canon could feel the need to react.

It's certainly reasonable that Canon may choose to release a (relatively) low cost (non-L) supertele lens. However, in the context of this discussion, to suggest that the lens at will be 600mm and f/5.6 is not only unreasonable, it's ridiculous.

 

[privatebydesign]

If you read the comments above you will hear people telling you that the new 100-400 L version II is as good at resolving distant detail as the Tamron 150-600..... think about that.... A $2500 Canon lens is as good as a Tamron $1000 lens!!!!

No, that is not what is being said. What is being said is the Canon lens is so much better than the third party lens that even at a 50% focal length disadvantage the Canon still delivers similar IQ when cropped to the same fov.

Put another way, the Canon lens has at least 50% better IQ when relating to focal length, the Canon lens is a true f5.6 and will always AF on any and every EOS camera ever made (including those not yet made), the AF is faster and more accurate than the third party lenses, the IS is better than the third parties, the build quality and engineering in the Canon lens is substantially better, and the Canon lens works very well with a 1.4TC on many EOS cameras. Now I agree that for some people all those things are not worth an extra $1,500, but for many, and it would seem there are many, it is.

 

[PureClassA]

Exactly. If Canon can out resolve a subject at 400mm compared to a Tammy/Sig at 600mm (and all the extra pixels striking the subject at that tighter FOV) then that speaks volumes for Canon engineering. Tammy/Sig have to make products to fill price voids that 1st party manufacturers will/can NOT. Otherwise, no one buys third party. But with that third party pricing comes SOME degree of sacrifice. That degree is measured differently by each photographer.

If you read the comments above you will hear people telling you that the new 100-400 L version II is as good at resolving distant detail as the Tamron 150-600..... think about that.... A $2500 Canon lens is as good as a Tamron $1000 lens!!!!

No, that is not what is being said. What is being said is the Canon lens is so much better than the third party lens that even at a 50% focal length disadvantage the Canon still delivers similar IQ when cropped to the same fov.

Put another way, the Canon lens has at least 50% better IQ when relating to focal length, the Canon lens is a true f5.6 and will always AF on any and every EOS camera ever made (including those not yet made), the AF is faster and more accurate than the third party lenses, the IS is better than the third parties, the build quality and engineering in the Canon lens is substantially better, and the Canon lens works very well with a 1.4TC on many EOS cameras. Now I agree that for some people all those things are not worth an extra $1,500, but for many, and it would seem there are many, it is.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon makes an 80-400 (no competition in quality to Canon 100-400) and they now make a 200-500mm variable aperture... For CROP sensor. It sells for $1400. But with crop it takes way, way less glass to create.

Errrmmm...WTF? Nikon's new 200-500mm lens is a constant f/5.6 and an FX (full frame) lens. Also, in that focal range a crop lens (DX / EF-S) would take pretty much the same amount of glass as a FF lens.

 

[PureClassA]

Apologies. I misread the specs

Nikon makes an 80-400 (no competition in quality to Canon 100-400) and they now make a 200-500mm variable aperture... For CROP sensor. It sells for $1400. But with crop it takes way, way less glass to create.

Errrmmm...WTF? Nikon's new 200-500mm lens is a constant f/5.6 and an FX (full frame lens). Also, in that focal range a crop lens (DX / EF-S) would take pretty much the same amount of glass as a FF lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

Would I buy a 50/1.4 USM today? Nope - it is a horrible performer on higher resolution DSLRs, even when compared to Sigma's non-Art 50/1.4.

.........the Sigma 150-600s on Black Friday this year sold out.

Clearly you don't own one, at f5.6 it out resolves the 100 L Macro. For under $300 it has to be one of the best 'normal' lenses out there.

As for getting sold out, do you know how many were available? I saw many headline 'offers' that weren't, Adorama got in trouble for listing a tripod but only having two actually for sale, B&H got in trouble for offering 'free' lenses in a Hassleblad kit but reneged on it after shipping the bodies.

 

[unfocused]

.........the Sigma 150-600s on Black Friday this year sold out.

As for getting sold out, do you know how many were available? I saw many headline 'offers' that weren't, Adorama got in trouble for listing a tripod but only having two actually for sale, B&H got in trouble for offering 'free' lenses in a Hassleblad kit but reneged on it after shipping the bodies.

I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer. BTW, they also offered the Tamron at the same price (as did Amazon). I don't think anyone should argue that these lenses are not selling very well.

 

[Luds34]

The vast bulk of Canon's DSLR sales are NOT $2000+ bodies and the vast bulk of their lens sales are not $2000+ "L" lenses. It is the little stuff that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor and the third party lens makers are making some big inroads here. It is NOT business as usual.

With respect, I think your views are being skewed by spending time on CR. The market has contracted, but it's still business as usual. The 'little stuff' that keeps the factory lights shining isn't a $2000 lens...and nor is it a $1000 lens. It's the entry-level (xxxD/xxxxD) dSLR kit with 1-2 lenses included in the box. For the vast bulk of dSLR buyers, the thought of spending $1000 on a lens like the Tamron 150-600 would be laughable, nauseating, or the first step on the path to divorce.

That's what I was saying, maybe not as elegantly, but it's the little stuff that the vast bulk of people buy....

I don't see 3rd party lens vendors making big inroads into the low-end 'bread-n-butter' market. That's been their strategy for decades, and it seems to have been a subsistence living for them. It's only recently that they've started aiming for higher quality lenses like Sigma's Art line – and those lenses are priced well above the low end market.

Probably correct, but I have seen an awful lot of 18-270 lenses on rebels and Nikon crops.....

+1

While some people on here are finally seeing the 3rd party players finally as competitors because they are producing some nice glass, the reality is they have been competing by stealing entry level buyers for years. The pros on this forum are going to by pro gear. And the rest of us "enthusiasts" buy some pretty decent equipment as well. In either case, neither of us are representative of the average camera buyer. In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses. But back to the Rebels (and Nikon equivalent) of the world... the number of Tamron zooms alone I've seen over the past few years mounted to these cameras is pretty astounding. A Rebel + 18-270 super zoom is the stereotypical soccer mom kit.

 

[unfocused]

Tamron have a 70-300 Vi DC that is in various places more expensive than Canon's 70-300 IS USM yet you would have to be a fool to buy the Canon and not the Tamron.

I've never seen the Tamron at a higher price than the Canon. Currently $450 for Tamron/$650 for Canon. But yes, you'd have to be either crazy or very ill-informed to choose the Canon over the Tamron since you'd be paying more for a much worse lens. On the other hand, if you shoot crop you could get the EF-S STM 55-250 for less money and it is as sharp or sharper than the Tamron.

Which, now that I think of it, proves that Canon can make low cost quality lenses to compete with third party manufacturers if they want to.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer.

Wow! Tens of millions of cameras out there, and a dealer sells 400 3rd party lenses. Canon must be really shocked and terrified for their corporate fate.



Or not.

 

[Don Haines]

Which, now that I think of it, proves that Canon can make low cost quality lenses to compete with third party manufacturers if they want to.

Two words for you.... Nifty Fifty

For $100 can not be beat! And it even scores higher on DXO than the 600F4

 

[unfocused]

I feel badly that this general discussion has been hijacked by the great 200-600 zoom debate, but I am enjoying it. Lots of good points on both sides, but nothing definitive.

It will be fun to compare what all the armchair experts (myself included) are saying when and if Canon ultimately releases something. I may have to tally up all the pros and cons (beats working).

 

[privatebydesign]

.........the Sigma 150-600s on Black Friday this year sold out.

As for getting sold out, do you know how many were available? I saw many headline 'offers' that weren't, Adorama got in trouble for listing a tripod but only having two actually for sale, B&H got in trouble for offering 'free' lenses in a Hassleblad kit but reneged on it after shipping the bodies.

I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer. BTW, they also offered the Tamron at the same price (as did Amazon). I don't think anyone should argue that these lenses are not selling very well.

That listing number is normally for a repeat fixed price item, not that specific offer. If I relist a same product I can choose to use an old listing for the same or a different price, doing that adds to the counter of number previously sold, or I can start a new listing. We don't know which was utelised, so we don't know how many one company actually had on the shelf for that offer.

I am not saying they are not selling well, particularly when compared to production, but we don't have a clue as to actual retail figures, same as the 100-400 MkII. Personally I know of one Canon two Tamron's and no Sigma's in my small camera club.

 

[Don Haines]

I feel badly that this general discussion has been hijacked by the great 200-600 zoom debate, but I am enjoying it. Lots of good points on both sides, but nothing definitive.

It will be fun to compare what all the armchair experts (myself included) are saying when and if Canon ultimately releases something. I may have to tally up all the pros and cons (beats working).

They either release something, or they don't....

If they don't release something the debate continues....

If they release an inexpensive 200-600, one side gets to make fun of the other side....

If they release an expensive 200-600, the other side gets to poke fun.....

If they release an expensive one AND a low cost one, pandemonium erupts

 

[unfocused]

I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer.

Wow! Tens of millions of cameras out there, and a dealer sells 400 3rd party lenses. Canon must be really shocked and terrified for their corporate fate.


Or not.

Neuro, when you make comments like that, you only look foolish.

You know full well that the vast majority of DSLR buyers never purchase more than one lens.

It comes down to whether you think Canon is smart or not. I think they are very smart and I think they track these things very closely. Whether or not they act on them is a business decision only they can make, but they'd be idiots not to have noticed the buzz that these three lenses have created and I don't think Canon is run by idiots.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses.

Perhaps it says that they weren't finding sales of superzooms to soccer moms as profitable as they needed, and were forced to attempt expansion into other market segments?

 

[rbr]

I am sure that Mercedes is quaking in its boots by the fact that you can buy a new Ford Fiesta for about a third of the price of their cheapest sedan. Mercedes is totally missing out on all those car sales under $15K. Think of all the money they're losing. They have a business to run. How will they survive?