Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016

[bdunbar79]

Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.

Not all of it's childish sarcasm, some of it is adult sarcasm, aimed at people who repeatedly act as if to speak for the entire universe of bird photographers.

I will continue to repeat my question to the Canon bashers: if Sony/Nikon etc are so much better in all ways than Canon offerings, why have they not pulled market share from Canon? Apparently, Canon offers some aggregate of benefit to photographers that has kept a leading share of the market. Why is that? (I intend that as a sincere question.)

If Canon makes the 200-600L as described, and if it matches the quality of the 100-400II for a reasonable price, I will start saving my pennies.

Because obviously Canon is brainwashing all of us idiots into buying into their system.

 

[unfocused]

Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.

Not all of it's childish sarcasm, some of it is adult sarcasm, aimed at people who repeatedly act as if to speak for the entire universe of bird photographers.

No disagreement there. But the latest round struck me as particularly childish and without merit.

I will continue to repeat my question to the Canon bashers: if Sony/Nikon etc are so much better in all ways than Canon offerings, why have they not pulled market share from Canon? Apparently, Canon offers some aggregate of benefit to photographers that has kept a leading share of the market. Why is that? (I intend that as a sincere question.)

I'm certainly not qualified to answer that question, since I absolutely agree with you. I am as tired of the broken record ramblings of the Canon bashers as anyone. I would simply hope that Canon users show a little bit of maturity and not slip to the level of Mr. "Mirrorslappers are Dying."

If Canon makes the 200-600L as described, and if it matches the quality of the 100-400II for a reasonable price, I will start saving my pennies.

Precisely. I am not expecting a $1,300 lens, but I see no reason why a $2,500-$3,000 lens is not possible or plausible and those who say otherwise seem to have nothing constructive to contribute to the conversation.

 

[privatebydesign]

Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.

You may be correct, Canon may not choose to make a 200-600 f5.6 zoom, slap a red ring on it and sell it for $3,000. But, that certainly does not mean they are incapable of doing that.

I hadn't realised I had resorted to childish sarcasm in this thread (though admit it isn't past me), but there is no winning or losing only being correct or incorrect, and being a sarcastic child doesn't preclude or include you in either. It isn't difficult to be a sarcastic child and be correct after all......

I still don't see your point when it flies in the face of all current evidence:-

EXIBIT A: The 300 f2.8 MkII has the same sized front element than a 200-600 f5.6 would need to have, it is smaller and simpler than a supposed 200-600 f5.6 L IS and costs $6,000.

EXHIBIT B: If you work out front element area to cost for the white lenses it seems double the diameter costs four times the money, the 70-300 f4-5.6 is $1,249 and has an entry pupil at 300 of 53mm, double that to get your 107mm front element and you are looking at $5,000, now whilst the 70-300L is a nice lens few would be crass enough to say it is in the same league IQ wise as the 300 f2.8 IS MkII. Put another way, the 70-300 L is a bargain L lens and if you scale that up to a 200-600 you still get a $5,000+ cost for similar IQ and build at which point the 100-400 MkII is looking even better.

EXHIBIT C: As I previously pointed out, Canon already made a 150-600 f5.6 L, it weighed a ton and cost a fortune, indeed you can still get them if you can handle manual focus and aperture and don't mind them being at least twenty years old. They still cost a lot more than your projection for the new version, in the region of $4,000 - $5,000, notice how that figure keeps coming up?

EXHIBIT D: The 100-400 f4-5.6 MkII. Many have argued that this lens already competes head on with the Tamron and Sigma, even people as well qualified, lens savvy and unemotional as Dustin Abbott, who sold his personal Tamron to replace it with the Canon after testing the Canon, and both Sigmas. Even this more modest lens from a building and cost perspective is a $2,300 lens. Various people have cropped the 100-400 MkII to the same size when used at 400 as the third parties used at 600 and have found the same as Dustin, the IQ from the cropped Canon is better.

Again, as I keep saying, I see no reason why Canon couldn't make a lens to compete with Tamron and Sigma for price in the 150/200-600 zoom range (the 100-400 MkII already does for the IQ), but if they do it will not be an L lens and it won't be f5.6, and both of those attributes have been stated in the rumour.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Given the choice of enjoying – and participating in – the humor, or sucking lemons...

I'll choose humor every time. But I certainly don't begrudge anyone who chooses to be a sourpuss. ;D

 

[infared]

What is amusing here is the rampant fanboyism, and the "superior" (not) egos attached to it. It's really stupid.

 

[privatebydesign]

What is amusing here is the rampant fanboyism, and the "superior" (not) egos attached to it. It's really stupid.

Ooh, can you point out that "rampant fanboyism" from me? I'm sure in your mind I qualify but I can't see how anything I have said suggests I think Canon is better than any other company.

Also, if presenting readily available facts classes me as having a ""superior" (not) ego" then we are obviously not both writing and understanding English, but that wouldn't be the first time......... ;D

 

[unfocused]

...Again, as I keep saying, I see no reason why Canon couldn't make a lens to compete with Tamron and Sigma for price in the 150/200-600 zoom range (the 100-400 MkII already does for the IQ), but if they do it will not be an L lens and it won't be f5.6, and both of those attributes have been stated in the rumour.

I'm not sure we are that far apart.

It sounds like we are both very skeptical that this lens will materialize as predicted.

You seem absolutely certain that Canon cannot (or perhaps will not) produce an affordable f5.6 200-600mm zoom because the front element would need to be 107mm (your number, correct?) I note that the Sigma sport is just 2mm smaller at 105mm and sells for $2,000 MSRP. I am not sure I understand why you feel so strongly about the size of the front element, especially since Sigma has produced two nearly identical lenses with the same zoom range and maximum aperture -- one using a 105mm filter and the other using a 95mm filter. This makes me suspect that the front element diameter might not be as rigid as you believe. Nor, do I understand why you feel this front element diameter is the deciding factor in the cost of a lens. Still, I'll happily yield to your technical knowledge on this as I am no lens designer.

On the other point, that it will not be an "L" lens, I don't understand your reasoning at all. It's not as though the "L" designation has any real world meaning. An "L" lens is simply whatever Canon chooses it to be. It does not need to be weathersealed. It does not need to be a constant aperture. It does not have to meet any objective standards for sharpness or anything else. It simply has to have a red ring around the front of the lens and if it is a telephoto, it must be painted white-ish.

It seems to me that my logic on the "L" designation is much more solid -- Canon can charge more for a lens if they call it an "L" and since this is not going to be a cheap lens anyway, they will call it "L" and take advantage of the perceived value that comes with that designation.

Alternatively, I am certainly willing to believe that a 200-600 "L" f5.6 would not be slotted in as a competitor to the Sigma Sports Zoom or the Nikon 500 zoom. It is entirely possible that instead it would be offered as an alternative to the 200-400 f4 with 1.4 extender zoom and priced accordingly. I don't take that personally and don't feel as those Canon would somehow be slighting me if that occurred. In fact, from a purely selfish standpoint, it would save me a considerable amount of money and keep me content with the 100-400 II and the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 zooms.

My wife will probably send Canon a thank you note for not producing an affordable 200-600 zoom.


To beat this dead horse a bit, I would say that it seems to me the best and cheapest option for Canon if they are truly concerned about the competition from the Sigma and Tamron lenses would be to add more f8 auto focus points to the 5DIV and the next generation of 7D (along with adding one or more to the 80D). The biggest problem with the 100-400mm zoom plus the 1.4 extender is that you are limited to one central auto focus point.

 

[unfocused]

What is amusing here is the rampant fanboyism, and the "superior" (not) egos attached to it. It's really stupid.

Ooh, can you point out that "rampant fanboyism" from me? I'm sure in your mind I qualify but I can't see how anything I have said suggests I think Canon is better than any other company.

Also, if presenting readily available facts classes me as having a ""superior" (not) ego" then we are obviously not both writing and understanding English, but that wouldn't be the first time......... ;D

Yeah, I'm scratching my head over this comment as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You seem absolutely certain that Canon cannot (or perhaps will not) produce an affordable f5.6 200-600mm zoom because the front element would need to be 107mm (your number, correct?) I note that the Sigma sport is just 2mm smaller at 105mm and sells for $2,000 MSRP. I am not sure I understand why you feel so strongly about the size of the front element, especially since Sigma has produced two nearly identical lenses with the same zoom range and maximum aperture -- one using a 105mm filter and the other using a 95mm filter. This makes me suspect that the front element diameter might not be as rigid as you believe.

The Sigma Sport has a larger filter thread, but that doesn't mean it has a much larger front element. 600mm/6.3 = 95.2mm. The C lens front element must be smaller than that, meaning more fudging rounding of the numbers. The vignetting is equivalent between the two. Looking at the lenses, the 'surround' in the front of the S is wider than that of the C. 600mm / 5.6 = 107mm.

 

[Orangutan]

Ooh, can you point out that "rampant fanboyism" from me? I'm sure in your mind I qualify but I can't see how anything I have said suggests I think Canon is better than any other company.

Also, if presenting readily available facts classes me as having a ""superior" (not) ego" then we are obviously not both writing and understanding English, but that wouldn't be the first time......... ;D

Yeah, I'm scratching my head over this comment as well.

It's the failure to acknowledge the objective, self-evident truth impartially presented by the Canon bashers. If that accusation had any value at all, it would have been followed by a list of specific quotes to support it.

I would love to see real competition from Nikon, Sony, et al, but so far they have failed to deliver. Simply incorporating a sensor with superior low-ISO characteristics has not been enough to take market share from Canon, nor have Sony's mirrorless offerings. I will be very pleased when those other companies sell products in numbers that put pressure on Canon, but so far it hasn't happened.

 

[privatebydesign]

...Again, as I keep saying, I see no reason why Canon couldn't make a lens to compete with Tamron and Sigma for price in the 150/200-600 zoom range (the 100-400 MkII already does for the IQ), but if they do it will not be an L lens and it won't be f5.6, and both of those attributes have been stated in the rumour.

I'm not sure we are that far apart.

It sounds like we are both very skeptical that this lens will materialize as predicted.

You seem absolutely certain that Canon cannot (or perhaps will not) produce an affordable f5.6 200-600mm zoom because the front element would need to be 107mm (your number, correct?) I note that the Sigma sport is just 2mm smaller at 105mm and sells for $2,000 MSRP. I am not sure I understand why you feel so strongly about the size of the front element, especially since Sigma has produced two nearly identical lenses with the same zoom range and maximum aperture -- one using a 105mm filter and the other using a 95mm filter. This makes me suspect that the front element diameter might not be as rigid as you believe. Nor, do I understand why you feel this front element diameter is the deciding factor in the cost of a lens. Still, I'll happily yield to your technical knowledge on this as I am no lens designer.

On the other point, that it will not be an "L" lens, I don't understand your reasoning at all. It's not as though the "L" designation has any real world meaning. An "L" lens is simply whatever Canon chooses it to be. It does not need to be weathersealed. It does not need to be a constant aperture. It does not have to meet any objective standards for sharpness or anything else. It simply has to have a red ring around the front of the lens and if it is a telephoto, it must be painted white-ish.

It seems to me that my logic on the "L" designation is much more solid -- Canon can charge more for a lens if they call it an "L" and since this is not going to be a cheap lens anyway, they will call it "L" and take advantage of the perceived value that comes with that designation.

Alternatively, I am certainly willing to believe that a 200-600 "L" f5.6 would not be slotted in as a competitor to the Sigma Sports Zoom or the Nikon 500 zoom. It is entirely possible that instead it would be offered as an alternative to the 200-400 f4 with 1.4 extender zoom and priced accordingly. I don't take that personally and don't feel as those Canon would somehow be slighting me if that occurred. In fact, from a purely selfish standpoint, it would save me a considerable amount of money and keep me content with the 100-400 II and the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 zooms.

My wife will probably send Canon a thank you note for not producing an affordable 200-600 zoom.

I am no lens designer, I am just looking at the current and historical price point of Canon lenses with a similar or scalable specs. The FD 150-600 f5.6 L lens was a very expensive lens at the time and even now isn't cheap, why should a current version be cheap when no data supports that hope.

The entry pupil of a lens, that is the apparent size of the aperture, is determined by the focal length divided by the aperture, the front element must be bigger than that as the apparent aperture can't be bigger than the tube it is contained in, ergo, a 600mm f5.6 = 600/5.6 = 107mm. That is the diameter of the actual clear glass, not the size of the front of the lens.

The Sigma's are 600mm f6.3 = 600/6.3 = 95mm, the C lens isn't a true 600 and it isn't a true f6.3, the S lens does a little better, but I'd bet it isn't a true 600mm lens either.

As for the "L" designation, Canon have previously made some claims for them though as you say, it truthfully is more a marketing term. But previously they have stated that L lenses must have some exotic glass and or ground aspheric elements, since the introduction of weatherproofing they are supposed to include "the most rugged and high quality build and weathersealing" and they have to fit and work on every EOS camera ever made, I got this from one of the Canon Lensworks books but can't remember which one.

Sure they could slip in a low end L lens, but what marketing value would that have in the longer term? Canon have no problem selling various $8,000 - $12,000 lenses for EOS cameras, and many considerably more expensive lenses for video users, why would they turn that all around to make a complex lens for a niche market? To me that makes no business sense.

If Canon make a 150-600 f5.6 L lens it will cost in the $10,000 region. Why would they do that when they have the 200-400 f4? Video, the 200-400 has to slot in the TC to get it to 560 and f5.6, don't forget that 200-400 f4 is, effectively, a 280-560 f5.6 that costs nearly $10,000, how are they going to do that for 20% of the price?

I am quite sure that if they make a $2,500 150-600 it will be an f6.3 max and won't be an "L" lens.

But, apart from the physics, I could be wrong, it's just that nothing in the present or past support the notion of a 150-600 f5.6 L being anything other than a premium priced lens.

 

[Don Haines]

Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.

You may be correct, Canon may not choose to make a 200-600 f5.6 zoom, slap a red ring on it and sell it for $3,000. But, that certainly does not mean they are incapable of doing that.

I'm on record expressing significant skepticism as to whether this lens will ever materialize. Craig has put it near the top of his list of expected products for 2016. So, it's fair to discuss where we think this product might fall if they do proceed.

If they do make such a lens, I stand by my predictions:

1) It will be more expensive than the Sigma 150-600 Sports zoom, which retails for about $2,000. How much more expensive, I don't know. I don't believe it is inconceivable that such a lens could be made and sold for $3,000, if Canon chooses to do so.

2) Canon knows that they can paint a red ring on anything and it will have a greater perceived value among consumers, justified or not. Therefore, to justify a premium over the competition, they need to put that red ring on it. (bearing in mind that the "luxury" designation is simply a marketing tool and signifies nothing.)

3) I do not believe Canon will make a lens that does not autofocus with the majority of its DSLRs. I also believe they will not resort to "fooling" their own autofocus systems into thinking an f6.3 is an f5.6. By the process of elimination, that means an f5.6. I seriously doubt that the size of the front element is a major worry for Canon engineers. It's just glass, not gold or diamonds. I admit I could be wrong about this and Canon could indeed make it an f6.3, I would just be surprised by that and I'm open to any rational argument that it could indeed be an f6.3 lens.

It is certainly possible that this could be one more $6,000-$12,000 piece of glass. If that's the case, it becomes irrelevant to me and, frankly to the vast majority of birders and hobbyists.

However, I think an argument can certainly be made that Canon may want to compete against the third parties that are offering 150-600 mm zooms, especially since the quality of those lenses has been quite impressive. One of the other commenters that you made fun of, did make a very valid point, which might need to be better articulated. If you are mainly or exclusively interested in photographing birds, it's entirely reasonable that you might let your lens choices determine what camera body you want to buy -- after all the camera can be a smaller investment and easier to change if you are only going to pair it with one lens.

That's a point that had not occurred to me and would certainly be a reason why Canon may choose to compete in the 500-600mm zoom range. An avid birder could well look at Nikon's 500mm zoom and conclude that they could buy a camera and the lens for less than the price of the new 100-400mm zoom. The old 100-400 zoom has been the standard for birders for years. It's not uncommon for me to see four or five other birders with the lens at the same location. In these challenging times, I doubt if Canon wants to lose that customer base to Nikon.

Ultimately, the only way we will know who has guessed correctly is to just wait and see. Honestly, I'm comfortable with that because I'm not the one on this forum who is making sarcastic comments instead of discussing things in a mature and intelligent fashion.

My sarcasm is directed at the people who say it can't be done....

To make things perfectly clear, I will state things again.....

I think that the price range for a 200-600 zoom lens from Canon is between $1500 and $8,000. It all depends on what quality they decide to make it. If they decide to make it similar quality/materials to the Tamron 150-600, we get the low end. If they make it of similar quality to the 200-400 (without teleconverter) we are looking at the top end of the range.

If they decide to make it an "L" lens, that does not necessarily mean it has to be at the top of the range... you can still make an "L" lens and not use fluorite elements.... you might even see this lens as an L lens for under $3000. Keep in mind here that Canon's most expensive non-L lens is the TS-E 90mm at $1500, and you can get an L lens for as little as $650 for the 70-200 F4 non-IS...... just because a lens is "L" does not mean you paid many thousands of dollars for it.

My bet is that it will come out as L series lens, costing somewhere between $2500 and $3000, with significantly better IQ than the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon alternatives, and I would not be in the least surprised if it had a DO element and the BR layer in it. Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...

Why would they do it? One simple reason.... it would dominate the market. No birder or wildlife photographer would be without one. It would sell like stink!

 

[privatebydesign]

It's the failure to acknowledge the objective, self-evident truth impartially presented by the Canon bashers.

Can you link to specific comments in this thread that fail to acknowledge objective and self- evident truths, and why are you referring to these comments as being made by "Canon bashers"?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...

I've seen plenty of evidence that DO technology reduces lens length. It doesn't seem to do much to reduce weight, and if anything it seems to increase cost.

 

[unfocused]

I am no lens designer, I am just looking at the current and historical price point of Canon lenses with a similar or scalable specs. ...it's just that nothing in the present or past support the notion of a 150-600 f5.6 L being anything other than a premium priced lens.

Thanks for the explanation. I think it's very plausible and only time will tell if Canon is in agreement. In the meantime, it's entertaining and educational to talk about these things.

 

[Orangutan]

It's the failure to acknowledge the objective, self-evident truth impartially presented by the Canon bashers.

Can you link to specific comments in this thread that fail to acknowledge objective and self- evident truths, and why are you referring to these comments as being made by "Canon bashers"?

Perhaps I forgot my <sarcasm> tag.

 

[unfocused]

...My bet is that it will come out as L series lens, costing somewhere between $2500 and $3000, with significantly better IQ than the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon alternatives, and I would not be in the least surprised if it had a DO element and the BR layer in it. Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...

Why would they do it? One simple reason.... it would dominate the market. No birder or wildlife photographer would be without one. It would sell like stink!

That's my hope as well. Not terribly confident that it will happen, but it will be fun to see.

It would certainly dominate the market. My wife and I went to Horicon Marsh this fall. We had the very good fortune of spotting a Whooping Crane on one of the ponds. She was using the 100-400 I. In the time we were there, about six other birders/photographers showed up, every single one of the them had the same lens. I think this is the market Canon wants to keep.

 

[privatebydesign]

My sarcasm is directed at the people who say it can't be done....

To make things perfectly clear, I will state things again.....

I think that the price range for a 200-600 zoom lens from Canon is between $1500 and $8,000. It all depends on what quality they decide to make it. If they decide to make it similar quality/materials to the Tamron 150-600, we get the low end. If they make it of similar quality to the 200-400 (without teleconverter) we are looking at the top end of the range.

If they decide to make it an "L" lens, that does not necessarily mean it has to be at the top of the range... you can still make an "L" lens and not use fluorite elements.... you might even see this lens as an L lens for under $3000. Keep in mind here that Canon's most expensive non-L lens is the TS-E 90mm at $1500, and you can get an L lens for as little as $650 for the 70-200 F4 non-IS...... just because a lens is "L" does not mean you paid many thousands of dollars for it.

My bet is that it will come out as L series lens, costing somewhere between $2500 and $3000, with significantly better IQ than the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon alternatives, and I would not be in the least surprised if it had a DO element and the BR layer in it. Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...

Why would they do it? One simple reason.... it would dominate the market. No birder or wildlife photographer would be without one. It would sell like stink!

I don't see how pointing out that Canon have never made anything close to a 150-600 f5.6 L lens with anything less than a mega price tag deserves sarcasm, indeed I haven't seen one example of a scalable product that points to anything but a big ticket item. If you take the rumours three specs, focal length, aperture and an L designation then nothing in the past or present points to anything less than a high price!

Don't get me wrong, I believe Canon could make a 150-600 with better IQ for less than the Sigmas and Tamron, but if they do it won't be an L and won't be f5.6 so isn't the lens the person who started the rumour is talking about.

You point out the 70-200 f4 L is only $650, don't forget compared to the 70-300 at the same price it costs 50% more when priced to focal length, and the 70-300 has IS. L lenses, even the budget ones, are premium lenses.

But all I am doing is pointing out common sense based on actual current and past lenses, so rather than keep arguing the levels of sarcasm I deserve give me one scalable example from Canon's past or present that contradicts my comment that a 150-600 f5.6 L lens would come with a high price tag.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's the failure to acknowledge the objective, self-evident truth impartially presented by the Canon bashers.

Can you link to specific comments in this thread that fail to acknowledge objective and self- evident truths, and why are you referring to these comments as being made by "Canon bashers"?

Perhaps I forgot my <sarcasm> tag.

Sorry, doing too many thinks at once makes me forget the Aye's from the Nay's ;D

 

[Don Haines]

Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...

I've seen plenty of evidence that DO technology reduces lens length. It doesn't seem to do much to reduce weight, and if anything it seems to increase cost.

It's a new technology in camera lenses, but has been around for almost 200 years. Molded plastic flat lenses are about 50 years old....

If they can solve the production problems, they end up with a lens element that is thinner, lighter, and easier to produce than glass elements. They have not hit similar quality to fluorite elements yet, but they are up to the point where they are better than regular optical glass. At some point we should see a lot more of DO.....