Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016

[Don Haines]

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.

There has been a discontinuity. Both Sigma and Tamron have come out with $1000 150-600mm zoom lenses using low (or extra low) dispersion glass. Nobody expected to see lenses like that for that price. Nikon has a 200-500mm F5.6 lens. It only stands to reason that Canon will compete in this segment as well.

The thing is, to compete in this segment, you need a relatively low cost lens. Yes, you could build it with fluorite elements for $8000, but that's an entirely different market segment. They need to keep it to about $2500 MAX to compete here..... and it could be done with UD glass and still be an "L" type build.

Regardless of if the lens is L or not L, it will be about the same physical size and will take similar electronics, similar switches, and similar machining of the shell. The big variable is what type of glass goes into the big element.... If it is regular glass it is not an L lens. If it is fluorite, it is an L lens. If it is UD glass it is an L lens...

Ultimately, this discussion comes down to a mater of opinion. Mine is that Canon could come out with a $2500 200-600mm F5.6 L lens using UD glass as the large element.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

There has been a discontinuity. Both Sigma and Tamron have come out with $1000 150-600mm zoom lenses using low (or extra low) dispersion glass. Nobody expected to see lenses like that for that price. Nikon has a 200-500mm F5.6 lens. It only stands to reason that Canon will compete in this segment as well.

The thing is, to compete in this segment, you need a relatively low cost lens. Yes, you could build it with fluorite elements for $8000, but that's an entirely different market segment. They need to keep it to about $2500 MAX to compete here..... and it could be done with UD glass and still be an "L" type build.

Regardless of if the lens is L or not L, it will be about the same physical size and will take similar electronics, similar switches, and similar machining of the shell. The big variable is what type of glass goes into the big element.... If it is regular glass it is not an L lens. If it is fluorite, it is an L lens. If it is UD glass it is an L lens...

Ultimately, this discussion comes down to a mater of opinion. Mine is that Canon could come out with a $2500 200-600mm F5.6 L lens using UD glass as the large element.

That doesn't make sense to me, Sigma and Tamron both make lenses for Nikon, does that mean Canon should do the same to remain competitive? Or how about, the niche market segment is already covered with the lenses that don't make much money anyway, after all, how much profit are Sigma and Tamron making trying to knock each other out over this niche? Why would Canon enter the fray and not make much money as well? Or how about, Canon could make a case that they already have their 'competitor', the 100-400 MkII, as I keep saying tests show the IQ to be on a par or better than the third parties at 600 when the Canon is cropped and at 400.

I agree with what you say "Ultimately, this discussion comes down to a mater of opinion. Mine is that Canon could come out with a $2500 200-600mm F5.6 L lens using UD glass as the large element." I don't believe they could (except at a huge loss) or would.

The differences between us is that I have given lots of solid examples of past and current lens pricing which support my beliefs and assertions, nobody that has your opinion has written anything fact based to support their assertions, just idle 'I believe they can' nonsensical musings.

 

[Alangeli]

...
Now maybe buying the 100-400 combo makes sense if you've got a 1DX , or 5Ds or 5DIII, where the camera is more expensive, but if you've bought a Rebel or 7D or 6D or 70D, then then Sigma/Tamron lenses are well in your price bracket and Canon's competitior ... well, it doesn't exist.
...

I disagree. The sensors of the Rebel or 7D or 6D or 70D cameras also deserve a great lens like the 100-400 II. I am using the 100-400 II with great joy with a 7D Mark II, which has an even better AF system than a 5D III. Everybody can see the better quality of the 100-400 II in comparison to the Sigma/Tamron offerings also with a medium level camera.

 

[whothafunk]

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

HAHAHAHA. Nice troll, much fan. I would give you a proper reply, but neuro already beat me to it. Get your facts straight.

 

[scyrene]

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 thought it sounded lighthearted and fun, especially by the standards of this forum.

 

[fox40phil]

As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:

• 1DX II - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4k, 8000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, no thanks
• 5D 4 - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, not as good as D810, no thanks
• 80D - marginal iteration, carefully positioned below 7D2, mirrorslap, no thanks
• 3 or 4 rebels, not even marginally omproved, tunnel viewfinder, 18 mp sensor from 2001, mirrorflip, no thanks
• SL2 - marginal iteration, carefully marketing differentiated against rebels and 70D, mirrorflip, no thanks
• EOS M4 - marginal iteration, with EVF, price hiked to 1500 USD/euro, mot as good as 2013 Sony A600, no mirrorslap, but still no thanks

• 200-600, 600 DO, 800 II, 1200 II and a few more superteles, all as big, white and expensive as a lear jet, no thanks
• some L primes as big and expensive as 35 II, no thanks
• some 55-350/5.6-6.7 consumer zooms, no thanks

Most importantly: No kick-ass FF mirrorless system that blows Sony A7 system totally out of the water. So, not interested Canon. Will not buy anything of the above listed stuff. Purchase of Sony A7R II in late 2016 not unlikely, when price comes down. Or kick-ass Sony A8 in 2017.

/signed... 5D IV withouth 4k/UHD..no thanks!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

This problem is exemplified in the 70-300 space: Canon's 70-300 IS USM is cheap but is really not very good. The Tamron 70-300 VC Di is a bit better for a similar price. The 70-300L is better again than the Tamron but the price is now 3x-4x at ~$1200. For Canon to deliver a lens that trumps the Tamron offering they essentially need to deliver the IQ of the "L" lens for around half the price of the "L" lens.

The 70-300 space is an example, but not in the way you think. The Tamron 70-300 and the Canon 70-300L came out at the same time, over 5 years ago, with Canon having an optically superior but much more expensive lens. What was Canon's response over the past 5 years? Nothing. Did they update the 70-300 non-L to 'trump' the Tamron? No. The L lens' performance trumps the Tamron, and if people want that Canon will charge accordingly.

Canon's problem is price.

It's not Canon's problem. The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens, and are letting their wishes trump reality.

 

[Sabaki]

...
That doesn't make sense to me, Sigma and Tamron both make lenses for Nikon, does that mean Canon should do the same to remain competitive? Or how about, the niche market segment is already covered with the lenses that don't make much money anyway, after all, how much profit are Sigma and Tamron making trying to knock each other out over this niche? Why would Canon enter the fray and not make much money as well? Or how about, Canon could make a case that they already have their 'competitor', the 100-400 MkII, as I keep saying tests show the IQ to be on a par or better than the third parties at 600 when the Canon is cropped and at 400.
...

I doubt that the 150-600s are loss-leaders for Sigma/Tamron. They've just found a way to manufacture these lenses at a far more economical cost than Canon has.

The right way to compare the 100-400 to the 150-600 is to add a 1.4x teleconveter into the mix.

Canon's problem is price. For $1000 (or $700 on black Friday!) I get 150-600 from Sigma/Tamron. To get that with Canon I'm spending approx $2700 (100-400II & 1.4xIII). Now maybe buying the 100-400 combo makes sense if you've got a 1DX , or 5Ds or 5DIII, where the camera is more expensive, but if you've bought a Rebel or 7D or 6D or 70D, then then Sigma/Tamron lenses are well in your price bracket and Canon's competitior ... well, it doesn't exist.

The problem for Canon is that if they bring out a 200-600 with really nice IQ for a price in the $$$$s (typical Canon price inflation) then they're still not competing with 3rd party offerings. To compete with 3rd party in this space, Canon need similar or better IQ and at a similar price. From a Canon perspective, that then threatens their lunch with the 200-600.

This problem is exemplified in the 70-300 space: Canon's 70-300 IS USM is cheap but is really not very good. The Tamron 70-300 VC Di is a bit better for a similar price. The 70-300L is better again than the Tamron but the price is now 3x-4x at ~$1200. For Canon to deliver a lens that trumps the Tamron offering they essentially need to deliver the IQ of the "L" lens for around half the price of the "L" lens.

With Sigma's "C" and "S" 150-600s, Sigma are making it clear that a higher price delivers you better build quality and other attributes like that and that they're not afraid of delivering IQ from higher priced lenses at affordable levels. That's really aggressive by Sigma and I expect will delivery handsomely for them. Sigma should be applauded for this.

So will Canon enter the fray? I can't see them doing that. Canon has time and again shown that it will no eat its own lunch.

I hope I'm not intruding here but may I share a thought I have?

Is it a plausible theory to imagine that Canon may put out a product close to the cost price, simply as a way of locking in buyers to their system?

I can imagine that selling a $2k 150/200-600mm lens to hook in prospective buyers may have longer term positive gain?

Of course, I may be entirely wrong ;D

 

[wsmith96]

I'd be interested in the 6D II or 5D Mk IV. In reality, if the predictions come true, the 6D is all that I need for the photography I do. Kids sports are fast, but not 1DX fast. My 60D keeps up with them just fine. If the 6DII gets the old 7D's AF system, that's really all I'm lacking. I got a 6D during the refurb sale and I do find that the AF system is a tad slower than my 60D. I'm learning the camera now, so I'm sure there is a tweak somewhere to speed it up.

I'm also interested to see the price point on the 16-35 F2.8. I have an UWA for my crop camera, but I don't use it often. It is fun to have in the bag though. I don't have a FF equivalent right now and I was considering the 17-40 or the 16-35 F4, but if the cost isn't off the scale, having F2.8 would be nice.

 

[Orangutan]

I hope I'm not intruding here but may I share a thought I have?

Is it a plausible theory to imagine that Canon may put out a product close to the cost price, simply as a way of locking in buyers to their system?

I can imagine that selling a $2k 150/200-600mm lens to hook in prospective buyers may have longer term positive gain?

Of course, I may be entirely wrong ;D

The 100-400II is still listed at $2200. A 200-600L would be a big step up from that, and if it were non-L it might cannibalize the 100-400II. My guess (based on nothing) is that a 200-600L would need to cost 50% more at launch than the 100-400II costs at the same moment. That's probably around $3k, minimum. The 100-400L II will start dropping quickly after that, and the 200-600 might settle around $2500 after a year. In marketing terms, the 100-400II would drop to (nearly) compete on price with the Tamron/Sigma offerings, while the 200-600 offers the big step up in quality.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

That doesn't make sense to me, Sigma and Tamron both make lenses for Nikon, does that mean Canon should do the same to remain competitive?

I doubt that the 150-600s are loss-leaders for Sigma/Tamron. They've just found a way to manufacture these lenses at a far more economical cost than Canon has.

I hope I'm not intruding here but may I share a thought I have?

Is it a plausible theory to imagine that Canon may put out a product close to the cost price, simply as a way of locking in buyers to their system?

I can imagine that selling a $2k 150/200-600mm lens to hook in prospective buyers may have longer term positive gain?

Of course, I may be entirely wrong ;D

There is the possibility of a manufacturer sells a product with zero profit, to win customers to be faithful to their camera system ... But it would happen in wildcard lenses such as the Canon 50mm F1.8 STM.

 

[GP.Masserano]

It is time that the Canon would produce a 150-500 or 200-600 to compete with Sigma and Tamron in the band of telephoto lenses for nature (not too expensive, NOT L, NOT 5,6 but STM f6.3).

The telephoto lenses very bright were indispensable years ago when in the camera you had a 100ISO from 36 frames, knowing that then you would have thrown in the dustbin 30 photos on 36...
Now, with the new cameras and ISOAUTO you can use 800ISO without visible noise.
In most situations, it is still necessary to charge 5 kilos of aluminum and glass ?????????

 

[Don Haines]

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

HAHAHAHA. Nice troll, much fan. I would give you a proper reply, but neuro already beat me to it. Get your facts straight.

It's not a troll. outside of Canon, everywhere you see fresnel lenses used, it is to provide a cheap, easy to manufacture, low cost lens. Canon has figured out how to make them of relatively high quality. Like many new manufacturing techniques/products it is introduced at a premium price and as the ability to produce comes up to speed, one can expect price drops.

For a traditional lens, double the size and you bump up the cost by a lot more than that.... the lens blank becomes twice as wide and that means 4 times the area... That means a lot more material, and in the case of fluorite elements, a lot more time to grow the crystals... That lens of twice the diameter is also a lot thicker, and that means even more material is needed for that larger element. The grinding of the element now requires much more material removal and that takes even more time. We are probably looking at a cubic function for cost/size.

A DO element cost scales as a square function. Double the diameter and you get 4 times the material and 4 times the etching time.

Even more important are time and production. Exotic glass elements take a lot of time and you are limited in production quantities. This is obviously a factor in DO elements as it has the ability to speed up the production lines and as they say, time is money.....

With small elements, DO buys you little if not none for space savings and costs more. As you progress to larger elements you eventually hit the point where they make sense. The large element of a 600F5.6 would make sense. The unanswered question is "what is the state of the DO manufacturing process" and does it make economic sense yet? None of us know the answer.

 

[Maiaibing]

I'd be interested in the 6D II or 5D Mk IV. In reality, if the predictions come true, the 6D is all that I need for the photography I do. Kids sports are fast, but not 1DX fast. My 60D keeps up with them just fine. If the 6DII gets the old 7D's AF system, that's really all I'm lacking. I got a 6D during the refurb sale and I do find that the AF system is a tad slower than my 60D. I'm learning the camera now, so I'm sure there is a tweak somewhere to speed it up.

I'm also interested to see the price point on the 16-35 F2.8. I have an UWA for my crop camera, but I don't use it often. It is fun to have in the bag though. I don't have a FF equivalent right now and I was considering the 17-40 or the 16-35 F4, but if the cost isn't off the scale, having F2.8 would be nice.

6D centre AF point is amazing and works even in extremely low light. The one to use.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A 200-600L would be a big step up from that, and if it were non-L

Simple math and a little knowledge of lens design make it clear that a 600mm f/5.6 lens needs a front element approximately 107mm in diameter, which is the same size as that of the 300/2.8 lenses. That's true whether it's L or non-L, and translates to a substantial level of build quality to support that weight of glass. No matter what, a lens like that will not be anywhere close to the price range of the 3rd party 150-600 zooms.

Nikon's solution was a 200-500mm f/5.6. A 500mm f/5.6 front element is 89mm in diameter, and building a lens to be cost-competitive with the 150-600 lenses is quite feasible, especially when you look at the compromises that were made.

As for the possibility of a zoom that's 600mm f/6.3 at the long end, here's what Canon has to say:

[quote author=Canon DLC]
With a few notable exceptions — we’ll discuss them below — all EOS DSLRs produced to date require that the effective maximum aperture of a lens or lens + extender combination be f/5.6 or faster to permit autofocus. ...if the camera sees an effective maximum aperture that’s slower than f/5.6 — f/6.3, f/7.1, f/8, or slower — it simply cuts off AF.
[/quote]

So Canon would either have to admit they've been lying for years or spoof their own cameras into seeing f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 as done by reverse-engineered 3rd party lenses. Not bloody likely.

Please, people...face facts – an inexpensive (<$3K) 200-600/5.6 just isn't going to happen, nor is an EF lens with a max aperture narrower than f/5.6.

 

[docsmith]

I am having a hard time believing that Canon will refresh almost their entire lineup of bodies. Looking back, 2012 was close with the 1DX announced late 2011 and delivered in 2012, 1DC, 5DIII, 6D, EOS-M and a rebel. But no other year is close.

Given the timelines I am guessing 1DX, 5DIII, and lower end entry level in 2016. 6DII could happen late, but my guess is 2017. 80D and 7ti in 2017.

Then, the standard 3-4 lenses per year.

 

[privatebydesign]

A 200-600L would be a big step up from that, and if it were non-L

Simple math and a little knowledge of lens design make it clear that a 600mm f/5.6 lens needs a front element approximately 107mm in diameter, which is the same size as that of the 300/2.8 lenses. That's true whether it's L or non-L, and translates to a substantial level of build quality to support that weight of glass. No matter what, a lens like that will not be anywhere close to the price range of the 3rd party 150-600 zooms.

Nikon's solution was a 200-500mm f/5.6. A 500mm f/5.6 front element is 89mm in diameter, and building a lens to be cost-competitive with the 150-600 lenses is quite feasible, especially when you look at the compromises that were made.

As for the possibility of a zoom that's 600mm f/6.3 at the long end, here's what Canon has to say:

[quote author=Canon DLC]
With a few notable exceptions — we’ll discuss them below — all EOS DSLRs produced to date require that the effective maximum aperture of a lens or lens + extender combination be f/5.6 or faster to permit autofocus. ...if the camera sees an effective maximum aperture that’s slower than f/5.6 — f/6.3, f/7.1, f/8, or slower — it simply cuts off AF.

So Canon would either have to admit they've been lying for years or spoof their own cameras into seeing f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 as done by reverse-engineered 3rd party lenses. Not bloody likely.

Please, people...face facts – an inexpensive (<$3K) 200-600/5.6 just isn't going to happen, nor is an EF lens with a max aperture narrower than f/5.6.
[/quote]

They can't...........

Interesting that f5.6 is a stated maximum minimum aperture, I didn't know that, but it adds even more weight to my many examples, it also seems the perfect reason the 1200 f5.6 was a 5.6 and Nikon's competitor to the 1200mm f5.6 was the 1200-1700 f5.6-8.

It also seems that for 'budget' tele lenses from Canon a 500 f5.6 is the absolute max that could ever be hoped for with a very plausible 95mm filter thread, therefore it is impossible for the rumoured lens being discussed to be a budget lens, the focal length is too long, the aperture too wide, and the L designation.

But it is fun watching people with hope at Christmas desperately try to rationalise their desires despite the laws of physics and any and all other evidence to the contrary. ;D

 

[whothafunk]

6D centre AF point is amazing and works even in extremely low light. The one to use.

Sorry, but if 6D's centre AF point is amazing, then what is 7D2 or 1DX? Even the 7D2's centre point focuses down to -3 EV. Apart from High ISO capability, 6D is ancient.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But it is fun watching people with hope at Christmas desperately try to rationalise their desires despite the laws of physics and any and all other evidence to the contrary. ;D

 

[Don Haines]

Simple math and a little knowledge of lens design make it clear that a 600mm f/5.6 lens needs a front element approximately 107mm in diameter

Quite true..... but manufacturers are prone to rounding numbers off.... Let's say they make it a 570mm lens at F5.9. The marketing people round the numbers off to 600mm and F5.6, but in this case they use a 97mm element. If Canon does come out with an under $3000 200-600mm zoom, I would expect to see numbers like this. For a $10,000 big white you expect the numbers to be closer, but not for an "economy" lens....