Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016

[Don Haines]

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

Come on Neuro.....

Everyone knows that reindeer fly.... particularly after 6 or 7 rum and eggnogs.....

 

[rbr]

Sigma and Tamron have been around for over 50 years and have long offered various inexpensive telephoto alternatives to Canon and Nikon. Nothing new is going on. They have never threatened Canon into making cheap telephotos before and they won't now. If you want a new lens that isn't L quality, just buy the Sigma and be done with it. There are also used Canon lenses out there. The 2x III on the original Canon 300 f2.8 IS, for example, is very capable if you need a decent 600 on a budget.

 

[scyrene]

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 ???

I find that ISO 800 is the minimum I'm using - at 700mm f/5.6 or 1000mm f/10. More often, ISO 1600-3200. If you live in sunnier climes, lower might do. Except at dawn and dusk. And in woodland. So actually yes, if you want the best shots, you still need those wider apertures and bigger, more expensive lenses. Not to say great shots aren't possible with cheaper kit. But to suggest the superteles are obsolete is pushing things a bit far.

Incidentally, you seem not to have read the previous discussions. Canon doesn't *need* to compete in this. More importantly, they show little sign of feeling they need to.

 

[PureClassA]

Reading all this has made me reconsider the new 100-400 II. Part of me desired the Sigma but if the Canon is better cropped in than the Sig at 600mm, it just makes more sense to go Canon. There in lies, perhaps, Canon's considerations in trying to produce and market another $6k - $10k great white at 200-600.

Canon already makes a 200-560mm zoom. It's $10k. It's f4 from 200-400 and f5.6 from 400-560. I don't see why Canon would stick yet another (effectively) variable aperture lens covering the same range (there's almost zero difference from 560 to 600mm) in the lineup for only a few thousand less at THAT price range.

It seems to me Canon already has a competitor in the 100-400 max f5.6 department that crops very nicely to 600 (and it's not that much to crop from 400 to 600 either). It's $2200. There's your Sigma/Tamron competitor.

 

[PureClassA]

And if Don is a troll, then I'm the Pope.

 

[scyrene]

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.

What you're saying has merit in general terms, but it seems Canon is approaching DO from the top down. The next DO lens that seems likely is the 600 f/4 DO. Judging by the photos of the mockup, it's a supertele with the features and build quality of the current 600 f/4. That will not be cheap, it may even be priced higher, as it's offering convenience of size and weight over the traditional lens.

 

[wsmith96]

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.

Well, I don't have a camera that goes beyond the normal 9 point AF system so I don't know any better at the moment Also, I hope that the 6DII incorporates the anti-flicker technology. I really noticed it during the last dive meet I shot. About a third of my pictures had off lighting due to the flicker of the lights.

 

[PureClassA]

You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.

Even without it, just shoot in RAW mode and WB it in post.

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.

Well, I don't have a camera that goes beyond the normal 9 point AF system so I don't know any better at the moment Also, I hope that the 6DII incorporates the anti-flicker technology. I really noticed it during the last dive meet I shot. About a third of my pictures had off lighting due to the flicker of the lights.

 

[unfocused]

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

Honestly guys, seriously? Why does it always have to devolve into this.

I'm certainly not trying to rationalize any desire, nor do I see a lot of other people doing so in this discussion (okay, there are some, but let's just dismiss the under $2,000 delusional dreamers).

What I'm trying to do is figure out the logic behind Craig's placing a 200-600 mm lens in the No. 2 position in his predictions. I've never hesitated to disagree and call out Canon Rumors Guy when he ventures into areas where he shouldn't or where he is conflicted (grey market sales for example), but from years of reading and following his posts I know he is generally pretty good at getting predictions right.

Of course, it would be helpful if he would just tell us what his sources are telling him: is this another big white to supplement the 200-400 1.4 or is it a lens meant for ordinary mortals?

I'm trying to puzzle out if it could be something that someone other than the 1 percent-ers could afford. To me it is all (or at least mostly) academic. While you've raised some valid points, none of them definitively rule out the possibility.

I think you all agree that the "L" designation doesn't automatically confer any traits that rule out such a lens, so we seem to be debating maximum aperture and front element size. Those are certainly good arguments, but I don't see anything in them that should justify the absolute certainty with which you are stating your opinions.

In the spirit of the holidays however, I will give you a much better argument that you can use: If Sigma or Tamron could have made an f5.6 zoom at an affordable price, why didn't they? Clearly there had to have been an economic reason to use the bizarre and bogus f6.3 aperture. The Sigma Sport seems to have every other trait that a Canon version might have: durable construction, weather sealing, etc. But, they apparently couldn't make it for $2,000 with an f5.6 aperture. Does that fraction of a stop cost $500 more? $1,000 more? Or, as you claim, more like $4000 more?

I guess we may never know. But, I see no reason to resort to snark.

 

[H. Jones]

You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.

Even without it, just shoot in RAW mode and WB it in post.

I sure hope so. One of the biggest reasons I know I'm going to preorder the 5D Mark IV is probably this.

I do shoot raw and WB in post, but it's extremely frustrating when half the photograph is more purple and half the photograph is more green. You're going to end up compromising on one side or the other when you get 'the shot' and it's at the worst part of the lighting flicker. At events, it's not a big deal, shoot 1/100 or 1/125 and the flicker is gone, but when you shoot indoor sports, it's crazy frustrating.

And when I have a deadline of 10:30 and the game is over at 10, I don't have time to go and try to tune each and every photograph.

I just wish the 1DX II and the 5D Mark IV were coming sooner rather than later!

 

[bdunbar79]

You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.

Even without it, just shoot in RAW mode and WB it in post.

I sure hope so. One of the biggest reasons I know I'm going to preorder the 5D Mark IV is probably this.

I do shoot raw and WB in post, but it's extremely frustrating when half the photograph is more purple and half the photograph is more green. You're going to end up compromising on one side or the other when you get 'the shot' and it's at the worst part of the lighting flicker. At events, it's not a big deal, shoot 1/100 or 1/125 and the flicker is gone, but when you shoot indoor sports, it's crazy frustrating.

And when I have a deadline of 10:30 and the game is over at 10, I don't have time to go and try to tune each and every photograph.

I just wish the 1DX II and the 5D Mark IV were coming sooner rather than later!

Yep. Ohio State wants photos every 10-12 minutes during the game. So basically I'm hooking my 1Dx up to my laptop court/field-side, sorting, and sending. Of course you shoot all JPG in that case and just crop. I'd like Wifi in the 1Dx II and anti-flickr, if I have the nerve to even keep shooting sports

Because of cropping, especially at ISO 3200 and above, more MP's would be very welcome. Of course, filling the frame and strobing negates that need other than for convenience.

 

[Don Haines]

You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.

Even without it, just shoot in RAW mode and WB it in post.

I sure hope so. One of the biggest reasons I know I'm going to preorder the 5D Mark IV is probably this.

I do shoot raw and WB in post, but it's extremely frustrating when half the photograph is more purple and half the photograph is more green. You're going to end up compromising on one side or the other when you get 'the shot' and it's at the worst part of the lighting flicker. At events, it's not a big deal, shoot 1/100 or 1/125 and the flicker is gone, but when you shoot indoor sports, it's crazy frustrating.

And when I have a deadline of 10:30 and the game is over at 10, I don't have time to go and try to tune each and every photograph.

I just wish the 1DX II and the 5D Mark IV were coming sooner rather than later!

I shoot musicians in a poorly lit pub with old florescent lighting. The flicker is terrible. When the 7D2 came out with anti-flicker my keeper rate doubled. Editing became a lot easier as one could apply one WB setting to the entire night as opposed to each shot individually. When you need it, it is a fantastic feature to have.

 

[pierlux]

...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens, and are letting their wishes trump reality.

That's exactly what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS prime, possibly costing 3000-3500 US$.

Back in May, we discussed this rumor which pointed towards a prime supertelephoto slower than f/4
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26507.0
I was hoping for more rumors about this prime since I see no way a 150-600 or 200-600 Canon zoom can be affordable even at f/6.3, let alone at f/5.6. The possibility of such a prime lens is preventing me from buying the Sigma or Tamron offerings, yet I didn't hear no further speculation on this 600mm prime since the rumors on the supertelephoto zoom have kicked in. I believe I'm not alone in hoping a non-DO, affordable 600mm Canon prime actually materializes.

And, unfocused, I'm also having some difficulty trying to figure out why Craig listed a 200-600 mm lens in the No. 2 position in his predictions... maybe it's really a 70-300 non-L on steroids?

p.s. (and O.T.) Actually, what primarily prevented me from purchasing the 150-600 Sigma is that I dropped those 2000 euros on a mountain bike. So, back on saving...

 

[scyrene]

...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens, and are letting their wishes trump reality.

That's exactly what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS prime, possibly costing 3000-3500 US$.

But as others have said elsewhere, the 300 2.8 has the same entrance pupil size as a 600 5.6. And that lens is just over $6000 at B&H Photo, despite being smaller than the wished-for lens.

 

[rbr]

...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens, and are letting their wishes trump reality.

That's exactly what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS prime, possibly costing 3000-3500 US$.

Back in May, we discussed this rumor which pointed towards a prime supertelephoto slower than f/4
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26507.0
I was hoping for more rumors about this prime since I see no way a 150-600 or 200-600 Canon zoom can be affordable even at f/6.3, let alone at f/5.6. The possibility of such a prime lens is preventing me from buying the Sigma or Tamron offerings, yet I didn't hear no further speculation on this 600mm prime since the rumors on the supertelephoto zoom have kicked in. I believe I'm not alone in hoping a non-DO, affordable 600mm Canon prime actually materializes.

And, unfocused, I'm also having some difficulty trying to figure out why Craig listed a 200-600 mm lens in the No. 2 position in his predictions... maybe it's really a 70-300 non-L on steroids?

p.s. (and O.T.) Actually, what primarily prevented me from purchasing the 150-600 Sigma is that I dropped those 2000 euros on a mountain bike. So, back on saving...

That lens already exists right now. It's called a used 300 f2.8 IS (version I) with a 2xIII attached.

 

[tomsop]

The 6D was announced on September 17, 2012 so I would predict roughly the same timeframe for the 6d mark 2 in 2016.

I think it would be a mistake not to announce the Canon EOSm4 after CES but the 4 anniversaryfor the original M runs in July 2016. The M3 was a disaster and it was announced in feb of 2015 so hopefully they will get it right in February 2016. If you go to DP review.com and look at the Canon cameras they provide a grid of what models are released each year and it seems to me that models are updated every 3 1/2 to 4 years so the one DX is way overdue. The five the cameras are released every 3.5 to 4 years so we will probably see something in September 2016 for the 5dmark4. Hope you enjoyed my amateurish predictions.

 

[Don Haines]

...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens, and are letting their wishes trump reality.

That's exactly what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS prime, possibly costing 3000-3500 US$.

But as others have said elsewhere, the 300 2.8 has the same entrance pupil size as a 600 5.6. And that lens is just over $6000 at B&H Photo, despite being smaller than the wished-for lens.

Build a 600 F5.6 prime to the same quality as the rest of the big whites and it will cost somewhere around $6500. Compared to the $12,000 of the 600 F4, it is inexpensive.... but the vast majority of consumers will still regard it as insanely expensive.

Swap out that big fluorite lens element for a UD glass element and what happens to the price? You could easily hit that $3000 to $3500 range that Pierlux is talking about.

If canon is going to try to build an INEXPENSIVE lens, they are not going to use their most expensive materials. You can have an L lens without a fluorite element... there are several L lenses that use UD glass... I have two of them in my camera bag!

 

[neuroanatomist]

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....

There's rounding, then there's lying. 570mm f/5.9 is closer to the latter than the former.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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

Evidently. :'(

 

[pierlux]

...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens, and are letting their wishes trump reality.

That's exactly what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS prime, possibly costing 3000-3500 US$.

But as others have said elsewhere, the 300 2.8 has the same entrance pupil size as a 600 5.6. And that lens is just over $6000 at B&H Photo, despite being smaller than the wished-for lens.

On the other hand, comparing the old (for the sake of equality) 300mm f/2.8 to the 300mm f/4 (marketed in 1999 and 1997, respectively), their price in yen was 690,000 and 198,000, respectively, which is roughly a 3.5 fold difference in price for a 1-stop difference. So, I'm simply doing the same math in the case of the existing 600mm f/4 L IS II and an hypothetical 600mm f/5.6 L IS.

I suppose there's more than the dimension of the entrance pupil to establish the cost of a lens, it's more a matter of weight I suppose. The front element of a 600mm f/5.6, although probably being approximately similar in diameter to that of the 300mm f/2.8, would be much more flat and light and therefore easier and cheaper to manufacture. The same, possibly, for the remaining lens elements.

Many glass elements are handcrafted, especially those critical, unevenly curved aspherical ones. That's why a lens such as the 11-24 f/4 cocts so much. The less curvature is required, the less work is needed to achieve satisfying optical performance.

In addition, there's the old 400mm f/5.6... OK, it's old, and it has no IS, but its price is minimal and has a 77mm filter diameter, so again all the math based on the size of the front element goes.

I still stand by my assumption, that a 600mm f/5.6 prime could be priced probably north of 3000 US $, but not more than 3500 US $.