Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016

[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.

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 $.

Well I hope you're right!

 

[pierlux]

Well I hope you're right!

Fingers crossed... I'd prefer a 600 L prime over a 200-600 non-L. In any case, it seems it's going to be an exciting 2016 for us Canon shooters!

 

[dolina]

I wonder if canon will offer any USB-C product outside of cables.

 

[PureClassA]

As amazing as the 300 f2.8 is, I really wonder how much better (if perhaps any in real world measurements) a dedicated 600 f5.6 prime would be vs that 300 f2.8 with a 2xIII. If they are anywhere close to the same, I'd take the 300 with 2x.

I'd be much more interested at this point in seeing a brand new 400mm f5.6 L II.

Well I hope you're right!

Fingers crossed... I'd prefer a 600 L prime over a 200-600 non-L. In any case, it seems it's going to be an exciting 2016 for us Canon shooters!

 

[rbr]

The last manufacturer to make a 600 f5.6 was Nikon. It was a manual focusing lens. Right now I'm looking at a price list from 1995. The new prices of Nikon manual focusing lenses at the time were :

500 f4 - $4350
600 f5.6 - $4895
600 f4 - $7200
800 f5.6 - $6250

That should give you an idea of how a 600 f5.6 would fit into a price line up.

 

[rbr]

As amazing as the 300 f2.8 is, I really wonder how much better (if perhaps any in real world measurements) a dedicated 600 f5.6 prime would be vs that 300 f2.8 with a 2xIII. If they are anywhere close to the same, I'd take the 300 with 2x.

I'd be much more interested at this point in seeing a brand new 400mm f5.6 L II.

Well I hope you're right!

Fingers crossed... I'd prefer a 600 L prime over a 200-600 non-L. In any case, it seems it's going to be an exciting 2016 for us Canon shooters!

The 300 f2.8 L IS II with the 2xIII is excellent :
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

 

[unfocused]

You guys have convinced me of two things:

1) I'm really, really happy I hit the buy button when the Sigma Contemporary went on sale for $700 just after Thanksgiving; and

2) I'm really, really, really happy I hit the "buy" button when the 100-400 II came up on Canon's refurbished website during the 15% off sale.

I was a little worried that if the 200-600 f5.6 actually materializes I might have buyer's remorse. Looks like that won't be a problem.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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 $.

I admire your optimism. Let me remind you: 107mm. Even with some 'creative' rounding, it won't take 105mm filters. That means $$$ 112mm filters, or a design incorporating a drop-in holder. Sounding more expensive by the minute. Also, the rumored lens is a zoom...while there's a very slim (anorexic!) chance of a 600/5.6 non-L prime coming in at $3500, there's pretty much zero chance of a 200-600/5.6 zoom at that price.

Me dear ol' Da summed it up – wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.

 

[Don Haines]

...
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.
...

There was a rumor somewhere that mentioned Canon had been somewhat surprised at how popular the variable aperture 150-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron had been.

Or to put it differently, it appears that Sigma/Tamron have found an untapped market for a long lens and Canon doesn't have anything to compete in that space with Sigma/Tamron and is losing money/sales to them.

A constant aperture zoom (200-400/f2 or 200-600/f5.6) isn't going to compete with that sort of lens either so if Canon wants a part of that sales pie then Canon needs to "do something."

There was also a statement from Tamron saying that they were surprised at the demand....

 

[Don Haines]

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.

In the past Sigma and Tamron were never really a threat for Canon because the cheaper price meant a drop in IQ.

That has changed.

Now Sigma and Tamron are delivering IQ close to that of (or better than in some cases) the equivalent Canon lens for half the price (e.g. Sigma 35/1.4 Art vs Canon 35/1.4L II.)

Now cheap (or at least cheaper) 3rd party lenses no longer means sacrificing IQ.

I'd add Tokina to the list. They have an 11-16mm F2.8 lens for crop cameras that is very well received.

 

[pierlux]

...what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS prime,

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

As amazing as the 300 f2.8 is, I really wonder how much better (if perhaps any in real world measurements) a dedicated 600 f5.6 prime would be vs that 300 f2.8 with a 2xIII. If they are anywhere close to the same, I'd take the 300 with 2x.

I'd be much more interested at this point in seeing a brand new 400mm f5.6 L II.

Good point! Excellent, I'd say.

Except that a version 1 300mm 2.8 + 2xIII combo would not exhibit comparable IQ to a brand new 600mm f/5.6 prime, given the enhancement in IQ Canon have accustomed us to expect with their recent releases. Plus, a 600mm f/5.6 + 1.4xIII combo would still be a usable 840mm on most recent Canon bodies. And it would not be a 15 y old used lens.

No, the real question here lies in the cost, I said $ 3500 and provided plausible evidence for this, but one could object that the 800mm f/5.6 costs 4 times that much, so how could it be possible? Probably it's also a matter of units that Canon foresee to sell, I mean, I know a few in this forum own the 600 f/4, but don't recall none who owns a 800mm. And how many 600mm f/5.6 would be sold compared to the f/4? I think 4:1-5:1 is a realistic ratio. Or, maybe, and even higher ratio, comparable to the 5D:1D owners ratio, roughly, which would help keep the price low. That said, I want to stress that such a lens is what I wish in 2016, not what I expect. After all, at this point the zoom hypothesis appears to be more realistic that the prime. It seems that a wannabe birder on a thin budget has no choice other than Sigma or Tamron for an affordable supertele. Or Canon 400 and crop in post... :'(

Sure, a 400mm f/5.6 L IS II with BR would be most welcome, anyway. As for the coatings, I can't see Canon letting BR out of any of their L lenses by now.

 

[pierlux]

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 $.

I admire your optimism. Let me remind you: 107mm. Even with some 'creative' rounding, it won't take 105mm filters. That means $$$ 112mm filters, or a design incorporating a drop-in holder. Sounding more expensive by the minute. Also, the rumored lens is a zoom...while there's a very slim (anorexic!) chance of a 600/5.6 non-L prime coming in at $3500, there's pretty much zero chance of a 200-600/5.6 zoom at that price.

Me dear ol' Da summed it up – wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.

Indeed! But I'm optimistic as far as sensor tech is concerned, not so for the 600 prime. And thinking that it was a CR2 back in May... well, let's hope it's horse sh!t, at least it has some value as a fertilizer...

 

[PureClassA]

I'd tend to agree with you guys and that assessment, but I would be very interested to see sales figures in EF mount for The Tammny and Sig offers vs the Canon 100-400L. I know they are different focal ranges but I would have to suspect that they are both used in many of the same purposes (sports, wildlife, and birding). I guess if you REALLY needed the extra reach from 400-600 (without using an extender and falling to f8) then you look at the 3rd party glass, although I've seen how soft they are at the 500-600 end, which to SOME folks will render that end less favorable.

Otherwise, for those using f8 capable AF points (like on a 7D2) you can 1.4 extend the 10--400 Canon L II and voila. I'm not saying it's all perfectly equal. Obviously that extra stop of light can be a savior. I'm just wondering out loud here how many tele-zoom buyers at this range are buying the Canon 100-400 (versions 1 AND 2) vs the Tammy/Sig (especially now that version 1 has had a nice price drop.

There is still something to be considered for reliability of Canon AF especially when it comes to birding. I have to imagine more shooters would feel better with a dead-on accurately achieved AF on a flying finch they might have to crop in a bit in post to get 600mm ... vs a native 600mm shot that is soft by comparison and whose AF didn't quite nail it.

I'll be really curious to see if Craig's pick here pans out. I just can't make sense of how Canon fits such a lens into their line up price wise, when it seems like they already have an answer they just released a few months ago.

...
There was also a statement from Tamron saying that they were surprised at the demand....

That might be what I'm thinking of, but by all accounts it points to the discovery of a previously untapped market.

 

[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.

In the past Sigma and Tamron were never really a threat for Canon because the cheaper price meant a drop in IQ.

That has changed.

Now Sigma and Tamron are delivering IQ close to that of (or better than in some cases) the equivalent Canon lens for half the price (e.g. Sigma 35/1.4 Art vs Canon 35/1.4L II.)

Now cheap (or at least cheaper) 3rd party lenses no longer means sacrificing IQ.

How old are you? Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma have been tapping that market since they were founded fifty years ago. They have been selling cheap telephotos at a fraction of the price that Canon and Nikon lenses. That's what they have long been known for. Only recently has Sigma been offering high quality "Art" lenses. Look at the test results. There is nothing to suggest that these new telezooms that have come out recently challenge Canon's quality or market share any more than the last generation's 100-500 zooms did or the $100 Tokina 400 f5.6 I owned in the early 80's did.

 

[PureClassA]

In the past Sigma and Tamron were never really a threat for Canon because the cheaper price meant a drop in IQ.

That has changed.

Now Sigma and Tamron are delivering IQ close to that of (or better than in some cases) the equivalent Canon lens for half the price (e.g. Sigma 35/1.4 Art vs Canon 35/1.4L II.)

Now cheap (or at least cheaper) 3rd party lenses no longer means sacrificing IQ.

Yeah but Dilbert, Sigma isn't making those long tele to ART level quality. I'm not saying they suck. They just aren't ARTs. Now I can tell you owning two ARTs myself, I love them. But the moment Canon makes the 50L 1.2 replacement, my 35 and 50 Sigs are sold (provided of course Canon's new 50 performs like the 35). Will the Canon be any sharper then the Sig? Probably not. Will it be about equal. Probably so. Will the Canon AF more accurately & consistently and achieve that richer Canon bokeh that I just can't produce with my ARTs (although it's not too bad)? YUP! I think for the same reason (with the AF issue anyway) people will still prefer to use native Canon glass, especially when you have to rely on AF to get your shot.

 

[PureClassA]

I'd add Tokina to the list. They have an 11-16mm F2.8 lens for crop cameras that is very well received.

Couldn't agree more. That lens was obscenely good and delivered accurate AF every time (although it wasn't terribly quick). Optically it was amazing, especially for $600. Only reason I sold it was cuz I stopped using crop and bought a 16-35 f4 instead.

 

[unfocused]

I am always a bit worried when Dilbert is the reasonable one.

...it appears that Sigma/Tamron have found an untapped market for a long lens and Canon doesn't have anything to compete in that space with Sigma/Tamron and is losing money/sales to them...if Canon wants a part of that sales pie then Canon needs to "do something."

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.

But, we need to recognize that Canon and Nikon are both operating in a vastly different environment than they were just a few years ago. They squandered the point and shoot market, which represented the bulk of their camera business and they are now relying on the enthusiast market to keep their camera and lens divisions profitable (along with diversifying wherever they can).

Canon USA has gotten aggressive with grey market retailers. A sign that they are concerned about preserving their margins.

And, to top it off, the DLSR market has plateaued. People are content with their cameras and not rushing to replace them, plus the huge technological advancements of the early 2000s are behind us (For God's sake, people on this forum spend countless hours debating trivia like dynamic range because there isn't anything important to focus on)

These developments might suggest a heightened interest in competing with third-party manufacturers to protect their claims to the enthusiast base. 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.

So, as they say: Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.

...There are a bunch of folks on here for whom money seems to be no obstacle when it comes to purchasing camera equipment and while that is fine for them, they don't represent a majority of camera owners or purchasers.

And, it is those people who cannot afford the big whites that constitute the bread and butter of the Canon and Nikon customer base. Both companies have made public statements acknowledging that these are people they are looking to to keep their camera divisions profitable.

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.

I am probably at the upper end in what most people spend on camera equipment. But when someone suggests that a 300 f2.8 (even used) is an "affordable" alternative, I can only laugh.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[Don Haines]

I am always a bit worried when Dilbert is the reasonable one.

...it appears that Sigma/Tamron have found an untapped market for a long lens and Canon doesn't have anything to compete in that space with Sigma/Tamron and is losing money/sales to them...if Canon wants a part of that sales pie then Canon needs to "do something."

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.

But, we need to recognize that Canon and Nikon are both operating in a vastly different environment than they were just a few years ago. They squandered the point and shoot market, which represented the bulk of their camera business and they are now relying on the enthusiast market to keep their camera and lens divisions profitable (along with diversifying wherever they can).

Canon USA has gotten aggressive with grey market retailers. A sign that they are concerned about preserving their margins.

And, to top it off, the DLSR market has plateaued. People are content with their cameras and not rushing to replace them, plus the huge technological advancements of the early 2000s are behind us (For God's sake, people on this forum spend countless hours debating trivia like dynamic range because there isn't anything important to focus on)

These developments might suggest a heightened interest in competing with third-party manufacturers to protect their claims to the enthusiast base. 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.

So, as they say: Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.

...There are a bunch of folks on here for whom money seems to be no obstacle when it comes to purchasing camera equipment and while that is fine for them, they don't represent a majority of camera owners or purchasers.

And, it is those people who cannot afford the big whites that constitute the bread and butter of the Canon and Nikon customer base. Both companies have made public statements acknowledging that these are people they are looking to to keep their camera divisions profitable.

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.

I am probably at the upper end in what most people spend on camera equipment. But when someone suggests that a 300 f2.8 (even used) is an "affordable" alternative, I can only laugh.

I agree 100% and would like to add:

A few short years ago if you suggested that Sigma was going to put out lenses that competed favourably with a Canon L lens, you would have been laughed at, yet here we are with the ART series. Tokina was the cheapest and crappiest of the crappy, yet they have an 11-16F2.8 lens that beats the stuffing out of the Canon 10-22 lens. 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!!!!

What we are seeing is a major discontinuity in the lens market. Things have changed! As to how (or even if) Canon is going to react, none of us knows.

To Quote Dilbert,

...There are a bunch of folks on here for whom money seems to be no obstacle when it comes to purchasing camera equipment and while that is fine for them, they don't represent a majority of camera owners or purchasers.

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.

 

[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.