Come on Canon! Where is our new teles?

[In2Photos]

I was rather disappointed in the lenses released this time around. An EF-S 18-200 with NO USM and a 24 L II .

Where is our EF 200-500 5.6 L IS USM or revamped 100-400 or EF 500 5.6 L IS USM prime? You teased us last year by finally giving us a couple new teles in the 200 and 800. I thought you had turned the corner. But I guess not. At least Sigma keeps offering some new lenses. Guess my 150-500 will stick around for a while.

[Permagrin]

I was wondering about the 100-400 replacement as well...that is so necc. at this point.

[Jim G]

Even a 400mm f/5.6 IS would be nice I reckon that'd sell pretty well. Or an updated 100-400L IS.. 4-stop IS on that and an IQ boost and that'd be killer.

[_aravena]

With Sigma's big guns it certainly is. I'm sad now.

[In2Photos]

Originally Posted by Jim G

Even a 400mm f/5.6 IS would be nice I reckon that'd sell pretty well. Or an updated 100-400L IS.. 4-stop IS on that and an IQ boost and that'd be killer.

It would be but here is my rational for a 500 prime.

To go beyond 400mm! Right now the "affordable" options for super tele are the 400 5.6 prime ($1100) and the 100-400 ($1500). To go beyond 400mm one would need to either use:

1. A TC with one of these lenses. You lose AF on non 1 series cameras. I know about taping pins and non-reporting TCs, but not taking that into account here.

2. Buy a 300 2.8 and use a TC ($3800 + $250). Still handholdable, but getting a little heavier.

3. Buy a 400 2.8 ($$$$$$) and use a TC ($250). This combo is 3 times heavier so will need a tripod and Wimberley setup ($$$$$).

4. Buy a 500 4 ($$$$$$). Handholdable for short periods for some, others will need a tripod and Wimberley setup ($$$$$$).

5. Buy a 600, or 800 ($$$$$$$$$$). Also very heavy.

So as you can see we go from affordable ($1100-$1500) at 400mm to over $4000 for a 300 plus TC (and a 2x at that to get beyond 400mm!) Where is the stop gap for those that can not afford the big primes? Sigma! But they drop the ball too. They finally have released some longer lenses with OS, but they still lack the IQ of the Canon counterparts IMO (and I own one). a 500 f/5.6 L IS USM would be a killer lens for us birders and wildlife folks that don't have deep pockets. It would fit right in the middle of the 400s and 500 price tags, be handholdable, and since nobody else has one, it would sell like hot cakes!

[_aravena]

Or go out and buy one of two Sigmas! Which is what I'll do!

[PiRho]

you think they may announce some more next week with the opening of photokina? or is this all we will see until spring?

[Einstein333]

WE NEED A NEW 100-400!!!!

[prime80]

Originally Posted by PiRho

you think they may announce some more next week with the opening of photokina? or is this all we will see until spring?

Past history indicates we've seen all we're going to see...

[elChivo]

It would be but here is my rational for a 500 prime.

To go beyond 400mm! Right now the "affordable" options for super tele are the 400 5.6 prime ($1100) and the 100-400 ($1500). To go beyond 400mm one would need to either use:

1. A TC with one of these lenses. You lose AF on non 1 series cameras. I know about taping pins and non-reporting TCs, but not taking that into account here.

2. Buy a 300 2.8 and use a TC ($3800 + $250). Still handholdable, but getting a little heavier.

3. Buy a 400 2.8 ($$$$$$) and use a TC ($250). This combo is 3 times heavier so will need a tripod and Wimberley setup ($$$$$).

4. Buy a 500 4 ($$$$$$). Handholdable for short periods for some, others will need a tripod and Wimberley setup ($$$$$$).

5. Buy a 600, or 800 ($$$$$$$$$$). Also very heavy.

So as you can see we go from affordable ($1100-$1500) at 400mm to over $4000 for a 300 plus TC (and a 2x at that to get beyond 400mm!) Where is the stop gap for those that can not afford the big primes? Sigma! But they drop the ball too. They finally have released some longer lenses with OS, but they still lack the IQ of the Canon counterparts IMO (and I own one). a 500 f/5.6 L IS USM would be a killer lens for us birders and wildlife folks that don't have deep pockets. It would fit right in the middle of the 400s and 500 price tags, be handholdable, and since nobody else has one, it would sell like hot cakes!

Exactly!! Since I'm searching for something longer than 300mm, I wondered why there is no 500mm 5.6! I can't afford the prime IS lenses above 300mm and the lack of IS on the 400 5.6 really bothers me. Guess we'll just have to wait a couple of months longer.

[Neilyb]

It is also unfortunate that the next 5D and 50D will out resolve alot of canon current teles. The 70-300 IS only just resolves for the 40D...so that would need updating for the consumers market. 100-400 perhaps fine with current 13-16Mp sensors but I think will need updating for the 21MP. But I have a feeling they will let people inviest in new glass this year and then tell people they need newer glass next year...

[bbbig]

Actually, I think Canon should drop 500mm focal length from their lineup altogether.

Take a look at the following focal lengths... does 500mm really make any sense?
1. 200/400/800 (2x magnifications)
2. 300/600/1200 (2x magnifications)
(also there are corresponding 1.5x magnifications between 200->300, 400->600, 800->1200)

I think 500 f/4 was probably something Canon did without thinking a lot about it. I can't imagine another version following the current 500mm, in any aperture size.

Also, looking at the current line-up:
200 f/2 , f/2.8
300 f/2.8, f/4
400 f/2.8, f/4 (DO), f/5.6
600 f/4
800 f/5.6

I think what may be missing are:
- 300 f/5.6 (but unlikely because 300 f/4 already at $1k price point and they don't need another L lens <$1k. We'll probably see 300 f/4 MkII instead)
- 600 f/5.6 (lighter, smaller version - much better option than 300 2.8 w/2xTC)

For all other current models, we'll see revisions with better IS, lighter weight, etc. Also, unless they figure out ways to significantly reduce weights, I don't see them making 600 f/2.8 or 800 f/4.

Reasonable guesses, no?

[In2Photos]

Originally Posted by bbbig

Actually, I think Canon should drop 500mm focal length from their lineup altogether.

Take a look at the following focal lengths... does 500mm really make any sense?
1. 200/400/800 (2x magnifications)
2. 300/600/1200 (2x magnifications)
(also there are corresponding 1.5x magnifications between 200->300, 400->600, 800->1200)

I think 500 f/4 was probably something Canon did without thinking a lot about it. I can't imagine another version following the current 500mm, in any aperture size.

Also, looking at the current line-up:
200 f/2 , f/2.8
300 f/2.8, f/4
400 f/2.8, f/4 (DO), f/5.6
600 f/4
800 f/5.6

I think what may be missing are:
- 300 f/5.6 (but unlikely because 300 f/4 already at $1k price point and they don't need another L lens <$1k. We'll probably see 300 f/4 MkII instead)
- 600 f/5.6 (lighter, smaller version - much better option than 300 2.8 w/2xTC)

For all other current models, we'll see revisions with better IS, lighter weight, etc. Also, unless they figure out ways to significantly reduce weights, I don't see them making 600 f/2.8 or 800 f/4.

Reasonable guesses, no?

Good points. I wouldn't mind a 600 5.6 if they could keep the cost down and the weight down compared to a 500 5.6. But I doubt they could. The weight difference in the 500 and 600 f/4 models is what, 3 pounds. So if a 500 5.6 were to weigh in around 4-5 lbs (just guessing), the 600 would weigh in around 7-8 pounds. I think that is pushing it. If they would do 5-6 pounds I might be interested, but much more than that and I will still be wanting the 500.

[tekkie]

I was really hoping for a new 500 or 600mm 5.6 lens at a decent price, no such luck

it would be nice if they even made the darn 400 5.6 in IS

guess I better start buying lottery tickets to get the 500m F4

[Indecent Exposure]

I agree about the 100-400mm. It could use a little updating, but we've been asking for that for years now.