Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Jul 2014 (Wednesday) 12:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Gearheads: Why No 500 5.6L?

 
JPBones73
Senior Member
388 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 12
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
     
Jul 16, 2014 12:16 |  #1

I don't see what Canon would lose by producing a 500 5.6L, especially with the 500 Mark II costing $10,000. For birding and wildlife, there is a wide gap between the 400 5.6L, the 400 4.0 DO and the current 500. Is it not possible to produce a 500 5.6 that can be handheld for a reasonable period of time in the price range of $3000? I think that many photogs that can't afford the 500 4.0 would jump at a 500 5.6 over the 400 5.6, and those that want the extra stop for low light situations and the ability to use a 1.4TC on non-pro bodies would still shell out for the Mark II.


70D, 7D Mark II
24-105 4.0L, 70-200 2.8L, 400 f/4 DO
http://500px.com/JimMc​Coy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,524 posts
Likes: 1872
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jul 16, 2014 12:24 |  #2

Good question, and while your asking, why not a 600mm f/5.6 as well. Maybe skip the 500mm and go right to the 600mm.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,420 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 338
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jul 16, 2014 12:47 as a reply to  @ gjl711's post |  #3

Good question that I have pondered in the past too. If Tammy can make a 150-600 for around $1100, Sigma can make a 150-500 and 50-500 both well under $2000, then why not?

However lets think about how Canon does things. If they were to simply put IS on the 400/5.6, it would probably still sell for ~ $2,000 by ifself. Then lets compare sizes of the 135/2 and 200/2.8 primes. I'm thinking any 500/5.6 that Canon would make would be close in size to the 400/4 DO and thus be charging more like $5-6,000 for this and not $3,000.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nellyle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,228 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 281
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
     
Jul 16, 2014 12:47 |  #4

I'd like to see Canon do a bit more with their DO tech. A relatively small 500 5.6 DO would be quite interesting.


5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
http://chris-stamp.smugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
48,971 posts
Gallery: 152 photos
Likes: 5556
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jul 16, 2014 13:05 |  #5

gjl711 wrote in post #17035719 (external link)
Good question, and while your asking, why not a 600mm f/5.6 as well. Maybe skip the 500mm and go right to the 600mm.

This is the same optical math that results in a 300mm f/2.8 weight and cost wise,. obviously likely physically longer, but the front element would be the same diameter.

nellyle wrote in post #17035765 (external link)
I'd like to see Canon do a bit more with their DO tech. A relatively small 500 5.6 DO would be quite interesting.

This is exactly comparable to a 400mm f/4 DO weight & cost. Of course as with all the newer lenses, it would in fact likely cost about $1.5K more than the 400mm do. A sad trend indeed.


Just FYI.

Perhaps it makes little sense to make the longer slower lens when it mirrors the shorter faster lens with t-cons in most regards, without offering the option to be as flexible?

The sales of the 800mm f/5.6 verses 600mm f/4 are illustrative of the fact that people prefer the more flexible option.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JPBones73
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
388 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 12
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
     
Jul 16, 2014 13:05 |  #6

nellyle wrote in post #17035765 (external link)
I'd like to see Canon do a bit more with their DO tech. A relatively small 500 5.6 DO would be quite interesting.

Canon filed a patent for a 600 5.6 DO in the past year or two, but no word on it since.


70D, 7D Mark II
24-105 4.0L, 70-200 2.8L, 400 f/4 DO
http://500px.com/JimMc​Coy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nellyle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,228 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 281
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
     
Jul 16, 2014 13:09 |  #7

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17035812 (external link)
This is exactly comparable to a 400mm f/4 DO weight & cost. Of course as with all the newer lenses, it would in fact likely cost about $1.5K more than the 400mm do. A sad trend indeed.

I know it wouldn't be cheap, but after an afternoon shooting at the Farnborough airshow yesterday with my 500, my left shoulder is shot!

Most of my shots are at f8......


5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
http://chris-stamp.smugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
48,971 posts
Gallery: 152 photos
Likes: 5556
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jul 16, 2014 13:17 |  #8

Understood, I'd love a lighter 500mm I could afford ( I am using version 1 IS)

I guess my question is , why not try a 400mm DO with 1.4X TC?


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nellyle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,228 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 281
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
     
Jul 16, 2014 13:28 |  #9

I've read it doesn't play too well with converters. Appealing lens though.


5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
http://chris-stamp.smugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sebr
Goldmember
Avatar
4,628 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sweden/France
     
Jul 16, 2014 13:34 |  #10

I hope the handholdable 500/5.6L will have IS :)


Sebastien
5D mkIII ; 17-40L ; 24-105L ; 70-200L II ; 70-300L ; 35L ; Σ85/1.4 ; 135L ; 100macro ; Kenko 1.4x ; 2x mkIII ; 580EXII
M5 ; M1 ; 11-22 ; 18-150 ; 22/2.0 ; EF adapter; Manfrotto LED
Benron Tripod; ThinkTank, Lowepro and Crumpler bags; Fjällräven backpack

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JPBones73
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
388 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 12
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
     
Jul 16, 2014 14:27 |  #11

sebr wrote in post #17035877 (external link)
I hope the handholdable 500/5.6L will have IS :)

I'm one of the few people that rarely misses the IS in my 400 5.6. I use it exclusively for birding, and 90% of my shots are BIF, or during low tide on a kayak when the waders are feeding. Consequently, I rarely shoot below 1/1250. I'd love to have IS for the last 20 minutes of sunlight, or for when I experiment with flash on very cloudy days, but overall I find that IS just slows down the focusing time when a BIF is streaking across my viewfinder.


70D, 7D Mark II
24-105 4.0L, 70-200 2.8L, 400 f/4 DO
http://500px.com/JimMc​Coy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,643 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 229
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Jul 16, 2014 15:43 |  #12

JPBones73 wrote in post #17035694 (external link)
I don't see what Canon would lose by producing a 500 5.6L, especially with the 500 Mark II costing $10,000. For birding and wildlife, there is a wide gap between the 400 5.6L, the 400 4.0 DO and the current 500. ...

Don´t you think the gap between a 400 and 500mm lens is very close?
It is only a factor 1.25!
Thats like a 135 and 170mm lens, or 200 and 250mm


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jul 16, 2014 15:56 |  #13

ZoneV wrote in post #17036107 (external link)
Don´t you think the gap between a 400 and 500mm lens is very close?
It is only a factor 1.25!
Thats like a 135 and 170mm lens, or 200 and 250mm

I've always wondered why Canon doesn't spread their prime lineup with a constant multiple. For example, in mm: 12.5, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800. Double the effective magnification with every lens. But I understand that the application is the driving force behind design. And with the big whites, the distance from camera to athlete dictates the focal length. So that extra 25% makes a difference.

I think 400mm f/5.6 is probably the best that can be done before production costs skyrocket.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
3,956 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 593
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Jul 16, 2014 16:30 |  #14

I am quite sure Sigma, Tokina or Tamron could make very decent 500/600 mm F5.6 stabilised lenses at sensible money - they would make a killing around where I live!


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,524 posts
Likes: 1872
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jul 16, 2014 16:39 |  #15

johnf3f wrote in post #17036207 (external link)
I am quite sure Sigma, Tokina or Tamron could make very decent 500/600 mm F5.6 stabilised lenses at sensible money - they would make a killing around where I live!

Probably so, judging by the Tammy 150-600 thread. Tammy is making a killing with that lens.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,924 views & 0 likes for this thread
Gearheads: Why No 500 5.6L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rgvnikon
631 guests, 268 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.