Anyone here think that Canon should have made a 200-600/6.3 rather than a 100-500/7.1?

As the 600/11 is being sold at $699 it is somewhat understandable that Canon would produce a 100-500/7.1 that does not directly compete with it.

But is anyone here thinking that it was a lost opportunity on Canon's part not make their version of the Sony's 200-600/6.3?

It would directly compete with Sigma/Tamron 150-600/6.3 but at focal length that does not overlap with the 70-200.

It would be a cheaper version of the 200-400/4 + 1.4x

The 100-500/7.1 is just so odd.

dolina wrote in post #19176596
The 100-500/7.1 is just so EXPENSIVE

there I fixed it for ya

Im wishing I did not sell my Sigma 150-600. May regret that decision when I get the R6 based on what I have seen

anyone with a 500F4 and or a 400DO are not going to consider the 100-500

umphotography wrote in post #19176642
anyone with a 500F4 are not going to consider the 100-500

Not on a bet.

umphotography wrote in post #19176642
there I fixed it for ya

Im wishing I did not sell my Sigma 150-600. May regret that decision when I get the R6 based on what I have seen

anyone with a 500F4 and or a 400DO are not going to consider the 100-500

Considering the focal length range and f-number I have to agree that the 100-500/7.1 is somewhat overpriced.

If it was a 200-600/6.3 then even at $3,000 it would be somewhat acceptable so long as it has all the L trimmings.

dolina wrote in post #19176649
Considering the focal length range and f-number I have to agree that the 100-500/7.1 is somewhat overpriced.

If it was a 200-600/6.3 then even at $3,000 it would be somewhat acceptable so long as it has all the L trimmings.

Sigmas 150-600C is only $899..Thats a huge difference i price....if you can live with the hit rates....I would still opt for the Sigma

umphotography wrote in post #19176652
Sigmas 150-600C is only $899..Thats a huge difference i price....if you can live with the hit rates....I would still opt for the Sigma

I value my time. I might consider the 150-600mm that cost $1899 but I had a 170-600mm Sigma before. I had no problem letting an uncle have it.

I don't care! I have the Sony 200-600 and am very happy with it.
Recently available for less than half the cost of a 100-500.
Works great with 1.4TC and becomes a 280-840.
Until the release of the 100-500, that last statement would seem a little obvious.....

I also have a 500 f4 and did not just consider the 200-600, I bought one. If I stayed with Canon I would be considering the 100-500 but would probably wait for price reduction or just continue happily with the excellent 100-400 II.

dolina wrote in post #19176661
I value my time. I might consider the 150-600mm that cost $1899 but I had a 170-600mm Sigma before. I had no problem letting an uncle have it.

Interesting that you parted with the Sigma 170-600mm. Was it a focusing issue? It isn’t dock compatible while the newer 150-600 C is. Personally, I find the dock and the ability to tweak focus very useful.

John from PA wrote in post #19177033
Interesting that you parted with the Sigma 170-600mm. Was it a focusing issue? It isn’t dock compatible while the newer 150-600 C is. Personally, I find the dock and the ability to tweak focus very useful.

The Sigma predates 2003.

dolina wrote in post #19176596
As the 600/11 is being sold at $699 it is somewhat understandable that Canon would produce a 100-500/7.1 that does not directly compete with it.

But is anyone here thinking that it was a lost opportunity on Canon's part not make their version of the Sony's 200-600/6.3?

It would directly compete with Sigma/Tamron 150-600/6.3 but at focal length that does not overlap with the 70-200.

It would be a cheaper version of the 200-400/4 + 1.4x

The 100-500/7.1 is just so odd.

Well, the RF 100-500 is overpriced. That is a fact. Other than that, being able to focus as close as 3 feet or so is an useful feature to me. In the past I have been sitting in places where grouse and other birds got so close to me that the lens I had on my camera could not focus. I have had, arctic ground squirrels at the base of my camera's tripod staring at me, and all I could do was to stare back. Maybe I am wrong, but how close would a 200-600mm lens would be able to focus? ~Just wondering.

Then Sigma has a 100-500mm lens that costs around $25,000, I believe
What would be nice is for Sigma and Tamrom to introduce 100-600mm lenses designed for mirrorless cameras, and of course, long before I buy the RF 100-500mm lens

Something else: having a zoom lens that covers the range between 100 and 600mm has its uses. For example, while I have been using prime lenses (100mm, 200mm, and the EF 400mm), using such the zooming is done with my feet, or getting closer/farther from the subject. But there are times where one can miss good opportunities to take a photo right at the moment when replacing the prime with another. That's when I had wished to have a zoom lens on my camera.

The Sony 200-600 seems to have sold and sold. My last two photo trips before the virus were to Bosque at New Year 2020 and Florida in late February, and 200-600s were everywhere you looked. Canon may have wanted to not be seen as copying Sony. And I don’t see the two lenses as being direct competitors, the Canon is a lot lighter in terms of carrying. Three pounds plus camera is a lot easier to carry than 4.6 pounds plus camera!

When I heard about the Canon lens, I thought of it as a competitor/replacement to my 100-400, not to the Sony. Of course, that may have been me thinking in terms of my familiar Canon lenses rather than the unfamiliar Sony stuff.

I consider it kind of amazing for Canon to have finally delved into a 500mm zoom, let alone wade into the 600mm zoom category yet.

I consider the RF Waaaay overpriced. Look at Nikons 200-500mm f/6.3.
If that 500mm had been f/6.3 or 5.6 then I could see the price.

Sigma and Tamron have shown how to do it, (and followed by Nikon and Sony) with Nikon's PF tech and Canon's DO, they should be leading here, not following so far behind.