Why no Canon 150-600 (or similar)?

A question just popped out at me as I was looking through this forum. Sigma and Tamron make telezooms that are in the 150-500/600 range. Canon, on the other hand, seems to top out at the 100/200-400 models. Do they think they can't get acceptable quality at that range with a zoom (and the others' standards are lower) or do they figure that if you want 600mm, you probably won't want to switch to 150mm in a hurry?

Just curious.

I think it is all about quality vs cost.
The Canon 200-400, is virtually a 200-560 f/4-5.6, optimized for quality.

Tamron and Sigma equivalents are optimized for cost.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0

My personal opinion is that the 200-400 is currently overpriced, and there is a quality/cost gap in this category that needs to be filled.

They don't make a 150-600. They do make a really nice 200-560: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …f_4l_is_usm_ext​ender_1_4x

If you have $12,000.

On a more serious note, if Canon up-scaled the 100-400L II to a 150-600, they would have two choices of price points. $2,500 and kill sales of their 100-400L II. $3,999 and not sell any due to the offerings from Tamron and Sigma.

CheshireCat wrote in post #17410143
I think it is all about quality vs cost.
The Canon 200-400, is virtually a 200-560 f/4-5.6, optimized for quality.

Tamron and Sigma equivalents are optimized for cost.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0

My personal opinion is that the 200-400 is currently overpriced, and there is a quality/cost gap in this category that needs to be filled.

You beat me to it, CC!

I agree about the quality price gap. For the most part, I am not willing to pay L-premium prices for small gains in performance. (re-phrased: I'm cheap.) I do have a 100-400Lc, and am shopping for a used 70-200 f/4 IS. There isn't much competition for those lenses.

The 100-400ii with a 1.4X teleconverter gets you to 560mm. Granted, it's at f/8 but the quality is decent.... not much loss in detail.

Pentax made a nice 250-600m f5.6 that I would have loved to own years ago, and I would bet the Sigma is as good or better. The pentax was over 10 Lbs. too. : )

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17410146
They don't make a 150-600. They do make a really nice 200-560: http://www.usa.canon.c​om …f_4l_is_usm_ext​ender_1_4x

If you have $12,000.

On a more serious note, if Canon up-scaled the 100-400L II to a 150-600, they would have two choices of price points. $2,500 and kill sales of their 100-400L II. $3,999 and not sell any due to the offerings from Tamron and Sigma.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17410380
The 100-400ii with a 1.4X teleconverter gets you to 560mm. Granted, it's at f/8 but the quality is decent.... not much loss in detail.

That's a point about the 200-400... but the popularity of the 150-600s would make me think there's a market for a more affordable zoom by Canon in that range. Ah well, it was just a point of curiosity. Thanks all!

Canon has to look at size, weight, cost/price of such a lens, then decide if there is sufficient market share to be gained by developing the lens.

Anything like that won't fit in my standard Pelican case, and would have cost a small fortune, likely around $15-20K just as a guess.

Or go for the EF1200mm f5.6 for $120K.

It's an issue of cannibalizing sales from their other lenses. They figure that the sales they'd take away from Sigma and Tamron wouldn't outweigh the sales they'd cannibalize from their own 100-400 and their more expensive lenses. They're probably wrong, but that's how corporations like Canon think.