Dream/Wish/Technical question: EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS or 600mm f/5.6 L IS

[qwRad]

Hello everyone!

I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously and I couldn't find anything definite (only a few mentions) with search so here is my question/wish/dream.

Why isn't there a high quality 500mm or even 600mm f/5.6 (or maybe f/6.3) lens in Canon's lineup that would be closer to "acceptable" price levels vs. the new (and old) f/4 lenses in the same range? Is there some technical/physical reason that it wouldn't be significantly cheaper to produce or is it just a marketing/strategy decision. I think that there would be high demand for such a lens at maybe 3000-4000€ or preferably even less of course.

Thanks for your responses in advance.

EDIT: And shouldn't there be quite a significant weight saving also for such a lens compared to the f/4 variants?

[neuroanatomist]

A 600/5.6 would be about the same diameter as, and physically longer than, the 300/2.8. So, it would almost certainly be over $8K, and that is close enough to the 500/4 that I doubt Canon would ever make one. Also, the 500/4 + 1.4x gives a 700/5.6, which would probably decrease the appeal of a 600/5.6 that's close in cost.

A 500/5.6 is an interesting proposition, though. Front element of ~89mm, but that's closer to the 200/2 (100mm) than the 300/4 (75mm). As a 500mm lens, Canon would likely charge close to $5K for it. I'd bet there would be some consumer interest in such a lens, but Canon seems to have drawn a line in the sand at 400mm. Also, since no current body can AF with an f/5.6 lens and Canon TC, that's a strike against a 500/5.6, another is the existing 300/2.8+2x.

The f/5.6 lenses would certainly be lighter than their f/4 counterparts.

I highly doubt Canon would ever release an f/6.3 lens, due to the f/5.6 AF requirement. Yes, Sigma f/6.3 lenses AF, but by spoofing the AF system, and Canon won't spoof their own system.

[qwRad]

Thanks for the replies. I was almost sure neuroanatomist might chime in first since your posts are always very detailed, technical and well explained and you know the theory of many subjects discussed here very well. Thanks.

OK, so the 600/5.6 can be forgotten as it would certainly be too expensive and with the added flaws of no AF with extenders. The point about Canon not spoofing their own AF system with f/6.3 lens that reports as f/5.6 is fair and that was kinda "wishful thinking that won't ever happen" on my part. Also the fact that the newer bodies wouldn't AF with extenders is probably a big reason for not bringing f/5.6 superteles to market at all.

It is true that the 200-400 f/4 1.4x would be in semi-direct competition with a 500/5.6 lens but that is only if the price would be under 7K$ that I highly doubt considering the prices of the new superteles.

I wouldn't consider the slowish aperture of 5.6 to be a problem with the ISO performance of todays bodies even in dusk/dawn light.

So the 300/2.8 + 2xTC would be the "real" direct competition for my imaginary lens then. That combo is around 7-7,5K$ at the moment. So if there was a lighter (should be quite a bit lighter since it would need smaller diameter glass, right?) 500/5.6 version that would have faster AF and presumably even better image quality (used without extenders) at a price of $5K or even under that would make the hard choice of the superteles even harder. And what about a 400mm f/4 IS (100mm front element) for $6K?

Maybe Sigma will see an opportunity in this...

In the end I will probably have to settle on dreaming and waiting for a new 100-400 with modern IS and weather sealing or a stellar 400/5.6 IS to replace the old non IS version. Or go with the just announced Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS + 1.4x and/or 2x when it becomes available to get into the supertele focal lenghts.

PS. It would make a family portrait of the supertele L's even more impressive so it's an interesting thought exercise anyway

[Steve U]

Price guestimates for the 200-400 will be closer to the $12K mark I think. I can't see Canon bringing out a competitor for their 500/600 f4 at much less than that.

I think you may have to rely on Sigma to come up with something more affordable in the 500mm range. There will be a lot more people willing to part with 2-$4K for a wildlife lens than the $10k minimum buy in option from Canon.

I have nearly purchased the 50-500mm so many times now.....

[DavidEccleston]

There's a B&H video on youtube, about shooting sports. The speaker Jeff Cable, was shooting for Team USA at the London Olympics, and works for Lexar. He mentions Canon let him use the 200-400+1.4x lens a few times in London, and he loved it. He's expecting it to be $12K too.

edit: Jeff's blog has a small writeup and a sample image from the prototype 200-400, here.