Interesting lens from Nikon

<p>Nikon have just announced a moderately priced ($1400) 200-500/5.6 ED VR (image stabilized) lens - see http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dQEB</p>

<p>I wonder if Canon has anything similar in the works. The 100-400 II is nice but pricey ($2200), and with three 3rd party 150-600mm lenses at lower prices ( two at around $1000 and one at around $2000) is 400mm long enough in a telephoto zoom anymore and is $2200 for it a competitive price?</p>

<p>No doubt the 100-400 will be a little sharper and better focusing than the 3rd party lenses, but you pay a premium for that.</p>

<p>Photo.net plans on reviewing the Sigma telephoto zooms in the near future. We already looked briefly at the Tamron - http://www.photo.net/reviews/tamron-150-600/</p>

<p>I had an opportunity to discuss this new lens with a Nikon rep. Their objective is to compete against affordable tele zooms from third parties, such as the Tamron and Sigma that cost $1069 (and Tamron currently has a $70 rebate that brings the price down to just below $1000). The new Nikon lens is a bit more expensive and only extends to 500mm (instead of 600), but it is a slightly faster f5.6.</p>

<p>I think Canon should produce such a lens, or at least consider adding IS to the 400/5.6 or adding an IS 500/5.6 with top notch optical quality. They would probably sell a good many and I doubt they would undercut the sales of their fast super teles. Although the Sigmas and Tamrons are good value and incredibly good compared to similar lenses 15 years ago, they are no real match for the superteles. Perhaps Canon may feel that there is not a big enough "amateur" (non-L) market for such long zoom lenses?</p>

<p>Tamron is pretty smart. They don't really make any attempt at competing with the supertelephotos. I keep asking them when they are going to bring back their 400/4 lens, which was pretty good, but so far the reps here don't know (or can't talk) about any such plans!</p>

<p>It makes more sense for 3rd parties to do what Canon (and Nikon) doesn't do, i.e. long telephoto zooms that are affordable. I tested the Sigma 150-500 some time ago http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/150-500mm_APO_DG_OS_HSM/ and which is 1/2 the price of the Nikon (around $700 now), but 1/3 stop slower at the long end. It was a pretty decent lens. I'm hoping to get hold of the Sigma lenses to look at by the end of the month.</p>

<p>I'd like to see something from Canon, but with the 100-400L II at $2200, a low cost 100-500 or 200-500 doesn't seem highly likely. The $1400 of the Nikon is very good and quite surprising considering their 80-400 is $2300. I wonder where they cut the corners on the 200-500? Although it's fractionally slower at the short end, it still has a larger front element than the 80-400 and the front element is usually the expensive (low dispersion) glass for telephotos.</p>

<p>I reviewed Nikon's 80-400mm AF-S VR for photo.net: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-80-400G/<br>

And subsequently I bought one myself. Therefore, I have experience with two different samples of that lens (actually three samples, as I bought an refurbished one first, but it turned out to be still defective), and it is excellent. The 80-400 has Nikon's nano coasting and is manufactured in Japan.</p>

<p>The 200-500mm/f5.6 has no nano coating and I would imagine it is manufactured in either China or Thailand for the lower labor cost. I haven't seen one yet, but most likely the overall construction is not going to be as good.</p>

<p>Great reach, but one thing I noticed when it comes to photographing wildlife is that most of the critters come out either at dawn or at dusk. Meaning a fast lens is preferable.</p>

<p><em>Meaning a fast lens is preferable. </em>- Sure, but a 500mm f/4 lens does cost quite a serious bit more, and the other alternatives that are affordable are as slow (Sigma and Tamron both drop to f/6.3, a 300 f/4 with TCs will be f/5.6 or slower, and the Canon 400 f/5.6 is in the same boat). Fast, long, and affordable: pick two.</p>

Canon's new 100-400 is about as expensive as the mk- I version when that one was introduced and that sold quite well. I

don't see them bringing out a lens that's potentially a mk-II competitor but perhaps they'll surprise us.

<p>Looking forward to your review of the new Sigma lenses. It would be particularly useful to include a comparison of the 150-600 Contemporary to the Tamron 150-600 you have already reviewed, as these two are head-to-head competitors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon have just announced a moderately priced ($1400) 200-500</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 100-400 MkI still sells at $1,400 new. It might not appeal to those who always need the latest and greatest, but if I was Canon, I would consider this "gap" in the lineup well filled!</p>

<p>It'll never happen, but, as a 99.999% hand holder, I dream of a 500/f4, EF-S mount, with L-series quality. On a 7D MkII, that'd be a killer rig. The weight savings going from the S-I to the S-II 500mm was huge for me. Unfortunately, I guess that I'm a part of a very small minority that would actually buy that lens. Making L-quality would mean that it'd be just as expensive to make as an EF lens and the market would be tiny, raising the sales price above the EF lenses. I don't want lesser quality, just lesser weight. </p>

<p>For my buddies considering dipping a toe into bird and wildlife photography, I always suggest the Sigma/Tamron alternatives, or a used 100-400mm Canon, or the 100-400mm Series II if they're well heeled. If they lose interest, the loss on resale is small and it they stick with that rig, they're fine and if they move up to the Canon or Nikon super-tele prime, they can easily sell their starter.</p>

<p>I doubt an EF-S 500/4 would be much smaller, lighter or cheaper than the EF mount version. If it's f4 and 500mm, that fixes the size of the front element (125mm minimum), and that's where much of the optics cost is. Reducing the size of the image circle isn't going to save much in terms of size, cost or weight in a telephoto lens if it's built to "L" series standards. I doubt many people would buy a $6000 EF-S lens anyway since the majority of really serious shooters using the 7D(II) probably have a FF body too.</p>

<p>There's always the 400/4 DO IS II if size and weight are primary issues for you.</p>

<p>However, Canon could build an EF 500/5.6L IS USM which was considerably smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 500/4. I would think it could be done for around $2000, maybe $3000 knowing Canon's pricing policy, but it could hurt sales of the $9000 500/4 so why would Canon do it? I know 1 stop slower is an issue for some, but it's not like people are still shooting ISO 100 slide film all the time. Alternatively Canon could actually get around to making the 400/5.6L II IS USM that people have been asking about for the last two decades! Of course it would have to significantly outperform the 100-400L II or nobody would buy it.</p>

<p>But with the 150-500/600 lenses out there for $1000 to $2000, does a new telephoto prime make economic sense? Canon are in the business to make money and if their business analysis suggests a new lens won't do that for them, the engineers aren't going to be given the go ahead to develop it. I'm not so sure that a 100-400 is a viable alternative to a 200-500 or 150-600 in the minds of many photographers. I certainly know which one I would chose.</p>

<p>I'd love to do a 3 way comparison of the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lenses. I will try to make that happen, but can't promise!</p>

<p>For years I've been hoping Canon or a third party would release a 500mm 5.6. Bob's suggestion that this may cost $2 to $3 K is fine with me. Although if Nikon can produce a zoom which goes to 500mm 5.6 for $1400, I would think a Canon prime for $2000 or under.</p>

<p>You're probably right, Bob.</p>

<p>I'm seriously drooling over the 400/4 DO IS II. The early test show stunning IQ and a really nice little package.</p>

<p>Good luck with setting up the 3-way comparison. I'd be really interested in that, on behalf of my friends.</p>

<p>The problem with a 500/5.6L IS USM prime is how much better would it be than one of the current zooms that go to 500 or 600mm? If you could make one that was ultra sharp with ultra fast focusing then you might have a market, but if you price it at $2000 or less and it's that good, what would it do to sales of the 500/4L IS USM which would cost $7000 more? If you priced it at $4000 it might not steal as many sales from the 500/4, but then you probably wouldn't sell many.</p>

<p>The only way you could avoid stealing sales from your self would be to make a 500/5.6 that wasn't an L lens and that therefore wasn't as sharp or as fast focusing. Then you might as well just buy one of the zooms!</p>

<p>If you want an EF 500/4.5L USM (the smallest and lightest 500mm Canon have made, but without IS), let me know...</p>

<p>I agree with Bob's analysis, which is indeed why I think Canon have not, to date, felt the need to update either the 300/4 IS or the 400/5.6. it is also true that the new 100-400mm has very similar performance at 400mm to the 400/5.6. So we do have a good stabilized 400mm already in a popular form and sort-of popular price. I also agree with David: the 400/DO II is a beauty. That would be my pick if I had some spare cash (and really needed it).</p>

<p>The new Canon 100-400 may seem pricy at $2200 but it is, I believe, $500 less than the Nikon 80-400. Seems like Nikon may be shooting themselves in the foot with the new 200-500 $1300 less than the 80-400. On the other hand, I own both the new Canon 100-400 and the Tamron 150-600 because the 100-400 is smaller and lighter to carry, focuses to 1 meter and, with a 1.4x converter, gives me a 140-560 f8, which is better than not having a long lens with you.</p>

<p>I might be tempted to go with the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 VC and the Tamron 150-600/5-6.3 VC as a a pair for lightweight work. I have the 70-300 and it's pretty good. Maybe not quite as good as the 100-400, but $1000 cheaper (and $1800 cheaper then the MkII). You could have both of them for less than the price of a MkI 100-400L, plus you'dhave 6 years of warranty coverage vs. Canon's current rather pathetic 1 year coverage. Even Nikon give you 5 years. </p>

<p>Bob, I reviewed the Tamron 70-300 VC (in Nikon F mount) for photo.net a few years ago: http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/</p>

<p>Optically, I find it excellent for a 70-300mm zoom; @ 300mm, it is certainly not as excellent as my Nikon 300mm/f2.8, but it is probably better than Nikon's 70-300mm zoom, although I never had both lenses at the same time for comparison.</p>

<p>However, I find its construction very marginal. Its image stabilization (VC) is kind of loud and generates an image that jumps in the viewfinder. It is a lens that one needs to take good care of as it probably can't take much abuse.</p>

<p>Shun, I'd pretty much agree. I'm not sure about construction though. Mine has given me zero problems. People complain about the "flimsy" feel of some of the consumer DSLRs, but rarely do I hear of any actual problems. It's likely that an "L" series lens will stand up to more abuse than a consumer grade lens, but most of us probably don't subject our lenses to the degree of abuse that would show that difference.</p>

<p>Nikon has a series of f1.8 AF-S "prime" lenses (with no image stabilization) that also have a plastic barrel. I am quite comfortable with those light and small lenses. I feel a bit uneasy with that kind of construction on a longer zoom with stabilization, especially when the stabilization is noisy, which I have not experienced with any one of the Nikon VR (vibration reduction) lenses I have.</p>

<p>However, I only used a loaner test sample from Tamron to do the review. I had that lens for a few weeks and therefore have no long-term usage experience with it. I am glad that you have no problems with your Tamron 70-300.</p>

<p>Looks like this lens fits in-between the pro-grade Canon 100-400L, Nikon 80-400, and Sigma 150-600 sport, and the consumer-grade Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 150-600 contemporary. Lots of choice these days!</p>

<p>If Canon sells the 500mm f5.6 for $2000 and they can sell 5 of those lens for every one 500mm f4 sold, they can do it. We just need to convince them by sending them a petition. I know one thing, $9000 for f4 is way out of reach for the majority of us individuals.</p>

<p>After snagging a 300/4L non-IS, I started drooling about getting a 500mm lens.<br>

Seems that the old 500/4.5L non-IS is still a good choice at around $2200 used. Sure it's got no IS, but the types of use cases for this lens benefit from a faster shutter speed (higher ISO). And one can't have everything..</p>

<p>Orlando, I'm not sure of the weight on the older lens. If you shoot hand held, which I recommend, weight will be a factor to consider. The 500/f4 is easily hand held by most men and a few women. The Series II is even better, but much more expensive. I don't know the weight on the old f/4.5, but check that out.</p>