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

[dolina]

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.

[arthurking83]

.....

The 100-500/7.1 is just so odd.

Not really.
Many advantages to either/or lens type(s).

200-600 sounds fantastic, especially with a faster overall aperture range, but!! ..

This comes with other limitations.
Namely, weight and size.
longer and faster = bigger and heavier.

Their intended market will be more important to them, than numbers and specs.
This lens is a mirrorless design.
The most basic implication of just that term alone .. 'mirrorless' .. means small and lighter weight.
Back in the day when DSLR was the only 'go to' system .. size and weight hardly ever factored into the equation.

Nowadays tho, there is a massive tidal swing towards smaller and lighter, ie. why we're seeing all these f/6.3 and f/7.1 and f/11 lenses from manufacturers that never really used too for the 'general market'.
The general market no doesn't really care tho about very small aperture lenses .. they (appear) to care only for smaller and lighter.
To make any lens smaller and lighter, reality dictates that something has to give, and that's usually aperture size.

While the lenses mentioned seem to compete in some ways, Canon clearly have deliberately differentiated their product using the major advantage that most people seem to be wanting from mirrorless .. that is size and weight.

Imagine the differences between a few different buyer types.

1/. an ex DSLR(maybe 1Dx type buyer that is used to big heavy gear. This person will not care for size and weight issues. Probably got a mirrorless kit to complement the DSLR kit. Size, weight, price probably less important to them than pure performance and specifications from the product.

2/. an avid amateur probably has a few cameras, most likely DSLRs, this buyer may be getting on in age now(as most of us are, and a small note ** below on this topic), almost certainly looking to update to mirrorless for the size/weight advantage the system has to offer.

Now consider these people and their likely hood to buy into two similar, competing but starkly different approaches to their respective two products!

Sony has a 60+Mp camera and this 2.1kg 200-600mm lens and combined require an opening in their bag that needs to be about 400mm long, by about 120mm wide(to fit camera and lens mounted to each other)
Canon has a 'similar' but different product range, 45Mp camera, and a 1.5kg 100-500mm lens.

Both #1 and #2 prospective buyers both have enough experience to know:

*difference between 500mm and 60mm whilst it exists, is minimal to the overall ability to capture most subjects

*huge difference required by the two competing products in terms of size and weight. Space availability and ability to lug gear around is very important to #2, less so to #1(but still on #1's mind).
The difference is that you could almost include a secondary body in the bag in terms of space/size equality if you go with the Canon system.

*IQ. Both will have very high IQ, maybe the size weight penalty is justified in the Sony system. Buyer #1 is more likely to want the Sony system due to the faster aperture, ie. more likely higher IQ potential due to aperture(rather than focal length).

If you had to steer the respective companies to a profitable position based on those very basic marketing philosophies .. which design would you go with.
No doubt that Canon could have easily done a competing 200-600 lens as Sony did. Would it sell in the same numbers to make it more profitable. If not, then add price mark up to make allowance for this lower volume product.

How many photographers clinging onto the heavier/best IQ/best specifications sheet philosophy survive in this post DSLR era?
How many photographers switching their philosophies to the more modern size and weight cut/good enough IQ is near enough

I dare say that Canon's marketing depoartment researched this to the nth degree and found the second statement to have produced larger numbers .. hence Canon made XXX-XXXmm lenses to suit.


** Age and the remaining few of us camera/photographer types out here now.
As can be seen in the sales numbers(COVID notwithstanding) .. many newer generation 'photographers' simply don't care for large cumbersome cluttery gear.

The camera industry in a couple of generations may simply cease to exist in the way we know it now. Just as a couple of generations ago(from our viewpoint) the camera industry has changed no end.
I was out and about very little in the last year or so, rarely took camera gear(had other interests to keep me occupied), but I did notice many younger folks(and my companion) taking photos of anything of interest with their phones.
What amazed me most on one occasion was trying to get a snap of a couple of Rosella like birds a bit too far away maybe for a 200mm lens! .. all with their useless phones. Looked at my copmpanions image and it showed a backlit tree with what looked like a small dust spot on one branch
Camera gear is too cumbersome, and most don't like the idea of lumbering around with it all in their pockets!

Very little is new in the photography arena, contrary to what many people seem to believe. Yeah, technology is making things smaller/faster/better/etc .. but the overall concepts are based on simple principles.
One of those defining principles is that most people don't want to be lumbered with bigger/heavier equipment.


.. hence, probably, Canon's reasoning for this 'odd' lens specifications.
Do I think they should have done whatever with whatever product .. makes no difference to me.
If they think this will produce a nett profit for them ..

[Gazza]

A very short answer from me; yep, I'm disappointed.

As you say, there would be no overlap with my 70 - 200 and I'd have that little extra reach over the 100 - 400

[dolina]

You have a lot of great points.

Not really.
Many advantages to either/or lens type(s).

200-600 sounds fantastic, especially with a faster overall aperture range, but!! ..

This comes with other limitations.
Namely, weight and size.
longer and faster = bigger and heavier.

Their intended market will be more important to them, than numbers and specs.
This lens is a mirrorless design.
The most basic implication of just that term alone .. 'mirrorless' .. means small and lighter weight.
Back in the day when DSLR was the only 'go to' system .. size and weight hardly ever factored into the equation.

Nowadays tho, there is a massive tidal swing towards smaller and lighter, ie. why we're seeing all these f/6.3 and f/7.1 and f/11 lenses from manufacturers that never really used too for the 'general market'.
The general market no doesn't really care tho about very small aperture lenses .. they (appear) to care only for smaller and lighter.
To make any lens smaller and lighter, reality dictates that something has to give, and that's usually aperture size.

While the lenses mentioned seem to compete in some ways, Canon clearly have deliberately differentiated their product using the major advantage that most people seem to be wanting from mirrorless .. that is size and weight.

Imagine the differences between a few different buyer types.

1/. an ex DSLR(maybe 1Dx type buyer that is used to big heavy gear. This person will not care for size and weight issues. Probably got a mirrorless kit to complement the DSLR kit. Size, weight, price probably less important to them than pure performance and specifications from the product.

2/. an avid amateur probably has a few cameras, most likely DSLRs, this buyer may be getting on in age now(as most of us are, and a small note ** below on this topic), almost certainly looking to update to mirrorless for the size/weight advantage the system has to offer.

Now consider these people and their likely hood to buy into two similar, competing but starkly different approaches to their respective two products!

Sony has a 60+Mp camera and this 2.1kg 200-600mm lens and combined require an opening in their bag that needs to be about 400mm long, by about 120mm wide(to fit camera and lens mounted to each other)
Canon has a 'similar' but different product range, 45Mp camera, and a 1.5kg 100-500mm lens.

Both #1 and #2 prospective buyers both have enough experience to know:

*difference between 500mm and 60mm whilst it exists, is minimal to the overall ability to capture most subjects

*huge difference required by the two competing products in terms of size and weight. Space availability and ability to lug gear around is very important to #2, less so to #1(but still on #1's mind).
The difference is that you could almost include a secondary body in the bag in terms of space/size equality if you go with the Canon system.

*IQ. Both will have very high IQ, maybe the size weight penalty is justified in the Sony system. Buyer #1 is more likely to want the Sony system due to the faster aperture, ie. more likely higher IQ potential due to aperture(rather than focal length).

If you had to steer the respective companies to a profitable position based on those very basic marketing philosophies .. which design would you go with.
No doubt that Canon could have easily done a competing 200-600 lens as Sony did. Would it sell in the same numbers to make it more profitable. If not, then add price mark up to make allowance for this lower volume product.

How many photographers clinging onto the heavier/best IQ/best specifications sheet philosophy survive in this post DSLR era?
How many photographers switching their philosophies to the more modern size and weight cut/good enough IQ is near enough

I dare say that Canon's marketing depoartment researched this to the nth degree and found the second statement to have produced larger numbers .. hence Canon made XXX-XXXmm lenses to suit.


** Age and the remaining few of us camera/photographer types out here now.
As can be seen in the sales numbers(COVID notwithstanding) .. many newer generation 'photographers' simply don't care for large cumbersome cluttery gear.

The camera industry in a couple of generations may simply cease to exist in the way we know it now. Just as a couple of generations ago(from our viewpoint) the camera industry has changed no end.
I was out and about very little in the last year or so, rarely took camera gear(had other interests to keep me occupied), but I did notice many younger folks(and my companion) taking photos of anything of interest with their phones.
What amazed me most on one occasion was trying to get a snap of a couple of Rosella like birds a bit too far away maybe for a 200mm lens! .. all with their useless phones. Looked at my copmpanions image and it showed a backlit tree with what looked like a small dust spot on one branch
Camera gear is too cumbersome, and most don't like the idea of lumbering around with it all in their pockets!

Very little is new in the photography arena, contrary to what many people seem to believe. Yeah, technology is making things smaller/faster/better/etc .. but the overall concepts are based on simple principles.
One of those defining principles is that most people don't want to be lumbered with bigger/heavier equipment.


.. hence, probably, Canon's reasoning for this 'odd' lens specifications.
Do I think they should have done whatever with whatever product .. makes no difference to me.
If they think this will produce a nett profit for them ..

[arthurking83]

.....

As you say, there would be no overlap with my 70 - 200 and I'd have that little extra reach over the 100 - 400

Interesting answer Gazza.

I'm assuming you refer to the EF 100-400 lens.
Note that Dolina has commented on the RF series.

No 100-400 exists for RF.
Other than the 600 and 800mm primes, they have no other ultra tele lenses for RF(yet).

My guess tho is that more will come(when, is anyone's guess tho).

I made my comments re the size/weight factor, knowing basically nothing about Canon's product list(I am a Nikon person afterall!)
But just looking into their RF lens products, basically confirms my belief that Canons' primary focus with this 100-500 lens was weight and size.

They have a 70-200/2.8 lens which does overlap the 100-500, but my thinking is that for those that own the 70-200/2.8 RF!! .. lens, say a very keen enthusiast or pro shooter, may not require the services of the 100-500 lens so urgently.
Canon also have a 24-105 lens in RF with an f/4-7.1 range as well.
(note they also have a 24-105/4 lens too!)

What does this mean(i.e why rabbit on incessantly about it)
It's now more obvious that Canon's marketing strategy here is that you can have a 24-105/4-7.1 AND the 100-500/4.5-7.1 lens with your RF camera, and still have a package weight and size close too or less than a single Sony 200-600 lens.
Weight of both 24-105 and 100-500 lenses is less than many of these larger lenses. Length of the same two lenses(eg. when both packed in a backpack/bag of any kind is also less than the single 200-600 Sony lens(as wel as some of the other super tele lenses out there .. Sigma 150-600 sports for example).

So the obvious take away here is Canon's priority to keep weight and size in check, which makes sense considering one of the advantages of a mirrorless system is supposedly size and weight.

Sony's lens really makes less sense in some ways, except when you take into consideration they have no 'legacy lenses' to rely on as backups for marketing purposes.

That is, many EF lenses can be easily and well adapted for the RF system. Sony don't really have that marketing advantage to play with, so one of their priorities would be to get more from more.
ie. more reach, more length, more quality .. etc.

Canon already have many great fallback lenses, but most will be big heavy lenses. Those lenses already exist for those that want that focal length range.
This lens obviously appeals to those NOT looking for whatever, at any cost .. and more at smaller lighter gear.
hence why you easily have the option for (in effect) a 24-500mm focal length range with a 5mm overlap at 100mm.

Makes a perfectly sound marketing strategy if you think about it for a bit.