Anyone here think that Canon should've 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.

[colin C]

I have the 200-400mm and it is my go to wildlife lens. Being a 2x zoom with a constant F4 (f5.6 with the 1.4 extender switched in), the optics are good thoughout the range. Therefore, on the same principle, why not make the 100-500mm a 250-500mm f5.6, or a 300-600 f5.6. No-one uses the short end of superzooms anyway, so why bother?

[dolina]

I have the 200-400mm and it is my go to wildlife lens. Being a 2x zoom with a constant F4 (f5.6 with the 1.4 extender switched in), the optics are good thoughout the range. Therefore, on the same principle, why not make the 100-500mm a 250-500mm f5.6, or a 300-600 f5.6. No-one uses the short end of superzooms anyway, so why bother?

Hi colin,

Thank you for your reply.

Having used the 200-400/4 1.4x I have to agree with you that it is an awesome lens but I am narrowing this to a lens that is less than 2.2kg, less than $3k and about 99% of all photogs could afford. ;)

[Trev B]

Not that I've got a 200/400 but would love one (just don't know how to approach the subject to the wife) I agree with Colin

[dolina]

Not that I've got a 200/400 but would love one (just don't know how to approach the subject to the wife) I agree with Colin

Better a 200-400 than a mistress or a wife who is younger than your 1st born. :)

[@imagesBV]

If you factor in the higher resolution and better hi ISO performance of the R5.... then the 500 f7.1 might out perform a 1DX and f4 lens....(in terms of reach assuming you crop the 45MP image from the R5) ...just my thinking...?

[DrJon]

As the 100-500 doesn't take extenders that well, and the Sony 200-600 seems good, then yes, IMHO they should have...
Also the wide end is often useful to either find stuff, or cope with it appearing unexpectedly close to you. (Although I had a bird land on my 100-400 II once, and having the 100 end really didn't help any...)

[antoeknee]

I use a Sigma 150-600 and I'm struggling to recall using it at 150. Had a quick check and around about 250 is widest I've used it. Of course vast majority of shots are at 600.

Sigma did introduce a 60-600 with a really close focus at the wide end.

There is so much change happening with the introduction of mirrorless and IBS there are a lot of options. For me something with 600ish long end and 200 or 300 short end with constant aperture 5.6?