Poll: What lens do you want to see next?

Great Bustard wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

BigBen08 wrote:

500mm f5.6

And price it so the average person can afford.

...Canon has a 300/2.8, 300/4, 400/2.8, 400/4, 400/5.6, 500/4, 600/4, and 800/5.6, but no 300/5.6, 500/5.6, or 600/5.6.

Canon has four 300/5.6s - the 75-300IS, 70-300IS, 70-300DO, and 70-300L.

I sincerely doubt that they'd have the IQ of a dedicated 300 / 5.6 prime. In addition, there is the matter of size and weight. That is, saying that Canon has a 200 / 2.8L IS in the form of the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II -- that's a lot of extra money and weight to get IS at 200mm f/2.8.

Well, the L probably does.  Pretty good optics at 300mm.

They also have the 600/5.6 in the form of the 300/2.8+2x.

Again, I would imagine that a 600 / 5.6 would have better IQ, at the very least. Does the 200 / 2.8L + 2x TC have the same IQ as the 400 / 5.6L?

No, but the 300/2.8L IS II is way better than the 200/2.8.  It's really solid with the 2x.

The big gap in the Canon lineup is between the expensive but sort-of reasonable telephotos with around 71.4mm of aperture and the next step up to those with 100mm of aperture, which cost three to five times as much. Sigma has the 120-300/2.8 and two 150-600s in that range.

I've always been a huge advocate of a 200-500 / 5.6L IS, but with the recent releases of the 150-600s and 100-400 II, I don't see such a lens coming anytime soon.

For years I've said that Canon needs a $3k-ish telephoto. Personally, I think the ideal one would be either a 350/4 or a 1xx-350/4, for somewhere in that $3k range. 350/4+1.4xTC = 500/5.6.

A 350 / 4 is, in my opinion, far too close to the existing 400 / 4, to warrant production.

Well, the 400/4 is a DO and it's still quite a bit bigger - 100mm versus 87.5mm of aperture.  87.5mm is about half way between 71.4mm and 100mm.  And, remember, I said $3k-ish, which the 400/4 DO is most certainly NOT!