p.4 #1 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Jazzgear296 wrote:
Well at least be complete in your response because clearly you’ve not been in a cave and know that Sigma has a 300-600 constant F4 lens for about $6K. Just in case you only read part of my statement and focused only on the F2.8-F4, and ignored the F4 or …
…and I only mentioned F2.8 -4 knowing full well no one has that lens spec… as that is the only way I would consider a partial re-entrance into Canon
The Sigma is $6600. However, for Canon to make a lens like a 300-600/2.8-4, it would likely cost about the same as the combined prices of 300/2.8 + 600/4 primes, pricing based on the lenses whose function it would replicate. So maybe $20000.
A 300-600/4-5.6 would be much more hand-holdable and easier to carry and so it would have a much larger market and the price can be lower.
p.4 #2 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Instead of waiting for the 300-600 lens, just buy a used Sigma 200-500 2.8. I've seen them sell for under $15,000, and it comes with a dedicated 2x tc. It's even hand holdable
Jim
Nikon NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 $2,196.95
Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 $3,496.95
Nikon NIKKOR Z 600mm f/6.3 $5196.95
Nikon NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 $6996.95
Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC $13696.95
Nikon NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC $14696.95
Canon ≥ Nikon
Canon RF 600mm f/11 fixed non L $879.99
Canon RF 800mm f/11 fixed non L $1099
Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 non L $2099
Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 $2799
Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 $10199
Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 $12999
Canon RF 600mm f/4 $13,999
Canon RF 800mm f/5.6 $18199
Canon RF 1200mm f/8 $21999
There's definitely interest in a great white zoom. The price could be $6500 which is the average of the prices of RF 100-500 L and RF 100-300 L but the material cost would be more than 100-300 and cost of manufacturing would be greater making $6500 unlikely. Canon hasn't been doing their most loyal followers any favors by failing to keep up with the competition and failing to bring exciting new products to market. Please keep in mind Canon was selling EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x in 2013. Here's some of what AI says:
Canon's marketing is perceived as confusing due to inconsistencies in its camera and printer product strategies, which are driven by attempts to appeal to multiple audiences and maintain profitability. The confusion is particularly noticeable in its mirrorless camera lineup and printer-related customer practices.
Confusing strategies in cameras
Targeting both professionals and consumers, but disappointing both. Canon aims to capture both professional and enthusiast markets but is criticized for leaving both segments feeling dissatisfied.
Alienating professionals: The professional-grade lenses are very expensive, with no third-party alternatives, while the flagship R1 camera was met with disappointment from high-end users who felt it did not meet their expectations.
Losing prosumers: Mid-to-high-range cameras like the R6 Mark II and R5 Mark II are strong contenders, but many serious amateur photographers (prosumers) feel pushed away by the limited, expensive RF lens selection, which often lacks viable alternatives to their competitors.
Restricting third-party lenses: In the mirrorless camera market, Canon has been criticized for making it difficult for third-party lens manufacturers to produce lenses for its RF mount. This forces consumers to purchase more expensive first-party lenses and is seen as limiting customer choice.
p.4 #4 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lemmy shoyu wrote:
Here's some of what AI says:
Canon's marketing is perceived as confusing due to inconsistencies in its camera and printer product strategies, which are driven by attempts to appeal to multiple audiences and maintain profitability. The confusion is particularly noticeable in its mirrorless camera lineup and printer-related customer practices.
Confusing strategies in cameras
Targeting both professionals and consumers, but disappointing both. Canon aims to capture both professional and enthusiast markets but is criticized for leaving both segments feeling dissatisfied.
Alienating professionals: The professional-grade lenses are very expensive, with no third-party alternatives, while the flagship R1 camera was met with disappointment from high-end users who felt it did not meet their expectations.
Losing prosumers: Mid-to-high-range cameras like the R6 Mark II and R5 Mark II are strong contenders, but many serious amateur photographers (prosumers) feel pushed away by the limited, expensive RF lens selection, which often lacks viable alternatives to their competitors.
Restricting third-party lenses: In the mirrorless camera market, Canon has been criticized for making it difficult for third-party lens manufacturers to produce lenses for its RF mount. This forces consumers to purchase more expensive first-party lenses and is seen as limiting customer choice. ...Show more →
But is that based on sales and marketing data or just a scraping of the free junk on the internet?
p.4 #6 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
It seems to represent a lot of people complaining, but I doubt those are the market they are targeting.
At face value how is Canon selling hardly any cameras and lenses? You would think they suck so bad. I thought they were number 2 or 3 in sales and doing decently. I do believe that the AI is confused, but that is not a brand issue.
p.4 #7 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
EB-1 wrote:
It seems to represent a lot of people complaining, but I doubt those are the market they are targeting.
At face value how is Canon selling hardly any cameras and lenses? You would think they suck so bad. I thought they were number 2 or 3 in sales and doing decently. I do believe that the AI is confused, but that is not a brand issue.
EBH
I don't know the real sales numbers but see conflicting reports. The sales numbers that are most readily available are for cameras sold to the Japanese Domestic Market. Even Canon Rumors is skeptical of these reports.
p.4 #8 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
EB-1 wrote:
It seems to represent a lot of people complaining, but I doubt those are the market they are targeting.
At face value how is Canon selling hardly any cameras and lenses? You would think they suck so bad. I thought they were number 2 or 3 in sales and doing decently. I do believe that the AI is confused, but that is not a brand issue.
EBH
AI can only generate a response based on what it gathers online. AI does not actually know how to use this equipment or how certain features can be subjectively attractive while appearing worse in a spec-sheet comparison, or vice versa. Also, people are apparently much more likely to complain about things they don't like about a system, whereas those who are happy with a system are apparently less likely to praise it. This would apparently lead to a negative bias from which AI would generate a response.
Apparently Canon users are ignorant of the alternatives and deserve what they get.
p.4 #9 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
So..... Here we are over 3 months later and nothing but the sound of crickets.
I was really hoping Santa would be dropping this thing off at my house this year, but it appears to have been nothing more than vaporware bullshit as usual.
I wish we had a somewhat reliable source like we had when Nokishita was around.
p.4 #10 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
There was a rumor that there would be a second announcement in November after the R6III and RF45. Now here we are in December...
Canon has always prided itself on the superteles but the RF system has not offered anything exiting outside the 100-300.
p.4 #11 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
Regarding the 300-600, here's just 1 of a few sites stating the same thing; it's been developed and is still in the testing stages. There might be issues that Canon is trying to correct before the announcement...
Jim https://www.cameraegg.org/tag/canon-rf-300-600mm-f-4-5-6l-is-usm-lens/
p.4 #13 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lemmy shoyu wrote:
have you been good?
I sure have been! I haven't spent a dime on any camera gears this year.
I'm patiently waiting for the R5III and this vaporware glass. At this point I'm thinking I'll have the R5III in my bag before this thing becomes reality.
p.4 #14 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lighthound wrote:
I sure have been! I haven't spent a dime on any camera gears this year.
I'm patiently waiting for the R5III and this vaporware glass. At this point I'm thinking I'll have the R5III in my bag before this thing becomes reality.
p.4 #17 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
lighthound wrote:
^^^
I fixed that for ya.
Oh, and the only thing flooding in my world was my finished basement last year thanks the Helene.
I hear you. We looked around and firmly decided against a basement when we built our house.
On the subject of a ?-600 f/ about 5.6. No, I just cant feel any excitement except for the flurry of opinions and a nice bag of popcorns, cheap(!) popcorns. If it does not include 800mm it is dead to me. I´d take a 800 f/8 L for the same price as a ?-600 f/something. Yes, I´m quite happy with the 200-800. It is by far good enough, even stellar at times.
p.4 #18 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
On the subject of a ?-600 f/ about 5.6. No, I just cant feel any excitement except for the flurry of opinions and a nice bag of popcorns, cheap(!) popcorns. If it does not include 800mm it is dead to me. I´d take a 800 f/8 L for the same price as a ?-600 f/something. Yes, I´m quite happy with the 200-800. It is by far good enough, even stellar at times.
A 1.4x extender would make a 300-600/5.6 a 420-840/8; without the extender restrictions that the 100-500 has, I think that would be a great combo, wouldn't you agree? It would be sharper and better built, with internal focusing versus your 200-800. And if the lens is actually a 300-600 f4-f5.6 variable aperture, even better! Then a 420/5.6 to 840/8 zoom. I personally feel the 1.4x extender on the 100-500 is amazing and thus would expect no less from a higher-priced telephoto zoom. I just feel this lens will be quite pricey and although it certainly would bridge the gap between the 100-500 and 600/4 prices, many would still wish for a 5 or 6K lens offering.
p.4 #20 · A Canon RF 300-600mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the Horizon
jaredmizanin wrote:
A 1.4x extender would make a 300-600/5.6 a 420-840/8; without the extender restrictions that the 100-500 has, I think that would be a great combo, wouldn't you agree? It would be sharper and better built, with internal focusing versus your 200-800. And if the lens is actually a 300-600 f4-f5.6 variable aperture, even better! Then a 420/5.6 to 840/8 zoom. I personally feel the 1.4x extender on the 100-500 is amazing and thus would expect no less from a higher-priced telephoto zoom. I just feel this lens will be quite pricey and although it certainly would bridge the gap between the 100-500 and 600/4 prices, many would still wish for a 5 or 6K lens offering.
