Canon EF 250-500 f/4-5.6 IS STM or nano-USM, Please!!!

[TTMartin]

Canon please answer the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR with an EF or EF-S 250-500 IS STM quality lens at half the cost. 

Show the world that Canon continues to kick butt, with its low cost, hight quality STM lens line!!!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

Canon please answer the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR with an EF or EF-S 250-500 IS STM quality lens at half the cost. 

Show the world that Canon continues to kick butt, with its low cost, hight quality STM lens line!!!

---

Has anyone made an STM lens that long?

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

Canon please answer the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR with an EF or EF-S 250-500 IS STM quality lens at half the cost. 

Show the world that Canon continues to kick butt, with its low cost, hight quality STM lens line!!!

---

Has anyone made an STM lens that long?

---

I got the impression that he was challenging Canon to make one like that, a 250-500mm IS STM.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

Canon please answer the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR with an EF or EF-S 250-500 IS STM quality lens at half the cost. 

Show the world that Canon continues to kick butt, with its low cost, hight quality STM lens line!!!

---

Has anyone made an STM lens that long?

---

Only Canon has STM lenses. And no they haven't made one that long, yet.

But the Nikon 200-500 VR is a relatively inexpensive birding/sports/wildlife lens, that Canon really doesn't have an equivalent to at this time.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

Canon please answer the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR with an EF or EF-S 250-500 IS STM quality lens at half the cost. 

Show the world that Canon continues to kick butt, with its low cost, hight quality STM lens line!!!

---

Has anyone made an STM lens that long?

---

Only Canon has STM lenses. And no they haven't made one that long, yet.

But the Nikon 200-500 VR is a relatively inexpensive birding/sports/wildlife lens, that Canon really doesn't have an equivalent to at this time.

---

My concern was that the laws of physics may make it difficult to build a stepping motor for a lens that massive.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

My concern was that the laws of physics may make it difficult to build a stepping motor for a lens that massive.

---

There is a certain kind of lens design, and I'm sorry my brain can't remember what it's call that is used in front mount teleconverters, that cause no loss of light (since you are increasing the size of the entrance pupil), and wouldn't change the mass of the focus mechanism at all. The Canon TL55 TeleConverter 1.4x is an example of such a lens. So in theory a 2x version of that kind of lens built on to the front of the EF-S 55-250 would give you a 110-500 f/5.6 lens, and the focus mass doesn't change. However the front element would be much larger than the current 58mm, probably 86mm.

edit: it is called a 'Teleside converter' (see Wikipedia), and is based on afocal Galilean telescope.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Bpston,

There is supposed to be a Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS coming in 2016. I have heard that the new lens could be announced in August 2016. It should cost around $1700 bucks.  Probably not an "L. 

The brand-N version is a nice lens but not any better and perhaps not as good as either the Tamron or Sigma entries.  The SIgma S has set the standard in this category of lenses.

It won't be a STM but that is good as far as I am concerned.

[Waddizzle]

"There is supposed to be a Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS coming in 2016. I have heard that the new lens could be announced in August 2016. It should cost around $1700 bucks.  Probably not an "L". " 

That's a lot money for a lens that is not an "L".  Even if it did cost that much, the lens would have to be "crippled" in some way, so as not to undermine sales of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM. 

My first guess as to what to compromise would be the IS.  Don't give IS multiple modes.  But, doing so could severely reduce the usefulness of the lens.  Likewise, not offering distance adjustments for the AF system could severely reduce the usefulness of the lens. 

So, what's left to cut from it?  Image quality?  Weather sealing?  My vote goes for weather sealing, then IQ.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

That's a lot money for a lens that is not an "L".  Even if it did cost that much, the lens would have to be "crippled" in some way, so as not to undermine sales of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM. 

My first guess as to what to compromise would be the IS.  Don't give IS multiple modes.  But, doing so could severely reduce the usefulness of the lens.  Likewise, not offering distance adjustments for the AF system could severely reduce the usefulness of the lens. 

So, what's left to cut from it?  Image quality?  Weather sealing?  My vote goes for weather sealing, then IQ.

---

Keep in mind any information about future Canon products until it is officially announced by Canon comes from someone reading it on the Internet, making their own best guess, or violating their non-disclosure agreement with Canon.

The third is unlikely. The first two are just rumors and guesses. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

 Keep in mind any information about future Canon products until it is officially announced by Canon comes from someone reading it on the Internet, making their own best guess, or violating their non-disclosure agreement with Canon.

The third is unlikely. The first two are just rumors and guesses. 

---

This may come as a shock to some of you younger, idealistic guys, but companies have been known to dribble out snippets of disinformation about upcoming product releases.