Out of curiosity: How heavy would a 4/200-600TC be in 2025?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

mjais

mjais

Active member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Hi,
I do not know anything about lens design except the very basic thing that zooms are heavier than primes if the rest is the same like f-stop, VR, AF motors and so on.

Today we some very light lenses like the latest 4/600, Sony's 2.8/300, Canons 2.8/100-300 and Nikon's two PF lenses and the 4.5/400. Sigma also has a very light 5.6/500.

My Z 4/600TC S is about 3.2kg which is a lot to handhold for longer but given what it is, it is quite impressive how light it is. Canon's and Sony's lenses are about the same if you add an 1.4x.
With that I wonder how heavy a 4/200-600TC from Nikon, Canon or Sony would be if they decided to do such a lens (Canon seems to have some patents for huge zooms).
I assume such a lens would rival the primes in quality or at least be very close.

Of course, such a lens may cost 20K (Euros/Dollars) but in the field, it would be a game changer, at least when on a tripod.
 
Member's gallery
My guess is between 8-10 pounds. It would certainly be heavier than the 600TC since it has a zoom mechanism and more elements, but I think with modern materials it wouldn't tip the scales much about 10 pounds.

That said, I kind of think a 200-500 TC is more realistic, and would be lighter and smaller as well. Nikon and Canon have both made lenses in that 200-400 F/4 range, so I don't think it's a stretch to add 100mm :) 200mm? Not so sure - although I'd be in line right away as I sold off my other lenses!
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
My guess is between 8-10 pounds. It would certainly be heavier than the 600TC since it has a zoom mechanism and more elements, but I think with modern materials it wouldn't tip the scales much about 10 pounds.

That said, I kind of think a 200-500 TC is more realistic, and would be lighter and smaller as well. Nikon and Canon have both made lenses in that 200-400 F/4 range, so I don't think it's a stretch to add 100mm :) 200mm? Not so sure - although I'd be in line right away as I sold off my other lenses!
Click to expand...

If google is right, 8-10 American pounds is about 3.6-4.5kg. I think 3.6 (8 pounds) would be awesome and would make me sell the prime. If it was more like 4.5kg (10 pounds), I think people may want to use both depending on the situation (and if a flying rainbow-coloured unicorn drops a bag of money!)

I had the Canon 4/200-400TC for a while many years ago, it was perfect for closer animals or really big ones, e.g. tigers in India.
For birds it was always too short, so 4/200-500TC would be a more compelling option. I hope the three big brands are cooking up something like that.
 
Member's gallery
mjais said:
If google is right, 8-10 American pounds is about 3.6-4.5kg. I think 3.6 (8 pounds) would be awesome and would make me sell the prime. If it was more like 4.5kg (10 pounds), I think people may want to use both depending on the situation (and if a flying rainbow-coloured unicorn drops a bag of money!)

I had the Canon 4/200-400TC for a while many years ago, it was perfect for closer animals or really big ones, e.g. tigers in India.
For birds it was always too short, so 4/200-500TC would be a more compelling option. I hope the three big brands are cooking up something like that.
Click to expand...
Same here - it would be one lens to shoot pretty much everything. And there are times when shooting a prime, I miss the shot because zooming down wasn't an option. It would be a true game-changer.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
It's been a rumor forever in Canon land, now they are saying 5.6 might be more realistic.


www.canonrumors.com

Is a Canon RF 200-500mm f/5.6L IS USM a possibility?

We have been reporting for what seems an eternity that Canon will be announcing an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM any day now! That has obviously has not come to pass
www.canonrumors.com
Click to expand...
I've been reading that too and it would certainly be a disappointment. Who wants to be shooting at nearly f/8 with a 1.4 TC? My 500 f/4 IS II was the bomb and super sharp with a 1.4x which pretty much lived on the lens other than when the subject was larger mammals. If I remember correctly, that lens was 3.2 Kg which is at the upper limit of what I can handhold successfully. The old 200-400 TC was around a pound heavier than the 500 f/4, so it (200-400) resided on a mono/tripod. Canon has really fallen behind in the lighter weight, long, mid-priced telephotos and it is really unfortunate. That's why I shoot Nikon now.
 
Canon seems to be feeling that zooms are now as good as primes, for example the big surprise where we were expecting the RF 300 2.8 and it turned out to be the 100-300 2.8. I'm thinking that is the path they will take going forward, zooms with a range of a couple hundred mm instead of primes.
 
mjais said:
If google is right, 8-10 American pounds is about 3.6-4.5kg. I think 3.6 (8 pounds) would be awesome and would make me sell the prime. If it was more like 4.5kg (10 pounds), I think people may want to use both depending on the situation (and if a flying rainbow-coloured unicorn drops a bag of money!)

I had the Canon 4/200-400TC for a while many years ago, it was perfect for closer animals or really big ones, e.g. tigers in India.
For birds it was always too short, so 4/200-500TC would be a more compelling option. I hope the three big brands are cooking up something like that.
Click to expand...

For me I'm kind of happy with the path canon is taking. They are leaving the $3000 to $12000 category empty, which is fine with me because I'm more interested in the $2000 to $3000 category anyway. So if the 200-500 was 5.6 it would tempt me at $3000 or even I'd convince myself at $4000, but a f4 at $5000 would not tempt me.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
For me I'm kind of happy with the path canon is taking. They are leaving the $3000 to $12000 category empty, which is fine with me because I'm more interested in the $2000 to $3000 category anyway. So if the 200-500 was 5.6 it would tempt me at $3000 or even I'd convince myself at $4000, but a f4 at $5000 would not tempt me.
Click to expand...
A 200-500 f/5.6 for $3k? Doubt it. Canon has abandoned the middle territory, save the 100-500 5.6-7.1. That's precisely why I switched to Nikon.
 
Member's gallery
mjais said:
Hi,
I do not know anything about lens design except the very basic thing that zooms are heavier than primes if the rest is the same like f-stop, VR, AF motors and so on.

Today we some very light lenses like the latest 4/600, Sony's 2.8/300, Canons 2.8/100-300 and Nikon's two PF lenses and the 4.5/400. Sigma also has a very light 5.6/500.

My Z 4/600TC S is about 3.2kg which is a lot to handhold for longer but given what it is, it is quite impressive how light it is. Canon's and Sony's lenses are about the same if you add an 1.4x.
With that I wonder how heavy a 4/200-600TC from Nikon, Canon or Sony would be if they decided to do such a lens (Canon seems to have some patents for huge zooms).
I assume such a lens would rival the primes in quality or at least be very close.

Of course, such a lens may cost 20K (Euros/Dollars) but in the field, it would be a game changer, at least when on a tripod.
Click to expand...
Not sure that 20-600 F/4 TC would be a viable lens. Likely it would be too large to fit in carry-on sized camera bags.

What about a 200-600 F/4-5.6 w/o a TC. Aperture would increase from 4 to 5.6 around 400mm

Just a thought?
 
Member's gallery
What I would like to see and would pay a premium price for is most likely the impossible dream. I would like to see a 18 (or 24) to 400 (or 500) lens maxing out at F5.6 with near prime-like image quality across the range. If it could produce image quality on par with the Canon 100-500 L lens, the Sony 200-600 or the Nikon 180-600 but do it across the wide zoom range, that would be a game changer. Oh and keep it around 3-4 pounds. Truly one lens to do it all.

I had a Tamron 18-400 and it was decent but certainly not sharp across the range and even those areas where it was sharp, I would graciously say it was acceptably sharp.

The first manufacturer that comes out with a lens like I mentioned above would get my money.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
What I would like to see and would pay a premium price for is most likely the impossible dream. I would like to see a 18 (or 24) to 400 (or 500) lens maxing out at F5.6 with near prime-like image quality across the range. If it could produce image quality on par with the Canon 100-500 L lens, the Sony 200-600 or the Nikon 180-600 but do it across the wide zoom range, that would be a game changer. Oh and keep it around 3-4 pounds. Truly one lens to do it all.

I had a Tamron 18-400 and it was decent but certainly not sharp across the range and even those areas where it was sharp, I would graciously say it was acceptably sharp.

The first manufacturer that comes out with a lens like I mentioned above would get my money.
Jeff
Click to expand...

AFAIK the physics in making a super zoom of 10x or more work against image quality. That's why nobody has done it.
 
Member's gallery
The excellent and versatile 180-400 f4E TC14 weighs 3.5kg, and I find it nicely balanced to handhold on a gripped camera.

With a window of 150mm, a 600 f4 is pushing the maximum outer diameter of the front element(s). This widest width also sets the minimum lower bound on dimensions and thus weight of the lens chassis. A zoom also uses more elements= total glass plus the mechanism.

These wide telephoto elements are apparently expensive to pour and mold fault free. They must be flawless. Nikon also uses its different proprietary glass formulas, only made in smaller batches for specialized lenses. Manufacturing flawless fluorite elements also has its challenges apparently.

A Phase-fresnel element reduces the length and weight of a telephone significantly. Unfortunately, flare problems prohibits using these PF elements in zooms.

The outer diameter of the front element in a 500mm f4E Nikkor is 125mm, and weighs 3kg. So it might be feasible to build in the internal TC14 and zoom mechanism in a 200-500 f4S TC that weighs approx 3.5 kg. There are extra light materials (including Sereebo) and honeycomb chassis designs etc to minimize weight

Such a Telephoto zoom is unlikely to be priced < $10 grand!
 
Member's gallery
Maybe we will get a PF zoom, for example a 5.6/300-800. Sigma had such a monster many years ago but I guess with lenses similar to the ones in the wonderful 6.3/800PF (which I keep in addition to the 600TC because of it's weight), it might be possible to make a much lighter zoom than the old Sigma lens.

A 5.6/300-800PF with maybe 3.2 or 3.5kg would be a really cool lens, especially if Nikon also keeps the price at something like 10K.
 
Member's gallery
dabhand16 said:
AFAIK the physics in making a super zoom of 10x or more work against image quality. That's why nobody has done it.
Click to expand...
That's why I said it was probably impossible but when/if someone cracks the code, I'll be in line. Carrying only one lens in the field and no need to swap lenses when an opportunity shows itself would be a game changer. It seems when I have a wide angle on, some critter pops up where I needed a tele or when I have the tele on, some stunning landscape opportunity presents itself. The ability to switch with the turn of a ring would be awesome assuming IQ did not suffer too much.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
That's why I said it was probably impossible but when/if someone cracks the code, I'll be in line. Carrying only one lens in the field and no need to swap lenses when an opportunity shows itself would be a game changer. It seems when I have a wide angle on, some critter pops up where I needed a tele or when I have the tele on, some stunning landscape opportunity presents itself. The ability to switch with the turn of a ring would be awesome assuming IQ did not suffer too much.
Click to expand...

That's why a lot of folk carry 2 cameras. Also gives a back up in the event of a camera failing/getting damaged/etc.
 
Member's gallery
The Nikon 600 mm f4 Z is a quoted as 7 lb 3 oz – though in reality it becomes a bit more adding a quick release plate and the lens hood.
Click to expand...
A body is essential taking the combined weight up to 10 pounds or more.

The proposed zoom mechanism could add another pound in weight and if incorporated a 1.4 TC another 1 pound in weight.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
Doesn’t Nikon make a 200-500/5.6 and is on sale right now for $1,056?
People re sure throwing out some high prices for something we already have had for almost 10 years now.
Click to expand...

Not a native Z mount with S quality. (Or a Canon L variant, Sony GM variant). I do but know how good the DSLR lens is. It's quite heavy with 2.5kg (Nikon website). I expect a new lens to be lighter.

I do not think we will get an S lens for less than 5K or at best 4K.
I'd be the first to buy a S like 5.6/200-500 for mirrorless if the optics are great and the price ok.
 
Member's gallery
I'm not sure we'd ever see a fast (f4) top quality zoom beyond 400mm. The design would be a challenge (just look at the middling performance of Nikon's 200-400G...though Nikon could to better these days). The market for a 500/4 and 600/4 is already small enough and a big portion of the market (affluent but aging "boomer-types") want the lightest lenses possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top