OllieFCR

I find it interesting that lens makers like Sigma and Tamron can make a telephotos that reach up to 600mm for less than $2000. At 600mm these lenses are f6.3. On the other hand if you want a 600mm prime it will cost over $10,000, but will be f4. Now certainly there are advantages at f4, but there are also disadvantages such as weight and cost. Why is there not a lighter, lower cost 600mm prime lens at f6.3?? It would seem that construction would be no more difficult (in fact easier) than a telephoto that goes to 600mm, and it should be as light or lighter than the telephoto. Maybe it would be even cheaper. Seems like this would be an attractive lens for birders and wildlife photographers; couple it with a 100-400 and you would have a reasonably cheap (much less than one Canon or Nikkor 600mm prime), light, and versatile combination.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

I don't thunk you understand optics mapped to quality. The 600 prime has N% more quality. If you more interested in cost go for the telephotos. if you're into quality and likely selling these photos, i.e. making a living, you spend the $$$$$. Do you think a zoomed Tameron to 600 compared to 600 prime is even close?

nospambob Loc: Edmond, Oklahoma

I'd be interested.

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I am not knowledgeable to all facets of lens and what it takes to make them. The Cannon L lens for example are made from the best parts and weather sealed as well as the glass of the highest grade being used. The focusing is also of premium quality components. I own three of these lens as well as 100 macro and can vouch for their quality and depend ability. I all comes down to what you demand and are willing to pay for. The little bit of difference is what you are getting when buying a professional top quality lens. I like you thought there was not that much between lens till I bought a top quality lens and then I wanted more of them. Cameras for me are not as important as lens and they hold their value and last for several years so from my perspective they are a good value over time.

jcboy3

You can get a 600mm f5.6 prime lens for a lot less than a 600mm f4. Buy a 300mm f2.8 and add a 2x teleconverter.

The answer as to why there isn't a slower 600mm prime is likely a marketing issue. If the prime is not significantly better than the zoom, people are less likely to buy it. If it is significantly better than the zoom, then it will cost more, and with less demand will have to cost even more.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

A telephoto lens is any lens with a length longer that "normal", which seems to be anything longer than 70mm for most people (some say over 50mm.) So a 600mm prime is a telephoto lens. A lens that covers more than a single length is called a zoom lens. A lens which covers multiple lengths over 70mm is a telephoto zoom.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

True, but what's your point?

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

You have to consider the Image Quality each lens as well.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

The terms were getting mixed in the discussion and that could cause confusion later. Language is important to understanding, even if it is not to you.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Plus, calling a lens by what it is makes it easier to pretend you know what you’re talking about!

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I wasn't criticising, just curious about why you thought the explanations was needed.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

He's responding to the OP (who seems to be confused about that)!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I shoot with a 600mmF4 AND a Sigma 150-600 Sport. There is little difference between them when the Sigma is zoomed to 600mm and both are used at F8, a good working aperture to maximize depth of field and not give away too much sharpness due to diffraction. Put another way, the 11 lb 600mm F4 lens is not noticeably sharper than the 6.4 lb 150-600 zoom. For that matter, the Tamron G2 is almost 2 lbs lighter and has similar performance as the Sigma at 600. the only things the heavier more expensive lens gets you is status, you get to take your expensive tripod to show off your expensive lens, and the ability to start shooting earlier and later in the day, or in a deeply canopied forest, when light is more difficult to come by and F4 comes in really handy, or you are following a really twitchy bird that darts all around the place, where the F4 gives you a brighter viewfinder, faster focus acquisition and better tracking.

Canon used to make 3 400mm prime lenses - the F5.6, the F4 and the F2.8 - $1200/2.75 lbs, $6900/4.6 lbs, and $1000/8.47 lbs.
Kowa makes a manual focus 500mm F5.6 that you can get for $2100 and it weighs 4.75 lbs.
Nikon made a 600mm F5.6 that weighed 6.2 lbs and costs between $700 and $1000 used.

And Nikon has filed patents for 400mm, 500mm and 600mm F5.6 PF lenses.

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx/

Rokinon makes a 500mm F6.3 manual focus reflex lens that you can buy for $120. It weighs 1.43 lbs.

Or a Sigma 600mm F8 manual focus reflex for $300. It weighs 1.66 lbs.

http://stanfordphoto.blogspot.com/2008/03/review-sigma-600mm-f8-reflex-part-2-of.html

So what's your beef?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Sorry. I seem to be writing too fast today. I could have been more clear in the first post.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

It is the quantity, and more importantly quality, of the glass and the engineering involved in designing. Added is the cost of manufacturing and the limited market.