I've been a reader of this site for about 7 years, but never made an account. I just did, just to reply to your comment.
Um…welcome.
Um.. do you realize that Nikon's 500 5.6 pf has been getting sold like crazy since it's release?
Really? On what data are you basing that conclusion? How many units have they sold, compared to other lenses? I would be truly surprised if you had any actual data to support your assertion. Note that anecdotes like ‘lots of people I know bought one’ are not data.
I really don't think you understand just how amazing a 3k 500 5.6 is.. "perhaps canon knows something you don't"... While implying a 500 5.6 won't sell? Thats a little bit delusional.
Nikon announced the development of the 500/5.6 PF in mid-2018. Given typical corporate competitive intelligence, Canon knew about it long before that.
Such an amazing lens that sells like crazy, yet Canon has chosen not to make one. So again I suggest, perhaps Canon knows something you don’t.
Don’t misunderstand, I am not questioning the utility or “awesomeness” of such a lens. I am merely stating a fact, namely that Canon has not released such a lens.
So who is delusional here? A company that has long considered the possibility of making a 500/5.6 (Canon filed a patent for one back in 2011) and has not made one? Or a person who believes they know more about making and selling lenses than the company that has led the ILC market for 20 years? (In case you need a hint, the latter is far more likely.)
Of course, Canon not making one doesn’t mean they don’t think it would be popular. Their goal is not really making lenses people want, it’s making a profit. Often, those two coincide…but not always.
The 500 pf, 200-500, and now the 400 4.5 which overlap each other still exist because Nikon gives option to us mere mortals that can't buy a 10k lens. Canon's 100-400 ii is amazing but no it's not at the level of the 500pf (of course it's cheaper), neither is the 100-500 which is f7.1 and not quite as sharp.. anyway.. its very obvious why canon hasnt released a 500 5.6. it would be too affordable and people wont buy the 400 do.
A valid reason, from Canon’s perspective. As I’ve said, they’ve long appeared to prioritize lenses at the ends of the cost spectrum, not the middle. A good example are the 50mm primes, lots of 50/1.8 lenses, the 50/1.2 was among the first RF lenses, while the 50/1.4 languishes.
Also you said "..... Personally want something"..SO MANY people have been asking for an update to the now *30* year old 400 5.6, and the 25 year old 300 f4. Canon hasn't even bothered. Cmon. In 30 years they couldve updated it twice. Again, the reason behind it is very clear.
The 100-400 L lenses probably far outsold the 300/4 and 400/5.6. Thus, the 100-400L saw a MkII version and was brought into the RF mount as a 100-500L. Zooms have become far more popular than primes. If that’s what you mean, then yes the reason is clear. It seems to me you’re implying something different, in which case the reason is obviously not clear to one of us.