Holy shit batman, they are saying a bit heavier than 400 II. Doesn't sound right to me, but that would take it off my Xmas wish list instantly if true. This would make it around 0.7kg heavier than Nikon's 200-400 f/4, and although the built-in TC can account for some extra weight, I had assumed it's new technology as employed in the mk II superteles would have kept weight down to about 500 II levels.
At least Canon is being consistent. All their new stuff is expensive lately. I'm still hoping that they update the 100-400. I just like that expanded zoom range better. As the ISO gets better and better that 5.6 zoom is looking a lot more desirable.
I cant belive how long its taken them to get this UNICORN of a lens out.
More than a few were seen in use at the Olympics , I'd have thought ater that they would have put it out for general release.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I cant belive how long its taken them to get this UNICORN of a lens out.
More than a few were seen in use at the Olympics , I'd have thought ater that they would have put it out for general release.
Oh well I couldnt have afforded it anyway
+1 I thought the same thing- see dozens of them at the Olympics, and then no announcement yet?
Such a cool lens...but at $10k+? I'll have to stick with the Sigma 120-300 OS + TC's for such a zoom range.
This thing better have absolutely unbelievable IQ....
One of the SI photographers had the 200-400 at the Steelers game vs. the Jets on Sunday. He was busy working, so I didn't want to pester him incessantly about it. But his take on the lens is this:
Everyone will buy this lens because it's sharp.
It has a "different look" from the primes, because it's a stop slower and therefore somewhat different background rendering/depth of field look.
BTW, he was shooting with two super-teles... the 200-400 and the 400 2.8 II. When asked about this, he said it was because of point #2. IMO, a more logical pairing would be the 200-400 with the 600 or 800, but I'm sure he knows what he's doing.
Or maybe he doesn't like it/trust it and won't admit it publicly... but he was using it throughout the game.
In terms of side-by-side size comparison against the 400 prime, obviously the zoom is not as large in diameter, but about the same length. I didn't ask to try it or pick it up, therefore no idea about weight and balance...
I don't get why Canon can't at least release the specs like the weight for this lens. I don't think they are changing things still with the construction/materials. Lots were used at the olympics and now at other sporting events. Has anyone read any comments on the weight from any professional sports shooters?
arbitrage wrote:
I don't get why Canon can't at least release the specs like the weight for this lens. I don't think they are changing things still with the construction/materials. Lots were used at the olympics and now at other sporting events. Has anyone read any comments on the weight from any professional sports shooters?
I was wondering the same thing... Lots of photographers used this lens at the Olympics, but there has been nary a comment about it other than 'it's great' or anything at various forums. One logical explanation is these photographers are too busy to hang out on forums. Or, maybe there is some confidentiality issue, as apparently these are all still preproduction units of an unreleased product.
When I asked the SI photographer, I definitely got the impression he wasn't hugely keen to chat about it. Maybe he's just bombarded about it at events he covers?
Chris B. wrote:
Did the SI photog have a Sherpa with him? Seriously, that's just under 20 lbs in glass alone... and they're not exactly easy to manuveur...
Yes, he had an assistant, as is typical of SI photographers at games. It's not really that much to carry around, rather, the issue is where to put the other camera with large lens while you're not using it and surrounded by other photographers.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Holy shit batman, they are saying a bit heavier than 400 II. Doesn't sound right to me, but that would take it off my Xmas wish list instantly if true. This would make it around 0.7kg heavier than Nikon's 200-400 f/4, and although the built-in TC can account for some extra weight, I had assumed it's new technology as employed in the mk II superteles would have kept weight down to about 500 II levels.
That is consistent with what we have heard from our member who held a unit months ago.
Great IQ ? Yeah, what else is new.......they all have great IQ, but they are all faster than 200-400L, and some of them are lighter and less expensive.
rscheffler wrote:
I was wondering the same thing... Lots of photographers used this lens at the Olympics, but there has been nary a comment about it other than 'it's great' or anything at various forums. One logical explanation is these photographers are too busy to hang out on forums. Or, maybe there is some confidentiality issue, as apparently these are all still preproduction units of an unreleased product.
When I asked the SI photographer, I definitely got the impression he wasn't hugely keen to chat about it. Maybe he's just bombarded about it at events he covers?
I'm certain that Canon has all the photographers whom they partner with to test items in the field sign non-disclosure agreements... If Canon got word about a specific photographer leaking information, chances are that privilege would be revoked pretty quickly.
I'm sorry but 4kg+ for a zoom lens makes it useless to me. A zoom is supposed to be about convenience but at 4kg+ this means regular tripod and gimbal usage. Hand holding will be for brief periods at best. A 200-400 f/4 should be about the same weight as a 120-300 f/2.8 and given Canon's advanced new procedure for building the superteles to save weight, I'm gob smacked this is at least a kilo heavier than the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and 700g heavier if we add a 1.4x or 2x TC to that lens, and Sigma does not have the same exotic build for lightweight Canon does. Hopefully the guy was talking crap about the weight.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm sorry but 4kg+ for a zoom lens makes it useless to me. A zoom is supposed to be about convenience but at 4kg+ this means regular tripod and gimbal usage. Hand holding will be for brief periods at best. A 200-400 f/4 should be about the same weight as a 120-300 f/2.8 and given Canon's advanced new procedure for building the superteles to save weight, I'm gob smacked this is at least a kilo heavier than the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and 700g heavier if we add a 1.4x or 2x TC to that lens, and Sigma does not have the same exotic build for lightweight Canon does. Hopefully the guy was talking crap about the weight....Show more →
+1
Many people fall under pressure to speak about their employer's plans, of which they may not have all the facts and/or they may not be authorised to do so anyways.
The pressure comes from the public and media, as well as a normal tendency we all have to augment our own corporate standing in public.
The following doesn't inspire confidence: First, they say the plan is to have the lens out by year end, and then they hasten to add a "caveat" that they anticipate it will/might/should (?) happen by year end, but they do not (really) know. Besides, who knows what the news-item writer might have (mis)understood out of that whole conversation.
Furthermore, the operating feedback was conveyed that 200-400L didn't AF as fast as 400 f/2.8 IS MkII. That is something very unusual for a Canon spokesman to say. Besides, that sorta AF speed difference.....what does it really mean, and is that good or bad ?
Also the article is in error about when this lens was announced: it was announced in August 2010 they were developing this lens, so we will be at at least 28 months after announcement for release.
But his take on the lens is this: