If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

PV Hiker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Recent news from Canon Rumors about the delay and expected availability next 2-3 months of the Canon 200-400mm.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-tc-information/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/why-the-ef-200-400-f4l-is-1-4x-delays/

If you had a choice having the built in 1.4 tele converter or not. I realize Canon has spent years working on a perfected version and had a good test with users at the summer Olympics. Because with more internal moving parts will there be future break downs. I envy Nikon shooters that all ready have their 200-400mm.

I do desire this lens for use on Africa safaris where it would have a good range. By not needing to attach a tele converter you avoid opening the seal and by letting in dust. I see huge benefits from a 200-400mm at many overseas trips. If sharp I would consider leaving the 300mm f2.8 at home or selling.

So the question to the poll is: If Canon made two versions one with the built in tele converter and one without (like the 70—200mm f2.8) And of course cost was not a factor… I sure the dollar factor and lighter lens without the extender would get more sales. or would it?

What would you buy and use? Reasons?

Thanks, Patrick

Dec 03, 2012 at 09:26 PM

far148
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Heck, I'll buy one with no built in 1.4 extender and no IS!!!!

Steven

Dec 04, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Give me an updated 100-400 f/4-5.6 or even better a 125-500 f/4-5.6L IS anyday please. I'd rather spend $3K than $10K+

Dec 04, 2012 at 12:53 AM

CSStevens
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

A cheaper variant with no 1.4x extender would be pretty cool. I'd rather have a 200-400 than 300 2.8 or 400 2.8, especially for sports. An aperture of f4 is fast enough with the ISO of the 1D4, 1DX and so on.

Dec 04, 2012 at 01:31 AM

sivrajbm
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Without it might be a little more reasonable.

Dec 04, 2012 at 01:50 AM

RobertCB
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

I always wanted the 200-400 after watching the Nikon shooters using them for years. I told myself that when the Canon version came out I would pick one up; however, I always thought that the Canon version would be similarly priced as the Nikon ($7,000) and not the $11,000 price tag associated with this lens. I would gladly buy the non TC version if it was priced similarly to the Nikon but would probably pay another $1,000 on top of that to get it done. The anticipated price is way to high for me TC or no TC.

I am now considering the new Sigma 120-300 if there new QC procedures produce a top notch product with fast and accurate af.

Dec 04, 2012 at 01:52 AM

howard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

I think all Canon superteles should have a built-in 1.4x TC.

Dec 04, 2012 at 02:03 AM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

An integral TC is an old idea and a good idea. Therefore, if I was contemplating 200-400L, I'd take it the way it is.

Besides, you all should understand that even if Canon, by some absolutely unlikely reversal in their thinking, were to drop the TC feature from the lens, that would have no effect on its intro price.

However, the only 400mm f/4 lens (a zoom or a prime) I'd consider paying $10k for would be 400 DO MkII, provided its IQ would be on the refractive supertelephoto lens level.

Dec 04, 2012 at 02:10 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

At this point the lens really only interests me with the built-in teleconverter. Going from APS-H and 400/2.8 and rarely using a TC to FF with the same lens, I find I'm using the TC a lot more. I guess a 'normal' 200-400 could accommodate an external TC, but the beauty of the system is instantaneous switching, especially in situations where removing the lens from the camera is undesirable - such as during the rain at yesterday's game.

Dec 04, 2012 at 04:24 AM

PV Hiker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Here is a question, What would you expect the IQ be if you added a 1.4xIII along with using the built in one?
Patrick

Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22 AM

CSStevens
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

RobertCB wrote:
I always wanted the 200-400 after watching the Nikon shooters using them for years. I told myself that when the Canon version came out I would pick one up; however, I always thought that the Canon version would be similarly priced as the Nikon ($7,000) and not the $11,000 price tag associated with this lens. I would gladly buy the non TC version if it was priced similarly to the Nikon but would probably pay another $1,000 on top of that to get it done. The anticipated price is way to high for me TC or no TC.

I am now considering the new Sigma 120-300 if there new QC procedures produce a top notch product with fast and accurate af.

Based on the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, the 120-300mm 2.8 could be pretty spectacular.

Dec 04, 2012 at 06:33 AM

Sanlameer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

I "tested" the lens. The converter is really convenient. It is as easy as flipping a switch and then have instant magnification. The only "problem" is that the R hand has to move from the zoom ring to the switch and it is difficult to keep the camera steady, it is much easier on a monopod or tripod. The lens is front heavy, like the 500 f4 Series I. I would love to have this as a wildlife lens.

Ben

Dec 04, 2012 at 09:55 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

PV Hiker wrote:
Here is a question, What would you expect the IQ be if you added a 1.4xIII along with using the built in one?
Patrick

I wondered about this as well, but someone in another post pointed out that apparently the lens will not physically accept Canon's own teleconverters... Not sure if this is true, but I suppose there are still 3rd party options.

RobertCB wrote:
I always wanted the 200-400 after watching the Nikon shooters using them for years. I told myself that when the Canon version came out I would pick one up; however, I always thought that the Canon version would be similarly priced as the Nikon ($7,000) and not the $11,000 price tag associated with this lens. I would gladly buy the non TC version if it was priced similarly to the Nikon but would probably pay another $1,000 on top of that to get it done. The anticipated price is way to high for me TC or no TC.

I am now considering the new Sigma 120-300 if there new QC procedures produce a top notch product with fast and accurate af.

CSStevens wrote:
Based on the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, the 120-300mm 2.8 could be pretty spectacular.

Isn't the new 120-300 optically identical to the previous version?

Dec 04, 2012 at 05:39 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

The lens is front heavy, like the 500 f4 Series I.
Ben

Ben, other than being nose heavy, would you say that 200-400L weighs as much as 500 f/4 IS MkI ?

Dec 04, 2012 at 05:56 PM

PV Hiker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Interesting I have not heard that. Lens firmware? I would not envision stacking extenders with this lens, but like you said third party or taping Canon’s?

Petkal I believe Ben had reported to CR that the weight feels like the 600mmII

rscheffler wrote:
PV Hiker wrote:
Here is a question, What would you expect the IQ be if you added a 1.4xIII along with using the built in one?
Patrick

I wondered about this as well, but someone in another post pointed out that apparently the lens will not physically accept Canon's own teleconverters... Not sure if this is true, but I suppose there are still 3rd party options.

Dec 04, 2012 at 08:51 PM

Edward Castro
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

rscheffler wrote:
PV Hiker wrote:
Here is a question, What would you expect the IQ be if you added a 1.4xIII along with using the built in one?
Patrick

I wondered about this as well, but someone in another post pointed out that apparently the lens will not physically accept Canon's own teleconverters... Not sure if this is true, but I suppose there are still 3rd party options.

RobertCB wrote:
I always wanted the 200-400 after watching the Nikon shooters using them for years. I told myself that when the Canon version came out I would pick one up; however, I always thought that the Canon version would be similarly priced as the Nikon ($7,000) and not the $11,000 price tag associated with this lens. I would gladly buy the non TC version if it was priced similarly to the Nikon but would probably pay another $1,000 on top of that to get it done. The anticipated price is way to high for me TC or no TC.

I am now considering the new Sigma 120-300 if there new QC procedures produce a top notch product with fast and accurate af.

CSStevens wrote:
Based on the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, the 120-300mm 2.8 could be pretty spectacular.

Isn't the new 120-300 optically identical to the previous version?

That's what Sigma is saying, optically it's the same formula, electronically I'm sure it's different so that it can work with their new USB dock.

Dec 04, 2012 at 09:13 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

PV Hiker wrote:

Petkal I believe Ben had reported to CR that the weight feels like the 600mmII

Ok, I got that now. That would suggest the folowing weight similarities:

200-400L = 500 MkI = 600 MkII = 400 f2.8 MkII.

That is in line with some previous reports we've seen here.

Dec 04, 2012 at 10:20 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Neither is of interest to me. I am sticking to the 100-400 as long as no 400/5.6 IS is magically appearing in the market.

Dec 04, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Netgarden
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

I read it weighs 7.4 lbs. Agree with howard, I wish all the teles had built in converters. Its a very big deal!

True, 11,000$ is alot of money. Agree, petcal, a 400 revised DO is a real dream for me especially at that weight.

Dec 05, 2012 at 02:16 AM

mogud
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

An $11k 560mm at f5.6 is a hard pill to swallow for me. I'm on the fence with this lens with or without the TC.

Dec 05, 2012 at 03:18 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end