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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....Show more →
Based on the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, the 120-300mm 2.8 could be pretty spectacular.
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.
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. ...Show more → 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?
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:
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.
p.1 #16 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?
rscheffler wrote:
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.
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.
