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

rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · 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

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.

PV Hiker wrote:
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?

My impression was it's not simply a matter of taping contacts with the Canon TCs, rather, it physically won't fit, I assume due to the lens element extension at the front of the TCs...

mogud wrote:
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.

Well, there's the 200-559mm thrown in for that price as well... that convenience and flexibility comes at a price.

Dec 05, 2012 at 05:05 AM

Sanlameer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

I own the 500 I. I tried to compare the 200-400 to the 500 II and 600 II that were on show. I would guess that it is close to the 500 I weight, but significantly more than the 500 II, ? closer to the weight of the 600 II. The problem is that the 500 II is so well balanced that it "feels" much lighter. The product manager was not prepared to comment about the weight of the 200-400.

Ben

Dec 05, 2012 at 07:13 AM

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

p.2 #3 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Sanlameer wrote:
I own the 500 I. I tried to compare the 200-400 to the 500 II and 600 II that were on show. I would guess that it is close to the 500 I weight, but significantly more than the 500 II, ? closer to the weight of the 600 II. The problem is that the 500 II is so well balanced that it "feels" much lighter. The product manager was not prepared to comment about the weight of the 200-400.

Ben

Actually, if you take a closer look at 500 II, you might realize that the lens has its tripod mount collar moved towards its front a lot, compared to the MkI version. The net effect of that, with a 1D series camera mounted on the lens, is that the setup is grossly out of balance when supported on the tripod mount foot, be it handheld or on a gimbal head. The situation is somewhat improved if a lighter small form camera is used such as 7D w/o grip.

I believe that 500 II is statically the most out-of balance lens of them all. Fortunately for us who use the lens handheld, the setup c. of. g. has moved proximally towards our bodies, thus handheld swings become in fact easier/more controlleable.
That situation strengthens the 500 II performance with hand-held photography of fast action such as BIF, although I am not sure if Canon has done that with such a purpose in mind.

Dec 05, 2012 at 12:35 PM

fraga
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

PetKal wrote:
Actually, if you take a closer look at 500 II, you might realize that the lens has its tripod mount collar moved towards its front a lot, compared to the MkI version. The net effect of that, with a 1D series camera mounted on the lens, is that the setup is grossly out of balance when supported on the tripod mount foot, be it handheld or on a gimbal head. The situation is somewhat improved if a lighter small form camera is used such as 7D w/o grip.

I believe that 500 II is statically the most out-of balance lens of them all.

Wasn't aware of this.
Interesting.

Dec 05, 2012 at 01:07 PM

Sneakyracer
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Honestly the 200-400mm f4L IS should cost $7000 max. At 10k id much rather buy the amazing 300mm f2.8L IS II and 2 converters and save a few grand in the process.

Dec 05, 2012 at 02:10 PM

Roland W
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

When the initial release of information about the 200-400 occurred, Canon did say that it would not accept a Canon converter, and that the opening at the rear was to small to allow one to be attached. This is similar to the Canon 2X III extender, which also will not allow a Canon extender to be mounted on its back. So unless there was a further late change to the design, no Canon extender. Non Canon extenders may function, but I doubt I will bother trying that. Remember that the optical design of the Canon super telephotos is planned in advance to work well with Canon extenders, but the included built in 1.4 extender in the 200-400 likely prevents the design from working well with an external extender.

Having a zoom is the key feature of this lens, and the built in fast change extender takes the zoom to another whole level. I own a very nice Canon 300 f 2.8 L IS lens, and some very nice Canon extenders, but they can not do what I need for the active shooting environment I am usually in. So in spite of the very high cost, I will follow through on my long term desire for a 200 to 400, and own this lens when it is first released. My local dealer was kind enough to take a pre order way back when Canon first mentioned it, so I am for sure number one on their list.

If the cost comes out around $11,000, it will actually be about right compared to the price of the other Canon version II super telephoto lenses that have come out over the past few years. And as far as considering Nikon, I am way too old to change. I first drank the Canon Kool-Aid over 40 years ago, and am very happy with my choice, especially in the last 20 years where Canon has been the leader in image stabilization and autofocus and full frame sensors, as well as other camera technologies. I still own one of my original Canon F-1 bodies, and have made the long journey to my current Canon 1DX. Thank you Canon for providing the tools I need to take photos.

Dec 05, 2012 at 03:20 PM

Wahoowa
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

I voted as if I could afford one.

Dec 05, 2012 at 03:55 PM

PV Hiker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Thank you Roland for explaining about the extender. That makes sense.

Zooms like this are great when you cannot move but the subject is moving forward and back. Like sitting in a Land Cruiser in Africa.
Patrick

Dec 05, 2012 at 06:19 PM

matt4626
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Too heavy and too $$

Dec 05, 2012 at 07:07 PM

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

p.2 #10 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Sneakyracer wrote:
Honestly the 200-400mm f4L IS should cost $7000 max. At 10k id much rather buy the amazing 300mm f2.8L IS II and 2 converters and save a few grand in the process.

That would be my thinking as well: 300 f/2.8 IS MkII plus both MkIII TCs offer three options (focal lengths and apertures) that 200-400 is not likely to match, at significantly less weight/size, and significantly less money.

If you really need continuous zooming in that FL range, in addition to 300 f/2.8 IS II, get yourself a 100-400, and you'd still have lottsa money left.

Dec 05, 2012 at 11:29 PM

PV Hiker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

For some trips like Africa is my thinking valid where the new 200-400 fits in?

24-105 or 24-70 zoom
70-200 zoom
200-400 zoom w/built in 1.4x
600mm fixed
Bring 1.4xIII, maybe 2xIII
Mix and match 1Dmk4 and full frame (possible 1Dx)

I was thinking that the 200-400 would play a key role and possible be the work horse that gets used the most. Comments………
Patrick

Dec 06, 2012 at 06:24 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

PetKal wrote:
Sneakyracer wrote:
Honestly the 200-400mm f4L IS should cost $7000 max. At 10k id much rather buy the amazing 300mm f2.8L IS II and 2 converters and save a few grand in the process.

That would be my thinking as well: 300 f/2.8 IS MkII plus both MkIII TCs offer three options (focal lengths and apertures) that 200-400 is not likely to match, at significantly less weight/size, and significantly less money.

If you really need continuous zooming in that FL range, in addition to 300 f/2.8 IS II, get yourself a 100-400, and you'd still have lottsa money left.

I guess it depends on what you're shooting, but there are times when swapping in/out a TC is too time consuming. Or, the weather is really bad.

Patrick - having never been to Africa on safari, all I can say is it seems reasonable, though I do wonder how you will get that all on the plane without issue.

I guess it depends on what you're shooting and how close you can get - the only other option I can think of is to swap out the 600 for the 800 if you really do need the extra reach, though it seems the new 600 is a tad lighter and excellent with the TCs...

Dec 07, 2012 at 08:04 AM

CW100
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Wahoowa wrote:
I voted as if I could afford one.

at those prices I'll stick with the 100-400

Dec 07, 2012 at 12:16 PM

ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Hoping the new Sigma 120-300 is a solid performer. As much as I like the idea of a built in TC the option to shoot at 2.8 for indoor work is way more appealing. Still hoping for a 100-400 update as well.

Dec 07, 2012 at 07:43 PM

Killergoalie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

I'd rather have a 200-400 f/2.8L I.S. lens without a built in converter.

Dec 08, 2012 at 04:07 AM

abqnmusa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

The 200-400 is priced far too high -- beyond consideration.

Edited on Jan 28, 2013 at 07:10 PM · View previous versions

Jan 28, 2013 at 04:57 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Killergoalie wrote:
I'd rather have a 200-400 f/2.8L I.S. lens without a built in converter.

Do you know how much that would cost and weigh

Jan 28, 2013 at 06:39 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Netgarden wrote:
Agree, petcal, a 400 revised DO is a real dream for me especially at that weight.

What needs to be revised?

Jan 28, 2013 at 06:40 PM

Killergoalie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Imagemaster wrote:
Killergoalie wrote:
I'd rather have a 200-400 f/2.8L I.S. lens without a built in converter.

Do you know how much that would cost and weigh

It shouldn't weigh any more than the current EF 400mm f/2.8L I.S. II USM lens. Or maybe a pound or so more, which would still be handholdable if a person eats their damn WHEATIES!!

Also since most photographers have a 70-200mm f/2.8L I.S. lens already, so that covers the 200mm focal length at a faster aperture, why not just get a 300mm f/2.8L I.S. lens (either version), and a1.4x and 2x series III TeleConverters? That way you have 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, 420mm f4, and 600mm f/5.6. The only focal length missing would be 800mm. Plus f/2.8 lenses are cooler than f/4 lenses IMHO.

Jan 28, 2013 at 08:37 PM

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

p.2 #20 · If Canon 200-400mm had it in two versions?

Killergoalie wrote:
Imagemaster wrote:
Killergoalie wrote:
I'd rather have a 200-400 f/2.8L I.S. lens without a built in converter.

Do you know how much that would cost and weigh

It shouldn't weigh any more than the current EF 400mm f/2.8L I.S. II USM lens. Or maybe a pound or so more, which would still be handholdable if a person eats their damn WHEATIES!!

In your dreams, it would weigh well over 5kg, probably closer to 6kg. You will almost double the weight by increasing speed 1 stop and price would be in the mid $20K range. Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is 2.9kg, so double that for a good idea of weight.

Jan 28, 2013 at 11:40 PM

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