Apparently 200-400L deliveries are imminent, and people talk about end of May/June this year.
Several big retailers have started to accept preorders almost concurrently with the Canon's announcement earlier this week.
Let us see how many of you have jumped the gun already and preordered the lens. Naturally, there are also more cautious buyers who like to see what shakes down first, and then there are long lens shooters who are committed to their primes, and have no interest in (need for) a rather very expensive, moderately long and moderately fast zoom.
Probably buy sooner than six months, definitely sooner than twelve months. My 500/f4 MkI is my bread and butter lens and I suspect I will keep it. In addition to the flexibility of a zoom I like the shorter MFD. I spend a lot of time with ETs on both the 500 and the 100-400 doing sorta extreme closeup/macro stuff and hope the 200-400 will work as well with ETs as with a 1.4 TC.
Plus as mentioned in another thread I can gloat to Nikon shooters about a better 200-400.
I'll never say never, but it's incredibly unlikely I'd buy one of these, and it would be a several years down the track. Personally more interested in a new 100-400L mk II or a superior 150-500 from Sigma.
For me me a zoom is about convenience and portability, and I don't see the that in a 3.6kg lens that's bigger than a 500 f/4 even ignoring the cost.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
For me me a zoom is about convenience and portability, and I don't see the that in a 3.6kg lens that's bigger than a 500 f/4 even ignoring the cost.
I could not agree more... for me, zooms are about the 70-200 2.8, 70-300 or 100-400 4-5.6 -- small and portable.
I don't see 5 figures worth of value in gaining 1 stop and several pounds over the above examples. For his price, speed, and mass, I want more reach and/or 2.8. Obviously, Canon disagrees.........
Maybe there's a place for this lens in sports... which I don't do IDK... I suspect the indoor sports guys would not want to give up 2.8 even with the better high-ISO performance of the 1DX and 5D3.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'll never say never, but it's incredibly unlikely I'd buy one of these, and it would be a several years down the track. Personally more interested in a new 100-400L mk II or a superior 150-500 from Sigma.
For me me a zoom is about convenience and portability, and I don't see the that in a 3.6kg lens that's bigger than a 500 f/4 even ignoring the cost.
500 II is a bit bigger (i.e., more volume because of bigger diameter and bigger length), but 200-400L is "denser" which results in a mass larger than that of 500 II.
Canon tell me stock arrives in 14 days in Australia.
I'm getting one to try, if they are as good as we hope will buy 2 more.
I probably have a different perspective on it than most on this board as I work full time in sports photography, The price is largely irrelevant, if it makes you money, who cares, you soon forget about the price over time if its getting you the money shots.
I'd go so far to say the dearer the better, it separates the serious pros from the wannabees, same with the Pro bodies, the original 1DS was $13k in Australia, the 400 2.8 was around $18k a few years back, 12 grand sounds like a bargain
Derek wrote:
The price is largely irrelevant, if it makes you money, who cares, you soon forget about the price over time if its getting you the money shots.
I'll bet not many of us are pros making money from our hobby. But it appears Canon thinks they should make photography a game only for the pros again with their wacka-doodle pricing over the last few years.
Derek wrote:
Canon tell me stock arrives in 14 days in Australia.
I'm getting one to try, if they are as good as we hope will buy 2 more.
I probably have a different perspective on it than most on this board as I work full time in sports photography, The price is largely irrelevant, if it makes you money, who cares, you soon forget about the price over time if its getting you the money shots.
I'd go so far to say the dearer the better, it separates the serious pros from the wannabees, same with the Pro bodies, the original 1DS was $13k in Australia, the 400 2.8 was around $18k a few years back, 12 grand sounds like a bargain ...Show more →
Spoken like a true pro!!! I would do the same if needs be. What many hobbyists forget is that by the time gear is written down plus tax allowances the price is nowhere near $12000. In fact almost buy 2 get one free.
You should've added an option for "I'm a hobbyist without the budget required to ever purchase this lens".
I have nothing against it - I think that it's a cool lens. As a hobbyist, I can't justify the expense when there are other alternatives like the 100-400L. If I was a pro, then that would be a different story.
erikburd wrote:
You should've added an option for "I'm a hobbyist without the budget required to ever purchase this lens".
I have nothing against it - I think that it's a cool lens. As a hobbyist, I can't justify the expense when there are other alternatives like the 100-400L. If I was a pro, then that would be a different story.
yeah this for me, no 12k sitting around
not even a comment on the price of it, just a fact
If I could even afford a supertele, I would probably get the 400mm f/2.8L II or 500mm f/4L II instead, but I'm kinda surprised by the number that might be getting it. 47% in the poll right now, that doesn't sound to niche to me.
IDK... I suspect the indoor sports guys would not want to give up 2.8 even with the better high-ISO performance of the 1DX and 5D3. 
