bipock wrote:
Are you suggesting that a 400 5.6L, which currently runs $1200 new, would balloon to $2500 for adding nothing more than IS? Why would anyone pay that much for it? We'd all be better going to the 100-400.
not saying it is reasonable, but reasonable and likely are two different things
look at all the other recent pricing such as the 70-300L at 3 million dollars (without collar)
i bet a new 400 f/5.6 would be near the $2500 mark
M Vers wrote:
Perhaps it's a mode to be used when a TC is mounted? Other than that I've got no other ideas...
EDIT: According to DPR it operates during the exposure only
"...and a new third IS mode has been added, assisting users when quickly switching between subjects by activating the IS unit only during exposure."
didnt they already add that to the new 300 and 400?
isn't this the new instant spin IS for use when shooting action so maybe you don't have to turn off IS now or something along those lines?
i dont think this is anything new (if you consider the not yet released 300, 400 IS II old)
I've been yelling for years that Canon needed to produce a 200-400 f/4, love it. However, here's where my question lies- I paid approx. $1,800 for a mint Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with a 1.4 TC. Which gives me a 160-400mm (Sigma is overly optimistic on the long end, hence it not being 420mm) f/4 lens, that I've loved every minute of using for motorsports.
So, will I be able to justify probably 4 times the price for the Canon? While I expect the IQ to be better, will it be better enough? I know that's a question only I can answer, but it'll be curious to see what others decide as well, especially those who don't have the luxury of writing off new gear. Should lead to some good discussions....
gpchase wrote:
It's an interesting notion that Canon would release such a versatile product that could potentially kill a very large portion of their big glass market...namely 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600. Am I missing something here or did the price of the above pieces just become affordable for us non-owners in the used marketplace ?
There'll always be a market for the primes. Leaving out the 400 DO (which will likely remain at least a pound lighter and quite a bit more compact), you still gain one f/stop at the long end and up to two f/stops at the short end.
Plus almost certainly the primes will work better with the TCs, if the zoom even accepts TCs. (I strongly supect this lens will be like the 70-300L, and not take Canon's teleconverters. Canon has never officially supported the stacking of its teleconverters, and I rather doubt we'll see it now.)
I do not know my optics well enough to be sure, but I think that perhaps it is easier to design a good extender if you build it in like this lens has. The current add on extenders need to work with a lens that has been moved out away from the image to allow the additional elements to be inserted when you mount it. That means they need to make more corrections to account for both the movement of the front groups away and then also magnify the image to get the longer focal length. This lens starts with and stays with the front groups at their original distance, and then adds only the lenses that magnify for more equivalent focal length. I also think it is likely easier to make the whole design with the extender in place work well with the zoom of the optics in front, and that could lead to very good image quality at all zoom settings with the extender in place.
I may have missed it, but I do not remember seeing anything official about compatibility of the Canon 200-400 with added external Canon tele extenders. It would not surprise me if Canon recommended not using them, because the optical design was not as compatible with extenders as the fixed focal length super telephoto primes. Based on the digital communication of the lens to the camera, it is also possible if Canon chose to do so to make their extenders not function on this new lens. Note that if Canon extenders either are not recommended or do not even work, it would help Canon maintain more of the market for 400, 500, and 600 super telephoto primes with and without tele extenders.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Andy, listening to you talk about the 200-400 on your blog and checking out your shots, I've been eagerly awaiting the day Canon released its version of this lens as well!
Thanks, Ariel. Yeah, I moved to Nikon just for the flexibility of their 200-400mm. I am a Canon guy at heart, I guess.
garyvot wrote:
Canon specifically calls out BIF for this. (PetKal, where are you?)
Gary, I am busy now making the inventory of all personal possessions and kitchen appliances I'd have to sell in order to get enough money to buy this new lens.
Seriously though, I ain't selling 400DO to get 200-400L.
400DO is light and small, agile enough, IQ is OK and it has been paid for.
If I need/want top notch IQ, then I just have to grab 500 f/4 (or 500 f/4.5L).
rscheffler wrote:
This is a very interesting question indeed. I'm certain Canon is looking beyond traditional pro photography markets at areas such as HD video. They're certainly tapping into a huge high-end amateur market that has exploded with DSLRs that is rising as the pro market dwindles. A market they gained considerable hold of due to their past favourable prices compared to Nikon. IMO this is not a coincidence, but an indication of how the pro market has been affected by very skilled and dedicated photographers with full time jobs in other fields.
Ron
Ron, you bring a very good point up. I wasn't even thinking about the video aspect of it. But as far as video, I'm sure this lens could have very good use & help with sales and they keeping that in mind for the price factor.
Hmmh, over at cnet.com the cite a price of about 9'500US$ (I don't know if this will be true), but hey, it looks like this one - for once - comes with the tripod collar included.
!!!