Yeah, it seems like that's what they've been doing since the lens has been making appearances here and there (i.e. at the Ryder Cup, and months ago somewhere in Africa etc) and it still has yet to be released. For those that use the few lenses that do get firmware updates like that, it sure must be a hassle, especially when work is depending on it.
CSStevens wrote:
Yeah, it seems like that's what they've been doing since the lens has been making appearances here and there (i.e. at the Ryder Cup, and months ago somewhere in Africa etc) and it still has yet to be released. For those that use the few lenses that do get firmware updates like that, it sure must be a hassle, especially when work is depending on it.
I think it's imbecilic approach by Canon to have to send your lens back to get FW updated. Heck my m4/3 camera allows you to do it yourself; just attach the lens to the camera and launch their software utility and tell it where the FW is located. Sigma is also supplying an adapter with it's new sport range of lenses to allow for things like FW updates.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think it's imbecilic approach by Canon to have to send your lens back to get FW updated. Heck my m4/3 camera allows you to do it yourself; just attach the lens to the camera and launch their software utility and tell it where the FW is located. Sigma is also supplying an adapter with it's new sport range of lenses to allow for things like FW updates.
I completely agree. Didn't know that Sigma was doing that now but its a great idea, something Canon should consider following suit with. I'm guessing that the 200-400 is being perfected in areas of firmware/software functionality so that something like that doesn't have to happen at all in the future.
How much faith can we place in Canon's commercial release of 200-400L taking place in 2013 ?
Not much, I think, if we go by their past record. The reason is in their apparent difficulty to satisfy a relatively very modest demand for 500/600 II lenses today, and probably till year end, and perhaps even into 2013.
PetKal wrote:
How much faith can we place in Canon's commercial release of 200-400L taking place in 2013 ?
Not much, I think, if we go by their past record. The reason is in their apparent difficulty to satisfy a relatively very modest demand for 500/600 II lenses today, and probably till year end, and perhaps even into 2013.
Canon's run out of excuses for the delays, although if they wait long enough there'll probably be another natural disaster, to make the already farcical situation even worse.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Canon's run out of excuses for the delays, although if they wait long enough there'll probably be another natural disaster, to make the already farcical situation even worse.
Well, yes, their MkI-to-MkII supertelephoto lens transition has been poorly executed in the extreme. To add salt to injury, the MkII lens price doubling (roughly) has probably curtailed the old supertele market size in half.
I think the tsunami catastrophe is a major contributing factor, but there ought to be more than that in the causes of such sad level of performance.
I am trying hard not to pull the plug on that Sigma. A guy on POTN called them up regarding the new lenses and apparently they are scheduled to be released early 2013 with pricing info to be given in Jan.
Let us know how you like it, I would frankly sell my 70-200 II and 100-400 for that one lens if it is as stellar as the reviews have us believe.
jcolwell wrote:
In the meantime, I'll be checking out a new Sigma EX 120-300/2.8 OS lens in a week or so...
I really hoping this lens can deliver as it seems to have addressed the weakness with the old verison in not having distance limiter settings. With a 1.4x hopefully we get a great 168-420 f/4 which will clock in around 1kg lighter and $7K cheaper than the 200-400.
vsg28 wrote:
...I would frankly sell my 70-200 II and 100-400 for that one lens if it is as stellar as the reviews have us believe.
Not me. I'll be keeping both of them. The 70-200 MK II is a peerless, medium-telephoto, fast zoom lens for events and general purpose photography, in almost any conditions. The 100-400L is a peerless, medium-long telephoto zoom lens for general purpose photography in decent light; it's a great, lightweight companion to the 24-105L, for daytime walkabouts. The EX 120-300/2.8 OS is a bit on the heavy side - same weight as my EF 200/1.8L.
If satisfactory, the EX 120-300/2.8 OS will fulfill many roles of the EF 300/2.8L IS that I sold earlier this year (woe is me*), plus a few more (maybe). Hopefully, it will be part of a dynamite combo on the sidelines; EF 70-200/2.8L IS II on 1DX, plus EX 120-300/2.8 OS on 1DIV, with or without 1.4xIII Extender, as required. Also, it will go in my airline carry-on bags a lot easier than my 500/4L IS.
Anyway, time will tell, and so will I.
*it moved to Sweden; that move paid for my X-Pro 1 system.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I really hoping this lens can deliver as it seems to have addressed the weakness with the old verison in not having distance limiter settings. With a 1.4x hopefully we get a great 168-420 f/4 which will clock in around 1kg lighter and $7K cheaper than the 200-400.
vsg28 wrote:
... A guy on POTN called them up regarding the new lenses and apparently they are scheduled to be released early 2013 with pricing info to be given in Jan...
That's good to know! I emailed Sigma USA a few days after Photokina, and they had not gotten details from Sigma HQ yet.
Here's a quote from a thread I started in late June:
"I went to my local retailer to try both the new 120-300 OS as well as a pre-owned 300/2.8 that he has in his shop just because...
The Sigma seemed a bit heavier although it's really only about 1 lb more than the Canon and it's a bit longer as well. It has a nice finish although the plastic lens hood is a little cheesy... What solidified my decision for the Canon though was the ability to shift focus from a close object to a far object: the Canon took milliseconds; the Sigma took seconds... maybe 2...."
I did take a few shots with both lenses, and optically the current OS version was exceptionally close to the older Canon 300... a copy of which I now own although rarely use.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I really hoping this lens can deliver as it seems to have addressed the weakness with the old verison in not having distance limiter settings. With a 1.4x hopefully we get a great 168-420 f/4 which will clock in around 1kg lighter and $7K cheaper than the 200-400.
The one with the distance limiter is not yet released. That's the one I am waiting for and hopefully they have also taken care of the OS issues the current version has.
jcolwell wrote:
Not me. I'll be keeping both of them. The 70-200 MK II is a peerless, medium-telephoto, fast zoom lens for events and general purpose photography, in almost any conditions. The 100-400L is a peerless, medium-long telephoto zoom lens for general purpose photography in decent light; it's a great, lightweight companion to the 24-105L, for daytime walkabouts. The EX 120-300/2.8 OS is a bit on the heavy side - same weight as my EF 200/1.8L.
Now that I think of it, I may be swayed to keep the 70-200 II, if not both
I would much prefer an EF 300/2.8 L IS, Mk I or Mk II. Heavens, yes! OTOH, after recent 1DX, 24-70L II, and Fujifilm X-Pro 1 acquisitions, my credit is much diminished - both financially and spousally - if you get my drift.
vsg28 wrote:
The one with the distance limiter is not yet released. That's the one I am waiting for and hopefully they have also taken care of the OS issues the current version has.
Yes. I'm getting the first and original OS version, as opposed to the first and earlier non-OS version. The pending version, with "improved mechanics and performance" (I found a B&H page with this info) is the new one, expected to be released in 2013. I'm buying now. Based on many current online reviews of this current OS version, I expect I'll be OK.
P.S. I recently discovered that "manual focus" can quickly overcome a lack of "distance limiter". Just kidding - I always knew that.
I expect you will be more than ok, I tried out that beast at my local store and it was really good. AF speed was my only issue in the 5 minutes or so I handled it before getting tired. I am ok with waiting, my 70-200 will tide me over till then.
