It seems that some people, including Canon obviously, believe that 200-400L will be a smashing success if and when it starts selling.
I am not so sure, given its anticipated price of $10k +.
Gearheads like ourselves tend to get very enthusiastic about novel gears, yet, when it comes to parting with $10k+ for one lens, the enthusiasm often fades.
Let us try to understand what are the reasons for our interest in 200-400L, or, to put it slightly differently, why should a zoom of that type and postulated specs/price succeed ?
"I am hoping it will be very light"... I hope no one votes for this, cos light it aint
I'm hoping for 99% prime quality with the versatility that comes from the zoom and extender. Not that I can afford it
My interest comes for a few years of use of my darkside 200-400 and it would be nice to use one on my 5D having AF, IS instead of using an adapter limited to MF and it would be a good companion to the 800. At first I did not like the idea of the builtin TC but I now see that as a positive when needed. I voted zoom versatility as it was the closest to my interest.
I am also hoping my CPS membership gets a better price.
Bones74 wrote:
"I am hoping it will be very light"... I hope no one votes for this, cos light it aint
I do not think it will be "light" either, in fact if it really turns out to be 4kg, that ain't light at all for a 400 f/4 lens (or 560 f/5.6) lens in my books. That kinda weight would be the price one has to pay for zoom versatility, I guess.
burningheart wrote:
My interest comes for a few years of use of my darkside 200-400 and it would be nice to use one on my 5D having AF, IS instead of using an adapter limited to MF and it would be a good companion to the 800. At first I did not like the idea of the builtin TC but I now see that as a positive when needed. I voted zoom versatility as it was the closest to my interest.
I am also hoping my CPS membership gets a better price.
The initial gut-reaction excitement when I first heard of this lens was due to all the times that I've walked around with a 70-200 and found it too short. So 200-400? Well of course! Duh!
Canon being so slow to actually deliver this lens gives me a lot more time to think more critically about this lens, though. I think it's going to appeal for zoom versatility and an assumption that it will be near prime like performance. And to be clear, I'm assuming that the built-in extender, since it's specifically matched with the lens, will be at least as good as what we see with the 400mk2+1.4mk3. So I'm actually thinking of this as a 200-560 f/4-5.6 zoom with performance on par with the super-tele primes.
That would be worth a price similar to the super-tele primes. The wording of that sentence is deliberate: whether $10K+ is "worth it" for any of these is debatable. Many don't think so, but apparently enough do that Canon is selling what they can make. But assuming the 200-400 performs, then it'll be worth it to the same crowd that thinks the mk2 super-teles are worth it.
For my use? I personally wouldn't find the range that useful: when I want more than 200 then it's quite likely I want more than 400 as well. So I think that when I drop $10K on a lens it's going to be a 500mk2 + extenders.
It's probably going to be great for sports shooters, assuming that it has super fast focussing. For all the bird shooters in this forum, it's probably too short.
The built in 1.4x TC is the biggest attraction to me. Having that capability right there when you need it and only a flick of a switch away is a pretty nice option to have.
I don't know the technical difficulties involved but I wish Canon would come out with a stand alone version of that. The ability to flip back and forth on the fly would be so nice to have with other lenses.
For Pro Field Sports, there is nothing else like it. its simply the most versatile field sports zoom that gets the money shots all day long
I own 3 of the Nikon 200-400 versions, which is why I originally bought the Nikon D3's, and now the D4's, as Canon had nothing in that range of that quality
I'm eagerley awaiting the Canon offering to use with the 1DX, and if it lives up to speed, I will have 3 or 4 of those kits, price is of no concern when you're earning your living from it, well not for me anyway
PetKal wrote:
I do not think it will be "light" either, in fact if it really turns out to be 4kg, that ain't light at all for a 400 f/4 lens (or 560 f/5.6) lens in my books. That kinda weight would be the price one has to pay for zoom versatility, I guess.
I heard reports that Canon users who shot with it at the Olympics said it was prime sharp... Not all primes are equal though, but I expect they're referring to 400mm f/2.8. Got to say though, I see the appeal with this lens and if I had the money I'd choose it over a prime. I hope you get one so we can all do the vicarious thing
B/c the 100-400 is too damn slow. That one stop would help me a LOT.
I'm not spending that kind of money though. The Siggy 120-300/2.8 with my 1.4TC is a much bigger bang/buck in my books.
I'm going to seriously check out the Sigma 120-300 when the new version comes out. I think it would make a nice field sports lens without breaking the bank. If it works reasonably well with a 1.4tc, all the better. While the 200-400L looks nice I just can't justify the cost.
I do see the lens finding acceptance by some sports photographers. Furthermore, a few nature and wildlife photography enthusiast might get it. Beyond that I don't know....
