This poll is addressed to people who might have at least some interest in the new 200-400L lens, and I think the poll options are rather selfexplanatory.
Let us also assume that the 200-400L introductory price is close to $11,000.
Also, it is very unlikely that the lens performance will be less than excellent, thus you do not have to wait until Carnathan or Morris tell you the zoom is the best Canon telephoto lens ever . I'd say the only possible disappointment might turn out to be its weight.
If weighed same as 500 f/4 mk II and was < $10K, I'd consider it. But any heavier or dearer no way. I'd rather use a 500 f/4 II + 100-400L combo which will be same cost anyway.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If weighed same as 500 f/4 mk II and was < $10K, I'd consider it. But any heavier or dearer no way. I'd rather use a 500 f/4 II + 100-400L combo which will be same cost anyway.
I think what I'd prefer is a lens that Whayne proposed a couple of years ago - a 125-500, maybe f/4.5-5.6 like the current 100-400. Maybe even 1/3 stop faster, f/4-5. Using latest construction to keep weight reasonable, a fluorine coated front element, etc. Even for 3 or 4 thousand bucks it would be a bargain, and I'd find it more useful and usable than the 200-400 with converter.
Photon wrote:
I think what I'd prefer is a lens that Whayne proposed a couple of years ago - a 125-500, maybe f/4.5-5.6 like the current 100-400. Maybe even 1/3 stop faster, f/4-5. Using latest construction to keep weight reasonable, a fluorine coated front element, etc. Even for 3 or 4 thousand bucks it would be a bargain, and I'd find it more useful and usable than the 200-400 with converter.
Well, I can see such hypothetical 500mm zoom developing its following, however, Canon have decided on the 200-400 (560) f/4 (f/5.6) mm option, so it's a done deal now. They must have given it some careful thought, not only based on the Nikon's experience with 200-400 VR, but also doing the analysis of Canon's own customer base etc.
The only thing wrong with your poll is the phrase "don't need it". I selected the poll option based on what I have instead, but its not so much a question of don't need, but more of a can't justify / afford buying the 200-400 in comparison to what I have instead. I'd love to have it, but won't buy it because of the price. I can imagine that in 6 years or so, I may be able to pick up a used one if I'm still interested in photography... but I doubt that will ever happen.
Photon wrote:
I think what I'd prefer is a lens that Whayne proposed a couple of years ago - a 125-500, maybe f/4.5-5.6 like the current 100-400. Maybe even 1/3 stop faster, f/4-5. Using latest construction to keep weight reasonable, a fluorine coated front element, etc. Even for 3 or 4 thousand bucks it would be a bargain, and I'd find it more useful and usable than the 200-400 with converter.
PetKal wrote:
This poll is addressed to people who might have at least some interest in the new 200-400L lens, and I think the poll options are rather selfexplanatory.
Let us also assume that the 200-400L introductory price is close to $11,000.
I'd say the only possible disappointment might turn out to be its weight.
Those two points may well be the deal breaker for me. Recently purchased and really like the 500mm II at almost the same price, and the weight is reputedly about the same or more than the 500 II and perhaps more unwieldy.
We'll see though. The versatility may turn the tables.
I had some folks tell me it was March 2013 availability, some other suggested June 2013. Although I do not really believe either of those dates specifically, my hunch is also that we are perhaps talking a few months now before the lens hits the shelves.
That would make it imminent enough for me so as to make sure I do not splurge my lens budget on items such as 24-70 f/4 IS, just in case I may want to get 200-400L. I also hope that the Canadian CPS price will not be higher than $9,000....even that would be a sin.
Doctorbird wrote:
Those two points may well be the deal breaker for me. Recently purchased and really like the 500mm II at almost the same price, and the weight is reputedly about the same or more than the 500 II and perhaps more unwieldy.
We'll see though. The versatility may turn the tables.
Db
Db, keep saying that you already have 100-400 for versatility.
. I'd say the only possible disappointment might turn out to be its weight.
