It's going to be prohibitively expensive, but it would be an absolutely perfect auto racing lens. Everyone shoots with a 500, but the lack of range is obviously pretty limiting and forces you to stay shooting certain angles. The 100-400 is a nice range for that kind of shooting, but it's a little long in the tooth above 250mm.
Will Patterson wrote:
A guy named Frank's exact reply to me was:
"Sorry but that lens is not in the loaner program."
I see. It may well be that they do have a couple of them, but can not loan it yet before the lens is released to retail.
If I am not mistaken, I think Dolina might have mentioned it a while back that the Lenscoat people got a loaner in order to take the measurements for their lens accessories.
I really need zoom for most of what I shoot, so I will have one as soon as they are available. It is a big stretch for me to spend that much, but I will make it happen. I shoot a lot from a Wimberley, so for that the weight is not as important. Note that shooting from a Wimberley means you can operate the zoom or the extender or adjust the polarizer while tracking and shooting a subject, making those features very usable. I do also hand hold for some work, and I will see how practical that is. I may need to get stronger, and I know I will not have enough hands to easily make adjustments while holding it.
I really need to stop clicking on Peter's threads. Now, not only do I find myself trying to rationalize a $10k plus purchase that I really have no need for, but I also have a song stuck in my head whose lyrics are in a foreign language- yet that I somehow find weirdly entertaining. Oh, the humanity!
The was a time not too long ago I was in the I plan to get 200-400L as soon as it's available camp. As I saw it as a perfect companion to the 800. Heck I have been using the darkside version for a few years now.
For Christmas I decided I would get myself a 5D MKIII and a 24-70L MKII. My plan was to give the 24-70 MKI and the 5D MKII to a family member for Christmas who had been looking for their first DSLR.
I contacted various dealers for CPS pricing on the 24-70 gave them all the CPS information. They said they would get back to me. But the Canon Dealers dropped the ball big time and to this day none provided me with the CPS pricing on the 24-70.
The Dark Forces jumped at the chance. Not wanting to deprive giving the family member a useful DSLR I instead gave them my unused Dark Side D700. I travelled to Toronto for a family gathering over Christmas but I took my D800E and a few lenses along with me so the family member could try other lenses. Ironically I haven't shot a single shot with my Canon gears since then.
Then maybe it is because my laptop died and I am busy looking to replace it. Instead of another PC laptop I am thinking of switching to Mac w Retina.
Maybe I should just take a trip to the newly opened Canon Image Square here in Calgary to be re-enlightened.
mitesh wrote:
I really need to stop clicking on Peter's threads. Now, not only do I find myself trying to rationalize a $10k plus purchase that I really have no need for, but I also have a song stuck in my head whose lyrics are in a foreign language- yet that I somehow find weirdly entertaining. Oh, the humanity!
This thing better have the IQ of the old 500 at least or it will sink faster thank a 1912 ocean liner.
If it truly is prime like with and without the TC it could be the 300/400/500 slayer..
Lets see i really think it wont be till we see real world results that a lot of people decide..
The 200-400 was in my Plan since it's development was announced. As time passed, the Plan was changed to add the 400 2.8 II instead of the 200-400. I voted "don't need it - I have the 500mm f4 IS".
The main issue I have with the 200-400 is when the TC is engaged, the lens is a 560mm f5.6 for $11k. I also have difficulty with the need for a zoom when in my shooting situations, the 200-400 would be at 400mm almost all the time.
I'll stick with Plan 2.0 for now and take a very skepical wait and see approach.
When I first read it was coming I thought WOW that sounds very strange but also very useful. But as more and more info comes to light (weight,cost) it doesn't sound like something I would consider. I would like to see a 100-400 update include a constant f/4 and hybrid IS at sub $2500.00 US price point.
mogud wrote:
The main issue I have with the 200-400 is when the TC is engaged, the lens is a 560mm f5.6 for $11k. I also have difficulty with the need for a zoom when in my shooting situations, the 200-400 would be at 400mm almost all the time.
This is why when I go birding I prefer a two camera setup. One with the 500 f/4 and the other with the 100-400L. A lot of the time you are FL limited, but plenty of occasions pop up, when you need a much shorter FL in a hurry.
Although the 100-400 is good, I think the 200-400 could become my go-to lens for wildlife on 5diii with 7d/1.4 on the 600. Built in 1.4x stops the juggling. Higher quality than 100-400 in that range is the holy grail for big wildlife
Instead of another PC laptop I am thinking of switching to Mac w Retina.
