Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.
Hah, it is true that you could add a 70-300L or 70-200L + 7D/5D3 combo to your other body using a 300 2.8+TC or such for a lot less than adding a 200-400.
There seems to be lottsa hesitation and caution exibited here, which is not surprising at all, given the anticipated lens price and the fact it's a novel EF design (for Canon). Furthermore, the lens has been long in the making, which also raises some questions.
Quite a few sports shooters really liked it though from reading about their Olympics experience. I have a feeling it will be an outstanding lens. I love zooms but it's a bit beyond me at $12K.
My feeling also.....sports photographers will go after it first. Then, perhaps wildlife shooters who plan a safari trip or some such thing.
Going by the past precedents, Roland (Netexpress) is likely to get the first 200-400L on FM. After he posts his findings, dollar bill shots and that sort of thing, I may go for it myself provided that Roland's tests and checks do not uncover "surprises" or inferior features.
Yes, 400 DO would tend to represents a very serious barrier to 200-400L purchase justification.
People always talk about the "versatility" of a zoom lens.
How about the versatility of a prime which is 1/2 weight, 1/2 size and 1/2 price of the zoom lens, and it is the same 400mm at f/4 ? Arguably, such lens is extremely versatile , just in a different, perhaps even more significant way.
I was going to click "Don't need it, I have 400 DO", but I accidentally clicked on "no vote". Between my 500/4 and my 400 DO, I have all of the long lenses that I need. With those two lenses and extenders, I can cover a good range of focal lengths, and, if I need mobility and ease of hand held shooting, I've got that, too.
PetKal wrote:
Yes, Stu, that is exactly what people will go for......."at a flick of the switch", and, moreover, you will seldom find yourself too close to your target again.
Hi Peter, I just wish Canon would give us something, even just a scrap of info. We saw those papped 5D3 and 200-400 safari photos well over a year ago. The Olympics was 6 months ago and still the deafening silence roars... They must be having serious issues meeting the standards (optically or weightwise) they set at the outset if it's taking this long or that extender bump is an issue as was reported.
Is it possible they are mulling up whether it is even financially viable to even release it? Realistically who would buy a zoom that costs and weighs the same as a 600mm prime?? Even if it matches the 500 ii price it's expensive. I know there was the lens coat story, but that may be out of date by now.
Bones74 wrote:
Hi Peter, I just wish Canon would give us something, even just a scrap of info. We saw those papped 5D3 and 200-400 safari photos well over a year ago. The Olympics was 6 months ago and still the deafening silence roars... They must be having serious issues meeting the standards (optically or weightwise) they set at the outset if it's taking this long or that extender bump is an issue as was reported.
Is it possible they are mulling up whether it is even financially viable to even release it? Realistically who would buy a zoom that costs and weighs the same as a 600mm prime?? Even if it matches the 500 ii price it's expensive. I know there was the lens coat story, but that may be out of date by now. ...Show more →
Stu, I share your questions regarding this sort of a protracted development and very limited release of the lens. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge Canon have never made public an availability date for it.
I believe the MkII supertelephoto lens back-orders have probably been all filled by now, and new orders are only very slowly dribbling in. Therefore, sufficient long lens production capacity should have been available for some time now, allowing aggressive fabrication of 200-400L.....that is, if the engineering had been completed/finished, which is under a question mark nowadays. Some sort of last minute re-engineering would fit the observed pattern of the lens (dis)appearance as well as Canon being tight lipped on the matter of the 200-400L release.
I can't remember where I read it but there was some speculation that Canon was having trouble meeting the fluorite requirements of their super teles post tsunami and wanting to concentrate all production on the 500/600 II's as those were very late already for release.
Well, the fluorite element backlog sounded plausible perhaps a year ago. However, the MkII supertelephoto lenses have been readily available since last October or so, which would suggest to me that Canon have long caught up and, theoretically at least, they should have been able to mount a major 200-400L production effort in the 2nd half of 2012.
Naturally, this is all our guesswork at best, as the inside info of this nature is practically imposible for us to get.
Bones74 wrote:
Is it possible they are mulling up whether it is even financially viable to even release it? Realistically who would buy a zoom that costs and weighs the same as a 600mm prime?? Even if it matches the 500 ii price it's expensive.
Who'd buy it ? Some collectors, that's who.
Indeed, it would appear quite odd if 200-400L were to be priced close to 600 II which is arguably the best Canon lens ever made, if long range shots are important.
I can get viable shots with 600 II + 2xTC III on an old and absolutely outdated FF body (1DsMkII), whereas the zoom would get nothing in a situation like this, even with the "reach booster" of a camera aka 7D , or, for that matter, any other body.
Sadly, sometimes even 1200mm focal length ain't enough. So where does that leave a wildlife photographer who owns 200-400L ? Well, they may have to get yet another supertelephoto lens for long range shots. Now, we end up having to schlep two heavy lenses with us.
How "versatile" would that be ?
PetKal wrote:
Who'd buy it ? Some collectors, that's who.
Indeed, it would appear quite odd if 200-400L were to be priced close to 600 II which is arguably the best Canon lens ever made, if long range shots are important.
I can get viable shots with 600 II + 2xTC III on an old and absolutely outdated FF body (1DsMkII), whereas the zoom would get nothing in a situation like this, even with the "reach booster" of a camera aka 7D , or, for that matter, any other body.
Sadly, sometimes even 1200mm focal length ain't enough. So where does that leave a wildlife photographer who owns 200-400L ? Well, they may have to get yet another supertelephoto lens for long range shots. Now, we end up having to schlep two heavy lenses with us.
How "versatile" would that be ? ...Show more →
Wowser, thats a sharp shot, especially with a TC I guess if I keep my 1D4 then the 200-400 would make more sense and if thats not enough "reach", then I'd either have to crop a bit, or just sit back and enjoy the view. 728mm FOV is not to be sniffed at though A friend of mine pointed out that he rarely finds 500mm not long enough (on a D4 and D800) and doesn't use his 1.4 extender much. I guess it all depends on what we're going to shoot and in what environment. Maybe I should just stump up for a 500 ii? Optically its supposedly identical to the 600 ii, but no way I'd fork out an EXTRA £3000 for 100mm! No Sirree
StillFingerz wrote:
Peter, I almost pulled the trigger on a 1Ds Mark II...Linda asked if it came with WiFi like the 6D, guess I must suffer with a 6D
As always great pijun shot.
Sure hope you get the 200-400...just because
Thanx, Jerry, I really believe you are better off sticking to your original plan........6D makes more sense than 1DsMkII in several ways. For one, I had to do a major NR even at ISO 800, and that poor ISO noise performance (by today's standards) takes away from IQ of 1DsMkII.
Bones74 wrote:
Wowser, thats a sharp shot, especially with a TC I guess if I keep my 1D4 then the 200-400 would make more sense and if thats not enough "reach", then I'd either have to crop a bit, or just sit back and enjoy the view. 728mm FOV is not to be sniffed at though A friend of mine pointed out that he rarely finds 500mm not long enough (on a D4 and D800) and doesn't use his 1.4 extender much. I guess it all depends on what we're going to shoot and in what environment. Maybe I should just stump up for a 500 ii? Optically its supposedly identical to the 600 ii, but no way I'd fork out an EXTRA £3000 for 100mm! No Sirree ...Show more →
Stu, I prefer 500 over 600 myself for several reasons. However, if you are into distant targets often, then 600 (or even 800) make more sense.
After he posts his findings, dollar bill shots and that sort of thing, I may go for it myself provided that Roland's tests and checks do not uncover "surprises" or inferior features. 
